https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/30/appeals-court-reverses-awful-decision-finding-that-holding-up-a-sign-telling-drivers-there-are-cops-ahead-is-not-free-speech/

Officer Richard Gasparino of the Stamford, Connecticut police department
couldn't stand to have his "revenue diverted". So he arrested Michael Friend
for the imaginary crime of holding up a sign warning motorists there was a
sting operation in progress further up the road.

The officer claimed Friend was "interfering with a police investigation"
despite there being no real investigation, but rather some opportunistic
officers sitting in squad cars hoping to catch "distracted" drivers. He also
seized Friend's phone and prevented him from recording his interaction with
the officer under the theory the recording would be used to make a "false
claim of physical abuse".

Then he took Friend to jail, managed to get his bail set at $25,000(!!),
forcing him to spend a night in jail before the bail commissioner arrived and
set it at a much more reasonable $0.

And I'm not paraphrasing the officers who arrested Friend. They told him
directly he was interfering with their opportunity to make money:

On the ride to the police station, [Officer] Deems told
Mr. Friend that he attracted police attention because
he was "interfering with our livelihood".

Deems explained to Mr. Friend that the cellphone sting
was operated as an overtime assignment, funded by a
federal grant which would require the Stamford police
to issue a certain number of tickets in order for the
grant to be renewed.

By warning motorists, Deems claimed, Mr. Friend was
decreasing the number of tickets that the Stamford
employees could issue, and therefore decreasing their
chances of earning overtime on a cellphone sting
grant in the future.

Somehow, a federal judge saw all of this and came down on the side of the
cops. He granted Officer Gasparino's request for qualified immunity while
ruling that holding up a sign warning drivers about a sting operation was not
expressive speech. Judge Alfred Covello managed to talk himself around
longstanding 1st Amendment protections clearly established by prior precedent.
This would include precedential rulings that have found something as simple as
flashing headlights at oncoming motorists (to warn them of police presence)
was expressive enough to be considered protected speech.

Although Friend states that he "objected to the way
[police] were issuing tickets," nowhere 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".

Just completely wrong on so many levels. Fortunately, this decision has been
reversed by the 2nd Circuit Appeals Court. In a decision handed down late last
month, the Appeals Court strips immunity from Officer Gasparino while stating
affirmatively that, of course, this is clearly protected expression and the
underlying issue has been clearly settled for some time.

The decision contains this fun bit of information, in which the prosecutor
sided wholeheartedly with Friend and his "cops ahead" sign:

At Friend's hearing, the state's attorney entered a
nolle prosequi and stated to the court that Friend had
in fact helped the police. The prosecutor explained
that "Friend actually was helping the police do a better
job than they anticipated because when [drivers]
saw the signs, they got off their cell phones". The
misdemeanor interference charge was dismissed.

First off, the Appeals Court reinstates Friend's 4th Amendment claims, finding
that unlawfully ordering someone to stop engaging in protected 1st Amendment
activity cannot form probable cause for arrest, especially when the law used
to effect the arrest doesn't actually apply to the arrested person's actions.

In short, you can't order someone to stop breaking the law when they're not
actually breaking the law. And you certainly can't arrest them for refusing to
comply with an unlawful order.

The order was unlawful because why? The 1st Amendment, of course. Those claims
are reinstated and there will be no immunity to protect the officer from the
revived lawsuit. The Appeals Court says the lower court's rulings were
completely wrong.

The district court said that speech must "rise to
the level of expression of an opinion related to a
matter of public significance" in order to receive
1st Amendment protection. But that is not correct.
The 1st Amendment does not "permit the
Government to imprison any speaker so long as
his speech is deemed valueless or unnecessary".

[Note: This is a complete refutation of the moviePig theory of free speech.]

The case now travels back to the court that screwed it up. There's a good
chance the town of Stamford is now in the process of putting together a
settlement offer. Hopefully, its re-review of this case will prompt it to
consider whether or not officers like Richard Gasparino are still worth the
expenses they inflict on taxpayers.

In <Y5OcnRlRIu49FKH5nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> writes:

>https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/30/appeals-court-reverses-awful-decision-finding-that-holding-up-a-sign-telling-drivers-there-are-cops-ahead-is-not-free-speech/

[snip]

This is what, the gazillionth time this _exact_ type
of case has been thrown out once a real court got
to review it?

Maybe the ten gazillionth...

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:50:01 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/30/appeals-court-reverses-awful-decision-finding-that-holding-up-a-sign-telling-drivers-there-are-cops-ahead-is-not-free-speech/
>
> Officer Richard Gasparino of the Stamford, Connecticut police department
> couldn't stand to have his "revenue diverted". So he arrested Michael Friend
> for the imaginary crime of holding up a sign warning motorists there was a
> sting operation in progress further up the road.
>
> The officer claimed Friend was "interfering with a police investigation"
> despite there being no real investigation, but rather some opportunistic
> officers sitting in squad cars hoping to catch "distracted" drivers. He also
> seized Friend's phone and prevented him from recording his interaction with
> the officer under the theory the recording would be used to make a "false
> claim of physical abuse".
>
> Then he took Friend to jail, managed to get his bail set at $25,000(!!),
> forcing him to spend a night in jail before the bail commissioner arrived and
> set it at a much more reasonable $0.
>
> And I'm not paraphrasing the officers who arrested Friend. They told him
> directly he was interfering with their opportunity to make money:
>
> On the ride to the police station, [Officer] Deems told
> Mr. Friend that he attracted police attention because
> he was "interfering with our livelihood".
>
> Deems explained to Mr. Friend that the cellphone sting
> was operated as an overtime assignment, funded by a
> federal grant which would require the Stamford police
> to issue a certain number of tickets in order for the
> grant to be renewed.
>
> By warning motorists, Deems claimed, Mr. Friend was
> decreasing the number of tickets that the Stamford
> employees could issue, and therefore decreasing their
> chances of earning overtime on a cellphone sting
> grant in the future.
>
> Somehow, a federal judge saw all of this and came down on the side of the
> cops. He granted Officer Gasparino's request for qualified immunity while
> ruling that holding up a sign warning drivers about a sting operation was not
> expressive speech. Judge Alfred Covello managed to talk himself around
> longstanding 1st Amendment protections clearly established by prior precedent.
> This would include precedential rulings that have found something as simple as
> flashing headlights at oncoming motorists (to warn them of police presence)
> was expressive enough to be considered protected speech.
>
> Although Friend states that he "objected to the way
> [police] were issuing tickets," nowhere 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".
>
> Just completely wrong on so many levels. Fortunately, this decision has been
> reversed by the 2nd Circuit Appeals Court. In a decision handed down late last
> month, the Appeals Court strips immunity from Officer Gasparino while stating
> affirmatively that, of course, this is clearly protected expression and the
> underlying issue has been clearly settled for some time.
>
> The decision contains this fun bit of information, in which the prosecutor
> sided wholeheartedly with Friend and his "cops ahead" sign:
>
> At Friend's hearing, the state's attorney entered a
> nolle prosequi and stated to the court that Friend had
> in fact helped the police. The prosecutor explained
> that "Friend actually was helping the police do a better
> job than they anticipated because when [drivers]
> saw the signs, they got off their cell phones". The
> misdemeanor interference charge was dismissed.
>
> First off, the Appeals Court reinstates Friend's 4th Amendment claims, finding
> that unlawfully ordering someone to stop engaging in protected 1st Amendment
> activity cannot form probable cause for arrest, especially when the law used
> to effect the arrest doesn't actually apply to the arrested person's actions.
>
> In short, you can't order someone to stop breaking the law when they're not
> actually breaking the law. And you certainly can't arrest them for refusing to
> comply with an unlawful order.
>
> The order was unlawful because why? The 1st Amendment, of course. Those claims
> are reinstated and there will be no immunity to protect the officer from the
> revived lawsuit. The Appeals Court says the lower court's rulings were
> completely wrong.
>
> The district court said that speech must "rise to
> the level of expression of an opinion related to a
> matter of public significance" in order to receive
> 1st Amendment protection. But that is not correct.
> The 1st Amendment does not "permit the
> Government to imprison any speaker so long as
> his speech is deemed valueless or unnecessary".
>
> [Note: This is a complete refutation of the moviePig theory of free speech.]
>
> The case now travels back to the court that screwed it up. There's a good
> chance the town of Stamford is now in the process of putting together a
> settlement offer. Hopefully, its re-review of this case will prompt it to
> consider whether or not officers like Richard Gasparino are still worth the
> expenses they inflict on taxpayers.

I am coming to believe that a substantial amount of law enforcement these days is about revenue for the city, not crime prevention. Case in point: our city decided that people were driving past schools too quickly. Having already lowered speed limits from 50 kph (i.e. 30 mph) to 40 in most residential neighbourhoods, they decided to lower them even further to 30 kph in front of elementary schools. They started with 18 schools and installed monitoring stations (not sure of the proper name but a place where a speed camera could be installed) and put up signage warning of the lower speed limit and where the boundaries were. (I should note that in our city, that limits applies 24 hours a day, every day of the year, not just during school hours.) They've apparently made so much money from these speed cams that the city council is eager to do the same on all the remaining schools as soon as possible. I have seen NOTHING that suggests safety has been improved one iota.. (I'd have been shocked if it made a difference to safety since virtually every child arrives in a school bus and the school bus unloads ON SCHOOL PROPERTY so there's just about zero chance that any kid will be hit by a car of someone passing by.) This gives every appearance of being nothing more than a cash cow that they can defend on the basis of "improving safety for children". What a farce!

In article <45b6006e-65c7-4463-a72d-f3a32dfe63d0n@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

> Unless the whole idea of cops issuing tickets is really just a money
> grab...

Of course it is.

I was driving home from NYC in the middle of the night and was on I-70
(the last leg of my trip). I'd set cruise control to 65 because I knew
the cops were roosting in all the usual spots, and their only job was
to raise revenue. No other traffic around. It was 2:30 a.m. Suddenly
a cop is on my ass, about three feet off my rear bumper. He stays
there, too. He's clearly trying to make me speed up so he can ticket
me. I left cruise control on and ignored him. He kept at it for a
minute or two before he gave up and sped past me. What he'd done was
stupid and dangerous -- there are deer-crossing warnings all over that
part of I-70 -- but he was, after all, a dumbass cop with a ticket
quota to meet.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/30/appeals-court-reverses-awful-decision-finding-that-holding-up-a-sign-telling-drivers-there-are-cops-ahead-is-not-free-speech/

>Officer Richard Gasparino of the Stamford, Connecticut police department
>couldn't stand to have his "revenue diverted". So he arrested Michael Friend
>for the imaginary crime of holding up a sign warning motorists there was a
>sting operation in progress further up the road.

>The officer claimed Friend was "interfering with a police investigation"
>despite there being no real investigation, but rather some opportunistic
>officers sitting in squad cars hoping to catch "distracted" drivers. He also
>seized Friend's phone and prevented him from recording his interaction with
>the officer under the theory the recording would be used to make a "false
>claim of physical abuse".

>Then he took Friend to jail, managed to get his bail set at $25,000(!!),
>forcing him to spend a night in jail before the bail commissioner arrived and
>set it at a much more reasonable $0.

Thank goodness this trial court judge was overruled. He thought the
qualified immunity clause in the Constitution (oh wait, that's just
judicial activism) overrode the Bill of Rights.

It's a good day for America.

>. . .

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 21:48:34 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>In article <45b6006e-65c7-4463-a72d-f3a32dfe63d0n@googlegroups.com>,
>RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unless the whole idea of cops issuing tickets is really just a money
>> grab...
>
>Of course it is.
>
>I was driving home from NYC in the middle of the night and was on I-70
>(the last leg of my trip). I'd set cruise control to 65 because I knew
>the cops were roosting in all the usual spots, and their only job was
>to raise revenue. No other traffic around. It was 2:30 a.m. Suddenly
>a cop is on my ass, about three feet off my rear bumper. He stays
>there, too. He's clearly trying to make me speed up so he can ticket
>me. I left cruise control on and ignored him. He kept at it for a
>minute or two before he gave up and sped past me. What he'd done was
>stupid and dangerous -- there are deer-crossing warnings all over that
>part of I-70 -- but he was, after all, a dumbass cop with a ticket
>quota to meet.

Some 40 years ago my father got a speeding ticket while on cruise
control. (He told me nearly every car with WA plates on the road was
passing him - but nobody but him got pulled over) My father had
Canadian plates but had grown up about 5 minutes from where he was
ticketed (which was about 15 miles south of the Canada / US border)
and was in the habit of visiting his mother monthly.

He decided to fight the ticket and planned his next trip to see his
mother the day of his hearing. Issuing officer didn't turn up
(probably not expecting to need to), the ticket was thrown out in near
record time and my grandmother and him had the last laugh.

On 4/16/23 6:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/30/appeals-court-reverses-awful-decision-finding-that-holding-up-a-sign-telling-drivers-there-are-cops-ahead-is-not-free-speech/
>
> Officer Richard Gasparino of the Stamford, Connecticut police department
> couldn't stand to have his "revenue diverted". So he arrested Michael Friend
> for the imaginary crime of holding up a sign warning motorists there was a
> sting operation in progress further up the road.
>
> The officer claimed Friend was "interfering with a police investigation"
> despite there being no real investigation, but rather some opportunistic
> officers sitting in squad cars hoping to catch "distracted" drivers. He also
> seized Friend's phone and prevented him from recording his interaction with
> the officer under the theory the recording would be used to make a "false
> claim of physical abuse".
>
> Then he took Friend to jail, managed to get his bail set at $25,000(!!),
> forcing him to spend a night in jail before the bail commissioner arrived and
> set it at a much more reasonable $0.
>
> And I'm not paraphrasing the officers who arrested Friend. They told him
> directly he was interfering with their opportunity to make money:
>
> On the ride to the police station, [Officer] Deems told
> Mr. Friend that he attracted police attention because
> he was "interfering with our livelihood".
>
> Deems explained to Mr. Friend that the cellphone sting
> was operated as an overtime assignment, funded by a
> federal grant which would require the Stamford police
> to issue a certain number of tickets in order for the
> grant to be renewed.
>
> By warning motorists, Deems claimed, Mr. Friend was
> decreasing the number of tickets that the Stamford
> employees could issue, and therefore decreasing their
> chances of earning overtime on a cellphone sting
> grant in the future.
>
> Somehow, a federal judge saw all of this and came down on the side of the
> cops. He granted Officer Gasparino's request for qualified immunity while
> ruling that holding up a sign warning drivers about a sting operation was not
> expressive speech. Judge Alfred Covello managed to talk himself around
> longstanding 1st Amendment protections clearly established by prior precedent.
> This would include precedential rulings that have found something as simple as
> flashing headlights at oncoming motorists (to warn them of police presence)
> was expressive enough to be considered protected speech.
>
> Although Friend states that he "objected to the way
> [police] were issuing tickets," nowhere 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".
>
> Just completely wrong on so many levels. Fortunately, this decision has been
> reversed by the 2nd Circuit Appeals Court. In a decision handed down late last
> month, the Appeals Court strips immunity from Officer Gasparino while stating
> affirmatively that, of course, this is clearly protected expression and the
> underlying issue has been clearly settled for some time.
>
> The decision contains this fun bit of information, in which the prosecutor
> sided wholeheartedly with Friend and his "cops ahead" sign:
>
> At Friend's hearing, the state's attorney entered a
> nolle prosequi and stated to the court that Friend had
> in fact helped the police. The prosecutor explained
> that "Friend actually was helping the police do a better
> job than they anticipated because when [drivers]
> saw the signs, they got off their cell phones". The
> misdemeanor interference charge was dismissed.
>
> First off, the Appeals Court reinstates Friend's 4th Amendment claims, finding
> that unlawfully ordering someone to stop engaging in protected 1st Amendment
> activity cannot form probable cause for arrest, especially when the law used
> to effect the arrest doesn't actually apply to the arrested person's actions.
>
> In short, you can't order someone to stop breaking the law when they're not
> actually breaking the law. And you certainly can't arrest them for refusing to
> comply with an unlawful order.
>
> The order was unlawful because why? The 1st Amendment, of course. Those claims
> are reinstated and there will be no immunity to protect the officer from the
> revived lawsuit. The Appeals Court says the lower court's rulings were
> completely wrong.
>
> The district court said that speech must "rise to
> the level of expression of an opinion related to a
> matter of public significance" in order to receive
> 1st Amendment protection. But that is not correct.
> The 1st Amendment does not "permit the
> Government to imprison any speaker so long as
> his speech is deemed valueless or unnecessary".
>
> [Note: This is a complete refutation of the moviePig theory of free speech.]
>
> The case now travels back to the court that screwed it up. There's a good
> chance the town of Stamford is now in the process of putting together a
> settlement offer. Hopefully, its re-review of this case will prompt it to
> consider whether or not officers like Richard Gasparino are still worth the
> expenses they inflict on taxpayers.

Another incidence where defunding the police is in order so people can
be hired who have functioning brains.

On 4/16/23 8:18 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 19:50:01 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>> https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/30/appeals-court-reverses-awful-decision-finding-that-holding-up-a-sign-telling-drivers-there-are-cops-ahead-is-not-free-speech/
>
> Since the whole point of visible cops is to get people to slow down and the sign does the same thing, I don't see the problem. Unless the whole idea of cops issuing
> tickets is really just a money grab....BTW, Toronto speed cams (installed by disgraced mayor) have generated $100M in revenue...

Sounds like another instance of the cops needing to be defunded.

On 4/16/23 8:48 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <45b6006e-65c7-4463-a72d-f3a32dfe63d0n@googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unless the whole idea of cops issuing tickets is really just a money
>> grab...
>
>
> Of course it is.
>
> I was driving home from NYC in the middle of the night and was on I-70
> (the last leg of my trip). I'd set cruise control to 65 because I knew
> the cops were roosting in all the usual spots, and their only job was
> to raise revenue. No other traffic around. It was 2:30 a.m. Suddenly
> a cop is on my ass, about three feet off my rear bumper. He stays
> there, too. He's clearly trying to make me speed up so he can ticket
> me. I left cruise control on and ignored him. He kept at it for a
> minute or two before he gave up and sped past me. What he'd done was
> stupid and dangerous -- there are deer-crossing warnings all over that
> part of I-70 -- but he was, after all, a dumbass cop with a ticket
> quota to meet.

Rich appears to turning liberal. Right wing assholes "support" the
police regardless of how shitty their behavior is.