A man trying to lend a helping hand to fellow drivers faced a fine for his actions.
Drivers often assist each other, such as alerting someone of a malfunctioning taillight.
In 2015, Daniel Gehlke from Seattle, Washington, encountered a similar situation when he warned others about a speed trap using a homemade sign. The sign stated: “Cops ahead! Stop at sign and light!”
While Daniel believed he was helping, a police officer informed him that his sign was giving instructions, specifically the ‘stop at sign and light’ directive.
Reacting to the officer’s concerns, Daniel modified the sign by removing the contentious part.
A video from the incident shows Officer Elliott saying the sign was unlawful and requesting Daniel’s ID.
After completing paperwork, the officer cited Daniel for ‘Forbidden Device’.
According to Washington State Legislature: “It is unlawful to erect or maintain at or near a city street, county road, or state highway any structure, sign, or device: Visible from a city street, county road, or state highway and simulating any directional, warning, or danger sign or light likely to be mistaken for such a sign or bearing any such words as ‘danger’, ‘stop’, ‘slow’, ‘turn’, or similar words, figures, or directions likely to be construed as giving warning to traffic.”
Consequently, Daniel faced a $138 fine. However, he contested the charge in court.
Defending the fine, Sgt. Sean Whitcomb, a spokesperson for the Seattle Police Department, explained to KOMO News: “The specific issue is that he was giving instructions to motorists through the words that he chose, like ‘slow down’ or ‘caution’. That’s exactly the issue. It’s the words that give people orders referring traffic.”
Daniel expressed to the news outlet: “I am a believer that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights are there specifically so they can’t be modified or restricted. This clearly is not a stop sign.”
Rather than the sign’s language, he felt he was being penalized for his effort to help others avoid a speeding ticket.
Ultimately, Daniel’s case was dismissed, and he wasn’t required to pay the $138 fine.