Federal Judge Ridiculously Says That Holding A Sign Telling People Cops Are Ahead Is Not Free Speech
from the the-first-amendment-would-like-a-word dept
I am perplexed. US district court judge Alfred Covello seems to have a very strange understanding of the 1st Amendment. As first noted in the Hartford Courant (who didn't link to the ruling) Covello has ruled that holding up a sign telling drivers that there are police ahead is not protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Because I'm not the Hartford Courant, you can read the whole ruling yourself.
First off, let's be clear: Covello is wrong, and hopefully the ACLU (which is handling this case) will appeal. Plenty of other courts have ruled otherwise, including that merely flashing your headlights to oncoming cars is a form of protected speech, which seems way less expressive than holding up a printed sign saying that police are up ahead.
To put an even finer point on this: by holding up a sign warning drivers that police are up ahead, the plaintiff in this case, Michael Friend, was actually encouraging drivers to obey the law. Which seems like a good thing. Except that the police didn't like him telling people to obey the law, because they make money from people not obeying the law. Either way, holding up a sign about what government employees are doing is quintessential protected free speech.
Covello's reasoning is... bizarre.
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.
Um. Really? Of course it's opinion related to a matter of public significance. The judge says that would only be the case if Friend were arguing that the police activity was improper.
Although Friend states that he “objected to the way [police] were issuing tickets,” no where does Friend state how such issuance was unlawful or improper. While he makes reference to the procedure by which Gasparino stood “behind a column” and “radio[ed] ahead to his colleagues whenever he alleged a driver to have been using a cell phone,” he never discusses how this procedure was unfair to individuals driving by or was a deviation from normal police procedure. His signs did not discuss a topic or express his opinion on it. The court agrees with Gasparino that Friend’s speech was “of little, if any, public concern.”
That is... untethered to any basic 1st Amendment analysis. The only reason the cops were pissed off at Friend was because he was exposing what they were doing. He's obviously commenting on it (truthfully!) and letting drivers know they should obey the law. That's clearly a form of expression on a matter of public concern. Under the judge's reading of the 1st Amendment, it only protects speech over which you clearly state an opinion on, and that's not how the 1st Amendment works.
The judge goes even further in arguing that even if he used the strict scrutiny standard required for content-based restrictions, this passes. And, again, the reasoning here is bizarre and disconnected from tons of precedent regarding the 1st Amendment.
Even assuming that his speech was protected, however, and was content-based, the court concludes that Gasparino’s actions pass strict scrutiny. 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. More than simply writing tickets, the police operation sought to stop and cite violators in order to deter not only current behavior, but also future distracted driving and, therefore, save lives. The court concludes that this was a sufficiently “compelling interest.” In light of this purpose, and Friend’s stated purpose to warn such violators before they were detected by police, the only way in which Gasparino could tailor punishment was to remove Friend and his signs from the adjacent area. The operation could only effectively continue without Friend’s interference. The court acknowledges that his removal defeated the purpose of what Friend was trying to accomplish, however there was “no ‘less restrictive alternative,’” Fed. Election Comm'n v. Mass. Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238, 265 (1986), given Friend’s goal and the purpose of the police operation. Had Friend wished to complain about particular police procedures or in general about the police, he was free to do so elsewhere.
Did you get that? Because it sure looks like the court says that since the police wanted to "deter" bad behavior by drivers, it was a problem that Friend was effectively deterring that same bad behavior before the cops could profit off of it. That's... not how this works at all.
Judge Covello seeks to distinguish this from the famous and important 1st Amendment precedent at the Supreme Court in Barnicki v. Vopper by saying that that was different because the speech was exposing law-breaking, and this was just... encouraging non-law breaking. I'm at a loss to see how this even remotely matters.
Friend’s cites Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), for the Court’s observation that “it would be quite remarkable to hold that speech by a law-abiding possessor of information can be suppressed in order to deter conduct by a non-law-abiding third party.” Id. at 529-30. In that case, however, the referenced “non-law-abiding third party” broke the law by providing the information at issue. Here, the information obtained regarding the police presence in the area, was not the basis for the unlawful conduct at issue. Such unlawful conduct in this case was a violation of Connecticut distracted driving laws. The Bartnicki Court also noted that “there are some rare occasions in which a law suppressing one party's speech may be justified by an interest in deterring criminal conduct by another, see, e.g., New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) . . . .”
But even if there are some "rare" cases where speech can be suppressed to deter criminal conduct, it's hard to see how that fits here, wherein the speech itself was seeking to deter driving violations.
The ACLU says its reviewing the decision to determine whether or not to appeal -- and I hope they do, because this is one of the worst 1st Amendment rulings I've seen in a while.
“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.”
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, alfred covello, connecticut, cops ahead, free speech, michael friend, police, signs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'How dare you tell people to not break the law?!'
Well, looks like at least in the district of Connecticut 'telling people to obey the law, if doing so impacts police profits' is now one of the few exceptions to the first amendment, nice to see a judge so openly and shamelessly side with police here, usually they at least try to hide how corrupt they are.
Much like in a previous case covered on TD this one positively reeks of deciding the outcome in advance and working back from that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'How dare you tell people to not break the law?!'
So...if I spot a sign saying "60 mph" and take that as advice that beyond that point it would be illegal to drive faster than 60 mph...how does the logic applied by this judge apply to the poor municipality which has peppered the public roads with such signs?
Or does the illegality of a reminder not to break the law only apply when it means a cop may be out of a collar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'How dare you tell people to not break the law?!'
Those speed limit signs can sure be Very distracting. I'm trying to watch the road!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Authoritarian much?
Do you want authoritarianism? This is how you get authoritarianism.
Let's assume this judge is right... the ripple effects are huge. Anyone using Waze and notifying users of cops could be prosecuted. Writing an article about a speed trap in a city calling out their nefarious practices could be prosecuted. Telling people THE LAW could be prosecuted...
According to him, you are now free to speak as long as a government employee doesn't object...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would it surprise you to learn that he was nominated for the federal bench by a Republican president? (George H. W. Bush, in this case.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Authoritarian much?
This judge has it all backward. How do we remove him again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Authoritarian much?
Get half the House followed by two-thirds of the Senate to impeach him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead, the police department’s interest was in saving lives by stopping distracted drivers
Which would not be the ones who saw the notice and decided not to speed or otherwise break traffic laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opinionated
So in the future, make sure your sign reads "crooked cops ahead".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opinionated
Or "It is my opinion that cops are ahead."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opinionated
Koby - I think your sign would be mildly redundant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opinionated
But then they'll add defamation charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opinionated
"All cops are bastards, and a few of them are ahead"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it ok for the local news to tell everyone that the heat is on and there will be check points?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only if it’s on the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
presses walk sign, crosses street
crosswalk signal box: -bzzzt- "new lap record"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Did you get that?"
Yes, they are saying the ticket system is designed to encourage people into driving properly all the time because they know they could at any time be checked and if they fail get a ticket. Warning people about the surprise inspection clearly undermines that concept. Whether that is a legitimate way to cut down on distracted driving is certainly debatable ( I vote no ) but I don't think it's genuine to pretend that isn't what they are always saying when this situation comes up. He's not telling people not to use their cellphones when driving he's telling them when they will be caught doing so. He's playing the lookout, telling people to pause whatever their crime is because the cops are coming so they don't get caught doing it.
Still protected speech is fine, ticket systems don't work is fine, shouldn't be using them as a deterrent that way is fine.. but not "the only thing he is doing is telling people to obey the law" That is willfully pretending you don't see what the other side is trying to say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's not telling people not to use their cellphones when driving he's telling them when they will be caught doing so.?
How does a sign stating "Cops Ahead" convey anything at all about cell phone use?
It simply says there's police ahead. Perhaps he was concerned for their safety? Because you know when the police pull people over and get out of their car, they're creating a hazard for both themselves and other drivers.
If that signed stopped one person from potentially slamming into either a cop or car that was stopped, isn't that in the interest of public safety?
Shit, maybe we should get rid of those Road Work Ahead signs while we're at it. People should be paying attention, and if not face the consequences, amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Driving with a cellphone in your hand is illegal in a number of states (if not most of them). A sign saying “cops ahead” is a reminder to stop doing anything that might earn you a ticket — which can include using your cellphone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A sign saying “cops ahead” is a reminder to stop doing anything that might earn you a ticket — which can include using your cellphone.
But not limited to that. Police create a hazard nearly every time they pull someone over. We put up signs for bumps, construction crews, you name it, all in the name of safety. That people shouldn't be alerted to the fact that this is a more than temporary operation is an asinine ruling by the court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When I moved to New England, it took a little getting used to people flashing their high beams, both day and night. What I quickly learned was that an oncoming car signaling didn't just mean "cops ahead", it meant possible problem ahead and to "proceed with caution". Times I've been signaled in this way include: a truck pulled over but still sticking into traffic around a blind corner, an accident around a bend where the backup of cars couldn't be seen, a kid with parent crossing the road in a bad spot... and the list goes on and on.
It's almost as if some people think the job of cops is to make money off of criminals rather than to try to get people to be safe and considerate of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really think this happened before.
If I remember correctly,
This was brought up in the past.
Lets suggest that signs are place in random locations around town.
Saying that 'police ahead', would it confuse the people, or just MAKE THEM PAY ATTENTION MORE? Even tho' there probably werent any.
If you really think about it. Cops could place Camera's near schools to help them see problems. Since most times they are Never in the area. I dont think there is anything stopping them. And the random signs would Point this Thought out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I really think this happened before.
In the UK they have used cut-out cops made from card board and placed them strategically. Crime and speeding went down.
In this instance, if the guy had put up such a sign - would he been dragged to court too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being a judge is like being a golfer. Even the pros shank one into the rough once in awhile.
The difference is between a lost ball and weakening of the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where did a requirement that an opinion be "related to a matter of public significance" come in, in order to be protected by the 1st amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nowhere but that judge’s mind. I expect an appeals court to overturn this ridiculous ruling in short order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H. L. Mencken
Sadly, for left wingers this only applies to their scoundrels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[Citation Needed].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then explain the Hands On Originals case. And for the record, I agree with that ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Signs, signs everywhere signs.
Of course it is all about revenue. The classic cop car behind a shield of trees or billboard got me. I was exceeding the speed limit and it was nearly a tow the car - good lawyer and all helped.
Sign on Capital Beltway (bad driving practice) has; Safe Driving Zone sign, a sign that says DUI enforcement zone (I forget what the exact wording is. The sign is near Capital Center so go figure. Have not seen any signs about Distracted Driving.
The Seatbelt law signs are everywhere as are School Zone (photo enforced).
So, it takes a cop sting operation being exposed by a guy holding a sign "Police Ahead" to make all safe driving signs okay except this one.
I don't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have researched this subject in the past and this one should be overturned on appeal. It is most definitely protected speech to hold a sign saying "Cops Ahead".
The problem some other people have had in the past is when the sign is giving motorists some kind instruction, like "slow down". Most localities have laws to stop random people from putting up their own traffic signs (which makes sense) and those laws make signs with instructions to the motorists illegal and therefore not protect by the 1A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Either mine doesn't or it's not enforced in residential areas, because a bunch of people have those little plastic signs in the shape of a kid that say to slow down. I say don't let your kids play where the cars are driving, but whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Most likely it isn't enforced for those stupid kid shaped "slow down" signs. I see those in my area too. A lot of the local laws covering this stuff have wording that says "within x amount of feet of a highway" or "within y amount of feet of a residential road", etc..
The reason I have reaseached this in the past is because it is a intersection of two things important to me: signage (which I make for a living) and the law (which I study as a hobby).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a feeling that once this gets thrown out the judge might find Mr. Friend standing outside his courthouse with a different sign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When a judge completely fails to uphold the law, esp. Constitutional law, then that judge should be removed from the bench.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's ok for AAA to do it
https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180711/aaa-drops-speed-trap-warnings-for-lawtey-and-waldo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How come I never get these type of insane judges? This guy is gonna sue for MILLIONS for 1st amendment violations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]