cellphone ticket? | GTAMotorcycle.com

cellphone ticket?

ajaxguy

Well-known member
Now I tried searching and found some articles but nothing too recent. Has anyone had any luck fighting these? I received one today, on hwy 7 as I was coming to a stop just before brock. The officer was parked on a side street in an unmarked.
I was hitting my phone against the steering wheel to the music but was not talking on it or even texting on it for goodness sake. I tried to explain to the officer but he wasnt hearing it.
does it pay to go to early resolution and explain it, I just dont want it on my record for insurance purposes, I will take a different charge that doesnt affect my insurance if they would do that.
I would like to try and fight it though, and maybe base the case off of this http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2...ing-ok-to-briefly-hold-cellphone-judge-rules/

any thoughts?
 
Wouldn't the phone log show there wasn't any calls at the time you were pulled over?

The phone log vs the moments before the ticket was written.

Ya I was thinking that.... I think it need to get a supboena or some **** though... but also that doesnt show that I wasnt surfing ya know? I can for sure show him phone records and it would show no texting or calls with 10 mins before or after the ticket.
 
Op, holding your handheld devices is a guilty conviction. Just hope the officer doesn't show up.

Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2
 
Op, holding your handheld devices is a guilty conviction. Just hope the officer doesn't show up.

Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2

Ya I know... but I think there is cause to fight. There were some variables I can use against him if i have to go to trial. He was facing in the direction of the sun... lots of snow glare... dirty windows etc. I have been reading some stuff its it not a for sure guilty... just have to cast at least some doubt in his word.
 
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK134

Hand-held devices prohibited
Wireless communication devices

78.1 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages. 2009, c. 4, s. 2.

Unfortunately, you can not hold your phone at any time while you're on the road http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...ld_a_cellphone_while_driving_court_rules.html

R. v. Kazemi, 2013 ONCA 585: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2013/2013ONCA0585.htm

[1] The facts of this case are simple. On April 26, 2010, the respondent was driving home from work alone. While she was stopped at a stop light, a police officer observed her to have a cell phone in her hand. She said that the cell phone had been on the seat but had dropped to the floor of the car when she braked. She picked it up when she got to the red light. That was when she was observed by the officer.

[14] Road safety is best ensured by a complete prohibition on having a cell phone in one’s hand at all while driving. A complete prohibition also best focuses a driver’s undivided attention on driving. It eliminates any risk of the driver being distracted by the information on the cell phone. It removes any temptation to use the cell phone while driving. And it prevents any possibility of the cell phone physically interfering with the driver’s ability to drive. In short, it removes the various ways that road safety and driver attention can be harmed if a driver has a cell phone in his or her hand while driving.​

Lets say your phone has run out of battery or doesn't have a SIM call/data, and you're caught holding it... you can be convicted.

R. v. Pizzurro, 2013 ONCA 584: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2013/2013ONCA0584.htm

[1] On February 14, 2011, the respondent was driving southbound on Highway 11. He was observed by a police officer to have a cell phone in one hand. It appeared to the officer that the respondent was either typing or reading the information on it.

[3] The trial court rejected the respondent’s argument that there was no evidence that what the officer observed him using was an operating cell phone, and that this was required in order to convict him. The respondent was found guilty and fined $125.00

[10] Moreover, to impose the requirement that a cell phone held by a driver while driving was capable of receiving or transmitting would be unreasonable both for enforcement and for prosecution. The legislature could not have intended that result.

[11] The significant challenge for law enforcement is readily apparent. There can be no doubt that s. 78.1(1) was targeted principally at cell phones. Observing a driver holding or using a cell phone while driving would not be enough if this requirement existed. For each case, the police would also have to find ways to immediately acquire and test the cell phone in order to determine that it was capable of receiving or transmitting. I do not think that the legislature would have intended such a burden to be imposed by a section that is otherwise designed to operate in a simple and straightforward way.

[12] It would also be unreasonable for prosecution. Where for example the charge is using a cell phone while driving, to require the Crown, once it has proven the use of a cell phone to communicate, to also prove that the cell phone that was being used to communicate is capable of doing so is unnecessary. It would be unreasonable to read s. 78.1(1) to impose such a burden.

[13] Finally, the legislative purpose of s. 78.1(1) must be considered. In R. v. Kazemi, (issued simultaneously with these reasons) this court described that purpose as ensuring road safety and driver attentiveness to driving. It is best served by applying the requirement that the device be capable of receiving or transmitting only to prescribed devices, but not to cell phones. Road safety and driver attentiveness to driving are best achieved by entirely prohibiting a driver from holding or using a cell phone while driving. To hold out the possibility that the driver may escape the prohibition because the cell phone is not shown to be capable of communicating, however temporarily, is to tempt the driver to a course of conduct that risks undermining these objectives.​
 
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK134Hand-held devices prohibited
Wireless communication devices
78.1 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages. 2009, c. 4, s. 2.

Unfortunately, you can not hold your phone at any time while you're on the road http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...ld_a_cellphone_while_driving_court_rules.html

R. v. Kazemi, 2013 ONCA 585: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2013/2013ONCA0585.htm
[1] The facts of this case are simple. On April 26, 2010, the respondent was driving home from work alone. While she was stopped at a stop light, a police officer observed her to have a cell phone in her hand. She said that the cell phone had been on the seat but had dropped to the floor of the car when she braked. She picked it up when she got to the red light. That was when she was observed by the officer.

[14] Road safety is best ensured by a complete prohibition on having a cell phone in one’s hand at all while driving. A complete prohibition also best focuses a driver’s undivided attention on driving. It eliminates any risk of the driver being distracted by the information on the cell phone. It removes any temptation to use the cell phone while driving. And it prevents any possibility of the cell phone physically interfering with the driver’s ability to drive. In short, it removes the various ways that road safety and driver attention can be harmed if a driver has a cell phone in his or her hand while driving.Lets say your phone has run out of battery or doesn't have a SIM call/data, and you're caught holding it... you can be convicted.​

R. v. Pizzurro, 2013 ONCA 584: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2013/2013ONCA0584.htm
[1] On February 14, 2011, the respondent was driving southbound on Highway 11. He was observed by a police officer to have a cell phone in one hand. It appeared to the officer that the respondent was either typing or reading the information on it.

[3] The trial court rejected the respondent’s argument that there was no evidence that what the officer observed him using was an operating cell phone, and that this was required in order to convict him. The respondent was found guilty and fined $125.00

[10] Moreover, to impose the requirement that a cell phone held by a driver while driving was capable of receiving or transmitting would be unreasonable both for enforcement and for prosecution. The legislature could not have intended that result.

[11] The significant challenge for law enforcement is readily apparent. There can be no doubt that s. 78.1(1) was targeted principally at cell phones. Observing a driver holding or using a cell phone while driving would not be enough if this requirement existed. For each case, the police would also have to find ways to immediately acquire and test the cell phone in order to determine that it was capable of receiving or transmitting. I do not think that the legislature would have intended such a burden to be imposed by a section that is otherwise designed to operate in a simple and straightforward way.

[12] It would also be unreasonable for prosecution. Where for example the charge is using a cell phone while driving, to require the Crown, once it has proven the use of a cell phone to communicate, to also prove that the cell phone that was being used to communicate is capable of doing so is unnecessary. It would be unreasonable to read s. 78.1(1) to impose such a burden.

[13] Finally, the legislative purpose of s. 78.1(1) must be considered. In R. v. Kazemi, (issued simultaneously with these reasons) this court described that purpose as ensuring road safety and driver attentiveness to driving. It is best served by applying the requirement that the device be capable of receiving or transmitting only to prescribed devices, but not to cell phones. Road safety and driver attentiveness to driving are best achieved by entirely prohibiting a driver from holding or using a cell phone while driving. To hold out the possibility that the driver may escape the prohibition because the cell phone is not shown to be capable of communicating, however temporarily, is to tempt the driver to a course of conduct that risks undermining these objectives.​

that is correct... but he has to prove that he actually saw me holding the said device and that the device was actually a phone.
 
I thought that the law was that you can't have it in your hand, that way they don't have to verify whether or not you were on a call.

The only thought I have for this is to call Redline and see if they can help. It will cost you though.
 
I thought that the law was that you can't have it in your hand, that way they don't have to verify whether or not you were on a call.

The only thought I have for this is to call Redline and see if they can help. It will cost you though.

There was a couple cases where it was thrown out even though it was in the accused hand. The case was that a cellphone is not noxious by itself. But yes you cant be holding it, but that still has to be proved. Or like I said cast some sort of doubt with the officers statement
 
There was a couple cases where it was thrown out even though it was in the accused hand. The case was that a cellphone is not noxious by itself. But yes you cant be holding it, but that still has to be proved. Or like I said cast some sort of doubt with the officers statement
That's no longer possible, R. v. Kazemi, 2013 ONCA 585 & R. v. Pizzurro, 2013 ONCA 584 are appeal court decisions that carry a lot of weight and precedence. Lower court JPs are bound by the appeal court decision.

The decision in your article http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2...ing-ok-to-briefly-hold-cellphone-judge-rules/ has been completely trumped and can't be used.

Getting caught momentarily holding your phone is no longer a viable defence, you should definitely read the 2013 appeal court decisions that i included.
 
i see what you mean.
yes it is ticket if you're holding a cell phone.

BUT, they would have to prove you were in fact holding a cell phone. eg. i could be drinking from a water bottle, and an officer hiding in a side street may think it's a cell phone an ticket me… would that be right?? no.

as much as Ontario IS a police state, where police can do no wrong, and we are all victims of their power abuse…(end rant)

there has to be some legal process to this. so i would say yes, he would have to prove he saw you holding the phone.
your word against his. AND unfortunately, even tho it's against due process and the law, judges take officer's word over civilians.
you would need a lawyer i think, who would need to make the officer sound unsure and not remember all details required. so cross examination would have to be really good to create doubt.
 
That's no longer possible, R. v. Kazemi, 2013 ONCA 585 & R. v. Pizzurro, 2013 ONCA 584 are appeal court decisions that carry a lot of weight and precedence. Lower court JPs are bound by the appeal court decision.

The decision in your article http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2...ing-ok-to-briefly-hold-cellphone-judge-rules/ has been completely trumped and can't be used.

Getting caught momentarily holding your phone is no longer a viable defence, you should definitely read the 2013 appeal court decisions that i included.

fair enough.... but he still has to prove It was actually a cellphone I was holding based on the law ( holding a device able to transmit or receive data)
 
i see what you mean.
yes it is ticket if you're holding a cell phone.

BUT, they would have to prove you were in fact holding a cell phone. eg. i could be drinking from a water bottle, and an officer hiding in a side street may think it's a cell phone an ticket me… would that be right?? no.

as much as Ontario IS a police state, where police can do no wrong, and we are all victims of their power abuse…(end rant)

there has to be some legal process to this. so i would say yes, he would have to prove he saw you holding the phone.
your word against his. AND unfortunately, even tho it's against due process and the law, judges take officer's word over civilians.
you would need a lawyer i think, who would need to make the officer sound unsure and not remember all details required. so cross examination would have to be really good to create doubt.

I dont think it would but yes proper legal rep would be advisable im sure. They are expensive though and would like to try myself. From what I understand even if the officer has any doubt regarding his testimony or you can make him agree with you then its pretty simple. It is not like a speeding one with Lidar and has it right there... its literally just a visual thing and there is waaaay more rooom for error when its strictly the human eye and not a calibrated machine.

See what im saying?
 
Your best case scenario right now would be to file your intention to choose trial. When you receive your notice of trial in the mail, request disclosure and go from there.

Without disclosure, we don't know what exactly the officer wrote during his traffic stop. Once you get the officer's notes, you can gauge what he wrote and expect what he's going to say at your trial.
 
Just drive around with one of these and take a bite when pulled over.
randyliedtke1-630x413.jpg
 
^^ That is genius!!! iPhone shaped Oreo cookies with frosting. Haha...right on! Imagine the look on the officers face when you start nibbling the cookie.
 
How are the early resolutions? Are they a waste of time?
 
How are the early resolutions? Are they a waste of time?

On a cell phone charge yes, It might also hurt your chance at the 11b.

Unfortunately in this day and age in court you have to prove your innocence on charges like these, The officer has proved you had a phone in your hand by giving you the ticket and saying that under oath on the stand, Now you have to prove him wrong. Guilty until proved innocent

Also, you said you were trying to explain you were tapping your phone on the steering wheel and not on it (You have just admitted guilt to him). Good luck
 
Just drive around with one of these and take a bite when pulled over.
randyliedtke1-630x413.jpg


Except the distracted driving laws are not just limited to cell phones or other electronic devices. Eating or even drinking a beverage can "still" result in a distracted driving charge. Everyone focuses on cell phones, (due to the law being updated to include these devices), but the charge "can" and has been laid involving eating, reading papers, shaving, applying make up etc etc etc.

In this case the officer need not really prove it was a cell phone you were holding he may provide evidence that you were holding an object in your hand, which in his opinion caused you to be distracted. In reality if you weren't distracted by the phone then you likely would have seen his cruiser there and moved the item here he couldn't have seen it.

Other than your time, (attending court appearances and possible lost salary at work), it really costs nothing to fight it. You "may" be the one who is successful, BUT the appeals cases listed by iFly55 really don't paint a promising picture for success.

I understand the frustration of taking time from work to beat a ticket as I am in this process myself right now. I was stopped at 8 am Sunday on my work to work, (obviously by an officer who was lacking in his tickets this month). He gave me two tickets, one for obstructed plate. It has snowed in Port Perry Sunday morning and during the drive in my plate cover got covered with road salt etc. He said take the cover off, take a photo and go meet prosecutor, they will drop ticket. Second one was for not having a "validation sticker" on my registration. He said got to MTO get sticker show to crown charge withdrawn. Problem is he is WRONG on that ticket as I did a change of address AFTER I renewed plate and MTO doesn't supply new stickers, they print the info on FRONT of registration, (I checked with MTO and service Ontario). So that one will be a slam dunk AND I have a call into his supervisor, as it is a waste of public resources fro his not to know this and waste public money writing an improper ticket. I am fortunate beign self employed and the court house is only 1 km away so not a hassle for me, but frustrating none the less.

Now neither of these charges affect insurance as one is an "administrative" charge and other is an equipment violation.
 
On a cell phone charge yes, It might also hurt your chance at the 11b.

Unfortunately in this day and age in court you have to prove your innocence on charges like these, The officer has proved you had a phone in your hand by giving you the ticket and saying that under oath on the stand, Now you have to prove him wrong. Guilty until proved innocent

Also, you said you were trying to explain you were tapping your phone on the steering wheel and not on it (You have just admitted guilt to him). Good luck

Yes that is unfortunate with tickets like this, but thats not necessarily impossible to prove the cop may have made one small mistake. There is still is a justice system.

I was tapping it but No i didnt say to him i was tapping my phone... it was rather fast and not much talking at all... he pulled me in and said he it was for hand held device, I literally was like whaaat? I was just tapping my steering wheel. i didnt say I was tapping my steering wheel with my cellphone.
 

Back
Top Bottom