Ducati Monster Forum

I present officer douchbag (aka: H. Ammey)
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/kavehmansoor/SHO4MrTWRMI/AAAAAAAAAKs/EUfPyeiU8TE/IMG_0440.jpg?imgmax=640)

I got a freakin' ticket for USING a hands free device  >:( 

Yes, you read that right, for using a hands free device.  I was in Palo Alto on university Ave heading east towards the freeway when I saw to moto cops on the corner sidewalk.  One pulls out and lights me up.  I pull over and he gives me a bunch of attitude right off the bat.  I don't know who pissed in his cheerios, but it would have been nice if he didn't take it out on me.  He even gave me shit for not knowing the whole V.C., (and I quote) "it is your responsibility as a licensed California driver to know ALL 4200 vehicle codes, every one"  [roll]  A simple, 'you're getting a ticket and now you know' would have been fine.

I got a ticket for having a hands free phone device in both ears.  It wasn't even on, I wasn't using the phone at the time  [roll] .

Does anyone know if this is a moving violation and how much it costs.


Disclaimer:  I don't think all cops are assholes, just 15% of them are.  Just like 15% of the population are assholes.

I can't get teh stoopid picture to work and I am waaay too freaking pissed to do anything about it now.



ARRRRGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!

I ain't had no hassles myself (well maybe that last parking ticket) but damn it does seem like the [leo] have a hard-on for bikes lately.  I can buy people getting tickets for speeding or other moving violations but it seems like we are getting a whole rash of what I would consider "garbage" violations.  What's up with that?

for the record I was in my subaru.

You could use his statement against him in court. Example: "Your Honor, I was told that as a licensed CA driver, I am responsible for knowing all 4200 VC's. I would like to know if, for the record, Officer Ammey can recite, verbatim, the first 200. I don't feel this is an unreasonable request on my part, as knowing all the CAVC's is not part of my job or daily requirements, where as for him it is. If he is able to recite them, verbatim, then I will gladly accept the ticket and fines no contest."

I'm not saying this is exactly what you should do, but I think it would be a reasonable request to demonstrate practice what he preaches. ;D


Oh, BTW, nice quick shot with the phone!

Dude, wait, were you in a car?

edit: I see now you were. My bad.

It's true, you're not allowed to have both ears covered/blocked while driving. Technically, that makes me a wild outlaw every time I put my earplugs in when I ride....

I'm sorry you got a tickey.  :(  Is it a moving violation, or "just" a fine? And, oh yes, Palo Alto. Otherwise known as Letter-of-the-Law Alto.  [roll]

If it's for using it, can't you just pull your phone records to prove, that was not the case?

It's rumored that DPT eats their young. If that's true, then traffic enforcement LEOs must eat the surviving DPT, as well as their own! [laugh] [laugh] [laugh]

There's an exception made for earplugs (likely specific to motorcycles). I can't recite the specific code verbatim or even provide a link, but I've seen it before. Close enough! :P

After looking up the code, actually it's illegal to wear regular earplugs too. 

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27400.htm

When he left with my license and registration I knew he was giving me a ticket.  The fact that he was such a prick also gave it away that he was giving me a ticket too.  When he came back I snapped the pic.  I think it kinda irked him a bit, but too-bad for Officer Douchebag. 

That says that custom earplugs are permissible. Another law was passed a few years ago to amend that to specifically allow non-custom earplugs, as seen here (http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-news/california-earplugs.htm).

 [thumbsup]  Now all I have to do is get iphone-wearing Subaru enthusiasts to write their congressman and get a amendment...that should only take about a year or 3...

I started a thread on BARF (http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255689) in the leo section...let's see what happens...

All this recent harassment wants me to never leave the house and become a Hermit  :-\

I can see he's married I'm sure his rage stems from there.

The code that made it illegal to wear regular earplugs was rewritten since 2004. (I think it was 2006 or 2007.) It's now legal to wear earplugs designed to prevent hearing damage from excessive noise.

Well, here's the regulations, right from the CA DMV site:

"Wearing of Headsets or Earplugs

27400.   A person operating a motor vehicle or bicycle may not wear a headset covering, or earplugs in, both ears. This prohibition does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A person operating authorized emergency vehicles, as defined in Section 165.

(b) A person engaged in the operation of either special construction equipment or equipment for use in the maintenance of any highway.

(c) A person engaged in the operation of refuse collection equipment who is wearing a safety headset or safety earplugs.

(d) A person wearing personal hearing protectors in the form of earplugs or molds that are specifically designed to attenuate injurious noise levels. The plugs or molds shall be designed in a manner so as to not inhibit the wearer's ability to hear a siren or horn from an emergency vehicle or a horn from another motor vehicle.

(e) A person using a prosthetic device that aids the hard of hearing.

Amended Sec. 45, Ch. 594, Stats. 2003. Effective January 1, 2004."

If you had one on each ear, then yes, you were in the wrong. But given the way the officer conducted himself, I think you should challenge his "you should know all 4200 of them" statement. It might wash this whole thing for ya.

Usually before I am pulled over I know if I am getting a ticket or not.  If I am doing 15-20 mph over or blew a stop sign, I'm pretty much expecting a ticket & deserving one.  But most of the time I am driving within the law and if I am getting pulled over I know it is either a misunderstanding or something really trivial or the officer is fishing for something else (thinking DUI, not licensed, registered, insured, ect...)  Once it's obvious that I am sober and have all my paper work I get a 'drive safe' and I always respond "stay safe out there officer" (or something along those lines).

When I got pulled over today and the officer was a total prick right off the bat and gave me a ticket (right after the handsfree law went into effect  [roll] ) I thought about this local board (the MOB) and the recent trend of harassing incidents that's been popping up here.  (part of my motovation on snapping a pic, it was for you guys  :-* )

I understand why you don't want drivers to wear headsets and listen to music, it can distract them.  I also understand why you don't want drivers to hold cell phones to their ears, it can distract them.    VC 27400 was written to stop drivers from being distracted from listening to Walkmans and such.  I had earbuds in my ears that weren't even on, I was trying to follow the new handsfree law  [roll]  That was plainly, and painfully (to me, anyways) obvious!  I think my ticket is equal to a motorcyclist getting the same ticket for wearing hearing protection...by the letter of the law, you are breaking it, by the intention of the law, you are not...


FRICK FRICK!!!!!  I dont' want a stooopid point on my license and I am in a financial pinch right now and don't want to shell out a couple hundred bucks because some prick wanted to get his jollies off.  >:(

....fight it.

Do a trial by declaration...i did it 3 times...ticket assassin.com

You have a good chance to get away with it.

 ;D

I'm glad the hands-free law is being enforced immediately after it has gone into effect. There was a lot of warning ahead of time and I'm actually really happy about this law. I also think it's a good thing to not allow drivers to have speakers of any kind in both ears while driving their cars. It's dangerous enough on the roads w/out drivers being potentially cut off from hearing things around them. That officer sounds like he conducted himself extremely poorly in this situation, but at least you know and can avoid this situation in the future. I think I remember the fine for this ticket (first offence) somewhere around $15. No sweat.

That is the fine for the hands free violation.  That is not what I got a ticket for.  I got a ticket because my hearing was being impaired  [roll]
cough cough *bullshit* cough cough.

I totally agree with the handsfree advice, that's why I had one on!

If you re-read my posts, you'll see what/why/how I got a ticket.  I wasn't in violation of the handsfree law, I was falling it.  I got slapped with a defunct law that was used in a different manner than the lawmakers intended.

I will definitely fight it if it is either a moving violation or a big fine.  I have nothing to lose at this point, I am not eligible for traffic school, and can't really afford a big fine right now. 

First I'm going to ask for an extension, then I am going to request a trial by written declaration.





ps.  you have no spelling erros in your post...who are you and what did you do with Luca/Amy/no-pants-man/captain morgan/Borat?

scofflaw

ya should have shown him yer cock and balls.

You should have brought your finger up to your mouth, bitten on it just a little, and seductively said "Can you teach me?"

 [bacon]

 [puke] [laugh] [puke]

You know that DPT stands for Don't Park There, right?  [laugh]

I'm curious about the hands-free device's manufacturer. Try contacting the company and complain that their device cost you a ticket, even though you were attempting to comply with the new law.

He didn't cite you for the cell phone law (or handsfree law) (23123 (a) CVC) he cited you for the headset/earplug law.

If they are part of your handfree system you can try court, pled your case, and ask for a reduced fine if found guilty. The cop might not show up which would negate the whole trial anyway. 

Trial by declaration works depending on the department. I've never not filled one out and it gives me the opportunity to perfectly show guilt. The only chance you have of winning those is if they don't get filled out and returned.

Thanks for the advice Scott  [thumbsup] , I am hoping that the person hearing the case (I know they aren't judges, but I forgot what they are called...) understands what the lawmakers were intending when they wrote VC 27400 and dismisses the case.  I know if you lose your trial by written declaration that you can request a in-person trial, that kinda gives me a 'free' chance and winning.  Right now I have more time than money, so I'm willing to use every opportunity I have.  [bang]

It's usually a commissioner. And yes, you get to have a trial if you lose the declaration.

As far as what was "intended", you violated that. They intend for you to not cover both of your ears while you drive. I still think you could get some mercy but you never know.

I think the law was "intending" to prevent drivers from impairing their hearing by having their ears blocked by headphones.  *My* view is that my handsfree earbuds when off (or on for that matter) don't impair my hearing.  I have a set of noise isolating earbuds that cost over $100 that I use with my ipods and are awesome.  They are great for flying and working out.  They are totally different than my handsfree earbuds.  Hopefully the commissioner hears my argument and agrees with me.  My hearing wasn't impaired at all, not even by a few decibels (IMHO).  But if the commissioner feels what I was doing was truly unsafe and explains it to me I am totally willing to accept that.  I just hope I don't get found guilty with no explanation and a decision made without thinking about the situation (even if it i for just a few seconds) ,and that it is somewhat "unique" and some "digesting" of the arguments made.   :-\  well see what happens, I fear that sometimes traffic enforcement is a revenue generating process and not a safety enforcement process.

Oh, I was able to track down on the net how much the bail is.

It's $99 and I *believe* it's not a moving violation.  I didn't fully understand the table I was reading (it was a 240+ page pdf and I didn't feel like reading all the pages explaining the tables (25+ pages), I'll do that later...

The operative words in that particular line of the code is BOTH EARS.  You can't have both ears covered, exceptions for earplugs notwithstanding.

+1 on ticketassassin.  I'd give it a fight just for the hell of it.

i dont really think your argument of it not even being on will hold, just because he caught you when it was not in use doesnt mean that it is not illegal. earbuds are earbuds, most hands free headsets are only a single earbud because its illegal to wear them in both ears while driving. the only reason headphone style earbuds that go in both ears are popular for phones now is because they play music and are replacing peoples standalone mp3 players, but that doesnt mean that it is safe or legal to use both while driving.

now i agree that the cop really handled the situation the wrong way, ive had a cop pull me over from a group of 15 cars cruising down the street and have him tell me that he was going to make an example of me.  that case got thrown out because of the cops lack of professionalism.  so i would use that angle.

After having a day to digest this, yeah, I wouldn't have been pissed if the cop wasn't a dick.  If he dropped the attitude and said something along the lines of, 'the law is that you can't have both ears covered due to safety, so you can hear traffic noises.  I understand that you use this for your phone, but still the law is the law.'  Anything like that would've been fine.  I would have been irked and kinda pissed that I have to pay a fine and I was trying to comply with the new law, but whatever.  It's not a moving violation, that's my main concern.

But that's not what happened, I felt like I was 12 again and a pissed off, grumpy adult who is not my family was chastising me.  Not for my benefit, but so they can get their jollies off  :-\

$99, I don't know if I am going to fight it or not, I guess I might as well do a trial by written declaration.  That doesn't cost me that much time.  I'll state why I don't think I deserve the ticket because I was trying to comply with the handsfree law and I wasn't using the earbuds for music.  I hope the commissioner actually 'thinks' about this one instead of just throwing a guilty verdict out there and collecting $$.  In my argument I guess in one way I will be basically saying that I did have the earbuds in both ears...I guess it's totally up to the commissioner...I'm probably make the beast with two backsed