CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams:
Mel Beckman (KD6WTD)
on
July 5, 2008
View comments about this article!
A PDF FAQ document published on the California Department of Motor Vehicles website clearly states that "dedicated two-way radios", which would include amateur mobile radios, are exempt from the provisions of the new Hands Free law that became effective on July 1. The document is online at:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/cellularphonelaws/dl208_03cell_phone.pdf
The exemptions is stated in Q&A format:
Q: May I use a dedicated two-way radio while driving?
A: Yes. The use of dedicated two-way radios such as walkie-talkies or Citizen Band (CB)
radios is not affected by the new law.
All mobile operators should print this document and keep it on hand to enlightened possibly ill-informed law enforcement officers.
An ARRL bulletin from 20 June 2008 (http://www.eham.net/articles/19584) was less than clear on this point. ARRL advised operators that they should not contest a citation should they be stopped under the new law, but should instead fight the ticket in court.
This DMV clarification should quickly convince any officer that mobile Amateur Radio stations operated by licensed amateurs are not bound by the new regulations.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams:
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on July 5, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"ARRL advised operators that they should not contest a citation should they be stopped under the new law, but should instead fight the ticket in court."
And, when a Law Enforcement Officer stops a Ham, that Ham should follow the above advice. If the officer is determined to write a ticket, waving a piece of paper in an officer's face will NOT improve your situation.
Dennis KG4RUL
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams:
|
|
|
by KT4WO on July 5, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes...wait till court...where they will toss the ticket but still make you pay court cost.
Always do what the ARRL says....
"Most" officers would not stop you just for the handsfree violation...your gona have to do something
worse.
KT4WO
|
| |
|
CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams:
|
|
|
by WB9YCJ on July 5, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When I was a kid, cops knew what Ham radio was...
Last year, a San Diego cop asked me what my "Bug Catcher" antenna was for. I told him it was Ham Radio. He still looked puzzled. I explained Hamming briefly. He said he never heard of it... If you are pulled over for a potential ticket politely tell the cop you are using Amateur or Ham two - way Radio not a cell phone. This will help you if you go to court. If issued a ticket, dont worry. Bring your original ham license to court and perhaps a photo of your mobile set-up.
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams
|
|
|
by WA7PRC on July 5, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Washington also has a similar law that just went into effect (http://www.drivinglaws.org/washington.php). Hams successfully lobbied to exclude Amateur Radio operators from this law. Even if hams weren't excluded, it doesn't affect me, since I don't use a /microphone/ while mobile. ;-)
vy 73 es gud dx,
Bryan WA7PRC/m
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams
|
|
|
by QRZDXR2 on July 6, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well it happened. Tonight a ham on our net reported that he was stopped by the CHP on July 1st. The officer would have none of the arguement about ham vs cell phone.
Wrote the ticket.
jack said that he didn't want to make waves so he went to the court house. The ticket is 25 dollars for the first offense. He showed the judge the ham license, picture of the vehicle and documentation stating that he was exempt.
The judge agreeded and said that the ticket was dismissed. On leaving the court, he was directed to the clerk which promptly said that he owed 25 dollars for court cost, 5 dollars for mothers against drunk drivers and some other misc. state and local fees.
He said that it came to just under $50.00. Had he paid the ticket it would only have been 25 dollars. Had he been found guilty of the charge it would have been $75.00.
So where is the justice in proving your right $$$. If you can convence the cop that your a ham before he writes the ticket, think of the money you will save.
Now I am not saying that reasioning with a cop, you have to understand that the majority are not the brightes light in the harbor and that is why they are cops. If you can keep out of the court room your better off trying first.
In jacks case the cop told him that if he was a radio ham he would have call plates on his car. He is going to proceed in getting them so that when he is stopped in the future it says radio amature and is self explanatory when the cop runs the plate.
Remember the money you save may be your own. Otherwise just call it a racket to get into your wallet.
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams
|
|
|
by WA6ITF on July 6, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Im from Amateur Radio Newsline. We are a news service that deal with matters of personal communications and hobby radio. May I request the following information:
1: On what "net" was this reported?
2: Please identify "Jack" by name, call and location.
3: Please provide us with contact information so that we can verify this story and follow up on it.
4: Since the law took effect on 1 July 2008, and there is a waiting period between issuance of a summons and a directed court date, how was "Jack" able to circumvent this and get an early court appearance?
If this incident did indeed happen its important that it be reported. I will personally call the CHP office that issued the ticket and ask a lot of questions of those in charge. But I must know which CHP office the officer was assigned to.
Oh yes: I happen to have a copy of a letter sent to several media outlets that states officers will not be bothering those using hand mics -- as long as there is no telephone interconnect involved.
Thak you
Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF
Producer - ARNewsline
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams:
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 6, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KT4WO said:"Yes...wait till court...where they will toss the ticket but still make you pay court cost.
Always do what the ARRL says...."
Apparently, you, as I do, reside in the State of Alabama, where you're guilty in principle, whether or not you really committed an offense.
The one thing that I detest about Alabama, is you are forced to pay the court costs as well as your time and effort to appear. Even if the judge declares you not guilty, he can and often does fine you for just taking up the court's time.
Fundamentally, that is WRONG. When you are arrested or cited, it is not your choice. As a citizen, you are entitled to be able to defend yourself. The state or municipality has charged you with an infraction. You didn't choose to use the court. You had no option if you indeed are innocent.
I'm pretty sure that such a practice is like a "Poll Tax" and is unconstitutional. Sooner or later some attorney or law association will take the time to beat that practice via the courst. Its unfair and unAmerican.
I've got an example citation I received about 2 years ago, but I'm sure that by now, its too late for some statutory reason to contest the judge's decision of not guilty with the penalty. If anyone reading this thinks not, and is an attorney willing to take this all the way, email me at mycall at arrl dot net.
73.
Lee
W6EM/4
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams:
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 6, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD6WTD said:"All mobile operators should print this document and keep it on hand to enlightened possibly ill-informed law enforcement officers."
And, while that's a nice idea, just where on the "Q&A" sheets is anything identifying it as an official DMV document? You could have made it all up with your PC.
As Bill, WA6ITF and I discussed in an earlier exchange, to be of use, you'd have to have something on official letterhead that an officer could examine and recognize as official and not something that could be created on your PC. At least what Bill offered was from the CHP's Public Affairs Officer. A name at least CHPers would recognize.
If the CA DMV had a brochure or bulletin that could be handed out to anyone affected and carried in one's mobile, that might work. Just printing a headingless list isn't going to do it. If I were an officer, I certainly wouldn't accept that as having any credible value.
|
| |
|
CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams:
|
|
|
by WA4DQS on July 6, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In my many experiences with cops, I've often observed that they don't like to be corrected, and will rarely admit they made an honest mistake. Too often, saving face outweighs reason. I once sucessfuly challenged a cop on a very obvious error he had made - I politely promised to photograph the intersection in question and see him in court. He backed off -- without admitting he was wrong, of course. Sometimes they will back off in an obvious situation -- and give you a warning, of course, so that their ego is served. If you are a good looking woman and the cop is a man, you may at least get a smile. Men will always be men.
I'd suggest carry the piece of paper and make a friendly try because judges are often even more ornery and, despite the requirements that that be fair and unbiased, some are sometimes very biased and unfair, and very bitter that their court systems are clogged with crap like this, and sometimes will not even agree to see your evidence. (I spent years working in the legal industry and saw a lot of this first hand)
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 6, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Well it happened. Tonight a ham on our net reported that he was stopped by the CHP on July 1st. The officer would have none of the arguement about ham vs cell phone."
I do not put too much credence in this report since it is a post by an anonymous source. I believe it is just placed here for reaction--and it didn't happen.
|
| |
|
Prevention is better than cure.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 6, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I enjoy mobile operation, but I operate only when my car is stationary.
Sure you can do otherwise, but if you operate only while stationary, look what you save yourself:
First and foremost you save yourself distraction. This translates into road safety. Some hams boast of their skill at "multi-tasking." Common sense teles you that automobile "multi-tasking has got to cut into your reaction time. A ball rolls out from between parked cars followed by a toddler. An oncoming driver passes over the double yellow line, and your in the middle of an HF QSO. You don't really want that sort of thing. Why risk it?
Second, you pick the location, the best one for your QSO. Now driving is no longer a distraction to enjoying some good DX or concentrating on the details of a really good rag chew, or would you rather drive and multi-task in a pile up? (Radio pile up? Auto pile up?)
Life is a banquet, not a fast food stop. Savor the better moments and live to tell about them. This is just my slant on it.
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 6, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I suspect that it did not happen as claimed either. Unless CA has really changed its judicial processes in the last few years and I don't think it has, there is no such thing as court costs for someone who is found not guilty. You are free to go, and any bail paid (the cost of the ticket, fine and court costs paid in advance to the clerk) is refunded in total to you.
In other words, you don't have to pay a Poll Tax when you go to court there for a criminal or traffic trial, unlike Alabama. Here, you're guilty, even if found innocent.
Of course, there are court costs to be paid in a civil proceeding, to use the court and that's fair.
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams
|
|
|
by WA6ITF on July 6, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
On the lighter side, about three weeks ago Im on my way home from work.
Its about 1:15 a.m. and as I descend the off-ramp onto San Fernando Road, I notice a local sheriff with his radar speed gun aimed at me. I'm not concerned since I am doing about 19 mph in a 40 mph zone.
And so I toodle on my way. And a few minutes later I see the guy pull up behind me and flash me to pull over. I comply, and he walks up and asks:
"Do you know why I pulled you over?"
Not being able to read his mind, I reply: "Not really."
He responds: "Your front plate is missing."
Knowing it was there when I left work, and knowing it was rather secure, I respond:
"Thats odd. It was there a half hour ago when I left the TV station."
So he takes his flashlight, walks to the front of my car, and his jaw drops. There, where its been the last 6 years is my good old WA6ITF call letter plate.
He return and kind of sheepishly says: "Opps. My mistake. It must have been another car."
I respond: "That's OK. Even those of us in the TV news business make a bad call, now and again."
My mention that I am in TV news must have hit a nerve because he became very apologetic. And without my ever showing him my license and registration, we each went merilly on our way.
de
Bill P. / WA6ITF
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 7, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
At least he didn't pull his gun when he approached the car, Bill. Had that happen to me years ago when I left a graveyard Sunday morning shift at KAFY radio in Bakersfield. Scary. They were supposedly looking for an escaped convict.
As to your front plate, now there's a 64 doller question: Why does CA, in view of the high cost of metals, retain the old two plate system? Most Southern states east of the Mississippi only have rear plates. You only need one to put the renewal sticker on. And, I don't buy the "officer needs to see who's following him" story either.....If that were the case, the image of the plate would have been used so he could read it easily in his rear view mirror.
AL is now recycling plates every few years and the letters are painted on instead of being embossed as they used to be. Some states, like Indiana, not only have just one plate, but they're non metallic, making for easier recycling when the paint gets worn a tad.
If that were the standard in CA, just think of how many fewer nuisance stops there would be for that missing front plate. :-)
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 7, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Come to think of it, the practice was probably designed for lazy meter maids to save them the trouble of walking to the rear of the vehicle to write up a parking ticket.
|
| |
|
CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams:
|
|
|
by KD6WTD on July 7, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6AM: "And, while that's a nice idea, just where on the "Q&A" sheets is anything identifying it as an official DMV document? You could have made it all up with your PC."
Except the URL I posted is direct link to the DMV.ca.gov web site. I wish the document DID have some identifying info, but if you print it with the URL as a page heading (Firefox does this), you'll at least be able to direct the officer to the URL. Contrary to the ARRL's contention, it is very worthwhile to _politely_ try to engage an officer to point out a possible misunderstanding of the law. The operative word is "politely." Most officers are willing to look at documentation, particularly for a new law. And most, I believe, would at least follow up to see if your information is accurate.
If you have an attitude when talking to the officer, you're simply a jerk, and will probably be treated like one.
-mel
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams:
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 7, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD6WTD:"...Except the URL I posted is direct link to the DMV.ca.gov web site. I wish the document DID have some identifying info, but if you print it with the URL as a page heading (Firefox does this), you'll at least be able to direct the officer to the URL."
OK. If all the cops carry around a cellular modem and a laptop, that might work. They could check it for themselves on the spot. Or, if you carry one with you, and can show the officer its legitimate, that might work. Paper copies without identifying logos probably wouldn't be useful.
Most LEOs would probably say something like "get back in your car and don't be waving that computer box at me."
Until its printed accurately in your CA Vehicle Code by excluding all two-way radio users employing a hand-held push to talk microphone, you're going to have problems. The Bill language is all screwed up and was probably written by a Nextel lobbyist to benefit their largest business segment: truckers and farmers.
BTW, I'm not W6AM. Don't know him. But I used to know K6AM, John Barcroft.
73.
Lee
W6EM/4
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams:
|
|
|
by KD6WTD on July 7, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6EM:"OK. If all the cops carry around a cellular modem and a laptop, that might work."
If you think a formal letterhead is needed, since the file came directly from the DMV site it's totally honest to simply add the DMV site banner to the document when you print it. If you're not capable of doing that, well...
-mel
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams:
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 8, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If you think a formal letterhead is needed, since the file came directly from the DMV site it's totally honest to simply add the DMV site banner to the document when you print it. If you're not capable of doing that, well..."
Look. All sorts of things can be easily counterfeited. If all of CA's law enforcement agencies received an official bulletin directly from the DMV, that would do it. Or, if they, themselves, retrieve the information from the DMV Q&A website and are satified its not bogus.
For you to carry a copy of something that the LEO that stops you knows nothing about from his hierarchy, and questions its authenticity, (rightfully so on a roadside stop) then you're probably going to have to explain it to the judge.
And, if you go to court, I doubt the Court will accept your own PC-printed version either. Again, bring your laptop and cellular modem. That might work, if it functions inside the courtroom.
Good luck. I'm not offering legal advice and I'm not an attorney. Just offering some common sense.
All of you on the "left coast" should lobby the head of the DMV to produce a bulletin to law enforcement agencies explaining that two way radios are all exempt from the regulation. Until that's done, you're gonna have problems I'm afraid.
BTW, speaking of attorneys, I doubt that the new free lance ham attorney, Riley Hollingsworth, will provide you with a pro bono defense.
73.
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams:
|
|
|
by KD6WTD on July 9, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just spoke with the CA Highway Patrol, and their duty officer looked at the CA DMV PDF file and said having this in your possession should resolve any conflicts should a stop occur. He highly advised keeping it with you when mobile.
-mel
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams:
|
|
|
by N7UQA on July 10, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yet another law rammed down our throats under the guise of “safety”. Anyone who has a IQ above room temperature should see that these laws are passed to secure yet another source REVENUE. Officers pull people over in the hopes that they can find something wrong, expired current proof of insurance, registration, drivers license etc. And in the end, only to go to court to PROVE your innocence and pay court fees.
Long gone is presumption of innocence, our legal system has jumped on the guilty until proven innocent bandwagon of the 3rd world.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams:
|
|
|
by N2ZXE on July 10, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, if there's any consolation, I heard on the morning net that one of the guys got stopped by using its radio in New York state.
I've never got stopped in NJ. I guess I've been lucky.
'73
|
| |
|
RE: CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams:
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 12, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
you guys in NY and NJ are lucky. At least your motor vehicle laws are succinct and clear enough. Even if the cops can't read and understand them. Sections of each specifically exempts amateur radios.
CA, on the other hand, was written to exclude only Nextel push to talk (trademarked by them, by the way) cell phone trucker and farmer users, not hams.
Until the CA lawmakers sharpen up their language skills and fix the problem, anyone besides truckers using a two way radio may be harassed by the cops up and down the state.
Next thing you know, there'll be an outbreak in CA of Salmonella Microphone, thanks to the problems with it in salsa (consumed by the majority of Californians these days) and use of hand held microphones without a sterilized sock covering will be prohibited.
|
| |
|
CA DMV Says Handsfree Law Exempts Hams:
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I dont buy this for a second. Try arguing with some cocky 90 day wonder fresh out of the police academy about a law like this and you'll wind up in jail. Already I saw one post that backs up what I just said. Just like society itself, theres good cops and bad ones. Right or wrong, if you argue with a cop you will always lose. You may have your day in court and beat it, but what good does it do if you lose a day at work, have to pay the court costs anyway and go through the hassle just to prove a point. Im glad I dont live on the west coast.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
The New Frontier for School Radio:
New Vice Directors in Central, Roanoke Divisions:
New Amateur Radio Web Site Launches:
Announcing Railroad Depots on the Air:
Rowley Shears, G8KW (SK):
|
