It doesn't matter whether any of us agrees with the interpretation of distracted driving being used to argue an unsafe speed or not. What matters is what the COURTS have to say on it, and thus far, the courts seem to be allowing the citation of VC 22350 for distracted and dangerous driving. Unless or until there is an appellate court fix, or the legislature modifies the CVC, if the local courts accept this interpretation it is a fact of life that a cited driver will have top contend with.
Although you refuse to admit it, there are many things that the courts and LEA's do that are not in compliance with state law. The reason they can do these things is because 95% of the public will not challenge a ticket for whatever reason. Therefore, this becomes a consistent and easy revenue stream. But I agree with you that an appellate court decision is needed to stop this bastardization of the plain language of the law. That's why I committed to help with an appeal. You see... I actually have respect for the rule of law. I don't just sit by defending the state when I know what they are doing is wrong. When an LEO/LEA twists the meaning of the law and uses it against the public, that is NOT the rule of law. That is the rule of men.... and I have NO respect for the rule of men. And I believe that if you (as well as every other LEO) took your oath seriously, you would not be habitually defending the state either.
- - - Updated - - -
Do you just believe what any other cop or judge says.... just because they are a cop and/or a judge? Do you ever question them when they say something that makes no sense? How is 1mph a safe speed? Where did that come from? Are you ok with the fact that it is just made up? Are you suggesting that 1mph cannot be unsafe? Would you allowe a 3 yearold to drive if he only went 1mph? Would you allow your foot to be run over if the car was only going 1mph?
The truth is that I made several very valid and rational arguments of why this type of ticket is wrong. But you just can't bring yourself to admit that. Instead, you just point to the court as if it is a force in the universe that cannot be disputed such as gravity. Or you point out the absurd 1mph thing and don't have the guts to recognize the mindless stupidity of it. Let's face it.... you are a state employee and you support your boss... no matter how stupid or wrong your boss may be at the time.
As long as a COURT (you know, those people that are to interpret and apply the law) say it is permitted, then it is permitted. If the courts view 22350 as applying to non-roadway conditions that also make driving unsafe, then law enforcement would be remiss in not applying an accepted and thus far lawful interpretation of the statute.
When/if there is a controlling court case or a change in the statute(s) that render the section inapplicable, I am sure you will it change. Until then, the officers will use the tools the law permits them to.
First, Jim, you don't know a damn thing about me. Second, your insulting and berating nature is getting tiresome. Third, you can make your points without being a pompous ass.The truth is that I made several very valid and rational arguments of why this type of ticket is wrong. But you just can't bring yourself to admit that. Instead, you just point to the court as if it is a force in the universe that cannot be disputed such as gravity. Or you point out the absurd 1mph thing and don't have the guts to recognize the mindless stupidity of it. Let's face it.... you are a state employee and you support your boss... no matter how stupid or wrong your boss may be at the time.
'Nuff said.
The statute is broadly worded and you can find one similar to it in many states. If the OP wants to challenge the citation based on the facts of her incident then the OP can do so.
It would be advisable for the OP (as cdwjava has pointed out) to research how her local court views these citations and which way they tend to lean in them.
I would caution the OP however against taking up another's personal crusade and acting as a legal guinea pig in exchange for promised legal assistance from an unknown entity on a legal advise forum.
And as to my irrelevant question, true it never pertained to the OP original post (I apologize for getting ahead of myself) but the OP may want to consider exactly how they would answer and/or defend that answer if they decide to try and run this case all the way up to an appeal process.
And one of the tools that LEO's use is a complicit court system. You can't dispute any of my arguments, so you just revert to saying "that's just the way it is". I think you know I'm right, but the "thin blue line" prohibits you from saying that these cops are manipulating the law well beyond its plain language and the only reason a court hasn't ruled otherwise is NOT because they are right, but because no one has challenged them.
- - - Updated - - -
No it isn't. The plain language is clear as I have pointed out. Researching how a local court views would not be fruitful because it is likely that this will go to appeal anyway.
Exactly why is that? The absolute worst case scenario if the OP works with me is that the OP is found guilty. That's gonna happen anyway. So what exactly are you suggesting that the OP has to lose?I would caution the OP however against taking up another's personal crusade and acting as a legal guinea pig in exchange for promised legal assistance from an unknown entity on a legal advise forum.
If you knew anything about the appeal process, you'd know that you're question would never be asked simply because of what I said: it is irrelevant.And as to my irrelevant question, true it never pertained to the OP original post (I apologize for getting ahead of myself) but the OP may want to consider exactly how they would answer and/or defend that answer if they decide to try and run this case all the way up to an appeal process.
- - - Updated - - -
My frustration with Carl is that he confuses common practice with legal or ethical conduct. For example, if CHP began a campaign of writing tickets to motorists who wore red shirts (i.e. red shirt tickets), it is likely that 90% of those ticketed would not contest the ticket despite the fact that wearing a red shirt is NOT illegal by the plain language of any statute. Of the 10% who would contest the ticket, maybe 2% would drop the matter when they found out that they had to appear again after arraignment. Another 2% would likely drop the matter after losing a TBD. That leaves maybe 6% of the people to actually contest the ticket in open court. Of the 6%, likely 2% will have their ticket dismissed because a cop didn’t show up and maybe 2% will actually win their case because they clearly did not violate the law. Of the remaining 2% who lose their case (because their local courts are very “supportive” of the police), 1.5% will likely just quit after the loss. Of the remaining 0.5%, who attempt an appeal, 0.4% will likely fail because of some error (i.e. improper service, failure to preserve an issue, etc.). So this only leaves us with 0.1% of those ticketed who may be actually get their case to be considered by any appellate body. Now let’s assume the stars all line up and this person actually wins their case. What is the outcome?
The appellant who won is only 1 out of 1000. So, the state collects on 979 tickets with one loss. Let’s see… 979 * $300 (an average California traffic fine) comes to $293,700 of ill-gotten gain for the state. That’s quite a winfall for an obviously bogus citation. Plus this assumes that my very conservative numbers are accurate. The more likely scenario is that the successful appellant will be 1 in 10,000 or more.
Does the state’s winfall end here? Hell no! Nothing prevents cops from continuing to write red shirt tickets because they never knew about the appellate case, or it was in a differing jurisdiction, or they simply didn’t care because they disagreed with the decision. So, even if ALL of the future motorists ticketed for wearing a red shirt win their cases, we can assume that 90% of the ticketees won’t even try to contest the ticket. And the money keeps rolling in.
I have seen this personally, where cops are acting beyond the law and writing illegal tickets. Even after they are shown clearly that their actions are illegal, they ignore that fact and keep on writing the illegal tickets. How many thousands of illegal tickets have been written in this state and how many millions (billions?) of dollars have been collected through this illegal action? Who knows? But police apologists who refuse to cross the “thin blue line” will simply tell you, “that’s just the way it is”. Well, I disagree. That’s only the way it is until someone stands up for what is right. I hope the OP is that person and I am willing to stand with him.
It seems Jimbo has a good point in that the worst outcome risked by the defendant is a conviction/fine and that's what they're going to get anyway. I read online that it's possible a case won on appeal won't even be published so maybe even if the case is won on appeal it can't be used as precedent?