Guilty until proven innocent

[GoCometsGo]

So it finally happened. I received a ticket for talking on the cell phone while driving. I was not in my log truck at the time but I was on company business.

According to Oregon law, it is legal to use a hand held cell phone while driving if you are using it in the course of your job. So now, it is up to ME to go and prove that I was on a business call at the time of the citation. I have already downloaded my bill detail and I will have no problem beating this ticket. My question is: Why should the burden of proof be on me?

The officer that cited me was very emphatic about the evidence that I would need to prove that I was on a business call. Is there something about traffic court that absolves the authorities from having to prove their case? I feel that I should be able to go into court... plead not guilty... and the cops should have to prove that I was NOT on a business call.

I know that this thread will likely get into an argument about the safety of cell phone use. For me, using a cell phone while driving is totally safe. Some of you out there that are 100% focused on driving should not be allowed to drive. IMHO, if you can't manage a phone conversation while driving you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel at all. But that's another subject.

So back to my question: Is it really my burden to prove my innocence?

[Scrapper]

So back to my question: Is it really my burden to prove my innocence?

Yes. Just like Casey Anthony is trying (and failing miserably) to prove her innocence in her (Death Penalty) Murder trial; which has been going on for the last 40 days or so.

[Wonky]

So it finally happened. I received a ticket for talking on the cell phone while driving. I was not in my log truck at the time but I was on company business.

According to Oregon law, it is legal to use a hand held cell phone while driving if you are using it in the course of your job. So now, it is up to ME to go and prove that I was on a business call at the time of the citation. I have already downloaded my bill detail and I will have no problem beating this ticket. My question is: Why should the burden of proof be on me?

The officer that cited me was very emphatic about the evidence that I would need to prove that I was on a business call. Is there something about traffic court that absolves the authorities from having to prove their case? I feel that I should be able to go into court... plead not guilty... and the cops should have to prove that I was NOT on a business call.

I know that this thread will likely get into an argument about the safety of cell phone use. For me, using a cell phone while driving is totally safe. Some of you out there that are 100% focused on driving should not be allowed to drive. IMHO, if you can't manage a phone conversation while driving you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel at all. But that's another subject.

So back to my question: Is it really my burden to prove my innocence?

Beats me.

But, it's a misnomer that we "are innocent until proven guilty".
We can be held against our will when the "evidence" suggests we might not show for trial. (Some sit in county jails for a year, or more, waiting a court date). In this instance, your "ticket" will require you to respond for a hearing or pay the fine.

I won't get into the argument about the need (or lack of) for the law about phone use.

You are not guilty. You are accused. You may have to allow the system to hear the "case" to determine the facts. At that point you will guilty or not guilty. One is never determined to be innocent.

Good luck. If you feel you were abiding by the law, you only have to explain that to a judge. You don't need "evidence". You should not need a lawyer, and your remarks should be able to be explained in a couple of minutes. The judge will find your remarks credible, or think you are playing him trying to avoid a fine. He (she) will rule accordingly.

Mostly, the system works. Sadly, there are times when it completely breaks down. It should work for you if you keep it simple and explain your actions.

[PonderThis]

So back to my question: Is it really my burden to prove my innocence?

I can't see how photo radar is any different, if you really want to come down to it.

The way I see it, they may be able to charge you for this offense, but that in turn entitles you to haul however many illegal loads it takes to get even, with a little more for your trouble and risk. Of course, don't get caught with those.

[Wonky]

So back to my question: Is it really my burden to prove my innocence?

I can't see how photo radar is any different, if you really want to come down to it.

The way I see it, they may be able to charge you for this offense, but that in turn entitles you to haul however many illegal loads it takes to get even, with a little more for your trouble and risk. Of course, don't get caught with those.

I really hope that was irony, tongue firmly in cheek.

[PonderThis]

Oh it was, it really was.

[PonderThis]

[broadzilla]

Get a bluetooth device...problem solved!
I get pissed off anytime I see someone driving with a phone to their ear and wish officers would pull more people over for it.
I would be glad to grab a pad of citations and be able to give them out to idiots who have a phone glued to their ear while driving.


Not calling you an idiot personally, GCG, but you know the statistics.
If you have to use the phone for business while driving, use a hands-free device and you won't ever get pulled over for that again.
You are no better than the next person.

[PonderThis]

Actually, a whole topic all of its own could be devoted to irony.

[PonderThis]

[PonderThis]

[chuck white]

Get a bluetooth device...problem solved!
I get pissed off anytime I see someone driving with a phone to their ear and wish officers would pull more people over for it.
I would be glad to grab a pad of citations and be able to give them out to idiots who have a phone glued to their ear while driving.


Not calling you an idiot personally, GCG, but you know the statistics.
If you have to use the phone for business while driving, use a hands-free device and you won't ever get pulled over for that again.
You are no better than the next person.

Plus a company can afford a hands free device. why they have a rule exempting companies is beyond me

[Crazylace]

I see people driving and talking on hand-held phones every day. How can one tell if they are on company business or not? If they get pulled over they may get a ticket. I guess then the burden of proof is on them to show they were indeed on company time?

[GoCometsGo]

Get a bluetooth device...problem solved!
I get pissed off anytime I see someone driving with a phone to their ear and wish officers would pull more people over for it.
I would be glad to grab a pad of citations and be able to give them out to idiots who have a phone glued to their ear while driving.


Not calling you an idiot personally, GCG, but you know the statistics.
If you have to use the phone for business while driving, use a hands-free device and you won't ever get pulled over for that again.
You are no better than the next person.

Actually, I AM better than the next person. Why should those of us with the ability to drive and speak at the same time be punished for those can't? How is talking on a cell phone any different than talking to someone sitting next to you? or tuning your stereo? or talking on a cb radio?

Seriously, it's not about the cell phones. It's about the drivers. Some are capable, others are not. Far too many people are allowed to drive. There is more to it than holding onto the wheel with both hands. Oh yeah, you only need one hand to do that.

BTW, those people that you see talking on their phones while doing a lousy job of driving... they would be lousy drivers without the phones, as well.

[chuck white]

According to Oregon law, it is legal to use a hand held cell phone while driving if you are using it in the course of your job

That why I carry my business card to give to the police when they pull me over for using a cellphone while driving

[HoneyhalfWitch]

Cell phone use should be against the law for any driver. Business or not. Everyone can use Hands Free Devices and should.

[GoCometsGo]

Cell phone use should be against the law for any driver. Business or not. Everyone can use Hands Free Devices and should.

If you feel that way then I think that you would be in favor of outlawing eating while driving unless someone or something feeds you.

[GoCometsGo]

So it finally happened. I received a ticket for talking on the cell phone while driving. I was not in my log truck at the time but I was on company business.

According to Oregon law, it is legal to use a hand held cell phone while driving if you are using it in the course of your job. So now, it is up to ME to go and prove that I was on a business call at the time of the citation. I have already downloaded my bill detail and I will have no problem beating this ticket. My question is: Why should the burden of proof be on me?

The officer that cited me was very emphatic about the evidence that I would need to prove that I was on a business call. Is there something about traffic court that absolves the authorities from having to prove their case? I feel that I should be able to go into court... plead not guilty... and the cops should have to prove that I was NOT on a business call.

I know that this thread will likely get into an argument about the safety of cell phone use. For me, using a cell phone while driving is totally safe. Some of you out there that are 100% focused on driving should not be allowed to drive. IMHO, if you can't manage a phone conversation while driving you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel at all. But that's another subject.

So back to my question: Is it really my burden to prove my innocence?

Beats me.

But, it's a misnomer that we "are innocent until proven guilty".
We can be held against our will when the "evidence" suggests we might not show for trial. (Some sit in county jails for a year, or more, waiting a court date). In this instance, your "ticket" will require you to respond for a hearing or pay the fine.

I won't get into the argument about the need (or lack of) for the law about phone use.

You are not guilty. You are accused. You may have to allow the system to hear the "case" to determine the facts. At that point you will guilty or not guilty. One is never determined to be innocent.

Good luck. If you feel you were abiding by the law, you only have to explain that to a judge. You don't need "evidence". You should not need a lawyer, and your remarks should be able to be explained in a couple of minutes. The judge will find your remarks credible, or think you are playing him trying to avoid a fine. He (she) will rule accordingly.

Mostly, the system works. Sadly, there are times when it completely breaks down. It should work for you if you keep it simple and explain your actions.

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you on this: "it's a misnomer that we "are innocent until proven guilty".

Let me get into a little more detail. When the cop pulled me over he asked if I was on a business call. I replied in the affirmative. He volunteered the info about it being legal for me to use the cell phone while driving IF the call was work related. I had forgotten about that so I appreciated being reminded. He went on to say that his supervisor had instructed him to issue the citations regardless and that it was up to me to take it from there. The officer was VERY clear about what I would need to do in order to get the citation dismissed.

I have everything that I need to have this dismissed. It took me some time to gather the info together. While I was doing so, I kept wondering why I should be the one digging when the burden of proof should be on them. Let them subpoena my phone records and look up the numbers and see who I was talking to.

Moving onto the entire "work related" aspect of the law. I think that this makes no sense at all. Either it's dangerous or it isn't. Why should "work related" be a factor? I've already stated how I feel regarding drivers in general.

A "hands free" device will not make a good driver out of a bad driver. In fact, the sound on most of those is so lousy that a driver may lose more driving ability while trying to concentrate on deciphering what is being said.

[Wonky]

Seems, GcG, you have changed your argument.

1st, you defended your right to use the phone because it was "company business"

Sounds now, like you are questioning the validity of the law, suggesting that if one is attentive and competent, it should be okay to use the phone while driving.

The fact is, some studies have shown that using the phone while driving is unlike talking to a fellow passenger while driving. (No, I can't cite it, and am not going to look it up). To compare eating (or other things) while driving to using a phone is an argument that changes the premise mid-stream...all might be reckless.

My view: Driving is a dangerous activity. The numbers of dead and maimed are staggering. Anything we can do to reduce the numbers is a good idea, and unless it truly infringes on our "rights", we should comply. (Remembering that driving is a privilege and not a right).

As a professional driver, you have a vested interest in as much traffic safety as is possible.

Let this one go.

[Juniper]

So it finally happened. I received a ticket for talking on the cell phone while driving. I was not in my log truck at the time but I was on company business.

According to Oregon law, it is legal to use a hand held cell phone while driving if you are using it in the course of your job. So now, it is up to ME to go and prove that I was on a business call at the time of the citation. I have already downloaded my bill detail and I will have no problem beating this ticket. My question is: Why should the burden of proof be on me?

The officer that cited me was very emphatic about the evidence that I would need to prove that I was on a business call. Is there something about traffic court that absolves the authorities from having to prove their case? I feel that I should be able to go into court... plead not guilty... and the cops should have to prove that I was NOT on a business call.

I know that this thread will likely get into an argument about the safety of cell phone use. For me, using a cell phone while driving is totally safe. Some of you out there that are 100% focused on driving should not be allowed to drive. IMHO, if you can't manage a phone conversation while driving you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel at all. But that's another subject.

So back to my question: Is it really my burden to prove my innocence?

Beats me.

But, it's a misnomer that we "are innocent until proven guilty".
We can be held against our will when the "evidence" suggests we might not show for trial. (Some sit in county jails for a year, or more, waiting a court date). In this instance, your "ticket" will require you to respond for a hearing or pay the fine.

I won't get into the argument about the need (or lack of) for the law about phone use.

You are not guilty. You are accused. You may have to allow the system to hear the "case" to determine the facts. At that point you will guilty or not guilty. One is never determined to be innocent.

Good luck. If you feel you were abiding by the law, you only have to explain that to a judge. You don't need "evidence". You should not need a lawyer, and your remarks should be able to be explained in a couple of minutes. The judge will find your remarks credible, or think you are playing him trying to avoid a fine. He (she) will rule accordingly.

Mostly, the system works. Sadly, there are times when it completely breaks down. It should work for you if you keep it simple and explain your actions.

I wouldn't rely on just telling the judge you are not guilty because...... I would definitely get your records and proof of where you work and what hours you were working.