Stopped by Gards..... Quick question.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

TheNog

ninty9er wrote: »

You might want to check that. If you are resident in Ireland more than 12 months, a foreign driving licence is invalid if you want to become technical about it. Your insurance company can (and probably should) refuse to cover you, however they are in the business of making money so turn a blind eye.

I was examined on this by a risk underwriter on Tuesday.

I asked someone in the motor tax office the same question. All EU issued licences are valid in any EU country until they expire. He told me the exact regulation but can't remember it.

No Pants

Are there any keyloggers for phones? One of those would be useful, depending on the functionality and cheaper than a dashcam.

guil

No Pants wrote: »

Are there any keyloggers for phones? One of those would be useful, depending on the functionality and cheaper than a dashcam.

That's still pointless. You don't have to use the phone to be fined for it.

No Pants

guil wrote: »

That's still pointless. You don't have to use the phone to be fined for it.

Yes, but you're damaging the credibility of the Guard's case by showing that the phone isn't being used in any way. Your motive for holding the phone is gone. The Guard now has to claim that you were driving around, holding your phone for no reason what so ever. That's a big difference in my opinion. Of course, I'm not a judge.

The J Stands for Jay

guil wrote: »

Audio recording would prove nothing. The offence isn't using the phone. It's holding it. Unless you put a camera on the far side of the dash pointing at you there is SFA you can do to prove you weren't holding the phone.

I was recently given a Chinese dash-cam with dual cameras; one rear facing to record the interior of the car. Suddenly I can see why you'd want that.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

No Pants

Fred Swanson wrote: »

You would get no where in a district court with that. You have to remember that a Gardas word is law in a DC.

On appeal to the circuit you may have more luck. Also there is always a chance that the Gardaí will fold when they hear an appeal is happening. It costs the state money to defend appeals.

I've never been inside a court room and if I never make it for the rest of my life, that's fine with me.

grainnewhale

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Say the judge was stopped by the gardai for speeding or talking on his phone or having a few whiskies, you could be lucky, most of them are nuts anyways.

Thomas D

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not my experience at all in the District court. Depends on the judge of course.

kbell

If your phone is black, carry a cheap white spare in the car with you ( or the other way around)
If stopped and guard says he saw you on phone, ask him what colour is the phone that he saw you using?
If he replies white, produce the black phone or vise versa.
If he says he doesn't know, then ask him how does he know it was a phone then..

Banjo String

kbell wrote: »

If your phone is black, carry a cheap white spare in the car with you ( or the other way around)
If stopped and guard says he saw you on phone, ask him what colour is the phone that he saw you using?
If he replies white, produce the black phone or vise versa.
If he says he doesn't know, then ask him how does he know it was a phone then..

Well this happened on Wednesday morning. Nothing in the post this evening.

I discussed this with a few colleagues and customers today. I've been advised, encouraged actually to, "go the whole way".

One customer in particular summed it up well when he said that without evidence, and only their word to go by, what would I do if I was stopped 5days a week and accused (wrongly) each time? He said it'd be an expensive pastime to have job lol.

I'm going to defend myself on this. I'm going to go to court with pictures of my hands free set up, and basically tell the judge the truth, and that I actually felt harassed by the two gards on the day.

We'll see how it goes.

GreeBo

while I sympathise with the OP, how can anyone possibly be convicted under this current legislation?
are the police to be limited to stopping crimes only when they have photographic evidence now?

ironclaw

Banjo String wrote: »

One customer in particular summed it up well when he said that without evidence, .

A Garda's word is evidence. Some people don't realise that. Especially if there was two of them in the car. Pretty much infallible by the letter of the law.

billie1b

Cabaal wrote: »

phone bill records will show if you sent any texts or made any calls,

However the phone bill records won't show inbound stuff, this will only be on the phone and can easily be modified (deleted) so not sure how accepting a court may be of it.

My phone bill shows me inbound/outbound calls and texts and mms messages, even 3g connection

pippip

I wonder how it would stand In future cases if a guard was proved wrong with the aid of a camera as mentioned above.

I think if this became more common the guards might start only fining drivers that they are CERTAIN were on the phone.

Banjo String

ironclaw wrote: »

A Garda's word is evidence. Some people don't realise that. Especially if there was two of them in the car. Pretty much infallible by the letter of the law.

Eh. Might explain why they do be in bother without actual evidence in other cases at times.

Couldn't a Garda pick anyone on the street they had a grudge against and pretty much charge them with anything if this were the case

ironclaw

Banjo String wrote: »

Eh. Might explain why they do be in bother without actual evidence in other cases at times.

Couldn't a Garda pick anyone on the street they had a grudge against and pretty much charge them with anything if this were the case

It is the case. I'm not making it up. In court, if it came down to your word against a Garda (i.e. A guardian of the State and all its laws) you will lose. Especially if there are two Garda willing to go under oath and say they saw what they saw.

dr.fuzzenstein

GreeBo wrote: »

while I sympathise with the OP, how can anyone possibly be convicted under this current legislation?
are the police to be limited to stopping crimes only when they have photographic evidence now?

Maybe this will even help, in other countries the police have cameras on them, the video footage will support their evidence.
Unlike in this country, where Garda O'Shaughnessey can go to court and say "Ah jaysus, 'tis him alright, I saw him and t'was him what done it, alright" and the judge says "because of Garda O'Shaughnessey's irrefutable evidence, we will send you to 500 hours of hard labour for Board Na Mona now!"
Remember what happened in Donegal!
The Morris tribunal was not set up for fun, you know.
No police force on earth should have absolute sway over the courts, once that happens, we should start organising to get rid of the state, because this sort of 3rd world, banana setup can only end up with people being hung from the ceiling by their nipples, whilst having their genitals gently electrocuted by 220 volt.
I volunteer to fly the first plane into Leinster House. Nothing but rats and wasters in there.

Thomas D

ironclaw wrote: »

A Garda's word is evidence. Some people don't realise that. Especially if there was two of them in the car. Pretty much infallible by the letter of the law.

So why biter with police work at all when they can just turn up to court and say he's guilty because I saw him. Their witness testimony is no better or worse than any person. You will not find any law that says their evidence should receive a greater weighting.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ironclaw

Thomas D wrote: »

So why biter with police work at all when they can just turn up to court and say he's guilty because I saw him. Their witness testimony is no better or worse than any person. You will not find any law that says their evidence should receive a greater weighting.

I'm pretty sure most legal systems place the word of certain individuals above the populous i.e. Judges, Police officers, Guardians of the Peace etc. Also, some legal systems (Portugal and Spain I believe?) place the onus on you to prove you are innocent i.e. You are considered guilty under cleared, which is the reverse of here where you must be proven guilty.

Obviously the crime must be befitting of the court and offence in question i.e. A Garda would not solely prosecute someone for murder. However, an €80 fine and two points in a district court, its enough. As a tax payer, would you want a more rigourous and therefore expensive means of issuing points for simple offenses? If it annoys someone that much that a Garda can issue you a fine for holding your phone etc then just buy a dashcam. One 'wrong' conviction alone will pay for it.

Banjo String

Ok. Fine arrived.

Firstly, I wasn't holding or using a phone at the time of alleged offence, I have an inter grated bluetooth system.

Secondly, the gard in question couldn't even copy my name correctly from the driving license he had in his possession for over 10 minutes.

For God sake lads, how can he be trusted in court to say what he seen from a moving vehicle, travelling at speed, in the opposite direction of me, when he can't even copy a name correctly from something he holds in his hands for over 10 mins?

I'm seriously considering defending this in court now.

Thomas D

ironclaw wrote: »

I'm pretty sure most legal systems place the word of certain individuals above the populous i.e. Judges, Police officers, Guardians of the Peace etc. Also, some legal systems (Portugal and Spain I believe?) place the onus on you to prove you are innocent i.e. You are considered guilty under cleared, which is the reverse of here where you must be proven guilty.

Obviously the crime must be befitting of the court and offence in question i.e. A Garda would not solely prosecute someone for murder. However, an €80 fine and two points in a district court, its enough. As a tax payer, would you want a more rigourous and therefore expensive means of issuing points for simple offenses? If it annoys someone that much that a Garda can issue you a fine for holding your phone etc then just buy a dashcam. One 'wrong' conviction alone will pay for it.

No common law legal systems do.

Well, you are then back at "well why would a garda lie?" "What does he gain by lying?"

Agents of the state are always given more credance esp in the lower courts.

Why do they only achieve a 50% prosecution rate for drink driving then? Pure nonsense.
They gain proescutions which is good for the CV. They could also have a vendetta against someone and make stuff up which is known to happen.

Sounds like you may have grounds to contest it. I'd speak to someone who knows best( ie a solicitor) and not rely on posters in here. Good luck.

Kristopherus

Banjo String wrote: »

Ok. Fine arrived.

Firstly, I wasn't holding or using a phone at the time of alleged offence, I have an inter grated bluetooth system.

Secondly, the gard in question couldn't even copy my name correctly from the driving license he had in his possession for over 10 minutes.

For God sake lads, how can he be trusted in court to say what he seen from a moving vehicle, travelling at speed, in the opposite direction of me, when he can't even copy a name correctly from something he holds in his hands for over 10 mins?

I'm seriously considering defending this in court now.

Well, you're that much down now anyway. You should now contact a solicitor to see if your theory will stand up in court.

ted1

ardinn wrote: »

If your phone records can prove at the time of the incident you were not using your phone then go to court. I wouldnt give them the satisfaction, but if he didnt give you any paperwork then I dont know if he even proceeded with the fine, But I may be wrong.

Anyway - maybe give the station a ring and speak with the sergeant on duty and see what he says!

They can't prove that he wasn't, he may have been typing a text, reading a text or email from earlier and so on.

Banjo String

ted1 wrote: »

They can't prove that he wasn't, he may have been typing a text, reading a text or email from earlier and so on.

The gard in question was pretty adamant that he seen me using my phone. "Holding it up to my ear" to be precise.

Conveniently enough (maybe stock fine description) the 60 fine (I originally thought he said 80) was for holding a phone.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

dr.fuzzenstein

Banjo String wrote: »

The gard in question was pretty adamant that he seen me using my phone. "Holding it up to my ear" to be precise.

Conveniently enough (maybe stock fine description) the 60 fine (I originally thought he said 80) was for holding a phone.

Well, if you're Ned Flanders and he wrote Ed Flanders, than it clearly wasn't you that got pulled over. Don't try to go in on point of principle and with your good name and defending on a point of honor, just hire a good cute hoor of a solicitor that will get you off on a technicality.
Otherwise the judge will think that you're sore because he will probably know that gard is a right bollocks and that you're trying to get one over on him.
And don't forget, circuit court judges are mostly drunken lunatics you can't trust for 5 seconds.

Banjo String

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, if you're Ned Flanders and he wrote Ed Flanders, than it clearly wasn't you that got pulled over. Don't try to go in on point of principle and with your good name and defending on a point of honor, just hire a good cute hoor of a solicitor that will get you off on a technicality.
Otherwise the judge will think that you're sore because he will probably know that gard is a right bollocks and that you're trying to get one over on him.
And don't forget, circuit court judges are mostly drunken lunatics you can't trust for 5 seconds.

Will a lawyer cost more than the 60 euro fine though

bbam

NotInventedHere wrote: »

Happened me the other day. I am considering going to court as I wasn't in posession of a mobile device and the time on the fixed penalty notice does not match phone usage on my bill. I have zero points at the moment and I would like to keep it that way.

Will your records show you weren't looking at photos or composing a text that you didn't send as you were caught.
I'd be weary going to court. The fine isn't for making a call which you can obviously prove. But can you prove byond doubt you didn't have it in your hand, I think not.

billie1b

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, if you're Ned Flanders and he wrote Ed Flanders, than it clearly wasn't you that got pulled over. Don't try to go in on point of principle and with your good name and defending on a point of honor, just hire a good cute hoor of a solicitor that will get you off on a technicality.
Otherwise the judge will think that you're sore because he will probably know that gard is a right bollocks and that you're trying to get one over on him.
And don't forget, circuit court judges are mostly drunken lunatics you can't trust for 5 seconds.

The mispelling of the name isn't a technicality, they'll just change it over in the court. Also if he shows up to court with the documentation for that fine the judge will obviously know its him, he can hardly say 'its not me your honour but I came with legal representation anyway'

Banjo String

bbam wrote: »

Will your records show you weren't looking at photos or composing a text that you didn't send as you were caught.
I'd be weary going to court. The fine isn't for making a call which you can obviously prove. But can you prove byond doubt you didn't have it in your hand, I think not.

See this is where I think the law is an ass.

Shouldn't a garda be required to prove (beyond doubt) someone was holding a phone?

With only their word, this stinks. :mad:

TOMP

Does your phone not have a log of received calls and dialled numbers which might help to prove your innocence

Banjo String

billie1b wrote: »

The mispelling of the name isn't a technicality, they'll just change it over in the court. Also if he shows up to court with the documentation for that fine the judge will obviously know its him, he can hardly say 'its not me your honour but I came with legal representation anyway'

I wouldn't be looking off on a technicality though.

The fact that a garda could under oath say he saw me using a phone (not just holding it, but speaking into it) from his vantage point, travelling at speed in the opposite direction from which I was traveling. Yet he couldn't be competent enough to see a name on a driving license which he repeatedly studied (presumably) whilst having my license in his possession speaks volumes.

Little details like this are important when your word is held in such high esteem.

Thomas D

Banjo String wrote: »

I wouldn't be looking off on a technicality though.

The fact that a garda could under oath say he saw me using a phone (not just holding it, but speaking into it) from his vantage point, travelling at speed in the opposite direction from which I was traveling. Yet he couldn't be competent enough to see a name on a driving license which he repeatedly studied (presumably) whilst having my license in his possession speaks volumes.

Little details like this are important when your word is held in such high esteem.

That's a very good approach to take when arguing the case.

ironclaw

TOMP wrote: »

Does your phone not have a log of received calls and dialled numbers which might help to prove your innocence

The offence is not using a phone, its the act of holding it or supporting it with any part of your body. So even if your logs are clear, you are still guilt if you were holding the phone. People need to realise that.

No Pants

ironclaw wrote: »

The offence is not using a phone, its the act of holding it or supporting it with any part of your body. So even if your logs are clear, you are still guilt if you were holding the phone. People need to realise that.

What other phone-related activities could he be performing with the phone to his ear? Texting? Updating his facebook status? Viewing pictures?

Of course the Garda will just say that he saw you holding the phone. However, if it was on your lap of held lower, he wouldn't have been able to see it, so it has to have been up to your ear. I would could a good solicitor lead him into saying that and then produce something from the carrier that shows the phone is not in use.

ironclaw

No Pants wrote: »

What other phone-related activities could he be performing with the phone to his ear? Texting? Updating his facebook status? Viewing pictures?

Of course the Garda will just say that he saw you holding the phone. However, if it was on your lap of held lower, he wouldn't have been able to see it, so it has to have been up to your ear. I would could a good solicitor lead him into saying that and then produce something from the carrier that shows the phone is not in use.

The carrier has absolutely nothing to do with the offence. The phone could be a off and have a flat battery, and the offence would still be valid. Yes, you could of course argue 'how did a Garda see a phone in my lap' but there is absolutely no point producing phone records or logs, they are irrelevant to the offence.

guil

Banjo String wrote: »

The gard in question was pretty adamant that he seen me using my phone. "Holding it up to my ear" to be precise.

Conveniently enough (maybe stock fine description) the 60 fine (I originally thought he said 80) was for holding a phone.

Nothing convenient about what the fine said.
Like I and others have said countless times, there is no charge for using a phone. It's for holding it.

NuckingFacker

Anan1 wrote: »

I can understand your annoyance, but that was the wrong thing to say. The Gardaí genuinely believe that they saw you on the phone; your only hope was/is to persuade them that they were mistaken. You never know, you might have already succeeded in that.Yeah, do this if you have lots of spare time and like fines.

How do you know that??? Maybe they just pull in x amounts of drivers and bang out a fine?? That's a pretty naive and accepting statement you've made there. Gardai are like the Pope now so? Infallible and totally straightforward? Yer lad Smithwick was obviously a bit silly so, daring to investigate them. sure they never, ever do wrong.

Banjo String

guil wrote: »

Nothing convenient about what the fine said.
Like I and others have said countless times, there is no charge for using a phone. It's for holding it.

Yeah, in fairness thats why I said

(maybe stock fine description)

Point being that I was doing neither anyway. I had left a customers premises, approx 20-30 mins previous to being stopped. My phone had been put in the tray on dashboard from that moment.

I have repeated this countless times also.

For the record.

I am aware it is an offence to hold a phone whilst driving. It matters not, whether you are speaking to someone, browsing the net, sending an email, or reading a text etc etc etc. The offence is holding a phone.

I wasnt holding one though.

TheNog

NuckingFacker wrote: »

How do you know that??? Maybe they just pull in x amounts of drivers and bang out a fine?? That's a pretty naive and accepting statement you've made there. Gardai are like the Pope now so? Infallible and totally straightforward? Yer lad Smithwick was obviously a bit silly so, daring to investigate them. sure they never, ever do wrong.

He didn't say Gardai are infallible. He said the guard must of genuinely believed he saw the OP holding the mobile.

The rest of the post is just silly. Everyone knows there is wrongdoing at every level of every job and yes those wrongs should be righted.

guil

I know how you feel and it a prick of a situation to be in. The first solicitor I asked told me to go to court and take my medicine ha.

Some people seem to think if you didn't make a call or send a text and have a bill that it will get you off the charge.

TheNog

Banjo String wrote: »

Yeah, in fairness thats why I said

Point being that I was doing neither anyway. I had left a customers premises, approx 20-30 mins previous to being stopped. My phone had been put in the tray on dashboard from that moment.

I have repeated this countless times also.

For the record.

I am aware it is an offence to hold a phone whilst driving. It matters not, whether you are speaking to someone, browsing the net, sending an email, or reading a text etc etc etc. The offence is holding a phone.

I wasnt holding one though.

You know what it probably does happen and maybe you were wrongly accused.

Couple of years ago I stopped a fella for holding a phone as we passed each other on the road. He was adamant he wasn't holding the phone. Issued the fine and it went to court. He was convicted and appealed. Judge struck it out saying that she believed I had seen him with the phone and she believed he wasn't. He was a decent fella. Came up to me after and shook my hand. Said he had no hard feelings and neither did I. He realised I was doing my job.

Gardai are not infallible and don't always get everything right. I stop people who I honestly see hold a phone. If there is a chance it wasn't a phone I keep going. Other things can be mistaken for looking similar to a phone such as a wallet, book or can you believe it a shadow if seen at the wrong angle.

TheNog

Banjo String wrote: »

See this is where I think the law is an ass.

Shouldn't a garda be required to prove (beyond doubt) someone was holding a phone?

With only their word, this stinks. :mad:

How could that be done? How can proof beyond doubt be provided in these type of cases?

I know you are pissed but before answering consider the amount of times you have seen people driving badly when using their phones. It is common knowledge that using a phone can lead to collisions and I believe you will agree it needs to be enforced.

challengemaster

TheNog wrote: »

How could that be done? How can proof beyond doubt be provided in these type of cases?

I know you are pissed but before answering consider the amount of times you have seen people driving badly when using their phones. It is common knowledge that using a phone can lead to collisions and I believe you will agree it needs to be enforced.

Nobody on this thread has questioned the need for enforcement. Quite the opposite, plenty of people over a number of threads are almost wondering have the traffic corps been disbanded because there's such a lack of enforcement of most traffic laws.

What people are taking issue with is being wrongly issued with fines for mobile phones. There's plenty of examples on this thread alone (if you take people at their word) where they've had to just take it on the chin, despite doing nothing wrong.

The fact that multiple other traffic offenses that are actually being committed get ignored just adds insult to injury.

dr.fuzzenstein

challengemaster wrote: »

Nobody on this thread has questioned the need for enforcement. Quite the opposite, plenty of people over a number of threads are almost wondering have the traffic corps been disbanded because there's such a lack of enforcement of most traffic laws.

What people are taking issue with is being wrongly issued with fines for mobile phones. There's plenty of examples on this thread alone (if you take people at their word) where they've had to just take it on the chin, despite doing nothing wrong.

The fact that multiple other traffic offenses that are actually being committed get ignored just adds insult to injury.

This a thousand times! I agree with this so much, I had to quote it again.
One might think that the Gards just go around on a relentless hunt for breakfast rolls and at some time say "ah jaysus, we have to issue 10 fines today!" and just stop 10 random people to fill their quota.
Not saying all are like that, but a lot of people don't become Gards out of a burning desire to protect society.
And if it isn't true, the Gards have a rather serious image problem.

Zubeneschamali

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm going to defend myself on this. I'm going to go to court with pictures of my hands free set up, and basically tell the judge the truth, and that I actually felt harassed by the two gards on the day.

I would certainly be tempted, but I'd steer clear of saying you felt harassed. Clearly the guard thinks he saw you on the phone. Clearly he's wrong. Accusing him of harassing you for doing his job will only annoy him and the judge.

So, talk to a solicitor. If your solicitor gets the guard to say he saw you holding the phone to your head, and your in-car setup means that that makes no sense, and you say that you were actually resting your head on your hand (or whatever), that MIGHT be enough to get it dismissed.

Plus there's the chance that the Garda won't show...