Guilty until proven innocent

[HoneyhalfWitch]

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.

I've never really thought of it actually.. I just know there's been a lot of injuries and death due to cell phone use while driving and laws are in place to try and prevent it. If a study is shown that eating while driving causes accidents then yes I'd be for it. After all, driving isn't a right. It's a privilege. On edit I see Wonky posted pretty much what I posted but will leave my comments here anyway.

[GoCometsGo]

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.

No no no. I simply stated what the law was. I did not defend it. I will defend my right to use the cell phone REGARDLESS of business use or otherwise.

It's really very simple. Cell phone use is a task. Not a particularly difficult task at that. It's not juggling. It's not surgery. It is driving with one hand while talking and listening. If it's too dangerous to be allowed, (IMHO it's NOT), then outlaw it completely. But how can you outlaw that task without outlawing other tasks that are equally or MORE distracting?

This is really what it boils down to. We are able to OBSERVE someone talking on the cell phone. If that someone is also driving like an asshole, we will automatically associate the poor driving with the phone use. But, IMHO, that is an unfair and unwarranted leap.

Have you ever seen someone sitting at a red light and the light turns green yet they continue to sit? Sure you have. People have been doing that since long before cell phones. However, if that same person is using their phone... then you assume it's the call that is distracting him/her. Yet, it could be ANYTHING. Do we remove ALL distractions?

We have a law against distracted driving. That law should cover cell phones as well. If you can manage a phone call without being distracted then there should be no reason to be pulled over.... business related or otherwise. If you cannot manage that very simple multi-task... then, IMHO, your overall ability to drive should be questioned. I really don't see how this can even be argued.

[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.

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.

I've got phone records, a letter from my employer, and a photo of my "Calls" directly off of my phone.

[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.

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.

Wouldn't hurt.
But this is not the Supreme Court.
It's your credibility the Court will be looking for.
If you come in with stacks of paperwork, the court will wonder why you are taking so much valuable time about a rather simple issue.
You swear to tell the truth. If the Court believes you, you win.

[chuck white]

I heard somewhere that if you use it for business, the business name needs to be on the side of your car.

[Willie Krash]

Presumptive guilt. This is how we grow gov't, make laws against this or that. Perhaps we need more law, you could go to the DMV and take a simulated drive test while talking on the cell phone while the DMV people ask a series of questions and math problems. If you pass you get a check box on you license. Next is eating a burger with fries in your lap, next loud music (or Rush) and next kids in the car yelling and hollering.
Screw it outlaw cars they are not safe.
But you gotta love the guy on the cell phone doing 45 yakin away..

The ladies are better at it, they can talk, do 75 and put eyeliner on all at once.
Everyone knows guy can't multitask. We are hunters..

[GoCometsGo]

Presumptive guilt. This is how we grow gov't, make laws against this or that. Perhaps we need more law, you could go to the DMV and take a simulated drive test while talking on the cell phone while the DMV people ask a series of questions and math problems. If you pass you get a check box on you license. Next is eating a burger with fries in your lap, next loud music (or Rush) and next kids in the car yelling and hollering.
Screw it outlaw cars they are not safe.
But you gotta love the guy on the cell phone doing 45 yakin away..

The ladies are better at it, they can talk, do 75 and put eyeliner on all at once.
Everyone knows guy can't multitask. We are hunters..

See there WK. I'm with you 100% on this! We could even expand the testing to include alcohol! In my younger days, I'd have qualified to drive at .15. Throw in some bennies and we could bump me up to .20

So here we are. At the very essence of our society. Those that are "able" must suffer at the hands of those that are not. I can't use a cell phone while driving because Granny Fanny can't use a cell phone while driving. I have to give myself an aneurism trying open a "theft-proof" package because of the few shoplifters out there. Our entire world is reduced to the lowest common denominator.

[Wonky]

Presumptive guilt. This is how we grow gov't, make laws against this or that. Perhaps we need more law, you could go to the DMV and take a simulated drive test while talking on the cell phone while the DMV people ask a series of questions and math problems. If you pass you get a check box on you license. Next is eating a burger with fries in your lap, next loud music (or Rush) and next kids in the car yelling and hollering.
Screw it outlaw cars they are not safe.
But you gotta love the guy on the cell phone doing 45 yakin away..

The ladies are better at it, they can talk, do 75 and put eyeliner on all at once.
Everyone knows guy can't multitask. We are hunters..

Not that complicated. The law says that we don't talk on hand held cell phones except with certain explained exclusions.
It's the law.
If one is excluded for whatever reason, and still gets busted, then we go to court and explain.
The system does work.
Trust it.

But, if one is guilty it's necessary to use whatever dodges are available to clear the dock. That often works too.

Let's not confuse the two.

[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.

Wouldn't hurt.
But this is not the Supreme Court.
It's your credibility the Court will be looking for.
If you come in with stacks of paperwork, the court will wonder why you are taking so much valuable time about a rather simple issue.
You swear to tell the truth. If the Court believes you, you win.

If you are going to go to all the bother of going to court, why gamble that the Court might believe you? Might as well take conclusive proof and take the mood of the Judge factor out of the equation.

[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.

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.

Wouldn't hurt.
But this is not the Supreme Court.
It's your credibility the Court will be looking for.
If you come in with stacks of paperwork, the court will wonder why you are taking so much valuable time about a rather simple issue.
You swear to tell the truth. If the Court believes you, you win.

If you are going to go to all the bother of going to court, why gamble that the Court might believe you? Might as well take conclusive proof and take the mood of the Judge factor out of the equation.

Okay.
Whatever works.

[tvguy]

='GoCometsGo' pid='122213' dateline='1309656619']
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?

You do realize that every day the cops hear the same thing from people saying their call was work related.
The first draft of this law was poorly worded and it caused this work related loophole. I have read that the intention of the exception was to allow EMERGENCY workers and the like to legally talk on a cell phone while they were in their work related vehicle... and you were not.
Was there ANY reason you HAD to talk on your cell while you were driving?? I'm not sure about the exact wording in the law but if I were you I wouldn't be so sure you will not have to pay. You are a truck driver in your car and you are sure the judge will understand?
This loophole that allows just about anyone to claim their call was work related will
be revised and take effect Jan. 1, 2012 and ONLY make exceptions for police, emergency vehicles, tow trucks, utility crews and some agricultural vehicles.





.

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.

If a cop SEES you roll through a stop sign I've never heard that he would have to PROVE you really did. I think some amount of trust that the cops aren't simply lying is the norm for traffic infractions.
Other wise the cops would have a hell of time giving anyone a ticket.

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.

Well I realize that you are a professional driver and you THINK all of the tests and studies that PROVE cell phones are a distraction don't apply to you.
I don't think you are necessarily right. You may very well be BETTER at multi tasking that most but my money says that you can still be distracted.

Besides the laws were not passed because of just YOU.

Now for the funny part. I just got a ticket for the same thing the other day I have a blue tooth headset that I use but the other day I was taking my wifes car to the tire shop and I didn't think to bring my head set.
So the phone rang and I answered it. Next thing I see is blue lights

I believe I really was distracted otherwise I would have seen the damn cop.

[Smithcat]

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.

It seems that the person to address in traffic court in this case is the officers supervisor. The supervisor is amending the law as he/she sees fit. The officer asked the question: "Is the call in the course of business?" to which you replied in the affirmative. That should end it, according to the law as written. The officers supervisor has amended the law illegally. THAT is the point which needs to be taken up in court, and when mentioned to the officer of the court (be it a judge or traffic court administrator) you would be surprised to see how fast the supervisors re-writing of the law will be struck down.

This is very similar to the laws which permit my wife to have her guide dog with her in the public venue. There are 2 questions which can legally be asked, and when answered properly, she is not to be bothered any further concerning her guide dog. She does not need to produce any "paperwork", "ID", "certification" or anything else; simply answer the questions properly and she is on her way. The cell phone law should work the same way.

[GoCometsGo]

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.

It seems that the person to address in traffic court in this case is the officers supervisor. The supervisor is amending the law as he/she sees fit. The officer asked the question: "Is the call in the course of business?" to which you replied in the affirmative. That should end it, according to the law as written. The officers supervisor has amended the law illegally. THAT is the point which needs to be taken up in court, and when mentioned to the officer of the court (be it a judge or traffic court administrator) you would be surprised to see how fast the supervisors re-writing of the law will be struck down.

This is very similar to the laws which permit my wife to have her guide dog with her in the public venue. There are 2 questions which can legally be asked, and when answered properly, she is not to be bothered any further concerning her guide dog. She does not need to produce any "paperwork", "ID", "certification" or anything else; simply answer the questions properly and she is on her way. The cell phone law should work the same way.

Very interesting take on this and basically the one that makes the most 'legal' sense to me.

However, I once tried to fight a ticket based on, (what I felt was basic), law... and lost. Short version: I was clocked by an airplane doing 65 in a 55 and a trooper on the ground cited me. We went to court and I asked the trooper if he had personally witnessed me speeding. He said, "no." I asked to face my accuser, (the airplane pilot), and was told that his affidavit would suffice. I was not allowed to question him. Guilty.

So, I will probably go to court with the needed documentation but I will try to beat the ticket based on my word. If that fails, I will pull out the paperwork.

Wonky says the system works. I agree. It does work... if you are a cop.

[tvguy]

The officer asked the question: "Is the call in the course of business?" to which you replied in the affirmative. That should end it, according to the law as written.

Sorry but with all due respect that is laughable. GCG was not even in a company vehicle. According to you anyone could just lie to the cop and that should end it?

I tried to find the actual law and wanted to post the exact section that I believe talks about exemptions for people who's work requires them to use a phone while driving.
GCG doesn't fit in to that category IF it's worded that way and I think it is, not sure.




I couldn't find it and gave up. There was a thread about this before but the new search function sucks.

[tvguy]

OK I found the actual law or Bill and I don't see any exemption that says anyone can talk on a cell phone and drive it it pertains to their work.

The laws says...................


3) This section does not apply:
(a) To a person who is summoning medical or other emergency help if no other person in the
vehicle is capable of summoning help; [or]
(b) To a person using a mobile communication device for the purpose of farming or agricultural
operations[.];
© To a person operating an ambulance or emergency vehicle;
(d) To a person 18 years of age or older who is using a hands-free accessory;
(e) To a person operating a motor vehicle while providing public safety services or
emergency services as a volunteer;


http://cellphones.procon.org/sourcefiles...ee_Law.pdf

[Yeshuah Hamashiach]

So, I will probably go to court with the needed documentation but I will try to beat the ticket based on my word. If that fails, I will pull out the paperwork.

Wonky says the system works. I agree. It does work... if you are a cop.

[chuck white]

OK I found the actual law or Bill and I don't see any exemption that says anyone can talk on a cell phone and drive it it pertains to their work.

The laws says...................



(b) To a person using a mobile communication device for the purpose of farming or agricultural
operations[.];

[/b]

http://cellphones.procon.org/sourcefiles...ee_Law.pdf

There you go, isn't he involved in the farming of trees?

[GoCometsGo]

OK I found the actual law or Bill and I don't see any exemption that says anyone can talk on a cell phone and drive it it pertains to their work.

The laws says...................


3) This section does not apply:
(a) To a person who is summoning medical or other emergency help if no other person in the
vehicle is capable of summoning help; [or]
(b) To a person using a mobile communication device for the purpose of farming or agricultural
operations[.];
© To a person operating an ambulance or emergency vehicle;
(d) To a person 18 years of age or older who is using a hands-free accessory;
(e) To a person operating a motor vehicle while providing public safety services or
emergency services as a volunteer;


http://cellphones.procon.org/sourcefiles...ee_Law.pdf

Thanks for that tvguy.

My call pertained to agricultural operations. I received the call from a logger that was requesting some trucks to his site.

[PonderThis]

Have the cash ready when you're in court.

[Uncle]

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.

I've never really thought of it actually.. I just know there's been a lot of injuries and death due to cell phone use while driving and laws are in place to try and prevent it. If a study is shown that eating while driving causes accidents then yes I'd be for it. After all, driving isn't a right. It's a privilege. On edit I see Wonky posted pretty much what I posted but will leave my comments here anyway.

I wonder if anyone has done any statistical analysis on the age of the increase in accidents due to cell phone use. I would bet that under 20 years old would be the case. Teenage drivers + cell phones = disaster. Us older folks have learned to handle the multi-tasking required to stay alive on the road.