Judge Says You Can Warn Others About Speed Traps

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."

Comments

Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary?

[bluefoxlucid]

No, it is not "Free Speech". It is criminal informant behavior. The issue here is what is the stretch of what is and is not reasonable to slap state secrecy on.

For example, warning others that the guy walking down the street in the rain is a police officer posing as one of the dozens of people who pass by an hour as a walking wire (i.e. there's always 8 or 10 people in this 10 meter stretch; 1 or 2 of them is an undercover cop, and they're using listening devices to pick up the narcotics sale going on at an outside dining table) should be a crime. Why? Direct interference with a covert operation.

A cop sitting just over a hill with a radar gun is not covert. A fixed speed camera--even hidden--is also not a covert operation because it can be readily discovered. A cop sitting at the next dining table in plain clothes will be gone before pattern behavior identifies him as a cop: you need advanced knowledge--i.e. that that particular person is a police officer, as well as the knowledge that a covert operation is in progress--to discover that you're being eaves dropped upon. A fixed camera can and will be discovered eventually just out of course, as will a police cruiser hanging out at the edge of a parking lot facing traffic.

In these case, you are discussing--through flickering headlights, conveying such information--public, visible, open police activities. These are not secret things; they are not likely to force criminals deep into hiding or set back a major drug cartel bust by months or years, and they certainly aren't going to get anyone killed. They're open, public activities. That means they're open for public discussion, at all times.

This is not a "free speech" issue--we have free speech, and besides it doesn't cover shouting out that a cop in the alley carrying out a cocaine sting is wearing a wire. This is a matter of discussing police operations. As the operations are public, non-secret operations, there is no standing to take any action against anyone who relays this publicly-accessible information.

Think about it as if the government had chosen not to publish the existence or operations of Area 51, but ran a public road through it. Having, with no clearance, thousands of people per day passing through, they could not claim state secret for talking about anything seen while driving through Area 51. It would be legally unenforceable. Same thing.

Re:Vive la difference!

[icebike]

At this point, yes you are wrong. The whole point of the Police for is not to protect and serve but to take in enough money to stay alive. If you look at a police department and look at the "crimes" people are arrested and fined for you will see that the vast majority are revenue collection under the guise of breaking a law and nothing more.

You sir, are an idiot.

Police do not get to keep the money they collect. None of that money is allowed to go back to the police department.