Driving fine overturned after 'mobile phone' turns out to be hash brown

Justice never tasted so good.

A Connecticut judge’s decision has resolved a legal quandary that baffled some and left others flat-out hungry – could a police officer mistake a McDonald’s hash brown for a mobile phone?

In Jason Stiber’s case, the answer is “yes”.

He was found not guilty after successfully contesting the $300 (£230) distracted driving fine he received last year.

“It was the case of the century,” Mr Stiber’s lawyer, John Thygerson, said with a laugh. “He was quite pleased. Obviously, he was quite pleased.”

Mr Stiber’s victory comes nearly 13 months after he was pulled over by a Westport police officer who claimed to have seen the 45-year-old using his mobile phone on the morning of 11 April 2018.

Mr Stiber, representing himself in court, lost his case last year but refused to give up – telling The Washington Post he doled out a “significant” amount of money to hire Mr Thygerson to prove he was not talking on his phone.

His willingness to take on the legal fees – which exceeded the cost of the ticket – was a matter of principle, he added.

“Distracted driving violations go on your record and they never come off,” Mr Stiber said. “Plus, a lot of people don’t realise your insurance rates go up.”

In February, Westport Police Corporal Shawn Wong Won testified that he “clearly” saw Mr Stiber speaking into a black mobile phone while driving that morning, the Hour reported at the time.

Corporal Wong Won said in court that he saw Mr Stiber holding an illuminated object the size of a mobile phone up to his face while moving his lips.

Mr Thygerson rebutted that claim, explaining that Mr Stiber’s lip movement was “consistent with chewing” the hash brown he’d ordered at McDonald’s moments earlier.

Phone records show that Mr Stiber was not having a conversation at the time he was pulled over, Mr Thygerson said. His client’s car also has Bluetooth capabilities that allow him to talk without holding his phone.

To bolster his defence, Mr Stiber said he made a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain records showing Corporal Wong Won was on the 15th hour of a 16-hour double shift when he pulled Mr Stiber over, offering another reason why the officer may have confused the fried potato for a mobile phone.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the state was unable to meet its burden of proof, citing a lack of evidence that showing Mr Stiber was actually on his phone at the time he was pulled over.

The Washington Post reviewed a copy of the decision, in which the judge cited an appellate court case involving another Connecticut driver who was found not guilty in 2016 after being pulled over for using his phone.

“It just is proof that police officers – there’s nothing nefarious here – but that police officers are human and make mistakes, that’s all,” Mr Thygerson said.

Westport Police did not immediately return a request for comment.

Mr Stiber is relieved about the verdict, but said the lengths he went to defend himself illustrate a greater problem in the justice system.

He had to sit through two trials, miss four days of work and pay a lawyer to get the right outcome – painstaking steps he says others shouldn’t be forced to take.

“That’s why I did it, because I wouldn’t want anyone else to go through this,” he said. “Other people don’t have the means to defend themselves in the same way.”

It remains to be seen if Mr Stiber’s case will establish a new precedent in future cases.

He acknowledged, though, that his tribulations have made him think twice about eating hash browns.

“I definitely haven’t eaten as many as I have previously, but I still go to McDonald’s for other things,” he said. “It’s been a long ordeal, but I’d rather avoid trouble in the future.”

Washington Post