BS Ticket - Need advice from Police or Crown Attorney

I need some advice here from Ontario police or crown attorney for traffic court.

I was issued a ticket, while at a DEAD STOP at a red light, for taking a picture with my blackberry.

I know it is illegal to use a "communication device" while driving - and on top of that, I wasn't even using it to "communicate", I used it to take a picture (while at a dead stop at a red light)...picked the berry up, less than 5 seconds to snap the pic, and the light was still red when I put the blackberry back down.

The officer acknowledged that I was stopped when I used it, and he acknowledged that it was for taking a picture with it as opposed to talkin on the phone, but he said that they were cracking down and he had to issue the ticket.

The funny thing is, if it was a digital camera instead of a blackberry, it would have been legal. I phoned the police station in London to get their advice, and spoke with a few other London Police Officers I know and the feelings are mixed - some say he was right, some say he was wrong...but the general consensus is that the law is poorly written and leaves too much gray area.

Also, on the ticket he wrote "Drive while using communication device" which is NOT what happened, which as I mentioned he acknowledged.

So basically it comes down to two things:

1) How does the law define the term "drive" - does it mean "in motion", or "on the roadway even if stopped" as in my situation

2) If the term "drive" is the latter of the two I described in point 1, then am I allowed to take a picture (specifically take a picture, not use it to talk or check emails) at a red light, at a dead stop, while the car is in neutral.

Do I have a chance to win this if I dispute it, or should I take a plea to a lesser dollar-amount fine?

 

Here is the law - so the question is, what is the legal interpretation of the word "drive". I was stopped at a red light, does this still mean "drive on a highway" ?

 

Thanks to all who responded.

I phoned the Police Station a few hours ago. They told me there is no legal interpretation of the term "drive" when issued on a ticket or referenced in the Highway Traffic Act. If that is the case, then I may have a strong case since I can say that "drive" means the vehicle is moving, because people stop at a red light and/or stop sign, they don't "drive" at stop signs or "drive" at red lights....that's my whole beef with the "drive means on highway, stopped or moving" nonsense, especially since there is no legal definition of "drive"

I am going to pay a visit to the Crown Attorney and get his opinion on the matter...I want to see if he feels I have a chance, and if he could give me some insight on some past cases that are similar and what the results were....the bottom line is the cop was an azzhole about it, he could have given me a warning and say something like "because you were at a dead stop I will warn you this time, but if you had been in motion then no freebees".

 

I agree with the law, as it is very dangerous to drive while texting/emailing/holding a device your ear while speaking to someone....however the "cash-grab" comes into effect with situations like mine, as I was at a dead stop and used it for less than 5 seconds, and in no way, shape, or form endangered others or myself with the act. As I mentioned, if it was a digital camera then he wouldn't be able to charge me, but since it was a "communication device" then he went by the letter of the law....total prick-like move, and I know a few cops in London through refereeing ice hockey, they ALL said they wouldn't have issued the ticket (to anyone, not just me) but would have given a stern warning given the circumstances.

 

That's good advice, thanks. You get precisely what I am arguing here, that the law is geared to target people who text/email/talk on the phone while driving, with the car in motion, where it can cause a distraction or physically impair them to manouver the vehicle properly and therefore cause an accident...I didn't think the law targets people at a dead stop, taking a picture that took 3 or 4 seconds (or even quickly having a peak at your berry for any messages but not necessarily respond to any), that does not cause a danger to anyone else or yourself...how is that different than looking down at your radio to change the channel, or swap CD's in your CD player, or snap a pic with a digital camera?

 

Just received my bill.

On the ticket, the police officer wrote the time 5:30pm (he also wrote "drive-handheld communication device" - I am not sure if the wording means anything, but I was not moving)

Here is the timeline on my usage relevant to this case:

5:01pm - incoming phone call (was at home, definitely not while I was driving)

5:35pm - text sent - while I was pulled over, I sent a text to a friend informing him I would be late because I was pulled over

5:37pm - duplicate text sent - I resent the text to my friend because I wasn't sure if it went through

5:39pm - text sent - responding to my friend, still while I am pulled over

5:45pm - phone call placed - after the cop gave me the ticket, I remained parked on the side of the road and placed this call to a police officer who is a friend of mine to see if what I did was illegal (taking a picture while at a dead stop at a red light).

He pulled out behind me about a 1/4 mile before he pulled me over, and was behind me for a total of 60 seconds or less before he gave me the hook. I left my home three or four minutes before that, I live about two km from where this happened.

Therefore, he was behind me a total of a 1/4 mile and 60 seconds or less, and I got hooked at 5:30, and no activity on my device between 5:01pm and 5:35pm., which rules out that the 5:01pm phone call as the reason I was pulled over.

Since this proves I did not use my Blackberry while driving, I am hoping the judge will see my point of view which is I used it to take a picture, while at a dead stop, therefore I should not be guilty of the law for the purpose that it was written.

I will probably lose, but it is worth a shot.

For the record, that LEO colleague of mine said that what I did was not illegal because I was stopped, however when I called the Police Station for advice the LEO that answered the phone gave me the opposite answer. If the police can't agree on what the law is, then the law needs to be re-written. He also mentioned that this law is poorly written, and my situation is certainly proof of that.

I also called POINTTS to see if they have encountered this identical scenario, and they have...they told me that it is about a 50-50 split where the judge convicts and let's the accused off, it is all a case-by-case scenario. I feel I have a good chance, especially with the phone records proving I was not using the device while I was driving.

No court date set yet, but wish me luck. Fave, I sent you a PM for the contact info on that good traffic lawyer you mentioned in another thread.

 

Correct, there are no points - however, the insurance companies do not like this fine because it is known to cause accidents.

After speaking with your contact (Greg), it doesn't look good for me at all. I may take a plea to have the fine lowered from $155 to $60, as that may be the ONLY consolation in this ordeal.