Comments on: Judge: Flashing Headlights To Warn Of Speedtrap Protected Under Constitution

By: Milhouse

Milhouse — Thu, 24 May 2012 19:44:23 +0000

#6, it’s not a “dumb ticket”, it’s a civil rights violation.

#7 the first amendment trumps that.

By: cherrybim

cherrybim — Thu, 24 May 2012 15:49:45 +0000

Obstructing Governmental Administration

By: brooklynhocker

brooklynhocker — Thu, 24 May 2012 14:10:13 +0000

Total hypocrisy, if someone were to have their lights off at night or have their brights on you can “flash” them to make them aware of their situation- thereby preventing a potential accident . If you are following someone you can legally flash them (politely) to communicate that you’d like them to move over so you can pass (this method is listed in many state’s driver’s education handbooks). A cop knows this and was probably not having a good day. That and the driver’s attitude add up to either getting a ticket or a warning. Just the fact that this guy is pursuing a lawsuit over a dumb ticket says to me this isn’t his only altercation with the law.

By: popa_bar_abba

popa_bar_abba — Thu, 24 May 2012 12:58:09 +0000

Was this in state court or in fed court?

By: akuperma

akuperma — Thu, 24 May 2012 12:10:17 +0000

Since the ruling was under the Federal, rather than the state, constitution the prosecution can appeal eventually to the Federal Supreme Court which may not be as sympathetic.

By: avi732

avi732 — Thu, 24 May 2012 10:26:33 +0000

I once got a ticket for it and the violation code was for faulty equipment since it isn’t normal for a car to have its lights flashing. The judge agreed with the cops assertion.

By: clay kodesh

clay kodesh — Thu, 24 May 2012 05:04:41 +0000

The compelling government interest is to take your money and give you tickets.

By: Milhouse

Milhouse — Thu, 24 May 2012 01:08:40 +0000

This is pretty clear; it’s a form of speech, so it’s protected by the first amendment. The state can regulate the manner of speech, in a content-neutral way, but only in ways that don’t suppress the message, and only if there is a compelling government interest that can’t be satisfied any other way. That doesn’t apply here.