Flashing Headlights to Warn of Speed Traps is Protected Speech, Judge Rules

Flashing headlights to warn other drivers of speed traps is constitutionally protected speech, ruled a Missouri judge on Monday.

In November of 2012, Michael Elli was pulled over by Ellisville police and was accused of “[f]lashing lights on certain vehicles . . . warning of RADAR ahead,” according to court papers obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

Elli, a retired West County resident who hadn’t been accused of a moving violation for more than 35 years, was told the standard fine for the charge was $1,000.

The city dropped the charge against Elli awhile ago, but the American Civil Liberties Union sued on Elli’s behalf anyway, claiming the arrest violates the First Amendment right to free speech. Tony Rothert, an attorney with the ACLU, explained the basis for that claim:

“If you’re at the gas station on the corner and someone says ‘hey be careful over there, there’s a speed trap’, that’s protected speech. You can’t be ticketed for that.  This is no different.”

U.S. District Court Judge, Henry Autrey, of St. Louis issued a preliminary injunction ordering Ellisville Police to halt the policy.

At a lawsuit hearing last year, Ellisville officials claimed that flashing headlights could interfere with a police investigation. But in his ruling, Autrey said that the flashing of headlights “sends a message to bring one’s driving in conformity with the law — whether it be by slowing down, turning on one’s own headlamps at dusk or in the rain, or proceeding with caution.”

“The chilling effect of Ellisville’s policy and custom of having its police officers pull over, detain, and cite individuals who are perceived as having communicated to oncoming traffic by flashing their headlamps and then prosecuting and imposing fines upon those individuals remains, regardless” of the city’s decision to change its policy, the judge wrote, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Rothert said the judge’s ruling is a civil rights victory for drivers:

“When someone is communicating in a public street, [he is] expressing [himself] in a way that’s protected by the First Amendment. Unless there is a strong reason why the government should be allowed to censor that speech, the police shouldn’t be stopping or prosecuting people because of the content of their speech.”

He also said that being able to alert other drivers has an added benefit:

“In our view that’s speech that’s protected by the First Amendment and it’s also good for the public because it tells people to slow down, to use caution.  That’s never a bad thing.”