California 23123a - What is a Wireless Phone

[LawResearcherMissy]

What if it was a phone in a shape of a cup and I was using it to drink out of it? Will this statute still apply?

Render unto me a break.

It wasn't in the shape of a cup and you weren't drinking out of it. You were using a wireless device, and you weren't using it in a hands free fashion. That Guy broke it down really well for you.

"What if it looked like a cup?" is not going to wash with the judge.

[bozata]

Even if they do, I doubt you will be able to prove to their satisfaction that you were not using the phone at the time of the incident. The fact you did not have an active call at that time does not refute an argument that you were attempting to make a call and it was disrupted by the officers presence and terminated prior to a connection to the providers system.

Yes, the old traffic law argument of being guilty until proven innocent

I think my defense will be that there is no record of me using the phone (per ATT) and the officer did not see me dial or speak (attempted use, not registered by ATT). The rest will obviously be on the judge to say if an MP3 player is a wireless phone.

I am leaning towards fighting it because 1) The badly written statute; and 2) The $20 fine that became $140 bail.

Thanks everyone for the input and I will let you know how it goes.

[EWYLTJ]

bozata,

Don't get discouraged by the cell-phone-conspiracy-theorists. Niether the letter nor the spirit of the law was violated when you were listening to a podcast. You did NOTHING wrong. Also, keep in mind that you do NOT have to PROVE that you were not making a call. The cop has to prove that you were! Your cell phone records should be plenty enough, along with your testimony, to raise reasonable doubt. Go to court and rightfully declare your innocence. If the judge loses his mind and finds you guilty, let us know. I'll help you write your appeal.

[chuckycheese]

The law doesn't say anything about talking on the phone. What it does say is that you can't USE the phone. I know several people who've tried defending their actions by producing phone records....which is totally immaterial.

If you try that defense, I'd be willing to bet that you'll see someone else try it (and lose) before you even get called to state youe case. It's very popular!!

[GreenEyedGuru]

I just had a cell phone case dismissed (Not Guilty verdict) by Trial by Declaration.

I submitted my cell phone bill which did not show any calls during the time period written on the citation.

I don't know whether it was dismissed due to the officer not submitting his paperwork, or whether the cell phone bill raised reasonable doubt.

[EWYLTJ]

The law doesn't say anything about talking on the phone. What it does say is that you can't USE the phone. I know several people who've tried defending their actions by producing phone records....which is totally immaterial.

If you try that defense, I'd be willing to bet that you'll see someone else try it (and lose) before you even get called to state youe case. It's very popular!!

That is just dumb. By this twisted logic, you could recieve a ticket if you "USE" your phone to scratch your head or swat at a mosquito.

[GreenEyedGuru]

That is just dumb. By this twisted logic, you could recieve a ticket if you "USE" your phone to scratch your head or swat at a mosquito.

Agree with this, the law specifically mentions 'listening and talking', not other functions of a cell phone. The spirit of the law, I believe, is to eliminate the distraction, obstruction of vision, and restriction of neck movement that results from holding the phone to your ear while talking. (since all other aspects of talking on a cell phone are identical to talking to the person next to you)