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.
Hi, i got a ticket 3 months ago for "texting while driving". I was at the airport, picking up wife; going 5 miles per hour, and using the "Text by Voice" app which allows for texting without any type of manual input into the phone.
I went to court last month and the judge didn't agree with me that the law says only "manually entering multiple letters or text in the device as a means of communicating with another person" is illegal. The officer said (i think incorrectly) that all texting is illegal.
i have a appeal court date next week (by a Jury!) and could use all the help i can get.
Any advice for presenting my case in court?
Here is the law.
A. It is unlawful for any person to operate a moving motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth while using any handheld personal communications device to:
1. Manually enter multiple letters or text in the device as a means of communicating with another person; or
2. Read any email or text message transmitted to the device or stored within the device, provided that this prohibition shall not apply to any name or number stored within the device nor to any caller identification information.
The keyword is "Or" The part of the law you broke is "Text in the device". It doesn't matter if it was a voice app that converts to text and sends it. You sent a text to another person, plain and simple.
So let's see. You got the $125 ticket. Instead of paying, you contested and judge ruled against you.
You appeal to Circuit Court. How much is that costing you? How much will you have to pay for the Jury if you lose (since you requested one)
All this because?
1. It's a principle thing for you because you don't feel you texted?
2. You want to beat the system?
In any case, you should have gotten legal advice locally who is familiar with that particular court in the first place. Instead, now you are coming on the Internet to ask for help?
The law defines texting as "Manually entering multiple letters or text in the device as a means of communicating with another person; or reading any email or text message transmitted to the device or stored within the device."
This is the fourth time i'm answering this exact question....
The app automatically reads incoming emails. no manual input required....ever.
Before this thread is closed (for whatever reason), i'd like to thank everyone for posting replies, even those village idiots who replied negatively without bothering to read the LAW!
Cheers!
Not only did you ignore and fail to respond to the post(#78) showing your hypocrisy, you doubled down on it by doing the very thing you thought mods should address with other posters.
Not only did you ignore and fail to respond to the post(#78) showing your hypocrisy, you doubled down on it by doing the very thing you thought mods should address with other posters.
Here is the law.
A. It is unlawful for any person to operate a moving motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth while using any handheld personal communications device to:
1. Manually enter multiple letters or text in the device as a means of communicating with another person; or
2. Read any email or text message transmitted to the device or stored within the device, provided that this prohibition shall not apply to any name or number stored within the device nor to any caller identification information.
The keyword is "Or" The part of the law you broke is "Text in the device". It doesn't matter if it was a voice app that converts to text and sends it. You sent a text to another person, plain and simple.
Enjoy your fine.
Actually you're not using basic grammar to break that sentence down. it does not break down like that:
"Manually enter multiple letters" or "text in the device as a means of communicating with another person"
"In the device" is a prepositional phrase and is separate. So the break down is thus:
"Manually enter multiple letters or text" "in the device" "as a means of communicating with another person"
the law according to the rules of grammar, clearly states not to manully enter letters or text.
So by the letter of the law, he is correct. He didn't "manually enter letters or text," nor did he actually read text.
Here is the law.
A. It is unlawful for any person to operate a moving motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth while using any handheld personal communications device to:
1. Manually enter multiple letters or text in the device as a means of communicating with another person; or
2. Read any email or text message transmitted to the device or stored within the device, provided that this prohibition shall not apply to any name or number stored within the device nor to any caller identification information.
The keyword is "Or" The part of the law you broke is "Text in the device". It doesn't matter if it was a voice app that converts to text and sends it. You sent a text to another person, plain and simple.
Enjoy your fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
Actually you're not using basic grammar to break that sentence down. it does not break down like that:
"Manually enter multiple letters" or "text in the device as a means of communicating with another person"
"In the device" is a prepositional phrase and is separate. So the break down is thus:
"Manually enter multiple letters or text" "in the device" "as a means of communicating with another person"
the law according to the rules of grammar, clearly states not to manully enter letters or text.
So by the letter of the law, he is correct. He didn't "manually enter letters or text," nor did he actually read text.
Oh no HeadingtoDener! you just got schooled!
I mean...if you have trouble understanding simple grammar (something my 12 year old niece figured out), why are you bothering responding with your pointless replies?
Here's the debunk of most of the arguments against it here..
1) He was holding the phone, therefore he's guilty.
Holding the phone, according to the statute, is expressly PERMITTED.
2) He was looking at the phone while driving, therefore he's guilty
Looking at the phone is expressly PERMITTED by the statute. Reading emails or texts is not, but reading the screen for the Caller-ID number or to look up a phone number is. Very poorly written law.
3) He's was driving distracted.
Agreed by me, I think even agreed to by the OP. He was not, however, charged with distracted driving. You cannot make an illegal turn on red and get a ticket for DUI (Well, unless you're actually DUI). You can't run a stop sign and get a ticket for 25+ over the limit, unless you were actually going 25+ over the limit.
4) He's wasting his time fighting this.
Principle is a very personal thing. Some people are willing to go to jail for their principles. Some things matter alot to you, but I could give a rat's butt about. And vice-versa. This is something that has stuck in his craw.. I say, good for him for standing up for what he thinks is right. More people should do it. I'm not OVERLY optimistic about his chances.. I think he would save himself alot of headaches by just paying the fine. But.. If he wants to fight it.. More power to him. never should the power to fight injustice (real or perceived) be taken away. And, legally, he does have a valid argument.
5) He should just shut up and take it
This is basically a combination of 4 and 5.. And, is the worst thought process of all. If the cops come busting into your house without a warrant, you should just shut up and take it? "Oh, but the two things are totally different".. no, they're not. Rolling over for 'the authority' is surrendering your rights. No matter what the right is, you should be fighting to keep it and fighting against when it's violated. You give up one right, they'll be emboldened to take another.
Does he win, does he lose this? I think it could go either way. Interpreting the letter of the law is the key point. Since this is an appeal.. I'm guessing no jury, so it's going to be to the judge. Which I think is better for him. If the judge rules by the letter of the law.. He'll beat it. If the judge interprets the letter of the law, he will lose. The judge will have to think about this, because he is setting a precedence either way.. Most likely. I'm looking for cases on this now..
Which kinda points out how dumb and bad VA's law is. I'm also looking at whether or not texting while driving is a primary or secondary offense.. It appears to be a secondary, which means.. The cop had to stop him for another reason to issue this ticket.. Is that the case, OP? I may be wrong.. Still digging info on this.
EDIT - Ok.. It became primary in July, 2013. Here's another good one on the law.
Which deals with the difficulty in enforcement and prosecution, and touches on what I said earlier.. The cop can't just take your phone.. That'd be illegal search and seizure.. However, they could get a warrant for it and/or records to prove the case.. Or if you voluntarily allowed him to search the phone, that's fine.
Interested to see the outcome. I think it could go either way. Appeals are notoriously difficult, especially if the OP is representing himself.. But, he's got a pretty strong case, especially if the officer in the first trial stated that he just saw him holding the phone and.. Whatever the quote was "Just holding the phone is enough" or similar. The officer basically just screwed the case right there.
Last edited by Labonte18; 08-08-2014 at 02:50 PM..
If ever there was a virtual "kick me" thread, this is it.
+5 to the two bozos from me.
Looks like you just made the bozo list too!
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.
