Shared publicly  - 
 
We went to court this am to plead not guilty to the charges on the ticket. So awesome to have Will and Gabriel from www.MyTrafficGuys.com as lawyers helping me through this. Here's an statement from Will on how the defense will go.
102
29
Tim McDowell's profile photoCecilia Abadie's profile photoKevin Stagg's profile photoJoey Heck's profile photo
88 comments
Aaron M
+
3
4
3
 
Also, a listener called in on +Tech News Today when this first hit the news, stating that the burden of proof is on the officer who gave the citation to provide evidence that +Cecilia Abadie's +Google Glass was operationally on (not just being worn) at the time of the citation.
 
So, this was just pleading not-guilty.. Do you have a court date set? 
 
+Cecilia Abadie congrats getting good defense, William Concidine from +MyTrafficGuys sound solid.
I am guessing this was arraignment hearing, when actual court would be held?
 
I'd personally  prefer to be sensible - that is to say: do as Google advised during pick-up and not wear the thing in the first place while driving.  Also, none of what he says addresses the speeding aspect!

Sorry if i sound evil or something but I honestly believe you've done a massive diservice to the Google Glass community.
 
+Chris Pick  That's a fair point.  Given that Google is by implication involved in all of this, perhaps they would like to make a public statement on what they think or perhaps even help defend Cecilia. They seem very quiet..   Frankly I think that Glass could be something very useful for divers and increase safety, but only once the legal and technical compliance issues are resolved, and we're clearly not there yet! Speeding with them on doesn't exactly help the argument that they increase driver awareness and safety. 
 
+William Dowell he will address the speeding issue in court, but obviously there's nothing new about it, so the lawyer is sharing what is most interesting to most of us, the Glass offense. 
 
Court date is January 16th at 1:00pm, San Diego.
 
+William Dowell I am actually, very optimistic about this one. By getting ticket, +Cecilia Abadie will resolve issue, once and for all, by setting legal precedent in either direction. We will know for sure - could we wear glass during driving, or not. Btw, I am very surprised, that Google during this stage does not provide legal help for Cecilia, because it will affect future of +Google Glass 
If they would provide strong legal help, it will resolve issue in the future, otherwise it will limit usage of glass, only for pedestrians or passengers.
 
SMH - Stick it to the Glass! 
Just like texting. You're not concentrating on the task at hand. You can't tell me Google Glass users will be using these things for directions to their local 7-11. 

Sure, they'll be staring straight ahead - with walleye vision. But it's not practical. And no - I don't have to have used it to support a law against it.
 
+Vlad Markov  In the US at least, as the UK have already started saying it will be an offence when it's commercial available. 
 
Technically +Vlad Markov it would need to go to higher courts to set a major precedent (as in losing the case and appealing in higher courts), but as it is it will clarify the chances for a defense on a ticket like this for all explorers, hopefully.
 
+Cecilia Abadie  Good luck - it certain seems that your lawyer is good at getting people off stuff... I don't mean to be cruel against you, it just seems this is a needless fight by showing a bit more care, but hey, I may be proved that you've helped Glass and other wearables in the future.
 
Lol +Chris Pick! You can't even wear Glass or take pics/vid in any court in the country, but we'll have some press come and produce video, maybe we can get some press with Glass, that would be fun!
 
+William Dowell US modeled its law from UK, so for my opinion, wearing glass will be part of technical decision - does it abstract driver point of view or not. Legally, I don't see other point to prevent driver wearing Google Glass. 
I understand Police desire to lobby, to avoid possibility recording their actions by Glass owners, but you can't really stop technology evolution by implementing idiotic laws.
 
+Kevin Stagg I respect your opinion but it would be interesting to try Glass in order to understand how it works. We might be able to arrange a Glass sighting near you ... let us know if you're truly interested in understanding this issue deeply, with all the information you need to reinforce or change your opinion.
 
I agree.. Unless you see how it works and where it sits in your field of view, it is hard to make a judgment call.. I think the biggest issue, is that people think it is always in front of you when you look straight ahead.. Letting others try it on, they seem to want to wear it lower than they should .
 
99 percent of the time glass is off (but i am wearing them) when i'm driving. The only time its on is if i get a text; i give a slight nod and say "ok glass read aloud" then i say "Reply" say my message and that's it. none of that at any point requires me to even look at the glass prism (which is something you do have to do as glass is NOT in your direct line of sight). This to me is no different than talking hands free on a cell phone which is %100 legal. To me glass takes away the temptation of reading something on my cell phone when i am driving and actually makes me a safer driver.
 
+William Dowell I don't really get your 'showing a little more care'. Wearing Glass when I wasn't even actively engaging with it, is not showing more care? 
 
+Cecilia Abadie  I meant more the speed, but never mind. I am trying to see both sides of the argument as it seems both have merit to me.  Whether you were interacting with it or not seems a bit of a secondary issue as far as the law is concerned, but then again, as I posted earlier I believe one day things like Google Glass will help drivers be safer etc. Clearly your case is important and I wish you personally all the best. As we push technology forward laws get tested.

For PRISM etc, it seems the US and others make the most of the fact the laws are 'technology-neutral', here you lawyer seems to be arguing the opposite. Im intrigued from a legal perspective how society applies law to fast moving things like this. Effectively you had to be stopped to get this tested.
 
+Tim McDowell A few years ago, I tried out VLingo. I used it to read aloud incoming messages and used voice commands to reply. I personally found it to require a significant amount of concentration. I felt it to be so distracting that I stopped using it while driving. If I have to read or reply to a message, I would wait until I finished driving.

Voice commands have improved since then, but I found that speaking to a device to be very distracting. I tend to concentrate on the devices response and that impacts my ability to concentrate on other things. Speaking to people whether in person or on the phone in comparison requires very little concentration. I guess I don't have the confidence that a device is able to understand my voice command, so I am always anxious when listening for the device's response to ensure it heard me correctly. When speaking to a person, I always assume the person understood what I said unless he says so otherwise.

I have not tried glass yet. I don't expect it to be a significant improvement over the voice reco on my phone. I primarily use Google Now or S-Voice. Whenever I use a voice command, I always am in suspense on whether the device understood my command.
 
+Gene Chiu I have no problems speaking my response on +Google Glass it almost always gets it right. If not, every message is tagged with "sent through Glass" so the person receiving my message will understand if there is a screw up. I actually find talking on the phone to be more distracting as it is a much longer interaction.
 
Good luck with your court case. I think these anti-Glass sentiments are a little overboard.
 
+William Dowell I think whether the glass being interacted with is a huge issue. If it's not being interacted with then it is merely ornamentation. Glass is out of line of sight, so when off becomes a fancy headband. Also at issue is how it is being used. It is a hands free headset for a phone and I believe California law states navigation devices are acceptable. I am eager to see how this turns out.
 
+Tim McDowell I guess it is just a skill you need to develop. I'm use to speaking with people while I drive whether they are passengers or on the phone. I always use hands free devices when on a call while driving. I haven't developed my voice commands skill yet.
 
I agree +William Dowell, that's what's interesting is seeing how old laws bend or get updated to deal with new techs. If you ever come to California you'll see we all drive pretty fast here, long distances and good highways, and normal traffic speed is 80+ most of the time, like every line is going at that speed ... 
 
Let's ban radios/CD players in cars too... distractions are everywhere in a car. sigh, common sense is going out the window yet again...
 
I wonder why the process takes so long for a traffic violation.  The last time I challenged a ticket (albeit in Florida), I simply appeared in front of the judge briefly and it was decided - no follow-up appointments.
 
People bring you up constantly when they see I have glass! Hope this ends well for you :)
 
I'm surprised Google isn't hopping in on this one with am amicus brief.  
 
I see your point +Wolfgang Rupprecht! They're monitoring everything that happens in the explorers community and they'll probably take actions if ever needed
 
best wishes sunshine;)
 
If we ban things like glass that are intentionally just outside of your primary vision, then I demand a total ban on all roadside advertising and non traffic signalling signs. Particularly ones with lights, text, or video.

The anti glass sentiments are more than over the top; they're quite simply uninformed. Thats like me saying I dont like pickles, despite never having tried them, while refusing to try them, while proclaiming i already know and shouldnt have to try them to know it or not. That literally makes no sense. #glasshatefail #teamcecilia
 
I agree +Cassius Wright, and it's specially scary when people making laws have no idea how the tech they're legislating works.
 
well, the reality is that california vehicle codes are written at the request of the insurance industry for the most part ... separating people from their hard earned wealth by placing an insanely false (high) price on risk is their business objective ... modification of the CVC is their method ... #NotAFan  ... SAFETY is the proper objective, the fact that Glass can be/is safer than a dash-mounted GPS is the REAL point to be made here, i hope & pray that is the conclusion of the judge (ABSOLUTELY reject a judge pro tem, ONLY take a sworn in judge!)

you got this, smile ;)
 
Im sorry I did not read the comments to see if someone had asked this but....what is with that cameraman in the background?!
 
Good luck in your court case!  Personally I use Glass for Navigation all the time.  Way safer than looking down at the console GPS.  If you want to make cars safer, ban crying babies!
 
+Rosario Doriott Domínguez ... they also are motivated to become a judge, therefore biasing them in a manner that is detrimental to the defendant (i.e. they are trying to prove to the court they are worthy of being a judge, and therefore carry a bias favoring the court over the defendant)
 
You were speeding and wearing Glass while driving. Maybe instead of wasting the city or state's time and money you should pay the ticket that you deservedly got.
 
+Jeff Bond That hasn't been my experience. All trial judges, even pro tems, are concerned about being overturned. I see what you're saying, but a worthy trial judge is fair, not biased either way.

The only time I can think of where you would not want to agree to being heard by a pro tem is where the factual scenario is so routine, and you've had success in front of a particular judge before. But here, as her lawyer has explained, the facts are unique.

Best case scenario: Officer fails to appear.

Second best: Officer appears, but fails to testify as to all elements of both charges.

Third best: The judge takes it into consideration, and gives a written ruling. This has happened to me once, from a pro tem. (Favorably)
 
+Brendan Dillon ... you're living proof that even smart people say stupid stuff! You really felt that much of a need to visit this post, just to share that simplistic of an idea?
 
+Brendan Dillon makes a simple point, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is stupid. It's a valid opinion. And if she was speeding (I haven't read much of anything on this), I might be inclined to share that opinion.
 
Wearing Glass while driving is not illegal.  Nobody should have to pay a fine for doing something that isn't even a crime.  This case will prove that.
 
+Jeff Bond Another thought:  When you wrote "bias favoring the court," I took that to mean a bias favoring the government, or prosecution (criminal case here). The court is not on either side.  It's on a different branch.

Now a pro tem is still a lawyer. And it's always a win in my book when we get to correct, or let's say better educate, a citing officer. :) 
 
thanks for the response +Rosario Doriott Domínguez ... you make great points, thanks for that.

it is still difficult to ignore a pro-tem is trying to become a "worthy trial judge" ... in other words, when you go out on a first date, you make extra efforts to come across in a good manner; 20 dates later the stubble beard starts showing, the car door might no longer get opened for your date, etc. 

you get the picture :)

but i hear you, and if i needed an attorney i'd be quite comfortable in hiring you (i think you're an attorney), kind regards jeff
 
+Robert Hamilton in California, it's illegal. It easily falls under distracted driving ordinances. Not to mention it's just plain common sense that you shouldn't be using something like Glass while driving any more than you should be messing around with your smartphone, tablet, laptop or other device.
+Jeff Bond yes, it is a simplistic and obvious point, and yet here she is wasting time and money fighting a ticket that she deserved to get. Don't speed. Don't wear Glass or mess around with mobile devices when you're the passenger. Pretty simple right? And yet here we are with her fighting the ticket with the support of the more oblivious members of the technorati.
 
sorry +Brendan Dillon i got caught up in being critical of you, instead of clearly making my point regarding your comment ...

i believe this IS a landmark case, with implications & ripples that will resonate throughout the nation, as it relates to vehicle code ... in contrast to your position, i believe this is an immensely important case, as it will likely become precedent, used as a basis in thousands (millions?) of cases going forward, kinds regards jeff

p.s. i apologize for my earlier comment !
 
No worries. I have to disagree though. Glass is just another mobile device. California law clearly covers the use of mobile devices while driving as do many other states. It's distracted driving. Everyone compares it to a HUD, but it's not, a HUD that is built into a car can't show your twitter stream, take photos, play games, etc. Honestly, this is such an obvious situation, I have to wonder if Miss Abadie is just really enjoying and milking her 15 minutes.
 
If it were me, if I had it off, I'd have it off my head. I think a reasonable, sensible, safety-conscious person shouldn't tolerate any obstruction to their vision or distraction to their concentration that is reasonably avoidable. So I'm divided. I do want to see the Court clarify the law in this regard. At the same time, I want to see people not speed, and not drive with Glass or any other mobile device in-sight, in-hand, in-use.

Even if the Court rules that it wasn't illegal, I'd still consider it inadvisable. Nay, unwise.

Before you label me a law-and-order facist, I'll point out that I run a red light (left on red arrow) approximately twice per month. Much more often when on the motorcycle. I turn when it is the best combination of safe, expeditious and reasonable. I don't do it when police are present, nor when there are enough other drivers around that I'm risking pissing off the wrong sort of bloke.

So - what is legal is a useful thing to know. But I implore you cyborgs to be reasonable. Take your danged Glass OFF before you drive. 
 
+Kelvin Olson I completely agree on the line you draw between legal and safe.
There's a bit of confusion on what it means for Glass to be off. It works pretty much as your cellphone. It's powered on, and it's available if you need it, but the screen is off. If you want to turn it on you either tilt your head up or touch the side panel. 
For the most part Kevin, it's very hard to grasp Glass until you use it ... If you're interested in learning more about Glass let us know and we might arrange some Glass sighting near you.
 
+Cecilia Abadie I have a good friend and former co-worker who has Glass. A demo would be easily arranged if I had interest. And although I find the possibilities interesting, I already know it's not something I'd wear out and about. Maybe to a hamfest (amateur radio swap-meet), where I'd be surrounded by people even geekier than I (plus a few other styles of cyborgs). But not around the general public. And never behind the wheel.

As it is, I already choose my glasses frames largely on peripheral-vision considerations. I'll wear thick-bow frames while fishing. Need to block glare from many directions. But I can't wear those same sunglasses while behind the wheel - makes me unnervingly myopic.

On the "what a geek" grounds and on the visual obstruction grounds, every time I see a headshot of someone showing off their Glass, "oh hell no" is the first thing that pops into my head. Not even if it gave me directions to free beer and hot girls. Uh-uh. Nope. Not gonna do it.

All that is beside the legal situation, which I still find academically intriguing.

(Clarification: Yeah, they'd have to be hot blind girls. The irony is not lost on me. And yeah, at least 80% of this is tongue-in-cheek.)
 
WOW.  
the lack of perspective and combative nature of some of these comments is really disappointing.  If you really feel the need to troll posts about a technology you have zero intention of even attempting to understand, then i would suggest putting that effort towards a more noble pursuit, like helping a shelter or food bank for the holidays.  Just because you might feel a specific way about a topic doesn't mean that A) other's can/will/should feel like you, B) you're correct, and most of all C) that you can be a huge tool to strangers about it.  take that uniformed hostility and turn it into helpful energy for those that wish they had your life. 

+Kelvin Olson this comment follows you but isn't directed at you.  you've been most respectful in stating your thoughts.
 
 
If it's off, take it off, you're driving.
If it's on, take it off, you're driving.
It is against the law in many states to have headphones in while driving. Whether they are turned on or off the officer has no way of determining. You've got them in, you get a ticket. Similarly an officer has no way of determining what you were doing with Glass. If you're speeding and you have Glass on it is perfectly reasonable for the officer to conclude that Glass was a factor in your speeding (aka distracted driving).
I got my Glass invite the other day, I can't wait to get my pair. Under no circumstances though will I ever wear them while driving, nor should anyone else and it's a damn shame Google hasn't come out and advised Glass Explorers NOT to wear Glass while driving.
 
+Brendan Dillon the law doesn't work with reasonable conclusions. Reason is subjective. Law is not.
I respect your opinion now, but I'd love to hear your opinion after a few weeks of having Glass if you get used to wearing it often, regardless of you confirming or denying your actual point of view.
 
If there was no data transfer during the time leading up to the stop then these are just a normal pair of glasses, no?
 
Whoever told you law isn't subjective either didn't know what they were talking about or was pulling your leg. The law is VERY subjective, that is half of what goes on in a courtroom, reasoning and subjectivity. If it was purely objective, then your case would be over already.
Mobile device with a screen in view?
Yes.
Case closed.
 
"If the screen wasn't lit, you must acquit"
 
+Matt Lane the officer has no way of determining that. As a parallel, if it is against the law to listen to headphones while driving as it is in many states, then whether you have music playing or not, you will get ticketed for it when pulled over if they are in your ear.
 
That's because they have a law that prohibits headphones. There's no law that prohibits Glass. This is not a jury this is a judge applying the law. 
 
Mobile device with a screen in view?
yes.
used for navigation?  
unknown.
if yes, then she's legal in CA according to their own statutes

talking on a  device with hands free system?
unknown
using a hands free device?
yes
if yes, then she's legal in CA according to their own statutes.  

reasonable doubt = not guilty, this is America.

this is currently a gray area since its a new hybrid device, so your insistence that the CA laws only work the direction you think they should is silly; they can obviously be applied the other direction according to other opinions, all of which are equally as valid as your own. 

btw, disagreeing repeatedly doesn't make you correct, it makes you disagreeable, repeatedly.  
like i said dude.  put that energy into helping others.  you'll feel way better.
 
+Cassius Wright you did put that very clear!
I'm can't believe seeing not only total ignorance regarding technology but also law. What happened to presumption of innocence?
And a lot of the same attitude from some lame media, with no interest on informing just feeding the scandal ...
 
the media guys sell more papers so for them its a math game which equates to money.  

everybody else just wants to have a voice.  I think everybody should have a voice, unless they're using that voice with the specific intention of shouting down or drowning out other perspectives.  none of us know how this will proceed, and to insist otherwise is a fallacy.  I just want an equitable application of the existing statutes, as well as a serious scientific approach to understanding the tech and its ramifications if new laws need created to govern this device and others that surely will follow.
Shouting "look at me, look at me, i'm an expert on an as yet-to-be-determined case"  just serves as a disservice to everybody interested, but particularly to you, who deserve an impartial look at the case.  why people want that voice to be representative of their online persona is beyond me personally.  i try to live my life with the perspective of what is truly important.  
 
Remember my dear, in America they call the guys that get shot by the cops "supsect"
 
2 things, you've basically admitted to the speeding part in your above post so I assume you aren't contesting that. Second your background image on your homepage seems to be looking through glass while driving for a flight update. While this appears to be a simulated image still makes me doubt if you really don't use glass while driving or only as a gps while driving.
 
I will openly tell anybody I drive with glass. I will likely continue even if that becomes illegal. I know what is safest for my driving, and of the available options, all of which ive tried, glass is WAY safer. I feel I also have a civic duty to disobey unjust laws much like our founding fathers. Laws based on reactionary media and not on science and experience are the epitomy of not only bad law, but also the primary issue in the whole damn country. 
 
Lol.  i try to inspire others by example
 
+Cecilia Abadie Good luck. We will all be awaiting the results of this one. You are a wonderful example for all GLASS Explorers. 

With you in spirit.
I continue to learn from, am challenged by and evolve with GLASS ... '-}
 
i think if you just tell the judge that i will be very disappointed if he/she rules against you.

that should do it lol
 
Good luck.
The future depends on this case.
No pressure or anything ;)
Add a comment...