Legalities of warning oncoming traffic of radar traps?

[DSYoungEsq]

Hm, now that leaves open the fact that the misuse at night would still be a violation.

See how much fun the law can be?

[Gfactor]

According to Eugene Volokh in Crime-Facilitating Speech,

Some speech provides information that makes it easier for people to commit crimes, torts, or other harms. Consider:

(a) A textbook, magazine, Web site, or seminar describes how people can make bombs (conventional or nuclear), make guns, make drugs, commit contract murder, engage in sabotage, painlessly and reliably commit suicide, fool ballistic identification systems or fingerprint recognition systems, pick locks, evade taxes, or more effectively resist arrest during civil disobedience.

(b) A thriller or mystery novel does the same, for the sake of realism.

© A Web site or a computer science article explains how messages can be effectively encrypted (which can help stymie law enforcement), how encrypted copyrighted material can be illegally decrypted, what security flaws exist in a prominent computer operating system, or how computer viruses are written.

(d) A newspaper publishes the name of a witness to a crime, thus making it easier for the criminal to intimidate or kill the witness.

(e) A leaflet or a Web site gives the names and possibly the addresses of boycott violators, abortion providers, strikebreakers, police officers, police informants, anonymous litigants, registered sex offenders, or political convention delegates.

(f) A Web site posts people’s social security numbers or credit card numbers, or the passwords to computer systems.

(g) A newspaper publishes the sailing dates of troopships, secret military plans, or the names of undercover agents in enemy countries.

(h) A Web site or a newspaper article names a Web site that contains copyright-infringing material, or describes it in enough detail that readers could quickly find it using a search engine.

(i) A Web site sells or gives away research papers, which helps students cheat.

(j) A magazine describes how one can organize one’s tax return to minimize the risk of a tax audit, share music files while minimizing the risk of being sued as an infringer, or better conceal one’s sexual abuse of children.

(k) A newspaper publishes information about a secret subpoena, a secret wiretap, a secret grand jury investigation, or a secret impending police operation, and the suspects thus learn they are being targeted; or a library, Internet service provider, bank, or other entity whose records are subpoenaed alerts the media to complain about what it sees as an abusive subpoena.

(l) When any of the speech mentioned above is suppressed, a self-styled anticensorship Web site posts a copy, not because its operators intend to facilitate crime, but because they want to protest and resist speech suppression or to inform the public about the facts underlying the suppression controversy.

(m) A master criminal advises a less experienced friend on how best to commit a crime, or on how a criminal gang should maintain discipline and power.

(n) A supporter of sanctuary for El Salvadoran refugees tells a refugee the location of a hole in the border fence, and the directions to a church that would harbor him.

(o) A lookout, a friend, or a stranger who has no relationship with the criminal but who dislikes the police warns a criminal that the police are coming.

§ A driver flashes his lights to warn other drivers of a speed trap.

These are not incitement cases: The speech isn’t persuading or inspiring some readers to commit bad acts. Rather, the speech is giving people information that helps them commit bad acts - acts that they likely already want to commit.

When should such speech be constitutionally unprotected? Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has never squarely confronted this issue, and lower courts and commentators have only recently begun to seriously face it. And getting the answer right is important: Because these scenarios are structurally similar - a similarity that hasn’t been generally recognized - a decision about one of them will affect the results in others. If a restriction on one of these kinds of speech is upheld (or struck down), others may be unexpectedly validated (or invalidated) as well.

57 Stan. L. Rev. 1095 (2005)

In a footnote, Volokh notes:

This is tantamount to the driver’s acting as a lookout, see supra notes 37-39: It lets the other drivers drive illegally before and after the speed trap without getting caught, because they have been warned to obey the law when the police are watching. See State v. Walker, No. I-9507-03625 (Williamson Cty. (Tenn.) Cir. Ct. Nov. 13, 2003) (accepting a First Amendment defense in such circumstances); For the Record, Salt Lake Trib., Feb. 29, 2000, at B2 (noting a similar case in which a First Amendment defense was accepted); cf. Bucher, 375 F.3d at 930 (noting the First Amendment question); Commonwealth v. Beachey, 728 A.2d 912 (Pa. 1999) (considering a similar case, but not confronting the First Amendment question)

[Hal_Briston]

@Philster

In NJ, USA, it’s now illegal to flash your headlights.

Sure about that? I distinctly remember when it was ruled legal here, but have not heard anything about that being overturned.

A Factiva search brought up only two Jersey-based articles on the subject, both many years old:

**News flash: Tipoffs to speed traps are legal - Court says blinking headlights okay **
*Robert Schwaneberg and Michaelangelo Conte *
31 July 1999
The Star-Ledger Newark, NJ

It happens every day on New Jersey’s highways: Someone drives past a patrol car lurking in the bushes and flashes his headlights to warn oncoming drivers to slow down.

To many it is a natural, neighborly gesture they would expect in return; to others, an underhanded way of subverting the efforts of police. But whatever the ethics of alerting other motorists to speed traps, it is not against the law, a state appeals court has ruled.

Under New Jersey’s motor vehicle laws, drivers face a $43 fine for improperly using their headlights, whether by having them aimed so high they blind other motorists or refusing to dim high beams at night for oncoming traffic. But that law “was never intended to prohibit a motorist from warning oncoming motorists that a speed trap lies ahead,” a state appeals court ruled this week.

The two judges who heard the case concluded “that a motorist may not be convicted of misusing her headlights to warn oncoming motorists of radar.”

<snipping out pro and con comments from several police officers>

The ruling resulted from the case of Susan Luptak of Jackson Township, who passed a patrol car in Monroe Township and flashed her headlights at an oncoming driver. Little did she know he was another policeman in an unmarked car on his way to relieve his colleague running the speed trap.

Even though it was 1:55 in the afternoon and Luptak’s flashing of her lights created no hazard, she was convicted in municipal court of misusing them, according to her lawyer, Mario Apuzzo. But Luptak continued to fight the ticket, and when her case reached the appeals court, the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office agreed she should never have been stopped and urged the court to throw out the case against her.

``We use our high beams all the time to tell people things," said Assistant Middlesex County Prosecutor Simon Louis Rosenbach. "We use them to tell people they have their high beams on and you want them off. We use them to tell people it’s okay to cut in.

``They’re used for some kind of speech all the time, and you’d never stop someone to give them a ticket for that," Rosenbach reasoned.

[TheLoadedDog]

My stepfather passed a speed trap. A mile or so down the road, a semi is barrelling through in the other direction. Stepdad gives a friendly flash of lights. Just as he does so, he sees a police car cruising behind the semi. Cop slows, u-turns, and the lights come on.

Stepdad: Yes, constable?
Cop: I just saw you flash your lights at that truck.
Stepdad: Yes.
Cop: Are you aware there is a police radar unit in operation two kilometres back?
Stepdad: Aah… I might have seen something like that, yes.
Cop: Are you aware that is is an offence to distract other drivers?
Stepdad: (thinking quickly) I was aah… letting him know he’d left his headlights on!
Cop: (obviously trying to remember if he’d seen the truck’s taillights or not) Drive safely sir. Good day.

[Dead_Cat]

A couple of (rather out of date) UK cases: here and here. In the first, a man was convicted of “wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty”, while in the second the conviction (in a different case) was overturned on appeal, because it could not be proved that the apellant’s actions caused anyone to slow down. Anyway, it seems that if you do this in the UK, you do risk prosecution, though it is rare for such cases to go to trial.

[tomndebb]

@Elendil's Heir

In 15 years of criminal and traffic practice in Ohio, including five years as a magistrate handling (among many other things) traffic cases, I’ve never heard of anyone ever actually being cited for flashing a speed-trap warning to other motorists. I’m aware of no Ohio law that would prohibit such a warning. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some annoyed cops will warn or chew out motorists who do it.

As several of our respondents from other states have noted, the story I always heard regarding the Ohio law was that the citation would be given for “interfering with a police officer,” but also like you, I cannot recall anyone actually busted for the offense.

I am disinclined to do the flashing bit, anyway, (if it is a local road, I would just as soon they were not blowing the speed limit and if it is a freeway, I doubt that a speeder would recognize my flash of lights as a warning). On the other hand, I have several times flashed my lights after passing an accident so that they will slow down and begin watching the road more closely, looking for the cop but spotting the accident.

[Gfactor]

@tomndebb

As several of our respondents from other states have noted, the story I always heard regarding the Ohio law was that the citation would be given for “interfering with a police officer,” but also like you, I cannot recall anyone actually busted for the offense.

JUDGES: Joseph E. Mahoney, Judge. Ford, P.J., and Nader, J., concur.

OPINION BY: MAHONEY

OPINION: On June 6, 1992, at approximately 8:15 p.m., appellant, Bernardo Garcia, was observed by a village of Kirtland Hills police officer flashing his headlights off and on again as he traveled eastbound on Chillicothe Road. Appellant was stopped and cited for violating Kirtland Hills Codified Ordinance 337.16(c), which provides:

"337.16 NUMBER OF LIGHTS; LIMITATIONS ON FLASHING, OSCILLATING OR ROTATING LIGHTS.

"* * *

“(c) Flashing lights are prohibited on motor vehicles, except as a means for indicating a right or a left turn, or in the presence of a vehiclar traffic hazard requiring unusual care in approaching, or overtaking or passing. This prohibition does not apply to emergency vehicles, road service vehicles servicing or towing a disabled vehicle, traffic line stripers, snow plows, rural mail delivery vehicles, vehicles transporting preschool children as provided in Ohio R.C. 4513.182, Ohio Department of Transportation maintenance vehicles, funeral hearses, funeral escort vehicles and similar equipment operated by the Department or local authorities, which shall be equipped with and display, when used on a street or highway for the special purpose necessitating such lights, a flashing, oscillating or rotating amber light, but shall not display a flashing, oscillating or rotating light of any other color, nor to vehicles or machinery permitted by Section 337.10 to have a flashing red light.”

The matter proceeded to trial before a magistrate on August 12, 1992. On September 4, 1992, an order was entered by the magistrate finding appellant not guilty. The magistrate determined that the ordinance in question did not apply to appellant’s actions, stating, in part:

"After a review of the Village of Kirtland Hills Codified Ordinance 337.16 and specifically section (c) of this ordinance, it was clear to the Magistrate that this ordinance applies to the object or noun: flashing lights. The ordinance sets forth restrictions with respect to the type of vehicle upon which a flashing light may be attached and under what conditions the flashing light may be used. The ordinance in no way restricted the activity of a driver of a vehicle in flashing (verb) [sic] his or her lights.

“It was clear from the testimony and evidence presented, that Officer Mescal did not observe a violation of Codified Ordinance 337.16(c) by the defendant herein on the date and time in question. The act of turning on one’s headlights on one occassion [sic] did not violate the ordinance as it currently exists.”

On October 16, 1992, appellee filed objections to the magistrate’s order. Finding appellee’s objections well taken, the trial court entered a judgment of guilty on June 1, 1993. The court offered no explanation. Appellant was fined $ 50 plus court costs.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal with a single assignment of error:

“The court erred in its application of Village of Kirtland Hills Ordinance 337.16(c) as it relates to the conduct of the defendant.”

In the sole assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of violating Kirtland Hills Ordinance 337.16(c). Appellant argues that the magistrate correctly decided that the ordinance was meant to prohibit the use of “flashing lights” on all but certain emergency and specialty vehicles. Appellant contends that the ordinance was not intended to prohibit a driver from flashing his headlights on and off in order to signal another driver.

It is a well-established rule of statutory interpretation that words and phrases must be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage. R.C. 1.42. Additionally, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held:

“In matters of construction, it is the duty of this court to give effect to the words used, not to delete words used or to insert words not used. ( Columbus-Suburban Coach Lines v. Pub. Util. Comm. [1969], 20 Ohio St.2d 125, 127, 49 O.O.2d 445, 446, 254 N.E.2d 8, 9, followed.” Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Cleveland (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 50, 524 N.E.2d 441, at paragraph three of the syllabus.

Applying the rules of grammar and common usage to Kirtland Hills Ordinance 337.16(c), it is apparent that appellant’s act of flashing his headlights is not covered by the plain language of the ordinance. If the legislature intended to prohibit the type of activity that appellant was engaged in, the grammatically correct way to express that intent would be to say: “The flashing of one’s headlights is prohibited” rather than “flashing lights are prohibited.” It is the lights themselves, rather than the act of flashing one’s lights, that are the subject of the prohibition.

Furthermore, the ordinance in question is titled, “Limitation on Flashing, Oscillating or Rotating Lights.” The ordinance prohibits flashing lights on all vehicles except emergency vehicles and various other specialty vehicles such as snow plows, rural mail delivery vehicles, and funeral escort vehicles. It is clear that all of the vehicles that fall within the exception to the general prohibition utilize roof-mounted lights that flash, oscillate or rotate. Therefore, the implication is that the prohibition is aimed towards the use of similar roof-mounted lights on ordinary passenger vehicles.

To read the ordinance in accordance with appellee’s argument would make illegal the flashing of headlights in all situations, including some useful and historically lawful instances. For example, the flashing of headlights can be used to signal another driver to turn on his or her headlights. The flashing of headlights is also used on highways to let the driver of a passing vehicle know that it is safe to move back into the right-hand lane. It is doubtful that the flashing of headlights in these examples was intended to be outlawed by the legislature, but that is exactly the result if appellee’s argument is accepted.

We note that Ohio courts have previously held that the act of flashing one’s headlights so as to alert oncoming drivers of a radar trap does not constitute the offense of obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duties, where there was no proof that the warned vehicles were speeding prior to the warning. Akron v. Matteson (M.C.1972), 63 O.O.2d 146, 299 N.E.2d 315; Warrensville Hts. v. Wason (1976), 50 Ohio App.2d 21, 4 O.O.3d 12, 361 N.E.2d 546.
Based upon the foregoing analysis, the trial court erred in determining that Kirtland Hills Ordinance 337.16(c) applied to the acts of appellant.

Appellant’s sole assignment of error is well taken.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court to enter judgment in favor of appellant.

Judgment reversed.

(Emphasis added).

Village of Kirtland Hills v. Garcia, 96 Ohio App. 3d 99; 644 N.E.2d 691; 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 2909 (1994)

[Eleusis]

@Elendil's Heir

In 15 years of criminal and traffic practice in Ohio, including five years as a magistrate handling (among many other things) traffic cases, I’ve never heard of anyone ever actually being cited for flashing a speed-trap warning to other motorists. I’m aware of no Ohio law that would prohibit such a warning. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some annoyed cops will warn or chew out motorists who do it.

IMHO, and in general, regardless of the state (I have driven through almost half of them) it usually amounts to the local jurisdiction, and the mood (imho) of the officer in question, though most State Police seem to be more professional.

I tend to think, that as usual, the more ignorant/stupid cops will you pull you over, assuming some perceived infraction. Usually, after they illegally search your car, they’ll let you go.

Unless, of course, you refuse the drug search. Then they call the dog unit, you get frustrated while they berate you like a criminal for another hour, and then they show up and find nothing. Then they get all pissed off and become hardasses about “warning other motorists”.

Also in certain areas your Blackness may come into account :smack:

It’s possible you could recieve day or two in jail, and “on monday, when the judge gets back”, you get released. It’s just another technical loophole for cops to be total dicks abusing their ignorance and power.

[Ignatz]

It depends on the jurisdiction and whether or not there is a law against that activity. The flashing of lights would be easier to enforce than a “free speech” sign, I would think.

Where I lived until a year ago, the police would place a notice in the newspaper about where they would be doing radar that day or that week and they still reaped in the bucks from the speeders. They also would hide in big cardboard boxes and shoot thru a hole in it and they would get up over the road in a bucket truck and wear hard hats as disguises, with “chaser” cars downstream. Perfectly legal. Fun, fun, fun.

[DSYoungEsq]

In short, from what we have seen, everyone has heard of this assertion by police officers, many have experienced it directly, but whenever it ends up in court, the courts recognize it for what it is and disallow it.

I have never thought it necessary to warn someone of a “speed trap.” After all, if they are going so fast that they will end up caught and ticketed by radar, I’d rather they get caught and ticketed, as opposed to facilitating their lawlessness. And I always remember that the reason someone flashed at me was an officer ahead only when I see the officer ahead. But, then, speed traps don’t ever bother me, because I remain within (or very close to) the speed limit. Which, I do understand, makes me a member of a very small minority of drivers.

[erkme73]

I’m hoping those that contributed to this thread are still subscribed in some form.

I can assure you Florida Highway Patrol has an active policy to cite drivers who warn others of police radar. I just go popped earlier this month. The officer did not know that I had the entire incident recorded (video and audio). A link to the stop is here:

Cop issues ticket for warning others of speed trap

For those that think officers don’t have the time or motivation to go after petty ‘crimes’ like this, let me remind you - the two FHP cruisers in this stop did over 102 MPH to catch me within 1 minute of me turning my headlights on and off.

There are many pro-law websites where LEO really talks nasty about the practice “I’d have them arrested for obstruction. The charge won’t stick, but they’ll get a free ride”… or “it’s a gift that keeps on giving” referencing the insurance rate increase.

They take it very personally - that it’s disrespectful. They then have a score to settle. One even states with pride “I’ve let speeders go to get the punk that’s warning people”… fellow posts agree.

That being said, in my video, I 'm accused of IMPROPER USE OF HIGH-BEAMS. The trooper refused to listen to my explanation (bogus or not), and insisted I used my brights. When I tried to show the difference in intensity between off/on and on/brights, he got even more offended.

The points all of you have made regarding speech issues, I think, are the most legitimate. The statute with which I was cited 316.2397.7 forbids the use of ‘flashing lights’ on normal vehicles. Just as in the Kirtland Hills case cited above, the term “flashing lights” refers to a type of light - not the act of “flashing one’s lights”.

The trooper is trying to prevent others from communicating. That’s a no-no. Court date has not been assigned yet.

I have submitted this to the ACLU under free speech infringement - though I’ve heard nothing back. Also, you may notice that when I asked the Trooper “What is illegal with warning other motorists” he did not answer the question. Quick answer: It isn’t.

Like to hear comments.

Thanks…

[erkme73]

Sorry folks… Rather than re-hashing a 2YO thread, I’ve started a new one here:

Ticketed for flashing headlights... (video)

Please DO NOT REPLY TO ME IN THIS THREAD… USE THE LINK ABOVE

[Colibri]

Since this thread is so old, and erkme73 has asked that comments be restricted to the linked thread, I am going to close this one.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator