He’s being fined based on the picture. If you agree that the picture doesn’t necessarily show anything, why is it his responsibility to prove that he wasn’t doing the thing that the photo doesn’t show him doing?
Why not just issue a ticket to the owner of every phone that is in use on a roadway. If someone wants to contest the fine, they can explain who or what or how the phone was being used.
On a more practical level, you say his phone history could show what someone with the phone was doing, and that person could be brought in to testify. (Again, at whose expense?)
So, here it goes:
State: You were on the phone.
Tim: No, it looks like I was scratching my head.
State: Your phone was in your car, and a call was in progress to Paul at the time the photo was taken.
Tim: Hmm. Maybe it was my wife, or my friend Ted calling Paul.
State: Wife of Tim, were you on the phone with Paul while in the car with Tim on January 6th, at 4:19pm?
Wife of Tim: Could be. I do ride with Tim, and I do talk to Paul.
State: (same interaction with Ted)
State: Paul, who were you speaking on the phone with on January 6th, at 4:19pm?
Paul: Um, I don’t remember. I could have handed my phone to my husband, or to our kid, or to my friend Ken who was visiting that week.
State: WE WILL ROUND THEM UP!
Tim: By the way, my car also allows connects to the phone hands-free, so it could have been me talking on the phone legally, while also scratching my head.
I mean, the fact that the guy actually understands the tech that is being used against him shouldn’t count against him.
If he had just said, “nope, doesn’t look like I have a phone to me” would you be more convinced?
