Cell Phone Citation with Excessive Fine

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: CA. My 18-yo son answered his cell phone while stopped at a light and was cited. There was no other violation. Two months later, we have received notice of a fine of $141. I understand this is nearly double the usual amount. Would it be worth it for him to attempt to fight this ticket in court? Would he have anything to lose by doing so? Thanks so much for any advice.

The worst that can happen is that the judge tells him "No, son, pay the fine."

That is a pretty hefty fine. I would fight it, personally.

(Do explain to your son, though, that the "no phoning and driving" law does apply to red light stops, too.)

I think son should make an argument that it does not apply at red lights:

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.

---

While there is no definition for "drive" in the VC, there is this:

Quote:

---

305. A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical
control of a vehicle.

---

This shows that driving and being in physical control of the vehicle are two seperate things.

The son was not DRIVING... but he was in physical control of the vehicle.

Sorry, but trying to argue that you're not driving a car if you're stopped in traffic or at a stop light is not going to inspire much more than a chuckle from the judge.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

Sorry, but trying to argue that you're not driving a car if you're stopped in traffic or at a stop light is not going to inspire much more than a chuckle from the judge.

---

So... what's your point? The worst thing the judge will do is find the Son guilty. Or, he can plead guilty. What's the difference?

I agree that many traffic judges will just chuckle. However, that's because many traffic judges ignore the law. The cell phone law was obviously written to prevent people from being distracted while driving (i.e. vehicle in motion). What hazard is a driver going to present to the public if he answers a phone while stopped at a red light. The worst thing he could do is not go immediately after the light turns green. I hardly think that is the danger the legislature was trying to protect the public from. If the legislature did want to forbid cell phone usage at stop lights, it could have included that language just as it did in the definition of "driver". However, the language was not included, so it would be wrong to simply assume that's what the intent of the legislature was.

Once again... this is a case of the law as it is written vs. the law as people think it should have been written.

Thanks for your input. Still wrestling with whether we should just pay the fine and consider it an expensive lesson or try to fight it. The philosophical problem for me is that in order to get a trial he has to plead "not guilty", which is not technically accurate. I think what galls me the most is the amount of the fine, which seems excessive--higher than fines for some actual moving violations--and therefore abusive.

The thing that adds insult to injury with regard to California traffic fines are the "penalty assessments" that they tack on. Often, there are a number of them including things like money to build a new court house, pay for red light cameras, support an anti- drunk driving class, etc.

If the total fine has been calculated correctly, I think your chances of successfully defending against it are slim. By the way, I'll bet you can't find a single moving violation in California where the fine would be less than $141....probably even nowhere close. They're attacking drivers with a vengeance and no longer even pretending that's not the case. It's not unique to California (according to several recently reported studies) but it would seem that they're the most greedy. The state is broke and if they can't get money one way, they'll get it another.

P.S. Buy your new car today...the California sales tax goes up another full percentage point tomorrow.:(

Per the 2009 Bail and Penalty Schedule, fine plus fees and assessments should be about $76 with a base fine of $20.

Does he have a prior conviction for this offense?

There is also a note on the schedule that says:

"A court security fee of $20 and a conviction assessment of $35 are charged in addition to the Total Bail for each offense."

This would put the total fine plus fees at about $131 ... close enough to what he has been assessed.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting scbwimom

---

Thanks for your input. Still wrestling with whether we should just pay the fine and consider it an expensive lesson or try to fight it. The philosophical problem for me is that in order to get a trial he has to plead "not guilty", which is not technically accurate. I think what galls me the most is the amount of the fine, which seems excessive--higher than fines for some actual moving violations--and therefore abusive.

---

Sorry, but I disagree. In this country there is a presumption of innocence. Therefore, a plea of "not guilty" is simply a recognition of that fact.

Personally, I think it is silly to say holding a cell phone to your ear is illegal, but shaving, eating a hamburger, putting on lipstick, etc.. is OK. So, if the state wants to be that nitpicky, then I would return fire. By the black letter of the law, I really believe your son IS not guilty.

Some of your points, in many of your posts, are really good...but do you really think he's going to be determined not to be the driver just because the car was not moving???

If you're playing a pin ball machine, you're still playing....even when you're not pushing a flipper!!

(I know...My analogies sometimes amaze even me!)