Fighting a ticket about holding a cell phone

In My Humble Opinion
61

I just think it’s picking nits, and while you know you were only glancing at the phone to check the signal and that was no more dangerous than adjusting the AC/heating or radio, the fact is a lot (a majority? are there studies?) of people glancing at a phone will end up doing much more engaging activities. Had the signal been bad, or even good on your phone and bad on your car’s bluetooth display, what would you have done? You would have been thinking about it, fiddling with options perhaps, and eventually the light would have turned green and if the problem wasn’t yet resolved, hypothetical you begins to drive while thinking about this and trying to fix it, and that is an unsafe situation.

Someone glancing at a text or email message will be tempted to reply to said message, if only to say “I’m in the car”. Doing so requires a certain amount of focus and often takes more time than we think it does, especially when we are trying to drive as well.

I’m too lazy to check to see what type of phone you have (if you even said it) but I’m assuming an iPhone (which is what I think you had for some reason) would require at least a click of the “power” button or double-click of the main control button, and a slide on the screen to unlock it and maybe minimizing an app that might be open before you can really see what signal it is receiving (I’m basing this on my knowledge of the iPod Touch). If the light had immediately turned green, would you have absolutely stopped what you were doing, or continue “just checking” it?

You don’t have to answer those specifically - I believe you that you were not particularly putting anyone at risk and had no intention of making a call/texting, but the police officer couldn’t know that, and for so many other people, that’s what they would say in order to get out of a ticket regardless of their intent.

Countless people drive and use a cell phone (to any extent of the definition you want to use for the word “use”, “operate”, “capable”, whatever), and nothing bad happens, but the accidents that occur in which cell phone use was a significant factor are a) frequent and b) severe enough that a law is warranted.

You probably drive safely enough to not use a seatbelt either. But not everyone does, and what if? These laws are written to get everyone into compliance, not just the crazy fuckers likely to actually kill someone via their actions. Sorry it caught up to you, but IMHO you were breaking the law as it was written. Perhaps the wording could be different, but it’s a law that I support (at least in theory).

62

I hope they fine you enough to cover waste of tax dollars spent hearing your case. The law you cited is quite clear in relation to the facts you described.

63

An allowed exception to the law is activating “hands-free” operation? Then how can you possibly be ticketed? I understand the officer can’t be forced to decide how you’re using the device, etc, but that exception either negates ALL tickets that could be written for this offense, or the wording of the law itself can’t allow this exception. I don’t see how it can be both ways. You must handle the phone to turn on the Bluetooth.

64

Any sane prosecutor would dismiss this in a minute. If for some reason sanity is not forthcoming then I would explain to him/her that you will take the full cost of the fine, divide it by the local tax rate and multiply that number by 3. That is the amount of personal spending that you will redirect to another district. In other words, if they try to collect $200 from you then you will take $600 worth of taxes away from them. If the city has nothing better to do with it’s law enforcement budget then you certainly have better things to do with the financing of same.

65

I started a whole thread about it when it happened, actually. It was explained to me that my bill is hearsay because there’s no way of knowing that it is representative of the exact phone I was accused of using at the time. IE: I could bring in any ol’ person’s cell phone bill to prove I wasn’t “using” my phone. The reality is, I wasn’t using my phone and the way the (California, at least) court system is operating, I literally have no way of defending myself once accused. Oh, I was told that MAYBE if an actual ATT rep came in, that MIGHT count, but even then, how do they know which phone I was using?

In fairness, it could just be the traffic court where I live that is this fucked up, but who knows.

66

Wow - it sounds like both you and Galileo are screwed, as are the rest of the state residents. The idea that a police office can “never be wrong” in such a situation seems like something out of an Orwell novel.

So any police officer can simply pull you over at will and, if nothing else, claim you were talking on a cell phone? And nobody - EVER - will be able to dispute the fact?!

Wow - somehow this is going to end up in the Supreme Court someday…

I used to think banning cell phones while driving was a good idea (not yet a law in Nevada) but now I am beginning to have some serious doubts!

67

I was talking with the officer after- he was actually a very nice guy- and I said, “Ok, so I understand that in this situation, I obviously hold the belief that I was doing nothing wrong and you honestly believe you witnessed me doing something wrong. Fine. But hypothetically speaking, officers are human, so what happens if in a situation like this, the officer is wrong? Saw the wrong thing, etc? How can a citizen defend themselves?” Because hey, I’d like to know how to defend myself better next time.

The officer told me that in all of the cell phone tickets he’s been to court for, he had never once seen anyone let off completely. Every single time, the judge has said that whatever evidence the person was presenting was insufficient or inadmissible. In my case, I brought in my 50+ page cell phone bill (highlighted and ready to go), along with all of the hands free bullshit I have for my car (just to show that hey, I’m trying over here). None of that matters. If an officer thinks I’m using my phone, it’s my word against theirs and unlike other legal situations, there’s no reasonable amount of evidence I can bring to the court to the contrary. Craziness. And in California, they are upping the fine AND making this a violation where you get a point on your record now. So, if an officer where I live thinks you’re on the phone and gives you a ticket, there’s on way out of it and your insurance is going to go up because of it.

68

OK - come on, there has to be a lawyer reading this!
Seriously, is this not reason enough to take this to a higher court?
The idea that there is a process of law that not a single person can dispute and win is mind-boggling!

DiosaBellissima, I would contact Gloria Allred - seriously! Having lived in California, I know she is a publicity whore, but a damned good lawyer. When she latches on to a case, she is like a dog with a bone. I can see her marching this through to the Supreme Court (but stopping to get a pedicure along the way).

This law sucks.

This thread alone has made me totally re-evaluate my hatred of people using cell phones while driving. Yes, it is dangerous - but is it really more dangerous than allowing the law against it to become a catch-all for any police officer to write up, without fear of ever losing in court?

Geez - Arizona’s new law about illegal immigrants seems tame in comparison!

69

This is nothing new. Run a stop sign and a cop spots you? He can cut you a ticket without other witnesses and if you decide to fight it there’s virtually no chance of you shaking it.

70

The law may be quite clear, but it is a stupid law. Many phones now have GPS and mapping services. Are we to take it that use of these features in a car is now prohibited? If it’s mounted on a dashboard, it’s OK, but if not, it’s worthy of a fine? Does merely looking at a device count as “using” it? Why does simply adding a telephone receiver/transmitter unit make an innocuous device, like a Garmin, into the world’s most dangerous object, where merely looking at it at a stop light is worthy of a fine?

You bring up another good point as to why this case should be persued in court: to waste money. The more people challenge these laws written by geriatric retards, the more money is wasted.

71

[quote=“DiosaBellissima, post:54, topic:542844”]

I got a similar ticket in California and I was told by the judge that:

[ul]
[li]I had committed the most egregious, intentional, and dangerous crime there is; and[/li][/quote]

[/ul]
Can you provide that judge’s name? I would like to be able to quote him for the record if I’m ever arrested for drunk driving in California. :rolleyes:

72

With respect to a otherwise hand-held GPS, the device must be affixed to the vehicle, and must not be physically fiddled with while the vehicle is being driven, unless the driver pulls off the road or lawfully parks, and the vehicle is not in motion, and is not impeding traffic.

73

The more frequently people mount spurious defences against traffic tickets in which the entire basis of the defence is the hope that the officer will not show up for court, the greater the pressure on the government to cut down on this abuse by easing up on the prosecution’s evidentiary requirements for low-level traffic matters. Presently, our government is kicking around a proposal to do just this. http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201006077000/Commentary/Inside-Queen-s-Park-Does-govt-have-a-right-to-expedited-trials

I’d very much prefer that such evidentiary requirements not be lowered, but I can see it coming given the way so many people play the “clog up the system” card.

74

I suppose I should have connected the dots.

Our courts and our police are wasting huge amounts of time dealing with people who put forward defences based entirely on the hopes that the officer involved does not show up to be a witness.

This results in two very big problems. The first is that it causes delays for people with legitimate defences. The second is that it costs a lot of taxpayer dollars.

There are two obvious ways of reducing the numbers of people who game the system this way. One is to reduce the prosecution’s evidentiary requirements by only requiring affidavits and implementing a screening process. I think this sucks, for it will reduce the opportunities to mount legitimate defences.

The other is to hit people who mount spurious defences with fines or court costs that truly reflect the cost of the successful prosecutions against them. I think this would have the effect of making people think twice before they deliberately clog up the system in hopes that the police are too busy to turn up for court. Thus my original post.

75

Nope. As far as turning on the phone’s bluetooth goes (if you need to do this – mine is always on), you can do this prior to driving. When a call comes in or you wish to place a call, you can press a button of the device (be it the phone or a bluetooth receiver) to start the voice process provided that the thing that you are pressing is attached to the vehicle or to your earpiece rather than being held in your hand.

76

No points are applied for cell-phone infractions here (although other juriscictions differ), so there are no insurance ramifications, meaning that as far as insurance rate increaces go, it is treated like a parking ticket rather than a speeding ticket. The base fine is $155, but the court can lower the fine or raise it up to $500, plus costs. When playing the clog up the system card as the only defence, it really just comes down to deciding how much your own time is worth.

77

Wrong. Here in Ontario (the OP’s jurisdiction) it is OK to use a cell phone to call emergency services even if you are driving.

78

Nope. You are good to go in Ontario with your setup using voice directions.

79

Put it in hands-free mode before you start driving and then don’t touch it.

Affix a relay to your vehicle and press the button on the relay (that’s what I do, so I don’t have to take my phone out of my briefcase).

Do what you have done by purchasing a car with built-in bluetooth.

Any of the above will work nicely without violating the law.

If whichever system is being used has a failure, the trick is to stop driving before fiddling about to effect repairs.

80

So you can use a phone while driving under certain circumstances, but not touch the phone in your pocket to check the signal whilst stopped at a red light. Got it.