No Texting while Driving Laws

[abaga]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Georgia

I am not certain if I am placing my question in the proper section. If it isn't, I do apologize.

GA has just passed the No Texting while Driving Law, which is great. Several of us were having the discussion about this law.

Is it in the law that officers are allowed to look at your phone when they pull you over? How would the officer know if you are texting for certain? One may be on their iPhone looking at their iPod or reading a message on Facebook. Again, you shouldn't do these things anyway, however, where does the law stop with this subject? Does the law provide for an officer to look at your phone? Is it written that an officer is able to write a ticket if you are sending an email while sitting at a light or putting something on Facebook?

I could be sitting at a light making a phone call, but an officer may think I am texting (or in one particular city in GA, they don't think, they just assume, and you can't open your mouth to even ask a question by some of their officers....I tried to ask a question of the officer and was told if I opened my mouth to say anything at all, I would be arrested! They're very abusive) when in fact, I am just dialing a number.

Seems like it could be a he said she said. I have no problems letting them look at the phone so they can see I wasn't texting, however, is it allowed by law and written in the law to be done?

Thank you so much for your time!!

 

[xylene]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)Is it in the law that officers are allowed to look at your phone when they pull you over?

No. They may not. I have heard of officers asserting that they can and seen officers grab and inspect phones.

Use the security code feature, even consider hard-locking the phone in the event of a police conforntation.

How would the officer know if you are texting for certain?

They would see you fiddling with your phone. That is enough.

One may be on their iPhone looking at their iPod or reading a message on Facebook. Again, you shouldn't do these things anyway, however, where does the law stop with this subject?

Grey area.

Does the law provide for an officer to look at your phone?

No. Absolutely not. Refuse if asked.

Is it written that an officer is able to write a ticket if you are sending an email while sitting at a light or putting something on Facebook?

You are not allowed to type on a phone. Period. It is not app specific.

I could be sitting at a light making a phone call, but an officer may think I am texting when in fact, I am just dialing a number.

Use voice commands feature.

Seems like it could be a he said she said.

It isn't.

It is a You Said, COP Said.

The testimony of an officer carries weight as evidence. It is evidence.

 

[Zigner]

The testimony of an officer carries weight as evidence. It is evidence.

To be fair, the OP's testimony is ALSO evidence and does carry weight.
Of course, I know that you meant that the officer's testimony carries much more weight

 

[xylene]

Said for the benefit of the OP who asked.

To be fair, the OP's testimony is ALSO evidence and does carry weight.
Of course, I know that you meant that the officer's testimony carries much more weight

The testimony of the OP, particularly as the defendant is testimony with very limited evidentiary value.

The testimony of a Police Officer, acting as the State's agent, is evidence.

Which is to say that unless something dis-establishes something uttered by the officer as true, or the officers entire credibility, the truth value of the officer's tesitmony is pre-established by his position and oath.

Which is to say, that a police officer testifying to his (or her) observations regarding a person texting is all that is needed to convict someone, even if the accused protests.

 

[Zigner]

The testimony of the OP, particularly as the defendant is testimony with very limited evidentiary value.

The testimony of a Police Officer, acting as the State's agent, is evidence.

Which is to say that unless something dis-establishes something uttered by the officer as true, or the officers entire credibility, the truth value of the officer's tesitmony is pre-established by his position and oath.

Which is to say, that a police officer testifying to his (or her) observations regarding a person texting is all that is needed to convict someone, even if the accused protests.

So, all in all, you agree with me. Testimony is evidence. It is up to the trier of fact to assign weight to said evidence.

 

[xylene]

I'm not debating, I am hoping we are providing the best for the OP

So, all in all, you agree with me. Testimony is evidence. It is up to the trier of fact to assign weight to said evidence.

Testimony is a type of evidence, Exhibits are the other.

Without one type of rebuttal or impeachment or another refutation, the sworn testimony of a police officer acting under his duty oath will form evidence, with presumed truth and probative values.

The testimony of a defendant will not rise to that level of evidence. It is merely testimony and part of the evidentiary record and does not, and cannot alone establish as fact the narrative presented in that testimony, even if unrebutted.

Of course this as a legal principal will vary between, cases, jurisdictions and the bench personnel.

But for this discussion, virtually nothing a defendant in texting case in Georgia can say will amount to a rebuttal of an officer.

 

[Zigner]

Testimony is a type of evidence, Exhibits are the other.

Without one type of rebuttal or impeachment or another refutation, the sworn testimony of a police officer acting under his duty oath will form evidence, with presumed truth and probative values.

The testimony of a defendant will not rise to that level of evidence. It is merely testimony and part of the evidentiary record and does not, and cannot alone establish as fact the narrative presented in that testimony, even if unrebutted.

Of course this as a legal principal will vary between, cases, jurisdictions and the bench personnel.

But for this discussion, virtually nothing a defendant in texting case in Georgia can say will amount to a rebuttal of an officer.

I totally agree with this.

 

[tranquility]

I don't.

Testimony is a type of evidence, Exhibits are the other.

I believe the types of evidence are direct and circumstantial. Testimony would be an example of direct when talking about what was seen and circumstantial when talking about what one thought about what was seen. An exhibit would be much the same. Exhibits could be a handgun (direct), or a chart listing the math of an accident reconstruction (circumstantial).

Without one type of rebuttal or impeachment or another refutation, the sworn testimony of a police officer acting under his duty oath will form evidence, with presumed truth and probative values.

Anyone's testimony is *exactly* the same. Police officer or not. The presumptions are exactly the same between a cop and a criminal.

The testimony of a defendant will not rise to that level of evidence.

Yes, it will. Period.

It is merely testimony and part of the evidentiary record and does not, and cannot alone establish as fact the narrative presented in that testimony, even if unrebutted.

This is not a correct statement of law, see above regarding police testimony.

Of course this as a legal principal will vary between, cases, jurisdictions and the bench personnel.

It shouldn't. Please show such a jury instruction as used in any court.

But for this discussion, virtually nothing a defendant in texting case in Georgia can say will amount to a rebuttal of an officer.

Of course it will. However, as stated previously in the thread, most people will weigh the officer's statement and the defendant's statement differently. It is NOT because of any matter of law, but of FACT. That's what a jury or judge (In fact finder role.) are for.

 

[xylene]

The presumptions of truth value of a sworn officer, an agent of the state, is not the same compared to the accused or even a neutral citizen witness.

The testimony of a police officer establishes evidence.

A police officer in court saying

"I observed Jane Abaga texting while driving." establishes proof that Jane Abaga was texting while driving.

Jane Abaga saying "I was not texting while driving, I was dialing a phone number." establishes a record of Jane Abaga claims and doesn't prove anything.

 

[tranquility]

The presumptions of truth value of a sworn officer, an agent of the state, is not the same compared to the accused or even a neutral citizen witness.

You are incorrect as a matter of law. What an individual feels in their heart is a different matter.

The testimony of a police officer establishes evidence.

All testimony is evidence. A police officer's testimony has no legal presumptions which are different from a lay person's testimony. None.

A police officer in court saying
"I observed Jane Abaga texting while driving." establishes proof that Jane Abaga was texting while driving.

No, it doesn't. It is evidence the fact finder will consider.

Jane Abaga saying "I was not texting while driving, I was dialing a phone number." establishes a record of Jane Abaga claims and doesn't prove anything.

Wrong. The *LEGAL* presumptions are *EXACTLY* the same as the officer's testimony. It's just that a fact finder may determine a police officer would have less of a reason to lie so may use his testimony with a greater weight.

Info edit:
For a legally worded example of what I'm talking about, see:

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtcourt/jury-instructions/criminal/pdf/2260-credibility-of-witnesses.pdf

Look especially to page 7 and 8, Note 2 regarding a potential special instruction regarding Police witnesses.

 

[xylene]

I'm not sure what jury instructions for felony cases in Massachusetts has to do with a motor vehicle infraction in Georgia.

You are wrong.

A police officers statement is evidence, which offers self supporting proof.

The reason that in that this exchange I observed Jane Abaga texting while driving." and Jane Abaga saying "I was not texting while driving, I was dialing a phone number." does not end in acquittal is not beacuse Jane Abaga is more likely to be lying.

It is because here words don't prove a thing, and the words of the officer do.

 

[tranquility]

I'm not sure what jury instructions for felony cases in Massachusetts has to do with a motor vehicle infraction in Georgia.

You are wrong.

A police officers statement is evidence, which offers self supporting proof.

The reason that in that this exchange I observed Jane Abaga texting while driving." and Jane Abaga saying "I was not texting while driving, I was dialing a phone number." does not end in acquittal is not beacuse Jane Abaga is more likely to be lying.

It is because here words don't prove a thing, and the words of the officer do.

You are legally incorrect. Period. You should be embarrassed to continue with your erroneous belief in public.

The only reason I posted that particular jury instruction is because it was the first which popped up. I assure you it is the same in Georgia. It is the same in traffic court. It is the same as it has been since the beginning of common law. It's a basic tenet of evidence.

From an article at Jury Instruction regarding jury instructions and the constitutional basis (You are free to provide ANY basis for your erroneous theory.):

"A fundamental premise of our criminal trial system is that ‘the jury is the lie detector.’ [Citation.] Determining the weight and credibility of witness testimony, therefore, has long been held to be the ‘part of every case [that] belongs to the jury, who are presumed to be fitted for it by their natural intelligence and their practical knowledge of men and the ways of men.’ [Citation.]" (U.S. v. Scheffer (1998) 523 US 303, 313 [118 SCt 1261; 140 LEd2d 413].) "Implicit in the right to trial by jury afforded criminal defendants under the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is the right to have that jury decide all relevant issues of fact and to weigh the credibility of witnesses." (U.S. v. Hayward (DC Cir. 1969) 420 F2d 142, 144; see also U.S. v. Gaudin (1995) 515 US 506, 511 [115 SCt 2309; 132 LEd2d 444]; Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 US 308, 318 [94 SCt 1105; 39 LEd2d 347]; Bollenbach v. U.S. (1946) 326 US 607, 614 [66 SCt 402; 90 LEd 350] ["...the question is not whether guilt may be spelt out of a record, but whether guilt has been found by a jury according to the procedure and standards appropriate for criminal trials...."].)

Procedures, jury instructions or the absence of jury instructions which result in the impairment of the jury’s central function of assessing the credibility of witnesses may implicate the defendant’s federal constitutional right to trial by jury. (See Franklin v. Henry (9th Cir. 1997) 122 F3d 1270, 1273 [error in excluding a statement relating to the credibility of a child witness was of constitutional magnitude based on Crane v. Kentucky (1986) 476 US 683, 690-91 [106 SCt 2142; 90 LEd2d 636]]; U.S. v. Bloome (E.D.N.Y. 1991) 773 FSupp 545, 547 [opportunity for jury to appraise the credibility of witnesses safeguards the defendant’s rights]; People v. Robinson (CO 1993) 874 P2d 453, 459 [the trial court may not, consistent with the due process rights of defendant to a fair trial before an impartial judge and jury, express to the jury any personal opinion of credibility of witness and should scrupulously avoid even an appearance of partiality].)

"No matter how lightly the court may regard the testimony offered on behalf of the defense, the question of its weight and the credibility of the witnesses is to be determined by the jury, properly instructed as to the law. Unless this is followed, a defendant is deprived of his constitutional right of a trial by jury." (Gallegos v. People (CO 1957) 316 P2d 884, 885; see also State v. Joyner (CT 1992) 625 A2d 791, 805 [criminal defendant has constitutional right to reveal facts to the jury regarding the mental condition of a witness which may reasonably affect the credibility of the witness]; Taylor v. Illinois (1988) 484 US 400, 430, fn 5 [108 SCt 646; 98 LEd2d 798] (dis. opn. of Brennan, J.) ["The constitutional right to a jury trial would mean little if a judge could exclude any defense witness whose testimony he or she did not credit."].)

Furthermore, to the extent that a cautionary instruction furthers the reliability of the jury’s verdict it is grounded upon the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution which has a reliability component. (See generally Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 US 56, 70 [106 SCt 1121; 65 LEd2d 597] [testimony given under oath and subject to cross-examination bears an "indicia of reliability"]; see also FORECITE National™ 6.7 [Reliability Of Conviction And Sentence Guaranteed By Due Process].)

 

[xylene]

There is never going to be a jury trial for a texting ticket in Georgia.

I hold many erroneous beliefs, and this is not one of them.

The testimony of an officer establishes, as proof, a person was texting.

There is no weighing the relative testimonies any more than more than placing a block of lead on the prosecutions side and the defendant's downy feather on the other is weighing.

One side crushes, the other would not even but move the scale slightly, even from a perfect unladen resting balance.

 

[Zigner]

I missed where Xylene said: The testimony of a defendant will not rise to that level of evidence.

THAT is simply not true. It IS evidence. Granted, it won't have the weight of the officer's testimony...but it IS evidence.

I think the POINT that Xylene is trying to make is that the officer's testimony (evidence) will likely overwhelm the testimony (evidence) of a defendant. THAT is what I was agreeing to.

 

[xylene]

THAT is simply not true. It IS evidence. Granted, it won't have the weight of the officer's testimony...but it IS evidence.

Jane says "I was not texting"

goes as far to proving she wasn't texting as Jane standing silently.

As evidence, it has zero rebuttal value, probative value or value as proof.

Sweet worthless evidence.