Federal Judge Rules Drivers Allowed To Warn About Speed Trap

[WildBill]

A federal judge in Missouri ruled this week held that drivers have a First Amendment right to flash their headlights to warn other motorists of nearby police and speed traps.

The order by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Autrey in St. Louis on Monday stems from a lawsuit filed by Ellisville resident Michael Elli. In 2012, Elli flashed his headlights to warn oncoming vehicles of a radar set up by police in the town of Ellisville.

A flash of headlights is a common way motorists communicate to oncoming drivers of either a dangerous situation or the presence of police — in essence, a warning to slow down.

An officer saw the flash and pulled over Elli, who could have faced a fine of up to $1,000 if convicted. Elli, was accused of "[f]lashing lights on certain vehicles . . . warning of RADAR ahead," according to court papers obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02 ... eed-traps/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RoyGBiv]

Good decision by the court.

[talltex]

I think the Judge made the correct ruling. If the avowed purpose of traffic law enforcement is to enhance public safety by reducing speeding and other unsafe driving practices, then flashing the lights also accomplishes that. The only thing it hinders is the revenue stream from writing tickets for the violations, and the justification that it could intefere with an ongoing police investigation is absurd. It could be viewed as a "preemptive" enhancement to the "slow down and move over" laws when approaching a police car stopped on the side of the road.

[txglock21]

I think the Judge made the correct ruling. If the avowed purpose of traffic law enforcement is to enhance public safety by reducing speeding and other unsafe driving practices, then flashing the lights also accomplishes that. The only thing it hinders is the revenue stream from writing tickets for the violations, and the justification that it could intefere with an ongoing police investigation is absurd. It could be viewed as a "preemptive" enhancement to the "slow down and move over" laws when approaching a police car stopped on the side of the road.

I was typing basically the same thing you were, but you said it better than I could.

[RHenriksen]

I was so happy to read this this morning.

[puma guy]

I wonder what effect this will have on the Houston woman who was arrested for holding up a warning sign for motorists? I would think she'd be vindicated by this decision. I never saw the final disposition of her case.

[Oldgringo]

I don't flash my lights. People should obey speed limits just as they obey other laws.

[jbarn]

Believe it or not, as a former LEO I agree with this decision.

Slow down. I didn't care why you did so, just do it.

[WildBill]

I wonder what effect this will have on the Houston woman who was arrested for holding up a warning sign for motorists? I would think she'd be vindicated by this decision. I never saw the final disposition of her case.

I think they charged her with some law against riding a bicycle on a divider or median or illegal crossing. Something like that.

[RKirkwood]

I wonder what effect this will have on the Houston woman who was arrested for holding up a warning sign for motorists? I would think she'd be vindicated by this decision. I never saw the final disposition of her case.

I think they charged her with some law against riding a bicycle on a divider or median or illegal crossing. Something like that.

I believe it was because she was holding the sign on public property. So stupid, if people slow down why does it matter?

[cb1000rider]

It matters because a good portion of traffic enforcement isn't actually about safety, it's about revenue. I used to get fairly tweaked about it, but now that I'm elderly, I consider it another form of "voluntary taxation".

You can't do this sort of thing in Frisco,TX either.. Flashing lights might be OK, but holding up a sign will get you arrested:
http://rt.com/usa/texas-cops-traffic-sign-797/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jbarn]

It matters because a good portion of traffic enforcement isn't actually about safety, it's about revenue. I used to get fairly tweaked about it, but now that I'm elderly, I consider it another form of "voluntary taxation".

You can't do this sort of thing in Frisco,TX either.. Flashing lights might be OK, but holding up a sign will get you arrested:
http://rt.com/usa/texas-cops-traffic-sign-797/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have conducted extensive research on this. In all but the smallest of towns, and I mean tiny, All revenues from fines are a miniscule percentage of a budget. Like less than 5% to as low as a half a percent. That includes fines from traffic, code compliance, and other regulations.

Also keep in mind that the people issuing the citations don't care about revenue.

Tickets for flashing your lights to warn of traffic enforcement are more about attitude than revenue, IMO.

[cb1000rider]

I have conducted extensive research on this. In all but the smallest of towns, and I mean tiny, All revenues from fines are a miniscule percentage of a budget. Like less than 5% to as low as a half a percent. That includes fines from traffic, code compliance, and other regulations.

This wasn't always the case. I think it's "relatively" new (years) that jurisdictions don't get to keep large portions of traffic enforcement revenue. Now, that's off the top of my head, but if I recall it was a change made due to small towns writing many times more citations than they had citizens...

Did you look at actual safety statistics in regard to average speed of traffic compared to posted speed limits and the impact on safety of enforcing those limits? Again, off the top of my head, I believe it's perhaps less safe to drive the speed limit when median traffic speeds are 10+ mph of posted limits. If the goal is public safety, there are much more efficient and effective ways to save lives.

Some jurisdictions also have "minimum performance standards" in regard to writing traffic citations. This takes away officer discretion in regard to actually being able to enforce just the unsafe behaviors. Other people call this "quotas" - but quotas are not allowed.

I've got no issue with jurisdictions enforcing sobriety, stop sight, red light, or other traffic laws. I'm happy to have that enforcement and wish there was more of it.. When they are stopping people for 12 mph over in a 60+ zone and that speed is well within the bell curve median speed, that's got nothing to do with safety.

[Tic Tac]

I wonder what effect this will have on the Houston woman who was arrested for holding up a warning sign for motorists? I would think she'd be vindicated by this decision. I never saw the final disposition of her case.

I think they charged her with some law against riding a bicycle on a divider or median or illegal crossing. Something like that.

I believe it was because she was holding the sign on public property. So stupid, if people slow down why does it matter?

I don't doubt that is why she was charged but that's not what she was charged with.

It's like the guys arrested because they open carry a rifle. That's not what they get charged with but it's why.

[jbarn]

I have conducted extensive research on this. In all but the smallest of towns, and I mean tiny, All revenues from fines are a miniscule percentage of a budget. Like less than 5% to as low as a half a percent. That includes fines from traffic, code compliance, and other regulations.

This wasn't always the case. I think it's "relatively" new (years) that jurisdictions don't get to keep large portions of traffic enforcement revenue. Now, that's off the top of my head, but if I recall it was a change made due to small towns writing many times more citations than they had citizens...

Did you look at actual safety statistics in regard to average speed of traffic compared to posted speed limits and the impact on safety of enforcing those limits? Again, off the top of my head, I believe it's perhaps less safe to drive the speed limit when median traffic speeds are 10+ mph of posted limits. If the goal is public safety, there are much more efficient and effective ways to save lives.

Some jurisdictions also have "minimum performance standards" in regard to writing traffic citations. This takes away officer discretion in regard to actually being able to enforce just the unsafe behaviors. Other people call this "quotas" - but quotas are not allowed.

I've got no issue with jurisdictions enforcing sobriety, stop sight, red light, or other traffic laws. I'm happy to have that enforcement and wish there was more of it.. When they are stopping people for 12 mph over in a 60+ zone and that speed is well within the bell curve median speed, that's got nothing to do with safety.

My department didn't care if I wrote warnings or tickets. Depending on the shift, we had an expectation of a number of contacts per shift. On busy shifts with 15 to 20 calls no one cared about how many traffic stops you made. But I will tell you that even in a fully marked patrol car, it is impossible to drive around most of the time for 8 hours without a couple of people nearly running you over. I never had to hunt, make up stuff or be nit picky to write a couple of tickets a shift.

That said, I gave a lot of warnings.......