Originally Posted by wombatsauce

What people need to keep in mind is, like so many other laws, this one is more of an optional check box for a cop. Like, now they can use it as a reason for having pulled someone over but it most likely won't be the SOLE reason each time or even for the majority of them. Seems like it will be linked such as "you were weaving all over the place and your left tire crossed the solid line (crime) and you were on the phone (drives the point home since at this point, this crime is the reason for the previous ones).

I still have no idea why people sport around with a bluetooth thing in their ear all the time. It seems like some older people think of it like a fashion statement or something. It seriously makes people look retarded. I have one, and I use it every once in a while but take it off ASAP. Haha..

Personally though, I have always HATED being on the phone whilst driving regardless of a headset or not. It's stupid and SO distracting. Texting is even worse since your vision is pulled away as well. I usually commute on my bike tho so being on the phone isn't even an option. My other cars are mostly too loud to carry on a conversation. Currently daily driving a '72 Z28 with a 383 and turndowns so you really need to shout to speak to the passenger. Keeps it safer.

Originally Posted by UP2MTNS

I find this 'law' to be pretty easy to get out of if you really want to put in the effort.

so yeah...phone up to your ear? sure, you probably are using it....and the cop will probably give you a ticket.....but I bet at least 50% of the time you could pretty easily go to court and ask a few key questions to the cop and put in enough reasonable doubt to the judge to have him dismiss it.


but for a $20 ticket, what's the point...

Originally Posted by UP2MTNS

I find this 'law' to be pretty easy to get out of if you really want to put in the effort.

so yeah...phone up to your ear? sure, you probably are using it....and the cop will probably give you a ticket.....but I bet at least 50% of the time you could pretty easily go to court and ask a few key questions to the cop and put in enough reasonable doubt to the judge to have him dismiss it.


but for a $20 ticket, what's the point...

Originally Posted by Spoolin415

I don't see how any reasonable judge will believe you were just holding your phone to your ear for your good health and not talking on it.

Originally Posted by Spoolin415

How? I really need to hear this one.

I don't see how any reasonable judge will believe you were just holding your phone to your ear for your good health and not talking on it. I get the speeding ticket/radar qualification thing, but this is a stretch.

Originally Posted by ipozestu

Buddies wife got a ticket for this yesterday....

Originally Posted by ipozestu

She was pulled over for talking on the handset while driving.

Originally Posted by kYLEMtnCRUZr

you know what would be funny? to actually hold the bluetooth earpiece while driving

Originally Posted by UP2MTNS

but you're still missing the point. Judge doesn't actually have to 'believe' anything, that's not his job. The cop has to prove it (to the judge) beyond a reasonable doubt.....so all you have to do is create doubt.

the judge then 'judges' both arguments/statements, and makes the call....but the judge can believe whatever he/she wants....its what proved. or disproved.

not sure why you're not getting that....its what our entire judicial system is based on.

You think Judge Ito really BELIEVED O.J. was innocent?


all I'm saying is....even if you're 100% busted, i think this law is going to have a lot of issues when the fines start getting higher and people start taking it to court.

you could argue its against the constitution....free speach and all how's that for a can of worms?


DC repealled the citywide gun ban..........I bet this law isn't around in 5 years when accident statistics don't change.

Originally Posted by Spoolin415

Beyond reasonable doubt.... what reasonable person is going to think you were doing something else with a phone to your ear other than talking on it?

The burden of disproving a LEO is technically on you, since judges in traffic court err to the side of the officer. A murder trial judge in a high profile case is a lot different than a traffic court judge who has heard every dumb excuse to get out of every ticket issuable.

I feel like I'm chasing my tail here, but the reality is a judge is going to believe the citing officer over you unless there is indisputable evidence in your favor.