Discussion  - 
A cop just stopped me and gave me a ticket for wearing Google Glass while driving!
The exact line says: Driving with Monitor visible to Driver (Google Glass).
Is #GoogleGlass ilegal while driving or is this cop wrong???
Any legal advice is appreciated!! This happened in California. Do you know any other #GlassExplorers that got a similar ticket anywhere in the US?
A cop just stopped me and gave me a ticket for wearing a Google Glass while driving!
The exact line says: Driving with Monitor visible to Driver (Google Glass).
Is #GoogleGlass  ilegal while driving or is this cop wrong???
Any legal advice is appreciated!! This happened in California. Do you know any other #GlassExplorers  that got a similar ticket anywhere in the US?
Mikkel Johansen's profile photoMaurice Meulenhof's profile photoSu Butcher's profile photoJared Burrows's profile photo
Was it on (screen active) while you were driving? Seems like it could go either way as far as the law goes. I'm not from CA though. Either way... Fight it. :)
Very interesting, it should be explicitly illegal if specified in a certain state law.

Sorry to see this happen to you!
Wow, I haven't heard of any federal legislation that's been passed about Glass yet..but there could be a local law that got you?

Also, with the way he said it, it sounds like you will need to research local texting laws. While the press usually talks about no texting while driving laws being passed, I wouldn't be surprised if some states kept it general with electronic monitor visible to driver.

On the other hand, "Driving with monitor visible to driver"..doesn't that sound exactly like a GPS? In that case I think you should be able to get it revoked.
Apparently the rule is: Do not drive a vehicle equipped with a video monitor, if the monitor is visible to the driver and displays anything other than vehicle information global mapping displays, external media player (MP3), or satelite radio information.
This is interesting. Will be following this conversation. I'd day it's worth to fight it. Thought it might depend on the judge.
Yeah this is fishy... A monitor visible to drivers comes standard in most new cars :-/ Not to mention Glass is great for maps and navigation :(
It's definitely a legit charge, but so long as the cop can't prove it was in use then you (should be) found not guilty.


+Sam Sullivan +Corey M  Magically, built in devices don't count.  The entire center console of a Tesla is a touchscreen - yet if you have a laptop in the passenger seat open and turned on, suddenly, the world ends.  Hurrah for CA.
Wow +Jeff Earls thanks for that info. That is very annoying, but good to know.

Either way, I still agree with all the above and say its worth a fight.
To use the officers claim "monitor in view" and yours of it not being in use is worth a fight. Impossible to prove, but still worth it.
I think the law is more for DVD player monitor distracting you while driving. can he prove you were using it no and unfortunately can you prove you weren't using it to read an email/text/newspost? seems like if you fight it might depend on how tech savvy the judge is, good luck. definitely fight it though so this cop doesn't think he is in the right.
I would fight it based on the principle that it was off.
So then a dash cam recording would not be legal. The fact that he specifically called out Google Glass makes me think he's knows of it or is looking out for it. If it wasn't on its no different than sunglass to me. A baseball cap could do more to impact your line of side. Hope you fight this. Maybe the cop was mad he didn't get an invite. I am
The cop is wrong.  Folks drive with a visible monitor (AKA GPS) mounted on their dash, windshield or otherwise all the time.  I think the officer was trying to make a point.  A wrong point.  Fight it.  
Fight it. You didn't break a law by simply wearing them. They clearly weren't on. Bad way to set a precedent. 
He must have not got a glass invite.

Need legal definition of monitor.
Email the Glass Guides, I bet Google would at least be interested in following the case if not helping out a bit. Someone's got to be a test case some day.
As a fellow Glass wearing Californian, I hope you keep us updated on this. I doubt he's right since this is the state with the most Glass wearers and I don't think I've seen any of the popular bloggers mention issues. 
+Kurt Nelson has a great point. And if Google sees any chance that you could win if you fight it, I don't know why they wouldn't help you. Overruling a ticket like this could be great publicity since its already been known that legal systems want to crack down on Glass.
It almost certainly is illegal: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm

Glass receives a video signal and can display business applications (email, texts, etc.). It's thus specifically covered by the statute.

GPS is specifically allowed by the statute. Anything similar to a computer or TV monitor is illegal. Whether it's on or not is irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but I think it's not worth fighting this.
Very interesting +Bodhipaksa Dharmacari and thanks. So, if the next version of Glass XE has a car mode that will only display GPS and allow phone calls, it would be legal?
It's worth fighting. Needs clearer definition of terms. It's not a for-sure loss. Cali is a bit too law happy anyway. I swear they'll make a law for every damn thing. 
If it wasn't displaying anything, it wasn't in your line of sight. In fact, you can see right through it. If the court is local to you, then definitely try to fight it. The cop might not even show up to testify.
Not a loss in that it might force them to clarify. Case might be lost. But karma is a bitch and the cop's time will come due. ;-)
So my smartphone being mounted and used as GPS is considered just as illegal as Google glass according to the statute I just read from +Bodhipaksa Dharmacari right? 
+Bodhipaksa Dharmacari How does tesla get away with a browser in dash. What if you are wearing a smart watch? How do Lift and Sidecar drivers get away with smartphone mounts? These distinctions all seem pretty arbitrary to me.

Also according to that it must be "operating " and not " A mapping display"

On a side tangent If you paired a glass with a bluetooth OBD2 adapter does that make it a "vehicle information display"

If none of the above work I need to start a "local publicly owned" solar co-op (maybe this will qualify as  local publicly owned electric utility) 
I would pay the bill, since even when you are right, the legislation process consumes a lot of time and energy, and also a lot of money if you loose. 
Glass is currently in the gray area. Its not illegal but at the same time its not legal as well. Google was apparently trying to talk to the feds about this but they stopped as Glass is still a beta device and might change over time. I actually talked to a cop and he said that this is an issue for them as well and that the cops have the right to decide whether you're guilty or not. I suggest not using one while driving just for safe measures (froms Cops). 
+Johann Dirry - No. Only if $ is tight. They expect us to not fight and just pay. Most folks who contest tickets have a good chance of making a case and even winning esp if cop doesn't show. They count on a default to giving in. By virtue of the right to represent yourself, do try. Cecelia. Don't rollover, imo.
And yet I think don't all the new cop cars have laptops and CV radios and all the other jazz? 

Edit: I'm aware of emergency services jazz, as well.
Emergency and other government cars are excepted in the law.
Cops don't like any device that can possibly record what they say to you while they engage you. Glass is a potential issue if they "miss speak" or call you "boy" while looking for violations to make their quota. Sorry, this may not have been a very constructive comment but is a potential negative bias.
Tesla's browser certainly does not seem to have an interlock device.  I rode along with someone driving a tesla recently and was playing with the big display while they drove, and had no problems launching the browser while the car was in motion.
+Cecilia Abadie  If its not on, its not operating, ie: capable of displaying a video signal, and thus should not prohibited by that quoted statute.

+Bodhipaksa Dharmacari  The specific statute you linked to clearly states that a TV or other device is illegal only if its OPERATING.  Its very clear on that point.  It mentions the device must be "operating" TWICE in the main text of the statute.  So it really does matter if its on or off.   You can set a TV or a computer monitor in the front seat of your car to transport it, and that's not illegal as its not operating.

I have vintage ambulances that have red emergency lights installed on them.  Red lights are not legal to operate on public roads unless you are an authorized emergency vehicle.  Under the law, when the lights are turned off, they are not actually "emergency lights".  Operating state is exceptionally important to the discussion.  Having red lights is not illegal, using them on public roads is.  It seems that based on the statute that you quoted, that would hold true for Glass as well.  On=Not legal.  Off=Not a TV or monitor, and thus legal.
+Bodhipaksa Dharmacari wouldnt the burden of proof still be based around it being operated, unless of course that was admitted. Still the law seems vague enough that Glass would be deemed to be that type of device and therefore illegal. Still it does seem odd, 17inch screen in middle of dash that requires you to look away from the road, legal, Glass which doesnt require you to take your eyes off the road, illegal.


27602.  (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.
How can they prove that it wasn't GPS or one of the other displays that are permitted?
I commented on your other photo, but I'll comment here, too. I'm a lawyer licensed in CA, and I'd love to help you with this if I can. Email me, and we can discuss?
No more driving with Glass in San Diego until this is resolved. Lots of monitors are visible, why is Glass not allowed? 
+Jennifer Tackman fight! You could be a first paving the way. I expect this story to gain traction in media outlets. I rolled over for a 300. speeding ticket in NY. Weeks later I got another ticket for 250.00. Because I pled guilty to the first offense it triggered another violation. Never again. The system is there for a reason. Use it sister!
I dont think this is about the law, or displays, or obstructed views... I think +Cecilia Abadie received the second citation because this cop walked up to the car and assumed he was being recorded. This about the camera on +Google Glass and what that represents to Officer Grumpy Pants. I hope +Jeff Jarvis picks up on this.
Did the cop know what it was or did you have to explain it to him/her?

  +Joshua Lutz did you see this one?  
I find Glass GPS way less distracting than console GPS. Rather than having to take my eyes off the road and change my focus to look at my console... I can keep my eyes on the road and see the directions in my peripheral floating up above traffic. ( Hi Cecelia, I was surprised to see your name in the news... you're e-famous now. ;) )
+Cecilia Abadie appeal... just go to court and fight it. State it was off while you were driving and there is no other practical way to transport them. They don't fold up to put in glass holders so you just wear them. There is no law against doing that as of now. If there was you wouldn't wear them. Do not try to argue anything else.. they were off.. period..
This could turn into a landmark case, you should see if any lawyers are interested in taking up the cause to make some headlines.
I just looked up the law, it was intended to prevent the watching of TV broadcast, Movies ... etc. It does have exemptions for GPS, Mapping devices. If it was off or being used as GPS; they have no case. If you challenge you should win...

V C Section 27602 Television


27602.  (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:

(1) A vehicle information display.

(2) A global positioning display.

(3) A mapping display.

(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.

(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any othersimilar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements: 
You should fight this to set a precedent for the rest of the Glass users. The DMV code that +Jeff Earls cites is titled "Television" and Glass is NOT that! This is a case of letter of the law and spirit of the law. Were you swerving or otherwise driving poorly? Or is the cop just on a mission to give tickets?
Funny the differences between Cali and the Midwest - I got into a fender bender last month out here in Michigan (person rear-ended me in stop and go traffic) - when the police officer came he noticed Glass on my face (sunglass attachment in place) but didn't know what it was. When I told him what it did, he thought it was COOL.

Not only that, but for the rest of the hour we were on the side of the road dealing with the situation, he was recruiting me to work at some tech company his son worked at!
This would be a state by state thing.  Although it seems highly unlikely that they would already be banned. I mean Mercedes is integrating their vehicle INTO glass!

But you can get some solace knowing you are the first to get a ticket with Glass!
+Scott Lawrence Lawson actually +Brian Foley cited that and in theory it could apply as it says "if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications" 

The thing is, you dont want to fight it to set precedent unless you have money for a good lawyer and arent worried about losing. Because when you argue technicalities with them they get mean and dont like to be argued against unless its from a lawyer. They hate citizens who argue. I know cause ive been in front of these people 3 times..2 was for parking tickets and one for accused of speeding when i wasnt. I was using the breakdown lane (which is allowed during rush hour traffic in massachusetts) and passed a cop on my left and he was in a bad mood. Was going 45 as you cant go any faster during rush hour. The argument for speeding was ridiculous..but of course thats not what you say in court..When you first appeal you dont even go in front of a judge. Its a court clerk and an officer from the department who reads the case (usually not even the officer who gave the ticket..the myth that if your officer doesnt show up you get out of the ticket is just that..a myth). You have to pay 25 dollars usually in cash and often when you go there (sometimes they have an option to mail in a check with the appeal but it depends on the department its going to). If you are still found guilty you can appeal again but have to pay 50 dollars in cash again, right there, so you can appear in front of a judge. In that case too the officer who gave the ticket may not be there and it may be helpful as there is no one to argue his point but it still doesnt mean you will be found innocent. SO in other words, have cash with you, dont get excited that your officer is not present as it means nothing, have your arghument ready and practised, hopefully have a clean driving record and mention it if thats the case (My clean driving record helped my case) and try not to say anything that would sound insulting or judgmental. The officer did not know they were off and didnt ask. Thats all. There is no law against wearing them as of now but if that is what you have to do, you will do it. Practise your argument.

You just want to win the case until someone with money and time can set a precedent. If +Cecilia Abadie trys to do this there is a chance she will just end up being a martyr...

The easiest thing is to argue it was off, not being used and just worn for transportation as they cannot be folded into a compartment. Show them the glass so they see its not bendable and have it off. Tell them to turn it on and see how long it takes and hopefully you have a good driving record.

The cop was one of those people who are prejudice against glass because they are new so he will give out tickets for them at every chance he gets..Regardless if there is reason too.

The thing about glass though, even though they can be used while being less of a distraction than even your gps since i dont have to take my eyes off the road to see the instructions, I can make and receive calls without holding a phone and being distracted (same as a bluetooth speaker in a car), the other features they have will make a lot of people misuse them and this can be dangerous. If they had an automatic lock while driving so they can be used only as gps or headset then it wuld be easy to argue. But then people using them in buses would have issues. So its not possible to make them foolproof.
+Jake Steinerman its just one of those things where people who are prejudice about change will be mad at the idea of glass and those who embrace change and technology will be excited. Its a matter of odds. You were lucky.
If he was like +Cecilia Abadie 's cop he could have decided to cite you. All up to the person. Which is why she fights it as the law is not meant to be subjective. So until there is a clear law on them, cops should not be allowed to cite people on this. They can give you verbal warnings which are clearly opinions but cannot use the law to apply their personal agenda (again, dont say this in court ;)) 
+Chris Karavoulias Here in CA, if the cop does not show, there can be no evidence presented against you so it is his/her word against yours. But my car (2012 BMW 328i) has a screen that can display texts, news, twitter and other info while driving. It is legal like a Tesla. This old law was written when DVD players in cars were the new thing and was written to prevent a driver from watching "television" or other shows. It is a law that is no longer relevant and needs to be challenged. Here in CA I am sure that +Cecilia Abadie could find lawyers to represent her pro bono for the publicity alone. Bad laws need to be challenged . . . it is our duty as citizens to do so.
and so far I think the +Google Glass navigation is the most compelling app available, so hopefully this doesn't become a trend
+Scott Lawrence Lawson no evidence presented against you is always the case and its always your word against the report being read.. but that doesn't mean you won or you are Scott free.. it just means your odds are better if you have a valid argument. Cops nowadays give so many tickets they don't have time to appear in court.. so their word is often taken more seriously than yours.. you have to be prepared

And if she finds a lawyer to represent her pro bono.. that would be great and useful.. but I wouldn't know where to start looking if it were me
If it is a hands free device he shouldnt be able to do anything
The car itself has "monitors visible to driver" -- Google Glass is just an alternative monitor.  And besides, what if the battery is dead?  If this thing is off, it's not visible at all.  Hey, if the government can [something you like], you can't complain when it uses that power to [something you dislike].
+Bryan Foster It doesnt help because you are having an immature reaction to the fact that you were pointed out you were wrong. Huds may as well be distracting but a digital display with controls that replace all the same analog ones is not enough of an argument. Having a tablet there might qualify but the photo you post6ed was faked and therefore does not support your argument. So you havent gotten past your teenage "stomping your feet on the ground" phase when you are told you are wrong?
LOL +Chris Karavoulias 

I think that maybe you should have a Snickers, you are confusing me for someone who cares about meaningless internet arguments when you are hungry.

Again, the picture was taken from a blog and posted merely as an example. There were no "claims" to authenticity in the first place. However, to satisfy those with anally retentive qualities, I have posted an authentic Tesla photo in another post for reference. 
+Bryan Foster and again..your example was wrong..posting a faked photo to illutrate your example is meaningless and the real photo does not support your argument...replacing analog controls with a digital display is not the same thing as having a tablet interface which is what your whole argument was... I dont need a snickers..i need people to stop listening to people like you who say things without thinking...the authentic tesla photo does not support your argument..are you not intelligent enough to understand that?

Its sad to see that you have so many followers and yet cant have a meaningful discussion and result to passive aggresive posts and then act as if you dont care...Snickers wont make you stop being annoying...It might taste good but the problem (ie you) will not stop 
Ooooooh +Cecilia Abadie. What a thing to wake up to. +Trish Whetzel, I agree. I bet the cat is out of the bag and cops in SD will be on the lookout. Cecelia, my friend, please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Will check with my local legal contacts.
Uh oh...I live in San Diego. Are they looking out for this now?
+Kirk Davis I think it all depends on who pulls you over. Its not in the law so they are interpretting it as they wish. Some may be excited for the new tech, others may be an angry and give you a ticket when glass wasnt even why they pulled you over, like with +Cecilia Abadie  .

There are lots of arguments on both sides so if this is fought with anything else than "it was off" its best to do so with a lawyer that is well prepared.
+Suzanne Carneiro I'm not so worried now since the Glass issue seems to be a second citation and not the only reason for the ticket. 
I'm confused, so Tom Tom and any GPS device on my dash is illegal?  Jackbooted thuggery if you ask me.  Cops just dont want to be recorded, which he probably thinks you were.
This is just the broke california law enforce looking for a quick payday. It happens all the time. They gave me a ticket for 100+ MPH in a 65 Zone and two letters later, they dropped it. Just remember, even in california, you are innocent until prove guilty. Say nothing when you get pulled over, get a court date and make them prove the display was on first (which they cannot prove) Second make them prove how this display is different from the video monitor display of a computer NAV unit in over 100,000 vehicles in california already. Both of which they can not do. Make some noise and they will drop it, like the lazy bums they are.    
btw, always always always take very ticket to court.  We need to inondate the system with ticket responses in court rather then just pay.  The system only works because we let it.  Guilty or not, take your ticket to court.
Sorry, I guess GPS is legally but what about a SAT (XM) radio display that is stock on GM, Dodge and Ford Vehicles that display the Video of the channel you are listen to ??? Almost every GM,Dodge or Ford vehicle form 2008 forward has the SAT radio display that is the same video display as the Google Glasses ??
You got a ticket because you were speeding.
Just saw you on the front page of Yahoo News- wow
Nov 15 is Google Glass driving day! Wear them while driving and wave at your local officer when you pass by!!
Hi Cecilia — I'm a tech reporter for the Washington Post. I wanted to know if it's okay if we use a screenshot of the ticket for our story on your encounter with the police. Let us know!
You will win Cecilia, also this should set a precedent.  In the future people may cite "state vs. Abadie"
Anyway, I am rooting for you, this is BS.  A. The police use laptops and tablets while driving, also, just having a phone (even off) in the front seat is is apparently illegal technically, according to the law not to mention the millions of GPS units mounted to the car OR BUIL INTO the dash of the car.  Hell, my radio has a video screen displaying time and date, is THAT against the law?  anyway, stay tough, you can win. : )
    I drive with my Glass all the time in CT and most of the time it does reduce distraction by providing a better GPS display than any car mounted option, with the exception of a HUD. To those that think Glass blocks your vision, I understand why it looks that way, but it really doesn't. That said, I do worry a little bit about other people misusing their Glass behind the wheel. 
    As it stands now, code 27602 likely DOES apply to Glass and cell phone screens. Glass is a multimedia video screen and while it COULD be functioning as any of the devices listed in (b)(1-4), it is also capable of playing video nor is it "installed in a vehicle". If there was a way to "lock" it into GPS mode then you might be good under (b)(5)(A) but clearly that isn't the case (unless you modified your Glass wink). Also, everything below (b)(5) doesn't really apply to you but includes exemptions for police monitors.
    Personally, I think a judge, or even a jury, would classify Glass as a "cell phone like video display" and make an example out of you. Especially given the current emphasis on reducing texting while driving related accidents. I think the only way to fight it would be to get a great lawyer, even then I think you're in trouble.
The police have it so very wrong! Glass is a huge diver safety device! It will save many, many lives, I'm sure. The #1 cause of death of teenagers in the US is texting while driving. Glass lets you get a text notification while keeping your eyes on the road, have it read aloud to you, and then voice dictate the response... eyes still on the road. Then there's the turn-by-turn nav in Glass... looking away from the road and at anything else, say your GPS, can dramatically increase the chance of an accident. Again, no taking your eyes off the road... you also don't have to look at your phone to see what number is calling you with Glass... again, more time with your eyes on the road... taking your eyes off the road is often more dangerous than driving drunk.. http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/study-texting-while-driving-now-leading-cause-of-death-for-teen-drivers-1.5226036
+Fred Davis while you may be right that correct usage of glass is less distracting than picking up your phone or looking at your gps, incorrect usage of glass can be more distracting.. like when you try to respond to a text and voice recognition does its own thing or glass starts doing its own thing because it thought you gave that command..a lot of people will misuse glass and this argument can result to banning glass from driving .. it's all up to how it's used and to many people will use it wrong.. if people used everything right, there wouldn't be navigation systems out there that lock up during driving (I know this because I asked the passenger next to me to add an address and couldn't until I pulled over).

So there are arguments on both sides..
+Christopher Madison That statute seems to apply only if Glass is ON.  The statute is clear that the screen must be "operating" in view of the driver to be in violation.  The statute does not say anything about a device that is off.  (Which +Cecilia Abadie said her Glass was)
Cecilia, I live in El Cajon and about to get my glass soon (hopefully!). I feel for you. This stinks. I would fight it though, especially since you said it was off. Good luck. Keep us all posted.
+Cecilia Abadie I am so sad to hear about this! [thank you +pio dal cin for looping me in!] In WA State we have not had any traffic incidents.  We have had bar in Seattle ban #Glass [I know the owner and we had very healthy public debates about reasoning behind this action and privacy concerns etc.] Since I use the maps feature frequently this will be interesting to watch unfold.  I hope you fight it because in my opinion it is ignorance based and fear driven behavior.
Google really does need to get their massive legal and lobbying muscle behind this police BS... just trying to pump up the ticket revenue... a little ad hoc taxation. If Google can get states to legalize driverless cars they can help with this... I've got lots of arguments to support this... Here's another one... If my Glass is part of my prescription glasses would I have to take my Glass/glasses off? That wouldn't be very safe! 
What if you used Glass as an assistive device? Would anyone have the right to make you remove it? 
Cecilia - did the officer merely write the ticket or did he make a concerted effort to confirm his perception that it was a) on b) in a mode w/evidence of timestamp that you had sent texts at time of ticket or operating at all in a matter noncompliant with CA ridiculous overzealous laws (sorry - SF resident and fed up). As an accessory in "off mode" does it constitute any manner of splitting attention? multitasking being the key driving force for no distractions while driving.

Look up articles by Prof Cliff Nass at Stanford for his studies on multitasking distractions. I believe he did one on driving too, but not sure. Is a nonoperative cell phone in seat next to you still a "working" active and dynamic mode technology? Or merely an object at rest capable of interaction once on? Your Glass was static nonactive plastic, metal glass, adorning your head at time of ticket. Multitasking distractions and safety issues occur when those components go into active mode providing digital interaction. A vehicle's radio is indeed more of a distraction and safety concern "on" than a plastic head adornment inactively positioned on head and not obscuring traffic view. See where I'm heading with this? Do we remove sunglasses, turn off radios, not allow conversations or movements from passengers, all known distractions to a driver's attention?

Read up on the basis of premises upon which the said law in question was based. This will help too. Laws also are dynamic in that we the people are given the right to question, challenge and amend as necessary. The government laws are there to protect you - they work for you and other citizens individually and collectively... Use your right to represent and challenge.

I'd research whether or not a lawyer in court with you would be help or harm at this point - only that judges are a bit more lenient with procedure nuances when you represent yourself. Behind the scenes prep can be full of support and prep. High profile lawyer may be seen as "example time" by court. Also, remember that if this goes high profile, whatever is said here on out publicly can be used for court to see where you might be headed with this and use ideas presented to better prepare their case. Think carefully before posting and discussing other than the obvious. If the ticket stands and case is lost, it is perfect for an appeal. Think both short and long term for the case.

And, if you choose not to be the example that challenges the law, then I support you. Legal crap is a mental, physical, psychological, emotional and temporal strain for the defendant (or anyone involved). The community is behind you. But... You and your needs at this time come first It may just be traffic court, but measure ROI of your time and energies at this point in time for you. Yes, it can lead to examples, amendments, press, drawn out legal blah. There will be others ticketed, so keep that in mind. We will address it somehow, some way, some time - in other words, YOU don't have to take on the battle. Your choice. Take care of you. Xo
I just read an article about this. The article had a link to the letter of the law in California: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm

There's a few arguments you can make. Technically the Google Glass screen is not a "television receiver", a "video monitor", a "television" nor really a "video screen" exactly. It is something technically different than all those. They might be able to argue it's an "other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications", but then you weren't displaying a TV broadcast nor a "video signal" at the time, right? I don't think looking at system menus or whatever you normally see through the Google Glass screen other than actual "videos" can be classified as a "video signal". They should have to prove that you were watching an actual video at the time, you can ask the officer what they observed you looking at through your Google Glass at the time. If they can't say what they observed you looking at through the Google Glass, then where's their evidence?

The article said your Google Glass wasn't even on at the time, how can the officer prove it was on? Did the officer see something on the screen? If so what was it then? How can the officer say for sure it was a "Video signal" oppose to something else? If the officer can't say what they observed you looking at, they got nothing. This is no different than having an actual TV screen or monitor in front of you, but it being turned off the whole time....that's perfectly legal because it's not on.

And then there's exceptions for GPS and Mapping displays in the letter of the law. This is also a good argument on your part. Your Google Glass can do those, so your Google Glass should fit the exemption.

If you're going to fight this, this is what I would do in court to prove your case. I would ask the officer to explain exactly what law you're accused of breaking and for the officer to explain exactly what the law is. I would ask the officer what a "video monitor" and "television" is. Drag it out to the basics if you have to "So a TV is for watching TV signals or DVD's right? A video MONITOR is for a home computer right? What do you mean video screen....to watch videos?". Then I would ask the officer if there was any exemptions to this law. Then I would ask the officer to tell the court what they think Google Glasses is, and if they're aware it has GPS and Mapping capabilities if they don't mention it. (Obviously they're going to play stupid and describe it in a way to fit violation of the law and omit anything that fits the exemptions). After that ask them what exactly they saw you doing that was in violation of the law, get them to say specifics as to what they observed was on your Google Glass screen to indicate it was in violation or to indicate it was on even. The officer is going to try to be vague as possible to protect their case so you're going to have to drag it out of them, it's tedious but necessary to get it on record in court.

I would then produce into evidence a print out of the exact wording of the law they've accused you of breaking, have the words "television receiver", "video monitor", "television", "video screen", "television broadcast", and "video signal" highlighted, also highlight the exemptions. Then I would read out the law for the court word for word. Then I would explain how the Google Glass screen are none of those by producing print out of definitions of what those other things are (Use Wikipedia articles or something that can look legitimate or accepted and can be entered into evidence). Explain what each of those are and how Google Glass are not them. Then produce print outs of articles and/or photocopies of the Google Glass manual which describes exactly what it is, explain it and enter it into evidence. Make sure you highlight the GPS and Mapping capabilities as listed in the evidence. And then lastly I would describe (using printout evidence if possible) how somebody can or cannot tell if Google Glass is on or not while not wearing the device. If there's no way to tell, then the officer couldn't possibly know and have failed to prove it was on. If there is a way to tell, and the officer did not describe the such way correctly (how could he if it was actually off) then again the officer failed to prove it.

Finally I would prove your case by declaring that the Google Glass does not fit any of the violations of "TV screen", "Video Monitor", and such, and it fits the listed exemptions of GPS & Mapping, and the officer failed to prove the device was even on by being unable to describe what indications he observed that would suggest it was on.....and that you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were not in violation of said law.

There's a few things to look out for too, in my area it's common practice for the officers to try to scare people out of fighting just before trail. They would approach the accused in court and tell them they're going to lose but if they plead guilty they'll reduced the fine. Don't fall for this bully tactic, don't even speak to the officer before trail. Sometimes they'll do this tactic and if the accused doesn't fall for it and wants to still fight, the officer will immediately tell the judge that they're not going to pursue the charges when the trail begins...because the officer knows they're going to lose or look bad when the accused tells their side of the story of the case. For you, your case might not even make it to court since you're getting so much publicity. The police might decide to drop it as soon as you file to fight it in court because it may be bad PR for them. The officer might decide not to show up to court either, letting you win by default. Something to think about. Also be aware that the police might be monitoring this thread or anything you might be making public. So don't say anything publicly that is incriminating or may weaken your case, they might bring it up in court as evidence (seriously, not being paranoid, insurance companies do this for accident claims).

Anyways, I hope all that helps. It's a pain in the butt, but if you do the prep work....your chances should be pretty good. Don't be afraid, at the very worse the only thing that could happen is losing the case and having to pay the fine....which is what's going to happen if you don't fight anyways. I hope you'll fight this and win, because this not only affects you but everybody else in the future which will be stopped while driving with Google Glass. This could have big ramifications for Google Glass itself. Looking forward to seeing how this turns out, and hoping you the best.
+Cecilia Abadie, +Garrett Dark said in a very articulate way what I was trying to express except that Garrett appears to know legal procedure far better than I do. I would print this thread out and then delete it. As we both mentioned, it could be being monitored and used for court purposes. It WILL come down to specific semantics, as we mentioned. Define carefully. And do not fall for the bully tactics which sometimes start even before the judge is present or through mail, etc. great advice given to you. Use it well and good luck!
Add a comment...