Looking up exact laws

[YouWouldKnow]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I saw that someone posted:

"No. ORC § 4511.21(C) states:
It is prima-facie unlawful for any person to exceed any of the speed limitations in divisions (B)(1)(a), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of this section, or any declared or established pursuant to this section by the director or local authorities and it is unlawful for any person to exceed any of the speed limitations in division (D) of this section. No person shall be convicted of more than one violation of this section for the same conduct, although violations of more than one provision of this section may be charged in the alternative in a single affidavit."


I've been looking on how to look up specific laws like this but I can't seem to find anything online. You know how he stated "No. ORC § 4511.21(C)" how do I find specific laws like that? Is that information online or do I need to buy a book. By the way I live in California and am trying to look up a specific traffic law. If someone could point me to a tutorial online or a website or book, that would be much appreciated.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I saw that someone posted:

"No. ORC § 4511.21(C) states:
It is prima-facie unlawful for any person to exceed any of the speed limitations in divisions (B)(1)(a), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of this section, or any declared or established pursuant to this section by the director or local authorities and it is unlawful for any person to exceed any of the speed limitations in division (D) of this section. No person shall be convicted of more than one violation of this section for the same conduct, although violations of more than one provision of this section may be charged in the alternative in a single affidavit."


I've been looking on how to look up specific laws like this but I can't seem to find anything online. You know how he stated "No. ORC § 4511.21(C)" how do I find specific laws like that? Is that information online or do I need to buy a book. By the way I live in California and am trying to look up a specific traffic law. If someone could point me to a tutorial online or a website or book, that would be much appreciated.

What specific traffic law are you trying to look up?

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I saw that someone posted:

"No. ORC § 4511.21(C) states:
It is prima-facie unlawful for any person to exceed any of the speed limitations in divisions (B)(1)(a), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of this section, or any declared or established pursuant to this section by the director or local authorities and it is unlawful for any person to exceed any of the speed limitations in division (D) of this section. No person shall be convicted of more than one violation of this section for the same conduct, although violations of more than one provision of this section may be charged in the alternative in a single affidavit."


I've been looking on how to look up specific laws like this but I can't seem to find anything online. You know how he stated "No. ORC § 4511.21(C)" how do I find specific laws like that? Is that information online or do I need to buy a book. By the way I live in California and am trying to look up a specific traffic law. If someone could point me to a tutorial online or a website or book, that would be much appreciated.

Google California traffic codes/laws.

 

[YouWouldKnow]

What specific traffic law are you trying to look up?

I'm trying to look up the law for talking on a cell phone while driving. Also I've always been curious on the exact law for speeding as well

 

[Zigner]

I'm trying to look up the law for talking on a cell phone while driving. Also I've always been curious on the exact law for speeding as well

Do web searches for California speeding traffic law and California law cell phones while driving

ETA: More than one law covers "speeding", so you'd have to be a bit more specific.

 

[YouWouldKnow]

Do web searches for California speeding traffic law and California law cell phones while driving

ETA: More than one law covers "speeding", so you'd have to be a bit more specific.

Thanks, I was able to find this....


ARTICLE 1. Driving Offenses [23100 - 23135] ( Heading of Article 1 added by Stats. 1981, Ch. 940, Sec. 9. )

23123.5.
(a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device unless the wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation, and it is used in that manner while driving.
(b) This section shall not apply to manufacturer-installed systems that are embedded in the vehicle.
(c) A handheld wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device may be operated in a manner requiring the use of the driver’s hand while the driver is operating the vehicle only if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The handheld wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device is mounted on a vehicle’s windshield in the same manner a portable Global Positioning System (GPS) is mounted pursuant to paragraph (12) of subdivision (b) of Section 26708 or is mounted on or affixed to a vehicle’s dashboard or center console in a manner that does not hinder the driver’s view of the road.
(2) The driver’s hand is used to activate or deactivate a feature or function of the handheld wireless telephone or wireless communications device with the motion of a single swipe or tap of the driver’s finger.
(d) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.
(e) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using an electronic wireless communications device while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.
(f) For the purposes of this section, “electronic wireless communications device” includes, but is not limited to, a broadband personal communication device, a specialized mobile radio device, a handheld device or laptop computer with mobile data access, a pager, or a two-way messaging device.
(Repealed and added by Stats. 2016, Ch. 660, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2017.)


I'm just confused on a couple of things:
A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) - I am confused because my dad got this ticket and they are charging him way over 20 dollars

(Repealed and added by Stats. 2016, Ch. 660, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2017.) - What does this mean? does this mean that this information is outdated or that is was recently changed?

 

[YouWouldKnow]

Google California traffic codes/laws.

Thanks I was able to find this website, and it seems good...... htp://leginfo.legislature.ca.govv

 

[Zigner]

The base fine is the fine. The court adds on all sorts of fees, etc. That's why it was "way more".

 

[YouWouldKnow]

The base fine is the fine. The court adds on all sorts of fees, etc. That's why it was "way more".

Okay thanks, I really appreciate it.

If I wanted to mention a law in court such as 23123.5(b) .... How would I formally do that, would I have to say "Vehicle code-Division 11-Chapter twelve-23123.5-b" or would I just say "code 23123.5 dash b" or how would you say it?

 

[Zigner]

Okay thanks, I really appreciate it.

If I wanted to mention a law in court such as 23123.5(b) .... How would I formally do that, would I have to say "Vehicle code-Division 11-Chapter twelve-23123.5-b" or would I just say "code 23123.5 dash b" or how would you say it?

Do you have a matter coming up in court? If not, then the question is moot.

 

[YouWouldKnow]

Do you have a matter coming up in court? If not, then the question is moot.

Ya I do, so I was curious on how to formally address a law, in case I want to use one

 

[Zigner]

Ya I do, so I was curious on how to formally address a law, in case I want to use one

What were you charged with? It would be on the citation.
Also...what is your defense?

 

[YouWouldKnow]

What were you charged with? It would be on the citation.
Also...what is your defense?

I was charged with 23123(a) And my defense would probably be to look at the proof that officer has, which I am assuming would have to proof that I am holding a cellphone, which seems very hard to do, unless he has a high quality video/picture of a cellphone in my hand.

But let's say that somehow he does have that proof then. I might use 23123(f) "This section does not apply to a person while driving a motor vehicle on private property".... because I was in a shopping center at the time

Or I might try to use: 23123.5(c) "A handheld wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device may be operated in a manner requiring the use of the driver’s hand while the driver is operating the vehicle only if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The handheld wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device is mounted on a vehicle’s windshield in the same manner a portable Global Positioning System (GPS) is mounted pursuant to paragraph (12) of subdivision (b) of Section 26708 or is mounted on or affixed to a vehicle’s dashboard or center console in a manner that does not hinder the driver’s view of the road.
(2) The driver’s hand is used to activate or deactivate a feature or function of the handheld wireless telephone or wireless communications device with the motion of a single swipe or tap of the driver’s finger"

 

[Zigner]

I was charged with 23123(a) And my defense would probably be to look at the proof that officer has, which I am assuming would have to proof that I am holding a cellphone...

And THAT is where I'm going to stop you. If you were holding the cellphone, then you're guilty of the charge and the rest doesn't matter. You need to understand that the testimony of the officer is "evidence" and is all the evidence they really need.

ETA: Successfully arguing that it is private property is likely going to be problematic and beyond your ability. You may wish to hire an attorney.

 

[YouWouldKnow]

And THAT is where I'm going to stop you. If you were holding the cellphone, then you're guilty of the charge and the rest doesn't matter. You need to understand that the testimony of the officer is "evidence" and is all the evidence they really need.

ETA: Successfully arguing that it is private property is likely going to be problematic and beyond your ability. You may wish to hire an attorney.

The testimony of the officer is evidence, so that means that his "word" is evidence? Wouldn't that be problimatic especially since officer's now have quotas, therefore directly giving them a biased position on the case. Doesn't the officer need to prove that I am guilty before I am charged, because I have the right of "due processing"?