Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would interpret the OP listing of law section as guilty only on the very last definition of using of " or other electronic data.")(could be music files/stations or anything else really). The rest of the provided law was talking about other specific things such as email, photos, etc. That's more detail then other cities/states sometimes have.
The OP never said in their first post that they took their eyes off the road to do that action either.
Actually both of your are wrong. The part the OP violated was accessing electronic data. He broke the law and should be held accountable. He can simply take his chances with a judge, however.
I disagree with that argument as well because it is referring to the "access" of "other electronic data" for the use of "present or future communication". Accessing music files is not a form of communication. And once again, under that premise touching the radio should be against the law as well.
You're quite correct and that was the statute on the ticket. My view is that I did not fall under the definition of "using." By the officer's definition, even hitting the green "answer" button could be considered using. When these laws were passed it was explained that you could still dial a call but not hold the phone near the ear.
If the officer's view were law there'd be a citizen's revolt, much like the 55 mph speed limit caused and the law would change. I suspect the officer wrote the ticket to demonstrate that he was on the job, and counted on the fact that probably a small minority of motorists fight these tickets.
Well, good luck with that whole thing in court.
Let us know how it turns out. I'd really like to know.
I disagree with that argument as well because it is referring to the "access" of "other electronic data" for the use of "present or future communication". Accessing music files is not a form of communication. And once again, under that premise touching the radio should be against the law as well.
The OP admitted it was to select a song. A song is used for listening (a form of communication). It would be hard for the OP to convince the judge that he was selecting song with no intent to listen to it currently or in the future.
The wording in B doesn't have anything to do with music. And like someone else said it's no different than the radio in fact, MORE benign.
However, you'll lose in court.
I use my phone GPS for directions. But I don't look at it especially since in FL you're only permitted if stopped. And that would be a violation because it's using the internet.
You should see if there's case law though.
The office LIED saying you were texting. When they have to LIE you can be sure there's some weakness in their case.
This happened to me with a bogus seat belt ticket once.
Last edited by runswithscissors; 03-20-2016 at 08:26 PM..
The OP admitted it was to select a song. A song is used for listening (a form of communication). It would be hard for the OP to convince the judge that he was selecting song with no intent to listen to it currently or in the future.
Come on now, listening to a song is not a form of communication by any stretch of the imagination. .
Furthermore, you don't need WWW access for music you can have the MP3 on your devise just like an iPod.
I disagree with that argument as well because it is referring to the "access" of "other electronic data" for the use of "present or future communication". Accessing music files is not a form of communication. And once again, under that premise touching the radio should be against the law as well.
The key qualifier in the using definition is holding it. So unless you have your stereo deck detached and holding it you're ok there.
The OP admitted it was to select a song. A song is used for listening (a form of communication). It would be hard for the OP to convince the judge that he was selecting song with no intent to listen to it currently or in the future.
That's ridiculous. Communicating in this sense clearly means exchanging info from person to person. A song does not do that. It is entertainment, we do not (typically) listen to music to exchange knowledge or info which is what the law is referring to.
That's because anytime a post like this appears all sorts of smug, self-righteous, sanctimonious types appear out of nowhere to savage and castigate the poster. Like they're all as pure as the driven snow and have never done anything so awful.
Thanks for your support on this. I repped this post.
When one drives one sees countless motorists with the phone cradled between their shoulder and their are. And people composing texts. Also, such apps as Mapquest are designed to aid the driving process. It is unrealistic to expect someone to pull over onto a narrow shoulder, with traffic whizzing by at 75 mph, to set a destination on their app for the purpose of avoiding traffic jams.
While I try to be law abiding I believe that many regulations approach creating a nanny state. Speed limits are too low. Cell phone use laws are too strict. Security checks while entering buildings are time consuming and accomplish little. My 20 year old son has trouble visiting the school he attended from 2001 to 2014. Little thought other than panic goes into enacting these laws and regulations.
I disagree with that argument as well because it is referring to the "access" of "other electronic data" for the use of "present or future communication". Accessing music files is not a form of communication. And once again, under that premise touching the radio should be against the law as well.
Except it isn't a phone. The only way it would be is if you spend a minute fixing the dial and swerve into a lane. As I said before, the reason it should stand to be against the law is because with it being an out, a police officer would then have to pull records showing that you didn't send a text, answer a call or accessed a webpage or a web-enabled application (Facebook, twitter, snapchat, even iheartradio.) It saves them. Plus only those who truly think they can win will actually fight it in court. My father fought a speeding ticket once, only because the officer never wrote the speed on his copy of the ticket. Few are slam dunks like that are and can be a waste of time and money to fight.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Few are slam dunks like that are and can be a waste of time and money to fight.