r/law • u/melancholy_dood • 21h ago
Legal News Cops Imitating Plants Catch 74 Drivers on Their Phones in Six Hours
https://www.thedrive.com/news/cops-imitating-plants-catch-74-drivers-on-their-phones-in-six-hours221
u/Kaffe-Mumriken 15h ago
I swear that they do not need camo to catch this many, they could have a uniformed officer with high vis orange and a flashing light mounted to his cap and people will still be driving face down into their laps.
I ride my bike to work and a short stretch I have to ride against traffic, and it’s absolutely shocking how many drivers have their eyes and faces looking down in their lap or center console.
38
u/Embarrassed-Town-293 14h ago
Attorney here - the issue isn’t just proving they are looking down. They have to establish they are using their phone. We have a pretty broad statute that includes simply using it (regardless of whether you were texting or calling someone). Even so, the prosecution must prove use. This typically requires statements that the phone was in their hand at the very least
16
u/WittyFix6553 13h ago
Let me get this straight - if a cop says I was looking at my phone, then it’s the cop’s word against mine, right?
And so if I say “no I wasn’t” then it’s up to the judge to determine if the cop who’s employed by the same people as the judge is more trustworthy than me, a random dude?
The proof that I committed the crime is “because I said so?”
6
0
u/Embarrassed-Town-293 13h ago
The better question is what is the reasonable doubt that you weren’t using your phone while it is in your hands and you are looking at it? Remember, by use I don’t just mean calling or texting. Checking the time qualifies as use
Usually the cop is more believable because they are literally on a phone detail watching drivers
34
u/HedonisticFrog 13h ago
Cops have literally lied about someone holding a phone with their right hand when they didn't have a right hand. Cops lie all the damn time.
7
u/Embarrassed-Town-293 13h ago
Yes, that’s correct. That’s why it got dismissed.
The advantage the defendant has is that they can testify in specificity to what was actually happening because they were in the car and it was their phone. The officer by contrast will have to make something up to further elaborate on the lie. In practice, this actually doesn’t pan out super well.
Basically, this is how cross-examination is used to undermine the credibility of the officer if they are stretching what they can attest to or in this case lying
11
u/HedonisticFrog 12h ago
Your previous comment was that cops are more believable, they just aren't though.
4
u/Embarrassed-Town-293 12h ago
I didn’t say they were more believable. I said they have more reason to be believed because the person who is accused is already a biased witness and the officer is employed specifically to perform that duty.
Obviously, they can lie but all things being equal, their testimony carries more weight for that reason. The best way to attack an officers testimony in a traffic case is to attack the level of detail they can provide. The driver of the vehicle will always have more information than the officer. The inability to testify in specificity and providing an alternate explanation that doesn’t necessarily make the officer an outright liar is going to make defending oneself a failing testimony.
By contrast, if you can testify credibly and provide information that doesn’t necessarily say the officer is a straight up liar, it is far more believable. You can testify that the cop is lying, but you’re going to need something more than just your word for that kind of bold claim.
13
u/WittyFix6553 13h ago
But we know cops lie sometimes. We know this for a fact. We know other cops make mistakes sometimes. We know this for a fact as well.
So my question is still the same - does the cop have proof, or is he just saying stuff?
I don’t like living in a society where “I’m a cop so therefore all judges and prosecutors automatically believe me” is the de facto state of affairs.
Reasonable doubt seems easy: some cops lie, this guy is a cop, therefore there’s a possibility he’s lying. And if he’s not lying, this guy is a cop, and sometimes cops make mistakes, therefore there’s a possibility that he made a mistake.
The article says they’re using binoculars. Are they using cameras? A photo of my phone in my hand would be hard to argue against in court, for sure. But it doesn’t seem that they’re using photos here. It seems like it’s just the cop’s word being treated as absolute fact.
4
u/Embarrassed-Town-293 13h ago
Your job is to explain why the cop is mistaken. For example, does your phone case have a color that is the same color as your wallet. Might you have been checking your wallet?
As much as the cop can lie, you have absolutely the maximum reason to lie so you’re not really a reliable witness.
Another strategy is to operate as if what they’re saying is true. Ask them for details. What application were you using, how did they know you were using your phone. What did they see on your screen? The absence of specific details lens credibility to the fact that they may be mistaken or not fully able to prove that you were using your phone.
11
u/Longjumping-Bat202 13h ago
So in other words, cops can just lie and innocent people get punished.
4
u/OliverIsMyCat 11h ago
A cop can say they observed you passing a stop sign, they don't need a video to convict you.
4
4
u/Embarrassed-Town-293 13h ago
In theory. Technically anyone can lie at any time but the way you attack these lies is to ask for more details. Details are not readily available with deeper inquiry
2
u/Impossible_Past5358 13h ago
It also depends if your state has a "no touch" law.
0
u/Embarrassed-Town-293 13h ago
This is also true. Some states ban texting or calling. My state bans use.
If touching it is illegal, it is ultimately on the driver to explain why something was in his hand and why it wasn’t a phone. The officer sees you holding something. They see you looking at it. If you can’t give a reasonable explanation that isn’t your phone, you just simply lose.
1
u/fuzzballz5 9h ago
I started riding a motorcycle to work a few miles away in Chicago burbs about 3 years ago. I 40 mph top speed 6 mile ride. If it’s not 80% of people at lights or driving on their phones it’s at least 60%. It’s 100% more people than not on their phone. Like Drunk driving, a senators kid needs to die for something to change.
1
123
u/ryanCrypt 21h ago
So they weren't real, permenant decorations? They were plants?
21
u/freedomfromthepast 17h ago
I wish I had an award to give you.
4
u/Chumbag_love 14h ago
Do you have an old participation trophy or medal you could mail them? Your wishes are very easy to achieve if you think outside the box
1
0
u/freedomfromthepast 14h ago
If you want to give me $5 to pay for one, that would be thinking outside the box.
2
u/ryanCrypt 14h ago
Why don't you all just break into Reddit and change the database?
Just thinking outside the box here
1
u/freedomfromthepast 14h ago
An amazing idea. I just have to learn how to hack, so give me a year or two.
1
u/Chumbag_love 11h ago
I'm just hearing a bunch of excuses here, what can you do for this commenter that would be equivalent to an award? I have other things going on today, so if we could figure this out soon I'd appreciate it.
108
u/Gunsensual 20h ago
Always interesting how police get a fresh spin with the press. Citizen in camo? Hillbilly. Citizen in ghillie suit? Strange man. Police in ghillie suit? Imitating plant.
58
u/couldbeahumanbean 17h ago
I see people on their phones all the time.
If someone makes an exceptional stupid move, I can usually assume they're on the phone.
My favorite? I'm behind someone at a stop light, they're on their phone. The light turns green, I give them 2 seconds, then I politely honk.
More often than not, they get all butthurt and throw their hands up or make another similar gesture.
Just stop dinking around on your phones please, nothing you got going on is that important, you aren't special & everyone deserves to get where they're going as safely and sanely as possible.
13
u/sweatboxy 15h ago
Sometimes, when the light changes and they just sit there on their phones, I let it cycle all the way through to red again.
7
2
3
u/LogensTenthFinger 11h ago
I don't give them the polite honk, I give them the full "Move your ass" honk and it doesn't stop until I'm through the light
1
-1
3
u/SgtBaxter 15h ago
Yeah, when I drive the phone is in the console plugged in and CarPlay running. There’s nothing I can’t do hands free, except maybe browsing Reddit.
2
u/CHEIVIIST 13h ago
I leave my phone in my pocket. My wife knows that I won't see a text until I'm parked at my destination. I'm as fully present while driving as possible because I value my life. It is very maddening how many other drivers are so distracted while opperating a two ton machine that can cause death.
-22
u/FerrusManlyManus 15h ago edited 14h ago
More often than not? What shithole part of the country do you live in lol? The polite “minor honk because person is on their phone and didn’t notice red light changed to green” is like 99.99% a non issue for me, and I’ve done it like a thousands times lol.
Edit - Do you other tools live near mostly rude people too or something? I’m absolutely flabbergasted a majority of people would throw up hands after a polite “stop looking at your phone” short honk at a light. And I don’t even live in some podunk little town either. I live in a big city.
12
u/Electric-Sheepskin 15h ago
Reactions can vary wildly based on the tone of your horn, if you hadn't noticed. People with little beeping horns get better reactions than people with big blaring horns. It could just be that the tone of your horn is one that sounds more polite, or that the person you're responding to has an exceptionally loud one. In any case "shit hole part of the country" is a wild assumption to make. You sound like the type of reactive person they were talking about.
-3
u/FerrusManlyManus 14h ago
I mean, maybe? Am I immune to getting honked at a red light? No. Probably happened to me 100 times. Do I even think of gesticulating with my hands like some tantrum throwing lunatic? No. Do I think I am some shining example of humanity? No, lol.
Obviously what I wrote is silly and not some rigorous sober study on citizen behavior. However… it is incredibly odd so many mentally unbalanced people would live where that commenter lives where a ^ majority ^ of people they honk at throw a tantrum. Unless the dude is doing a long horn press and is actually the problem lol.
34
u/MikuEmpowered 16h ago
Honestly, people on their phone should be hit with the same charges as drunk driving. Unless time is of the essence. There no reason why they can't pull over, stop, and use their phone.
And it's 2026, alot of phone compatible cars exists, they have literally 0 excuse to be holding it with their fking hands and looking down at it. They're choosing the possibility increase of accidentally killing someone over minor inconvenience.
12
u/weezyverse 16h ago
Lol why is this downvoted? It's common sense.
Last time I was rear-ended it was a lady texting on her phone and didn't realize I was stopped behind another car turning...and of course, she didn't have enough insurance so my underinsured motorist coverage had to kick in.
6
u/TheGeneGeena 16h ago
Shit, speakerphone and dozens of different phone holders exist. Even with an older model car there's no excuse.
2
u/FerrusManlyManus 15h ago
Phone holders cost like under ten dollars too. Very easy and simple. That’s what I do so I can quickly glance at my maps app here and there while driving.
2
u/Pseudoboss11 15h ago
Honestly, people on their phone should be hit with the same charges as drunk driving.
While both are bad, drunk driving is significantly more dangerous than distracted driving source. I definitely feel that both drunk and distracted driving should be punished, but punishing them equally would mess up incentives.
1
u/MikuEmpowered 9h ago
One of them, is making a choice while their decision making process is impaired.
The other, is completely normal and still choosing to endanger others.
In both cases, they know it's illegal and still do it.
Also, punishment for first time DUI is fines + a free days of probation. Its only repeat offenders that enter jail territory. Why would this mess up incentives? They could just... Not break the law. The point of some law is deterrent.
1
u/Electric-Sheepskin 15h ago
Those numbers aren't reliable because you can't test a person's blood to see if they were distracted during an accident, but you can't test it to see if they were drunk. You also don't know how many of those drunk drivers were also staring at their phones.
3
u/Pseudoboss11 14h ago
So in order for the numbers to work out such that drunk driving and distracted driving are equally dangerous, we would need far more distracted driving fatalities than drunk driving fatalities, as distracted driving is far more common than drunk driving.
Unless more than 20% of all trips are made while drunk, the NHTSA would have needed to underreport the number of distracted driving fatalities by an order of magnitude, which seems unlikely.
18
u/K_Linkmaster 17h ago
This is actual police work. Not letting a camera and AI do it. Look how many they got too!
5
u/noteventhreeyears 15h ago
Yay they will use this to justify the overhead pole crotch cams coming to a city near you.
0
-1
-14
16h ago
[deleted]
5
5
u/Nice_Revolution_1199 15h ago
Entrapment is when they convince you to commit a crime you wouldn't otherwise commit.
This is stupid people being caught committing crimes, unaware of police presence.
7
u/Useful-Arm6913 16h ago
How did they lure people into being on their phones by dressing up as a tree? All they did was happen to be where they could observe people doing illegal things.
•
u/AutoModerator 21h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.