I lost my case because the judge had an outdated law book.

[Gravitycollapse]

I can't make this up. The judges book of statutes was printed In 2009 and the law was amended in 2012 to allow for digital insurance cards. Even though I had a copy of the law printed from the state legislature's website, he refused it as evidence.

Not only would he not dismiss the charge, he gave me until the end of today to provide proof of insurance or an arrest warrant will be put out.

This is goddamn insanity.

[Mr. David]

1. Print out the amended law

and take it up on emergency appeal, requesting the justices slap the judge silly for being out of date.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. Appeals are expensive. And time-consuming. Plus they are technical in nature.

In addition, an appellant can encounter judges at the appellate level that don't even read the briefs or listen to pro se appellants. Pro se appellants almost never win. It's like winning the lottery. It happens, but rarely.

Quicker solution: (1) Given the judge what he says he wants. (2) Contact those who sponsored the 2012 legislation, let them know what the judge did, and recommend a remedy. One potential remedy would be to suggest that the legislation be modified to provide an appellant with attorney fees if a trial judge refuses to follow the law.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. You're right, it is insanity. Do what you can to satisfy him. Then contact the sponsor(s) of the

2012 legislation.

[jberryhill]

3. Where?

[datasuspect]

4. i verbally quoted ILCS

in a traffic court case and the judge dismissed it on that basis.

[bluedigger]

6. Contact your insurer and advise them of the problem.

Law represents monied interests first and foremost, and this ruling is not in their interest.

[LiberalAndProud]

7. I have a theory that judges have no regard for defendant's who argue their case

without benefit of legal counsel. Had your lawyer presented the same evidence, the outcome would have been different. I'd bet on it. Even in traffic court, self-representation is a fool's errand.

[cbayer]

8. I am currently representing myself in a case, and I tend to agree.

But sometimes self-representation is the only option.

I was told by 6 different attorneys that it would cost me more to hire them than I would recoup.

The system sucks and forces people to drop legitimate claims because they can't get an attorney to take their case.

[woolldog]

31. What kind of case are you representing yourself in?

[cbayer]

70. It's a marine accident case.

We were hit by another boat and are trying to recoup some expenses incurred, but not covered by our own insurance.

[woolldog]

73. ooooooh

boat court sounds interesting.

[cbayer]

74. You'd be surprised how incredibly uninteresting it is.

And it's dragged on for four years.

[stevenleser]

75. Me three. I think they view it as stealing money from their profession or something. nt

[cbayer]

77. And I think they see it as too much of a bother, since I often don't really know what I am doing.

Really looking forward to putting myself on the stand, though.

[Igel]

13. Even if they do, it's hard.

We don't know the procedures. If an opponent says "Rule 21" in a meaningful way, you don't know what he's said--should you object?

We have trouble matching the prescribed formats for motions and leave things out. Or put in stuff we really shouldn't.

The judge and the lawyer may be old acquaintances. Small world, and judges start off as lawyers. Only a limited number of courtrooms, a given lawyer is likely to be familiar with all the ones for judges in his specialty. And have a reputation.

He's a trained professional. You're an amateur. It's like a painter looking at the sketch you drew. Even if he says it's great, if a customer comes up saying he wants to buy a piece of art your sketch will suddenly be denounced as crap compared to work by a *true* artist.

I won. It was an open-and-shut case. I won narrowly, and right up front fessed up to being helpless. The first time the lawyer I was facing used arcane language I interrupted--yes, broke the rules--and said that I didn't know what all the numbered rules meant nor all the lingo, and did my best with the formatting of the motions. So if the judge would interpret it into lay-speak for me so I could actually use the right that the state constitution gave me it would be appreciated. I sort of whined half helplessly as I did it--older woman lawyer, helplessness is a better ploy than being condescending and confrontational. Lawyer scowled. Judge hide her smile with her hand.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

33. You are right. Pro se litigants are typically emotional and viewed as a waste of the judge's time.

To discourage pro se litigants so that they do not take up litigation as a hobby, judges often rule against them as a matter of course.

There are exceptions. But rare ones.

[TorchTheWitch]

63. this is traffic court

There's rarely any attorneys in sight since the vast majority of traffic court cases are defended pro se mostly because the vast majority of the cases are too cheap to be worth paying an attorney. Traffic court judges are accustomed to dealing mostly with defendants that are not represented by counsel.

This ruling is not only astonishing in that they refused to accept evidence of the law but that they didn't already know it to begin with. How can a traffic court judge not be up on changes to basic traffic law? This is a change that every judge and every police officer should have known about including the date that it took effect. Something else must be going on here.

[Gravitycollapse]

64. Consider this dialogue between the judge and the officer...

"Your department would know if such a law was passed, would it not?"
"Yes, the department would be notified and would notify all of its officers."



This was the argument behind the judges decision. Because he and the officer didn't know the law, the law does not exist.

[TorchTheWitch]

65. but didn't you have the written law with you?

I've been all over Arizona's dept. of motor vehicles site and can't find anything about it. But I did find a New York Times article that said that Arizona was one of seven states that had a digital insurance card law passed in 2012 and many more states passed one this year with 3 more states intending to. Where did you find the actual written law and why would the judge not accept it? Or did you just have something to show the judge that was information about the law and not the actual written law?

There's no excuse for this. The police should have known about it and so should the court. After all, it was passed last friggin' YEAR. How many other people have also gotten fined since the law passed and if they went to court had their case ruled against them when it's the law? I'd appeal, but if that's too much of an expense than talk to the media. If the law was changed last year there's no reason whatsoever for the police not to know about it nor for a freaking TRAFFIC court judge to not know about it. Having both the judge and the officer named in a media story will very well shame them into rectifying your ruling. Often it just takes word getting out to the public to get the powers that be to not just sweep things like this under the rug and rectify your ruling.

Have you talked to a police chief or a more senior judge? You can't be the only person this has happened to since the law passed. It sounds like a money grabbing scam that could be putting a LOT of fine money into the local coffers.

Like I said, there's no reason on earth that neither the officer nor the judge wouldn't have known about this change in the law last year. I'm just not seeing how neither one could possibly not have known about it since it went into effect. The only thing I can possibly imagine is that for some reason this law has been stymied somehow and not gone into effect yet.

[SheilaT]

78. Judges and attorneys generally hate pro se

cases because usually the person representing himself has very little understanding of the law, the procedures, how to file, and so on and so forth. Usually they are simply wasting everyone's time.

Which means that the defendant or claimant who actually does know the law, etc, is sufficiently rare that a judge may not actually realize it.

[tallahasseedem]

9. Man, I'm sorry to hear that.

Please do keep us updated!

[Baitball Blogger]

10. Appeal

[Downwinder]

11. Is there a judicial review panel?

[Jim Lane]

12. Strange that he couldn't consult a pocket part.

I can understand his not wanting to accept an interested party's supposed printout from the website -- you might have doctored it.

I can, with some difficulty, understand his not checking it. Maybe the courthouse doesn't afford him convenient Web access.

Long before there was an Internet, though, the legal profession coped with the problem of changing statutes. To avoid having to reprint every volume of the state's statutes every year, legal publishers glued a pocket of stiff cardboard into the inside back cover. Then, each year, the publisher would issue a "pocket part" -- a paperback that nestles securely in the pocket and updates whatever in the main volume has changed. When the pocket part gets large enough, the volume is reprinted with all the changes incorporated.

Despite the availability of online sources, this method of updating the Gutenberg media is still used for every state's statutes that I've ever had to work with.

Maybe the amendment you rely on came after the printing of the most recent pocket part. In that case, if you have access to a law library (many county courthouses have law libraries that are open for free to the general public), you could ask the librarian to show you where the session laws are. Ideally, your online source gives the text of the amendment AND its source. It might say "Subparagraph (d) was added by L. 2012 C. 260" or the like (chapter 260 of the session laws of 2012, depending on what format your state follows). With that kind of information you can find it in the printed volume of session laws.

I suggest these approaches because my guess is that you have an older judge who fundamentally isn't comfortable with this newfangled online stuff. In that case, he might relent if he sees the amendment written down in a good old-fashioned book.

[Savannahmann]

14. I hate to say this Amigo

But I did try and warn you.

[Ms. Toad]

15. Without doing more research

It would be hard to tell whether what you showed the officer (or proffered to court) met the statute.

A quick look at the fine print of insurance apps suggests that at least some of them don't satisfy the requirements. (After listing Arizona as one of the states which accepts them, at least one had this note "** This does not constitute an insurance ID card as may be required in your state."

To be acceptable digital evidence, it has to meet all of the other the statutory requirements to demonstrate it represents a policy which meets the state statutes (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/04009.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS or http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/04033.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS )

If you are really intent on testing the law, then you should be prepared to appeal your case and accept the consequences if you lose. Nothing wrong with that - I've been know to spend time equivalent to three or more week's salary over a $100 dispute with a health insurance company that couldn't follow it's own rules. But I made the evaluation up front that it was worth it to me, and was prepared with whatever I needed in order to resolve matters once it got to the point where it was no longer personally worth it to make the system work according to its rules.

It just seems kind of like shooting yourself in the foot to not to bring your paper card with you to the hearing (even if you start out defending your position that you aren't required to show it).

[Gravitycollapse]

16. Currently at the Office of Attorney General

Went to the Chief Clerk for the House of Representatives, got a copy of the law and was sent here.

[Savannahmann]

22. The Bench Warrant will be for Contempt of court

The Attorney General isn't going to be able to do much for that one.

Oh I guess the office of the Attorney General could prosecute you, but that's about all.

[Egalitarian Thug]

17. Welcome to Hell. What did you think was going to happen in AZ?

I got a suspension on my record for seven years because AZ is so corrupt and incompetent that they can't note receipt of evidence of insurance. Got stopped, cop could not make out the date on my card so he wrote me a ticket. I got home and called the court that told me to FAX my policy to them. I did and called them back to verify that they received it, they did and I recorded the name of the woman that told me she had it in her hand.

Case closed? No way. Apparently, everything was lost and my license was suspended for no insurance (something I wasn't even aware of until my insurance agent called to tell me my rate was going up). Needless to say, the court was absolutely uninterested in anything but collecting tribute. Try getting out of a parking ticket in LA sometime. Same thing. These courts exist for only one purpose, to extract cash from us.

[RobertEarl]

18. But Judge, I saw it on the internet!

Not a good enough argument? Hahaha. You should have had, which you will now go get, a paper signed by your insurance company. And it dated.

Kids these days.... Good luck.

[Gravitycollapse]

19. More like "But judge, I saw it in the state legislature's own digital version of statutes."

A little more hearty than "I saw it on the internet."

[RobertEarl]

20. Same dif

You think the Judge reads the laws on the internet? Welcome to the old world. Have you that real paper yet or are you still going in with your smartphone/Ipad?

[Ms. Toad]

21. Judges are obligated to know the law.

Arizona is one of the states which accepts a digital version of a proof of insurance card as evidence of coverage, according to the Arizona statutes - which I'm sure every judge has access to.

My question is still whether the digital version proffered by GravityCollapse met the statutory requirements (which would be a valid reason to reject it - in the same way a paper version which did not meet the statutory requirements would be rejected).

[RobertEarl]

23. When you say digital

What exactly are you saying?

There is no way in hell I'd ever trust a digital version in court. Unless it was a digital version court, which I don't know what that would look like.

Too, this is Arizona. They'll try to nail you up if you look Japanese! Can't be too careful there.

[Ms. Toad]

27. The text of the law:

28-4135. Motor vehicle financial responsibility requirement; civil penalties

A. A motor vehicle that is operated on a highway in this state shall be covered by one of the following:

1. A motor vehicle or automobile liability policy that provides limits not less than those prescribed in section 28‑4009.

2. An alternate method of coverage as provided in section 28‑4076.

3. A certificate of self‑insurance as prescribed in section 28‑4007.

4. A policy that satisfies the financial responsibility requirements prescribed in article 2 of this chapter.

B. A person operating a motor vehicle on a highway in this state shall have evidence within the motor vehicle of current financial responsibility applicable to the motor vehicle. The evidence may be displayed on a wireless communication device that is in the motor vehicle. If a person displays the evidence on a wireless communication device pursuant to this subsection, the person is not consenting for law enforcement to access other contents of the wireless communication device.

[treestar]

71. Maybe it is good for when the cop stops you

You can show the cop the phone.

But if you have to go to court over it, you may need the piece of paper for that. Could be in the court rules.

[Ms. Toad]

72. That is in a later part of the amendment.

So the dilemma is:

The law says you have to have proof of insurance with you in the car - and also says that digital proof is acceptable.
The officer cites you for not having proof - despite having (and showing the officer) legally acceptable digital proof.
The law also says that in a court hearing over compliance with the law the court may require the actual card.

So - even though you were complying, in order to prove you were complying with the clause which permits your proof of insurance to be digital you may have to provide non-digital proof of insurance.

It was a similar (although not as significant) dilemma that led to the Miranda warnings. All those things listed in the Miranda warnings were rights before the Miranda case. The Supreme Court kept saying so - but until Miranda there were no consequences to the state for violating an arrested person's rights. So they kept ignoring them. Miranda is the case which imposed consequences on the officers (in the form of exclusion of the evidence they gathered) for failing to follow the law.

Here the law says digital proof of insurance is acceptable - .So no one showing digital proof of insurance which meets the legal requirements should ever have to go to court. But there are no consequences to the officer for refusing to accept digital proof of insurance so they are likely to continue to cite motorists in compliance with the law - who will continue to be inconvenienced by being hauled into court when they are compliant - and as a consequence of the officer's bad behavior be required to show the very kind of proof the law no longer requires they carry in their vehicles.

[Gravitycollapse]

28. You bring up the same terrible argument both the judge and officer attempted to make.

Which is that the digital copy could potentially be altered. Not that it would be any more difficult to alter a physical copy. In fact, it would actually be easier than having to manufacture my own Geico app coinciding with my altered insurance card. That would require much more skill than if I doctored a physical copy.

[RobertEarl]

32. Sure, tell it to the Judge

You, Judge, the cop and someone on the internet are all wrong!!

Tell them you could forge an instrument. We'll see you when you get out in six months?

[Gravitycollapse]

26. Yes, the digital copy is provided directly from Geico...

And is an exact copy of the standard issue insurance card.

It met all of the statutory requirements.

[Ms. Toad]

30. That leaves you with an interesting dilemma

Assuming you are correct (and - as I noted earlier, some apps expressly say the do not satisfy proof of insurance rules), the digital version is adequate evidence when the police stop you (assuming you have it in the car with you), but you can be required to provide a paper copy in court.

28-4135. Motor vehicle financial responsibility requirement; civil penalties
. . .
F. A court may require a person to produce an insurance identification card as evidence in a hearing for a violation of this section.

(And earlier in the amendment the legislature distinguished a card from an image of the card.)

So - even if you didn't violate the law (because you had the required digital proof), in a hearing to decide whether you had the proof with you in the vehicle the court is permitted to require a paper copy.

[Gravitycollapse]

34. It's not a dilemma because the judge did not know that portion of the law existed.

Therefore, there is no way he could make the case that he was simply rejecting the fact that I had no paper copy, as required by law. Also, the entire proceeding was recorded.

According to his book of statutes, there was never any such amendment, as it was printed 3 years before the bill was even passed to amend the law.

Oddly enough, every official I spoke to OUTSIDE the court knew exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned digital insurance cards. The ignorance seems to be contained to the judge and the police officer. Unfortunately, they had all the power in the world to continue with or dismiss the case and they obviously chose the former because they stupidly assumed that a book of statutes printed in 2009 would not possibly be missing any amendments to the laws since then. Even though I told them the amendment was added a year ago and that a book printed in 2009 would not show it.

[Ms. Toad]

49. Having drafted appellate court decisions

affirming decisions which were correct - but based on erroneous legal reasoning, you'd still lose (whether you represent yourself or hire an attorney.)

If the judge reaches a legally correct conclusion, regardless of how he arrived there, the decision is affirmed.

Sort of like the multiple choice exams. If you fill in the correct bubble - whether you knew the right answer or just made a lucky guess, you still get the point. (Or in this case, the judge's order still stands.)

ETA: I see below (or above) that you complied with the order, so there won't be anything to appeal. Enjoy continuing to tilt at windmills (the officer) - I find it good sport occasionally when idiots don't follow the rules, and I figure it helps the next person they encounter.

[Gravitycollapse]

56. Yeah, this more so bothers me that the ignorance of these two will hurt others.

Obviously now I'm in the clear. However, the judge affirmed the police officers ignorance. And with this new affirmation, the officer will go out into the world and cite more people for a violation that is not actually illegal.

[Ms. Toad]

61. File a complaint with his supervisor

Or check and see if there is an obudsman. Ask for specific training of all officers on the statute. You might not get it - but it wouldn't hurt to ask.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

44. Your statement "Judges are obligated to know the law" reminds me of a Justice Douglas story.

He was, of course, a Justice of some controversy.

When jaywalking in D.C., a traffic cop recognized him and called out "Don't you know the law."

The story is that Douglas paused just long enough to say, "You can get a good argument on both sides of that."


There was an earlier time when there was less aggression, cops were decent people, and judges as well as justices displayed a sense of humor from time to time.

[Ms. Toad]

52. :)

[Nevernose]

24. Who uses law books anymore?

Westlaw is on the Internet now!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

51. There are some attorneys who have never used law books after law school.

Some can be found in traffic courts.

[adirondacker]

25. Someone's got to pay their salaries. Sorry to hear this. nt

[limpyhobbler]

29. Contact your local News Team Investigators. They might run your story and help you get justice.

Or maybe make a video to explain your case. Post it on youtube and redidt, create public controversy. If the judge made a mistake like that maybe it should be publicized.

[Gravitycollapse]

39. I have been considering this option for the last few hours.

I may be contacting my local stations in the morning.

[TorchTheWitch]

66. that's what I think

There's just no way that both the police officer and the traffic court judge would not have been aware of this law and when it went into effect. This is either a massive scam that they've been pulling on a lot of people or both the officer and the judge are too incompetent for their jobs. There's just no way either of them could possibly be unaware of this law and not after all this time. It's a major change, and it's both of their jobs to know about this kind of stuff. That makes me think it's a scam. It would be nice to see them not only do a story on this particular case but to investigate how many other people were ruled against with the same issue and how much money the state is making by their officers and judges not complying with a law that was changed last year.

[itsrobert]

36. Proof of insurance?

The police run your plate before or as they stop you, then they run your license. They already know if you have insurance already.

[Gravitycollapse]

37. Yes, and that is one of the more devastating issues...

In essence, proof of insurance is really only needed in case of an accident where insurance informations needs to be exchanged. The officer already knew my insurance was current.

[Th1onein]

59. You need to report the judge.

He's not current on the laws, and he's not doing a good job. Then, write to your Congressmen/women, and to the newspaper. Make sure you send everything certified mail with a return receipt requested.

[Gravitycollapse]

60. I will be attempting to contact the sponsors of the amendment tomorrow.

Unfortunately, the House is out of session until January. But I'm hoping to have a special meeting and that the Representatives will personally contact the court to inform them of their error.

[Th1onein]

62. That's a good idea.

But it would be nice to write to someone, somewhere, and call the judge an idiot asshat. I love to do that.

[darkangel218]

40. Arrest warrant??

For what, not having proof of insurence?? Wtf???

[Gravitycollapse]

41. I believe it would have been failure to appear.

Or something along those lines. He set the deadline to show proof for the end of the business day and it seems that the rules for a court appearance would have applied since this would be considered a failure to comply with a directive of the court. I would have a default judgement entered against me, my license suspended and a bench warrant for my arrest.

[darkangel218]

47. Go to your insurence website, log in, and print your cards.

Its the easiest way to fix this

[Gravitycollapse]

48. I did that immediately and presented it to the court.

Now I'm attempting to clean up the mess the judge and police officer left behind.

[darkangel218]

53. Damn...

[Th1onein]

42. Why can't you just print out the card?

Either that or have the insurance company fax him a copy of the card? Or fax him a copy of the policy?

[Gravitycollapse]

45. I did that after he threatened to have me arrested.

Reported back to the court within 2 hours with a paper copy.

[Th1onein]

55. And was that the end of it?

[Gravitycollapse]

57. That was the end of it for me. Just the beginning for the judge and officer.

[Th1onein]

84. GOOD for you, Gravitycollapse. When you stand up for yourself, you are standing up

for everyone else that comes behind you.

[darkangel218]

43. Which insurence you have, Esurence?

Most online companies allow you to print the cards.

[Gravitycollapse]

46. Geico.

They send me a PDF copy of the insurance card every renewal period. But I've gone paperless.

[darkangel218]

50. You can still print your cards from their website

Once you log into your account, Go to My Documents or My Insurence Cards. They should be in there.

[Gravitycollapse]

54. Oh, believe me, I will be carrying the paper copy for now on.

Not because it is legally required, because it is not. But because there's no way in hell I feel like dealing with this shit again.

[darkangel218]

58. Yah...

What a bunch of bs that they don't accept digital proof.

Its the law that they should. I mean really, if someone was to fake their insurence, it would be tons easier on a piece of paper than faking a whole website. What a bunch of idiots.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

79. Oh, I have them too

Never thought to do anything but print the insurance card up and stick it in the glove compartment with the registration.

[Major Nikon]

67. ...

http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/37/ComplaintForm/Complaintform2013Web.pdf

[Gravitycollapse]

69. Sweeeeet. Thanks for the assistance.

[steve2470]

83. cool you did that, I was about to do that as well

Judges are supposed to know the law, and have updated copies of the law at their ready disposal. Attorneys are also supposed to know the law.

Ignorantia juris non excusat was a saying I learned in my one year of law school. It applies to lawyers as well as judges. In this day and age, there's no excuse for the judge not knowing the law.

[B Calm]

68. I would have said, who in the hell are you to judge anyone!

[NutmegYankee]

81. That's one way to spend a night in jail.

Contemp of court.

[B Calm]

85. I know, but I have always wanted to say that to a judge, LOL. .

[leveymg]

80. You should submit a Motion to Reconsider and file it with your evidence that the Order is in error.

The Judge can dismiss on the Court's own motion. If you're pro se (not represented) the Court won't care too much about legal form and niceties. File it with the Clerk of the Court with a Certificate of Service copy to the Prosecutor's office.

Call the clerk's office and tell them what you are doing, and they will give you further guidance.

Best of luck.

[sofa king]

82. You need to talk to some lawyers.

Specifically, the Arizona Bar.

http://www.azbar.org/

I know nothing about Arizona's law (I am assuming that you are in AZ from the text of the law you posted). The Arizona Bar will know, and since Arizona elects their judges--hardly the best selector for competence--they probably hear these stories every day.

Talk to them right away, being careful to note the names and contact information of everyone with whom you interact and, if permissible in your state, record the conversations. They won't want to help you at first until you begin to pin them down with contact records and other properly documented information that will prevent them from "forgetting" to help you.

Keep in mind that there is no real rule of law in America, only the muscle you bring to the fight, so the deck is and shall always be stacked against you until you can threaten to bring a greater harm to Arizona for doing nothing than for doing something in your favor. You'll have a better chance of success by exploiting interpersonal relationships among the lawmakers and judges than you will have arguing the law--the law is only for little people like you, not them.

Documentation is still your best armor, and, as you have learned the hard way, legal documentation is a different bird entirely.

[MineralMan]

86. After reading the entire thread, it appears that you supplied the

evidence the judge required and the situation is resolved. You now have a paper copy of your proof of insurance. I assume you have that in your vehicle and can present it if required in a traffic stop.

I'm afraid I can't see the benefit to you of taking this further. You experienced a judge and cop who don't know about changes in the law. You may have a similar experience at some point, so keep the paper copy of your proof of insurance in your car. Eventually, the change in the law will drift down the chain, and that may not be required.

A similar situation exists with boarding passes on airplanes. You're allowed to use your smart phone to display your boarding pass at the security screening line and when boarding at the gate. I watched a guy going through security when I last traveled. I was still in the line waiting to come up to the desk where you hand over your boarding pass to be checked. So, the guy pulled out his smart phone and started finding his boarding pass on it, when he got to that desk. Of course, he had to fumble around, and had difficulty finding it quickly. The TSA guy checking boarding passes and ID rapidly got frustrated with this guy, since there was a long line waiting to go through screening. Finally, he called someone else over, and the guy had to go somewhere else to hunt for his boarding pass.

Now, it's clear that the person in question should have located the electronic copy of his boarding pass on his phone before getting to that desk, but there is an even easier solution: Print the damned boarding pass and have it in your hand with your driver's license when you step up to the desk. It's not rocket science. Put your cell phone in your jacket pocket, along with your keys and the other crap you can't have on you when you go through the scanner and put the whole shebang in a bin and send it through the machine. Do that while you're waiting in the long line and you'll breeze through security.

While it is fine, legally, to use an e-copy of things, it's a cosmic hassle, and not everyone even knows that it's OK. So, keep a paper copy of your proof of insurance, print your boarding pass, and make life easy for yourself. Practicality beats forcing people to deal with new stuff every time. The principle matters, but the best principle is to minimize the hassles in your own life. Do what works, and move on through life. Insisting on doing it your way, and you're in for a hassle.