Wrongly Given a Warning by the Police

kingstreet

It's worth remembering, S110 actually says the following;-

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986(1) are amended by inserting after regulation 109—

Mobile telephones

110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—

(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
(2) No person shall cause or permit any other person to drive a motor vehicle on a road while that other person is using—

(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
(3) No person shall supervise a holder of a provisional licence if the person supervising is using—

(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4),
at a time when the provisional licence holder is driving a motor vehicle on a road.

(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.

There have been prosecutions where the accused was merely "holding" a device capable of the interactive communication function, when no actual communication was taking place. This is because the word "using" has never been defined properly. It has therefore been left to magistrates to look at each case individually. Obtaining and presenting in court evidence no such communication was happening at the time isn't a "get out of jail free" card.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/regulation/2/made

globalds

It's your lucky month ..

You now get the chance to contact your new Police and crime commissioner...Tell him all your troubles and make him earn his crust ..

feedthegraph

To be honest, although the OP was it seems innocent, I'm glad to see the police being pro-active in the use of mobiles, even to the extent that the suspicion exists that you were using a mobile.

Living in a rural area, I'm astonished at the amount of people I see daily on their phones. I've had several near misses from people drifted over the lanes from drivers on mobiles. I think it has been proved that it can be more dangerous than drink driving, I think it's about time it was just as socially unacceptable.

It was bad enough when it was just phone calls and the odd txts, but now in the days of smartphones with emails and facebook, It's about time the law got a lot tougher. I'm talking bans.

Edit: (Although there would have to be absolute proof for a ban, and not a suspicion, as in the case of the OP).

Dollardog

I don't have a hands free device in my car, so I just ignore the phone if it rings and check it when I get to where I'm going. Having been a passenger in a car where the driver was reading and sending texts whilst driving, I can say its quite a terrifying experience and not one I would want to repeat.

EycplUK

Reading the OP `s experience takes me back to my "Stop " for using a mobile phone whilst driving ..................
Blues & twos in rear mirror , pulls over , good morning sir would you like to take a seat in my car ( would have done but they did not match mine ! ) in car i was informed i had been stopped for using my phone while driving , No Sorry officer not me ! i said , we observed you with your hand at your right ear making a call , No Sorry officer , what you saw was me adjusting the level on my Hearing Aid ! Ah ! we will just check your call history then , thats fine with me officer , what are you checking ? I DO NOT Have a Phone !!
After they checked the car , and my person , i was sent on my way with an apology !!
So sometimes NOT being a mobile phone user can have benefits !

hartcjhart

spacey2012 wrote: »

Dont worry, the warning is worthless and can not be used against you ever.
I would not bother complaining, from someone in the know, it wont be worth the future hassle you will get.

yep car reg 'flagged' no end of being pulled for this or that(spot check:rotfl:)although I generally support the police they can get a bee in their bonnet when proved wrong:mad:

scotsbob

muckybutt wrote: »

And that would have undoubtedly pi55ed them off even more

They may not have been too pleased, I agree.

However they clearly had no evidence that would stand up in court. This is why they said to the OP he had one chance to tell them why he thought he had been stopped. They were hoping he might incriminate himself by saying he was on his phone. They asked to see the call log on the phone, hoping this might provide evidence. They would also use this as an excuse to see the colour of the phone because the first question a defence solicitor would ask the officer in court was "what clour phone did you see?"

All the police had was a sighting of a driver with his hand to his head and that would not stick in court, they were hoping the driver would incriminate himself.

Too bad if they were annoyed they couldn't get the evidence, that's just tough.

Joe_Horner

Small caveat first:

Taking the OP's description of how things happened completely on face value (ie: not considering attitude test / possible embellishment of the "questioning" etc):


It's worrying how many people think it's ok for the Police to use "robust" questioning on the basis of weak suspicion. So they saw him with his hand to the side of his head. That is NOT sufficient grounds to stop someone going about their lawful business, then question them in a way designed to try and coerce a confession unless we're now living in Saddam's Iraq.

Speculative stops to "see what confession we can get" is the worst possible form of policing, no matter how seriously you view the possible offence, because it grants the authorities a free hand to bully and intimidate people for any reason they wish.

By all means stop someone in a situation like this, but when they have a believable explanation (remember guilty until proven innocent) that should be taken courteously on face value, not challenged as if they're tackling a murder suspect on CSI S!!!!horpe!

eta: since when has Skunthorpe been a swear word?

Sgt_Pepper_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Small caveat first:

Taking the OP's description of how things happened completely on face value (ie: not considering attitude test / possible embellishment of the "questioning" etc):


It's worrying how many people think it's ok for the Police to use "robust" questioning on the basis of weak suspicion. So they saw him with his hand to the side of his head. That is sufficient grounds to stop someone going about their lawful business, then question them in a way designed to try and coerce a confession unless we're now living in Saddam's Iraq.

Speculative stops to "see what confession we can get" is the worst possible form of policing, no matter how seriously you view the possible offence, because it grants the authorities a free hand to bully and intimidate people for any reason they wish.

By all means stop someone in a situation like this, but when they have a believable explanation (remember guilty until proven innocent) that should be taken courteously on face value, not challenged as if they're tackling a murder suspect on CSI S!!!!horpe!

eta: since when has Skunthorpe been a swear word?

Fixed that for you.

Joe_Horner

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

Thanks for that, Constable savage :shocked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y