Using hands free, but police say he was holding phone

[DHE]

I had this message of a friend earlier, asking if there is any way he can show he was using the hands free in his van.

'He followed me for about half a mile then pulled me over, informed me he had observed me talking on the phone and was I aware it was not allowed, I said I thought hands free was permitted to which he said I observed you with your phone against your left ear and proceeded to issue me with a fixed penalty notification.'

So he faces the prospect of a fine and six points for something he said he didn't do.

Is there anything he can do to show he was using the hands free? He has already raised the issue with the policemans sargeant who has said if he wishes to contest it, he has the option to go to court.

Vauxhall have told him the van doesn't log if the hands free option is used.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

[HantsRat]

When he says he was using handfree... Does he mean holding the phone with it on speaker?

If not, like you mentioned he will have to contest it at court.

[DHE]

He says he was using the bluetooth facility in the van, wasn't touching the phone.

[V8LM]

DHE said:

I'He followed me for about half a mile then pulled me over, informed me he had observed me talking on the phone and was I aware it was not allowed, I said I thought hands free was permitted to which he said I observed you with your phone against your left ear and proceeded to issue me with a fixed penalty notification.'

No choice other than contest it in court.

If stopped for using BT handsfree then I'm surprised his first response was "I thought hands free was permitted" rather than "I'm using handsfree. Look. The phone is here in my pocket/glovebox/bag and look, it's connected via BT to the van."

[catman]

If he was only using hands free, how did the Police know that he was using the phone?

Tim

[fastbikes76]

Has the van got rear windows or solid doors like most ?

[DHE]

fastbikes76 said:

Has the van got rear windows or solid doors like most ?

Solid rear doors.

catman said:

If he was only using hands free, how did the Police know that he was using the phone?

Tim

Says he drew level with the copper at a roundabout and was stopped half a mile later.

[Joeguard1990]

If your friend is telling the truth then tell him to go to court and contest it.

Nothing else he can do.

Thought I doubt the policeman would just blatantly lie and make something like that up...

[poo at Paul's]

How would plod know he was on phone if he was not holding it. Answer, he wouldn't. Hence, you mate was holding the phone.

If plod stopped him and said he was on phone as he was talking and no one was in the cab, your mate would just say he was singling along to 1D.

So I can see no rational explanation for the copper knowing he was on the phone, (as he was) unless he was holding a phone or had it up by his ear / shoulder. Sadly, I think if your mate contested it in Court, any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion.

[Mandat]

poo at Paul's said:

How would plod know he was on phone if he was not holding it. Answer, he wouldn't. Hence, you mate was holding the phone.

If plod stopped him and said he was on phone as he was talking and no one was in the cab, your mate would just say he was singling along to 1D.

So I can see no rational explanation for the copper knowing he was on the phone, (as he was) unless he was holding a phone or had it up by his ear / shoulder. Sadly, I think if your mate contested it in Court, any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion.

I'd counter that by saying that it is entirely possible that the bib saw the tell tale glow of a phone screen through the van side window, ratehr than seeing an actual phone in the driver's hand.

The point is that even when using a BT connection, the phone screen can be active and glowing when a call is being made or is in progress.

The problem is going to be to convince the bib or the judge that the bib was mistaken in their observations.

[98elise]

poo at Paul's said:

How would plod know he was on phone if he was not holding it. Answer, he wouldn't. Hence, you mate was holding the phone.

If plod stopped him and said he was on phone as he was talking and no one was in the cab, your mate would just say he was singling along to 1D.

So I can see no rational explanation for the copper knowing he was on the phone, (as he was) unless he was holding a phone or had it up by his ear / shoulder. Sadly, I think if your mate contested it in Court, any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion.

I'm pretty sure I read a story on PH where someone was stopped by the police for using his phone. Only two problems with that....

1. The person did not own a mobile phone
2. The person was deaf and could not have used a phone held to his ear.

The police can sometimes be mistaken (or lie)

[Nickyboy]

98elise said:

I'm pretty sure I read a story on PH where someone was stopped by the police for using his phone. Only two problems with that....

1. The person did not own a mobile phone
2. The person was deaf and could not have used a phone held to his ear.

The police can sometimes be mistaken (or lie)

Or the person was on/using their phone and is now trying to find a way out of it.

[anonymous-user]

Nickyboy said:

98elise said:

I'm pretty sure I read a story on PH where someone was stopped by the police for using his phone. Only two problems with that....

1. The person did not own a mobile phone
2. The person was deaf and could not have used a phone held to his ear.

The police can sometimes be mistaken (or lie)

Or the person was on/using their phone and is now trying to find a way out of it.

Yeah and sometimes I lean on my hand or rub my ear or head etc which 'looks' suspicious so 'I must be on the phone'.
I'd prefer to stick with 98elise's last paragraph.

[hondansx]

Must admit, if I was wrongly accused, I would not be letting the police officer leave until they have backed now. There would be no way I would be accepting a fine for something I didn't do without going absolutely ape s*it, because in reality, going to court means you lose - one word against another means the police win.

I'm of the view that your mate is fibbing. What stopped him showing the call log on the car/van's touchscreen? What stopped him demonstrating that the phone was clearly linked to bluetooth? What stopped him making a call through the car/van to demonstrate it is connected to Bluetooth and it was therefore impossible to use the phone as the call would be using the car/van's mic and speakers?

[vonhosen]

hondansx said:

Must admit, if I was wrongly accused, I would not be letting the police officer leave until they have backed now. There would be no way I would be accepting a fine for something I didn't do without going absolutely ape s*it, because in reality, going to court means you lose - one word against another means the police win.

I'm of the view that your mate is fibbing. What stopped him showing the call log on the car/van's touchscreen? What stopped him demonstrating that the phone was clearly linked to bluetooth? What stopped him making a call through the car/van to demonstrate it is connected to Bluetooth and it was therefore impossible to use the phone as the call would be using the car/van's mic and speakers?

How are you going to stop them leaving exactly?
It doesn't matter whether somebody 'accepts a fine' or not at the point of being stopped.
There are mechanisms for both scenarios.

[hondansx]

Refuse to take the ticket, stand in front of his car, whatever it took to give me the time to rationally explain my defence. Not that hard, really.

However, I have never had to resort to this, and have found the police reasonable to talk to in almost all cases. Which is why I think the OP's mate is fibbing.

[Greendubber]

hondansx said:

Refuse to take the ticket, stand in front of his car, whatever it took to give me the time to rationally explain my defence. Not that hard, really.

If this ever happens be sure to let us know how it turns out.

[WolvesWill]

hondansx said:

Must admit, if I was wrongly accused, I would not be letting the police officer leave until they have backed now. There would be no way I would be accepting a fine for something I didn't do without going absolutely ape s*it, because in reality, going to court means you lose - one word against another means the police win.

I'm of the view that your mate is fibbing. What stopped him showing the call log on the car/van's touchscreen? What stopped him demonstrating that the phone was clearly linked to bluetooth? What stopped him making a call through the car/van to demonstrate it is connected to Bluetooth and it was therefore impossible to use the phone as the call would be using the car/van's mic and speakers?

The officers don't necessarily need to give you a ticket or a fine at the scene for a lot of minor traffic offences, so whether you 'accept' any ticket alleged offence or not doesn't really matter. Many motoring offences can be dealt with by officers issuing a ticket (not necessarily a fine or fixed penality itself), or alternatively by issuing a verbal notification of intended prosecution and then completing a traffic process report later (where you'll get a letter in the post at a later date).

Even if they do give you a ticket, a refusal to sign it or accept it does not mean you cannot dealt with for the offence. All they need to do is confirm your identity (and bear in mind that, if they cannot do this, then arrest may be deemed necessary...you can be arrested for *any* offence providing the necessity criteria as set out by PACE Code G is met).

How exactly do you think you'll stop the officers leaving unless they backed down? How do you think that would work out for you, especially given your suggestion of going 'ape st'?

[vonhosen]

hondansx said:

Refuse to take the ticket, stand in front of his car, whatever it took to give me the time to rationally explain my defence. Not that hard, really.

It doesn't matter whether you take the ticket or not, if they are reporting you for an offence you are getting reported whether you take physical possession or not. Adding obstruction isn't going to help your situation.

[hondansx]

I think you're mistaking me for a 'dominating the staircase' kind of bloke. The point I was trying to get across is that - surely - anyone who is genuinely accused of something they did not do would stand up for themselves.

Am I wrong in thinking it would be absurd for someone to take a ticket with a smile, and appear in court for doing nothing wrong?