Speed trap "Flashing Lights" Warning OK!

[kstar]

I don't see a significant difference between flashing lights or using my voice to warn of a cop ahead over a CB radio.

Of course every car has headlights (or should at least!) making "flashing" more universally possible. If every car had an open channel to receive speed trap warnings over a CB then the two "methods" become very similar in the light of freedom of speech.

It would be tough to argue that somehow either of the above methods are somehow a criminal conspiracy like the bank robbery scenario mentioned above.

Personally, I don't see the 1st Amendment "slippery slope" with this one.

Best,

Kurt

[Rick Lee]

And if radar detectors are legal in every state except VA, why isn't flashing? Don't radar detectors tell us to slow down and aren't they legal because they are an FCC-license receiver, not jammer? So how does flashing interfere with anything that a radar detector does not? Some laws are simply on the books until someone with time and money challenges them.

[targa911man]

Originally posted by MRM


But could someone use the same principle and argue that the lookout on a bank robbery is just exercising his free speech rights when he stands (unarmed) outside bank and does nothing more than shout a warning when the cops come? Or the lookout on an organized mugging whose only job is to kick over a can of Coke if someone gets too near while the rest of the gang rifles the mark's pockets?

The distinction between the above examples and the warning flash is that there is concert of action and aiding and abetting in the bank robbery/mugging lookout situation. Flashing your lights at an approaching car is more like telling someone not to rob a bank because the police have it staked out. In that situation, they are not arrested because they do not commit the crime, so you are not helping them to commit the crime, you are actually discouraging or preventing the crime. If you then told them, ok the police are gone, go ahead and rob the bank, now you're functioning as a lookout, aiding and abetting the crime.

Legislatures and courts should be loath to impose punishment on people advising other people not to commit crimes. The fundamental problem with a policy of prosecuting people for flashing speed trap warnings is that there is never any evidence that the people receiving the warnings were breaking the law to begin with, so it is unclear what state interest is being protected by prosecuting the person flashing their lights. Unfortunately, the control freaks that the populace has been all too willing to elect lately prefer that the government deal with committed crimes as opposed to citizens preventing them.

[island911]

uhmmm; bank robbery is criminal act, 60mph in a 55 zone is not.

Anyway;

Consider that speed-traps often result in inducing motorist to brake very hard, in unexpected places. (even if they are not speeding)

I contend that warning these motorist of the possible up-coming danger of others braking (unexpectedly hard) is clearly responsible driving.

Whether its a speed trap or a dead skunk in the road, a quick flash, to on coming traffic reminds those drivers to be extra alert.

Anyone know of a device that will defeat radar?

[MotoSook]

I hit black ice north of Memphis on I-57 during the ice storm of 1993. Had it not been for headlights flashing by cars and semi's coming the other direction, I would have been on the side of the road in a ditch with some of the drivers who were less prepared.

[surflvr911sc]

Originally posted by shipibo
Anyone know of a device that will defeat radar?

Laser

[nestorjw]

I was driving my P-car in Malibu a couple months back. About 5 or 6 cars coming the other way were flashing lights like crazy. I couldnt figure out what was wrong. I slowed down, then around the corner there was a CHP w/ his radar. I couldnt believe how many people were warning me. It was wonderful. Curvy backroad malibu drive, saved by the fellow drivers. I was pleased.

[Randy Webb]

Originally posted by shipibo
Anyone know of a device that will defeat radar?

Yes -- HARMs work really, really well. They can really blister your paint when fired though.

[D Hanson]

Originally posted by kurtstarnes


Personally, I don't see the 1st Amendment "slippery slope" with this one.

Best,

Kurt

Hahaha, you don't know our Court like I do. I wrote opinions for Justice Janet Holder on the Tennessee Supreme Court for about 4 years. I have been really amazed (on more than one occassion) by some of the case they grant review, epsecially when it seems like a lot of good issues are not granted. The justices get tired of the same ole same ole (death penalty case mandatory review and lots of statutory interpretation). They may see it as a refreshing area of law to revisit as freedom of speech issues are not common in my jurisdiction. Plus, I think it would be over turned.

[D Hanson]

Originally posted by island911
uhmmm; bank robbery is criminal act, 60mph in a 55 zone is not.

Ah, wrong here. Speeding in some states are defined as misdemeanors and all misdemeanors carry a range of incarceration depending on greade. Technically, a cop could arrest you in one of those states and perform an inventory seach of your car and etc. just if you were exceeding the speed limit by 5 mph (in Tennessee).

[Joe Bob]

I have high end homes being built up the street from MY home....contractors like to take the corner on two wheels....I wonder if a spike strip stretched across the road would be considered a constitutional expression of free speech????

%^B

[kstar]

D. Hanson:

I guess I made the mistake of confusing logic with justice.

Perhaps a two way radio that utilized some of the free bandwidth that the modern walkie-talkies are using could be used as a new-fangled, local area CB.

No need to flash the brights, just broadcast a warning to motorists approaching a speed trap, rock slide, flood or other road hazard.

BR,

Kurt

[Randy Webb]

BTW, NPR just had a segment on this. they didn't make fun of Pooscheys, cops, or flashers, tho.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by mikez
....I wonder if a spike strip stretched across the road would be considered a constitutional expression of free speech????

some guy in Queens put oil on the road because of very dangerous speeders in a residential area.. someone got killed in a slide and I think he was charged with some kind of murder

[Randy Webb]

"some kind of murder"

Could be reckless endangerment, mansalughter, or some others depending on the law there. Also, its pollution. Better to just fire a cross bow bolt into them as they pass (that way you avoid the air pollution of a gunshot) and there is little noise to give away your position. See I've thought a lot about this...

[MRM]

Originally posted by targa911man


Legislatures and courts should be loath to impose punishment on people advising other people not to commit crimes. [/B]

You are correct in your analysis of the hypothetical posed above regarding lookouts who were part of the original criminal plan. A more precise analogy would be that a law banning light flashing to warn oncoming speeders relies on the same legal justification as laws that prevent citizens from deliberately exposing undercover police officers or undercover operations.

Although I am not going to defend the law or its enforcement to such an illogical extreme as seems to be the case here, it is silly to argue that flashing high beams to warn oncoming speeders of radar ahead is protected by a First Amendement free speech analysis. It just isn't. The judge who dismissed the cases on those grounds was probably trying to make the point that the State has better things to do with its time and resources than prosecute headlight flashers. The law and enforcing it strickly may be equally silly, but that's a public policy argument rather than a legal issue.

By the way, it is not permissible for the legislature to criminalize activities aimed at preventing unlawful activity. But light flashing does not advise people not to commit a crime. It provides speeders with information that allows them to evade the law by changing their behavior temporarily until they are no longer being observed. That's the difference and why as D Hanson suggested the legal principle involved was significant enough to merit a serious appeal even though the subject matter did not.

[kstar]

Originally posted by MRM
By the way, it is not permissible for the legislature to criminalize activities aimed at preventing unlawful activity. But light flashing does not advise people not to commit a crime. It provides speeders with information that allows them to evade the law by changing their behavior temporarily until they are no longer being observed. That's the difference and why as D Hanson suggested the legal principle involved was significant enough to merit a serious appeal even though the subject matter did not.

MRM: Doesn't CB radio accomplish the same as described above re flashing?

Just curious about your legal opinion.

Best,

Kurt

[CarreraS2]

Originally posted by MRM
You are correct in your analysis of the hypothetical posed above regarding lookouts who were part of the original criminal plan. A more precise analogy would be that a law banning light flashing to warn oncoming speeders relies on the same legal justification as laws that prevent citizens from deliberately exposing undercover police officers or undercover operations.

I have not read the opinion, but I can easily see the ruling being upheld by the state supreme court, or even the US Supreme Court. In fact, I firmly believe it would be upheld by the supreme court in most states, and, ultimately, by the US Supreme Court.

The court needs to balance the right to free speech against whether there is a compelling (or other strong) state interest in preventing the speech.

Ratting out an undercover narcotics officer in the middle of a sting, thus putting his life in danger? Yeah, we'd all agree that reasonable justification (a strong state interest) to curtail free speech rights would exist in that instance.

Censoring motorists who communicate by flashing lights? For the purpose of aiding in traffic enforcement/revenue generation? Probably not very strong or compelling.

A ruling like that would also have consequences and implications as to other fact scenarios. As others have pointed out, if flashing lights were an illegal and unprotected form of motorist communication, so would be most truckers' communications by CB radio. "I just passed a police car at Mile 5" would be illegal and unprotected speech. If you passed a speed trap on your way home, it would be illegal to utter the words, to your wife who was about to get in the car and drive down that same road, "I saw a cop with a radar gun on Main Street."

Most Americans would find that repugnant. Because whether or not they formally know constitutional law, they intuitively know that the right to free speech in that instance outweighs the state's interest in curtailing said speech.

That is what makes the U.S. Constitution an amazing document. Drafted in era before cars, telephones, or even electricity, it has held our government together (and maintained relevance and applicability with only modest changes) for a record 225+ years.

(In fact, I think it would be a great case to go before the US Supreme Court. One of the interesting issues would involve exactly what *is* the state interest in having speed traps. There would be lots of data and information about exactly why speed traps are set up. The state would of course argue for "safety," but I think very strong and persuasive arguments could be made that speed traps, which many times enforce artifically low speed limits, are set up in towns all across the US mainly for revenue generation, not safety. If you really want to slow down traffic, isn't it better to have *visible* law enforcement, not a guy with a gun hiding behind a bush??).

[Randy Webb]

Of course, Mr. Ashcroft could grap the light flasher and put him in Guantanamo for all eternity -- it's obvious that the light flashing was to signal an Al Queda sleeper cell -- and Ashcroft doesn't have to prove that in Court... he can just stash you away.