Ticket for Using Siri While Driving

California
I was given a ticket for using Siri while driving on the highway.
The police pulled me over and asked if I knew why he was pulling me over. I said no. He said he saw me with my phone in-front of my face and I was talking. He asked me if I was calling someone. I said no. He asked me what I was doing. I said I was using Siri to set a reminder. He asked me if it was an emergency or something I needed to do at this moment. I said no. However, I said I was a very busy student and I like making reminders for myself. He then gave me a ticket for $162 ($20 fine and the rest is fees)
I am writing my trial by written declaration and would like some advice.
Some things I’m thinking of including:
I was not told my Miranda rights and I self-incriminated myself by saying I was using Siri to set a reminder. I did not know using Siri is illegal as I thought it didn’t count as using the cellphone while driving as I associated that with more like calling someone. Setting a reminder with Siri requires only using your voice and no touch. This is my first offence. I have since bought a phone holder for my car that will allow for hands-free use of Siri. I am also thinking of saying that I wasn't using Siri and was just talking to myself or practicing my Japanese while listening to an audio CD while simply looking at my phone for directions, or email, or something not illegal (or maybe everything/any use of cell-phone features is illegal).

Anyone have any advice on what I should write or include in my written declaration?

Thank you everyone for you help.

Quote:

---

Quoting dennisg0505

---

I was not told my Miranda rights and I self-incriminated myself by saying I was using Siri to set a reminder.

---

Most, if not all traffic stops are not considered custodial arrests for purposes of qualifying whether Miranda was required or not. The U.S. Supreme court has decided that traffic stops are not custodial arrests for purposes of qualifying the need for a Miranda warning.

And if you incriminated yourself, then you really have no defense whatsoever... But I'll answer the other questions as well:

Quote:

---

Quoting dennisg0505

---

I did not know using Siri is illegal as I thought it didn’t count as using the cellphone while driving as I associated that with more like calling someone.

---

"Did not know" is not a valid defense... ("Ignorance od the law is not an excuse").

I will comment on the second part of that question at the bottom.

Quote:

---

Quoting dennisg0505

---

Setting a reminder with Siri requires only using your voice and no touch.

---

... at the bottom.

Quote:

---

Quoting dennisg0505

---

This is my first offence.

---

First call phone ticket or first ticket I general? It still doesn't matter. There is no law that says the first is a freebie!

Quote:

---

Quoting dennisg0505

---

I have since bought a phone holder for my car that will allow for hands-free use of Siri.

---

Good for you... You should suggest your friends do the same as well!

Quote:

---

Quoting dennisg0505

---

I am also thinking of saying that I wasn't using Siri and was just talking to myself or practicing my Japanese while listening to an audio CD while simply looking at my phone for directions, or email, or something not illegal (or maybe everything/any use of cell-phone features is illegal).

---

This goes along with all the other questions I deferred to the end. The purpose and intent behind enacting these law is to ensure drivers aren't being distracted by the use of their cell phones... While it is true that there is no particular language that prohibits use of applications that are not communication related, you are not going to get too far arguing "Siri", "practicing Japanese", "looking up an address", "searching for a song".... All of those actions are distracting and so you should avoid them as much as yo would avoid using the phone or tying a \text message.

And before you ask, in my opinion, taking your cell phone bill to court to show that you did not make a call at the time of the citation, is not going to work. I don't know how long the officer observed you talking with the phone in your hand and in front of you, and while that does not necessarily mean you were on the phone, you are actually doing the same exact thing had you been talking to someone, or leaving a voicemail... etc!

I forgot to add: after I said I wasn't calling someone, the officer checked my call log to confirm, so I don't think I will or need to bring a cell phone bill to court.

Do you think I can at least get a reduction if I say that I didn't know the law, and now that I do, I have made corrections to my behavior that will reduce that chances of a future ticket (such as a phone holder for my car)?

I'm assuming that you were cited for violating VC23123. If not, let us know what section of the vehicle code you were charged with violating. First of all, let's look at what the law says:

Quote:

---

23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.

---

So, the obvious question is... is using Siri considered to be using a "wireless telephone"? Well, you were obviously using an iPhone. As such, one of the features is a GPS. Clearly it is NOT illegal to use a GPS while driving. The same could be said for many other iPhone apps.

The obvious intent of the law is to prohibit talking on a cell phone with another person. There is nothing to indicate that there is any intention to prohibit any function of an electronic device under this statute other than a wireless telephone function. The statute obviously is not intended to restrict other functions, for if it did, then VC23123.5 (texting while driving) would be redundant. The legislature obviously recognized that one device (a cell phone) could be used for more than one function. That's exactly why the wrote two separate statutes to regulate two different functions.

Siri is clearly NOT a function prohibited by 23123. The fact that you even showed the cop your call log makes it absurd that the cop wrote this ticket in the first place. You should state exactly what happened in your TBD, including the cop validating your call log. You should point out the "two statutes for two cell phone functions" theory and declare that Siri is not a violation of the code you were cited with. And you should emphatically state that you were NOT talking on a "wireless telephone" as described by the statute. However, I would NOT say that you were not using Siri for two reasons: 1. You already told the cop you were and 2. You would be perjuring yourself. If you are truly guilty of committing an offense and your guilt is proven in court, you should accept the penalty. I would never advise anyone to commit perjury just to avoid a $162 fine.

If you would like to make a first draft of your statement and post it here, I'm sure there will be people who would gladly proofread it for you.

Quote:

---

Quoting dennisg0505

---

I forgot to add: after I said I wasn't calling someone, the officer checked my call log to confirm, so I don't think I will or need to bring a cell phone bill to court.

---

Is it possible that you could have deleted that call log entry between the time he saw you on your phone and the time he signaled you to pull over?

Either way, I don't know what the officer saw or didn't see or what he will testify to. So you're free to proceed as you see fit.

Quote:

---

Quoting dennisg0505

---

Do you think I can at least get a reduction if I say that I didn't know the law, and now that I do, I have made corrections to my behavior that will reduce that chances of a future ticket (such as a phone holder for my car)?

---

AGAIN: Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The way courts handle traffic matters, is by typically offering a slight reduction of the fine amount if you plead guilty at the arraignment. I don't know how much and cannot promise you anything at all. But you're free to appear at your arraignment to see what if anything will be reduced and decide accordingly. Understand that if you choose to contest it, you will have to pay the full bail amount which will be refunded if you win but it will not be discounted if you lose.

As far as correcting your behavior, how difficult would it be for you to simply put your phone away for however long it might take you to get from one place to another? I mean you're not a cardiologist or a brain surgeon -yet- and the likelihood that you would be receiving a call that requires the level of urgency that would dictate your immediate attention is slim. So buying a phone holder isn't likely to change your behavior much. Phone beeps with a text, you check your surroundings, grab it and read, maybe even reply.... How much change has that done!

I should also add that the intent of the statute is to prohibit distracted driving through the use of a wireless communication device. You could sit there all day trying to pick apart that argument, and you could be specific that it only prohibits communicating with a "person", but really, lets take GPS for a moment. Arguing that typing an address into the GPS/mapping app on your phone is not distracting, or on the far extreme playing "Angry Birds" isn't distracting both of which are on a wireless device, neither of which is communicating with a person.

Ultimately, the choice is yours!

Quote:

---

Setting a reminder with Siri requires only using your voice and no touch.

---

really? Do you have a way of activating siri without pushing and holding the single button at the bottom of the phone?

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Is it possible that you could have deleted that call log entry between the time he saw you on your phone and the time he signaled you to pull over?

---

It probably is possible... But it is also possible that the OP is telling the truth and the cop simply overstepped his authority and charged him with a violation that he clearly did not commit.

Quote:

---

I should also add that the intent of the statute is to prohibit distracted driving through the use of a wireless communication device. You could sit there all day trying to pick apart that argument, and you could be specific that it only prohibits communicating with a "person", but really, lets take GPS for a moment. Arguing that typing an address into the GPS/mapping app on your phone is not distracting, or on the far extreme playing "Angry Birds" isn't distracting both of which are on a wireless device, neither of which is communicating with a person.

---

That Guy makes an interesting point. But I don’t think it is the point he intended to make.

Clearly, typing an address into GPS is quite distracting. Playing Angry Birds is distracting as well. However, there are a myriad of distracting activities: eating a hamburger, putting on lipstick, shaving with an electric razor, reading a book, trying to find your favorite CD, yelling at your kids, arguing with a spouse, or simply daydreaming. These are but a few distractions that are quite dangerous. But the California legislature chose to NOT write a statute that addressed distracted driving in general. Instead, they chose to address only two types of distractions specifically: talking on a wireless telephone and texting. Period.

So, while this does NOT imply that your actions were safe, reasonable or proper… it does say that your actions were not ILLEGAL under VC23123. Period! Clearly, you could have been engaged in any one of the other distracting activities, but eating a hamburger or putting on lipstick is not illegal under VC23123 either. This does NOT excuse your behavior from a perspective of safety… just from a perspective of law.

Therefore, you should absolutely go into court and argue your innocence… for you ARE innocent of the charges before you. Maybe, when enough of these dismissals occur, the legislature will write a law that addresses distracted driving in general rather than just pulling two feathers from a chicken and calling it “plucked”.


I do hope you will keep us informed on the outcome.

Quote:

---

Quoting HomeAgain123

---

It probably is possible... But it is also possible that the OP is telling the truth and the cop simply overstepped his authority and charged him with a violation that he clearly did not commit.

---

Again, you don't know what the officer saw or what other"admissions" the OP made. At the end of the day, credibility is a matter for the court to decide. You can continue to deny reality but unfortunately enough defendants lied in the past that a defendant's word carries very littler weight.

Quote:

---

Quoting HomeAgain123

---

That Guy makes an interesting point. But I don’t think it is the point he intended to make.

---

If I ever need you to make my point for me, I'll let you know. This time wasn't it!

Excellent... so that means you agree with my point about using Siri not being a violation of VC23123. I knew we could find common ground if we looked long enough!!

Quote:

---

Quoting HomeAgain123

---

Excellent... so that means you agree with my point about using Siri not being a violation of VC23123. I knew we could find common ground if we looked long enough!!

---

Are you really this desperate for my approval?

For the last time, the defendant's claim that he was using Siri will have little to no impact on the outcome. The officer saw him talking into a phone, will testify that he saw him talking into a phone, and he will likely be convicted of talking into a phone.

Sorry to break it to you but the outcome of this case is not dependent upon "your point" or what you perceive a violation or not a violation. Nope, the world does not revolve around you either. Get over yourself!

So, the OP states he was using Siri. He also states that he showed the cop the call log on his phone. This is an indisputable example of a person who is clearly NOT guilty of the charge he has been cited for. However, you think he will still be convicted. And here is where you and I seem to find common ground. I agree that the OP may in fact be convicted. However, I believe he will be convicted not because he is guilty, but because of the corrupt nature of traffic courts in California. You on the other hand thing he DESERVES to be found guilty because he was violating what you THINK the law SHOULD have said.

Again, I hope the OP does go to court and defend himself against this inappropriate charge. I hope he is acquitted. And I hope he comes back here to report the outcome of his trial. While it is rare, I enjoy seeing justice actually being done in a court of law.

Wow! I didn't expect there to be so many replies. I will definitely go to court on this case. I am currently writing the written declaration and will post a rough draft around thursday night (in 2 days) and would appreciate any feedback. I appreciate all the support as I too believe that I don't deserve a ticket.

I checked my call log online and unfortunately it does not go back far enough to 1/30/12; I will be calling Verizon if they still have a record going that far back somewhere in their database.

Also, I am trying to obtain the Officer's Notes. My county court (Ventura County) says that they don't provide a motion for discovery for infractions - only misdemeanor or felony cases. The police department (Ventura County Sheriff Department) tells me that I should ask the court for a motion for discovery or subpoena of the information because it is confidential. Do I have a right to see the Officer's Notes? If they ignore my motion for discovery, I can request a dismissal of my case as suggested in http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...es-29894.html?

Quote:

---

Quoting HomeAgain123

---

He also states that he showed the cop the call log on his phone.

---

And yet you have only heard one side of the story!

Quote:

---

Quoting HomeAgain123

---

I hope he is acquitted.

---

I could care less if he's acquitted or if he's convicted. He came here asking for what I assume to be an inquiry about how realistic his chances are in court. I gave him the dose of reality I would give to anyone based on what I see here and have heard about elsewhere, while you played on your disagreement with Cell phone laws. Whether he wins or loses, and though you'll clearly be disappointed to hear this, it makes little to no difference to me!

---

Quote:

---

Quoting dennisg0505

---

I too believe that I don't deserve a ticket.

---

You also believed that buying a phone holder so you can keep your phone in view while you drive so you can continue to use it while you drive, was a good idea. So rest assured what you "believe", what you "feel" and what you would "like", will play no role at all in your court case!

Quote:

---

Quoting dennisg0505

---

My county court (Ventura County) says that they don't provide a motion for discovery for infractions - only misdemeanor or felony cases.

---

I don't even know where to start with that statement, but let me just say that the court does not provide discovery, nor does it provide a motion for discovery. In fact you don't start with a motion, you make a request. And you don't make the request to the court, you only file it in court.

Quote:

---

Quoting dennisg0505

---

If they ignore my motion for discovery, I can request a dismissal of my case as suggested in http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...es-29894.html?

---

Again, you don't start with a motion, you start with a request. While a certain amount of emphasis is added to the dismissal part, and it doesn't mean you'll get it or even come close to it. You have to go through all the steps described in that link and more. You'll have to do more research into how to properly request discovery instead of just jumping to the last step expecting the easy out.

Just keep in mind that a dismissal is not the first nor is it the only remedy to a failure to provide discovery. In fact it is prohibited by the same code sections that describe and regulate discovery:

The court shall not dismiss a charge pursuant to subdivision (b) unless required to do so by the Constitution of the United States.

And you haven't guessed how difficult that is until you've tried!

In other words, your motion for a dismissal, or for exclusion of evidence or for prohibiting testimony will more than likely be denied and instead, the court will order immediate disclosure of documents you requested, you'll get a short recess to review what you received and you'll get back to trial that same day.

Enjoy the ride...


Edited to add: This has got to be my favorite line in this entire thread!

Quote:

---

Quoting dennisg0505

---

I checked my call log online and unfortunately it does not go back far enough to 1/30/12; I will be calling Verizon if they still have a record going that far back somewhere in their database.

---

Oops, I meant 1/30/*13*

Quote:

---

Quoting dennisg0505

---

Oops, I meant 1/30/*13*

---

Not even close to being my point!

And I hope HomeAgain didn't hurt himself rushing back to this thread to help answer your discovery question!

Here is my rough draft. Proofreading and advice would be very much appreciated!

Declaration of Facts

Defendant’s Name:
Case No.: 2013513084 I A

I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 23123. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 23123.

The facts of my case are as follows: While driving north bound on highway-23 at 0943 on 1-30-13, I was stopped by Ventura County Sheriff Officer Hall (I.D. # 3472) and was charged with violating CVC 23123.

CVC 23123 states: “A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.”

At the time of my stop, I was speaking into my iPhone to create an event on my electronic calendar. The electronic calendar is not a wireless feature of the phone and thus does not qualify the phone as a “wireless telephone” (CVC 23123) at the time I was using it. Furthermore, a telephone is commonly understood as a device that permits two or more users to conduct a conversation. Therefore, my iPhone did not qualify as a “telephone” (CVC 23123), but rather as an electronic device, similar to a GPS. Officer Hall confirmed that I was not using the iPhone to communicate to another person by checking that my call log had no recent calls.

I trust in the Court's fairness and ask that my citation be dismissed in the interest of justice.

If the court does not find in my favor in this case, I request a fine reduction and a Court assignment to attend traffic school.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: March 29, 2013

, Defendant in Pro Per

Quote:

---

Quoting dennisg0505

---

If the court does not find in my favor in this case, I request a fine reduction and a Court assignment to attend traffic school.

---

Why would you want to attend traffic school for a violation that carries zero points and is ineligible for traffic school? But even if it were eligible, the privilege of traffic school is typically afforded to those who are likely to benefit by it, learn something from it. And yet your declaration is a clear indication of your attempt to continue to defy the meaning, the spirit and the true intent of the law.

As for the fine reduction, subsection (b) of the code section you were cited for states: A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.

Clearly, that is to mean that the fine amount is set by the legislature, and a judicial officer has little to no discretion is adjusting that amount.

Carry on though, those aren't the only two provisions in this law that are totally escaping you.


Oh, by the way... Since you like reminders, I'll just leave this here as a reminder to everyone that the penalties are not always limited to just a monetary fine. Here is a recent story of two lives. One that ended abruptly, the other, will never ever be the same!


And an article about Distracted driving: Distracted Driving in the United States and Europe

Seems the level of ignorant stubborn heads is at a peak in this country compared to other "developed nations" as you can clearly see here:

http://www.cdc.gov/features/dsdistra...ing_a626px.jpg

The OP is probably gone, but this is still relevant should others happen upon this thread. The Appellate Division of the Fresno Superior Court (California) published a decision at the end of March that reiterated that the terminology in 23123 applies to any use of a cell phone in a non-handsfree manner.

People vs. Spriggs

Quote:

---

This case requires us to determine whether using a wireless phone solely for its map application function while driving violates Vehicle Code section 23123.1. We hold that it does.

---