On 11 Dec 2005 23:30:55 -0800, "bradvk2qq" wrote:

1) The law in NY *specifically states* that the device in question be
connected to the public switched telephone network. The ruling is
appealable on that ground alone.

""Wireless telephone service" shall mean two-way real time voice
telecommunications service that is interconnected to a public switched
telephone network and is provided by a commercial mobile radio
service, as such term is defined by 47 C.F.R. S 20.3."

Most hams operate simplex, even when using a phone patch, so the law
doesn't apply, as written. (New York law requires pleas and
convictions on summonses *as written*, not as someone wants things to
be. "The law doesn't say exactly what it has to say for the ticket
you wrote to be upheld? Tough. Next time, write it properly." - me,
to a cop who complained to me, his boss, about a ticket that got
thrown out.)

2) The law in NY *specifically states* that the device in question be
held to tone's ear. He held it to his mouth?. Appealable on that
ground alone.

"'Using' shall mean holding a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate
proximity of, the user's ear. "

Pretty stupid, holding a mic to your ear. "There better be music
coming out of that thing."

Try these:

"'Engage in a call' shall mean talking into or listening on a
hand-held mobile telephone ..."

"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall
operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway while using a mobile
telephone to engage in a call while such vehicle is in motion. (b) An
operator of a motor vehicle who holds a mobile telephone to, or in the
immediate proximity of his or her ear while such vehicle is in motion
is presumed to be engaging in a call within the meaning of this
section. The presumption established by this subdivision is rebuttable
by evidence tending to show that the operator was not engaged in a
call."

It doesn't seem as if either the spirit or the letter of the law were
violated. It seems that an overly-inflated ego decided to throw his
pork around.

Traffic tickets in NY are adjudicated by an administrative
adjudication office, and the officiating person is a hearing officer,
not a judge. Such rulings aren't even precedential in the office in
which they were issued. A hearing officer can contradict his ruling
in his very next ruling, and the fact that he just ruled the opposite
isn't relevant.

I hope the guy appeals the case. It won't look too good for the
hearing officer when the DA decides to not fight it.