What does &quot;using an electronic communication device&quot; mean? I was stopped for holding my phone while driving; I was listening to a podcast on speaker, and the phone was locked. In 625 ILCS 5/12-610.2, subsection (b) says A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a roadway while using an electronic communication device. Prior to this amendment, this subsection was less vague: A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a roadway while using an electronic communication device to compose, send, or read an electronic message. Was I in violation of Illinois' "hands-free phone" law? What constitutes use in this context? How could the prosecutor prove I was actually using, and not just holding, a phone? (I wasn't fined; this is a hypothetical question)
What a statute means can be difficult to determine. There are several approaches to statutory interpretation that could be helpful: Textual: The plain meaning doesn't confine "use" to a few particular types of uses. The plain text provides an expansive prohibition on any use of an electronic communication device. Legislative history/legislative intent: The previous version of the subsection did limit prohibited uses to only composing, sending, or reading electronic messages. Given the amendment, it seems that the legislature no longer desired that limitation. When the bill was introduced, Rep. D'Amico stated the purpose of the bill was to "[expand] the prohibition on driving while using an electronic communication device to include uses beyond composing, sending, or reading an electronic message." During debate, when asked what a person should do that doesn't have Bluetooth, Rep. D'Amico suggested "You put it on speaker phone". When asked, "Where would you place the phone?", Rep D'Amico replied, "Wherever you feel like; just not next to your ear." During the same debate, D'Amico described the bill: "What House Bill 1247 does is ban handheld cell phones while driving a vehicle." In my opinion, the declaration of the bill's sponsor, and the debate surrounding the bill treated it as expanding the prohibition from including only texting and email to also include voice conversations. As far as I can tell, the full scope of "using" under this statute hasn't been tested in court, but I could see this going either way. The plain text provides an expansive prohibition on any use of an electronic communication device. However, a court might also be convinced by the legislative intent that only aims to add handheld voice communications to the previous list of prohibited activities (or it least it could be argued that this is the case). Further, under a purposive construction, a court could even look beyond the explicit legislative intent and find that the core purpose was to prevent distraction, in which case "using" could include any activity on your electronic device that distracts you as if you were texting, or making a phone call (eg. selecting the next song to play in your music app).
let's look at the referenced Section 28085 ARTICLE 13. Theft Alarm System [28085- 28085.] ( Article 13 added by Stats. 1977, Ch. 993. ) 28085. Any motor vehicle may be equipped with a theft alarm system which flashes the lights of the vehicle, or sounds an audible signal, or both, and which operates as follows: (a) The system may flash any of the lights required or permitted on the vehicle. (b) The system may sound an audible signal. (c) No vehicle shall be equipped with a theft alarm system which emits the sound of a siren. (Amended by Stats. 1994, Ch. 516, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 1995.) This tells us what is allowable as a theft alert system. It may use sound(b) and turn the car into a goddamned Christmas tree(a), provided it is not: a siren sound(c) not audible(b) or a non-permitted light like Emergency Vehicle Lights(a). It does not regulate when it may fire, only that the sound alert has to be audible (preventing infrasonic make-your-ears-bleed or dog whistle sounds) and that the lights have to be an allowable part of the vehicle. So you could set the alert to honk or play imperial march or berate the wannabe thief or use painful loud music, all provided that it is audible and does not violate other laws. So, what is the correct operation of a car theft alert? Nothing in the article says, that you may just use the signals and honking for alerting in the case of theft, but that the system may use all the things in A and B under condition C to operate. Operation is &quot;effect brought about in accordance with a definite plan&quot;. The definite plan for the alarm system is as follows: initialize alert the owner that it has correctly initialized wait for theft attempt or shutdown in case of theft: alarm everybody in case of shutdown: shutdown How the alertion and alarm are set up is up to the manufacturer's discretion, as long as the Article 13 is not breached. Example: My Ford Fiesta does a double-flash of the turn lights and a low key beep overpowered by the lock operation on locking and a single flash on unlocking. That is the factory setup (for my area) afaik. The manufacturer (or if I wanted to go to a car shop) could under Article 13 set the activation to trigger a short honk or any other audible to signal proper initialization as part of the normal operation. The failure of the sound coming after locking the car would alert me that something is amiss and it is not operating. The top 3 causes are most likely that the car key battery might be dead, a malfunction of the car alert or someone jamming the frequency of the key. As it is clearly part of the operation of the alert system, which is marked as a legal use of the horn of a car in Article 12 under Section 27001 b, yes, the alert may honk. INAL, so only my layman reading.
You don't have to talk to the police. All taking a lawyer with you will do is have someone to remind you not to talk to the police, and short your bank account a couple hundred dollars. Tell the detective you're busy. The detective saying you &quot;are not going to be arrested&quot; means absolutely nothing. When they show up to talk to you, don't go to the door unless they have a warrant.
This is a deescalation tactic. By giving some ridiculous far out reason, the officer hopes to distract you from any combative or aggressive feelings you have about being stopped. You can do this too, if someone you think is getting progressively angrier might try and hurt you, bringing up something random forces their mind off their anger, even just for a moment. And sometimes, that's enough to avoid a conflict. As for the legality of telling you the reason, no they are not required to tell you the reason, as has been mentioned several times on stack exchange. If an officer says to himself, "I think this guy has crack on him because of X," and it's captured on his body cam, then he's covered. He can prove to the court that he did have reasonable suspicion to detain you, even if he later tells you, "I have a report of zombies in the area and I need to see your ID to determine if you have a death certificate."
Police officers can lie to you He asked to search your car. He’s allowed to do this. You said no. You’re allowed to do this. He lied to you when he said he would get the K9 to search the car - this would not be legal. But he’s allowed to tell you lies. You made an admission of criminal activity. He now has probable cause to search. He legally searched, confirmed your admission and booked you. Seems legit to me.
Police officers are authorized to use force regardless of what they are wearing, to effect an arrest. One issue will be whether the defendants should know that they were under arrest, but there is no requirement to utter particular phrases when dealing with a combative lawbreaker. There will be an internal investigation at some level to determine whether the officers violated any department policy, and no doubt the video and testimony of those in the are would be relevant. There probably is some policy to the effect that you have to distinguish yourself from a street vigilante (you have to state your authority), though I can't find any specific online publicly-available department rules. There is no law that requires an officer to say that he is one, or to show his badge, before starting an arrest.
You are completely in the wrong. It is against the law to operate a motor vehicle without a license. It is against the law to have a motor vehicle that is not insured. It is against the law to violate the conditions of your probation which almost certainly provide that you are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle until your license is reinstated and you have insurance in force. Your personal belief that you didn't break the law is not a valid reason not to pay a fine on a ticket that is ratified by a court. The cop was right when he told you that you were crazy.
The recording is not illegal because you've been told it would happen, and by not hanging up, you've agreed to have a conversation that can be recorded. This was determined in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. applying the exception of Penal Code 632 that communications are not considered confidential if there is a reasonable expectation that the call will be overheard or recorded - being explicitly told that the call will be recorded makes this true. It would not be illegal for them to only record their own statements during the call, nor for you to record only your statements, either. In particular, the company is allowed to record the part of the call where they make this statement, as they are not recording a conversation, only their own (likely pre-recorded) statement (again?). Indeed, including their statement about the recording in the recording is common practise partly for protection against claims that the other party was not informed of the recording occurring.