Awesome - Class action law suit against taxation via citation in florida

[darin]

I really hope the state gets the smack-down on this. Such pure bull crap on the part of the FSP.


http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/207550/250/FHP-sued-for-giving-out-illegal-tickets

Campbell says, "I was coming up the Veterans Expressway and I notice two Florida Highway Patrol Cars sitting on the side of the road in the median, with lights off."
Campbell says he did what he always does: flashed his lights on and off to warn drivers coming from the other direction that there was speed trap ahead.
According to Campbell, 60 seconds after passing the trooper, "They were on my tail and they pulled me over."



Campbell says FHP had no right to ticket him or anyone under the current law and he adds the agency is not being honest when it says it doesn't write tickets to increase revenue or punish people, but rather to get the motorist to slow down on the highway. If that were true, Campbell says the FHP should be delighted with him, because drivers did slow down before troopers could give them a ticket

[ConHog]

I really hope the state gets the smack-down on this. Such pure bull crap on the part of the FSP.

They will lose.


http://law.onecle.com/florida/motor-vehicles/316.2397.html


(7) Flashing lights are prohibited on vehicles except as a means of indicating a right or left turn, to change lanes, or to indicate that the vehicle is lawfully stopped or disabled upon the highway or except that the lamps authorized in subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), and (9) and s. 316.235(5) are permitted to flash.

[darin]

You are reading about turn-signal 'flashing lights' - lights which flash constantly upon activation.



They will lose.


http://law.onecle.com/florida/motor-vehicles/316.2397.html


(7) Flashing lights are prohibited on vehicles except as a means of indicating a right or left turn, to change lanes, or to indicate that the vehicle is lawfully stopped or disabled upon the highway or except that the lamps authorized in subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), and (9) and s. 316.235(5) are permitted to flash.

[KartRacerBoy]

IIRC, ConHog is essentially correct even if I disagree with the outcome. Many states have laws restricting warning folks about speed traps by flashing lights and they surprisingly seem to be upheld. Seems to me that warning another motorist of civil enforcement is pure political speech and thus protected by the 1st Amendment. Sucks. Perhaps courts don't view it as important speech becz "criminal" actions by a speeder aren't involved. They often view speed or any traffic enforcement as "administrative" and so don't take, IMO, the rights as seriously.

[KartRacerBoy]

And dmp, shouldn't you be schtuppin the wife? Get off this damn site!!!

[ConHog]

You are reading about turn-signal 'flashing lights' - lights which flash constantly upon activation.

The law is VERY specific. If it meant ONLY turn signals, the law would have read turn signals. but it did not, it read flashing lights. That means your flashers, as well as flashing your headlights.

They actually have the law on these books in almost every state for several reasons. It USED to be a gang sign in the 90's to flash your headlights, so they outlawed that shit.

They will NEVER win this lawsuit. That's not commenting on whether it is nitpicky and or wrong to give tickets for said offense, it is merely stating that what he did IS illegal as the law stands now.

[darin]

"Flashing Lights are ..."

That does NOT say "Flashing of lights is"

Read the article of code in the link.

[ConHog]

"Flashing Lights are ..."

That does NOT say "Flashing of lights is"

Read the article of code in the link.

Semantics don't count.

I'm telling you as fact. Any prosecutor would win if someone fought this ticket.

[darin]

You say the code is 'specific' then discount semantics? If you get time, read most-any 2nd Amendment case, prior to the last Supreme Court case. Semantics is everything.

"Flashing lights are prohibited"

What is prohibited? "Flashing lights" are prohibited. Flashing Lights are lights that flash. Flashing Lights is a noun, not a verb.

in case you missed this part:


In 2005, a court order was even issued saying the state law doesn't prohibit the flashing of vehicle headlights.

Courts have already determined flashing headlights is NOT illegal. I'm telling you as fact, most-ANY defense attorney could beat this ticket - AND Campbell's attorney will have/should have little trouble overturning Campbell's ticket, and the other illegal 'taxation' by the FSP

[ConHog]

You say the code is 'specific' then discount semantics? If you get time, read most-any 2nd Amendment case, prior to the last Supreme Court case. Semantics is everything.

"Flashing lights are prohibited"

What is prohibited? "Flashing lights" are prohibited. Flashing Lights are lights that flash. Flashing Lights is a noun, not a verb.

in case you missed this part:



Courts have already determined flashing headlights is NOT illegal. I'm telling you as fact, most-ANY defense attorney could beat this ticket - AND Campbell's attorney will have/should have little trouble overturning Campbell's ticket, and the other illegal 'taxation' by the FSP

Yes, my wife is only an ADA who has successfully won cases in which the defendant made the exact same claims you are making. What do we know.

A light being flashed whether by design or by manipulation is in fact still a flashing light; and hence illegal.

Further, good give the tickets. People don't need to be warning other people about cops on the road, there are some bad fucking drivers out there who need all the tickets LEOs can write until they just can't afford to be on the road anymore.


PS feel free to actually cite a case where the ticket has been thrown out.

[darin]

Seems you don't agree with the lawsuit based on how you feel about what Campbell did. The story cites a Judge in 2005 issuing an opinion. i'm going to take the article at it's word and NOT dig through the internet to find you a case to review.

The code you published is crystal clear. It's talking about a noun. You're using semantics to make it cover a verb. That's fine. If you were a judge, you'd likely see it that way. On the other hand, I think you are reading into the code.



Yes, my wife is only an ADA who has successfully won cases in which the defendant made the exact same claims you are making. What do we know.

A light being flashed whether by design or by manipulation is in fact still a flashing light; and hence illegal.

Further, good give the tickets. People don't need to be warning other people about cops on the road, there are some bad fucking drivers out there who need all the tickets LEOs can write until they just can't afford to be on the road anymore.


PS feel free to actually cite a case where the ticket has been thrown out.

[Gunny]

Seems you don't agree with the lawsuit based on how you feel about what Campbell did. The story cites a Judge in 2005 issuing an opinion. i'm going to take the article at it's word and NOT dig through the internet to find you a case to review.

The code you published is crystal clear. It's talking about a noun. You're using semantics to make it cover a verb. That's fine. If you were a judge, you'd likely see it that way. On the other hand, I think you are reading into the code.

I don't see the guy winning this lawsuit. He violated a standing law, semantics aside; which, has nothing to do with "taxation via citation". That's a pretty hefty burden of proof to meet, IMO.

[Nukeman]

I don't see the guy winning this lawsuit. He violated a standing law, semantics aside; which, has nothing to do with "taxation via citation". That's a pretty hefty burden of proof to meet, IMO.Almost EVERY moving violation is a "taxation thru citation".. The only way they would not be is if EVERY SINGLE person was cited for EVERY SINGLE moving violation. These things are so arbitrary its laughable.. If you have big boobs you get off, if the officer just got lucky you get off, if the officer has a bad day, tough shit you get a ticket,, No rhyme or reason to the citations, not to mention the blatant flaunting of the law by said officers, you know those guys that speed down the road at 15-20 miles over the speed limit and than ticket you for 5-10 over...

The intent of speed enforcement is to SLOW traffic down to a safe and posted speed, by flashing your lights telling someone there is a speed trap ahead you are accomplishing EXACTLY what they want!!! The only down side is they (the police/state) didn't make any money off of it!!!!!!!!!

[Gunny]

Almost EVERY moving violation is a "taxation thru citation".. The only way they would not be is if EVERY SINGLE person was cited for EVERY SINGLE moving violation. These things are so arbitrary its laughable.. If you have big boobs you get off, if the officer just got lucky you get off, if the officer has a bad day, tough shit you get a ticket,, No rhyme or reason to the citations, not to mention the blatant flaunting of the law by said officers, you know those guys that speed down the road at 15-20 miles over the speed limit and than ticket you for 5-10 over...

The intent of speed enforcement is to SLOW traffic down to a safe and posted speed, by flashing your lights telling someone there is a speed trap ahead you are accomplishing EXACTLY what they want!!! The only down side is they (the police/state) didn't make any money off of it!!!!!!!!!

You're entitled to your opinion. However, what you ASSUME every moving violation is won't hold water in court. Fines are not officially considered taxation that I am aware of.

The argument that every single person would be cited for every single moving violation isn't going to wash either. That is an obvious impossibility, just a proving any other of your reasons for alleged, selective ticketing.

Not really saying I completely disagree with your assessment. Just saying the court is not going to rule in favor of baseless accusations.

[darin]

I don't see the guy winning this lawsuit. He violated a standing law, semantics aside; which, has nothing to do with "taxation via citation". That's a pretty hefty burden of proof to meet, IMO.

Well, the judge from 2005, the code of Florida, Campbell's attorney, and I disagree with you on one point - there is no law restricting a driver from flashing his/her headlights.

[Gunny]

Well, the judge from 2005, the code of Florida, Campbell's attorney, and I disagree with you on one point - there is no law restricting a driver from flashing his/her headlights.

I believe the law is posted earlier in this thread. I know from having lived in FL for about 10 years they WILL pull you over for doing it. Same in TX.

[ConHog]

Well, the judge from 2005, the code of Florida, Campbell's attorney, and I disagree with you on one point - there is no law restricting a driver from flashing his/her headlights.

Cite the case brah, because all I see is heresay that some ticket got tossed. I haven't actually seen proof.

[J.T]

I'm with conhog on this one. They State will cite the very law he did and claim a technicality.

If he objects on the grounds that he was cited under the 'wrong' stature... I doubt they'll listen or give a shit.

Not sayin' it's right, just sayin' that's how it tends to happen.

[darin]

I believe the law is posted earlier in this thread. I know from having lived in FL for about 10 years they WILL pull you over for doing it. Same in TX.

No, the law regarding manual flashing of lights has not been posted. We see something that describes a noun, but nothing that indicates a verb. According to the article and its author no-such-law or regulation exists. Also, according the a judges decision in 2005, no such law exists, unless the author of the piece is lying.


Cite the case brah, because all I see is heresay that some ticket got tossed. I haven't actually seen proof.


Ask the author of the piece if he just made shit up, maybe?

[Gunny]

No, the law regarding manual flashing of lights has not been posted. We see something that describes a noun, but nothing that indicates a verb. According to the article and its author no-such-law or regulation exists. Also, according the a judges decision in 2005, no such law exists, unless the author of the piece is lying.




Ask the author of the piece if he just made shit up, maybe?

As posted, looked pretty clear to me. There is no legal reason that I have EVER heard of to flash ones headlights. However, using headlights at night in FL specifically, but I'm sure everywhere else as well, is mandatory with NO provision for flashing them for any reason. And yes, I have taken the FL driver's license test. Matter of fact, the question I got wrong when I got my learner's permit was in regard to use of brights. There is no case in which you can legally use brights in FL.

[darin]

As posted, looked pretty clear to me. There is no legal reason that I have EVER heard of to flash ones headlights. However, using headlights at night in FL specifically, but I'm sure everywhere else as well, is mandatory with NO provision for flashing them for any reason. And yes, I have taken the FL driver's license test. Matter of fact, the question I got wrong when I got my learner's permit was in regard to use of brights. There is no case in which you can legally use brights in FL.


Are. Is. Specific direct meaning. just read what's written into the law, consider the opinion of the Florida judge. Make your own choices about what you decide.

I read it verbatim: "Flashing lights" are prohibited. I think its unwise to add words "of" or "is" to make it "Flashing (of) lights (is) Prohibited...."

[ConHog]

No, the law regarding manual flashing of lights has not been posted. We see something that describes a noun, but nothing that indicates a verb. According to the article and its author no-such-law or regulation exists. Also, according the a judges decision in 2005, no such law exists, unless the author of the piece is lying.




Ask the author of the piece if he just made shit up, maybe?

DMP I know you don't want to see it, but the law makes ZERO distinction between lights that are designed to flash, and lights which are manually flashed, or for that matter even lights that malfunction and flash when they are not supposed to. If you had a mechanical issue and your headlights flickered on and off, you COULD be ticketed for that. Granted it would take an asshole of a cop to do so, but if the ticket were issued you'd lose in court.

If the law were meant to only apply to those lights which automatically flash, then the law would have said "those lights which are designed to flash are illegal" instead the law reads "flashing lights are illegal" it makes NO distinction on how or why those lights are flashing.

[Gunny]

Are. Is. Specific direct meaning. just read what's written into the law, consider the opinion of the Florida judge. Make your own choices about what you decide.

I read it verbatim: "Flashing lights" are prohibited. I think its unwise to add words "of" or "is" to make it "Flashing (of) lights (is) Prohibited...."

I read it verbatim as well. It does not specify only automatically flashing lights as you imply with your interpretation. It says "flashing lights", period. Manually or automatically, the rule's the same.

[darin]

I read it verbatim as well. It does not specify only automatically flashing lights as you imply with your interpretation. It says "flashing lights", period. Manually or automatically, the rule's the same.

A Head light is not a flashing light. Two beams either on or off. It's TWO lights. They are not 'flashing lights'.


Don't read into it. Just read it. It's easier that way. It says flashing lights aren't allowed except as turn signals or notification of hazard. Very simple.

[ConHog]

A Head light is not a flashing light. Two beams either on or off. It's TWO lights. They are not 'flashing lights'.


Don't read into it. Just read it. It's easier that way. It says flashing lights aren't allowed except as turn signals or notification of hazard. Very simple.



The guy admits he flashed his headlights, thus making them flashing lights. YOU are the one who is reading something into this. PERIOD. And as I said it is well accepted law, because in the 90s flashing your headlights at other cars was often a gang signal and law enforcement obviously wanted to snuff that out.

But hey, I'm sure you know far more than people who have went to law school (remember this is my wife telling me this)

[darin]

The guy admits he flashed his headlights, thus making them flashing lights. YOU are the one who is reading something into this. PERIOD. And as I said it is well accepted law, because in the 90s flashing your headlights at other cars was often a gang signal and law enforcement obviously wanted to snuff that out.

But hey, I'm sure you know far more than people who have went to law school (remember this is my wife telling me this)

I learnt to read good.

Read the words in the statue you cited. Just read the words. "Flashing lights are prohibited except when signaling a turn and shit". Flashing lights. Read the article; a FLORIDA JUDGE has ruled there is no state law against switching on hi-beams and then off to signal or communicate with other drivers.

Don't take my word for it, take the word of legal precedent - unless you feel the author of the piece lied.

[ConHog]

I learnt to read good.

Read the words in the statue you cited. Just read the words. "Flashing lights are prohibited except when signaling a turn and shit". Flashing lights. Read the article; a FLORIDA JUDGE has ruled there is no state law against switching on hi-beams and then off to signal or communicate with other drivers.

Don't take my word for it, take the word of legal precedent - unless you feel the author of the piece lied.

First of all, the incident supposedly happened during the day I believe, and he flashed his headlights from off to on, not from high to low. So you have the facts wrong.

Second, I have yet to see the actual case, simply saying a judge ruled such is not good enough. Neither the author nor you can provide the case so that someone else can see. A quick Google search didn't show it either.

[Gunny]

A Head light is not a flashing light. Two beams either on or off. It's TWO lights. They are not 'flashing lights'.


Don't read into it. Just read it. It's easier that way. It says flashing lights aren't allowed except as turn signals or notification of hazard. Very simple.

Headlights are flashing lights if they are being flashed. I'm reading into nothing. I'm reading what's there. And speaking of reading into it .... where'd the "it's TWO lights" come from? Again, from YOUR source, it does not specify a number of lights.

[Gunny]

I learnt to read good.

Read the words in the statue you cited. Just read the words. "Flashing lights are prohibited except when signaling a turn and shit". Flashing lights. Read the article; a FLORIDA JUDGE has ruled there is no state law against switching on hi-beams and then off to signal or communicate with other drivers.

Don't take my word for it, take the word of legal precedent - unless you feel the author of the piece lied.

"Flashing lightS" is plural.

[darin]

"Flashing lightS" is plural.

Right. That's what I'm saying. It's not about the act of flashing any light. It's about "Flashing lights" on a car. Lights that flash. Headlights don't flash. Hi Beams go on, and off, by direction of the driver, same as side-marker lights, dome lights, etc.

[logroller]

Anybody noticed that a lot of motorcycles have modulating headlights, which appear to flash constantly to alert people to their presence. Even the motorcops have them where I live.(CA) Under FL law, would these be illegal???

[darin]

Seems to be they would be illegal - and rightly so IMO. I hate those things. :)



Anybody noticed that a lot of motorcycles have modulating headlights, which appear to flash constantly to alert people to their presence. Even the motorcops have them where I live.(CA) Under FL law, would these be illegal???

[ConHog]

Anybody noticed that a lot of motorcycles have modulating headlights, which appear to flash constantly to alert people to their presence. Even the motorcops have them where I live.(CA) Under FL law, would these be illegal???

I would think they are illegal everywhere.

[logroller]

Seems to be they would be illegal - and rightly so IMO. I hate those things. :)


I would think they are illegal everywhere.


FMVSS 108 (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) (49 CFR Part 571.108 S7.9.4) allows motorcycle headlight modulation systems all 50 states provided they comply with the standards set forth in this section. Title 49 USC 30103 (b1) (US Codes) prohibits any state from forbidding a system that conforms to FMVSS 108http://www.realpolice.net/forums/archive/t-29664.html


(http://www.realpolice.net/forums/archive/t-29664.html)

[red states rule]

What the hell is going on the FL? Are the Police now being used as a way to raise revenue for the local and state government?

This is insane if all of this is true





It seems that Florida state troopers don’t like it when drivers warn others about speed traps.

That’s what Eric Campbell said happened to him. He said he was pulled over and ticketed for flashing his high beams at oncoming traffic to warn the other drivers of a speed trap. Campbell said the officer ticketed him for “improper flashing of high beams” – a completely constructed offense.

Florida Statue 316.2397 is the legislation Campbell is using to take action against the police. It does not prohibit the flashing of headlights as a means of communications, he said.

If he wins, 10 News says his case alone could end up costing taxpayers $15,000.
Campbell isn’t the only one troopers have targeted. Florida Highway Patrol records show that police cited more than 10,429 drivers under the statute. Campbell’s lawsuit accused patrols of wrongfully applying state law in order to generate revenue.

So how much money are these lawsuits over false citations costing Floridians? If each person illegally cited was awarded $15,000 that would be $156,435,000 in damages. Throw in at least another $1,042,900 in ticket refunds.

The Florida Highway patrol is illegally ticketing driver after driver for obeying the law, according to a report (http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/207550/250/FHP-sued-for-giving-out-illegal-tickets) from 10 News in Tampa.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/florida-highway-patrol-illegally-ticketing-drivers-for-obeying-law/

[ConHog]

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/archive/t-29664.html


(http://www.realpolice.net/forums/archive/t-29664.html)

Well that answers that.

[ConHog]

Psssss there's a three page thread about this already.

[Kathianne]

Merged.