We read:
"When Erich Campbell passed two Florida Highway Patrol cruisers parked in the median near Tampa International Airport in December 2009, he flashed his headlights to warn oncoming drivers of the radar patrol.
Then, to his surprise, one of the troopers pulled over his silver Toyota Tundra and ticketed him for improper flashing of high beams. "Literally within one minute, they had me stopped on the side of the road," recalled Campbell, 38, a former electrician and full-time student.
In August, the Land O'Lakes, Fla., resident filed a class-action lawsuit in Tallahassee against the highway patrol and other state traffic-enforcement agencies. He seeks an injunction barring law enforcement from issuing headlight-flash tickets, plus refunds and civil damages for previously cited motorists.
Campbell's lawyer, J. Marc Jones, claims his client's First Amendment right to free speech was violated. "The flashing of lights to communicate with another driver is clearly speech," he said.
"The First Amendment protects all sorts of non-verbal conduct; it protects more than the spoken or printed word," Hudson said. "Courts have found that a wide variety of actions — such as honking one's horn or flashing one's headlights — are forms of communication under the First Amendment."
Five days after the lawsuit was filed, Welch said patrols stopped citing motorists for flashing headlights until the case is resolved.
Source
I was once ticketed for doing the same thing in Australia but when I wrote a letter of complaint to a top official about it, I was told that no offence had been committed and the ticket was withdrawn. The Florida cops would have been wise to do the same with the guy above but they were obviously too pigheaded.
13 comments:
I first saw this in Korea while stationed there in the 90's and often wondered why it wasn't being done here in the states. I'm glad to see it is finally starting to catch on.
My understanding of "speech" is that it is the expression of viewpoints, perspectives or information that a person would like expressed, as a matter of principle, to other people.
I cannot extend this idea to an act of deliberate interference police operations. When a person conveys information to which he is privy with the express intention of allowing another person to break the law with impunity, I will not accept that such a person has engaged in "speech".
So I hope that the lawsuit will fail and that the individual will be ordered to pay court costs.
Speech, yes, but with consequences. One can engage in many forms of speech that obstruct justice or would make one an accessory to a crime.
@Jonathan
A decade ago a locality near me was upset that they weren't pulling anyone over in a "speed enforcement". According to the local news rag, they found out later that someone had posted a warning sign. Why were they upset that they had 100% compliance with speed limits?
This is completely different than interfering with a police operation and abetting in a crime. This prevents a violation. For them to be upset shows that they really just want to write tickets.
Breaker, breaker! I have a Smoky Report!
I'll believe that the tickets ain't about the money when the violator has the option to give the fine to charity instead.
As of now, the evidence is overwhelming that tickets are largely there as a revenue generator, one that leads to more accidents in some cases (e.g. shortening the timespan of a yellow light), and that pulls the police away from more useful policing duties.
Anon 7:32,
This prevents a violation.
Correct. Encouraging people to obey the law, by pointing out the police presence, is no crime nor should it be. It's what the police themselves do by wearing their uniforms in public.
This is nearly the same thing as the cops arresting people for filming them, attempting to claim it as wire tapping. Would it also be a crime to walk past a stranger on the street and point out an unmarked police car nearby? Welcome to the police state.
I do not accept the argument, made by some in this forum, that people who interfere with police activity are encouraging others to obey the law.
On the contrary, this kind of activity helps people to disobey the law. If people had reason to expect that, whenever speed enforcement is taking place, they will be warned, then that enforcement will would be useless and people could speed as much as they like at other times.
In no way can signals from motorists warning of actual police presence be compared to permanent warning signs that speed enforcement takes place.
In many places, the State itself erects signs telling motorists that radar is in use, or that planes are being used to spot speeders.
In the end, it's all about generating revenue. And lest we forget, the police do not make laws. They only enforce the laws made by the lying, corrupt crooks that YOU elected.
People in the Netherlands are readily ticketed for alerting others to radar traps, no recourse.
Flashing your lights is not (here) "free speech" but a violation of traffic law.
And obviously, alerting drivers of speed traps is "obstruction of justice", "interfering in a police investigation", and all the other nastiness they can come up with that you've no way to fight.
@Jonathon Lewin
The root of the problem here is too much power in the hands of the state. The state, being just the collective will of the people, should never be able to behave in ways that its citizens cannot.
The representatives of the state, in this case, the police, should not be allowed to covertly spy on citizens, especially if citizens have no way of warning others. Whatever happened to "To protect and serve"?
Maybe more even more crime would be averted if police went back to being more visible, (i.e. clearly marked cars, large lights, etc) than less visible.
Still in the end, like anon 7:32 said, isn't 100% compliance with the speed limit the ultimate goal? Or is it maybe the police have a need to be punitive with easy targets?
Virgingia bans raidar detectors
I'm against the police on this one
Sometimes common sense must be applied. I was once pulled over for issuing a "smokey report" over CB. The state trooper then conducted a rigorous "equipment" inspection to the tune of 260.00. I wasn't cited for obstruction but suffered retribution nontheless.
Post a Comment