Speed trap "Flashing Lights" Warning OK!
 

Some may have been following this issue lately . . .

Apparently many police folk have been writing tickets to folks who flash their headlights to warn other motorists of a speed trap.

Well, at least one judge in TN has ruled that such a flash is "free speech" and that officers have been told to issue no more tickets for the flashing.

http://www.newschannel5.com/content/news/2637.asp

BR,

Kurt

nice info

Good news on the flash...
 

This should make us all happy.

http://www.newschannel5.com/content/news/2637.asp

I am also going to pull over and park my big a$$ Tahoe right in front of the next undercover suv with the tailgate up radaring and taking pictures of people speeding and am going to call the local radio station and tell them where the camera is parked.

These camera/radar vehicles are totally worthless, they don't force anyone to slow down, and are only useful in generating revenue.

Ok stepping of the soapbox...


(I do have a couple good pictures of me in the 911 with my speed printed on them though on my fridge....)

Bill

You can tell the cop that you were flashing at a friend

AFter working for judges on both the Tennessee Court of Appeals and the Tennessee Supreme Court, I would hope use of judicial time would be better spent on other areas, but for some unknown reason, I can see this one going up. It is not so much the facts in this case, but the impact it would have in other areas of the law.

Cops will tell you they just want people to slow down. Isn't this accomplished by the flash?

On a related note, the other day I saw one of the fine men in blue who had the radar gun out along side the freeway- In a construction zone where traffic was so heavy, no one could get even close to freeway speeds. I wonder how long he sat there wondering why he was unable to issue any tickets?

Since when was anything so logical?:confused: :rolleyes:

Flashing your lights in Australia is still considered illegal unfortunately.

I'm in a Porsche and I'm supposed to flash.....Now i get a ticket for saying Hi? That's just plain mean.

I don't understand what you mean?

Me neither

The last guy I flashed looked down to see if his lights were on, then was promptly busted by the cop who had just caused my V1 to do the "jackpot."

The freedom-of speech thing is good to know, though.

What D Hanson means is that the judge's ruling may create a precedent that if applied to other facts could have unexpected and unwelcome results. It may weaken the local DA's ability to prosecute other, more important cases. The facts of the case don't matter so much as the rule of law used to make the decision. If a rule applies to speeding drivers it will apply equally to other cases.

In this case, the legal principle the judge used as the basis for his decision is the proposition that drivers have a First Amendment right to freedom of expression that overrides the State's interest in enforcing traffic laws. I suspect the judge made that ruling because he thought the police and courts had better things to do with their time that busting speeders and people who flash at them to slow them down.

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?

Those are clearly verbal acts that are themselves crimes. Just as the First Amendment doesn't protect someone who shouts fire in a crowded theater (it really doesn't, there's a case that says so) the right to self expression doesn't protect otherwise illegal activity.

The issue that could be teased out of this set of facts is where is the line between lawful protest and civil disobedience, free speech versus verbal acts.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a good case to explore those questions, just that these weighty questions are bound up in the seemingly silly proposition that a statute outlaws warning anyone of a speed trap can be overturned on First Amendment grounds. Heck, there is an entire series of US Supreme Court cases in which people engage in what is discretely called indecent acts in the video booths of adult bookstores and claimed First Amendment right to free expression. So this is as good of a case to decide these issues as any.

Clear as mud?

WOW

"WOW"

Yup -- that's why law school costs so much....

The situation here in the UK with respect to speed enforcement has become ludicrous. Now blatantlt about revenue generation, not driver education. Money not safety. Interestingly the accident statistics were in steady decline here until the introduction of the cameras - trend has now been reversed.

There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

BTW if you were in a bar, and your friend had been drinking and you made sure he didn't drive, would that also be perverting justice, in the same way as flashing to warn your fellow motorists, as above??

There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. I thought that was "There are liars, damned liars, and battery engineers." Could be wrong. . .

I don't think this ruling is gonna get cited in stopping the police from acting in more serious crimes. Anyone warning a bank robber that the cops are coming has already committed some type of conspiracy before they see the first cop. Driving the getaway car is not usually called "giving a lift to a hitchiker" or something along those lines. A passing driver, OTOH, has nothing to do with some other offense and really could be signalling others to slow down. Why not? Everyone slows down when they see a cop, so flashing ones lights should be seen as helping the cops - unless they're just out to raise revenue, which never happens;).

A good engineer can make statistics lie :D

..forgot the topic...I flash to warn others to slow down in case the cop decides to pull out. It's a matter of safety, you see. I wouldn't want my villiage tax dollars used to fix a squad, because I wasn't being a good citizen and preventing an accident...minimizing the risk of an accident. Flashing makes you a good citizen, see. Must be why I get hassled less in my 911, then I do in any other car :D Flash away!

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

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.

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.

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.

radar
 

Anyone know of a device that will defeat radar?

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.

Re: radar
 

Laser

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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

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

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

"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...

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.

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

Just curious about your legal opinion.

Best,

Kurt

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??).

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.