Ohio

840 readers

1 users here now

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ohio court: It’s up to drivers, not prosecutors, to prove they weren’t illegally texting behind the wheel (www.cleveland.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] xhieron 57 points 5 months ago (2 children)

This headline is a disaster. The court found that the exceptions--things you're allowed to do with your phone while driving--are affirmative defenses. That is, if the prosecutor already made a prima facie case that the defendant was breaking the device use law, then the burden shifts to the defendant to prove one of the exceptions applies.

It's a much better rule than one that would, implicitly or worse, give the cops carte blanche access to your phone.

[–] Cort 4 points 5 months ago

If these exemptions are read only as affirmative defenses then could a police officer who reasonably suspected you owned or possessed a cell phone (because they saw you get into your car holding it, or using it while parked) could pull you over, cite you, and force you to prove it was in your pocket?

ORC § 4511.204 B (13) A person storing an electronic wireless communications device in a holster, harness, or article of clothing on the person's body.

[–] Dkarma 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like if they don't know what .doing they don't have probable cause to accuse me. If they see me smoking it's not on me to prove i wasn't smoking something illicit...burden of proof never switches to the defendant that's not how any of this works.

This will get overturned on appeal.

[–] xhieron 5 points 5 months ago

Nope. Affirmative defense burden of proof is on the accused. See, for example, ORC Section 2901.05.

Ohio's not my jurisdiction, but that's exactly how this works.

Source: Lawyer here.