This isn't actually true, because interference is illegal ONLY when you physically obstruct or deceive officers - warning others about police or ICE presence is speech that courts protect as a First Amendment right.
A federal judge in Missouri barred tickets for drivers who flashed headlights to signal a speed trap, the Supreme Court in Houston v. Hill affirmed the right to challenge police verbally, and other federal rulings in Florida and Tennessee reached the same conclusion.
Alerting neighbors that agents are around is expression, not obstruction. And case law protects it in case they want to try (though this is becoming increasingly irrelevant, which - at the same time - makes our social contract to honor such institutions proportionally irrelevant)
Alerting people of traffic checks does not directly encourage them to engage in illegal acts. Telling people to hide from the police when there is a legal reason for detention on the other hand does.
You’re going to have to make a convincing argument that alerting people of a traffic cop isn’t the same as alerting people of police presence in general, and that the merits of one has more weight for the usage of someone already committing crimes.
As it is, by batting for the legality of alerting traffic checks, you’re already batting for the alert and notification of police presence - because that’s what traffic checks consist of
Courts are not stupid. You're not "altering people of police presence in general" when you're making or participating an app that is clearly intended to help people facing the legal consequences of their actions.
You still need to generate a convincing argument that "alerting people of police presence in general" has any more weighted use from criminals, to avoid legal consequences, than speeding trap alerts - which we already have settled case law for. You have not done so.
That assumes people were going to break the law in the first place by speeding... you can't be guilty of the crime of not helping someone else commit a crime.
Maybe if they had some way to prove that you knew it would help them avoid police in order to speed... but that seems like a pretty high bar of evidence would be required (and they would have to attempt to go after you in the first place).
>Reporting on the presence on police is protected first amendment activity
Using this specific app is obviously protected by the 1st Amendment, which is why the relevant laws are much more specific than merely "interfering with law enforcement."
It still shocks me that, as republican politicians and voters rode their high horse about free speech absolutism for the last ten years, so many people believed they were sincere.
On what grounds? Could you give a simple search term for this?
This reminds me of the musk elonjet case on twitter. Generally, if I were to follow a person (in public spaces) and constantly report their location, is that against the law? (If yes, could you clarify which law specifically?) If it is truly against the law here, does it make a difference that here the reports are non-individual in nature, ie reporting that ice is present, not that a particular ice officer is present.
Is there something special about doing the same thing for police/ice?
I think I remember this kind of scenario coming up in supreme court cases before but don't remember specifics, and google isn't helping.
But I admit I generally feel that my response is "So what?"
which seems to suggest this specific scenario has not been addressed by the supreme court, but has been addressed by various appeals courts, and it claims that 61% of the population lives in states that have affirmed this right.
