Cigarette Ash discharged from vehiclw

[packhike]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
Received a VC 23111 citation for Discharge of a cigarette substance (ashes)

VC 23111 states "23111. No person in any vehicle and no pedestrian shall throw or discharge from or upon any road or highway or adjoining area, public or private, any lighted or nonlighted cigarette, cigar, match, or any flaming or glowing substance. This section shall be known as the Paul Buzzo Act."
Has anyone used or heard of anyone successfully using the fact that ashes are not a cigarette nor are they flaming or a glowing substance as a defense in this type of citation?
There is a seperate VC for littering but the office chose to use this VC for the citation.
I don't see anywhere where it mentions ASHES. and definition of ashes are " the solid residue left when combustible material is thoroughly burned or is oxidized by chemical means" or "the powdery residue of matter that remains after burning." I know the Paul Buzzo act was to get people who throw items that are flaming, lit, glowing etc out cars or dropping on them on the ground to prevent fires.
I have read previous threads on this topic and DO NOT REQUIRE a post about smoking or health risks of smoking etc. I am looking at the letter of the law for this specific VC..

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
Received a VC 23111 citation for Discharge of a cigarette substance (ashes)

VC 23111 states "23111. No person in any vehicle and no pedestrian shall throw or discharge from or upon any road or highway or adjoining area, public or private, any lighted or nonlighted cigarette, cigar, match, or any flaming or glowing substance. This section shall be known as the Paul Buzzo Act."
Has anyone used or heard of anyone successfully using the fact that ashes are not a cigarette nor are they flaming or a glowing substance as a defense in this type of citation?
There is a seperate VC for littering but the office chose to use this VC for the citation.
I don't see anywhere where it mentions ASHES. and definition of ashes are " the solid residue left when combustible material is thoroughly burned or is oxidized by chemical means" or "the powdery residue of matter that remains after burning." I know the Paul Buzzo act was to get people who throw items that are flaming, lit, glowing etc out cars or dropping on them on the ground to prevent fires.
I have read previous threads on this topic and DO NOT REQUIRE a post about smoking or health risks of smoking etc. I am looking at the letter of the law for this specific VC..

If the Act was specific to prevent just the flaming, lit, or glowing items out of the car, it would have said so. However, as it specifies "nonlighted" in the text of the law, that would tend to disprove your assumption. Unlit cigarettes and cigarette butts are a problem as well - they constitute a health hazard from accidental ingestion by wildlife or pets, and the toxins also leach into water sources to poison them when they are improperly disposed of. Combine that with the reference to matches as well, and that means it also is a potential environmental issue, and not just about the burning remnants and associated fire danger.

I guess we'd need to explore how much of the toxic chemicals remain in the ash to figure out if that poses enough of a threat to warrant trying to challenge that new law.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

On another site, I suggested if OP had any challenge to the "cherry", he plead out to littering.

 

[packhike]

Vc 23111

Actually 23111 came about in the 1970's and was specifically introduced to help prevent fires from objects being thrown from vehicles. Only recently was the term non-lighted added. It
had nothing to do with "environmentalisim" when first introduced. The code specificallt states what items are illegal the funny thing is there is another code that covers everything else. If I present a handful aah from a campfire would you call it a tree? Maple syrup is a substance of the maple tree do you put maple tree on your pancakes? The more leeway the states get the more they take advantage...

 

[packhike]

Correction

Should read " handfull of ash"

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

The problem is also, the more people get away with, the less they care. Having traveled the US extensively, I have seen many roadside grass fires from a carelessly tossed cigarette and the how massive some fire crews get to put them out. I have also seen gangs of gov't employees and chain gangs picking up the litter people threw out their window out of laziness. I guess it is a matter of your perspective. If people were careful and not negligent in their behavior, these laws would not become so precise.

Actually 23111 came about in the 1970's and was specifically introduced to help prevent fires from objects being thrown from vehicles. Only recently was the term non-lighted added. It
had nothing to do with "environmentalisim" when first introduced. The code specificallt states what items are illegal the funny thing is there is another code that covers everything else. If I present a handful aah from a campfire would you call it a tree? Maple syrup is a substance of the maple tree do you put maple tree on your pancakes? The more leeway the states get the more they take advantage...

 

[HighwayMan]

I suggest that you start using your ash tray.

 

[RedemptionMan]

The fact that you smoke and do not use the ash tray equipment or get the proper ash tray equipment for you car means that you are polluting the environment and atmosphere along with causing increased health risks to those around you. I know I personally call the 1800 litter number anytime I see anyone throwing out a cigarette from their car. Not only does it make me smell it, it also could start a fire and cause problems as other posters have stated. I realize it is tough for smokers to make personal decisions on their habits but you really need to stop smoking be it from the price of the product, the increased health care costs, and the caustic effects on the environment. With the new federal packaging and taxes; I really do not know how any one could do this any longer. Buy an electronic cigarette or a patch if you have to have the nicotine otherwise accept your increased liability you are experiencing from using the product.

 

[FlyingRon]

God Bless Paul Buzzo.

 

[packhike]

Another response

Interesting to read the replies to this topic. Fascinating to see that some automatically assumed guilt. Hanging one arms out a window is not the same as throwing ash out the window or a cigarette....

But lets get back to the LAW....When one supposedly breaks the law the state must show that the criteria for the charges have been met. Did i receive a citation for any thing mentioned in vc 23111 no The vc is very specific law. The fact that ash is a part of a cigarette does not make it a cigarette. If you throw out fireworks of your car, something that is extremely flammable should you be charged with VC 23111. No cause the criteria has not been met. What about the tobacco from a cigarette is that a charge under vc 23111. I think not**************

Extreme example,,,a person goes to murder a victim, he stabs the person, screams I want to kill, murder you, victim lives, is he charged with murder cause that was his intent. No the criteria for murder was not met. When people just roll over and don't challenge those in authority we lose our very freedom.


Court on August 19th I will update after court......

 

[disneykid52]

Smokey the Bear says "only YOU can prevent forest fires"

 

[Antigone*]

Smokey the Bear says "only YOU can prevent forest fires"

I can't believe I liked disney's post, but I did! Oh well, there is always a first for everything. At least it wasn't willie

 

[swalsh411]

we lose our very freedom.

Your freedom to cause damage via your disgusting habit? Doesn't exist smokey.....

 

[Mass_Shyster]

• The fact that ash is a part of a cigarette does not make it a cigarette.
• What about the tobacco from a cigarette is that a charge under vc 23111. I think not**************

Under your theory, one could throw the tobacco out the window, throw the filter out, then throw the paper out, but still claim innocence since one didn't throw out "a cigarette".

What this all boils down to is whether you can convince a judge (or whomever hears the case) that the ash is not a cigarette, nor was any part of the ash still burning.

It's an interesting argument, but I predict the judge will not side with you.

 

[CdwJava]

So, what will the officer testify to? What is it the officer saw? Did he see you flick the cig and assumed there was ash? Did he see you toss the whole cig? Did he see glowing embers?

Logic would dictate that if you flicked a cig or ashes out the window that they were lit. Whether you can convince a court that they weren't is something we can't answer.