Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Politics, Society

Florida Court Rules That Flashing Lights To Warn Other Drivers Of Speed Trap Is Protected Speech

Many of us were critical of the Seminole County Sheriff and prosecutors who insisted that citizens could be ticketed for flashing their lights to warn others of a speed trap. Ryan Kintner, 25, can now claim to not only have warned neighbors of a speed trap but to have protected their constitutional rights. Kintner has won his challenge under the first amendment and a court has ruled that the Sheriff and local prosecutors were misconstruing a statute and violating the rights of citizens.

Circuit Judge Alan Dickey previously ruled that that state law does not apply to people who flash lights as a warning and in Tuesday’s decision ruled that such action constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment.

Kintner was home when he spotted the speed trap and jumped into his car to go up the street to warn his neighbors.

Much like the effort to prosecute citizens videotaping police in public, the use of these laws against citizens appears part of a trend in police-citizen relations where citizens are expected to be passive and obedient. The decision is an important corrective measure in that trend. However, there still appears to be no public backlash against officials who fight for such expanded powers in violation of the Constitution.

Source: Orlando Sentinel

22 thoughts on “Florida Court Rules That Flashing Lights To Warn Other Drivers Of Speed Trap Is Protected Speech”

  1. Does anyone remember the old days (50’s, 60;s, etc.) when the motto of the police was “To Protect and to Serve”? Now they no longer protect and serve, they Enforce the LAWS” … that’s why they are called “Law Enforcement”.

  2. Puzzling,
    “….the dog had alerted to the presence of narcotics on the bills — and that the police department would be confiscating the bail money.”

    What a scam! Most of our money has a drug presence.

  4. Under Asset Forfeiture Law, Wisconsin Cops Confiscate Families’ Bail Money

    When the Brown County, Wis., Drug Task Force arrested her son Joel last February, Beverly Greer started piecing together his bail.

    She used part of her disability payment and her tax return. Joel Greer’s wife also chipped in, as did his brother and two sisters. On Feb. 29, a judge set Greer’s bail at $7,500, and his mother called the Brown County jail to see where and how she could get him out. “The police specifically told us to bring cash,” Greer says. “Not a cashier’s check or a credit card. They said cash.”

    So Greer and her family visited a series of ATMs, and on March 1, she brought the money to the jail, thinking she’d be taking Joel Greer home. But she left without her money, or her son.

    Instead jail officials called in the same Drug Task Force that arrested Greer. A drug-sniffing dog inspected the Greers’ cash, and about a half-hour later, Beverly Greer said, a police officer told her the dog had alerted to the presence of narcotics on the bills — and that the police department would be confiscating the bail money.

  7. Our legislators are the culprits. They want the money pretty bad and they send out their thugs with quotes. They lay in the weeds to pray on the working public. The laws are stacked against the public. The fine is ten times cheaper then fighting a ticket, so most just pay and move on-especially out of state. Seat belt laws are the “gravy train”.

  8. It is great if they actually give you a ticket for the so called offense. Then you have a cops name on the ticket and a municipality. Two defendants, the second one with more money than the cop. Then you start the internet site in your community to Petition the city to end police persecution of free speech and free travel. That way, when you flash your lights at another driver you are part of the petition to the government. The right to petition your government for redress of greivances is specifically a prong of the First Amendment. Sue the pig for breaching the prong. Federal Court, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Section 1985(3) for conspiracy and Section 1988 for attorneys fees. Dont sue to enjoin the practice of speed traps, just sue for their breach of your right to petition your fellow citizens and your government to end the speed traps and end the persecution of free speech.

  10. Jude

    here in this part of floriduh they pull you over for “weaving in you own lane”.

  11. Here’s what might be called OT, except it is about civil rights. Yeah, civil rights of muslim citizens of this country. Read how many ALEC bills they are fighting.

    2WASHINGTON, D.C., 5/23/12) – In response to the more than
    2000 discrimination cases CAIR received in the past year, we have expanded our civil rights department by hiring new attorneys and have added other staff who will monitor growing Islamophobia and the more than 54 anti-Islam bills introduced in state legislatures nationwide.”

    You can Google CAIR if you’re interested. But then they are followers of a medieval faith. But then the Jews and the Christians were not so nice those days.

    Fortunately we don’t have Sharia, here. We only have the INjustice department, NSA, DEA FBI, CIA, and the Pentagon on our necks. So it is no sweat, whaddaya say???

  12. I was pulled over for flashing my lights to warn oncoming traffic. The officer lied to me and said I was guilty of obstruction of justice, so I felt no guilt in lying to him and saying I was checking my wiper switch. Since their job is public safety, they should applaud the public’s effort to help them do their job.

  13. The only time “my” road has heavy traffic is when the local race track is running on Saturdays. The traffic is heavy in more ways than one as most of the vehicles are pulling trailers with cars, extra tires, etc. in them. The drivers have their adrenaline running pretty high after the races. It is rumored that it is not unusual for a fair amount of alcohol to be consumed after (and during?) the races. The traffic comes down the hill and needs to stop at the bottom. It’s a bit dangerous for anyone to be out walking (no sidewalks) at this time.

    One Saturday the sheriff had 5 or 6 marked cars lined up out of sight of anyone coming down the hill. Well, they didn’t count on a member of the racing crowd to arrive late from the other direction. Cops were outed by a cell phone call, probably to someone in the pit (this is speculation, of course). But nearly every vehicle coming down the hill that night was quieter than ever before. All stops at the stop sign were complete stops. Turn signals were used. I think they went after one or two. I called the next day to thank them for their very successful behavior modification technique and welcomed them to stop by again. I didn’t want the low number of stops to mean failure. Nor did I suggest that they use most of the cars elsewhere, but they really need only one or two every once in awhile to be effective.

  14. I warn others every chance I get, and a few times, it’s caused the officers in question to start following me. They KNOW they can’t really do anything about what I did, so they follow me for a few miles to see if I’ll make some small mistake. That’s all that will happen in Florida now, unfortunately.

  16. …the apparent failure of many politicians to speak out against the growing unconstitutional police behavior and surveillance state, and more. -DonS

    http://whistleblower.org/blog/42-2012/2005-congress-is-deaf-expands-nsas-surveillance-power-despite-whistleblower-disclosures

    “Congress is Deaf: Expands NSA’s Surveillance Power Despite Whistleblower Disclosures”

    by Jesselyn Radack on May 23, 2012 ( The Whistleblogger / 2012 )

    Excerpt:

    Whistleblowers like former National Security Agency (NSA) officials William Binney, J. Kirk Wiebe, and Thomas Drake have repeatedly warned us about a burgeoning surveillance state. At great personal risk considering Binney, Wiebe, and Drake were all targeted with a criminal investigation and Drake was prosecuted under the Espionage Act, Binney has publicly revealed massive domestic surveillance, which began under President George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11, and is continuing rampantly under President Obama. All three have written extensively and spoken out against NSA’s domestic spying.

    Nonetheless, yesterday, an apparently hard-of-hearing Senate panel reauthorized the constitutionally problematic FISA Amendments Act, which gutted long-standing safeguards for Americans’ privacy in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Considering how badly NSA has abused its surveillance powers since 9/11, it is infuriating that any Senator claiming to represent his or her citizenry would consider giving NSA more surveillance authority.

    In fact, Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mark Udall (D-CO) – the same Senators who warned us about the Justice Department secret interpretation of another surveillance power: Section 215 of the (un)PATRIOT Act – objected to the re-authorization because NSA refused to give them a clear answer to a simple question: “How many innocent Americans is the NSA monitoring?” WaPo reported:

    Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) opposed the extension on civil liberties grounds. Wyden, concerned that the provision allows innocent Americans’ e-mails and phone calls to be monitored without a warrant, has asked the administration to disclose how many Americans have had their communications monitored under the law.

    The whistleblowers on the other had, have cringe-inducing estimates about just how much data NSA is collecting:

    . . . Binney says. Instead they continued to haul in data on a grand scale. Asked how many communications—”transactions,” in NSA’s lingo—the agency has intercepted since 9/11, Binney estimates the number at “between 15 and 20 trillion, the aggregate over 11 years.”

    The rest of Congress sits idly by while whistleblowers bravely go public to explain the continuing erosion of rights and liberties through dragnet electronic surveillance:

    … Democracy Now videos and remainder of article follow.)

  17. I applaud the decision.

    Problem is, with the presumption of power and authority on their side vs “passive/obedient” citizens, police will continue to preemptively assert all sorts of prerogatives and make up prescriptive applications of law. They’ll get away with for the most part because of 1) the “chilling effect” effect 2) the very presumption of police authority/rectitude effect 3) the difficulty and expense of challenging police action 4) the apparent failure of many politicians to speak out against the growing unconstitutional police behavior and surveillance state, and more.

  18. “Instead they’re pissed they aren’t getting enough speeders and enough tickets written.”

    At a minimum. Often time speed traps and license/insurance checkpoints are a pretext for more thorough searches. Gotta get around that “probable cause” requirement somehow.

  19. This is the way I see it.

    Speed traps supposedly exist to reduce vehicle speeds in areas where average speeds are high. They are not intended, orginially, to become traps where the police can make a bunch of money writing tickets. The intent of the police should NEVER be to trap as many people as possible in breaking the law, but rather to make sure that as many citizens as possible follow the law.

    A citizen warning other citizens that there is a speed trap ahead causes drivers to slow down and drive safe…the supposed intention of speed traps. If that’s the case the speed trap IS working and the police should not be pissed about a thing. Instead they’re pissed they aren’t getting enough speeders and enough tickets written.

Comments are closed.