“Got A Cellphone Ticket, Officer Unsure, Notes Different”

This is the disclosure i received in exact working

in Wb lane on lawrence ave in lane 3

defendant is in l2 west bound on lawrence ave

looking for distracted driving .. vehicles are stopped in l2

drive past defendant.. head is down... hands on phone on lap

light turns green approx 5 secs before moving

defendant still looking down does not see marked scout car directly beside him, eventually commences wb on lawrence ave

vehicle stop west of warden ave

approached vehicle, cell phone is now on passenger seat... directly beside the defendant

pot issues

daylight

here it goes

officer pulled me over

i asked him the reason for your stop?

i saw you touching, holding and using the cellphone.

i asked the officer, which one is it? touching, holding or using the phone?

officer said doesnt matter, you can do neither

goes back to the car to write the ticket

comes back and leans over and says: ok just so you know you cant touch your phone, not plug your phone in, and then says so you were looking down on the phone and doing nothing.

the officer is very vague in his statements on audio and on the disclosure

what can be done?

He says touching, holding AND using so your question regarding which one is it is incorrect. He is claiming it's all of them.

sorry can you clarify.

the officer wrote in his report

that my phone was on my lap, and hands on phone

when he pulled me over

i asked me the reason for your stop?

he said, i saw you using your phone, touching the phone, holding the phone.

he drove past me, for a mere 3 seconds he made 4 judgments (touching, holding, using, and phone being on my lap)

lap- phone is resting on my lap

holding and using is a different thing

my trial is next monday

You are making the common error of trying to cut down one tree and thereby destroy the forest.

His notes are clear to me. He saw you with the phone in your hand and your hands were in your lap.

When I make a call, I am touching the phone and I am using the phone and I am holding the phone. This is what he is alleging he saw you doing.

Right now, from what you have told us, you have nothing by way of a defence.

ill update the forum, once I go to trial.

and yes I have a way of defence

how can the officer prove what was on my lap (first of all he couldnt see my lap, he was a distance, he would have to be really close to my car, and lean over to see.

An elevated cab is a vague statement, as elevated means that my seat was so high that he saw an object on my lap? bogus.

I didn't have anything on my lap or in my hands.

Just because the officer has a badge, doesn't mean he can pull anyone over and accuse them of actions never done.

doesn't discourage me from fighting it.

and from my last post

i shared an example of a phone on a lap= resting on a surface

i never said it was really on my lap

only scenarios and examples.

What elements are to be proven in court by the JP?

As mentioned in my last post

officer zoomed past me, and in the video he observed me only for 3 seconds. In 3 seconds you can zoom by and not even make out what they are doing.

Heres what the dash cam showed

11:22: 41 seconds cop passes me

11:22:43 STOPPED

BEYOND ME, RIGHT BESIDE THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME.

NOT DIRECTLY BESIDE ME

ALL CARS COMMENCE AT 11:22:44

I COMMENCE AT 11:22:51

FROM 11:22:44 FIRST CAR MOVES

FROM 11:22:47: second car moves

FROM 11:22:51- MY CAR COMMENCES

IF I WAS REALLY DISTRACTED, I WOULD MOVE LATE. NOT WITH THE TRAFFIC FLOW

JUST SOME INSIGHT IS APPRECIATED, OTHERWISE I HAVE PREPARED A SOLID DEFENSE.

THANKS AND GOD BLESS

Jimmyarshad wrote: ↑Sat Jun 02, 2018 6:06 am

sorry can you clarify.

the officer wrote in his report

that my phone was on my lap, and hands on phone

when he pulled me over

i asked me the reason for your stop?

he said, i saw you using your phone, touching the phone, holding the phone.

he drove past me, for a mere 3 seconds he made 4 judgments (touching, holding, using, and phone being on my lap)

lap- phone is resting on my lap

holding and using is a different thing

my trial is next monday

So you post is listing factual things and then suddenly on the last line you go into a theoretical statement ? Ummm, ok.

Sounds like it will come down to him saying what he believes he saw and you saying you never used the phone.

Let us know what the judge decides.

Your dash cam doesn't show the inside of your vehicle, so its of limited use to the elements of the case. The officer says he saw you holding the phone on your lap and using it (which usually includes touching the phone). The prosecution only needs to prove one. Your defence seems to be that the officer couldn't possibly have seen all of that in 3 seconds, but guess what, hundreds of cases across Ontario lead to convictions weekly on about that amount of time! I think you best attack from a different basis such as height difference in vehicles, distance between cars, tints, lighting conditions, etc. The dash cam footage will only reduce the effect of better defence attack strategies.

Jimmyarshad wrote: ↑Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:53 pm

...

IF I WAS REALLY DISTRACTED, I WOULD MOVE LATE. NOT WITH THE TRAFFIC FLOW

...

That's what the officer said. First the light was green. Then 5 seconds later you started to drive. At least that is my interpretation.

Head down, phone in lap implies you were using it. But if you can give a good explanation to the judge as to how your head was down and phone was in your lap and you were not using it...