No Texting while Driving Laws

[Zigner]

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.

Thank you for acknowledging the FACT that it is evidence.

 

[tranquility]

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.

So, you admit you have no basis for your belief?

I mean, I've put out case law and jury instructions. I could have put out evidence code like:

Georgia Code - Evidence - Title 24, Section 24-4-8
The testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact. However, in certain cases, including prosecutions for treason, prosecutions for perjury, and felony cases where the only witness is an accomplice, the testimony of a single witness is not sufficient. Nevertheless, corroborating circumstances may dispense with the necessity for the testimony of a second witness, except in prosecutions for treason.

Or,

Georgia Code - Evidence - Title 24, Section 24-9-80
The credibility of a witness is a matter to be determined by the jury under proper instructions from the court.

But then, we'd be talking about the law rather than divination.

 

[ecmst12]

An officer testifying that he observed the defendent texting merely establishes that he BELIEVES the defendent was texting. The truth of that belief is subject to the judge or jury's opinion of his credibility.

 

[davew128]

An officer testifying that he observed the defendent texting merely establishes that he BELIEVES the defendent was texting. The truth of that belief is subject to the judge or jury's opinion of his credibility.

First thing you've posted on this thread I agree with. If the officer's testimony was simply evidence on its own accord, then there would be no need for the judge or jury to need to form an opinion of his belief.

Put it in context of this thread, lets assume I am driving and while driving I have an itch in a very sensitive area than I need to scratch. The movement of me in the driver's seat while scratching that sensitive spot would look remarkably similar to texting. If an officer pulls me over and writes me up for texting because of that movement, under your theory for his testimny being evidence, the jury should be considered to have evidence of texting even though no phone was ever in my hand!

Which of course would be contradictory to my cell phone records which WOULD be evidence of no texting.

 

[xylene]

Which of course would be contradictory to my cell phone records which WOULD be evidence of no texting.

Your phone records log texts you entered but did not send?

 

[You Are Guilty]

Another molehill mountain. Don't confuse admissibility with credibility (or "weight" as some are calling it). Both officers' and defendants' statements are admissible, in every court of this land, but do not always carry the same weight, (particularly in traffic court). However, that determination is (supposed to be made) on a case by case basis by the fact finder. Any judge who has a rule that an officer's testimony is automatically more credible than a defendant's is going to find himself at the wrong end of a lot of appellate decisions.

 

[HighwayMan]

Do we know what statute this is and what it actually says?

For instance, in New York people refer to it as the texting while driving law but it encompasses much more than texting.

I would think that at least some states might be similar.

 

[abaga]

For whatever reason, I am just now seeing this....I never received notification. I came to the site and saw the thread was answered, so I do apologize for not responding sooner!!

Are you saying the courts would automatically believe the officer over me? I would most definitely bring in my bill to show the courts I was not texting, as it does show this on the bill. I live in a city in GA (Sandy Springs), where it is well known that they will pull you over for anything and everything! Heck, they impounded me for something that once it was proven they were wrong, they had to reimburse me for all of my fees! They were more than wrong!!! I had an officer leave me on the side of the road in 30 degree weather! I am certain he was sorry for doing that by the time it was all said and done! I also know I am not the only one they have done this to before. Sadly, I probably won't be the last person to have this happen to either. After the experience I had with Sandy Springs, I would be scared to death to refuse the officer anything....when I tried to ask the officer ONE question when he was impounding my car when I knew he should not, he threatened to arrest me for just asking a question!!!! He told me if I opened my mouth to ask one more question, he would arrest me. In fact, those were his exact words!!! So, that may help you to understand my hesitation.

Thank you again, 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.



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



Grey area.



No. Absolutely not. Refuse if asked.



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



Use voice commands feature.



It isn't.

It is a You Said, COP Said.

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

 

[abaga]

Another molehill mountain. Don't confuse admissibility with credibility (or "weight" as some are calling it). Both officers' and defendants' statements are admissible, in every court of this land, but do not always carry the same weight, (particularly in traffic court). However, that determination is (supposed to be made) on a case by case basis by the fact finder. Any judge who has a rule that an officer's testimony is automatically more credible than a defendant's is going to find himself at the wrong end of a lot of appellate decisions.

Thank you, YAG!! Your post makes a lot of sense! It is also a lot more comforting to me. Again, as I stated to xylene, in Sandy Springs, and I know I am not the only one, the police officers are extremely intimidating. Not all of them, and thankfully, I have not had a lot of dealings with them. I am a law abiding citizen. I've never been arrested (although, according to the one that I did deal with, he doesn't like to be asked anything, and will threaten to arrest you for just asking a simple question...even one such as, "may I ask you a question, officer?"), I pay my taxes, I do what I am supposed to do, but seems like these officers like to push their weight around if they pull you over. So, I was just wondering how far they can take the texting while driving law. Newer phones now do so much more, especially phones like my iPhone. I have my iPod on mine. I have Satellite Music on mine. So, if I am going to put that on, and an officer happens to see the phone in my hand, is s/he going to assume I am texting and just automatically assume I am texting and give me a ticket?? I try not to touch my phone when I am in the car, but if I want to change a song, and I am at a light, I might do that...I don't do it while I am driving though, and I always use an earbud when talking on the phone.

Thank you again, YAG!!

 

[abaga]

An officer testifying that he observed the defendent texting merely establishes that he BELIEVES the defendent was texting. The truth of that belief is subject to the judge or jury's opinion of his credibility.

Hi ecmst....

I think what sometimes I even fail to forget (WHY, even I don't know!! LOL), officers lie all of the time! The purpose of said lie, I do not know, but they do it. Do they have quota's for tickets they must fill to keep their jobs? I do not know that either, but officers do lie.

Now, if an officer happens to pull up next to a car, and sees a screen up where there is a text conversation up, okay, there is reason to believe the person has been texting, but, were they texting just then? Not necessarily. Can he give them a ticket at that moment for that conversation he sees on the screen or does he have to see what is ACTIVE texting??

I guess this is a topic that could go on forever ....

I hope you are doing well!!

 

[BOR]

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!!

Since a search "incident to citation" is UNconstitutional, per the US SC, see Knowles v. Iowa, I would say NO, it is not permitted by law to seize the phone to examine it.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on this a few months ago, however, it concerned the ARREST of the person and search "incident to arrest".

The ruling was, the phone was a "closed container" and any search absent emergency circumstances, required a Search Warrant under the Ohio Constitution's Search and Seizure clause.

Since Knowles is controlling the law seems clear to me, no examination if a citation is issued.

Under the GA constitution, if an arrest is made, well that I can not comment on.