Judge Says You Can Warn Others About Speed Traps 457
cartechboy writes "Speeding is against the law, and yes, even going 5 mph over the speed limit is breaking the law. But everyone does it, right? What about when you see a cop? Some cops are ticketing people for notifying fellow motorists about speed traps. In Florida, Ryan Kintner simply flashed his high-beams to warning oncoming cars that there was a cop ahead. He was given a ticket for doing so. He went to court to fight the ticket, and a judge ruled that flashing lights are the equivalent of free speech, thus he had every right to flash his lights to warn oncoming cars."
Think they'll listen? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like the police periodically 'forget' or ignore things they have been told are illegal, but which they'd prefer to keep doing.
Because they seem to periodically act as if they're legally allowed to delete the contents of your cell phone when you record them doing something illegal.
And, really, if they can overtly ticket you for warning of their speed trap, they'll just find something else to charge you with.
And people wonder why trust for the police is dwindling.
Extrajudicial punishment. (Score:5, Insightful)
This ruling won't stop cops from ticketing you, forcing you to leave work to appear in court, and paying the court costs after the ticket is dismissed. Cops can and do write invalid tickets simply to be dicks, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Our justice system needs to ensure that the victim of a false accusation of a crime is made whole again.
warning of danger (Score:4, Insightful)
Speedtraps can pose a substantial danger, especially at high speeds (folks slam breaks, cops pull into the left lane from a standstill, or like they like to do it in Mass, back up on the emergency lane to get back into the trap). That's why they are made illegal in some states [ca.gov]. And if there's a hazard down the road, you bet I should have a right to warn and be warned about it!
Slashdot Beta: just say no (Score:5, Insightful)
dear god what's happening to the slashdot UI???
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how this is different from warning people not to break other laws.
If I say to someone who is under investigation by law enforcement for trafficking narcotics "Hey, you shouldn't do that, you might get in trouble", am I committing a crime?
If my wife is driving and we are, unbeknownst to me, approaching a speed trap and I warn her to slow down, am I committing a crime?
If they pull me over for this, what do they charge me with?
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet some police officers are mighty pissed off about this ruling, but as someone who frequently drives with the lights on to warn fellow motorists of speed traps, I am pleased.
Careful there cowboy, keep your hat and boots on. This judge is only a district court judge and his authority only applies to his district (Eastern Missouri mostly). It is a good federal prescient and I'm sure his opinion would be cited in the defense of anybody who was being charged with flashing their lights, but it's not a settled matter. Other districts are certainly entitled to their own opinions and it's quite likely some judge will disagree, at which point we move up the chain.
So, if you are in the Eastern Missouri District, flash away, the courts are on your side. Outside of this, tread carefully and be ready to pay the legal fees required to push it up to your district.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
OT, but worth it. Slashdot has announced that it will roll out beta this month and that the classic interface will only be available for "a number of months."
Please, Please, Please don't do this!
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, that argument doesn't work. Supposedly the idea isn't just to make you drive the speed limit at the speed trap, it's to make you drive the speed limit *everywhere* because you don't know where the speed traps are.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Couldn't this guy have avoided the whole lawsuit ...
Actually, he could have easily avoided this lawsuit by not filing it. The charges where dropped by the city so it would have died there had he not filed suit in federal court.
But now this sets a precedent that may be referenced in other cases. Whether it helps is another matter, of course.
Conspiracy to speed (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how this is different from warning people not to break other laws.
The difference is in this case you are warning people that they will get caught for breaking a law, and they will get caught in about a minute if they don't stop--as opposed to a more general "you shouldn't deal drugs because EVENTUALLY someone will catch you." Philosophically, it's like telling a drug dealer "hide your stash because a cop is coming."
The only difference is that this is a more widespread behavior, so people are generally more okay with it. It's still basically conspiracy (in this case, conspiracy to break the speed limit), and it carries jailtime if they want to pursue it. (The judge here may have bought the free speech argument--more likely, he didn't want to risk getting overturned on appeal. Either way, it doesn't mean every judge will.)
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it is not "Free Speech". It is criminal informant behavior.
Apparently, you're incorrect. I just read somewhere that a Judge ruled it Free Speech. :-)
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US our constitution usually trumps all other law. Look to the old "Jim Crowe" laws we used to have. They were basically like this, rules that at first appearence appeared to be meant to do one thing but what they actually did was infringe on constiutional rights. They were all struck down eventually.
So a cop could ticket you here for unlawful use of your lights, but the very fact that the police had setup a speed trap would make flashing them legal, because you were no longer using the lights to illuminate the highway but instead making a statement and invoking your right to free speech. In our country "Free speech" is upheld as the ultimate right... not to be infringed upon accept in very dire situations. For example the "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" scenario. The police would have to prove that the flashing of your lights posed a significant hazard to the public to get the ticket to stick.
Lastly I'd like to point out that all of this is somewhat irrelevant. The police can badger you into submission by simply ticketing you for this every time, and then taking it to court every time. Though it may get struck down, the legal battle would cost you time and money.
Failure to Pay Toll (Score:3, Insightful)
If my wife is driving and we are, unbeknownst to me, approaching a speed trap and I warn her to slow down, am I committing a crime?
If they pull me over for this, what do they charge me with?
Failure to Pay Toll
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems as though the police should actually want people to know about the speed traps. I mean, the ultimate goal for the police is to have everyone follow the law.
If the goal is to increase public safety, then yes, police should want people to drive the speed limit and reward the good citizens that warn other drivers of a speed trap. However, if the real goal is revenue generation, then the police would be upset by this behavior.
Please note that this article is about police issuing tickets to motorists who warn oncoming cars about speed traps. I'll let you draw your own conclusion.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been told by a police officer who I know personally that much of the value behind speeding stops isn't speed enforcement or even impacting speeding generally, it's the chance to "interview" the motorist, look around at what's visible in their car, run their ID through the computer. Basically look to see if there's anything they can possibly use against you for an arrest of any kind.
It's kind of like running a roadblock.
If speed traps were about safety, the locations of speed traps would be places statistically correlated with high levels of accidents, especially those related to speeding. Instead, speed traps end up in places where it's easy to speed, such as at the end of long downhill sections or wide-open areas with good road conditions.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Changes in speed are more dangerous than a consistently high speed. Having everyone slam on their brakes when they go past a cop creates a huge hazard, not to mention fucking with guys like me who are just trying to drive at the limit to get to work on time.
Ultimate goals of police (Score:5, Insightful)
Lemme just fix that for you:
I mean, the ultimate goals for the police are enjoy an exercise of arbitrary power, to earn ticket income, and to provide an excuse for illegal search and seizure, which in turn serves as a mechanism to provide yet more income, and property.
There you go. Cheers. :)
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Flashing your lights at someone is more like telling someone: "the cops are outside, flush the drugs down the toilet now!"
No.
It's directly analogous to saying, "Up ahead, there is a reason you should slow down."
Speed traps aren't the only reason people flash lights, you know. Accidents around blind corners, for example.
Re:Vive la difference! (Score:5, Insightful)
And, IF the point of a speed trap, is to slow down traffic, then flashing my lights does that nicely.
Or, am I maybe wrong here, that the point of a speed trap is nothing more than revenue collection..?
Perhaps we need to change the motto on the police cars to " To Collect and Serve.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell are they thinking with the huge images wasting screen space, then forcing a link to finish reading the summary.
This will spell the end of
How about you just add the features people have been asking for for years, and leave the rest alone? The ability to edit a comment. (Briefly) unicode. That is about it.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I can't trust a police officer, full stop. The people I know who are coppers (extended family) are arrogant fucks who think they know better than everyone else. In my personal interactions with the police they have harassed rather than helped me, even when I have been the victim of a crime. And no, I have never been in prison or convicted of any crime.
The police are there to protect the rich, not to uniformly apply clear regulations for the protection of all.
On topic, the reason most of us flash other road users when we see speed traps is that we recognise them as unjust. I would say the majority of people break the law every time they get in the car, because the speed limits are constantly changing and our focus is elsewhere.
Re:FIRE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Until, of course, people start speeding like mad (because given half a chance, who wouldn't want to drive way faster than allowed, given that most roads in the U.S. seem built for sessions of NASCAR re-enactment), people crash, other people get hurt, and they/their families start wondering why on Earth there's nobody and nothing (since people hate speed trap cameras even more than speed trapping actual cops) checking to make sure people are actually going the speed limit (or within some socially accepted limit above that, as is more common).
Reductio ad absurdum != evidence.
Just because you may be a terrible driver with no regard for anyone but yourself, doesn't mean we all are.
By the "logic" you've presented here, no one should have any rights, "because stupid people exist."
Which is kinda stupid in itself.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where I applaud your thoughts on HOA's....
HOA's actually have precedent in common law and have generally been upheld as legal. The Deed Restrictions that create them being legally binding. Taking them to court will only result in you loosing. All you can do is get the law changed.
Personally, (and yes this is totally off topic) I think HOA's and the deed restrictions that create them should be required by law to be regularly renewed or they cease to exist. Renewals should be though a majority vote of lot owners and should take place every decade or so. Failing renewal, dissolves the HOA and renders the recorded deed restrictions unenforceable from that point on.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Speed traps, OK. Enabling drunk driving by posting traps? I'm not so sure I agree with that one.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)