A 2013 Town Court decision found a driver not guilty of a device violation because she was only checking the time on her phone, comparing it to glancing at a pocket watch. It's a sympathetic result, but it isn't settled law — a later court disagreed sharply with the reasoning, and no appellate court has resolved the split.
The Facts That Made the Case Sympathetic
A state trooper watched Riexinger drive past him holding a cell phone and stopped her for violating VTL § 1225-d, New York's portable electronic device law. She told him she was checking the time, and her own phone bill and text records, unchallenged by the prosecution, confirmed no calls or texts around the stop. The car's dashboard clock was broken, and she was on a short break from work.
Case on Point
The Town Court found the defendant not guilty, reasoning that using a cell phone to check the time was no different from glancing at a pocket watch, and that the legislature could not have intended VTL § 1225-d to prohibit that kind of use.
People v. Riexinger, 40 Misc. 3d 623 (Lockport Town Ct. 2013)
Two Trial Courts, Two Different Answers
Less than a year later, in People v. A.N., 44 Misc.3d 269 (City Ct. of Rye 2014), a different court examined Riexinger directly and disagreed with it. That court found no support in the statute's text for treating a phone-as-clock the same as a pocket watch, pointing out that VTL § 1225-d(2)(b) specifically lists "viewing" data on the device as prohibited "use" — which includes viewing the time.
But it's worth being precise about what that disagreement actually is. Town Court and City Court are both courts of coordinate, trial-level jurisdiction in New York — neither sits above the other, and A.N. is not an appellate reversal of Riexinger. Westlaw's citator flags Riexinger as "called into doubt," which reflects that a later court criticized its reasoning, not that a higher court struck it down. No appellate decision has resolved which reading of VTL § 1225-d controls, so Riexinger remains citable — just contested.
Warning: A favorable trial-court decision from one county doesn't bind a judge in another. Where lower courts disagree and no appellate authority has settled the question, expect the outcome to depend heavily on which argument, and which supporting evidence, is presented most persuasively to the judge actually hearing your case.
What Actually Strengthens This Defense
Whichever way a judge leans on the legal question, the parts of the record that helped Riexinger's case are worth building into any similar defense: the unchallenged phone bill and text records showing no communication at the relevant time, and a credible, specific explanation for why the phone was in her hand. The contested part is the legal argument that checking a phone's screen for the time falls outside the statute's definition of "using" a device — a reading A.N. pushed back on, but one Riexinger itself still stands for in its own courtroom.
Key Takeaway: Where trial courts disagree and no appellate court has weighed in, a case like Riexinger is a real argument, not a guarantee. Pair it with strong supporting evidence, and go in aware that some judges will find A.N.'s reading of the statute's text more persuasive.
Ticketed for Holding Your Phone to Check the Time?
Lower courts disagree on whether this defense works, which means how you present it matters. Find out what evidence and arguments give it the best chance.
Get Your Free Case Evaluation