Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Judge: holding “Cops Ahead” sign to warn motorists may be protected speech

“The cop actually hauling him to the station [for warning motorists that there were cops ahead] was more to the point, telling the man he was arresting him for ‘interfering with our livelihood,'” according to the complaint in the subsequent lawsuit. [Tim Cushing, TechDirt; Stamford, Ct.] We covered a similar ruling in Florida in 2012.

Filed under: , , ,

5 Comments

  • What if there were no cops ahead? What if the point was to get people to drive slower on this particular stretch of road? Wouldn’t “Cops Ahead” be more effective than “Reduce Speed”?

    Bob

  • What sort of society arrests for this?

    • By SPO

  • If the purpose of having the police setting a speed patrol is to reduce speed, his sign accomplishes the same purpose.

    If the purpose of the patrol is to raise revenue, then his sign interferes with their duties.

  • I guess “no guns allowed” signs are illegal now too, right?

    • By ras

  • Every speed limit sign “interferes” with police enforcement of speed limits.

    How can it ever be illegal to tell people that they should obey the law?

    • By Rxc