Facts

# Cancellation of Conviction for Minor Traffic Regulation Violation Due to Brief Glance at Mobile Phone **Parties:** - Appellant: [A.] , represented by attorney Alexander Kunz - Respondent: Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Solothurn **Facts:** - [A.] was driving on Oltenstrasse in Egerkingen towards Hägendorf on July 22, 2020, at 6:30 PM. - She held her mobile phone in her right hand next to the steering wheel and looked at the phone for one to two seconds with her head slightly lowered. - The public prosecutor convicted her of a minor violation of traffic regulations and imposed a fine of CHF 250. - The Higher Court of the Canton of Solothurn confirmed the first-instance decision. **Appeal:** - [A.] requested the cancellation of the judgment and her acquittal from the charge of a minor violation of traffic regulations. The appellant argues that the lower court convicted her in an unlawful application of Art. 90 para. 1 and Art. 31 para. 1 RTA as well as Art. 3 para. 1 sentence 2 TRegO. She contends that her behavior did not constitute an offense in objective terms, as her attention was not impaired and unlocking the mobile phone did not involve an action that would hinder the operation of the vehicle. The lower court concluded that unlocking the smartphone constituted an action within the meaning of Art. 3 para. 1 sentence 2 TRegO and that even one to two seconds of distraction in traffic could make it difficult to steer correctly. The Federal Supreme Court found that the lower court rightly held that the appellant had provided the attention required in the specific traffic situation. The appellant had her left hand on the steering wheel and could perform traffic-relevant manipulations. Furthermore, a brief glance at the mobile phone was not associated with an abstract danger to other road users. The Federal Supreme Court noted that the fixed penalty procedure must be applied if its prerequisites are met. The lower court, within the framework of the re-evaluation to be carried out after the referral, was to examine in particular whether the prerequisites for the applicability of the fixed penalty procedure were fulfilled and whether the offense of using a telephone without a hands-free device during driving according to item 311 of the fine list (Annex 1 FixPenO) was given. The appeal was upheld, the contested judgment was set aside, and the case was referred back to the lower court for a new decision. No court costs were charged, and the Canton of Solothurn was to compensate the appellant appropriately for the federal court proceedings. [ATF 137 IV 290, ATF 127 II 302, ATF 122 IV 225, 1C_470/2020, 6B_1183/2014, 6B_894/2016, 6B_666/2009, 1C_183/2016, 1C_422/2016, 6B_1423/2017, 1C_566/2018, 6B_681/2016,…