Police error, complaint upheld, doing me anyway! Defend?!

[NoNeed]

It doesn't matter if the OP was on the phone as the question asked was basically could the officers testimony stand up in court now it has been shown to be false.



I hate people that use the phone while driving but it comes a close second to police officers that claim that holding an object is actually using it. My phone has rand several time while I'm at the wheel and I have got it out to pass to the wife to answer. The police would say I was using when clearly I'm not.

[Viperz888]

HD Adam said:

Can I just ask the OP.

Were you actually on the phone or not?

Of course he was. He would have said by now if he wasn't.

[anonymous-user]

Am I really reading someone complained about not being asked their self-defined and is now trying to get out of an FPN because of it?

I can't think of ever hearing a more rubbish complaint.

[heebeegeetee]

What do we mean by "on the phone"?

[thegoose]

Everyone seems to have missed the point. They don't care that I wasn't in the process of making or receiving a phone call.

I am amazed that everyone thinks it's OK for the police to decide for themselves whether they follow procedures or ignore them, and then go one further and deliberately make up false responses.

[Sargeant Orange]

So you were just texting then

[thegoose]

NoNeed said:

It doesn't matter if the OP was on the phone as the question asked was basically could the officers testimony stand up in court now it has been shown to be false.



I hate people that use the phone while driving but it comes a close second to police officers that claim that holding an object is actually using it. My phone has rand several time while I'm at the wheel and I have got it out to pass to the wife to answer. The police would say I was using when clearly I'm not.

Thanks for your constructive input and actually understanding my original query. If anyone can help answer this I'd be grateful.

[King Eric]

Had the officer reported you for summons they would have just written down your description and not asked your self defined ethnicity. I'd imagine! And it would not be a non event.

The reprimand would have resulted in Krispy Kremes being bought for their bosses the following night. A most heinous crime.

[NoNeed]

thegoose said:

Thanks for your constructive input and actually understanding my original query. If anyone can help answer this I'd be grateful.

I think a solicitor who specialises in this field would be the way forward as this forum tends to be a little one sided on these matters. The initial consultation maybe free or cover by ordinary household insurance if you have legal cover on that.

[NoNeed]

King Eric said:

Had the officer reported you for summons they would have just written down your description and not asked your self defined ethnicity. I'd imagine! And it would not be a non event.

The reprimand would have resulted in Krispy Kremes being bought for their bosses the following night. A most heinous crime.

I would imagine a solicitor asking a question along the lines of. If the officer cannot correctly record the ethnicity of a suspect when the suspect is not only being detained but also being compliant, how can the officer be so sure that that person was indeed committing the offence.

[Red 4]

thegoose said:

Everyone seems to have missed the point. They don't care that I wasn't in the process of making or receiving a phone call.

I am amazed that everyone thinks it's OK for the police to decide for themselves whether they follow procedures or ignore them, and then go one further and deliberately make up false responses.

I think most people got the point. Your original post carefully avoided mentioning whether or not you were using a mobile phone whilst driving.

Your defence was based on the officer ticking the wrong box concerning your ethnicity.

Go to court and argue your case if you think you have one. Based on what I have read so far you are clutching at straws in my opinion.

Are you accusing the officer of lying because she ticked the wrong box ? Were you or weren't you using a mobile ? This includes texting/ reading a text, etc. ... it's a simple question.

Edited by Red 4 on Monday 9th September 23:25

[Some Gump]

Op, are you looking for a loophole or to play a race card?
Strikes me that your race has no impact on whether you were on the phone or not, the art of holding a phone whilst driving seems to be fairly constant whether the driver is white, eskimo, chinese, chimpanzee or french.

[Terminator X]

I've been stopped by the police as they saw me using a mobile. It was in the back of the car in my jacket pocket! Thankfully they reasonably "let me off" as if it goes to Court and it's your word vs theirs you is fked.

TX.

[ging84]

thegoose said:

Everyone seems to have missed the point. They don't care that I wasn't in the process of making or receiving a phone call.

I am amazed that everyone thinks it's OK for the police to decide for themselves whether they follow procedures or ignore them, and then go one further and deliberately make up false responses.

Why did you not just say this in the first place, assuming you were also not using it in any other way, such as texting, tweeting, downloading porn etc, then you could move on to the issue about how you might form a defence for being accused of using a phone when you were not.

Unless you feel that somehow the officer misrecording your ethnicity prejudices the case, or undermines your ability to form a defence then move on.

[Blue Oval84]

If you weren't using the phone then go to court and defend it, complete with phone bills etc.

If you were using it then just take the awareness course...

[Terminator X]

Phone bills won't help as it's an offence to even touch the phone with ignition on.

TX.

[IanA2]

Does anyone no whether the OP's statement that he was told that even holding the phone is an offence, is true. I ask as I use TonTom on an iPhone (brilliant by the way) and sometimes I have to adjust it (press a button or two) whilst it's in its GPS holder thingy. So I am "operating" a phone, but am I committing an offence?

[streaky]

Terminator X said:

Phone bills won't help as it's an offence to even touch the phone with ignition on.

TX.

No. It. Is. Not.

In regard to the production of evidence in the form of a ill, the argument has oft been advanced, that the accused could also have a PAYG 'phone, or another contract 'phone ... the bill for which they do not adduce.

Streaky

[anonymous-user]

NoNeed said:

thegoose said:

Thanks for your constructive input and actually understanding my original query. If anyone can help answer this I'd be grateful.

I think a solicitor who specialises in this field would be the way forward as this forum tends to be a little one sided on these matters. The initial consultation maybe free or cover by ordinary household insurance if you have legal cover on that.

The OP has already had free advice here from a solicitor expert in this field. It wasn't the advice the OP wanted, so he keeps asking the same question, but the answer won't change.

[340600]

NoNeed said:

I hate people that use the phone while driving but it comes a close second to police officers that claim that holding an object is actually using it. My phone has rand several time while I'm at the wheel and I have got it out to pass to the wife to answer. The police would say I was using when clearly I'm not.

That's the legislation. As soon as you pick the phone up while driving you commit the offence.