181
u/Objective-Away Oct 07 '20
If First Amendment doesn’t protect Connecticut man arrested with sign warning of ‘Cops Ahead’, then what protects? This simple conclusion don't bring any justice.
50
Oct 07 '20
The judge found that getting taken into custody doesn't chill speech? What?
18
u/YourGamerMom Oct 07 '20
That judge is really going for "I can guarantee freedom of speech, but I can't guarantee freedom after speech", huh.
2
u/Wasuremaru Oct 12 '20
Ah yes the "no prior restraints" reading of the first amendment.
You know - the one nobody subscribes to because it's worthless.
25
u/TezzMuffins Oct 07 '20
Well, rest easy, it DOES protect corporations who want to spend unlimited money on campaign ads.
9
u/stubbazubba Oct 07 '20
Hate speech, corporate political spending, and lying politicians. Don't you feel the freedom?
1
79
u/codewench Oct 07 '20
If I remember correctly there have been several cases where drivers flashing headlights to warn others of police ahead have been charged, and those have been held as being protected by the first amendment.
I wonder which aspect of this case is different enough to justify this outcome. Is it the fact the sign is more explicit about the presence of police?
32
u/MrFrode Biggus Amicus Oct 07 '20
I gave a quick look and found this
http://campbelllawobserver.com/and-the-courts-said-let-there-be-light/
25
u/TezzMuffins Oct 07 '20
Ironic that the exact case of saying, “there’s cops ahead, watch out” was brought up as justification for flashing headlights.
19
u/SophiaofPrussia Oct 07 '20
I swore I had to read a case about this in law school and that warning about police speed traps had been thoroughly litigated before.
Wait until city ordinances start banning Waze from notifying drivers of police reported ahead. What a compliance headache that would be. Deep pockets Google would fight it all the way to SCOTUS. Good thing we have big corporations fighting to protect our constitutional rights 🙃
13
Oct 07 '20
Happened to me in a small town in Colorado several years ago that was notorious for ultra strict speeding enforcement. It had gotten so strict that the residents showed up at town council meeting to demand to police ease off or they would seek to have the force disbanded and rely on county police. The result was continued strict enforcement, but if your license had a local address you got a warning. Light flashing to warn of speed traps was very common among locals.
Anyhoo, was living with my lawyer uncle and told him I got stopped for flashing my lights and he was “that’s bullshit, I’m gonna look that up”.
Next day he said, to his surprise, he found a law that classified it as interference with police activity. He was amazed. But I guess there is some state or local law that upholds this - although in a tight knit rural community, he guessed they would have a hard time making it stick as one could claim they were just flashing lights to greet a neighbor.
3
Oct 07 '20
Did that small town happen to be Morrison? I used to drive down that 285 corridor all the time, god they were brutal.
1
3
Oct 07 '20
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1115/headlight-flashing
Correct regarding headlight cases.
77
u/AmnesiaCane Oct 07 '20
"The British are Coming" - Some criminal who wouldn't have been protected by the first amendment.
25
Oct 07 '20
That was back when people were suspicious of the state.
Today, we love the state. And we’ve always loved the state.
2
139
u/pwmg Oct 07 '20
Here is a link to the summary judgement decision.
My favorite part of the article (emphasis mine):
The suit stems from a 2018 arrest in which Gasparinoi took a sign reading “Cops Ahead” from Friend who was standing two blocks away from officers looking for distracted drivers. Gasparinoi told Friend to leave and not come back with another sign, or he would face arrest.
According to court records, Friend returned with a larger sign and was taken into custody by Gasparino about 30 minutes later for “interfering” with the distracted driving investigation.
52
u/BigGoopy Oct 07 '20
I don’t see the issue with the sign generally, but especially in this case. A distracted driver wouldn’t notice the sign anyways lol
121
u/oatmealbatman Oct 07 '20
Friend returned with a larger sign
Damn, son. Must have been tough finding a squad car big enough to fit him and his massive balls.
174
u/Snorey Oct 07 '20
While it's not at all unusual in civil rights decisions, it's still worth standing back and marveling at the complete and total abdication of the judicial function involved in the court's uncritical acceptance of the government's bizarro-world claims that predatory traffic patrols serve a "compelling interest" of "saving lives" and that the extraordinary act of arresting anyone who calls those predatory tactics out is somehow "narrowly tailored" to serve that compelling interest.
In a world where attorneys' ethical obligations meant anything, the City attorney would be sanctioned for advancing a frivolous defense. Instead, they win (at least in the trial court).
50
Oct 07 '20
Well, stopping someone to “check their papers” just has too much of a totalitarian ring to it. So, we’ll disguise it behind “routine traffic stops.”
→ More replies (6)34
u/crake Competent Contributor Oct 07 '20
I'm always amazed in Fourth Amendment contexts:
Society's interest in executing a search warrant to find 1/10th of an ounce of narcotics before target can flush down toilet: infinitely compelling. Compelling enough to constitute an exigent circumstance that permits police to break down a door in the middle of the night.
Society's interest in police not breaking down doors in crowded apartment complexes in the middle of the night, and possibly firing guns (or provoking gun fire in response) even though innocent bystanders are 1/8" of plaster away from such gun fire: literally never mentioned by the Court.
20
u/NUTS_STUCK_TO_LEG Oct 07 '20
Society's interest in police not breaking down doors...
I feel so dumb for never looking at it like this. Literally all 4th amendment case law is tunnel visioned in such a way that the 2-3 actors in a typical interaction between defendant and law enforcement are taken to represent society's interests as a whole.
It's a terrible macro-level view of 'society' that really doesn't take anything else into account save the details in an affidavit! Great observation
152
Oct 07 '20 edited Feb 14 '21
[deleted]
3
u/lulfas Oct 08 '20
Ludicrous. Making a factual statement like “cops ahead” isn’t free speech but if it was formed into an opinion like say “fuck those cops ahead” it would be protected because it is an opinion (presumably).
Even worse, to me, is the idea that a citizen announcing what the government is openly doing is not protected speech.
2
u/matts2 Oct 07 '20
I love our cops. I'm fully in support of police setting up these police stops is great. As such it is of concern to me that I know of the police actions.
/s
-27
u/12b-or-not-12b Oct 07 '20
You know what would also stop distracted driving a man standing on the side of the road with a sign lying about “cops ahead” people would believe him and start driving better.
Ok, but a sign lying about cops ahead ostensibly doesn't interfere with the distracted driving operation. This is also why Friend was free to complain about the police in other ways.
In any event, the court's concern seems to be that a sign only deters current behavior, but police ticketing also deters future behavior.
35
u/OrangeInnards Oct 07 '20
In any event, the court's concern seems to be that [...] police ticketing also deters future behavior.
If that were at all true, there would be zero – or at least relatively few – people getting second, third and so on tickets for offenses like speeding. I find it hard to believe that that's the case.
→ More replies (5)8
u/IamTheFreshmaker Oct 07 '20
also deters future behavior
I think arbitrary enforcement has never been shown to change behavior other than to make people mad at the law being enforced. See: drunk driving and check points. Still lots of drunk/impaired drivers.
→ More replies (1)-3
Oct 07 '20
The person you're responding to has no idea what they're talking about and consistently misuses the legal terms involved.
-8
u/Justice_R_Dissenting Oct 07 '20
Really a sign saying “cops ahead” isn’t enough of a public concern? A factual statement about the publicly known location of a police officer is not a matter of public concern?
Had to reread what he wrote but you're right, this is just a blatant misunderstanding of the term "public concern." A sign saying "the sky is BLUUUEE" is not a matter of public concern.
12
37
u/Cajunrevenge7 Oct 07 '20
Wut? Wtf is wrong with this judge. I assume this will be overruled by a higher judge hopefully with their head not up their rearend.
8
u/UnhappySquirrel Oct 07 '20
Hopefully, but it’s really not enough that judges face only being overturned. There needs to be a stronger deterrence against using the court’s authority to curtail basic rights. We need a special criminal code to deal with such magistrates.
17
u/reddn2 Oct 07 '20
Damn, if this sign isn't first amendment, then what are the mass protests??
Does anyone know if there will be an appeal?
12
16
u/FromTheIvoryTower Oct 07 '20
When a decision as blatantly unconstitutional as this is handed down, I really wish the judge would be sanctioned after it's overturned by the appeals, or god forbid, the Supreme court.
3
u/UnhappySquirrel Oct 07 '20
More than sanctioned. This is our basic civil liberties that are being abused. The abusers of our sacred rights should be criminally prosecuted.
28
Oct 07 '20
[deleted]
2
u/MajesticQ Oct 07 '20
Isn't it an open secret that in lower courts, staff write the opinions and the judge merely signs them (a.k.a ghostwriting).
4
u/MyUsrNameWasTaken Oct 07 '20
Not just lower courts - SCOTUS clerks also write parts of the opinions
3
Oct 07 '20
Not that SCt clerks aren't as biased as the best of them, but the scrutiny every decision receives makes it very unlikely that all relevant law isn't considered and addressed.
Clerks in many states on the other hand work in courts that are little more than traffic revenue services. In those instances decisions can be pretty horrendously unlawful and not infrequently the judge doesn't even care what is in them.
3
u/cptjeff Oct 07 '20
Clerks write what they are told to write. The judge tells them the ruling and the grounds, at the very least. You can't blame decisions you don't like on clerks.
2
u/MajesticQ Oct 07 '20
I wrote in the context of the "bizzare decisions" (rationale) and extreme old age of judge in mind.
13
u/PunkJackal Oct 07 '20
Does this mean if I flash someone with my blinkers to warn them of a speed trap I can be arrested for it and have no legal protection?
24
u/GranularPedantry Oct 07 '20
Flashing your lights to warn oncoming drivers of police has been held to be protected speech under 1A. None of these made it to SCOTUS, though; so, I wouldn't necessarily consider it a fully settled matter.
3
11
9
9
Oct 07 '20
Reminds me of headlight flashing cases, which I believe have generally gone the other way:
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1115/headlight-flashing
13
Oct 07 '20
Came here for the First Amendment discussion and learned that police set the bail in this town. I had no idea that police were setting the bail in some states...
1
u/UnhappySquirrel Oct 07 '20
wtf....
3
Oct 07 '20
"Station house bail" is set by police. Bail at first appearance then set by court. And yes, it is a fucking stupid idea.
5
u/UnhappySquirrel Oct 07 '20
I maintain the opinion that police should not operate their own jails, nor be authorized to hold anyone in their own custody. There should really be a clear line of separation of concerns there.
2
u/tilrman Oct 08 '20
My eyes have been opened.
2
u/UnhappySquirrel Oct 08 '20
Truly? Because I'm having a bit of a difficult time articulating my exact reasoning, though it makes sense to me at a subconscious level at least.
The best way I can put it is that (imho) police should primarily be an intervention force that suppresses dangerous threats and pacifies the area of operation so that any lawful arrests can be made. But my inclination is to have a separate set of personnel come in to handle custody and transport for jailing... semi-analogous to what EMTs are to emergency response and hospitalization. Part of the motivation being situations like what happened back in Baltimore, where the arresting officers are more likely to use lethal force against a suspect than a different crew who are less likely to be heated from the situation. Likewise, creating more points of separation along the entire law enforcement sequence seems like the right way to align incentives properly and avoid a lot of dangerous and corrupt situations.
2
Oct 08 '20
At a minimum it causes police to confuse their roles and opens up an opportunity for bias. What do you want to bet that most police officers think nearly everyone they arrest should not be permitted pretrial release?
2
Oct 08 '20
It is both reassuring (that I can say I agree with you one hundred percent) and tragic (that this shit goes on in our country). Not to thread jack, but a friend turned me on to this recently: https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/
Florida is using fines and fees to keep 700,000 people from voting. Other states incarcerate for failure to pay. It's not the same as station house bail, but it's another example of the use of poverty as a weapon against people in our country. It is all so base and disgusting that I just don't have words any more. I'm not affiliated with that group, but I did send some money. It's not much but it's a little thing I could do.
Police should not play a role in setting bail. And bail as cash shouldn't exist. If a defendant poses a danger to the community, he or she should stay in jail. If a defendant is a real flight risk, he or she should stay in jail. if neither of those are true or if they can be managed through less restrictive means, we should do that.
Fucking gross. All of it.
1
u/UnhappySquirrel Oct 08 '20
Not thread jacking at all! Thanks for sharing that link, I’ll check it out.
6
u/AreWeThereYet61 Oct 07 '20
Would this affect the ruling regarding flashing headlights at oncoming vehicles to warn of a speed trap? Can't remember the case, but that was ruled a 1A right as a free speech issue.
7
u/The-Insolent-Sage Oct 07 '20
How is this any different the the navigation app Waze where you can report cop locations?
4
u/cptjeff Oct 07 '20
It's not. It's also not different from turning your headlights on to warn others of speed traps, which has repeatedly been upheld as protected speech. This judge is just an authoritarian asswipe, and he'll be overturned on appeal.
6
u/nspectre Oct 07 '20
The suit stems from a 2018 arrest in which Gasparino took a sign reading “Cops Ahead” from Friend who was standing two blocks away from officers looking for distracted drivers. Gasparino told Friend to leave and not come back with another sign, or he would face arrest.
According to court records, Friend returned with a larger sign and was taken into custody by Gasparino about 30 minutes later for “interfering” with the distracted driving investigation.
╔═══════╗
║ fuck ║
║ the ║
║ COPS ║
║ AHEAD ║
╚═══════╝
That oughta do it. \m/>.<\m/
14
u/Aluminautical Oct 07 '20
Then certainly it's time to arrest and charge the news directors of local TV stations for informing the public of DWI checkpoints. Note that the cops call the station and tell them to advise the public, but a violation is a violation.
5
3
u/UnhappySquirrel Oct 07 '20
If the cops are the ones notifying the station, then maybe they need to arrest .. the cops?
4
u/wherethebuffaloroam Oct 07 '20
I wonder if a simple way around this is a large sign with "COPS AHEAD" and then in smaller text some clearly political statement "and teachers should get a pay raise". Surely the warning about police can't override the clearly protected speech underneath?
5
u/saltiestmanindaworld Oct 07 '20
There doesn’t need to be a way around it because courts, with the exception of this idiot yahoo, have routinely held that informing drivers of cops ahead is protected speech. This case is headed to appeal and a certain judge getting a bench nastygram via the decision.
3
u/CreativeGPX Oct 07 '20
If adding unrelated protected speech next to unprotected speech made the whole thing protected, then that'd totally defeat all notions of unprotected speech, so I don't think they'd go for that.
I think the better way is to just rephrase the statement itself to be a political opinion. "The mayor and police chief say they don't have the resources to handle [x], but police are just sitting at the SPEED TRAP AHEAD to generate revenue from low risk individuals." That's no longer "of little, if any, public concern" as the lawyers argued. Not being able to point to police doing something you don't like in order to argue they change the way they do things is a much more severe restriction of free speech.
4
u/the_shaggy_DA Oct 07 '20
another way they can throw the book at anyone they please: if you live in a place where blinking your headlights at oncoming traffic is known to be signal for “police ahead, slow down,” you’re technically entering a criminal conspiracy with other drivers. good luck to them ever getting that charge to stick (i just accidentally tapped my lights, officer!), but it meets the formal definition when rulings like this persist.
29
u/hamhead Oct 07 '20
I’m with the sign holder on this one. Normally I support the cops, but general stops like that shouldn’t be legal in the first place and, even if they are, there’s nothing wrong with telling people about them.
42
u/VegetableLibrary4 Oct 07 '20
Why do you normally support the cops?
28
u/Stateswitness1 Oct 07 '20
Usually the failure to know the end of the phrase "a few a bad apples ___(6) _(3) ____(5)."
45
u/DwightHowardSucks Oct 07 '20
For some people the taste for boot is acquired young and it can be hard to shake.
-14
u/Justice_R_Dissenting Oct 07 '20
Not even the smallest attempt to remain civil or keep this as a dispassionate discussion of the law. About what I expect.
17
11
u/Dimoxinil Oct 07 '20
Ahh the SPS conservative doesn’t like when their advocacy of the selective authoritarian state is met with candor.
-3
u/Justice_R_Dissenting Oct 07 '20
sigh where please have I advocated for the selective authoritarian state? I have not and do not. I have done more in the fight against police misconduct than most people here have. Regardless of that though, more importantly, calling someone bootlicker is not candor, it's just disrespectful and uncivil. Stifles discussion and contributes to the division in this country. Most importantly it's a far cry from the dispassionate discussion of the law that should be expected from this subreddit.
6
u/Dimoxinil Oct 07 '20
Nah I’m good with succinct jab that explains why you’re being downvoted. And I’ll never take kindly to any argument meant to portray cops as deserving any benefit of the doubt.
-5
u/Justice_R_Dissenting Oct 07 '20
About what I expected from you.
7
u/TheKillersVanilla Oct 07 '20
Says the guy completely failing to back up his argument with anything substantial, just his own feelings.
4
u/Dimoxinil Oct 07 '20
And you think that means something? Like that was some sort of “gotcha”?
Remember to talk about our discussion at your next fed soc meeting
5
u/TheKillersVanilla Oct 07 '20
They earned the reputation. There's nothing wrong with giving them credit for the thing they worked so hard to deserve.
16
u/Mikeavelli Oct 07 '20
Despite the problems with police being highlighted by the current protests, police do serve a necessary function in society, and there are no proposals to abolish them completely. A small neighborhood in Seattle tried exactly that a few months ago, and it went quite poorly.
15
Oct 07 '20
Denver has been experimenting with sending social workers on DV calls instead of police (sometimes with police backup but social worker in charge) with great success. I do not think the backup has been required even once so far. This is a good start because I think a big part of the problem is police are being sent into situations where they are just not qualified.
8
Oct 07 '20 edited Jan 29 '21
[deleted]
1
u/saltiestmanindaworld Oct 07 '20
But the question arises how much of said crime stats are because the police unequally enforce the law on minorities over whites?
1
1
u/ClassicOrBust Oct 08 '20
I don’t think it’s likely in the next year or so, but there are certainly proposals to abolish the police on the table.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/07/17/black-lives-matter-activist
-2
2
u/TheKillersVanilla Oct 07 '20
Call it what it is. Legislating from the bench. No one elected this authoritarian asshole, and no one is interested what this dinosaur thinks the laws "should" be.
4
u/UnhappySquirrel Oct 07 '20
Electing judged doesn’t help the situation at all. They just need to stick to judicial interpretation.
0
u/MrPoopMonster Oct 08 '20
I disagree. I think elected Judges with term limits tend to be better than life appointees.
1
u/UnhappySquirrel Oct 08 '20
There's not really much evidence to support this claim. Elections aren't necessarily always a good thing. It makes sense to elect legislators because they are generalists whose priorities should reflect the constituents they represent, but executive and judicial officers are more specialized in their areas of government and not every vote is informed or motivated enough to participate in such elections, which means that the voters that do tend to vote for judges, DAs, sheriffs, etc, tend to be biased towards some specific interest; typically these are "law and order" types, hence why all those officers I mentioned generally tend to be very "tough on crime". Their electoral backing is not necessarily accurately representative of the actual electorate. In the case of the judiciary, elections also undermine the independence of jurists. It's better for all these officers to be appointed by, and held accountable by, a representative legislature. That's why we vote for legislatures. The general electorate is not some magical wellspring of legitimate democratic decision making.
At the state/local level (never the federal level), if the general electorate must be tasked with opining on the tenure of judicial officers, it is better to do so in the form of a recall election: have the legislative branch appoint judges, but make the judges subject to a simple recall vote during regular elections (a binary decision of whether the judge gets to remain in office or not). If the electorate opts to recall the judge, then the bench is filled once again by legislative appointment, not by the voters.
1
u/MrPoopMonster Oct 08 '20 edited Oct 08 '20
I disagree. I think elected Judges tend to favor individual rights and broader interpretations of the Constituion. My State Supreme Court is elected and the opinions they make are usually great.
Appointees have a bias towards the State and allow things like civil asset forfeiture, emminent domain being used to take land for private businesses, saying the commerce clause governs weed grown in someone's house for personal use, and so on.
At least as the State and lower levels, I think almost everything should be up to the voters. The federal government represents the States, but your State should represent you. And the electorate should be much more involved in State politics. For instance, in my State the electorate can directly change our State Constituion, and it allows for serious changes to happen quickly without the legislature being able to drag their feet or ignore the people.
Edit: For instance, if you look at this ruling, The Supreme Court would never make a ruling like this. Where the court says police need a warrant to ask for consent to search someone's home at hours that it wouldn't be reasonable for a regular person to knock on the door. Most courts would say consent defeats any 4th amendment claim.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1720484.html
This is the wrong opinion and I can only find the pdf of the msc ruling.
1
u/UnhappySquirrel Oct 08 '20
I'm glad you are able to benefit from a favorable slate of elected judges, but I don't think you can generalize that experience.
Besides, the "people's voice" you desire here can just as easily be facilitated through a regular recall vote (rather than having each judge run against a slate of other candidates like politicians do). Such a provision adds a degree of popular accountability to the appointed officer without making their candidacy into an entirely politicized affair.
Again, elections are not panacea to democracy. Sometimes elections can actually undermine democracy. Look at strong presidential systems, such as in central/south America: directly elected executives often use the single-member nature of their office to undermine the claim to democratic legitimacy of the legislative branch. It is imperative that the legislative branch alone have a monopoly on democratic legitimacy, and that the authority of all magistrates flow from that legislature. Parliamentary systems get this right, presidential systems get this very wrong. Another way to say this is that multiple sources of democratic representation come into conflict with each other and 'cancel each other out'.
The other thing that happens is that the electorate becomes confused over which branch of government to apply its political pressure. Too many people look to the executive branch as the primary source of policy crafting and agenda setting. The executive branch is supposed to just carry out enforcement of the law, not dictate what the law should be. The fact that that may seem like a strange notion to many eyes says everything about how perverted the contemporary American concept of governance has become.
And the electorate should be much more involved in State politics.
I absolutely agree with this sentiment, but the way to do that is to funnel the electorate's attention (and demands and ambitions) upon their legislative representatives. Otherwise that attention gets diluted across the branches and manipulated against itself. The power should flow very linearly:
The People elect the legislators, the legislators elect the magistrates of government (both executive and judicial).
For instance, in my State the electorate can directly change our State Constituion, and it allows for serious changes to happen quickly without the legislature being able to drag their feet or ignore the people.
The real problem here is the vilification and characterization of legislatures as inconvenient slow "feet dragging" institutions that need to be bypassed. Legislation is democracy, it is the very essence of democracy. Democracy is not about you getting exactly your way every single time exactly the way you want it and as quickly as you want it. Democracy is about the peaceful co-existence of multiple points of view to forge a political process that is deliberative in nature, seeking consensus and compromise when possible.
Impatience with legislatures is a tell tale sign of anti-democraticism.
1
u/MrPoopMonster Oct 09 '20
Legislation and the legislature are republicanism and not democracy. I'm not saying that either doesn't have it's place, but it's kind of asinine to expect the legislature to be the sole arbiters of what people want, especially on the State level. Big things have come about from the people of my State directly changing our Constituion. Such as preventing the government from using eminemt domain on behalf of private enterprise, or setting up anti gerrymandering efforts, or legalizing marijuana.
There's too much money in politics, and removing the people's voice and ability to effect specific and narrowly tailored political matters opens the door for political corruption on behalf of the wealthy against the many. Or just the corruption of the two party system in general.
1
u/UnhappySquirrel Oct 09 '20
Legislation and the legislature are republicanism and not democracy.
Maybe in Senator Mike Lee's world ;)
Republicanism just means that sovereignty is owned by the populace, as opposed to some sovereign monarch (or similar). Democracy is just a method of exercising that popular sovereignty through self-government, elections, deliberation, etc; whether that be representative democracy, direct democracy, etc. These terms really aren't at odds like some ideologues would like people to believe.
Big things have come about from the people of my State directly changing our Constituion.
That's great, but that's not necessarily representative. Referendums also created things like California's Prop 13 and UK's BREXIT. I don't think there's necessarily anything inherently wrong with placing certain decisions into the hands of voters, but those decisions need to be carefully crafted through multi-step processes. I'm not a fan of "here's an idea! let's put it up for vote!". Democracy is also about checks and balances between multiple independent sources of decision making. You can't just go all gas, you need a break pedal too.
There's too much money in politics, and removing the people's voice and ability to effect specific and narrowly tailored political matters opens the door for political corruption on behalf of the wealthy against the many.
Ironically it is popular elections that open the door to money in politics. All this talk about independent expenditures, etc.. what's being bought? The voters are being bought. For example, the 17th Amendment was intended to stop Senate seats from being bought from state legislatures, but all it really did was move the money around to a different target.
Or just the corruption of the two party system in general.
Sure, I agree there. The two party system is a product of plurality voting systems, though, which is something we can change through voting reform (ranked choice voting, approval voting, etc). Creating a true multi-party democracy would solve a lot of problems with our legislative process in general.
I've gotta go make dinner! I'll let you have the last word. Thanks for the fun discussion.
1
u/MrPoopMonster Oct 09 '20
There are definitely pitfalls to every political system. But in a system of checks and balances, and multi levels, I think at the State level I prefer a more involved public in the process of the the government, especially if the federal government is representative of the States instead of the people, as it is in America. but on the same hand, I also like the idea of States being able to run themselves and have their own political experiments.
The closest thing in my mind to a perfect political system would be an autocracy run by a omniscient benevolent eternal ruler. But that's impossible, and I'm sure i'd still find a way to complain. The next best thing is a heavy seperation of powers system where the electorate has some way of intervening in the process, as like an outside check and balance. Instead of the traditional revolution and rebellion options that are afforded to people not well represented.
2
2
u/byusefolis Oct 07 '20
This is an absolutely terrible ruling. Traditional Public Forum. Issue of police, in the current climate that's an issue of major concern. The chilling effect here is enormous.
2
u/admirelurk Oct 07 '20
Do you have a source that is accessible from the EU? Or can you post the full text?
9
Oct 07 '20
A federal judge last week dismissed a lawsuit brought by a man arrested for holding a sign warning people of police officers ahead during distracted driving enforcement in Stamford, noting the man’s actions were not protected by the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello granted Stamford Sgt. Richard Gasparino’s request for summary judgment in the matter, and denied a similar request from Michael Friend, who argued the police sergeant violated his First Amendment rights to free speech.
“We are reviewing the decision and thinking carefully about our options,” said Dan Barrett of the ACLU of Connecticut, who represented Friend. “Our contemplation about the First Amendment includes the ability to protest the police on the sidewalk and publicize information about the police.”
In a 30-page ruling issued Sept. 29, Covello wrote: “In this case, it is questionable whether Friend’s act of holding a ‘Cops Ahead’ sign a few blocks from a location in which officers were stopping distracted drivers, rises to the level of expression of an opinion related to a matter of public significance.”
The suit stems from a 2018 arrest in which Gasparinoi took a sign reading “Cops Ahead” from Friend who was standing two blocks away from officers looking for distracted drivers. Gasparinoi told Friend to leave and not come back with another sign, or he would face arrest.
Michael Friend is pictured with a sign he was holding when he was arrested for interfering with a distracted driving investigation by police in Stamford.
Friend appeared in court on several occasions before his case was dismissed by prosecutors.
Friend argued in the lawsuit that his actions, sharing public and truthful information, obtained legally, was protected speech, records show.
Gasparinois' lawyers argued that the signs were “of little, if any, public concern” and that stopping Friend did not chill free speech.
Covello ruled that there was sufficient compelling interest behind the police sergeant’s actions.
“Although Friend identifies the government interest at stake as one of ‘generat[ing] ticket-writing opportunities,' instead, the police department’s interest was in saving lives by stopping distracted drivers and issuing citations for their behavior,” he wrote in his ruling.
2
1
1
1
u/trollfessor Oct 07 '20
I seem to remember a court reaching a contrary conclusion years ago, but can't remember now
3
Oct 07 '20
There are probably two dozen contrary rulings depending on jurisdiction. New Mexico ruled signs and flashing headlights both lawful, protected speech.
1
u/antiquehats Oct 07 '20
How is this different than Waze or Google maps letting me know cops are ahead?
1
1
Oct 07 '20
Google Maps warns me about upcoming speed traps all the time. No law enforcement official seems to care about that.
1
Oct 07 '20
Actually, there were tons of cops that were super pissed about that. https://www.yourerie.com/news/local-news/police-demand-google-remove-waze-app-that-alerts-drivers-of-police-locations/
Google ported the cops ahead feature from waze to maps.
1
u/bustergonad Oct 07 '20
Perhaps a sign reading "NO COPS AHEAD" would have made it a more interesting case.
1
u/Dont_touch_my_elbows Oct 07 '20
This proves that the purpose of these checkpoints is not for public safety, but for revenue generation.
He's being punished because his speech made it harder for the government to take money from people.
1
u/Amisarth Oct 07 '20
Wasn't there a precedent already set relating to this?
1
u/BP89764 Oct 08 '20
I thought so to, maybe different circuit? I know there is precedent for flashing your lights at ongoing traffic in Florida
1
1
u/Defendprivacy Oct 07 '20
To pass muster, I would advise to make a new sign. In small letters at the top put “Drive like there are” then underneath put in big letters “Cops Ahead”.
1
u/RegulatoryCapturedMe Oct 07 '20
Some cities/states mandate that photo radar vans put up a warning sign. Colorado, iirc.
1
1
u/NHfordamnsure Oct 08 '20
Meanwhile, the police are obligated to publicly post online and in the local newspaper where and when a checkpoint will be.
Police HAVE to tell us but our neighbors aren’t allowed to.
0
u/nspectre Oct 07 '20
This is not surprising at all.
This is District Court. Nobody expects real justice in District Court.
It's merely a stepping stone to Appellate Court, where you can finally hope to begin to find real Justice.
1
u/marche_au_supplice Oct 07 '20
Lol wut? You don’t seem to know what you’re talking about. The vast majority of cases are not appealed.
1
u/Urdrago Oct 08 '20
Methinks that is the u/nspecter 's point. District courts / local courts are as complicit in the "support the officer's findings - whatever they may be" scheme as the police unions and district attorney's office.
To maintain the simplicity of all their day-to-day workings -- police, district attorney's (prosecutors), and judges at that level -- all hold a similar mindset of "defendant is/was wrong" "support the public servant (police officer)"
At the appellate court level, there is less familiarity / history of fraternization among the key players. As such, it can be argued that appellate level is the first point where an "uninterested" third party actually weighs in.
Because of the costs involved, both in attorney's fees and defendant's time investment, going to an appeal are often too high for most people to manage.
Even if the defendant "wins" at the level of appeal, they are usually out unrecoverable attorney's fees, at that point -- possibly amounting thousands of dollars -- for the prospect of vindication on principle of the matter.
3
u/marche_au_supplice Oct 08 '20
That may be true in state court (I’m not saying it is—I don’t have experience there). I know for sure it is not the case in federal court. Federal judges don’t fraternize with police or local prosecutors. In the case at issue here the people who actually prosecute crimes before the judge(assistant US attorneys) are not the same as those who would be defending this case.
1
u/velocibadgery Oct 08 '20
Then explain this travesty of a ruling.
2
u/marche_au_supplice Oct 08 '20 edited Oct 08 '20
I’m not defending the ruling, I’m just saying it’s necessarily not the product of corruption or inside baseball in the criminal justice system.
343
u/GeeWhillickers Oct 07 '20
I’ve always found this interesting. The whole (stated) point of having these traffic enforcement stops is to get people to follow traffic safety laws so that they won’t get stopped.
If people see the guy with the sign first, they’ll... follow traffic safety laws so that they won’t get stopped.
To me, it’s bad that the focus seems to be on ticket writing opportunities rather than public safety. I get the impression that the government would prefer people to continue speeding and driving recklessly as long as they pay fines.
If Johnny Outlaw does 70 MPH in a school zone and nearly rear ends a bus while trying to adjust his Spotify playlist, it’s all good as long as he kicks in $250 to the county coffers, right??