VC 23123a violation

[Falundir]

Originally Posted by 130R

What was unsafe about looking at her cell phone while stopped at a light?

Because DoT states that you are not in control of your vehicle while utilizing a mobile device. Stopped at a light is still on a public road way, and in a situation where you are required to be in control of your vehicle to obey traffic signals.

-edit-

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc305.htm

[Falundir]

Caselaw - http://catraffichelp.com/wp-content/...23123-case.pdf

Additional Reading - http://catraffichelp.com/gps-while-d...lates-vc-23123

[90503]

Originally Posted by Falundir

Caselaw - http://catraffichelp.com/wp-content/...23123-case.pdf

Additional Reading - http://catraffichelp.com/gps-while-d...lates-vc-23123

I hope the OP reads those....lol....

[midnighter]

Hey at least you didn't violate vc 23153a (DWI) A cell phone ticket is just a pat on the hand.

[motorswin]

you will not win in court. even if you bring in your cell phone records, you cant prove those records belong to the phone you were cited with. all the oficer has to say is, "it appeared the driver was using the cell phone to text". if you show up in court on a cell phone ticket, they will laugh at you (not really, but its pointless).

its a non moving violation which means traffic school is not available. cell phone ticket is like a seat belt ticket, its a safety law, not a "mover". it will not effect your insurance or anything like that. just pay your $161 and get a gps.

[Falundir]

"Were we to adopt defendant's interpretation, we would open the door to millions of people across our state repeatedly picking up their phones and devices to place phone calls and check voicemail (or text-based messages) every day while driving whenever they are paused momentarily in traffic, their car in gear and held still only by their foot on the brake, however short the pause in the vehicle's movement," Justice James Lambden wrote. "This could include fleeting pauses in stop-and-go traffic, at traffic lights and stop signs, as pedestrians cross, as vehicles ahead navigate around a double-parked vehicle, and many other circumstances... Drivers paused in the midst of traffic moving all around them (behind them, in adjacent lanes, in the roadway in front of them) would likely create hazards to themselves and public safety by their distracted use of their hands on their phones and devices."

California v Nelson - (Court of Appeal, State of California, 11/14/2011)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs...ca-stopped.pdf

[Falundir]

I aim to please~

[90503]

I think if you read the court rulings, which seem to be identical to the OPs questions, it's pretty obvious the cops are enforcing the spirit and intent of the law, not being c/s at all. If you disagree with what the court ruled or the enforcement of the law by the police, you need to do what they suggest...Contact the State Legislature and have them amend the law.

[RiCorvette]

Originally Posted by Falundir

I aim to please~

I have that placard over my Men's Room toilet at my business;

"We aim to please,
you aim, too, please"

A lot of spirited discourse and opinions - I like it

Personally, I think it is nothing more than an intimidating money grab based on a liberal interpretation of the law and relies on people being too timid, too ignorant or just plain cowed to put up a reasonable defense.


23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.

DRIVE means to be 'in motion' to most reasonable people, but not a liberal court interpretation
TELEPHONE means a device for listening and talking (as stated in VC23123a) and used in that manner to most reasonable people, but not a liberal court interpretation.

(btw 'Liberal' does not necessarily mean in a political sense)

If texting or using the device as a GPS/MAP were prohibited uses, this law should so state and be amended...
In fact, there is now a VC regulation that covers texting, specifically VC 23123.5
I am, at present, unaware of VC regulations regarding the use of a Telephone as GPS devices (soon to be addressed, I'm sure)

I think the other cases cited here were about using the TELEPHONE for LISTENING AND TALKING - I didn't read though all the dozens of pages of confusing legalese.

[Falundir]

I interact with police officers and Federal Agents commonly in my line of work. If you ask them about X or Y law they will almost always say the same thing.

"It is my job to enforce the law. It is up to the judge and lawyers to interpret."

[Falundir]

Originally Posted by motorswin

you will not win in court. even if you bring in your cell phone records, you cant prove those records belong to the phone you were cited with.

I just wanted to follow up on this. It falls well out of the realm of reasonableness, however you could prove this in court.

You would need the following..

$500 - Forensic image of cell phone via CellBrite UFED
$1,325 - Professional services to analyze data and create affidavit for court to findings.

So $1,825 to defend a $161 ticket is not very cost effective.

[Falundir]

You obviously entitled to your opinion.

However, I would like to point out that at no point did I post an assumption. I have only been quoting the law, case law, and legal decisions from the various courts as it applies to this situation.

Take from this information as you will.

To the OP - the summary of all of this is that you have nothing to lose by presenting a trial by written declaration. Best of luck.

[oldfriend]

I would take the case to The Court Of Law
Take the login records with you , be polite , explain it to the Judge , in a clear , clean and simple explanation of all the facts , unfamiliar area , time off the day , what you were doing with the wireless machine ( don't use the word phone ) etc
And good luck

[hiddenangels89]

Do a trial by declaration, indicate that you were viewing a map being used as a "GPS". Provide a copy of your call log & text log. indicate a GPS should be considered the same as looking at a physical paper map but less distracting.

Right now, i believe there are 3 cases going on to the higher courts regarding cell phone map usage, 1 has lost but is being appealed. One person was simply pulled over for having a phone on their lap.

In California, soon to be law is that the officer is allowed to search THROUGH your phone for "other" incriminating events.

IF you lose the trial by declaration, file a trial by Novo (sp?), it basically says you disagree with the outcome and now request to fight it in person (giving you a second chance to hope the cop does not show up). I wouldn't recommend getting a lawyer, paying the ticket is cheaper.