A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now they overturned the law



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 28th 14, 05:00 AM posted to misc.legal,rec.autos.driving,alt.satellite.gps.garmin
Mark Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old February 28th 14, 06:10 AM posted to misc.legal,rec.autos.driving,alt.satellite.gps.garmin
Mark Harvard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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to have your violation withdrawn it is going to cost you serious money,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  
Old February 28th 14, 03:25 PM posted to misc.legal,rec.autos.driving,alt.satellite.gps.garmin
richard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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  
Old February 28th 14, 06:14 PM posted to misc.legal,rec.autos.driving,alt.satellite.gps.garmin
richard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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  
Old February 28th 14, 08:58 PM posted to misc.legal,rec.autos.driving,alt.satellite.gps.garmin
Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default 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  
Old February 28th 14, 09:21 PM posted to rec.autos.driving,alt.satellite.gps.garmin,misc.legal
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,026
Default 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  
Old February 28th 14, 10:39 PM posted to misc.legal,rec.autos.driving,alt.satellite.gps.garmin
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old March 3rd 14, 06:40 PM posted to misc.legal,rec.autos.driving,alt.satellite.gps.garmin
Andrew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old March 4th 14, 12:39 AM posted to misc.legal,rec.autos.driving,alt.satellite.gps.garmin
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old March 4th 14, 07:30 AM posted to misc.legal,rec.autos.driving,alt.satellite.gps.garmin
Roy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 01:58 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 03:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.