• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Kid cited for texting and wireless device

OP, I was at a dead stop in traffic and went to change my playlist when I got tagged by a cop. He cited me for "reckless driving" :rolleyes ...I showed up in court to contest it, he did not. WIN

Maybe go to court and take your chances on the cop not showing?
 
rebekahlynn said:
OP, I was at a dead stop in traffic and went to change my playlist when I got tagged by a cop. He cited me for "reckless driving" :rolleyes ...I showed up in court to contest it, he did not. WIN

Maybe go to court and take your chances on the cop not showing?
Click to expand...

The reading I have done indicates you were lucky because they get paid to show up. That and the boss directs them to go to court. But responding to a trial by declaration get heaped on top of every day paper work. So I think my chances are an RCH better with the Trial by Declaration.

Unlikely I'll win in court based on experience others here have stated. It's not clear to my why a chronological text record for AT&T would not stand up as proof but so it is. Also I'll have to drive to court in Sonora, $75 in gas plus my time
 
ktm_guy said:
The reading I have done indicates you were lucky because they get paid to show up. That and the boss directs them to go to court. But responding to a trial by declaration get heaped on top of every day paper work. So I think my chances are an RCH better with the Trial by Declaration.

Unlikely I'll win in court based on experience others here have stated. It's not clear to my why a chronological text record for AT&T would not stand up as proof but so it is. Also I'll have to drive to court in Sonora, $75 in gas plus my time
Click to expand...

Why do you have to do anything related to this ticket? Going to court, trial by written decleration, etc? Is this a ticket that your son got, or that you got?
 
eddiet204 said:
Because just about everybody is a liar and I've heard every possible explanation as to why their device was in their hand. If I take the time to stop you, I'm not going to waste my time with a warning.
Click to expand...

Ruh Roh. This name is vurry familiar.
 
CPN said:
Why do you have to do anything related to this ticket? Going to court, trial by written decleration, etc? Is this a ticket that your son got, or that you got?
Click to expand...

Being a minor I'm still the boss of him despite what he says :twofinger

If he goes to court I must come with by law. That and he really isn't ready to do a good job representing himself. I gave him a bit of crap about when he got pulled over why didn't he respectfully explain what he was doing to cop and show him the wire plugged into the radio, although it may have made no difference as Eddiet stated above. The cop came on with his I'm pissed act and the kid clammed up.

I wonder if the cops get trained to do that, to fake being mad? I've seen it before when I've been stopped, not most of the time but on a few occasions. I'm always polite and respectful, they should be too, always. Unless a perp disobeys a command or does something disrespectful it should be just business, save the 'tude for the jerks. I know John Q Public is a PITA to deal with but cops are pros and must be able to separate the decent citizens from the less than desirable and act accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Oceansides said:
Ruh Roh. This name is vurry familiar.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify a bit-I give plenty of breaks. I don't stop and cite every violation I see. The people I'm giving a break never realize it because I'm not stopping them. On the flip side, I make it a point to stop the most blatant violations. There are plenty of them out there like the guy with the phone up to his right ear as he drives through the intersection in front of me and the rest of the world. I always give the driver the benefit of doubt. If there's any doubt at all, I won't stop them-period. No one can ever accuse me of stopping them because they were XYZ...I tell them the reason for the stop and issue the cite without a lecture or attitude. If I make 13 stops, there will be 13 tags with my name on them at the end of the shift. How do you decide who gets a warning and who gets the cite without injecting your own bias into the situation? After you get accused of "racial profiling" enough times, you learn pretty quick that no good deed goes unpunished.
 
Last edited:
ktm_guy said:
Would you pull over a driver touching a phone that was hard mounted to the dash or windshield ?
Click to expand...

I'm kind of curious about this one myself. I have a mount for my Droid that allows it to be used as a GPS.

Hopefully we can get that answered before the bashers get the thread locked.
 
ToraTora said:
The underaged offense is a secondary offense and the officer may not use this as probably cause. Therefore if you remove the probable cause then the secondary offense doesn't have a proper line of discovery and must go.
Click to expand...

Nope. That only comes into play on a motion to suppress, which is a challenge to the reasonable suspicion/probable cause of the stop.

ktm_guy said:
At the corner of Mono Way and Toulumne Rd.


ToraTora - your points are the reason I will in fact submit a Trial by Declaration. What have I got to lose? The Bail is $300 and no points to the punk's record. I'm a bit surprised the officer Eddit didn't understand that vc23214 is a secondary offense and if the primary gets tossed so does the secondary.
Click to expand...

As Monstermonster already explained, just because (if) the primary violation (texting while driving) is dismissed, that does not mean that there was not reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the stop. It definitely exists with the texting while driving violation. An officer needs probable cause to arrest/cite for a violation. The standard of proof for a conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. They are two different standards. Just because a violation is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it has no bearing on the probable cause for the arrest. Since the stop is based on the texting section, the secondary violation, upon discovery during the stop, is perfectly valid. And the under 18 section simply states you cannot use a mobile service device. Sorry, but he was using the device, regardless of what it was being used for.

23124. (a) This section applies to a person under the age of 18
years.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 23123, a person described in
subdivision (a) shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a
wireless telephone, even if equipped with a hands-free device, or
while using a mobile service device.
(c) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a
base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty
dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.
(d) A law enforcement officer shall not stop a vehicle for the
sole purpose of determining whether the driver is violating
subdivision (b).
(e) Subdivision (d) does not prohibit a law enforcement officer
from stopping a vehicle for a violation of Section 23123.
(f) This section does not apply to a person using a wireless
telephone or a mobile service device for emergency purposes,
including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement
agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency
services agency or entity.
(g) For the purposes of this section, "mobile service device"
includes, but is not limited to, a broadband personal communication
device, specialized mobile radio device, handheld device or laptop
computer with mobile data access, pager, and two-way messaging
device.
(h) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2008.
 
Last edited:
...Since the stop is based on the texting section, the secondary violation, upon discovery during the stop, is perfectly valid. And the under 18 section simply states you cannot use a mobile service device. Sorry, but he was using the device, regardless of what it was being used for.

Yep, that certainly seems to be the conclusion.

What's your thought on the phone hard mounted to the dash being touched while driving, adult driver?
 
CPN said:
It's still not OK to be distracted while at a stop light. Here's an example of how distracting a cell phone can be, all while at a stop light.. Coming up two lanes of cars stopped at a traffic light on a fully marked bike. Spot someone typing away on their phone. Stop next to her. Wait a few seconds, she's still head down typing away. Double tap siren (whoop whoop), without any change of focus at all, she continues typing, ignoring the siren! Finally tap on her window and signal her to pull over. At the stop she says "I didn't even see you there, where did you come from?!" This after being parked right next to her for what was easily ten seconds.
Click to expand...
(edit, keep in mind this is not while moving)
oh i don't doubt, i see this stuff when i filter to the front. my current phone i only look down at my phone for 1-3)2 secs lol) secs. it has a finger print scanner, i swipe my finger, screen pops up then slide my finger from the top of the screen to the bottom. all of that is without looking a it.

i then look down to see who it is from(mom, dad, jimmy, jim, etc). then press it without looking at it. then glance at it.


if it warrants a reply i will pull off, but with my parents health issues they will usually get a quick read when recieved. on the bike, i pull off and check.


out goes pleading the 5th.
 
ktm_guy said:
What's your thought on the phone hard mounted to the dash being touched while driving, adult driver?
Click to expand...

That should be fine if it was just used to dial a number for a hands free call, GPS, or digital music. If it was excessive and appeared to be texting there could be a problem.

The best solution, the way the laws are written, is to either have a passenger use the phone/text/music/GPS, or, if there is no passenger it is always safer to use a dedicated music player or GPS unit that is not also part of a mobile communication device. Yeah, it might be just as distracting, but the laws are only written to control phone/moble communication devices and not any other distractions or distracting devices......well except TVs. TVs have to be behind the driver.
 
Last edited:
theAmazingKickstand said:
I don't think he was referring to the 1978 Bonerv v. Cookie Jar case law.
Click to expand...

Nicely done. :thumbup

I see too much texting on the road. Think I am pulling up on a drunk ass f@ck and it is some youngun. Pissed the shit out of me.

OP .. go for it. The system works both ways. Cops going to say that the way it is.. and tora tora explaining the way to work it.

As a dad the biggest thing with your boy is don't let him lie. Truth is to be respected and that lesson should remain your priority.

Good luck.
 
Let the kid handle it. If it is worth his time to go through the hoops, then it is worth it for him. If he asks you for help, then lend him a hand.

You don't go to job interviews for him, do you?
 
Ahhhh yes the old 'cops always lie in court' bit, we were overdue. I wouldn't believe my own wife if she told me she was stopped 'but she really wasn't speeding'

Btw this post made on my iPhone at the scene of a crash where a 16 year old drove literally 100 yards from her driveway before running into the back of a parked car and totaled both, I'm sure she was just checking her music, or does it matter at this point?
 
I'mma bet she hasn't taken a proper driver education course.

* Third person I've seen use my words in their sig line:love
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top