Cell phone in hand ticket

[horsepower]

The tinting is a fix it ticket. It IS still a logical argument for no clear visibility for the other violation, if approached humbly. Unclean hands doesn't matter if the guy couldn't possibly see into your car.

As per cell phone.........Go to handsfree.com. Good info there.

Was the 2013 Spriggs 5th Appelate overturned???
If not, then "in hand" IS NOT illegal or sufficient to convict as previously mentioned. (Music, maps, dialing).

What was the specific violation code on the citation? Was it for distracted driving or a cell phone/hands free specific code?
Google your citation code and read it,word for word, as defined.
If it does not explicitly state that your cell phone cannot be in your hand, then you could substitute hamburger, drink, etc.

Your best chance to beat this Kind of ticket is at time of stop: Provide immediate evidence: offer the phone to the officer: give him permission to look at texts and call log. Show him your hands free device as well. If he decides to ticket you anyway, you can now ask him such questions as "can you state what hand I allegedly had a phone And " do you recall any conversation or evidence i offered at the time of teh stop?". it will become relevant in court and should be MORE than sufficient to tip the 50/50 to reasonable doubt...the ONLY legally required element here. Good luck.

 

[Junkie]

I don't think so.

There are specific GPS laws, as to the location of the GPS device in your windshield and stuff -- so I believe it is separate.

The intent of the cellphone laws was to inhibit the use of, you guessed it, cell phones.

So if I'm sitting at a long stoplight, GPS in hand (no mount on the windshield), punching in an address, I'm legal? I'm not dumb enough to do it while moving.

 

[LongGoneJohn]

So if I'm sitting at a long stoplight, GPS in hand (no mount on the windshield), punching in an address, I'm legal? I'm not dumb enough to do it while moving.

I think so. That doesn't seem to go against either the letter of the law, or the intent of the law.

If you're sitting at a stop light sexting your girlfriend -- that probably isn't legal.

 

[Lionel Cosgrove]

The tinting is a fix it ticket. It IS still a logical argument for no clear visibility for the other violation, if approached humbly. Unclean hands doesn't matter if the guy couldn't possibly see into your car.

As per cell phone.........Go to handsfree.com. Good info there.

Was the 2013 Spriggs 5th Appelate overturned???
If not, then "in hand" IS NOT illegal or sufficient to convict as previously mentioned. (Music, maps, dialing).

What was the specific violation code on the citation? Was it for distracted driving or a cell phone/hands free specific code?
Google your citation code and read it,word for word, as defined.
If it does not explicitly state that your cell phone cannot be in your hand, then you could substitute hamburger, drink, etc.

Your best chance to beat this Kind of ticket is at time of stop: Provide immediate evidence: offer the phone to the officer: give him permission to look at texts and call log. Show him your hands free device as well. If he decides to ticket you anyway, you can now ask him such questions as "can you state what hand I allegedly had a phone And " do you recall any conversation or evidence i offered at the time of teh stop?". it will become relevant in court and should be MORE than sufficient to tip the 50/50 to reasonable doubt...the ONLY legally required element here. Good luck.

Good luck with that. I won't entertain any of this on a stop, it's neither the time nor place. Showing me your call log or texts doesn't prove anything other than you weren't on a call or texting. Save it for court.

So if I'm sitting at a long stoplight, GPS in hand (no mount on the windshield), punching in an address, I'm legal? I'm not dumb enough to do it while moving.

If you're at a complete stop, I wouldn't write you a ticket. If you're moving while inputting an address on your gps, you could be written up for violating the basic speed law.

 

[NorCalBusa]

I think so. That doesn't seem to go against either the letter of the law, or the intent of the law.

If you're sitting at a stop light sexting your girlfriend -- that probably isn't legal.

Now hold on- such judgement should be reserved until we see pics.

 

[tfkrocks]

I know a cop who interprets that law to literally only mean texting, not general data usage, and considers things like changing music or using gps to be legal. Because of that, he generally won't bother to ticket because he then can't prove the driver was texting and not doing something else. However I've also had CHP almost ticket me for looking at gps. Sounds like YMMV on the issue.

 

[horsepower]

Good luck with that. I won't entertain any of this on a stop, it's neither the time nor place. Showing me your call log or texts doesn't prove anything other than you weren't on a call or texting. Save it for court.




If you're at a complete stop, I wouldn't write you a ticket. If you're moving while inputting an address on your gps, you could be written up for violating the basic speed law.

It wouldn't matter whether a Leo "entertained it" or not. I state again that under the hands free code, having a phone in your hand, in ANY hand, is not a crime. The goal here is that IF you aren't texting or talking or checking data or anything specifically stated on the code non hands free, any evidence that tips 50/50 is sufficient to cause reasonable doubt. If there is no phone, asking the leo to search the car or your person is a good show of non-cause.
In court: Here are my call logs, erased call logs and text records. I asked the leo specifically to review my data versus the timeline of the stop at the time of the stop, but he refused/declined.
The point IS to allow for admissible evidence that should cast doubt on whether or not any code violations factually occured. Have all the required elements been proven?

I loathe Texters. we've all witnessed what Texters do and how they drive. I'm all for your catching them and dissuading their actions. But it still shouldnt preclude the consideration of a driver who may be innocent trying to keep you outta court so you have more time on the street to catch an actual texter (illegal)versus a guy who had a phone in his hand.(legal).

 

[horsepower]

http://blogs.findlaw.com/california...tinkering-while-driving-allowed-by-court.html

Not saying that it is impossible to get a ticket, I just believe you are referencing the wrong CVC

Ahhhh the irony. The citing officer in the spriggs case used the wrong CVC. If he would have used the one I referenced earlier, it would have held up. Also, the attorney who wrote that article is flat out wrong. I've written dozens of cell phone cites for gps under the text section, all of which resulted in guilty rulings. And many of those defendants cited spriggs in court to no avail.

First off, forget the article , how you feel about the natty . read that articles contents, specifically what the 5th Appelate court wrote and how long it took them to get to that decision. Were they wrong too in your "legal" opinion? These were JUDGES. Spriggs became case law for our state. In this state, if a a defendant cited spriggs under that specific code and lost, it is only because traffic court judges often don't follow procedural laws. That's what appeals are for.....getting a higher court to decide an issue of law based on law and with multi judge accountability. God bless America.

23123 means you can't talk on your phone with it in your hand. 23123.5 means you can't use any means of data on your phone while it's in your hand. Simple as that.

Laws are not written based on "what is no worse than." In fact, the cell phone law itself is silly. Studies show the act of TALKING, not necessarily holding the phone, is far more dangerous than the quick typing of a phone number in your phone -- which is legal by the way.

"The law isn't logical, it just is."

I totally agree with you there. This law is terribly written, and for all the above reasons.

However, you just proved EXACTLY why abomaid wiould or should win in court (or on written appeal by citing sprigs) if cited for this specific code versus (as pointed out by LG), distracted driving/ basic speed law etc.

Abomaid, your best bet is to read the code, do a tbd and if you lose, request a trial de novo then file a peremtory challenge ( single form, very easy) to get the ticket to be heard in a higher court ( usually by a misdemeanor judge ). Why?Removing the traffic court's close affiliation with traffic Leos often results in "letter of the law" decisions. Good luck.

 

[Lionel Cosgrove]

It wouldn't matter whether a Leo "entertained it" or not. I state again that under the hands free code, having a phone in your hand, in ANY hand, is not a crime. The goal here is that IF you aren't texting or talking or checking data or anything specifically stated on the code non hands free, any evidence that tips 50/50 is sufficient to cause reasonable doubt. If there is no phone, asking the leo to search the car or your person is a good show of non-cause.
In court: Here are my call logs, erased call logs and text records. I asked the leo specifically to review my data versus the timeline of the stop at the time of the stop, but he refused/declined.
The point IS to allow for admissible evidence that should cast doubt on whether or not any code violations factually occured. Have all the required elements been proven?

I loathe Texters. we've all witnessed what Texters do and how they drive. I'm all for your catching them and dissuading their actions. But it still shouldnt preclude the consideration of a driver who may be innocent trying to keep you outta court so you have more time on the street to catch an actual texter (illegal)versus a guy who had a phone in his hand.(legal).

You think I write tickets for people holding a phone in their hand? Come on man. If I write a cell phone ticket, it's because I see them using the phone in some way. Youre also wrong about volunteering to have your car/phone searched as some type of "good faith" that would help you in court. Again, the call/text log doesn't prove you weren't USING the phone. Your cell phone records aren't admissible as evidence either, sorry. Why? Because who's to say that they are the records for the phone you were using at the time of the stop? Also, there is no time/day stamp for data usage.

 

[Abo7maid]

Guys thanks so much for all your replies. Much appreciated.

Yeah the officer cited code 23123.5(a) and wrote "Cell phone in hand". I did volunteer to hand over my phone and told him to check my texts and call logs; he refused and said "take it to court". I asked: where were you when you saw me? He didn't answer. I asked: did I look distracted? Was in veering in and out of my lane? He said: buddy if I saw you doing that I'd write you up for a $400 and a point on your record ticket. I said : well, do you remember which hand was it that I was holding the phone in? He smiled (a dirty smile) at me and went to his moto to write the ticket. The courtesy notice I got says "texting while driving" and $210 ticket WTF??

I'm horrible with written declarations. Would anyone be willing to proof read for me?

 

[LongGoneJohn]

Don't pay attention to name of the violation, the courts put something associated with each vehicle code and it's not always completely accurate.

He wrote you for the correct section. And yes, $210 sounds about right. The fine itself is nothing, it's all the additional fee's that jack the price up. Pretty ridiculous these days if you ask me.

 

[Abo7maid]

So, here's what I m reading

23123.5. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voiceoperated and hands-free operation to dictate, send, or listen to a text-based communication, and it is used in that manner while driving.

The officer did not assert that I did any of the bolded/underlined above. He only said, and wrote, that he saw I held my phone in my hand..

Should my defense be not guilty in violation of this CVC because it is N/A and attach a copy of the citation as evidence to show the officer wrote "Phone in hand" and that is all he presumably witnessed? Or should I go more in detail.

 

[OldMadBrit]

OP: Automotive glass blocks almost 100% UV light, that's why photo-chromic lenses don't work inside auto's. UV doesn't add much heat but does damage skin. So as far as skin damage is concerned, you have nothing to worry about.

Heat comes from the IR wavelengths - which as others have noted can be blocked with almost invisible film, or you could turn your AC on.

Cops hate fully tinted windows partly because they cant assess what they are approaching after a stop and partly because of all the self entitled douche-bags that use them to sneak a free ride in the HOV lane.

 

[ScottRNelson]

Sorry I missed this discussion the first time around.

I mean to even connect a blue tooth would have to pick up the phone to plug it in and press a button to accept the call.

On the new Fords, at least, if you get in the car and Bluetooth is enabled on your cell phone, you don't touch it at all. Just hit the button on the steering wheel to turn on Sync and tell it who to call. You never have to go near the phone.

Studies show the act of TALKING, not necessarily holding the phone, is far more dangerous than the quick typing of a phone number in your phone -- which is legal by the way.

I have to agree with this.

A few months back I needed to make a call while starting out on a long trip, but I made sure that I had made it onto the freeway before hitting the Sync button and saying "Call Mom". I didn't want to be concentrating on talking on the phone while dealing with turns and traffic lights. It distracts me too much for me to feel safe doing it. Driving in a straight line on the freeway and keeping a proper following distance, however, isn't too hard.

I would like to see more cell phone tickets give, since I see so many people using them while driving.

 

[crashtst]

so what if im just holding my phone just to have somthing to fidddle with and sort of look like im talking on it but actually not using it at all. can i b cited for having phone in hand?

 

[goodness-707]

Well, you do have a point...all tinting should probably be outlawed...Probably isnt because of a political compromise. That can and will likely change the next time an officer is shot at from a rear seat. So enjoy your little tint while ya can.

We should outlaw busses, delivery trucks, big rigs, and cement mixers while we're at it. They too pose a serious risk to officer safety. And definitely hearses. You just never know what a shifty mortician will do to get the drop on an officer.

In fact... we should outlaw all vehicles that aren't fully transparent. It's the only way to be sure.

 

[Pooter]

so what if im just holding my phone just to have somthing to fidddle with and sort of look like im talking on it but actually not using it at all. can i b cited for having phone in hand?

Yeah there's next to no way you'll win that fight. I got cited years ago for the same ticket - cell phone in hand while driving my car.

I was actually using a bluetooth headset at the time to listen to podcasts and to receive a call in case one came in. BUT at the time the phone I was using would not receive voice commmands through the headset like play music, stop music or forward track. But it would take it through the speaker phone on the phone. So what I would do is just quickly bring the phone up to my mouth, say my command and set it down. And also to be clear I wouldn't even bring it up to side of my head, because I'd just yell a command into speakerphone in front of my mouth (like how those non-tech savvy old people talk on speaker phones lol) All the while never taking my eyes off the road.

During one of these brief moments, a cop must have spotted me with the cell phone in my hand and pulled me over. I turned my head and showed him my bluetooth headset, offered to show him my call log as well as my text history with timestamp but he didn't care and was not interested. As far as he was concerned, the phone was in my hand while driving. He didn't care why.

I tried to contest it after with an official call and text log that I obtained from Sprint at the time and no bueno.

 

[senna944]

"text based communication.....not limited to"

gps is text based. music is text based. get it?

Wrong so...so wrong.

You stated something earlier that showed you had some knowledge or at least details about People v. Spriggs. But it VERY clear did not read the actual discussion of the Judges.

The Judges found that Senate Bill No. 1613 was made because
"concern was addressed by prohibiting drivers from engaging in conversations" (People v. Spriggs (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1.)

"But this is reference to cell phones while talking!"
Good job! Wait there is more! That the court took to this below

They "must interpret a statute in accord with its legislative INTENT" referencing (Tyrone v. Kelley (1973)
9 Cal.3d 1, 10–11.)


So now we have section 23123.5. And you can't converse through text on the phone specifically.

When writing it they specifically meant the actual "texting" "composing" part of touching the phone. On record they stated that if it was a no touch policy, as you feel, it would illegal every time you touched the phone to start the "hands-free call" due to current technology.(Fact Sheet AB 1536 (Miller)


GPS or Music being "text based" has nothing to do with communication and its distractions.

Sorry but you can continue to issue incorrect violations for those but remember stare decisis.


I would fight this.

 

[Lionel Cosgrove]

Wrong so...so wrong.

You stated something earlier that showed you had some knowledge or at least details about People v. Spriggs. But it VERY clear did not read the actual discussion of the Judges.

The Judges found that Senate Bill No. 1613 was made because
"concern was addressed by prohibiting drivers from engaging in conversations" (People v. Spriggs (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1.)

"But this is reference to cell phones while talking!"
Good job! Wait there is more! That the court took to this below

They "must interpret a statute in accord with its legislative INTENT" referencing (Tyrone v. Kelley (1973)
9 Cal.3d 1, 10–11.)


So now we have section 23123.5. And you can't converse through text on the phone specifically.

When writing it they specifically meant the actual "texting" "composing" part of touching the phone. On record they stated that if it was a no touch policy, as you feel, it would illegal every time you touched the phone to start the "hands-free call" due to current technology.(Fact Sheet AB 1536 (Miller)


GPS or Music being "text based" has nothing to do with communication and its distractions.

Sorry but you can continue to issue incorrect violations for those but remember stare decisis.


I would fight this.

I guess every judge I've testified in front of misinterpreted spriggs as well

 

[senna944]

I guess every judge I've testified in front of misinterpreted spriggs as well

Yes, it would be very accurate to say that Lionel. That is why there is appeals court... That's how the system works. When we hear the 6th Court of Appeals is issued a writ of certiorari we can almost guarantee there will be a case reversed.