PDA

View Full Version : TX Man Arrested for Holding Sign Warning Drivers of Speed Trap




Matthew5
01-16-2014, 11:10 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-man-fights-charge-warning-drivers-speed-trap/story?id=21559309&singlePage=true

I better see some cops arresting softball teams this summer for holding signs on the sidewalk...fair application of the law.


A Texas man who was arrested for waving a sign to warn drivers of a lurking traffic cop defended himself in a court by saying his warning was "the same thing as a speed limit sign."

Ron Martin, 33, appeared in court Wednesday to fight a misdemeanor charge of waving a homemade sign.
He was arrested last October after Police Officer Thomas Mronzinski saw him on the median strip of a six-lane highway holding up the sign – he is a sign painter by trade – reading "Police Ahead."

The officer first had his suspicions that Martin was in the area as he sat in his unmarked police car on Eldorado Parkway in Frisco, Texas.
"I observed a couple of cars drive by traveling westbound waving at us," Mronzinski wrote in his arrest report. "Mr. Martin has a history with the Frisco Police Department Officers in holding signs in the center median of traffic stating 'police ahead.'"

A colleague had also radioed earlier that morning to warn Mronzinski that he had seen Martin in the area.
Mronzinski wrote in the report that as he approached, Martin began videotaping the arrest on his phone. After a number of requests to drop the sign, Martin complied and Mronzinski, along with another officer he had radioed for backup, were able to handcuff Martin and take him into custody.
Mronzinski also wrote he had seen Martin conducting similar activities two times that month, and that in one instance Martin "was running back and forth in the center median holding a sign."

Martin told the court that by displaying the warning, ultimately he was trying to do the same job as law enforcement and encourage people (and officers) to driver more slowly.

"I just don't wear a uniform," Martin testified. "I'm the same thing as a speed limit sign, just reminding people that there is a limit here." Martin told ABC News affiliate WFAA he is not opposed to traffic cops performing their work.

"I think it's absolutely important for officers to be on the streets and enforce laws," he said. Texas does not have laws banning people from warning drivers about speed traps. Police instead cited the city's ordinance that states that people holding or wearing signs for advertising must be on private property. Martin was in the median strip when he was arrested, but has pleaded not guilty to his Class C misdemeanor charge, arguing that he was not advertising anything at the time of arrest.

Frisco Police Department spokesman Sgt. Brad Merritt told ABC News that a Class C misdemeanor is "basically a traffic ticket," but said police would not comment further pending the outcome of the case, which is scheduled for court on Feb. 21. Police periodically crack down on people warning motorists about speed traps. In July 2012, Houston police arrested a Natalie Plummer for holding a sign made out of a paper grocery bag that read "Speed Trap!" She was slapped with a misdemeanor for "walking in the roadway where there is a sidewalk present." Laws concerning methods of alerting motorists to police presence vary across the country. The most popular way - flashing headlights to oncoming traffic - is legal in some states, but not others.

Laws in New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and Florida allow headlight flashing, while other states, such as Arizona and Alaska, forbid it. In Washington, drivers may be fined $124 for flashing their high beams within 400 feet of another vehicle for any reason.
Last July, a Missouri man sued the city after receiving a ticket for violating a local law against flashing lights on certain kinds of vehicles, while in May 2012, a Florida judge ruled that a man arrested for flashing his headlights was exercising his freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

Neil Desmond
01-16-2014, 11:24 PM
A law limiting advertising to private property is an infringement on freedom of speech. The first amendment doesn't say advertising is excluded. He wasn't even "advertising", anyways. Furthermore, unless they can show sufficient evidence that they enforce such a law equally, they're selectively using it to persecute someone exercising their freedom of speech by kidnapping him.

Anti Federalist
01-17-2014, 02:37 AM
He brought it on himself.

Mani
01-17-2014, 03:00 AM
Holy Shit, flashing your lights in illegal in some places!?!



WTF!!!


the 3 felonies per day is looking more and more realistic.


Can't hold or wear a sign unless on private property for advertising purposes? Well this guy wasn't advertising. How soon before you can't HOLD any sign unless its your private property.


We are one step away from holding a sign condemning a gov't or state person will then be illegal.


Think of protestors who carry signs disagreeing with a party in control or upset about something regarding the state. Now those protestors are all committing illegal acts. Your right to assemble is slowly disappearing. You can assemble but, "No Signs", "No masks or hoods", "no loud noises", "no walking off the sidewalk", "and comply with all orders demanded by peace keepers, including instructions to disperse and leave when told. "

and even then...."Hey Lou, I think I saw someone throw a bottle at us", Wink Wink, "Officer safety has been compromised. I got the pepper spray, you got the tear gas, Jonny's got some extra batons, let's go smash some faces to hell!! Hoorah!!"

Other than that, you have full right to assemble in Amerika.

DamianTV
01-17-2014, 03:09 AM
Maybe a Sign Flasher for a Lawyer on how to beat the Speed Trap up ahead would qualify as an Advertisement. Yeah, just what we need, more ads. Hell, you could even call that a targetted ad since you know they are about to get a ticket! :p

MRK
01-17-2014, 03:12 AM
"Frisco Police Department spokesman Sgt. Brad Merritt told ABC News that a Class C misdemeanor is "basically a traffic ticket,"

What? A misdemeanor is not basically a traffic ticket. If it were, it would be an infraction, and would cost about 4x less.

A misdemeanor will bar you from a lot of opportunities, both in the US and abroad, or at least flag your case for review, because it's considered a criminal offense.

DamianTV
01-17-2014, 03:51 AM
"Frisco Police Department spokesman Sgt. Brad Merritt told ABC News that a Class C misdemeanor is "basically a traffic ticket,"

What? A misdemeanor is not basically a traffic ticket. If it were, it would be an infraction, and would cost about 4x less.

A misdemeanor will bar you from a lot of opportunities, both in the US and abroad, or at least flag your case for review, because it's considered a criminal offense.

Welcome to the USA, where TV watches you. Didnt put the toilet seat back down after taking a leek? Criminal!

Acala
01-17-2014, 09:46 AM
The First Amendment, as currently construed by the SCOTUS, allows government to enforce "reasonable" time, place, and manner restictions on speech, whether commercial or political. For an extreme example, government can prohibit people from reading manifestos through megaphones in courtrooms during trials. As a less extreme example, governments can prohibit the placement of signs in traffic rights of way on the grounds that they can create distractions or obstruct visibility. If such prohibitions are content neutral, they will be upheld by the courts.

If you don't allow government to prohibit signs in the rights of way, the roads would soon be overwhelmed with advertising. I can testify to this from first-hand knowledge. The city in which I live patrols the roads and pulls out any signs that are placed in the rights of way. Most of the time, these are yard sale signs, "earn money from home" signs, and "yard work" type signs. But during the election season, it is predominantly campaign signs. The city pulls these out also. However, a few years ago, a local politician got his undies in a bunch because the city pulled his campaign sings out of the right of way. So he got the state to enact a law placing restrictions on the removal of political signs from the rights of way during election season. The City determined that it would be unconstitutional to allow only political signs and not commercial signs to remain in the rights of way so they decided to allow ALL signs to remain in the rights of way during the election season, unless they created a threat to health and safety. The result was a massive build-up of signs in the right of way and a tsunami of citizen complaints.

The bottom line is that as long as the roads are government-owned, you really can't let guys with "cop ahead" signs dance around in the median unless you are willing to allow anyone to wave any kind of sign in the median, and that becomes a problem very quickly.

As always, the answer is get government out of the transportation system.

Matthew5
01-17-2014, 08:47 PM
The First Amendment, as currently construed by the SCOTUS, allows government to enforce "reasonable" time, place, and manner restictions on speech, whether commercial or political....

First of all, physically being present with the sign and possibly littering are two different issues. Secondly, what if he had been standing on the sidewalk instead, would that have made a difference?

Acala
01-17-2014, 09:04 PM
First of all, physically being present with the sign and possibly littering are two different issues. Secondly, what if he had been standing on the sidewalk instead, would that have made a difference?

I don't understand your reference to littering.

Yes, the location of the speech activity makes a difference. The courts recognize different levels of speech protection in different areas. For example, Government typically cannot say much of anything about speech in public parks. You can bring your megaphone and read your manifesto all day. Public sidewalks often have similar protection. There may be limits, for example, on using your megaphone in a park in a residential area in the middle of the night. Other "public" property has less protection. Usually the restrictions on speech activity are limited as necessary to keep from interfering with the function of the public property. So you might be able to speak in front of the courthouse but probably not in the hallway or a courtroom.

In the case of a highway, speech within the right of way can be limited as inconsistent with the primary purpose of the public property, which is safe operation of motor vehicle traffic.

The Free Hornet
01-17-2014, 09:16 PM
The bottom line is that as long as the roads are government-owned [not people owned?], you really can't let guys with "cop ahead" [we can get rid of cops and wave "no cop ahead"] signs dance around in the median unless you are willing to allow anyone to wave any kind of sign in the median, and that becomes a problem very quickly [for geologic definitions of quickly].

Why the hell not. I would increase the burden of proof for vehicular manslaughter involving any case with

a) charities begging for money (the burden increases if they have a permit, as that is just planning to be stupid)
b) panhandlers
c) jaywalkers
d) sign guys (and if a private business pays for someone to hold a sign and they don't impede traffic, then BFD)
e) cops

Matthew5
01-17-2014, 09:32 PM
I don't understand your reference to littering.

Yes, the location of the speech activity makes a difference. The courts recognize different levels of speech protection in different areas. For example, Government typically cannot say much of anything about speech in public parks. You can bring your megaphone and read your manifesto all day. Public sidewalks often have similar protection. There may be limits, for example, on using your megaphone in a park in a residential area in the middle of the night. Other "public" property has less protection. Usually the restrictions on speech activity are limited as necessary to keep from interfering with the function of the public property. So you might be able to speak in front of the courthouse but probably not in the hallway or a courtroom.

In the case of a highway, speech within the right of way can be limited as inconsistent with the primary purpose of the public property, which is safe operation of motor vehicle traffic.

Statistically, how often do you think those signs (political or otherwise) get removed from the median by the owners? I'd venture to say hardly ever. However, standing with the sign, you're taking it with you when you leave.

But the whole point is that the Frisco police arrested him for advertising on public property. What exactly was he advertising?

CPUd
01-17-2014, 10:13 PM
http://i.imgur.com/kb7axQa.jpg

Keith and stuff
01-17-2014, 10:35 PM
That video is nuts! After it ends, it goes to another video of a woman arrested in Texas for holding a sign on a side walk.

Maybe a police commissioner in Texas heard this song and got annoyed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLm3HMG8IhM