City of Chicago sued for illegally ticketing in-car yappers

So, you've got an outstanding ticket from talking while behind the wheel in Chicago, do you? Meet attorney Blake Horwitz, who is now likely to be the best friend you don't even know. Reportedly, Mr. Horwitz is suing the city and claiming that arrests of citizens caught driving and talking were in fact illegal, and furthermore, he's demanding that Chicago "dismiss any outstanding tickets and refund almost $2 million in fines collected since 2005." Apparently, the actual law that prevents users from yapping and motoring requires that the city erect signs that instruct drivers not to converse while driving, yet such signs have purportedly not been posted across Chi-town. The devil's in the details, we suppose.

[Image courtesy of ImportTuner]

[Chris Hickey @ Dec 21st 2007 7:29PM]

Fight the man!

[Jay @ Dec 21st 2007 8:05PM]

Daly?

Good luck with that

[Adam @ Dec 21st 2007 8:43PM]

All the details here... the video explains more.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-cellsuit_20dec20,1,1375208.story

[Andrew @ Dec 21st 2007 10:54PM]

This guy is my new hero. I received one of these tickets, he's getting a call tomorrow.

[Ray @ Dec 21st 2007 7:33PM]

doesn't putting up signs cost a whole lotta cash for the city anyway?

[computer.dude.28 @ Dec 21st 2007 7:46PM]

Well now it's costing more, because they (might) have to pay this guy, AND they have to put up the signs.. unless they change the law.

[rasbill @ Dec 21st 2007 7:34PM]

im willing to bet that lawyer got one of those tickets which started this ball rolling

[BlissX @ Dec 21st 2007 7:38PM]

Signs posted what, every 300 ft from another? The city would be littered in fugly signs. Whoever passed this law obviously overlooked the situation.

[steve @ Dec 21st 2007 7:41PM]

I'd like to see the actual law. As we all know, ignorance is not an excuse for committing a crime, so unless the law specifically states that those signs have to be up for the law to be in effect, I would think these people would be out of luck. Good thing too, being in close relations with numerous urgent rescue workers, it is serious business, and it causes a lot of accidents. We're not talking like drunk driving or anything, but it is bad, and it should be against the law. I'm surprised insurance companies haven't cracked down on it.

[AJ in the East Bay @ Dec 21st 2007 7:56PM]

The guy is a freakin' lawyer, so I'm sure he looked at that law in detail. If the city is not abiding by the law to erect signs, then why not set them straight?

[Brian @ Dec 22nd 2007 12:14AM]

Right-o. He's a lawyer, and is therefor immediately, without doubt, completely knowledgeable about the law in question. I mean, George W. Bush is the freaking president, so don't question his decisions about the country, either!

[RP @ Dec 22nd 2007 2:01AM]

Can't you be ticketed for simply "Driving while Distracted"? Similar to DWI?

I've seen a cop make a U-turn and pull somebody over for fishing in their glove box while driving. Not sure how you prove you weren't distracted either.

But studies clearly show that talking on the phone is distracting. I've almost been run over by zoned-out cell phone talkers.

[sinerasis @ Dec 21st 2007 7:48PM]

I've never seen a sign telling me murder was against the law... I wonder how long it'll take the people on death row to see this when all they have to do is surf the net all day.

[darkstar @ Dec 21st 2007 10:49PM]

you're a lawyer arent you?
lol

[Stefan @ Dec 21st 2007 8:18PM]

no but there are signs for things like wearing your seatbelt (at least here in california). everybody knows that murder is a crime but for things like talkin on the phone while driving or not wearing your seatbelt which might not seem like a ticketable offense to many, they need to put signs up to let people know.

[Craig @ Dec 21st 2007 10:19PM]

Wait... you mean all you have to do in prison is surf the net all day? Sign me up! Mayhem to ensue in 3... 2... 1...

[Andrew @ Dec 21st 2007 10:53PM]

Though it could be a slippery slope, one of the requirements for law is that it's properly promulagated. With a city-specific law that effects drivers who are maybe 40% of the time not from the city, a sign is in due order.

[steve @ Dec 21st 2007 11:38PM]

I didn't think you could sue the city for not upholding a law. Certainly, the city didn't uphold their end of the bargain, but does that mean others are exempt from the law as well? I wouldn't think so.

[Jon Doe @ Dec 22nd 2007 1:57AM]

There is a hell of a difference and you damn well know it. First off its illegal to murder someone in every state and most likely every country in this world. The same can NOT be said about cell phones. I'm from MN...I drove to Chicago and called up someone while there to get straightened around with directions. How the fuck am I to know that its illegal? What if I drive through 6 states to get to Z.....I guess I'm expected to research every state to know its laws....bullshit. Post it. It doesn't have to be every 200 feet but on interstates, major exchanges, etc.

[iomatic @ Dec 24th 2007 4:11PM]

Could everyone look up, "sarcasm" before down-ranking this commenter? Sigh.

[Jon Doe @ Dec 22nd 2007 2:02PM]

iomatic,

Yes because I can really HEAR the sarcasm in his voice with that post. ;) If you are going to be sarcastic on a thread use a bloody smilie. The only time sarcasm REALLY works on a thread without a smilie is when it is so over the top that there is simply no way in hell anyone could possibly hold that opinion, but even then this is Engadget. Where the teen aged, I-know-everything-so-I'm-right, morons come to play. So assuming sarcasm doesn't always, or ever, work.

[JQuilty @ Dec 21st 2007 8:05PM]

I hope nothing comes out of this. Chicago and C(r)ook County are already in a budget crunch as it is, and then Daley and the Toddler (the mayor of Chicago and the county president) will be begging the rest of the state for money since they're morons.

[deadlock32 @ Dec 21st 2007 8:38PM]

dude wtf, this whole state is joke, and it needs to change, just look at Blaggo and his "Mammograms for Women" and "lets just tax more, especially businesses because Chicago has no trouble keeping them " IL is crook-town USA and it needs to stop, and it will stop as soon as more people realize it.

we need to have our dessert, not be in the middle of a desert.

[JQuilty @ Dec 21st 2007 8:49PM]

Everyone in this state knows the government is shit, but they're too stupid to get rid of them. And there are partisan hacks that would vote for John Ashcroft if he had a (D) next to him name.

That said, I live in Emil Jones' district. At least I'll get a short sense of satisfaction voting against him.

[deadlock32 @ Dec 21st 2007 8:31PM]

You guys are missing the point, the new law MIGHT HAVE stated that there MUST be signs for the law to be enforced. the laws regarding murder do not state the need for signs anywere. If there is nothing the the law that states signs must be put up then this lawyer is SOL

[ScareyJ @ Dec 21st 2007 9:06PM]

@deadlock32, you're right. For instance, in my area of VA, the laws for parking in a handicap spot actually requires a sign be posted. Even if the symbol is painted on the pavement, you can still park there unless theres an upright sign posting that its a handicapped spot. Atleast this is what the neighbor cop mentioned based on the wording.

So if the law does have the wording, it won't matter about changing the law. All the fines and tickets will have to be dropped since you can't exactly back date a change in law. I'm pretty sure most every state constitution will have that protection clearly stated :-) Personally I hate bulls*it techicalities that let people off (and the lawyers that love to use them) ... but I also believe in strick adherence to constitutional law. Some how it seems the morons are always the ones drafting laws adding stupid clauses to kill its purpose or any bite it may have.

[Ignatius @ Dec 22nd 2007 5:16AM]

Like Income Tax? :P

[Vaishal @ Dec 21st 2007 9:10PM]

I hate Chicago cops
Fight!

[Anonymous @ Dec 21st 2007 9:27PM]

Sec. 11-207. Provisions of this Chapter Act uniform
30 throughout State. The provisions of this Chapter shall be
31 applicable and uniform throughout this State and in all
32 political subdivisions and municipalities therein, and no
33 local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance rule or
1 regulation in conflict with the provisions of this Chapter
2 unless expressly authorized herein. Local authorities may,
3 however, adopt additional traffic regulations which are not
4 in conflict with the provisions of this Chapter, but such
5 regulations shall not be effective until signs giving
6 reasonable notice thereof are posted.
7 (Source: P.A. 85-532; revised 12-04-01.)

[Chris K @ Dec 22nd 2007 12:00PM]

I think I speak for most of America when I say: Get the hell off the phone, Andrew.

[redspear @ Dec 21st 2007 11:50PM]

When you have a city such as Chicago which has businessmen from all over the country and even the world, some of which come from places where it is not illegal to use a cell phone and drive. It is very important that they have some notification of the differences in the law you know since they don't break them.


Also to the person who said ignorance of the law is not an excuse. They are wrong. Unreasonable ignorance is not an excuse. e.g. I didn't know it was 45 MPH when there are signs posted is not a valid defense. As opposed to I didn't know it was 45 MPH when there are no signs posted is a valid defense. Both are born out of ignorance and hence the reason we have signs to reduce ignorance to the law.

[Luis @ Dec 22nd 2007 12:48AM]

My hero!

[nickfawwaz3 @ Dec 22nd 2007 12:51AM]

This is engadget isnt it? is that a new cell phone or what?

[jaime @ Dec 22nd 2007 1:22AM]

i live in chicago and dats y i just txt while driving(even though dats probably illegal to).

[JBo @ Dec 22nd 2007 1:25AM]

So just change the law to make it less cretin (read: lawyer) proof. It's only 2 mil, pocket change for a city the size of Chicago (though I'd still tell Mr. McSheister to get lost). And in addition to a fine, drivers should also have their license suspended for a month first offense, revoked altogether second.

[Peter @ Dec 31st 2007 3:33PM]

It's the State law that calls for the signs (per the above post of the text of the law), so Chicago can't just change it without State involvement. The signs need to be posted. Why is that so difficult? While I normally think that people should be responsible for knowing the laws of wherever they are, in this case since the State of Illinois obviously felt that in traffic related local ordinances an additional sign is required, the city obviously knew of that law before going forward with their own local ordinance, so now no one should be shocked that the ordinance is being challenged until the proper signs are installed.

[Randomness @ Dec 22nd 2007 2:27AM]

The rest of the state just milks Chicago for money, since nothing else in the state makes any. How else does Gov Blago pay for all those flights home and back from Springfield every week?

How many of you research all the laws in a city before going there? No one? Yeah. It's still legal to talk on a cell while driving in many parts of the country, if not most. Unreasonable to think that people will suddenly know specific laws for an area without signs or being told. There should be 1 warning per person if there are no signs so that people have no excuse for not knowing and can't complain then, especially if they are from out of state.

To the person that wants peoples' licenses suspended and revoked for this, you are crazy. The whole city will shut down. You obviously don't live here. The city runs on fines. The Traffic Enforcement people are under the DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE for pete's sake.

[Bernie B @ Dec 22nd 2007 3:49AM]

There have been studies made which show a correlation of cell phone usage while driving is equivalent to being legally drunk. I'm not certain if that applies to hands-free use, but the lawyer should just pay the damn fine and pull over to talk if he has to yap that badly.

As for who should be liable for notifying the public, make it the cell providers responsibility to inform their clients of the rules and restrictions in their local municipality.

[matt @ Dec 22nd 2007 6:05AM]

*awaits flaming, Dons asbestos underwear*
Given the general lack of driving standards in the US, any removal of distractions is a good thing. If you really have to use a phone whilst driving, use a bluetooth headset, they cost less than $50, and are very useful.

[Peter @ Dec 22nd 2007 7:30AM]

I'm with Nik, I'm more interested in that funky phone.. must be a nokia 1?

[Nick Catalano @ Dec 22nd 2007 12:27PM]

I live in Chicago and had just learned this was the law not but a few months ago. This happened TWO YEARS AGO? Geeze, this guy deserves to win and get these people back their $$$

[TAz00 @ Dec 22nd 2007 6:40PM]

That is fucking dumb, learn the law before you drive retards. Duuuh i need a sign to tell me not to run over ppl!

[Andy @ Jan 1st 2008 12:37PM]

People Get real!

I am all for hands-free phones, but are you all really
telling me you can pay attention to the road with one
hand on the phone!?

I used to live in Chi-town and never a day didn't go by
where some jerk was going 45 gaggling on the phone and
holding people up. Hang it up -- or get a real phone.

Do you need a sign to tell you to tie your shoes?! For
crying out loud! Use some common sense.

Hurray CHicago -- finally you got something right!


Ex-chicagoan

[Jimbo Barfyslop @ Feb 20th 2008 2:25PM]

I also text while I drive, so as not to be noticed by Chicago pigs. The downside is that I have to keep staring at my display and at the tiny buttons and it's a cheap phone and I hate to look at it, and I have to restart the entire message when I hit a pothole or rearend a stalled dump truck at 50 MPH on the Dan Ryan. Gets annoying after a while.

BTW if you are weaving or driving indecisively or not using your signal or menacing pedestrians with your vehicle with conducting "business," and I see you do that, the Chicago pigs will be the least of your worries. Shut up and drive. The more of you who are stopped, ticketed, and hopefully beaten senseless and hauled off to the Cook County Clink, the better.