Ticket for violating DC's Distracted Drivers Act

[snowfunatic]

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

I am a VA licensed driver. I was driving through DC on my way home and got ticketed for talking on my cell phone. I allegedly violated DC's Distracted Drivers Act. When giving my ticket, the police officer told me that if I went out and got myself a headset (for my cell phone), I could have the ticket dismissed/waived. But I called the number on the back of my ticket to see whether I should admit, admit with explanation, or deny it, the representative did not know. I have couple defenses:

A) What the police officer told me
B) Being a VA driver, I didn't know there was such law (pretty weak defense, i know)
C) The law states that "no person shall use a mobile telephone or other electronic device while operating a moving motor vehicle, unless the telephone or device is equipped with a hands-free accessory." I was actually standing still at a light when the police officer caught me. So would I fall under "operating a motor vehicle"? I mean, I wasn't operating the vehicle at the time.

What are your recommendations? Should I deny it altogether or admit with explanation? What is the likelihood that defense C would be persuasive?

 

[Zigner]

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

I am a VA licensed driver. I was driving through DC on my way home and got ticketed for talking on my cell phone. I allegedly violated DC's Distracted Drivers Act. When giving my ticket, the police officer told me that if I went out and got myself a headset (for my cell phone), I could have the ticket dismissed/waived. But I called the number on the back of my ticket to see whether I should admit, admit with explanation, or deny it, the representative did not know. I have couple defenses:

A) What the police officer told me

That's not a defense - it's a request for "leniency"

B) Being a VA driver, I didn't know there was such law (pretty weak defense, i know)

Agreed

C) The law states that "no person shall use a mobile telephone or other electronic device while operating a moving motor vehicle, unless the telephone or device is equipped with a hands-free accessory." I was actually standing still at a light when the police officer caught me. So would I fall under "operating a motor vehicle"? I mean, I wasn't operating the vehicle at the time.

You're kidding, right? Was your foot on the brake? You were operating the vehicle

What are your recommendations? Should I deny it altogether or admit with explanation? What is the likelihood that defense C would be persuasive?

See my prior

 

[I_Got_Banned]

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

I am a VA licensed driver. I was driving through DC on my way home and got ticketed for talking on my cell phone. I allegedly violated DC's Distracted Drivers Act. When giving my ticket, the police officer told me that if I went out and got myself a headset (for my cell phone), I could have the ticket dismissed/waived. But I called the number on the back of my ticket to see whether I should admit, admit with explanation, or deny it, the representative did not know. I have couple defenses:

A) What the police officer told me
B) Being a VA driver, I didn't know there was such law (pretty weak defense, i know)
C) The law states that "no person shall use a mobile telephone or other electronic device while operating a moving motor vehicle, unless the telephone or device is equipped with a hands-free accessory." I was actually standing still at a light when the police officer caught me. So would I fall under "operating a motor vehicle"? I mean, I wasn't operating the vehicle at the time.

What are your recommendations? Should I deny it altogether or admit with explanation? What is the likelihood that defense C would be persuasive?

Why are you even debating what to do with your "A", "B" & "C" when you were told what to do to have this citation "DISMISSED/WAIVED" ?????????????

 

[snowfunatic]

That's not a defense - it's a request for "leniency"
Agreed
You're kidding, right? Was your foot on the brake? You were operating the vehicle
See my prior

Just because your foot is on the brake doesn't mean that you're operating the vehicle. What if I had pulled over the side of the road and talked on the cell phone while the car was still running? Can I still be ticketed???

Why are you even debating what to do with your "A", "B" & "C" when you were told what to do to have this citation "DISMISSED/WAIVED" ?????????????

Because I don't know whether I should admit with explanation or just plain deny it! And also, the police officer may have said it, but it doesn't mean that the person reading this appeal will agree.

 

[Zigner]

Just because your foot is on the brake doesn't mean that you're operating the vehicle. What if I had pulled over the side of the road and talked on the cell phone while the car was still running? Can I still be ticketed???

Of course it does mean that. You are in control and operating the motor vehicle. If your foot WASN'T on the brake, what do you think would have happened.

Please tell me you're not serious about that line of thinking...

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Just because your foot is on the brake doesn't mean that you're operating the vehicle. What if I had pulled over the side of the road and talked on the cell phone while the car was still running? Can I still be ticketed???

If you are sitting in the driver/operator seat with the keys in the ignition and the car is running then you are operating the vehicle!!!

Because I don't know whether I should admit with explanation or just plain deny it! And also, the police officer may have said it, but it doesn't mean that the person reading this appeal will agree.

You don't deny it because that would be lying.

You admit and plead guilty and then you add that you have purchased a hands free set, show that as well as a purchase receipt to the court and your citation should be diusmissed.

 

[snowfunatic]

Of course it does mean that. You are in control and operating the motor vehicle. If your foot WASN'T on the brake, what do you think would have happened.

Please tell me you're not serious about that line of thinking...

I'm actually quite serious. Unless there is a clear cut definition in the book that states what "operating" means... I will dispute it.

 

[Zigner]

I'm actually quite serious. Unless there is a clear cut definition in the book that states what "operating" means... I will dispute it.

Please stay on that side of the country. Lord knows we already have our share of dense drivers on the West Coast!

 

[I_Got_Banned]

please stay on that side of the country. Lord knows we already have our share of dense drivers on the west coast!

True and funny...

 

[FlyingRon]

You were operating the motor vehicle. There's case law on this DC. Just starting the car is considered operating it.

You can try that argument, but the court won't be amused.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Heck, the car doesn't even need to be running in order for one to be operating it. All that's basically needed is to be found to be in "control" of the vehicle (so, for example, if you were steering it down a hill with the motor off).

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Heck, the car doesn't even need to be running in order for one to be operating it. All that's basically needed is to be found to be in "control" of the vehicle (so, for example, if you were steering it down a hill with the motor off).

True... I know of someone in California who got arrested for a DUI simply because he was (slumped over the steering wheel) in the driver seat, with keys in the ignition. Even though he had not started the car yet, the prosecutor argued that he had "intent" to drive while intoxicated but that he simply dozed off before strating to do so.

The case was plead for a lesser charge.

 

[FlyingRon]

Can't vouch for Californicate, but as I said, we've got case law where a guy with a suspended license STARTED the car and never put it in gear and they sustained the violation.

 

[Alex23]

Is there a problem in D.C. with people talking and driving at the same time?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Is there a problem in D.C. with people talking and driving at the same time?

Its not just in DC. Many states have enacted laws against drivers talking on their Cell phones while "Operating" a motor vehicle.