This is what gets me. Having something in your hand is not the same as using it. Having discretion to ignore, warn or ticket, the cop chose to give a ticket for an offense which may have been technically illegal, but which had absolutely zero effect on anyone, anywhere, at any time. It’s rather chilling to me to see people applauding the notion of citations being issued and deserved for doing something that, in the given situation could not and did not even run the risk of causing any harm to anyone.
I’m all for tickets for violations of safety. I’m in favor of laws against cell phone use while driving. But as described, that’s not what this was. This was a cop getting closer to his monthly quota by being a stickler for a poorly written law in an instance where he certainly didn’t have to be.
This (if you are correct) is officially stupid. It will be in the finals for the dumbest law of the year.
If I am legally parked with the engine off, I would love to hear the argument that I am endangering the public by using my cell phone.
[Ron White] I’m listening[/RW]
This is revenue generation pure and simple. Not safety, revenue generation. A cell phone tax if you will.
You were on the road, in your vehicle, holding and using a cellphone. The officer saw you with it in your hand. It is only your word that you “just looked at it for two seconds”, and that is about as convincing in court as the people pulled over for DUI who claim they only had one beer.
Next time pull into a parking lot to check out the phone and bluetooth connection.
For purposes of this law, does a public right of way include a parking lot in front of say, a store or car dealer? It’s open to the public but is actually privately owned by the store or car dealer.
How is checking the signal “using” a cellphone? If there was a law against using pencils would checking a pencil to see if it needs sharpened be “using” it?
Hey, if it helps you to get over it by calling it a ‘tax’, go with that.
I don’t believe you’ll succeed in your endeavor to get it reversed, as I too think you’re guilty.
Expecting a police officer to distinguish between, holding and using, is ridiculous. We all want to see this law enforced and respected, so I doubt you’re going to get any support, honestly.
I’d just pay the thing and move on personally. I agree that you were not operating the phone though. Just looking at it is not operating it, operating requires an action for og’s sake.
bolding mine
I don’t think that looking at the screen for a moment constitutes that at all, BUT since you were holding it, you’ll be hard pressed to prove your case.
I regards to not being able to dial out with a hands free phone. Don’t do it while driving, answering the phone is bad enough but I can see where dialing out is the ultimate distraction.
My question is: were you on a highway? Typically, you don’t find traffic lights on most highways, but I have no idea if, legally speaking, “highway” means the same as “paved road”.
ETA: Really, I think you’re best move is going to be to just suck it up and pay the fine. Maybe argue that you deserve a lesser penalty, but I there’s not a lot of wiggle room in that law, I don’t think.
Okay, it seems that I have practically zero chance of getting this dismissed. I don’t care about the fine so having it reduced will not be satisying. It seems that the only hope of getting off is if the police officer fails to provide adequate testimony to establish that I indeed violated the law. Not clear which facts need to be established, and I’m not really interested in going to court. For now, I am scheduled to discuss this with the prosecutor.
Also, I realize that traffic court is not the place to engage in arguments about the wording of a law (so I won’t do that), but I’m wondering about the use of the word or in “holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device”. How can the device be used without holding it?
The problem is that the device can be held without using it, thus necessitating an “or”. It could be read as “holding without using or holding while using” if that makes it clearer for you.
Wow these laws are dumb, then. I have a phone with a built in GPS navigation system. I also have a mount on my dash for it. It gives me voice directions as I drive so I don’t have to fiddle with a map while driving on strange roads. The holder is mounted so I can take a glance at without taking my eyes off the road. Because it gives me directions as I drive it lets me put all my attention on the road, instead of dividing it between driving and wondering if that’s my turn.
However in Ontario, that law as written would make me a criminal. It sounds like lazy cops in need of money. They could have outlawed talking and texting on your phone. It’d be easy to prove. Pull over a suspected texter/talker, and get the number off their phone and subpoena the phone company, or outlaw driving while distracted, which is where the danger comes from.
No instead merely harmlessly touching it at a stoplight is bad juju. Whoever wrote the text of this law needs a sound kidney punch for stupidity. A zero tolerance law that convicts people even when they’ve committed no harm is a bad law.
Well, that’s kind of my point: In Ontario, it is *not *illegal to talk on the phone while using a hands-free Bluetooth device, even though (as I argued in my OP), you are still “using” a hand-held device.
