If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturned the law
I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturned the
law according to a ruling released today. http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-cou...-while-driving California court OKs using cellphone map while driving Since I used a similar argument, that I was just using the GPS, is there a way I can get my money back? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturned the law
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:00:14 -0800, Mark Taylor > wrote:
> I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturned the > law according to a ruling released today. > > http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-cou...-while-driving California court OKs using cellphone map while driving > > Since I used a similar argument, that I was just using the GPS, is there a > way I can get my money back? You may have to appeal your conviction. You can go to a lawyer to see how you should proceed, but if you do have to appeal your conviction or apply to have your violation withdrawn it is going to cost you serious money, unless you are legally competent enough to do it your self. Also how long ago did this happen? Often you must appeal within a certain time frame in most cases. If you had points added to your driving record you may be able to petition the DMV to remove the points from your record. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturned the law
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:00:14 -0800, Mark Taylor wrote:
> I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturned the > law according to a ruling released today. > > http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-cou...-while-driving > California court OKs using cellphone map while driving > > Since I used a similar argument, that I was just using the GPS, is there a > way I can get my money back? Too bad. Let's say you got a ticket last month for doing 65 in a 55mph zone. Today, the speed limit is changed to 65. Can you get your money back from the citation? Nope. You might be able to petition the court to have the record expunged. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturned the law
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:57:23 -0800, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:25:36 -0500, richard > > wrote: > >>On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:00:14 -0800, Mark Taylor wrote: >> >>> I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturned the >>> law according to a ruling released today. >>> >>> http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-cou...-while-driving >>> California court OKs using cellphone map while driving >>> >>> Since I used a similar argument, that I was just using the GPS, is there a >>> way I can get my money back? >> >>Too bad. >>Let's say you got a ticket last month for doing 65 in a 55mph zone. >>Today, the speed limit is changed to 65. >>Can you get your money back from the citation? >>Nope. >> >>You might be able to petition the court to have the record expunged. > > Totally different bullis. > > Maybe you should try putting on your thinking cap before you open your > mouth for once? Practice what you preach. Ain't it time to go to work, troll boi? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturnedthe law
On 2/27/2014 11:00 PM, Mark Taylor wrote:
> I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturned the > law according to a ruling released today. > > http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-cou...-while-driving > California court OKs using cellphone map while driving > > Since I used a similar argument, that I was just using the GPS, is there a > way I can get my money back? > I don't know CA law but would assume you got a ticket and already paid the fine. If you haven't you can normally take it to traffic court and appeal there, if you have you most likely will have to ask the state/court about your right to appeal. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturned the law
On 2014-02-28 14:25:36 +0000, richard said:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:00:14 -0800, Mark Taylor wrote: > >> I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturned the >> law according to a ruling released today. >> >> http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-cou...-while-driving >> >> California court OKs using cellphone map while driving >> >> Since I used a similar argument, that I was just using the GPS, is there a >> way I can get my money back? > > Too bad. > Let's say you got a ticket last month for doing 65 in a 55mph zone. > Today, the speed limit is changed to 65. That analogy is incorrect. Let's say you got a ticket for 55, and a court of competent jurisdiction declares that that law was never enforceable. > Can you get your money back from the citation? > Nope. > > You might be able to petition the court to have the record expunged. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturned the law
On 27 Feb. 2014, Mark Taylor > wrote:
> I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now > they overturned the law according to a ruling released > today. > http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-cou...-while-driving > California court OKs using cellphone map while driving > > Since I used a similar argument, that I was just using the > GPS, is there a way I can get my money back? There isn't a way that anyone can reliably say "Yes" based only on what you say above. (There also isn't a way that one can reliably say "No" based only on what you say above so that, at least for the time being, you should disregard how the poster named "richard" responded to you.) Assuming that you were cited for violating the same Vehicle Code provision as the defendant in the case to which you refer, you are mistaken that the court overturned that law. Instead, it overturned an _interpretation_ of that law by an earlier panel of judges of that same court in a prosecution in which the underlying facts were not in dispute. This distinction is important because not only are you not sufficiently clear that you were cited and convicted for violating that same statutory provision but, even if you were, you say that you _argued_ that you were using your cell phone just as a GPS but don't clearly say that you were _cited_ (explicitly) for using it as a GPS. That is, contrast these to cases: Case#1: Defendant is cited for driving while using a wireless telephone not specifically designed and configured for hands free use, he testifies and argues at trial that he wasn't using it to engage in conversation when he was cited and instead only as a GPS, the complaining officer testifies that the defendant was using it as a telephone for conversation, and the defendant is convicted; Case#2: Defendant is cited for driving while using a wireless telephone not specifically designed and configured for hands free use in that, the citation says, he was using it to look at a map or otherwise as a GPS (i.e., no mention of using it to converse), there is no dispute at trial about this because, like the defendant, the complaining officer testifies that the defendant was using it only to look at a map or otherwise as a GPS, but the defendant is convicted anyway. In other words, whereas maybe the court in your case in convicting you ruled that you violated the statute by using your cell phone to look at a map or otherwise as a GPS pursuant to a citation that specifically alleged that, like Case#2, you don't make that clear in your posting so maybe your prosecution is closer to what occurred in Case#1. You also don't post any of the dates (the time-line) pertinent to you so that one also can't tell from what you say whether the period specified by law within which you may appeal has expired. And although there sometimes can be ways to appeal (or obtain relief by other means) even after the time within which to appeal has expired, you don't post sufficient details to enable assessing whether, if that period as expired for you, you nevertheless probably can obtain relief from a court (continuing to depend on how close your prosecution was to hypothesized Case#2 instead of being closer to Case#1). Nor do you provide adequate information in your posting needed to assess whether there may be administrative avenue of relief even if it is too late to seek judicial relief. Again, this does _not_ mean that your case necessarily is complex or that there is no way for you to get a refund (and vacate the conviction). But consider this: In the very case to which you refer, an appellate panel ruled that there was no dispute about the fact that the defendant was using his wireless phone to look at a map (i.e., not to converse with another) but that the plain meaning of the statute in light of its recorded legislative history required upholding the conviction whereas that same court in a later appeal ruled that the plain meaning of the statute in light of its recorded legislative history required overturning the conviction. Thus sometimes judges all agree that the answer to a question is obvious but it is just that some of them agree that, obviously, "Yes" is the answer and the rest of them agree that, obviously, "No" is the answer. While, obviously, it is most preferable for you to consult face with a lawyer who knows about and is experienced in dealing with these sorts of cases if you are serious about wanting to overturn your conviction and obtain a refund, you need at the very least to clarify your question by posting sufficient facts that specifically address all the issues summarized above if you want intelligently to pursue your question in this or in some other comparable Internet news group. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturnedthe law
Evan Platt wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:25:36 -0500, richard > > wrote: > >> On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:00:14 -0800, Mark Taylor wrote: >> >>> I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturned the >>> law according to a ruling released today. >>> >>> http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-cou...-while-driving >>> California court OKs using cellphone map while driving >>> >>> Since I used a similar argument, that I was just using the GPS, is there a >>> way I can get my money back? >> >> Too bad. >> Let's say you got a ticket last month for doing 65 in a 55mph zone. >> Today, the speed limit is changed to 65. >> Can you get your money back from the citation? >> Nope. >> >> You might be able to petition the court to have the record expunged. > > Totally different bullis. > > Maybe you should try putting on your thinking cap before you open your > mouth for once? > Evan, Richard;s comment seems most certainly applicable in general. Just because a law is made however doesn't (and I would guess more often than not) is not retroactive. Skip's suggestion about simply checking to see if this specific one is before proceeding seems to be a definitive word on this. Hopefully the OP will let us know. Now for the future, it's a (IMHO) stupid ruling and probably will (again) be changed. I would venture one might spend MORE time looking at a map that reading a short text. I don't know how this one got through the CA legislature. -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Regards - - Andrew |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturned the law
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:40:20 -0500, Andrew > wrote:
> Evan Platt wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:25:36 -0500, richard > > > wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:00:14 -0800, Mark Taylor wrote: > >> > >>> I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturned the > >>> law according to a ruling released today. > >>> > >>> http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-cou...-while-driving > >>> California court OKs using cellphone map while driving > >>> > >>> Since I used a similar argument, that I was just using the GPS, is there a > >>> way I can get my money back? > >> > >> Too bad. > >> Let's say you got a ticket last month for doing 65 in a 55mph zone. > >> Today, the speed limit is changed to 65. > >> Can you get your money back from the citation? > >> Nope. > >> > >> You might be able to petition the court to have the record expunged. > > > > Totally different bullis. > > > > Maybe you should try putting on your thinking cap before you open your > > mouth for once? > > > > Evan, Richard;s comment seems most certainly applicable in general. > Just because a law is made however doesn't (and I would guess more often > than not) is not retroactive. > . . . . > Now for the future, it's a (IMHO) stupid ruling and probably will > (again) be changed. I would venture one might spend MORE time looking > at a map that reading a short text. I don't know how this one got > through the CA legislature. Some questions for invalid.com Andrew: Why do you seem not to have noticed that the OP asked about the retroactive application or not of a judicial decision in a case in which the facts were undisputed and in which the appellate court purported to rule what the law was apparently including at the time he was tried and convicted instead of ruling that it was changing the law? Why do you talk about what you guess seems to be the law but without providing any reference to support that guess or any example to support what you say seems possibly to be so more often than not? Do you think Blackstone was or was not correct in saying that judges do not actually create and instead find the law and, if not in general, might this be so when, as here, what is involved is what a statute means and how it should be applied and not how some statute enacted or which became effective only after the OP was tried and convicted? Do you agree or disagree with the classic formulation that an overruled decision illustrates merely a failure of perception of what the law was and therefore never actually was the law and that the overruling decision is not one of new law and instead merely an application of what was the law? No matter what you may think about such jurisprudential conundrums or, if you prefer, principles, why did you say what you did despite what, in California, is said to be a basic and general rule that, absent special circumstances requiring a different conclusion, judicial decisions generally are given retroactive effect? What do you think about Justice Rehnquist's dictum that the principle that statutes operate only prospectively, while judicial decisions operate retrospectively, is familiar to every law student [United States v. Security Industrial Bank, 459 U.S. 70, 79 (1982)] and whether it ought or ought not give the OP solace? If that principle familiar to every law student ought not apply to the OP, why not? Ought any of this not matter to the OP who refers to an appellate ruling in which the principle enunciated by the court applied as a matter of law to undisputed facts of that case but he said merely that he made an argument that was similar, in other words, not that the charge against him was the same as in the ruling he cited or that what the court in his case had ruled were the facts of his case were the same as what later were not contested facts in the newly cited case? In other words, even if it is a general rule in the state that judicial decisions are applied retroactively, what difference would this make for the OP since no one can tell from the OP's posting that, even if it was not necessary also to deal with the other issues he raised about timeliness or not of an appeal or other means of review, etc., that new ruling applies to him at all? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturnedthe law
On 3/3/2014 8:09 PM, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:40:20 -0500, Andrew > wrote: > >> Evan, Richard;s comment seems most certainly applicable in general. >> Just because a law is made however doesn't (and I would guess more often >> than not) is not retroactive. > > What?! No, richard's comments make absolutely no sense. > > The OP was cited for breaking a law. > > The law was then overturned. The OP wants to know if they can get > their money back for the fine they paid for violating what is now no > longer a law. > > Richards 'analogy' - if you can even call it that, was about the > lowering of a speed limit. > > Now, I can see if maybe the analogy were that there were say there was > a speed limit for walking on a sidewalk, and you were cited. And then > it was found that that law was unconstitutional, and the law was > appealed, can you get your money back for paying that fine. > The law wasn't overturned. It was interpreted. The statute is still valid. You cannot use a cellphone for talking without a hands-free device or for texting. There is also a law against distracted driving which would include using a cellphone as a GPS. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ex-GM engineer, husband found guilty of trade-secret theft | Rob | Auto Photos | 0 | December 1st 12 12:58 AM |
Typical dumb Obama voting Chicago Woman found guilty in fatal 'nail polish' crash | Major Debacle[_6_] | Driving | 6 | June 4th 10 07:17 PM |
Confused over pleading guilty or not guilty in traffic ticketcase | Studemania | Driving | 0 | July 25th 08 04:24 AM |
Houston Truckdriver/Human Smuggler Found Guilty In Deaths of 19 illegals | Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS[_1_] | Driving | 1 | December 6th 06 02:26 AM |