E-cigarette lands man a traffic ticket in New York

[Jman8]

I like post #38's reasoning, but like post #39's even more.

Since many cars nowadays are electronic, then arguably every time your hand is on the steering wheel, and/or, you are looking at your electronic dashboard, you are guilty under the law. Man, there's a great source of revenue for a jurisdiction. Your car is the quintessential "mobile computing device." Ya know, if we are not exercising discernment on such matters. Let a more sap try to weasel his way out of that one in court.

Oh wait, we don't live in that world. Therefore, post #38 had it correct where it says,

This case should have never come to court. The police should not have prosecuted it. That is their fault.

 

[Rossum]

Since many cars nowadays are electronic, then arguably every time your hand is on the steering wheel, and/or, you are looking at your electronic dashboard, you are guilty under the law. Man, there's a great source of revenue for a jurisdiction. Your car is the quintessential "mobile computing device."

Except the law in question does not address "Mobile" electronic devices, it addresses "Portable" electronic devices, which is generally accepted to mean it can easily be carried by a person, so I'd argue that an entire car probably does not qualify under that law as written.

 

[zoiDman]

It's the judge's job to JUDGE ...

Now you're starting to Get It.

His job is to Judge the Merits of a case Based on the Evidence that is Presented and Testimony that was Given.

It sounds like Mr. Drewing did not Mention that the device he was using was Not Capable of communicating during his hearing.

... I advised him that the law states that the devise needs to have communication abilities. Judge said that if I mentioned that part of it before closing than it would have turned out differently, but because I did not that it is grounds for overturn in an appeal.

Is this the Judges Fault? That Mr. Drewing did Not Site why he was Not Guilty of Violating a Code or Breaking a Law.

No. It Isn't. Mr. Drewing Lack of Defense is Not the Judge's Fault.

Don't Blame a Judge if You Fail to Present Evidence which shows your are Innocent of a Breaking a Law or Violating a Code. Take some Personal Responsibility and Blame Yourself.

 

[zoiDman]

Wow, classic "blame the victim". Your guessing, suggesting and misdirecting just makes your statement blaming the victim all the more pathetic.

OK wv2win.

Say Mr. Drewing Ran into the Last Cop in America who doesn't know what an e-Cigarette is.

This is 2014 ya know.

 

[Harlen]

Hopping he will just pay the fine . No matter if your guilty or not it cost more to fight then to just pay the fine, they need the money

 

[Jman8]

Except the law in question does not address "Mobile" electronic devices, it addresses "Portable" electronic devices, which is generally accepted to mean it can easily be carried by a person, so I'd argue that an entire car probably does not qualify under that law as written.

Very true, but keep in mind that we are dealing with Barney Fife's of the LE industry.

 

[Rossum]

Now you're starting to Get It.

His job is to Judge the Merits of a case Based on the Evidence that is Presented and Testimony that was Given.

It sounds like Mr. Drewing did not Mention that the device he was using was Not Capable of communicating during his hearing.

It's not the defendant's job to prove that it CAN'T It's the prosecution's job to prove that it CAN. It's an electronic CIGARETTE for crying out loud!

Don't Blame a Judge if You Fail to Present Evidence which shows your are Innocent of a Breaking a Law or Violating a Code. Take some Personal Responsibility and Blame Yourself.

Sorry, but I do blame the judge for violating the most basic principle of American jurisprudence, that one is INNOCENT unless PROVEN guilty, and in this case, guilt would have been impossible to prove!

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

I put this one in the Keystone Cops style of justice.

An officer who didn't know the law he was charging under.

A defendant/lawyer who didn't show that the e-cigarette wasn't a communications device.

A Judge/Jury (he was both in this case) who didn't read the law before sentencing the defendant and admitted as much when he told him to appeal it and it would be overturned.

 

[patkin]

The complexities of life on this planet are getting harder to navigate daily. This comes on the heels of just this morning getting an email from MFS about the new bluetooth ecig!!!

 

[zoiDman]

... It's an electronic CIGARETTE for crying out loud!

...

So why Didn't Mr. Drewing just walking into Court, cross over the Bar and tell the Judge that it was, that it didn't have the Ability to Communicate and then ask for the Case to be Dismissed?

If he Had, and the Judge had found him Guilty, I would Jump on your Bandwagon in a Heart Beat.

But he Didn't.

What options does a Judge have when someone does not Adequately Show their Innocence to the charges that are being brought Against them?

Take off His/Her Robe and walk down and Defend the Accused?

 

[exnihilo]

Lol. Well, LEOs have very little personal accountability, so...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Rossum]

So why Didn't Mr. Drewing just walking into Court, cross over the Bar and tell the Judge that it was, that it didn't have the Ability to Communicate and then ask for the Case to be Dismissed?

If he Had, and the Judge had found him Guilty, I would Jump on your Bandwagon in a Heart Beat.

But he Didn't.

What options does a Judge have when someone does not Adequately Show their Innocence to the charges that are being brought Against them?

Take off His/Her Robe and walk down and Defend the Accused?

No, but he's not supposed to do this either:

Since the court failed to prove that Mr. Dewing was using a cell phone, they went after him for using the electronic cigarette. “The judge asked me if I know what the ‘e’ in e-cigarette means,” said Jason. “I told him it means electronic.” At this point the judge told Mr. Dewing that he was using a portable electronic device which is a violation of New York traffic law 1225-d.

Source here

Clearly this judge was predisposed to find Mr. Dewing GUILTY of something, rather than NOT GUILTY, as basic jurisprudence demands. Heck, the Judge didn't even wait for the prosecutor to try to make the case that using an electronic cigarette while driving violates the law. The judge himself decided (without any evidence, and in apparent ignorance of the actual law as written) that using an electronic cigarette is in violation of the law. Can you say "Kangaroo Court"?

 

[zoiDman]

... Clearly this judge was predisposed to find Mr. Dewing GUILTY of something, rather than NOT GUILTY, as basic jurisprudence demands. Heck, the Judge didn't even wait for the prosecutor to try to make the case that using an electronic cigarette while driving violates the law. The judge himself decided (without any evidence, and in apparent ignorance of the actual law as written) that using an electronic cigarette is in violation of the law. Can you say "Kangaroo Court"?

Are you Guessing, Suggesting and or Misdirecting?

Why don't you request the Minutes of for Mr Drewing's case and we call all Scrutinize them.

 

[rothenbj]

It's the judge's job to JUDGE -- it says so right there on the label.

In fact, it's his job is to find people INNOCENT unless the State PROVES them guilty, which in this case would be darn near impossible. Let's look at why:

Does an electronic CIGARETTE fit the definition of devices that are not permitted to be used while driving?



No? Case dismissed.

Not sure? OK, let's continue on. Does USING an electronic cigarette fall into the category of actions prohibited by law?



No? Case dismissed.

Sorry, but this judge most certainly did NOT do his job.

Funny how it doesn't appear that fiddling with a GPS or the radio is against the law. For that matter, distracted driving wasn't invented in the electronic age. I have seen Women working on their hair and makeup, people reading and eating. I myself, at a much earlier time in my life, got into an accident when I looked down to see where I was on the radio, looking for a particular station. I looked up and the traffic was backed up.

 

[sonicdsl]

Seems there were errors made on both sides.

Ok...next?

 

[zoiDman]

Seems there were errors made on both sides.

Ok...next?

I Don't think so.

I think the Ticketing Officer knew that the e-Cigarette wasn't a Communication Device. And that the Ticket would be Thrown Out in Court.

 

[sonicdsl]

Ok


next?

 

[Rossum]

I Don't think so.

I think the Ticketing Officer knew that the e-Cigarette wasn't a Communication Device. And that the Ticket would be Thrown Out in Court.

So you're saying it was a malicious act on the part of that officer to issue said ticket?

 

[zoiDman]

So you're saying it was a malicious act on the part of that officer to issue said ticket?

Yeah... That's my Spin on it.

Based on what Little I know about it.

 

[Recycled Roadkill]

I'm starting to wonder if a ticket could be written for me vaping while driving through school zones here in Texas. Worse yet while using my cool fire II. Of course, here in Texas we're known for carrying our weapons.