Woman is fined $600 for using her phone. Then she represents herself in court and the judge sees the bodycam: ‘How could you give this girl a fine?’

Aleksandra Bialous (@aleksandrabialous), better known as Ola, told TikTok about the time a police officer fined her $600 for allegedly using her phone while driving. Ola contested the fine and represented herself in court, believing she did nothing wrong.

“Guys, get ready with me while I tell you the story of how, at 18 years old, I took a police officer to court, represented myself, and won,” Ola told TikTok. She was driving to her boyfriend’s house at 11:00 p.m., an hour away. As soon as she reached the top of the hill, she saw orange lights on the left. She paid them no mind, overtook all three cars on the right, and sped up.

“As soon as I’m driving past these orange, mysterious lights, boom. It’s an RBT,” she explained. It was an RBT (Random Breath Test), and Ola realized she was about to be tested when a cop pulled in front of her car. The cop allegedly started banging on her window and accused Ola of speeding. When she rolled down her window, the cop asked why she was speeding.

Ola denied speeding, telling the cop that there is a speed camera on the road. She claimed she drove on the road all the time. Regardless, the cop allegedly tested her breath, and the result came back negative. After that, the cop allegedly asked Ola for her license. When she tapped her phone, the first thing that came up was her Spotify.

The police accused her of using her phone while driving

The cop immediately asked why Spotify was on her phone, and she said she had been listening to it before she left the house. Ola also allegedly showed her dashboard and clarified that her phone was not connected to CarPlay. But when Ola unlocked her phone after entering her password, an active Apple Maps app came up.

“This is where it goes downhill,” Ola commented. The cop allegedly asked Ola why her Apple Maps was active. Ola claimed that she only checked her estimated time of arrival to her destination, but accidentally left it running. However, she told the police at the time that because she lived so far from her boyfriend, she left the map running just in case. The police officer allegedly told her that she was still using some form of active map. Ola defended herself by saying she wasn’t using it because her phone was locked. The officer allegedly stepped away from Ola’s car and started taking photos of the front, back, and side of her vehicle.

Ola claimed the police officer fined her $600 for using a mobile device while driving. Although she wasn’t detained, unlike this Tennessee woman whose officer took her along for a ride after accusing her of having a suspended license, Ola was still fined and given five demerit points. Ola called her mother about the issue, and her mother encouraged her to contest the fine. Even though she tried to, Ola said she still received an email saying she was guilty of the offense. However, the email gave her the option to take the case to court.

Defending herself in court

“So, what do I do? I’m taking that MF to court,” Ola said. After six months, her court date came. In the waiting room, Ola said a police officer came up to her. She alleged that he advised her to plead guilty.

“I really think you should plead guilty because we have all of this video evidence, we have a transcript of what happened on that night, and you basically said on that night that you were guilty because you were using Apple Maps,” the officer allegedly said. At the time, Ola said she considered the officer’s advice. Furthermore, the legal aid she went to also told her she had a small chance of winning because she was technically using her mobile phone while driving. But Ola didn’t want to plead guilty, so she told the judge she was “guilty with reason.”

The judge allegedly asked for bodycam footage of the event and told Ola she would have another hearing. She and the police officer were summoned back inside. Unlike the officer, who had legal representation, Ola said she represented herself. The judge asked Ola to explain what happened and why she didn’t plead “not guilty” instead. Ola reasoned that she did so because she was “advised” to plead “guilty with reason,” without disclosing that the police officer urged her to plead “guilty.”

The hearing was re-adjourned, and Ola was given the evidence the police submitted to the judge for cross-examination. She read through the files, and she saw a section that said “car multimedia device active.” Ola alleged, “He’s alluding to the fact that I had CarPlay active on my screen in my car.”

Catching the officer in a lie

When it was her turn to cross-examine the police officer, she asked him to clarify what “car multimedia device active” meant. Ola said she showed him her dashboard to prove her phone wasn’t connected to her car. The police allegedly doubled down and said “modern” cars have CarPlay.

“So, you’re just assuming she had CarPlay, and you’ve put it in the evidence that you provided to your police report just so you could enable yourself to give this girl a fine?” the judge allegedly said. The judge allegedly added that they watched the bodycam footage and saw nothing on Ola’s car dashboard screen.

“How could you give this girl a fine?” The judge allegedly asked the officer. Ola said the judge emphasized that for her to use the map on her phone, she would still have to unlock her device. Ola said that the officer and his legal aid didn’t know what to say after that, and the judge briefly stepped out. Eventually, the judge came back in to deliver the verdict, and Ola said she was judged “not guilty.”

Ola encouraged others to stand up for what they believe is right, even if other people doubt them. Similarly, a woman from Melbourne fought off a $500 AUD charge after slamming her cart into a couple at a railway park in South Korea.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]