E-cigarette lands man a traffic ticket in New York

[Jman8]

It's even more baffling that one doesn't recognize the extraordinary measures this judge took to establish guilt, where there was none.

Court in this case = laughing stock.

Already conceding that they will lose on appeal. Everyone following this thread knows this. LEO was convinced of a baseless accusation and court decided initially to uphold that baseless accusation, by peddling a different spin on the situation. One that is outside the bounds of the written law.

The mob would be proud.

 

[AgentAnia]

A personal anecdote that this discussion brought to mind:

I come from a family of attorneys. During my college days, my father (assuming I too would move on to law school) gave me a sample LSAT. I got almost every question wrong. Pop reviewed my answers with me, asking why I had answered as I did. I replied, "Because that's what's fair."

He responded, "This isn't about what's fair. This is about the law."

 

[zoiDman]

It's even more baffling that one doesn't recognize the extraordinary measures this judge took to establish guilt, where there was none.

....

And what were those?

You seem to Know a Lot More about what Actually happened. Perhaps you would like to Share it with Us?

 

[Kent C]

It is Baffling that you Continue to Confuse the Role of the Judge in a Court with the Role of the Accuse and or the Attorney who is Defending him.

If you walk into a Court Room and do Not Provide an Adequate Defense for the Charges that are being brought Against you, you will be Found Guilty.

Do Not Expect a Judge to Plead Your Case. Or to bring forth Evidence in your Defense.

Not exactly....

"Many criminal cases - and almost all civil ones - are heard by a judge sitting without a jury. The judge is the "trier of fact," deciding whether the evidence is credible and which witnesses are telling the truth. Then the judge applies the law to these facts to determine whether a civil claim has been established on a balance of probabilities or whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in criminal cases, that the suspect is guilty."

The Role of the Judge

"Courts and Legal Procedure
The Role of Judges

What does a judge do? Maybe it's best to start with what he or she doesn't do. Even though he or she works for the state, a judge is not a law enforcement officer. A judge is not a prosecutor. Judges don't arrest people or try to prove them guilty.

Judges are like umpires in baseball or referees in football or basketball. Their role is to see that the rules of court procedures are followed by both sides. Like the ump, they call 'em as they see 'em, according to the facts and law—without regard to which side is popular (no home field advantage), without regard to who is "favored," without regard for what the spectators want, and without regard to whether the judge agrees with the law.

How Courts Work | Public Education

It is obvious that the electronic device wasn't a communication device, which is what the law requires. The judge should know the law and should have dismissed the case whether or not the defendant (or the cop) knew what the law was or not.

 

[zoiDman]

Not exactly....

"Many criminal cases - and almost all civil ones - are heard by a judge sitting without a jury. Then the judge applies the law to these facts to determine whether a civil claim has been established on a balance of probabilities or whether The judge is the "trier of fact," deciding whether the evidence is credible and which witnesses are telling the truth.there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in criminal cases, that the suspect is guilty."

....

The judge is the "trier of fact," deciding whether the evidence is credible and which witnesses are telling the truth.

the judge applies the law to these facts

So in the Case of Mr. Drewing, did he Present Evidence that was Credible that the e-Cigarette he says he was using Could Not Communicate?

By what was Posted by the OP, he did Not.

So if a Judge is to Apply Law based on the Evidence that is presented to him, what does a Judge do if the Defendant does Not provide Adequate or Credible Evidence to Prove His/Her Innocence?

---

BTW - Did Mr. Drewing have a Cell Phone in his Possession at the Time of being cited?

 

[Kent C]

The judge is the "trier of fact," deciding whether the evidence is credible and which witnesses are telling the truth.

the judge applies the law to these facts

So in the Case of Mr. Drewing, did he Present Evidence that was Credible that the e-Cigarette he says he was using Could Not Communicate?

By what was Posted by the OP, he did Not.

So if a Judge is to Apply Law based on the Evidence that is presented to him, what does a Judge do if the Defendant does Not provide Adequate or Credible Evidence to Prove His/Her Innocence?

---

BTW - Did Mr. Drewing have a Cell Phone in his Possession at the Time of being cited?

"BTW" is "Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial!"

The judge applies the law (must be a communication device), to the facts (not a communication device).

I'm done here....

 

[rurwin]

It seems to be a fact that until the case got to court it was about him using his cell phone. In court he produced evidence to prove that he did not use his cell phone, and that was accepted by the court. Then it seems that the judge asked him if his e-cig was electronic and, since it was, held that using an e-cig contravenes the law. He should at that point have allowed argument, the record we have implies he went on to immediately pronounce guilt. It also suggesst that the e-cig was only indicted by the judge, not by the prosecution. Because the entire trial revolved around the cell phone, the defendant did not produce evidence regarding the e-cig. It would have been good if he did, since without him refuting the law in that case, the judge's assumption was uncontested.

We only have the defendant's description of what went on and I am not legally trained, but on that basis it does seem to me that the judge erred in following procedure. I imagine that, as someone pointed out some pages back, this was probably a JP and not a fully trained judge, and the verdict will be easy to overturn on appeal.

 

[2coils]

Vapers Place - Show Schedule and Replays
Episode 102: Don't vape and Drive. Start at the 50:30 mark. One can hear a detailed description about the event in question.
Apparently, the court decision has been reversed

 

[zoiDman]

"BTW" is "Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial!"

Objection your Honor. The State maintains that Mr. Drewing used his Cell Phone instead of his e-Cigarette while Operating a Motor Vehicle.

"Sustained"

---

The judge applies the law (must be a communication device), to the facts (not a communication device).

Once again, if Mr. Drewing does not state that his e-Cigarette can Not act as a Communication device, then the Judge is left with applying the Law to what Was presented to him.

 

[rurwin]

Good news that it was reversed.

 

[zoiDman]

Vapers Place - Show Schedule and Replays
Episode 102: Don't vape and Drive. Start at the 50:30 mark. One can hear a detailed description about the event in question.
Apparently, the court decision has been reversed

Good to hear that the Court Decision was Reversed. And that Mr. Drewing did Not need to do it on Appeal.

I still Blows my Mind hat Mr. Drewing never stated until a Verdict was Issued that his e-Cigarette could Not Communicate.

 

[Kent C]

Thanks 2coils.... The judge did not know the law and is required to do so. ... as I said above.

 

[Kent C]

Good to hear that the Court Decision was Reversed. And that Mr. Drewing did Not need to do it on Appeal.

I still Blows my Mind hat Mr. Drewing never stated until a Verdict was Issued that his e-Cigarette could Not Communicate.

Blows my mind that the cop and the judge, who actually enforce the law and carry out justice regarding it, didn't.

 

[zoiDman]

Blows my mind that the cop and the judge, who actually enforce the law and carry out justice regarding it, didn't.

If the Vapers Place audio is true, why Didn't Mr. Drewing just show the Officer his e-Cigarette in the First Place? Seems like what a Reasonable person would do?

Would all this have Happened if he Did?

Read back in this Thread and I mentioned that Maybe Mr. Drewing did something that Ticked the Officer Off.

 

[Kent C]

If the Vapers Place audio is true, why Did Mr. Drewing just show the Officer his e-Cigarette in the First Place? Seems like what a Reasonable person would do?

Would all this have Happened if he Did?

Read back in this Thread and I mentioned that Maybe Mr. Drewing did something that Ticked the Officer Off.

I'm really done here. I know how you like to string these things out. Have at it.

 

[zoiDman]

I'm really done here. I know how you like to string these things out. Have at it.

No Problem Kent.

 

[LDS714]

The judge is the "trier of fact," deciding whether the evidence is credible and which witnesses are telling the truth.

the judge applies the law to these facts

So in the Case of Mr. Drewing, did he Present Evidence that was Credible that the e-Cigarette he says he was using Could Not Communicate?

By what was Posted by the OP, he did Not.

So if a Judge is to Apply Law based on the Evidence that is presented to him, what does a Judge do if the Defendant does Not provide Adequate or Credible Evidence to Prove His/Her Innocence?

---

BTW - Did Mr. Drewing have a Cell Phone in his Possession at the Time of being cited?

Sorry man. The judge was just plain wrong. Pure and simple. Malfeasance, I believe would be the proper term.

 

[zoiDman]

Sorry man. The judge was just plain wrong. Pure and simple. Malfeasance, I believe would be the proper term.

What ever you say.

Just don't rely on a Judge to Defend you if you have to go into Court.

And, If you are Charged with Driving with a Communication device, and your e-Cigarette Can't Communicate, Don't wait until your Trial Is Over to Tell the Court this.

 

[sonicdsl]

It was reversed?

Thank goodness!

We're done here then.