Warning motorists by flashing your headlights and free speech

[Byteme]

Ah, progress. 

United States District Court Judge Henry E. Autrey ruled Monday that flashing high beams to warn other motorists of a speed trap is not only not illegal, but could be considered a form of communication, therefore linked to the First Amendment right to free speech. The Ellisville, Mo., police issued a $1,000 citation to Michael Elli for flashing his lights to warn of a speed trap. Mr. Elli sued Ellisville with the help of a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union.

[Rupert]

Makes sense to me, but around here, no one flashes anything any time, so when it occasionally does happen, I just go

[Laconian]

Good to know. I hope LEOs get the memo.

[GoCougs]

Meh, I'm on the fence with this one.

Lots of forms of communication are legitimately punishable, esp. that which interferes with proper LE thingies. What if the flasher mitigates capture of a driver engaging in criminal activity - DUI, street racing, w/e - or the speed trap is legitimate (i.e., in a sensitive area where speeding IS a problem; I can think of a few such places near me)? Sure, most speed enforcement efforts are BS but not all are, plus, it's not always speeding they're looking for or see/find. This is why I never flash - kill 'em all and let 'god' sort 'em out.

[Soup DeVille]

$1000 seems way overkill.

[bing_oh]

Good to know. I hope LEOs get the memo.

Most of us aren't within the eastern district of Missouri. It's a left-field ruling.

[Raza]

Ah, progress. 

United States District Court Judge Henry E. Autrey ruled Monday that flashing high beams to warn other motorists of a speed trap is not only not illegal, but could be considered a form of communication, therefore linked to the First Amendment right to free speech. The Ellisville, Mo., police issued a $1,000 citation to Michael Elli for flashing his lights to warn of a speed trap. Mr. Elli sued Ellisville with the help of a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union.

[Soup DeVille]

Most of us aren't within the eastern district of Missouri. It's a left-field ruling.

Seems like a reasonable decision to me. Especially in light of the completely unreasonable fine.

[bing_oh]

Seems like a reasonable decision to me. Especially in light of the completely unreasonable fine.

http://www.aclu-mo.org/legal-docket/elli-v-ellisville/

The fine isn't what's in question, here. This case wasn't arguing that it was an extreme or unusual punishment, but that flashing lights was a form of protected speech. Look at the quote from the ACLU...

"Those who use their First Amendment rights to warn others to drive cautiously should not be punished for their message," says Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU-EM

We all know that's bullshit. You don't flash lights at cars after you pass a cruiser running traffic "to warn others to drive cautiously." You do it to say "Slow down! There's a cop up there running radar! Don't wanna get a ticket!" Does this guy drive around and flash his lights at every car he sees, warning them to "drive cautiously," no matter if there's a LEO in the area or not? Somehow, I rather doubt it. In the most basic legal sense, doing so is essentially obstructing a LEO in the course of his duties. It's playing "lookout" for people who are violating the law.

The ACLU can spin it however they want, and this Missouri judge can fall for it (or, more likely, he already was supportive of the practice). That doesn't make it in any way a definitive ruling. Low and mid-level judges make left-field decisions all the time in this country.

[Soup DeVille]

Yeah, I know. My feeling though is that the dude would have probably just shut up and paid the fine if it wasn't stupidly high.

Look, it's already been ruled long ago that using a CB to warn other drivers of a speed trap is protected speech. Court cases have ruled in favor of radar detectors too, saying that people have a right to know when they're being clocked. I don't see this as being fundamentally any different.

And  I really don't think this sort of warning is effective or consistent enough to interfere with anybody doing any job. Of course, that's assuming that job is keeping people from driving too fast, not collecting fines.

[Soup DeVille]

Im also quite sure that flashing your brights can be improper use of lighting (or some similar infraction) in many cases, so if it really irks cops that much, that could give out justifiable citations without running afoul of free speech.

[NomisR]

Im also quite sure that flashing your brights can be improper use of lighting (or some similar infraction) in many cases, so if it really irks cops that much, that could give out justifiable citations without running afoul of free speech.

Yeah, I think LE would find ways around it and ticket you another way without running into this problem.  And in LA, you don't high beam people anyways, because 99% of the people don't know what to do.  You flash your lights at a car in front of you because they're idiots with no headlights on, and they brake check you..

[Byteme]

http://www.aclu-mo.org/legal-docket/elli-v-ellisville/

The fine isn't what's in question, here. This case wasn't arguing that it was an extreme or unusual punishment, but that flashing lights was a form of protected speech. Look at the quote from the ACLU...

We all know that's bullshit. You don't flash lights at cars after you pass a cruiser running traffic "to warn others to drive cautiously." You do it to say "Slow down! There's a cop up there running radar! Don't wanna get a ticket!" Does this guy drive around and flash his lights at every car he sees, warning them to "drive cautiously," no matter if there's a LEO in the area or not? Somehow, I rather doubt it. In the most basic legal sense, doing so is essentially obstructing a LEO in the course of his duties. It's playing "lookout" for people who are violating the law.

The ACLU can spin it however they want, and this Missouri judge can fall for it (or, more likely, he already was supportive of the practice). That doesn't make it in any way a definitive ruling. Low and mid-level judges make left-field decisions all the time in this country.

So what's the goal of issuing a speeding ticket?  Let's assume it's to get a driver to not exceed the speed limit with the understanding that's safer.   If flashing my lights at an oncoming driver accomplishes the same goal without all the hassle of the police stopping the driver with flashing lights and adding an additional burden to the court system then what's the harm?  Both accomplish the same goal and probably for about the same length of time.  We hear how the police are overburdened so I'd think they would welcome any citizen involvement that makes their job a little easier.

Of course, if the goal is revenue generation then all bets are off aren't they?  That's really about the only reason I can think of as to why police don't want someone warning another motorist of a speed trap.



I don't know if this ruling sets a precident or not but it at least is a start.

[Raza]

http://www.aclu-mo.org/legal-docket/elli-v-ellisville/

The fine isn't what's in question, here. This case wasn't arguing that it was an extreme or unusual punishment, but that flashing lights was a form of protected speech. Look at the quote from the ACLU...

We all know that's bullshit. You don't flash lights at cars after you pass a cruiser running traffic "to warn others to drive cautiously." You do it to say "Slow down! There's a cop up there running radar! Don't wanna get a ticket!" Does this guy drive around and flash his lights at every car he sees, warning them to "drive cautiously," no matter if there's a LEO in the area or not? Somehow, I rather doubt it. In the most basic legal sense, doing so is essentially obstructing a LEO in the course of his duties. It's playing "lookout" for people who are violating the law.

The ACLU can spin it however they want, and this Missouri judge can fall for it (or, more likely, he already was supportive of the practice). That doesn't make it in any way a definitive ruling. Low and mid-level judges make left-field decisions all the time in this country.

The copper is looking for people violating a law.  The flash of the highbeams stops people from violating a law.  How is that obstructing?  Come on man, get your head out of your ass.  Just because it's a cop in question doesn't mean you have to side with them.  You can use your brain.  If someone is about to throw a brick through a window and loot a store, and a private citizen says "Hey, don't do that", is that also obstructing an officer?  I assume not, since they're not squeezing cash out of the burglar and sending him on his way like they do with speeders.   

[FoMoJo]

The copper is looking for people violating a law.  The flash of the highbeams stops people from violating a law.  How is that obstructing?  Come on man, get your head out of your ass.  Just because it's a cop in question doesn't mean you have to side with them.  You can use your brain.  If someone is about to throw a brick through a window and loot a store, and a private citizen says "Hey, don't do that", is that also obstructing an officer?  I assume not, since they're not squeezing cash out of the burglar and sending him on his way like they do with speeders.   

Excellent point.

[bing_oh]

So what's the goal of issuing a speeding ticket?  Let's assume it's to get a driver to not exceed the speed limit with the understanding that's safer.   If flashing my lights at an oncoming driver accomplishes the same goal without all the hassle of the police stopping the driver with flashing lights and adding an additional burden to the court system then what's the harm?  Both accomplish the same goal and probably for about the same length of time.  We hear how the police are overburdened so I'd think they would welcome any citizen involvement that makes their job a little easier.

Of course, if the goal is revenue generation then all bets are off aren't they?  That's really about the only reason I can think of as to why police don't want someone warning another motorist of a speed trap.



I don't know if this ruling sets a precident or not but it at least is a start.

We both know that flashing your lights doesn't accomplish the same thing as a traffic stop. People slow down for as long as they're in sight of the LEO. A traffic stop at least gives some consequence to a persons' actions...a warning, a scare, an inconvenience, a fine, and even a loss of license if somebody repeatedly gets stopped. Flashing lights isn't a consequence and doesn't have any chance of changing behavior. We both know all this, so let's stop playing coy.

[bing_oh]

The copper is looking for people violating a law.  The flash of the highbeams stops people from violating a law.  How is that obstructing?  Come on man, get your head out of your ass.  Just because it's a cop in question doesn't mean you have to side with them.  You can use your brain.  If someone is about to throw a brick through a window and loot a store, and a private citizen says "Hey, don't do that", is that also obstructing an officer?  I assume not, since they're not squeezing cash out of the burglar and sending him on his way like they do with speeders.   

No, but the guy standing beside him being a lookout for the cops is.

[FoMoJo]

We both know that flashing your lights doesn't accomplish the same thing as a traffic stop. People slow down for as long as they're in sight of the LEO. A traffic stop at least gives some consequence to a persons' actions...a warning, a scare, an inconvenience, a fine, and even a loss of license if somebody repeatedly gets stopped. Flashing lights isn't a consequence and doesn't have any chance of changing behavior. We both know all this, so let's stop playing coy.

If issuing speeding tickets is supposed to accomplish some sort of deterrent for speeding, why are most speed traps set in areas where it is perfectly safe to drive over the posted speed limit.  We both know there are quotas for issuing tickets and the primary purpose is not to prevent people from speeding.

[Raza]

We both know that flashing your lights doesn't accomplish the same thing as a traffic stop. People slow down for as long as they're in sight of the LEO. A traffic stop at least gives some consequence to a persons' actions...a warning, a scare, an inconvenience, a fine, and even a loss of license if somebody repeatedly gets stopped. Flashing lights isn't a consequence and doesn't have any chance of changing behavior. We both know all this, so let's stop playing coy.

What does a traffic stop do other than piss someone off, take some of their money, and get them to slow down for a little bit?  Oh, and put an officer at risk, should the pissed off motorist be on the wrong side of psycho?

[Eye of the Tiger]

What does a traffic stop do other than piss someone off, take some of their money, and get them to slow down for a little bit?  Oh, and put an officer at risk, should the pissed off motorist be on the wrong side of psycho?

I always make it a point to drive even faster after I get a speeding ticket.

[Byteme]

We both know that flashing your lights doesn't accomplish the same thing as a traffic stop. People slow down for as long as they're in sight of the LEO. A traffic stop at least gives some consequence to a persons' actions...a warning, a scare, an inconvenience, a fine, and even a loss of license if somebody repeatedly gets stopped. Flashing lights isn't a consequence and doesn't have any chance of changing behavior. We both know all this, so let's stop playing coy.

No, flashing lights changes the behavior of everyone who sees them for whatever distance they might believe cops might be around.  Not to mention exposing both the officer and ticketed to the dangers of stopping along the side of the road and causing a pile up of rubberneckers which slows everyone and frustrates drivers.

And if it's all about driver safety why are so many speed traps ( appropriate name) set up in fairly light traffic conditions on good roads?   Would it be so that the pickings are easy? 

Seems to me it would be better to camp out at high accident rate intersections and nail people who firgure stop signs are for everyone else.  Or maybe cruise around and start pulling over distracted drivers busy texting and not watching the road; but I guess we both know why that won't happen, distracted driving is harder to prove than a radar readout that clearly said someone was doing 55 in a 50 zone.

[Byteme]

I always make it a point to drive even faster after I get a speeding ticket.

Gotta make up that lost time somehow.     

[Eye of the Tiger]

Gotta make up that lost time somehow.     

Yeah, I was obviously in a hurry before I got delayed, so...

[Catman]

Never understood the problem here. If the goal is to slow people down then why is flashing an issue?

[dazzleman]

I always make it a point to drive even faster after I get a speeding ticket.

[Raza]

Never understood the problem here. If the goal is to slow people down then why is flashing an issue?

#1 with a booyaka.

[bing_oh]

No, flashing lights changes the behavior of everyone who sees them for whatever distance they might believe cops might be around.  Not to mention exposing both the officer and ticketed to the dangers of stopping along the side of the road and causing a pile up of rubberneckers which slows everyone and frustrates drivers.

And if it's all about driver safety why are so many speed traps ( appropriate name) set up in fairly light traffic conditions on good roads?   Would it be so that the pickings are easy? 

Seems to me it would be better to camp out at high accident rate intersections and nail people who firgure stop signs are for everyone else.  Or maybe cruise around and start pulling over distracted drivers busy texting and not watching the road; but I guess we both know why that won't happen, distracted driving is harder to prove than a radar readout that clearly said someone was doing 55 in a 50 zone.

Or it could be because texting while driving isn't a primary violation in many places, meaning an officer can't stop just for that.

[dazzleman]

Or it could be because texting while driving isn't a primary violation in many places, meaning an officer can't stop just for that.

It should be.  It's a lot worse than speeding, up to a certain point.

[bing_oh]

It should be.  It's a lot worse than speeding, up to a certain point.

Yea, well, nobody elected me to the state legislature so I don't have control over that.

[dazzleman]

Yea, well, nobody elected me to the state legislature so I don't have control over that.

Maybe you should run?