INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
The man claims he was pulled over for eating McDonald's hash brown, mistaken for a cellphone.A Connecticut man is doubling down on his
defense after he was ticketed for distracted driving last year, recently telling local news outlets he spent $1,000 on an attorney to help
contest the $300 citation.Jason Stiber says the officer who pulled him over on April 11 mistook the McDonald's hash brown he was eating for
a cellphone."I have never in my 21 years as a criminal defense lawyer - and that's all I do - I have never such a minor case engender such
disproportionate attention," his attorney, John Thygerson, told The Washington Post
"It's a big deal to my client, but small potatoes in the grand scheme of things."Thygerson declined to confirm reports on the cost of his
services, but he said he's had a "boatload of clients that have elected to fight the hard fight because they believe they are right, rather
than take the path of least resistance and pay a fine."For Stiber, the fight continues after unsuccessfully representing himself in court
last year, where a magistrate judge found him guilty, Thygerson said
He was back in court Friday as part of a requested retrial, where Thygerson laid out a multipronged defense to prove his client was simply
eating his breakfast.Westport police Cpl
Shawn Wong Won testified that he "clearly" saw Stiber speaking into a black cellphone while driving that fateful morning, according to The
Won said in court that he saw Stiber holding an illuminated object the size of a cellphone up to his face while moving his lips.Thygerson
argues that Stiber's lip movement was "consistent with chewing" the hash brown he'd ordered at McDonald's moments earlier
Phone records show Stiber was not having a conversation at the time he was pulled over, Thygerson said
His client's car also has Bluetooth capabilities that allow him to talk without holding his phone."There is no reason for him to hold a
phone to his mouth to talk when he has to the hands-free device to turn it on automatically," he said
"Even if you were to think he was on the phone, he wouldn't need to hold a cellphone because his car is Bluetooth enabled, and was on the
date in question."Thygerson said prosecutors argued that even if Stiber wasn't talking on the phone, Won saw him using it "in a matter that
made using a vehicle unsafe" - such as texting - which could also explain the alleged illumination
But Thygerson said Won never testified that he saw his Stiber speeding, swerving or driving erratically
His client also pulled over properly and had a hand on the wheel, he said."When people text, oftentimes people will drift and that will be a
basis for a stop," Thygerson said
"There was nothing witnessed by the officer to support the thesis my client committed any motor vehicle violation."To augment their defense,
Thygerson noted that Won was finishing the 15th hour of a 16-hour double shift when he pulled Stiber over, offering another reason the
officer may have confused a fried potato for a cellphone."My argument is simple - simple human error," Thygerson said
"We all make mistakes."Thygerson notes that Stiber pleaded guilty after receiving a similar citation in the past, which he paid without
issue.But now, as Stiber told The San Francisco Chronicle last year, he's "going to trial for justice."A judge will likely issue a verdict
in the case before April 5, according to The Hour.(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by TheIndianSubcontinent staff
and is published from a syndicated feed.)
