Legal Reasoning

Decision:

Bill did not violate the statute and is not liable to pay the fine.

Additional Facts:

1. Bill was wearing his seatbelt when the officer ticketed him.

2. Bill has an exemplary driving record. He has never received a ticket for texting while driving before this case.

3. Officer Jane, who ticketed Bill, did not meet her ticket quotas for the previous two months. She recently received a warning from her captain that she would be put on probation if she did not meet her quota for the current month.

Opinion:

Bill is not liable for the fine first and foremost because his vehicle was stationary when he texted his daughter. The ATM’s cameras show that Bill’s car was completely stopped at the stop sign while he was texting. Bill had seen the public awareness campaigns so he was fully aware of the dangers of distracted driving; as a result, he waited to respond to his daughter until he stopped the car. Section 13B (a) clearly states that “an operator shall not be considered to be operating a motor vehicle if the vehicle is stationary…” According to H.L.A. Hart, words have a core meaning. In this case, “stationary” obviously means “not moving.” Since the cameras prove that Bill’s vehicle was stationary while he was texting, he is not considered to be operating a vehicle at that particular moment. He should not have received a ticket.

The DMV’s website states that “all drivers … are banned from texting while behind the wheel.” One might argue that because Bill was physically sitting behind the wheel of his car, he deserves the ticket. However, the website is not as specific as the statute – it doesn’t define what “behind the wheel” means. Ticketing Bill on these grounds would give police officers the discretion to define the phrase, and that is not in the best interest of the legal system or the citizens of the commonwealth. I find that he did not violate Section 9 because this decision must be applicable to future cases – drivers must be...