Slashdot Mirror


Oregon Unconstitutionally Fined a Man $500 for Saying 'I am an Engineer,' Federal Judge Rules (vice.com)

A federal district court has ruled that the state of Oregon illegally infringed on a man's First Amendment rights for fining him $500 because he wrote "I am an engineer" in a 2014 email to the state's Engineering Board. The court ruled that the provision in the law he broke is unconstitutional, which opens the door for people in the state to legally call themselves "engineers." Motherboard reports: This dystopian saga dates back to 2013, when Mats Jarlstrom's wife, while driving, was caught by a red light camera near their home in Beaverton, Oregon. Rather than pay the red light camera fine, Jarlstrom, an electrical engineer, spent months researching the specifics of yellow light timing and red light cameras, and learned that his wife had likely been ticketed for running a yellow light. Jarlstrom began sharing his findings on his personal website, at conferences, and even got featured on 60 Minutes. He also wrote several emails to the Oregon Board of Engineers explaining what he had found. In the email, he noted that he was an "engineer."

Rather than looking into whether traffic light timing should be changed, however, the board sent Jarlstrom a warning -- and then a $500 fine for the crime of "practicing engineering without being registered." Jarlstrom had violated one of Oregon's "Title Laws," which states that "no persons may ... hold themselves out as an 'engineer'" unless they are an "individual who is registered in this state and holds a valid certificate to practice engineering in this state." Jarlstrom has a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and spent his career working in electronics, but wasn't board certified. He sued the state's engineering board and, last week, a U.S. District Court judge for the District of Oregon ruled that the state's law is unconstitutional.
The judge wrote: "The statutes prohibit truthfully describing oneself as an 'engineer,' in any context. This restriction clearly controls and suppresses protected speech, and enforcement of the statute against protected speech is not a hypothetical threat. The term 'engineer,' standing alone, is neither actually nor inherently misleading. Courts have long recognized that the term 'engineer' has a generic meaning separate from 'professional engineer' and that the term has enjoyed 'widespread usage in job titles in our society to describe positions which require no professional training.'"

"The judge ordered that the word 'engineer' be struck from Oregon's law, which is 'substantially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment' and specifically noted that Jarlstrom may describe himself publicly and privately using the word 'engineer' and that he may continue to talk about traffic light timing publicly," reports Motherboard.

13 of 331 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Bad cases make bad law by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There should be a distinction between "Engineer" and "Licensed Professional Engineer (in Oregon)." Just like someone licensed to practice medicine in New York can claim to be a physician, but can't practice legally in Oregon.

  2. Re:so $500 refund - 25K legal fees = big loss for by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Violation of the constitution gives him the right to sue the board ... hope he fucks them without lube.

  3. He's got a valid point by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a lot of research that says the lights with cameras have the yellow light time a lot shorter than other lights, in order to maximize revenue. They should really replace the yellow light with a countdown timer before they can make people pay for entering the intersection a second after the light turns red! And yes, I've gotten caught be one of these in Tualitin myself, as I was hurrying to complete my right turn before the light went red.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:He's got a valid point by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The solution to this is simple. Fines should not go into the government's general fund. They are punitive penalties for misbehavior against society. They should be put into a separate fund. Then on April 10 when you file you income taxes, the fund should be divided by the number of taxpayers, with each taxpayer receiving an equal share as a generic tax credit. In that way it's paid out directly to the people who were harmed by the initial violation. The government doesn't see a dime of it (giving it as a tax credit just reduces the need to send a check to every taxpayer), so the government's incentive for things like red lights is to time them to maximize safety, rather than to maximize revenue.

    2. Re:He's got a valid point by psnyder · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They should really replace the yellow light with a countdown timer

      While this sounds good at first, it will kill people.

      Tests have shown that timers on red lights decrease road rage, and people drive safer. (Probably because waiting, while seeing the countdown for the end of the wait, is less aggravating then waiting at a long traffic light without knowing when it will end.)

      Similar tests show that when timers are on green lights, people speed up toward the end, trying to get there before it changes, and driving more recklessly.

      Putting timers on yellow lights would be similar or worse to timers on green lights.

      With car accidents being one of the leading causes of death and dismemberment, it's not hyperbole to say that we could save a number of lives by passing legislation for traffic lights requiring timers on red, and making timers illegal on yellow and green.

      There is a problem with yellows on lights with cameras, but a timer for yellow is not the solution.

  4. the truth is by renegade600 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    he was able to prove tickets were being written for those who legally pass through the lights. This means the city was going to lose money and the camera company was going to lose money too if changes were made. They had to do what they could to discredit and shut him up. It did not work.

  5. Re:Oregon hypocrisy by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >"Portland is "liberal", rest of the state not so much. In fact, it's been known for its racism and intolerance in the past"

    Being "liberal" doesn't mean non-racist and tolerant. And being "conservative" doesn't mean being racist or intolerant. In fact, I see many, many, many cases where there is a reverse of what you said/implied and other cases where there is no relation whatsoever. Perhaps you didn't mean for it to sound like what you just said?

  6. Re:so $500 refund - 25K legal fees = big loss for by mysidia · · Score: 5, Informative

    so $500 refund - 25K legal fees = big loss for him

    He'll probably get legal fees back plus punitive damages.

    They were involved in attempting to deprive him of first amendment free speech rights under color of statute, A violation of 42 U.S. Code 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights -
    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress

    Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 provides attorney's fees for:
    "any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92–318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or section 12361 of title 34"

  7. Re:The ruling held that title laws are broadly res by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The judge likely wanted to be a bit more comprehensive since he could see that the board was quite willing to abuse any hint of a technicality.

  8. Re:Protected Titles by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They went too far in the protection. The purpose of a licensed engineer was not to prevent people from using the word "engineer", but to provide certification for a limited set of jobs that needed a more formal designation. You don't just say "I'm an engineer" in such a position, you should say "I am an engineer licensed by the state of Oregon". Otherwise you may as well hand out $500 fines to any 6 year old pushing around a toy train who accidentally says "I'm the engineer!" It's just like the word "doctor", you can call yourself that all you want and if you're not practicing medicine or fooling people into giving you money for your medical advice.

    They went to far in proactively fining a person for merely calling himself "engineer" in a context where he was not providing a professional service or engaging in a function where a licensed Professional Engineer was required.

  9. Re:Bad cases make bad law by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only "slimy" people were the people setting up the red light cameras with too-short yellow-light intervals, thus maximizing the possibility of extracting a fine from innocent drivers, as well as increasing the risk of a rear-end accident. In a just world, they'd be flogged to death in public.

  10. Re:Bad cases make bad law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are completely off base.

    This guy is a graduate from KTH, the one of the two highest ranked technical institutions in Sweden, the second being Chalmers. His education is not one iota different from the people who are building radar systems, mobile phone systems, fighter jets etc.

    HE IS AN ENGINEER! He's not fudging anything. He's not a certified PE in Oregon, but that a) doesn't make one not an Engineer and b) he never claimed to be anything such. The ones "fudging" stuff are the bureaucrats in Oregon who lied about him claiming the PE title.

    Get your head out of your ass.

  11. Re:Nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He already is an engineer, just not licensed in OR.
    The board was completely wrong on this very spiteful ruling.
    Pretty sure they just didn't like to be shown up by an outsider.
    I've seen this mentality in many public servant professionals;
    school administrators are the worst offenders, though.

    Anyway, this is a good, common sense ruling - a rare sight in this day and age!

    CAP === 'pothole'