Tag Archives: Al Townsend

Flashing your headlights: a first amendment right? (Part 2)

Blogger’s Note: When a Florida man flashed his headlights to warn oncoming motorists of an upcoming speed trap, he was pulled over and ticketed. He’s taken the fight to court, where he’s filed a class-action lawsuit alleging his free speech rights were violated.

I’ve sought the perspective of two locals — Bremerton defense attorney Stan Glisson and Port Orchard top cop Al Townsend — to give us their take on this unusual but intriguing case. Here is Townsend’s commentary. Glisson’s essay appeared Friday. Be sure to read up on the case first. 

JF: “A Florida man is suing for violation of his first amendment rights because he passed a speed trap and then flashed his headlights — and got ticketed for it. In Washington, would this type of thing be grounds for a ticket? Why or why not?”

AT: “It would NOT … The legal answer is state law forbids people from shining their high beam lights at other drivers in the range of 300 to 500 feet. So it would be uncommon in my mind for someone driving around after dark to get stopped if they are driving with their high beams on because they could be impacting the vision of oncoming cars.

Now, I suppose technically, if you are flashing your high beams at another car then you are driving with your high beams on and could be subject to that law.  But … we would not stop a  car for doing that as it relates to notifying other drivers of a radar zone or even when other drivers try to get the attention of a driver who is cruising down the road with his high beams on (to get his attention to shut them off).

In fact … if more people would do that when they see cops running radar, more people would slow down and accomplish our goal.

If one of my cops did the Florida thing and stopped a car for flashing his headlights at another car that was warning him of a radar set, he’d be on the carpet in my office … I can guarantee you it would only happen once.”

Al Townsend is police chief in the city of Port Orchard. Aside from his administrative duties, he is known as one of the few top cops who regularly patrols the streets with the line officers.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Flashing your headlights: a first amendment right? (Part 1)

Blogger’s Note: When a Florida man flashed his headlights to warn oncoming motorists of an upcoming speed trap, he was pulled over and ticketed. He’s taken the fight to court, where he’s filed a class-action lawsuit alleging his free speech rights were violated.

I’ve sought the perspective of two locals — Bremerton defense attorney Stan Glisson and Port Orchard top cop Al Townsend — to give us their take on this unusual but intriguing case. Glisson’s essay will run today while Townsend’s commentary will appear here Saturday. Be sure to read up on the case first. 

A car passes a hazard on a roadway; maybe a downed tree, maybe an animal in the road, maybe a police speed trap. The driver flashes their headlights as they approach oncoming traffic, to warn them of the peril ahead. The practice has existed as long as I have been driving, usually to warn of a parked police officer running their radar.

It is no surprise that some police officers disapprove of the practice. But in Florida, that disapproval commonly went one step further to ticketing the drivers for flashing their headlights. Police alleged basically that the headlight flashing is a distraction to others, but the perception is that the citations were issued as retribution for disrupting their speed trap.

One Florida man who saw a speed trap and flashed his lights as a warning at other drivers got such a ticket. He is now suing the state, arguing that flashing headlights is a form of communication, a type of ‘speech’ protected by our first amendment. Interestingly, since the lawsuit, Florida police have been instructed to discontinue the practice of issuing such tickets.

Protected speech takes as many forms as we have imagination. It’s one thing to tell a friend you saw a speed trap. It’s another to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. But free speech contains almost everything in between.

The idea of free speech is not always easy to swallow. It is completely fair to think that speeders should get caught and cited, and anyone trying to warn them is obstructing good police work. But if we believe in free speech in this country, it means protecting all speech. The most important speech to protect is the unpopular; it needs protection the most. We are free to talk to each other about what the government is doing, whether war strategy, economic policy, or police activity. The right to speak out against the government was arguably the most important right to our founding fathers, hence its prominent position in the Bill of Rights. The freedom we enjoy to speak our minds has to extend to warnings about speed traps, to literature, to profanity, and yes, on occasion to pasties on baristas.

Where the Florida law suit will end up is anyone’s guess. It speaks volumes that the police have stopped issuing these tickets. If you see a speed trap and want to warn other drivers, flash those lights. If you don’t want to, that’s fine too. We have to respect your decision about what you choose to say or not to say and every idea, popular or not, must be allowed to be heard. As Atticus Finch said, the one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience. So do as your conscience tells you. As for me, I’ll keep flashing my lights.

Stan Glisson is an attorney in Bremerton with the firm Glisson, Witt and Altman. Their firm mainly handles DUI and misdemeanor defense, as well as felony defense and civil cases. Glisson earned his law degree at the University of Washington, has worked as a Kitsap County deputy prosecutor, and as a Kitsap and Snohomish defense attorney before entering private practice.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Suquamish police can give your heart a restart (if necessary)

The Suquamish Police Department was the first law enforcement agency in Kitsap County to outfit its force with video cameras in patrol cars. These days, they’re the first to have another tool in each officer’s vehicle: an Automatic External Defibrillator, or AED.

AEDs, which can help restart the heart muscle, are by all accounts wonderful pieces of technology, but they are pricey at around $1,000 per unit. Suquamish PD got them using a federal grant available to tribal police departments.

Will the rest of the county’s agencies join in? I polled other agencies and the answer was no.

Port Orchard: “We have one in city hall,” said Port Orchard Police Chief Al Townsend. “That’s about it.”

But Kitsap County Sheriff’s Spokesman Scott Wilson notes that more AEDs are on the way to the county, even if they’re not in patrol cars:

“The sheriff’s office has obtained grant money administered through the Department of Homeland Security (Region 2),” Wilson wrote me in an email. “These are funds dedicated, for all Kitsap County law enforcement agencies, for the purchase and deployment of AEDs.”

“The AEDs will be placed in / on:

  • All law enforcement buildings / offices (that need them)
  • Select law enforcement vehicles, such as the RV mobile command post, the SWAT team vehicle, BPD major crimes unit vehicle, etc.
  • All marine patrol boats (every agency that has them).

“All told, there should be about 30 AEDs purchased and deployed,” Wilson wrote.

Here’s the rest of the press release from the Suquamish Police Department, including some facts about cardiac arrest:

The Suquamish Police Department is pleased to announce that all officers have been issued Automatic External Defibrillators.  The Phillips “Heartstart” AED’s were purchased using a Department of Justice Tribal Resources Grant Program.

AED’s have proven to be a valuable tool for saving lives.  While we have outstanding Fire and Medical response in North Kitsap County, there are some locations and circumstances where Law Enforcement officers are closer to the scene of a sudden cardiac arrest, and can arrive minutes earlier.  Our officers have been trained in the use of AED’s for years, but we were finally able to obtain funding to equip every police officer with an AED for their car.

The model that our department purchased will work on both adults and children.

This new equipment will allow us to better serve all of the 7000+ residents who live on the Port Madison reservation.  We are particularly interested in protecting our community elders, and keeping their knowledge and wisdom with us for many years to come.

Some facts about Sudden Cardiac Arrest:

  • More people die from SCA than from breast cancer, prostate cancer, AIDS, house fires, handguns and traffic accidents combined.
  • Nearly 80 percent of all cardiac arrests occur in the home; the majority are witnessed by someone who could potentially be a lifesaver.
  • The underlying cause of SCA is not well understood. Many victims have no previously reported history of heart disease, or if heart disease is present, it has not functionally impaired them.
  • 50 percent of men and 63 percent of women who died from SCA had not previously reported symptoms of heart disease.
  • SCA strikes both men and women. The average age of victims is 65; however, many of those who experience SCA are much younger—many in their 30s and 40s.
  • Defibrillation is recognized as the definitive treatment for ventricular fibrillation, the abnormal heart rhythm most often associated with SCA. While CPR may help prolong the window of survival, it cannot restore a normal cardiac rhythm.
  • For every minute that goes by without defibrillation, a cardiac arrest victim’s chances of survival decrease by about 10 percent. After 10 minutes without defibrillation, few attempts at resuscitation are successful.
  • SCA survivors have a good long-term prognosis: 80 percent of survivors are alive after one year and 57 percent after five years.
  • The average National response time for emergency medical services in a typical community is nine minutes.
  • Presently, the national SCA survival rate in the United States is less than five percent.
  • The American Heart Association estimates that 40,000 more lives could be saved annually in the U.S. alone if automated external defibrillators (AEDs) were more widely available and could reach victims more quickly.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

UPDATE: Driving + Cell Phone + Ear = $124 Ticket

The era of holding up a cell phone to your ear while driving in Washington is over. Granted, it had been illegal for a couple years, but beyond the reach of the cops if drivers were obeying all other laws.

Texting, too, is out. And don’t pull over to talk on the shoulder, because that’s not safe, either.

Even the police say they’ll limit time on the phone while driving, even though they’re exempt from the law.

Will some continue to drive around talking and texting, ultimately disregarding the law? I suppose, but judging by the strong words from our local law enforcement leaders, I’d say it’s a habit that’s going the way of the Dodo.

“In an effort to protect the public and cut accidents we will be enforcing this law the day it goes into effect,” said Shawn Delaney, deputy chief of the Poulsbo Police Department.

But even if it’s enforced from the get-go, Al Townsend, chief of the Port Orchard Police Department, points out that his office is not planning any type of emphasis patrols. A cell phone violation will be weighed like any other.

“Officers will maintain the same discretion they have on any traffic infraction as to whether they will stop and warn the driver or write a citation,” he said.

But the police, too, have noticed this law has been extensively covered in the press.

“The Mason County Sheriff’s Office is very much aware of the extraordinary amount of media coverage this law has had so we do not anticipate an education period for motorists violating this law,” said Dean Byrd, Mason County Sheriff’s spokesman.

We already know, however, what the state patrol’s plans are. They will likely be the police agency that focuses on this new law most.

UPDATE: Monday, June 14: I heard back from Kitsap County Sheriff Steve Boyer. Here are some of his observations:

“We are essentially on the same page with the (state) patrol. Thanks to the media attention, the educational component is well placed. As previously reported, even with the law enforcement exemption, we have provided the essential tools for our people to set a good example.

There will be those who want to argue; however, it is just common sense (with a strong research foundation); too bad legislation is required to modify human behavior. Besides, why would good people want to risk hurting anyone?  It was interesting to me how many fewer people were using cell phones today (Thursday, the first day of the law) than yesterday.”

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post