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.
Are you actually claiming that to use this app you do not need to touch the phone in anyway?
Mine is like that, and it is connected through the car, so I just touch a button on the steering wheel, and this activates my phone and I can tell it to text or call someone; never have to touch the phone.
Here's where I see the problem.. And, seriously.. I haven't seen "Virginia" mentioned by you once.. But.. Since you're not arguing with others who are posting about it being VA.. I assume that's the state. So.. I also assume you were at Dulles? Now.. Taking whether or not that was something dumb to do out of the equation (I think it was, especially at that airport, especially if you were in the pickup lane, but.. Irrelevant what I think about it, what matters is what the law says)
Where I see it going against you is, like the other person mentioned, section A2..
But.. That's really, really weak. Because even that section says that you're ALLOWED to look at the phone while driving to look up a number or to view an incoming calls caller-id info.. Which, in my view.. Totally guts that whole section of the law.. If the cop says you were looking at the phone.. Say you were looking up a number, which is expressly permitted in section A.2
Another portion that is against you would be if the cop says "He was texting, I witnessed him pressing keys".. He doesn't have to have proof of that.. His word is the proof there.
If this is a jury trial.. Well, you've got X number of people on the jury and based on the replies that you've gotten here.. I think you're pretty well screwed if that's the case.
Here's the arguments I think you have, in addition to A.2, which I think totally guts the law as written..
Section A states this..
So.. Where were you? If you were on the airport grounds.. It could be difficult for them to be considered "Highways" in the Commonwealth. Could you make this argument if you were on your street? No.. But, again, assuming you're in the airport pickup lane.. That's not a highway.
If it's a trial in front of a judge.. I think you have a better case, because judges, especially appellate judges, pay more attention to the letter of the law than a magistrate, which I assume you went to at first. The flip side is.. He might want to set a precedence.
Of course, your main argument is section A.1.. I'd probably get a transcript of the first trial and if the cop truly changes his testimony.. Pounce.
If we went with "Spirit" of laws, then half the people here who have replied to you should be jailed for cyberbullying. I mean, that's what the "Spirit" of cyberbullying laws are meant to prevent, right? The "Spirit" of laws can sit in the same corner as the three ghosts of Christmas. The letter of the law is what matters.
Read the law! it says (since you're too lazy to go look! ) : 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....
Holding the phone is NOT manually entering multiple letters or text...
The Burden of proof is with the prosecutor you silly monkey!
Maybe....but i'll get to play the role of a lawyer for the day, and that's worth the $125 price of admission! I just want to yell in the middle of the court room "I OBJECT YOUR HONOR!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinking-man
Thank you for a serious response. really!
I guess that's one approach....and it may be better than mine....not sure yet....
i was gonna go with: "ladies and gentlemen of the jury (dying to say that! lol), the law is clear about texting. (show them and read them the law). The law states that manual entering of the text letters is illegal. What i was doing is NOT a manual process. it is completely hands free (reads and writes the text without using of fingers). The ticket issued is therefor unwarranted and does not fit the act, which is completely legal under state law. If I was distracted and the officer saw this, a ticket for "distracted driving" should have been issued at most.
then the prosecutor says something....
then i say: I OBJECT YOUR HONOR! I REST MY CASE!
i still see you losing in traffic court. chances are you wont have a jury trial, unless you specifically request it, and then you are paying for it. so likely you will have your casee heard by the judge only. and the judge may agree with you that the technicality exists, that might void the ticket, however remember that the judge has some discretion and some leeway, and he may decide to change the violation to something similar to nail you with. or the prosecutor may have argued this very case before, and has convinced the judge the law still applies(by the way you didnt really think you would just go against the cop only did you? its why the locality pays a city attorney to handle cases just like this).
Mine is like that, and it is connected through the car, so I just touch a button on the steering wheel, and this activates my phone and I can tell it to text or call someone; never have to touch the phone.
But the OP was holding the phone in his hand. I'm sure that's why the OP was ticketed. Why else would the cop stop him?
First off, no need for name-calling....but it's ok. I'm sure a moderator will give you an infraction or two. so it's ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinking-man
looks like you two bozos are the ones not caring about the 'law' as it's clearly noted above.
thanks for the reply anyway
I think you started with the name calling so hopefully that moderator gives you the same infraction!
I dont care what the exact letter of the law is that you are trying to weasel out of but the fact is you werent fully paying attention when driving in a crowded area.
Please don;t take any offense, I had no attention of name calling.
That being said, I totally meant that someone participating in distracted activities behind the wheel is essentially a moron and idiot of the highest order. I guess in this thread that someone happens to be you and you're rightly ticketed for the offense. It could be any of us the next time. What do we do - we don't whine and ***** ways around it. We man up - learn what we did wrong - pay for it - and find a path forward as to not repeat it in future. I'll call a dumb-ass a dumb-ass, if it means an infraction so be it.
I have kids and I have seen drivers behaving in weird ways totally oblivious to their surroundings. I cannot put into words how much I fear a drunk / distracted (same thing, btw) driver coming and wiping off some innocent folks.
And no stalking, your baseless threads and your single digit IQ make your posts stand out. It's pretty simple.
Please don't take any offense. I know you'll grow up.
I wonder if the pious posting in this thread (the "off with his head" folks) ever change a station on the radio while driving, adjust the climate control, eat a cheesburger, talk to a passenger, look at a billboard as they drive by, stare in the rearview mirror for 5 seconds when a cop is behind them (the average time it takes to read a text)... I wonder if they ever do anything while driving except keep eyes forward, radio/ac off and hands at 12 and 2.
Somehow I doubt it. But for some strange reason, the phone is the ultimate boogieman these days. For some reason, just that particular distraction is a mortal sin (while all the other possible distractions are just part of the driving experience).
It's going to be so nice when there is a fine for everything and they just mail them to you on an hourly basis. The children will finally be safe, and the hysterical majority can sleep a little better at night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 43north87west
The law says what the law says. If you weren't "manually" entering multiple letters or text...
The thing is, how did you get a ticket in the first place? What evidence does the state or municipality have against you, and how did they get it? What caused this officer to stop you, and how did (s)he get enough information to charge you?
I think this is the main problem here. The officer is going to come in and say I witnessed the driver texting and the Judge and Jury will take that as fact. If you get to cross examine him, you are going to have to straight out ask if he saw you pushing buttons or letters on the screen or just assumed based on something else and hope that something else is not that he saw you delay moving or some other thing that he felt indicated you were distracted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labonte18
Here's where I see the problem.. And, seriously.. I haven't seen "Virginia" mentioned by you once.. But.. Since you're not arguing with others who are posting about it being VA.. I assume that's the state. So.. I also assume you were at Dulles? Now.. Taking whether or not that was something dumb to do out of the equation (I think it was, especially at that airport, especially if you were in the pickup lane, but.. Irrelevant what I think about it, what matters is what the law says)
Where I see it going against you is, like the other person mentioned, section A2..
But.. That's really, really weak. Because even that section says that you're ALLOWED to look at the phone while driving to look up a number or to view an incoming calls caller-id info.. Which, in my view.. Totally guts that whole section of the law.. If the cop says you were looking at the phone.. Say you were looking up a number, which is expressly permitted in section A.2
Another portion that is against you would be if the cop says "He was texting, I witnessed him pressing keys".. He doesn't have to have proof of that.. His word is the proof there.
If this is a jury trial.. Well, you've got X number of people on the jury and based on the replies that you've gotten here.. I think you're pretty well screwed if that's the case.
Here's the arguments I think you have, in addition to A.2, which I think totally guts the law as written..
Section A states this..
So.. Where were you? If you were on the airport grounds.. It could be difficult for them to be considered "Highways" in the Commonwealth. Could you make this argument if you were on your street? No.. But, again, assuming you're in the airport pickup lane.. That's not a highway.
If it's a trial in front of a judge.. I think you have a better case, because judges, especially appellate judges, pay more attention to the letter of the law than a magistrate, which I assume you went to at first. The flip side is.. He might want to set a precedence.
Of course, your main argument is section A.1.. I'd probably get a transcript of the first trial and if the cop truly changes his testimony.. Pounce.
If we went with "Spirit" of laws, then half the people here who have replied to you should be jailed for cyberbullying. I mean, that's what the "Spirit" of cyberbullying laws are meant to prevent, right? The "Spirit" of laws can sit in the same corner as the three ghosts of Christmas. The letter of the law is what matters.
The highway thing is probably not going to work. At least in NC, there is a separate statue that defines highway, for the purposes of the law as being just about any public road in the state. I think most states are similar as many driving laws were written way way back when the concept of a highway we have today was completely foreign and have just been added on to over the years but they never really changed all the language.
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.
) : 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:
