For-sale sign launches free speech battle
Man ticketed for displaying sign on truck while parked on Nazareth street
William Cramer wanted to sell his 1987 Chevrolet pickup truck last fall before heading to the Philippines, where the retired educator is spending a year teaching local residents English.
He put a for-sale sign on the vehicle, which was parked on a street in front of his Nazareth home.
“Maybe a couple years ago, I had a for-sale sign on a car for sale,” Cramer said from the city of Tacloban, where he is living. “Nothing happened.”
But on Oct. 9, police cited him under a 1991 borough ordinance that prohibits parking a vehicle on a public street with a for-sale sign displayed on the vehicle.
“When I saw this happening,” Cramer said, “I was like, ‘Wow, this is like freedom of speech taken away.’ ”
Not all speech is equally protected by the First Amendment, argues groups such as the nonprofit Institute for Justice. Someone whose car had signs showing “Support Our Troops” or “Go Blue Eagles” — for the Nazareth Area High School mascot — would be perfectly legal to be parked on a public block. In Cramer’s case, however, the for-sale sign on his truck wasn’t legal under the borough’s law.
He and the institute think that’s wrong.
“It’s preposterous that this is banned,” said attorney Bobbi Taylor, with the Arlington, Virginia, institute, who is representing Cramer in a lawsuit filed April 9 against the borough. “If you look at it, they’re banning free speech.”
The group is seeking to have the ordinance related to posting for-sale signs declared unconstitutional, she said.
After being cited by police, Cramer pleaded not guilty to the charge. Nazareth District Judge John C. Capobianco found him guilty Dec. 5 in a summary trial. He was charged $123.75 for the $25 parking ticket, with added fines and costs.
Cramer decided to pay the fine and not appeal Capobianco’s decision to Northampton County Court.
Capobianco said he could not recall details of Cramer’s case, but said it was rare for police to prosecute such cases since he was first elected in 2007 as a judge.
The institute’s lawsuit argues the borough not only violated Cramer’s rights under the First Amendment but also the 14th Amendment, which safeguards people from arbitrary actions by the government.
“He was selling [the truck] but did not post the sign for the purposes of selling it out front of his home,” Taylor said. “Our understanding is the borough took the position that by putting the for-sale sign on the truck, he was going to sell it [on the street].”
Borough officials, who were electronically served with the lawsuit Tuesday, did not respond to requests for comment about the lawsuit. But they defended the law in earlier interviews with The Morning Call.
Alfred S. Pierce, who has been borough solicitor since 1976, about 15 years before the ordinance took effect, said he could not recall anyone suing the borough over the ordinance based on a First Amendment violation. He also could not remember why the law was enacted, but said it is in place
because the street is owned by the municipality.
The ordinance also bars residents from repairing or “greasing” their vehicles on borough streets.
Police Chief Randall Miller said the ordinance, which he has seen on the books in other communities, is in place in part to prevent a proliferation of illegal sales by residents, or dealers trying to sell vehicles on public streets.
Miller said cases such as the one involving Cramer are uncommon “because we address issues like this before they become big issues.” Borough police have issued three tickets under the for-sale infraction since 2023, including Cramer’s, according to information provided in response to an open records request
Taylor noted a similar case in a suburb of Cincinnati. The case wound through the legal system for years before a federal appeals court in June 2007 rejected the ordinance for what it called a “routine act of free speech.” The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal, according to one media report.
Cramer’s lawsuit is in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania.