Jan 20, 2014|
Tommy talks to Keith Werhan, a Professor of Constitutional Law at Tulane, about whether warning people about a speed trap is constitutional
Tommy talks to Kevin in Metairie about his wife's need for medication to cope with constant, chronic pain.
Tommy talks to WWL-TV reporter Meg Farris about a new report that New Orleans had more drug-related deaths than homicides.
Tommy talks to State Representative Cameron Henry about the current state and the future of TOPS.
Tommy talks to David Howard, Professor in the Dept. of Health Policy and Management at Emory University, about the state of Obamacare going forward.
Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)
Here we go Ron Martin guy in Frisco Texas. Standing out on a median. Neutral ground here with a sign that says police ahead. Because the police were running radar trying to catch speeders. Now the police knew something was -- when drivers that were passing by were waving at them. So obviously it's not some things going on they go down the road they see him any as a sign police at. -- and arrest him for obstructing justice or interfering with a police officer or anything like that they in Iraq Padilla arrested him for violating this city's sign ordinance. And here in Louisiana as mergers and as I understand it. The state police can ticket you. -- flashing your lights to warn oncoming motorist about it some police force running radar because. It's against the law on a flash your lights and it includes even if you -- -- up on some money -- one. Apolo oversee contest keep that in mind right now -- -- her hand joins as a professor of constitutional law to doing. And a randomized morning professor. Well thanks taken the time -- got a Super Bowl favorite. Are there in Denver got. It got to. I tell me about it -- warning. People about. Did it speed traps and hander cops running radar and trying to keep everybody safe whatever your perspective is on that and -- about freedom of expression first amendment rights etc. Right well. Would put her finger at Tommy went when you. It emphasized the nature of the the ordinance that that the speaker it is just rely on. Their role there they're not claiming the charges of justice or. Interference with the police studio or something of that nature. They're they're relying on it. Signed -- apparently which which prohibits. Anyone from. Holding a sign on public property. So what a court would do it that almost certainly would -- does say that. That ordinance is unconstitutional. Because it's it's over broad. And wouldn't even look at the particulars about the case it would strike now they ordinance. Completely on its. And the first to remember our principal theory is is is that. They're there are certain types of public property streets sidewalks parks in particular which are regarded as public forum. And the idea -- a public forum is that there are these common area in the community. Which historically served at least in part as places where people in the community and on the jumper and express their views and protest and and an -- vote. And consider the poor -- all over issues of the today. And that he can regulate. -- of the public forums so long as that. It does so in a way that preserves. Some. -- accepts -- can't completely shut down -- public forum to express in the can regulate the time place and -- All of -- But he actually accountable. So. The problem here would -- the nature of the ordinance which just goes way to far. If you have they would go after the first and four in reference to the police studio I think that it's harder for First Amendment. Problem. Certainly there isn't a first amendment rights to and interfere with the the operation of law enforcement. But I'm doubtful you're wet weather not even that would hold up because the only. This person is is in public -- He's he's he's communicating with the public. The only thing you do is holding. Enemies giving out truthful information. And to distribute to -- in any -- physically interfering -- The -- operation of full. Called the police here so I think even in the particulars he might well be protected. The -- -- it's certainly ordinances. Unconstitutional on its -- Professor Keith where Hanna our guest he's a professor of constitutional law at two -- talking about a guy in Texas. -- was standing on the median neutral ground here would have been a our science and police say ahead in. And he was arrested under the -- sign ordinance in the and the funny part here is that he doesn't mind about the police. -- -- radar he just thinks that behavior would be changed is much with a warning as it would with a ticket would -- then a minute but. Professor one quick question formula to go about your business a short Agassi relates to a different amendment or constitutional protection says -- police hide their car in themselves what went shooting radar. -- I I don't do what they couldn't. It. It wouldn't. Did -- I don't think it would be considered. And -- reasonable search -- on under the Fourth Amendment to because it's. -- that you know the nature and on -- constitutional searches religion they. I guess in some particular -- And I think. You know. Hiding yourself in order to observe what's happening in public. Which -- be to -- it's it's it's not electric. Our camera right which we had to take pictures of someone. Who would rob a bank or. Engage in you know some -- -- salt on the opposite cities -- Wall Street or one in the reply. I appreciate -- time professor I really don't have a great week and not party yet.