Judge tosses traffic ticket issued for talking on HAM radio while driving

[wkredick]

Judge tosses traffic ticket issued for talking on CB radio while driving - The Record News: Serving Troy and its surrounding communities (Troyrecord.com)

 

[W2NJS]

When will the press ever get it right and print that we don't "broadcast" and that we don't use the same frequencies as the public service agencies?

 

[Utah_Viper]

"Many of the hobbyists have the radios in their vehicles, Bozak said, and some build their own. They broadcast over the same airwaves that emergency personnel use to communicate with dispatchers, and in a similar fashion."

Seems like the author of this article needs some research and education on the topic.

 

[SteveC0625]

While I would not argue that the reporter "got it right" in the technical details already mentioned, I would point out that the rest of the article pretty much tells the tale accurately and understandably for the public and any police officers that might read it.

I would suggest that hams get a copy of the judge's written decision and carry it and a copy of that newspaper article with themselves when using their mobile rigs. Offering that to an officer who wants to write you a ticket for using a cell phone might do some good.

I'd also point out that this decision does pave the way for complaints of false charges in the future by other hams who get ticketed for the same offense. Usually when something like this happens, police departments add the info to their routine training programs. At some point down the line, an officer will not be able to claim that he didn't know the difference between a ham radio user and a cell phone user.

 

[JoeyC]

Of importance to note about this case under 1225-c, it has to do with the use of operating a mobile telephone while driving. The CB or HAM radio is not a mobile telephone and the judge agreed.

Under 1225-d, which I don't think he was charged, is the use of portable electronic devices while driving. CB and HAM radio doesn't meet the definitions in the law.

This ruling has nothing to do with amateur radio operators, so CB users without a HAM license are also good to chat away.

ANYBODY is exempt from the law when communicating in a real emergency situation and ANYONE can use a CB radio while driving.


Another example of a poorly written law with good intentions.

 

[MtnBiker2005]

It's being talked on the original thread with the update posted last week.

RR forum topic: http://forums.radioreference.com/am...scussion/182278-n-y-ham-sited-mobile-qso.html

 

[K2KOH]

Of importance to note about this case under 1225-c, it has to do with the use of operating a mobile telephone while driving. The CB or HAM radio is not a mobile telephone and the judge agreed.

Under 1225-d, which I don't think he was charged, is the use of portable electronic devices while driving. CB and HAM radio doesn't meet the definitions in the law.

This ruling has nothing to do with amateur radio operators, so CB users without a HAM license are also good to chat away.

ANYBODY is exempt from the law when communicating in a real emergency situation and ANYONE can use a CB radio while driving.


Another example of a poorly written law with good intentions.

Joey, look at my state legislature...need I say anymore? :lol:

 

[DaveNF2G]

First off, the reporter was directly quoting the ham in the case. It was Steve who said we "broadcast" over the "same airwaves."

For the general public, the meaning of "broadcast" and "airwaves" are vague enough that Steve's statement is accurate. Broadcasting means spreading out - literally, casting broadly. When you throw grass seed out onto your lawn, you are broadcasting the seed. Look it up in a landscaping reference.

Sometimes being too picky makes one appear less literate.

 

[garys]

First off, the reporter was directly quoting the ham in the case. It was Steve who said we "broadcast" over the "same airwaves."

For the general public, the meaning of "broadcast" and "airwaves" are vague enough that Steve's statement is accurate. Broadcasting means spreading out - literally, casting broadly. When you throw grass seed out onto your lawn, you are broadcasting the seed. Look it up in a landscaping reference.

Sometimes being too picky makes one appear less literate.

I have a broadcast spreader I use for fertilizing my lawn as well as putting down other chemicals. It has settings from 1.0 to 5.0, so I guess that makes it a user programmable multi frequency broadcasting device. It seems to be a no license device.

As to the judge throwing this case out, it's meaning is really very limited. The next judge in the same courtroom could look at the same set of facts and find the defendant guilty. Judges in other counties won't even be aware of the decision unless they read about in the paper.

 

[SteveC0625]

As to the judge throwing this case out, it's meaning is really very limited. The next judge in the same courtroom could look at the same set of facts and find the defendant guilty. Judges in other counties won't even be aware of the decision unless they read about in the paper.

One missing piece of the scenario you suggest: The defendant (or his attorney) is free to introduce previous court decisions for the judge's consideration. Previous decisions carry a lot of weight and if a judge in a future case rules differently, he's pretty much guaranteed that the case will go to appeal and he's likely to be overturned. Judges hate to be overturned by a higher court. And they will usually pay attention to a reasonable defense presented in a calm and professional manner.

Again, I think that ham's should acquire a printed copy of the judges decision in this case and a copy of the newspaper article announcing the verdict. If presented in a reasonable manner to a police officer, he might not write the ticket. If the ticket gets written anyway, it will still be more meaningful to the judge down the line.

And Dave is really right on about the "broadcast" word. Read back about the early days of two way radio, and the term "broadcast" is used a lot more often than "transmit." Back then broadcast meant transmit.

 

[garys]

One missing piece of the scenario you suggest: The defendant (or his attorney) is free to introduce previous court decisions for the judge's consideration. Previous decisions carry a lot of weight and if a judge in a future case rules differently, he's pretty much guaranteed that the case will go to appeal and he's likely to be overturned. Judges hate to be overturned by a higher court. And they will usually pay attention to a reasonable defense presented in a calm and professional manner.

Again, I think that ham's should acquire a printed copy of the judges decision in this case and a copy of the newspaper article announcing the verdict. If presented in a reasonable manner to a police officer, he might not write the ticket. If the ticket gets written anyway, it will still be more meaningful to the judge down the line.

And Dave is really right on about the "broadcast" word. Read back about the early days of two way radio, and the term "broadcast" is used a lot more often than "transmit." Back then broadcast meant transmit.

Maybe it's different in New York, but district court cases are not considered precedent. A case has to go to an appellate level court for a written decision to be issued, at which point the case will become precedent. Although it might only be precedent within that country and would only be considered persuasive in other counties. Decisions at the district court are generally not written, so someone would have to request a transcript to find what the judge said. The found that in this particular case, the officer erred in writing a ticket. Which does not mean that another judge would find the same way.

Also, remember that appeals are based on errors of law, not findings of the facts of the case. If someone wants to appeal a district level case to a higher court, they have to specify what error of law the judge made.

Someone might be motivated to pay the thousands of dollars in legal fees an appeal would entail, but most people won't.

 

[DaveNF2G]

garys is pretty much saying what everyone else has already said, but insisting on rephrasing it so it sounds like he disagrees.

 

[one11sgt]

This simple fact is the law CLEARLY states.....a cell phone must be IN THE DRIVER'S HAND, UP TO THE DRIVER'S EAR. Unless the HAM was holding his microphone up to his ear.....the Officer had no basis for issuing the summons. It is also why using direct connect on your Nextel does not violate the letter of the law.
I say this as a Police Officer who issues these summons everyday.

 

[comspec]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8310/4.5.0.110 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

What I find most interesting are the comments made on the news site by the general public. Some argue thata Ham Radio is just as distracting as a cell phone (a claim that has not been proven) so the judge should have convicted him.

Personally I find this kind of thinking more disturbing then the officer issuing the ticket in the first place. People like that scare me. If they want to ban Ham Radios then we can certainly have that debate with our law makers. For people who think a law targeting a specific offense can be widely interpretted to include thing they feel should be prohibited is the real crime here.

Perhaps the police should issue a ticket to these misguided busy bodies if they are caught tunning the FM radio. After all it is "like a cell phone" in that it is a radio and can be just as distracting.
I know, but you don't talk to it. Well what if you are singing along? In their minds it doesn't matter what the law actually says, they want the police to ticket anyone who they feel they are better then.

There, I vented. Now I feel better.

 

[chrismol1]

Perhaps the police should issue a ticket to these misguided busy bodies if they are caught tunning the FM radio. After all it is "like a cell phone" in that it is a radio and can be just as distracting.
I know, but you don't talk to it. Well what if you are singing along? In their minds it doesn't matter what the law actually says, they want the police to ticket anyone who they feel they are better then.

There, I vented. Now I feel better.

Don't a lot of small accidents happen this way? Distracted by tuning the radio, someone gets rear ended at a traffic light......Singing along with the radio also a hazard, its like talking on a cell phone....your mind is concentrating on saying the lyrics and not on the road...why don't the police ticket for that too?

 

[JoeyC]

Don't a lot of small accidents happen this way? Distracted by tuning the radio, someone gets rear ended at a traffic light......Singing along with the radio also a hazard, its like talking on a cell phone....your mind is concentrating on saying the lyrics and not on the road...why don't the police ticket for that too?

Get your legislature to include that in the law and they could!

 

[KAM101]

I operated a mobile CB radio throughout the 70's and 80's never heard of any other CB operator getting into an accident because of it.
I worked for a major parcel delivery company for many years, constantly using our VHF radios everyday, never heard of anyone getting into an accident because of it.
I think it's just those few drivers out there that can't do both (drive and talk on cel phone) that ruined it for everyone else.

End of rant.

 

[JoeyC]

The root of this has nothing really to do with the device, its the nature of the conversation that turns things ugly. You can just as easily get into an accident arguing with someone over a CB or arguing with someone sitting in the seat next to you. Millions talk on cellphones and drive every day without problems. You'll also find that most getting into these accidents are inexperienced drivers who are of the mindset that they can do all sorts of distracting things and drive 100%. The shear number of teen accidents prove that.

 

[DaveNF2G]

Get your legislature to include that in the law and they could!

Yeah, let's be even more like California!

Doesn't anybody pay attention to the news any more?

 

[JoeyC]

Yeah, let's be even more like California!

Doesn't anybody pay attention to the news any more?

Point being that you simply can't prosecute because something else is "similar" to the prosecutable offense.

What in CA is an offense because its is similar to or could be construed as similar to what is written in the actual law?