Hard-line Supreme Court against those who use mobile phone while driving. The Court, with the ruling 13118/2009 has determined that firefighters can do fine even without the immediate objection. The only way to defend the driver is to demonstrate that the position of the policeman was at a distance that they can not see that the driver is talking on the phone. Well if you do not pay the fine Buol must demonstrate meters in hand, "the actual location of the agent compared to that of the vehicle, so 'to be able to assess whether in practice at that distance you could run into error." The Court thus dismissed the appeal of a car found to talk to the celllare driving without a headset. The fine had been delivered at home, but there was no immediate objection to the time of the event. The case ended up in Supreme Court where the woman claimed that the fine could not be considered valid because those who talk on mobile phones while driving should be stopped when the alert. If this' is not the case, said that the volcanic alert was at a distance so as to allow an error of perception. A nothing is worth the effort to bring the case until the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed and the Court noted that "evidence of possible error in perception by the agent can not 'be based on an assessment of prediction in order to distance" of the alert. Only an ad hoc measure "would have been able to prove the actual position of the agent compared to that of the vehicle, so 'as to whether in practice at that distance, "the policeman had been misled. According to the Court" is not' not sufficient to deduce the agent's distance from the place of breach only on the basis dell'omessa immediate context, given that such verification may 'be made even after that, for various reasons, does not allow the detention of the vehicle. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment