GPS use allegedly nets Arcata man ticket

I would rather you pay the fine than have MY kid crying their eyes out because you plowed into us while using your GPS.

Maybe I need to get one of those dash mount GPS units so that I can not get lost taking the back route through Eureka to avoid Broadway and Old Town?

But if the law says "cell phone," and it is provably NOT a "cell phone," then the driver is innocent no matter how badly the officer wants to meet his quota.

This kind of incident shows extremely badly trained police officers in Eureka; it is not up to the officer to rewrite or expand the law to fit what they think it should be. It is the job of a police officer to determine the facts and apply the law as written to them.

Arcatan wrote:

But if the law says "cell phone," and it is provably NOT a "cell phone," then the driver is innocent no matter how badly the officer wants to meet his quota.
This kind of incident shows extremely badly trained police officers in Eureka; it is not up to the officer to rewrite or expand the law to fit what they think it should be. It is the job of a police officer to determine the facts and apply the law as written to them.

It's not limited to just cell phones. Simply, from the DMV website: The new Wireless Communications Device Law (effective January 1, 2009) makes it an infraction to write, send, or read text-based communication on an electronic wireless communications device, such as a cell phone, while driving a motor vehicle.

No information here from the officer who wrote the ticket other than the driver quoting him as saying “I'm just doing my job.”

Unless there was some other violation related to his being distracted, which isn't mentioned in the article, he'll get the thing dismissed. Or maybe there was also a cellphone on the seat near the GPS when the copper walked up, which the driver forgot to tell us, in which case it's a toss-up.

Arcatan wrote:

It is the job of a police officer to determine the facts and apply the law as written to them.

No, it's the job of the officer to write what he observed. It's the court that decides on the facts and applies the law. Like I said, unless there happened to also be a cellphone on the seat or close by, it'll most likely get dismissed.

This is news? WTF?

Anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not limited to just cell phones. Simply, from the DMV website: The new Wireless Communications Device Law (effective January 1, 2009) makes it an infraction to write, send, or read text-based communication on an electronic wireless communications device, such as a cell phone, while driving a motor vehicle.

A GPS device is not a "communications" device, nor is reading GPS data "communications," which are typically limited to transporting information between people. Nor are icons "text." The text of the law says specifically: "...such as text-messaging, instant messaging, and email." Not GPS. Not reading the time on your watch. Not even reading, writing or entering a telephone number on a wireless device while driving.

Retired fuzz wrote:

<quoted text>No, it's the job of the officer to write what he observed. It's the court that decides on the facts and applies the law. Like I said, unless there happened to also be a cellphone on the seat or close by, it'll most likely get dismissed.

No. You are wrong. If the police officer did not apply the law to his or her determination of the facts, then he or she would not even know if a law were violated.

"(b) As used in this section “write, send, or read a text-based
communication” means using an electronic wireless communications device
to manually communicate with any person using a text-based
communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to
as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail."

Directly from the law. The Eureka Police Officer who gave out the ticket--if the facts in the article were correct and complete--need retraining.

That's messed up. It is not a communications device at all. He was stopped at a stop light using it not driving so how was he going to rear end someone when he is already stopped? We saw cops do it all the time and everybody knows they do it just cause they can get away with it. Just like they go over the speed limit in town and in the 50 mile an hour corridor case they know they can get away with it. Maria Shriver was caught talking on her cell phone, I bet she didn't even get a ticket.

Arcatan is right. And it is worrying if a CHP officer either cannot tell the difference between a GPS and a cell phone, or does not care that he or she is issuing a ticket for no violation of the law.

(I've had two very positive experiences with CHP in the last two years, so I'm not sure what was going on with this officer. But I wonder if there were any bumper stickers on the car. Or perhaps the T-S got this wrong, and it was actually EPD. Then it would make perfect sense.)

I just read post #5. I should have known it was EPD -- after all, this was a T-S "reporter" at work.

Seems as if we all are getting away from the intent of the law... the intent seems to be that when you are operating a motor vehicle, that needs to be your sole focus. It shouldnt matter if you are texting, reading the paper, cleaning your glasses, applying make-up... DONT DO IT WHILE DRIVING A VEHICLE!

The fact that Law Enforcement is exempt from this really does piss me off. I doubt that everytime I see an officer driving around with a cell glued to his ear that he is being work related confidential information that cannot be transmitted over the radio.

Make that post #10. I'd swear it was #5 a second ago. Anyway, it appears from the comments that it was EPD, not CHP. The officer doesn't need retraining; he needs firing. EPD's attitudes still show through.

Stephanie wrote:

That's messed up. It is not a communications device at all. He was stopped at a stop light using it not driving so how was he going to rear end someone when he is already stopped? We saw cops do it all the time and everybody knows they do it just cause they can get away with it. Just like they go over the speed limit in town and in the 50 mile an hour corridor case they know they can get away with it. Maria Shriver was caught talking on her cell phone, I bet she didn't even get a ticket.

This is the most ludicrous arguement I have ever heard. Did you even read the article? I think you are dumber than a bag of rocks.

So, a guy who lives here needs GPS to tell him if he's going to get to the golf course on time? He couldn't look at his watch? Sounds a little weak. Kind of like some one who was calling his wife trying to come up with a way out of a ticket.

I see so many people still using their cell phones pressed up against their heads. They turn their heads while keeping it firmly up against their heads.

I'm sure that his cell phone records will indicate that he was not receiving or making a call. He is just going to have to have his day in court.

Go after the real abusers of the hands free cell phone law. Set up at a particular intersection and you will get your quota of tickets in no time. Maybe then we can chip away at the overspending of our state, county and city governments.

So if this guy was at a redlight or a stop sign reading a map would he have got a ticket? Thats about what he was doing, reading a electronic map. He should get his cell phone records, go to court and then sue for lost wages time and milage.

This is what happens when you can only get the lower 50% of society to wear a badge and given the personal discretion to use deadly force.

The Times Standard should have reported the officer's badge number and name as well.

He ought to be discharged so he can "just do his job" in some big city where his attitude belongs.