Ninth Circuit Says A Horn Honk Isn’t Protected Political Expression Even When That’s The Honk’s Entire Point
from the but-what-if-a-motorist-is-simply-horny dept
Nearly five years ago, California resident Susan Porter sued local law enforcement for deciding her honk in support of anti-Rep. Darrell Issa protesters was worth citing her for. When she expressed her support for the protesters in a way people have always considered to be an appropriate display of support, she was pulled over by Deputy Klein of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department.
The deputy took exception to something and had on hand something that could be abused to turn his displeasure into someone else’s enormous hassle. The California vehicle code states that a horn should not be used for any other reason that giving an “audible warning” to pedestrians and other drivers and cannot be used otherwise, “except as a theft alarm system.”
Selective enforcement made it possible for the deputy to cite Porter for daring to express her support for a local demonstration. In this context, the use of her horn was clearly political expression, even if it managed to annoy a law enforcement officer enough that he felt compelled to get legal about it.
This is why people don’t pay me for legal advice:
Is a law really necessary to keep horns from blaring constantly? Or has it long been accepted horns do double-duty as expressive speech, delivering pithy messages like “You suck at driving,” “You suck in general,” “Your ride is here,” and “I heartily approve/disapprove of this issue being debated freely in the marketplace of ideas, which is apparently located at Rep. Issa’s office at the moment.”
Whatever the basis for the law, it was pretty clearly used here to express a law enforcement officer’s distaste for the message conveyed by Porter, even if the message the deputy received was “I support the people you’re currently citing for other legal violations,” rather than the one Porter intended to send.
It looked pretty open-and-shut back in 2018. Porter’s horn use was clearly directed at the protesters and the ensuing police action was clearly an attempt to discourage her from expressing her support from anything from anti-Issa protests to other drivers who may be similarly sexually aroused.
Unfortunately, the first level of the federal court system saw it differently. More unfortunately, the next level of the federal court system has agreed with the lower level, as is noted here in this article by Greg Moran of the San Diego Union-Tribune:
Honking your car horn for any reason other than warning of imminent danger is still illegal in California, a federal appeals court has ruled.
In a 2-1 decision filed this month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the state law does not violate the free-speech rights of residents. The ruling turned down an appeal from an Oceanside woman who was ticketed for the infraction by a San Diego County sheriff’s deputy as she left a 2017 protest at the offices of Rep. Darrell Issa in Vista.
While I’m glad to see the Union-Tribune is on top of issues of importance to San Diego residents, I’m far less impressed that it was unwilling to use its resources to download and post the decision [PDF] issued by the Appeals Court, despite having the same (free and open) access to Ninth Circuit decisions anyone with an internet connection has. For shame, etc.
Moving beyond this journalistic faux pas… here’s the bad news about the court’s bad decision: it says the law can be used to punish expressive speech, so long as that speech is expressed by a person activating their vehicle’s horn.
Addressing the merits, the panel determined that at least in some circumstances, a honk can carry a message that is intended to be communicative and that, in context, would reasonably be understood by the listener to be communicative. The panel next held that because section 27001 applies evenhandedly to all who wish to use a horn when a safety hazard is not present, it draws a line based on the surrounding factual situation, not based on the content of expression. The panel therefore evaluated Section 27001 as a content-neutral law and applied intermediate scrutiny. The panel concluded that Section 27001 was narrowly tailored to further California’s substantial interest in traffic safety, and therefore that it passed intermediate scrutiny.
That’s the takeaway from the majority: because the law could conceivably be enforced in a content-neutral manner, the law is content-neutral even when it clearly isn’t. And I would be very interested to see just how often this obscure law has been enforced by this deputy and his employer and under what circumstances. My guess is that this was deployed under the “well, there’s a first time for everything” exception to the First Amendment.
“Narrowly tailored” is fine, but not when it’s still broad enough to be abused to hassle people who annoy law enforcement officers. The dissent [which takes up nearly half of the 60-page decision] doesn’t let the tailored look of law distract it from its use in this particular situation, which appears to be nothing more than plain, old fashioned retaliation against protected speech.
Car horns have always been expressive. Some expressions are more protected than others.
A greeting honk, for example, emits a loud noise that causes the listener to look up; the honk itself is not a greeting message, but it causes the listener to look up, notice, and identify the honker as a friend. Similarly, a honk to summon a child does not itself convey a message; it grabs the child’s attention, so she notices that her parent is waiting for her.
Honking at a political protest, on the other hand, is a use of a vehicle horn that definitely does constitute message conveying expressive conduct and so merits First Amendment protection. When Susan Porter honked while passing a protest against U.S. Representative Darrell Issa, she was not just making noise to attract attention. She was conveying a distinct message—agreement with the protesters’ objections to Darrell Issa’s stance on gun control. And that message was understood, as the protesters cheered when she beeped. The protesters did not have to be startled into looking up to understand what Porter was honking about; in the context, they understood the message immediately.
The officers obviously knew this too, but they appear to have been motivated by their opposition to Porter’s opposition to Rep. Issa’s gun control stance.
Clearly, in this case, the honk was political, and the majority was wrong to declare otherwise.
[T]here is no evidence in the record (or elsewhere, as far as I can determine) that such political expressive horn use jeopardizes traffic safety or frustrates noise control.
And the law enforcement officer testifying could provide no solid evidence to the contrary, despite his two decades of experience:
Beck declared that his opinions were based on his “24 years of experience working for the California Highway Patrol.” Based on that experience alone, he opined that the improper use of a vehicle horn can create danger by startling or distracting others. But when asked during his deposition for the basis of this opinion, Beck couldn’t articulate a reasoned explanation for the connection between his experience and that opinion. He did not provide a single example of an accident caused by any type of horn honking, let alone honking in support of a political protest.
And the law’s so narrowly tailored as to be completely useless, unless, of course, an officer wants to use it.
Moreover, and more importantly, Beck reported that, in his twenty-four-year career, he had stopped people for a Section 27001 violation only “four or five times” and the last time he wrote a citation was “several years ago . . . probably around 2013, 2014.” Thus, his opinion as to the salutary effect of actually enforcing Section 27001’s ban on non-safety-related horn honking has no grounding in his own experience, as he has exceedingly rarely enforced the statute.
Maybe the court is legally bound to accept these “narrowly crafted” arguments. But it really shouldn’t be, not when law enforcement officers admit the law is so narrowly crafted they rarely feel compelled to enforce it. There may be good government reasons for deterring wanton honking, but wanton honking doesn’t appear to be a problem large enough a statute needs to be enacted to address it.
That leaves us with what we have here: clearly selective enforcement of the law solely to silence someone the government (in the form of officers from two different agencies) wanted to silence, however temporarily.
The Appeals Court may have gotten this right in terms of what the law says and what the officers swore they were enforcing, but it had to arrive at that conclusion by ignoring the specifics of this case, along with the officers’ own testimony, which shows the law is only enforced when it’s useful to achieve ends unrelated to the stated purpose of the traffic code.
This case will never be entertained by the Supreme Court. It’s too esoteric and too opposed to its aims under its current construction. It will head back down to the lower court for the inevitable dismissal. And cops in the Ninth Circuit will remain free to abuse esoteric laws to punish people for speech they don’t agree with.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, 9th circuit, free speech, honking, horn honking, protests, san diego sheriff's department, susan porter
Comments on “Ninth Circuit Says A Horn Honk Isn’t Protected Political Expression Even When That’s The Honk’s Entire Point”
Depends on your definition of imminent danger
There was an armed individual there. I’d say a reasonable person could consider that an imminent danger.
Goose meet gander
If the Sand Diego sheriff officer (wild guess that they are a Republican) can ticket someone because of the officer’s political viewpoint, how can the car horn honk not be protected speech?
It’s the equivalent of arresting someone standing peacefully on a sidewalk with a BLM sign for “disturbing the peace”.
Re:
Been done.
Not quite
This was a facial challenge to the statute, not a challenge to the individual enforcement decision, and according to both the summary and a passage at the end of the opinion (I confess I have not read the record), the plaintiff did not argue selective enforcement and the majority expressly did not reach that issue.
“We make one final observation: It appears that Section 27001 citations are not common, and officers are taught to use ‘sound professional judgment’ in deciding whether to give a warning or a citation for a violation of Section 27001. As the dissent aptly observes in footnote 6, such broad discretion could open the door to selective enforcement. Porter does not allege, however, that the State has a policy or practice of improper selective enforcement of Section 27001, so we have no occasion to address that possibility here.”
Re:
A thing about lawsuits is that the court isn’t going to make your case for you. If you don’t raise an issue, that’s on you. (Not a lawyer, but I read The Volokh Conspiracy a lot.) Post of being s good lawyer is to look at facts and be able to discern all the legal issues involved, not just obvious ones. Our at least that’s how to be a good law student.
Re: Re: problem with selective enforcement argument
While we all know that the officer enforced the honk statute because he disagreed with the political message, it takes more than that to show selective enforcement.
You might have the cop admitting that was his motivation. That is unlikely, since he opined based on years of experience and then admitted to having no experience whatever that horns cause danger. If he is going to lie about one thing, then you should not count on him to be forthright about other things.
Alternatively, you could round up the cases of enforcement, a major job, giving you ample opportunity to learn about many parts of a large state. Then you may need a statistician to determine that the law is used politically.
The practical attorney can look at the law and see that is facially unconstitutional for several reasons, not least of which is the problem of giving unfettered discretion to petty officials.
It wou ld be nice to see the Supremes take this one up and get it right. This seems unlikely, however, so you have a rogue court of appeals bringing dishonor upon and eroding public confidence in the justice system.
Cop must be endeared to every wedding party leaving a church on his beat.
The majority opinion writers, the cops, and the legislators who wrote and backed this law must never visit Chicago, or potentially New York City. There, you need only two tools in order to drive from Point X to Point Y – a horn and at least one middle finger. Absent both of those tools, you will never arrive at Point B.
Porter should’ve claimed she was from one of those cities, and that she had no idea she couldn’t legally honk her horn.
If it wasn’t expressive, then it wouldn’t be called ‘political honking.’
We’d just call it honking.
The court recognizes that it conveys a message, but then fails to recognize that doing so is protected by the Constitution.
How about the complete opposite? What about arresting the demonstrators for soliciting an illegal act / intentionally disturbing the peace? “Honk if you support X” where honking for any reason except warning of imminent danger could be considered a crime too.
Still speech if the protestors had a sign giving instructions? “Honk once if you dislike Issa, honk twice if you like Issa.”
This is a bad take. If you break the law and claim it’s “political expression”, it’s still breaking the law. The courts got this one right, and they’re enforcing what’s on the books. Imagine you could break ANY law and claim “political expression” to get away with it!
Is it being enforced selectively? Don’t like the law in the first place? Then lobby to get the law changed, but that’s a separate issue from whether Porter used the car horn in a manner that is currently prohibited.
Re:
The question before the court was whether the law is constitutional.
Re: Re:
Hmm. I read the article as describing an appeal against the original citation itself on the grounds that Porter was using the horn to express herself (claiming the First Amendment as a defense, which would obviously be protected), and the courts deciding that the 1st didn’t apply here. I didn’t get the impression that it was a challenge to the law/California vehicle code as a whole to have the horn section removed or updated. If that’s what’s going on here, then my original comment would be inaccurate.
Thanks for the reply. As I type this, I realise that the line between claiming a First Amendment defense to a charge, and claiming that the underlying law is unconstitutional based on the First Amendment, is a little blurry.
Re:
It’s made pretty clear in the article you didn’t read that that’s exactly the purpose of this lawsuit.
Challenges like this are often how laws get changed, genius.
Re:
To the contrary, your framing is bad. If harmless political expression breaks the law, then the right place to decide whether a law is constitutional (i.e. whether the law is legitimate law!) is in a court. Are you aware of Texas v. Johnson (1989)?
What makes you think that “lobby[ing] to get the law changed” would’ve been of any help?
Two things.
You made a hyperbolic generalization of the article’s argument. The car honking in this case was political expression, and punishing plaintiff Susan Porter in this case doesn’t help anyone but does harm Susan Porter by violating her 1st Amendment freedom of expression. Deciding whether a law is constitutional is one of the very purposes of the judicial branch.
I would also add that “an unjust law is no law at all.“
Re: Re:
Wow, HotHead, thanks for your well-written reply. I appreciate that it took time and effort to do that for a stranger on the internet who, as you noted, could have been trolling. You’re right though that I’m actually just ignorant in this general area. I was looking at this from the layperson’s perspective of, “you can’t just ignore a law you don’t like”. I can better see now how these kinds of cases are what can cause unconstitutional laws to be overturned and how that’s different from, say, petitioning for recreational use legalisation. Honestly, the legal system isn’t my area of expertise (even though I have Opinions!)
I was aware that flag burning was legal and considered protected speech, but not the case behind it. Thanks for the link, I didn’t realise that it was only recognised as such so relatively recently (yes, I still think that 1989 is “recent”!)
Honestly, I was a little concerned that what you consider my strawman would be interpreted as a slippery-slope argument, even as I was writing it originally. The Brandenburg vs Ohio link sheds further light on why you consider my original expression the way you did. Thanks again for your time, and giving me the benefit of the doubt; I feel less ignorant now that I was before.
theft alarm system
Wait, haven’t a bunch of auto-proctologists been complaining about the election being stolen? Surely this citizen was operating their election-related “theft alarm system” in bipartisan sympathy?
Word of the law
The “solution” here would be to push to change the law the limits excessive noise.
Free speech still has constraints. You don’t have any right to break the law in your protest. If you do, you rightly suffer the consequences you deserve.
If you don’t like the law, run for political office, and put forward a bill to change it.
Re:
Please help me