Expresses support for actions taken to end motorcycle profiling
Summary
House Concurrent Resolution 25 is a nonbinding resolution expressing support for efforts to end motorcycle profiling in Missouri. It cites the growth in motorcycle ridership, survey data suggesting many riders believe they have been profiled by law enforcement, and defines motorcycle profiling as the improper use of motorcycle ownership, riding, or motorcycle-related apparel as a factor in stops, questioning, searches, arrests, or other enforcement actions.
The resolution calls for increased public awareness of motorcycle profiling, encourages communication and collaboration between the motorcycle community and law enforcement, and urges law enforcement agencies to include anti-profiling statements in written policies and training materials. It also directs the Chief Clerk to send an inscribed copy of the resolution to each law enforcement agency in the state.
Impact
Because HCR25 is a concurrent resolution rather than a statute, it does not change Missouri law, create penalties, or impose enforceable duties. Its practical effect is advisory and symbolic: it seeks to influence law enforcement policy, training, and public awareness around motorcycle profiling, and it formally communicates the General Assembly’s position to state and local agencies.
Sentiment
The available context suggests broadly supportive sentiment toward the resolution’s goal of discouraging profiling of motorcyclists. The bill’s caption and text frame the issue as a civil rights and public awareness matter, and there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts showing opposition or amendment activity. Its referral to the Emerging Issues committee indicates it was treated as a policy discussion item rather than a contested statutory change.
Contention
The main point of contention implied by the resolution is the allegation that law enforcement may use motorcycle riding or motorcycle apparel as a basis for stops or searches without proper legal justification. Supporters would likely emphasize fairness, constitutional protections, and improved police-community relations, while any skeptics would likely question the prevalence of profiling claims or the need for policy statements in agency training. No specific opposing arguments are documented in the available record.