InterceptRadio.com Forums

So in case you don't know exactly what that is, it is the Washington Law pertaining to the use of Wireless devices while operating motor vehicle. I bring this up because apparently, in Bellevue, certain parts don't apply there! A few weeks ago, a guy I work with told me that he was driving around there looking for the Icom distributor and talking to a friend on 2M, who was trying to direct him to where he needed to go. A Bellevue motor unit pulled up next to him and saw that he was talking into a microphone and ordered him to pull over. Well, my friend got the ole proverbial $124 ticket! When he told the officer that he was a Amateur Radio operator (Complete with License in hand), he was told it didn't matter! So, obviously, there are at least some people within the "enforcement" who are not completely up on all aspects of the law! I might suggest finding the law, printing it, find Subsection (3) and highlight it and keeping it with you as you never know when it might save you some money and time! Here is the link if you want to check it out: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.667

HAM radio use aside, it's a secondary offense so the account that you gave doesn't quite jive with how the law is to be enforced. What did your friend do to get the motor units attention in the first place?

_________________
I taste copper.
Comments, views, opinions - and trails of destruction - are my own.

Thanks for the link (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.667)

I printed out a copy to put in my glove compartment and put a copy of it on my Palm.

Might come in handy someday.

_________________
" SILENCE IS CONSENT "

Made to Government Specs:
1) Measured with a micrometer.
2) Marked with a chalk.
3) Cut with an axe.

Jim N7UAP - Bellingham, WA / InterceptRadio.com

Subsection 3 doesn't apply here considering the first sentence of 46.61.667 says:

"a person operating a moving motor vehicle while holding a wireless communications device to his or her ear is guilty of a traffic infraction."

You said he was talking into a microphone, not holding the microphone against his ear.

Even if the microphone was against his ear, it could be argued that a microphone is not a wireless communications device. In a most strict interpretation, he would have to hold the radio itself against his ear to be in violation.

Food for thought...

Maybe it was T68... LOL

Maybe so....And if so, I'd like to hear his explanation...or interpretation ..for curiosity sake!

Touche!

Not Me.

I am abundantly aware of the provisions of section (3) of that RCW.

I am NOT a fan of that law. If a legislative body is going to try and control that one distraction, then they should also try and legislate:

-adjusting your AM/FM radio while driving...
-consuming food and/or beverage while driving...
-applying make up while driving....
-reading a book/newspaper while driving....
-reaching down to pick up your kids toy while driving....
-using your computer while driving....
-sorting your mail while driving....
-having your pet in your lap and/or across your face and arms while driving....

and on, and on, and on.

That being said....it is still a "secondary" violation. What was the primary violation? Being that 116th Av. NE is a 30mph area, could it be possible that the officer did initially stop your friend for a speed violation (however slight) - but, opted to cite for the secondary violation instead?

More details....

PM me with a name or P# of the citing officer - I'll see if some education is in order.

Brad/N7JGX
Whidbey Island, WA

_________________
Whatever.....

Ya I was just thinking about this the other day. I was out Geocaching with a friend who uses his cell phone as his GPS device all while driving. And he was clearly distracted while screwing with the phone. I found it ironic that this was totally legal yet if he were to place a call and hold the phone up to his ear, then it would be illegal.

This video makes light of the situation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_T2nj-sczo

_________________

Just a reminder to all. A officer is not the letter of the law, it is possible that officers in the field are not completely up on all aspects.

However I might give some advice, as I have a lot of experience on either side of the badge. If you get pulled over for a primary offense and get tagged with a secondary of using your HAM radio cited for 46.61.667. If the officer is going to take the time to cite you, you were going to get a ticket for something you did that he felt was wrong. Flashing the RCW in his face isn't going to fix your problem. I have not met any officer who would take kindly to reciting code back at him. So be weary traveler of telling another how to do their job better.

Also, point that the police officer is there to enforce. No matter how crooked the judgment on his/her part may be. The court is the deciding factor in all things legal, if you have questions at this point, you should as yes the system sucks, and it will cost you money and time to fix others mistakes. Call the PD and ask for a commander etc. call the media etc if you want to make a fuss out of it and fight back. The side of the road isnt for fighting the long arm of the law.

I am only giving advice that its not a grand idea to "fight" a officer on code as that is not the place, you do that in court. I would also assume your friend may have not spoken with grace and kindness as to the officers mistake on the 46.61.667 issue. Either way its still up to the court not the officer after he has decided to write that ticket.

_________________
If I had an antenna, I would; but I can only transmit on 160 meters.
_____
DE K7MHI

I agree with SpudMan........take it to court and let them deal with it. When you receive the citation, the officer tells you that it is not an admission of guilt.

You have 3 choices on the citation to check off:

1) Admit you committed the infraction and pay the fine.
2) Admit you committed the infraction, but would like to explain and request a hearing with the magistrate, in which your fine could be assessed fully or lowered.
3) You did not commit the infraction and would like to contest the citation, in which you go to court, explain what happened and the citing officer is also present and gives his point of view.

#3 - Would be your best choice and the officers love it too, because they get paid to come in to testify and in some cases it's overtime for them.

I hope I have the 3 explanations correctly as it's been a while since I've seen a citation.......................................

If an officer is giving a ticket for an RCW he should know what it states.
We shouldn't have to waste the courts time with this type of stuff.

The guy must have done something else to get a citation since this RCW
can only be used in connection with another RCW in the example given.

Like T68 said there are a lot of things idiots do that is dangerous while
driving and all those things don't have RCWs.

Use a little common scense driving or doing anything for that matter.
Especially when you are driving on public roads where you might endanger others.

Maybe we should do a citizens arrest on the cellphone drivers for that RCW
and see what the court has to say about that :mrgreen:

Not to change the subject but...
Has anyone heard anything on 460.225 in the Bellingham aera lately?

_________________
" SILENCE IS CONSENT "

Made to Government Specs:
1) Measured with a micrometer.
2) Marked with a chalk.
3) Cut with an axe.

Jim N7UAP - Bellingham, WA / InterceptRadio.com

I can say for a fact, that just because the officer cites you, with the right wording in the ticket narrative they could make the mistake and have your ticket thrown out. Example:

I was on my way home from work one day and a car pulled out in front of me in my lane so I swerved into the curb lane to avoid a rear-ender and drove alongside the car. Some cop from two intersections back saw us and assumed we were "Racing" and cited both of us for going "50+" in a 35. I took it to court also with 2 pages single spaced typed of my narrative in which I stated that I told the cop that I was "going 41 maybe 42 at the absolute most." She was dumb enough to also put that in her narrative. The judge says, "Well I have a ticket in front of me for you going 50+. She says you told her you were going 42, you say now 3 months later that you were going 42, you probably were going 42. If the ticket was written for 42 in a 35, i'd have to give it to you, but it's written for 50+ in a 35. Case dismissed.

He also told me that he appreaciated my demeanor, attire and cahones, so-to-speak, to write up the narrative of my version. He didn't use the word cahones, but it was something like that. Slacks and a nice button up shirt can make all the different over jeans and a t-shirt.

_________________
Interoperability is an attitude, not a technology.

"Some bitch cop" nice.

This is the wrong venue to discuss a Notice of Infraction.
Flame.

_________________
</>