• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

23123(a) VC Cell Phone

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

deadedwalking

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Hi all,

I need some advice regarding a weird situation that occurred this morning. I was pulled over and cited for violation in the thread title. The officer said I was using my cell phone when in fact it was in my pocket the entire time. I wasn't even using a bluetooth headset (which is legal) so I was really shocked when that was the reason for pulling me over. I have not made any phone calls or used my phone since last night. Can I challenge this? Any advice or input is appreciated.

Thank you,
Ed
 


Well, he says, she says????
Your cell phone records maybe your best valid defense.
Realize that the judge can get the records directly from your provider to validate what ever you provide.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Well, he says, she says????
Your cell phone records maybe your best valid defense.
Realize that the judge can get the records directly from your provider to validate what ever you provide.
It's not up to the judge to do that and he won't bother. This isn't the murder trial of the decade...
 
This is a junk "law" ie cell phone tax.. with officers just guessing.

I agree, you can use your cell phone records as you best defense. If the officer cant "prove" (proof=testify to) that you were using a different phone, that should probably work and I've seen that defense prevail a few times already. You never know.. but that is just FYI. Some officers have taken to noting the cell phone number as a result.But you will probably need to get the records yourself to mount your defense and likely post bail and request a trial/trial by dec. If it were me, I would try a trial by dec first. This bail on this is about $130.
 
Last edited:

davew128

Senior Member
One more reason to have bluetooth installed in the vehicle rather than using a headpiece. That way you will never need to use the phone for anything other than dialing which is permissible.
 

deadedwalking

Junior Member
re:

thanks all.

I will try a trial by written declaration first, then if necessary, go to court. My biggest gripe is that the officer totally made a bad judgment call. I might understand if I was holding something or fidgeting with my face but there was none of that. Will update this if I remember down the road. Thanks again.
 
One more reason to have bluetooth installed in the vehicle rather than using a headpiece. That way you will never need to use the phone for anything other than dialing which is permissible.
also, make sure you dont scratch your face, fidget in your seat, lean your hand on your chin, rub your shoulder, itch your elbow, look suspicous, or move the AC controls.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
I've spoken to a couple of officers about this...one CHP and one an officer at a large city department. (Yes, I know...totally anecdotal)
Each of them say that they don't just pull people over for things like having their hand momentarily close to their ear, etc. Each of them tells me that it has to be a pretty blatant violation for them to act on it.
 
It's not up to the judge to do that and he won't bother. This isn't the murder trial of the decade...

Sorry to correct you, but I've seen it done.

In California
For a cellphone ticket

Okayyyyy
No. I never said what I witnessed was in California or for a cellphone ticket.
You must have my quote mixed up with a quote from some one else.

Please don't take this as a flame. I realize that if you remove everyone else from the world, you would by far be the smartest in the world! ;)
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
No. I never said what I witnessed was in California or for a cellphone ticket.
You must have my quote mixed up with a quote from some one else.

Please don't take this as a flame. I realize that if you remove everyone else from the world, you would by far be the smartest in the world! ;)

You said: Realize that the judge can get the records directly from your provider to validate what ever you provide.

I said: It's not up to the judge to do that and he won't bother. This isn't the murder trial of the decade...

You said: Sorry to correct you, but I've seen it done.

I said: In California For a cellphone ticket Okayyyyy

You said: No. I never said what I witnessed was in California or for a cellphone ticket.


This thread is relating to a cell phone ticket in California. You really are living up to your handle...
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Sorry to correct you, but I've seen it done.
Not in CA it won't be. The JUDGE is NOT going to subpoena the phone records as it is not his or her job. The state can do it, the defense can do it, but the judge will not do it. In fact, I would be surprised to see a judge do this in ANY state. You wouldn't happen to have a link to some example or authority in some state where judges do this with any kind of regularity or pursuant to code, would you?
 

JIMinCA

Member
One more reason to have bluetooth installed in the vehicle rather than using a headpiece. That way you will never need to use the phone for anything other than dialing which is permissible.
What's the point?? Apparently the cops can ticket you for having the phone in your pocket as in the case of our OP!!
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top