Of course he's not going to set a legal precedent, he specifically admitted to not understanding it! What's he going to base that on? "I didn't understand what

Of course he's not going to set a legal precedent, he specifically admitted to not understanding it! What's he going to base that on? "I didn't understand what he was saying but that the nice man had a mighty smart looking phone." Or are you suggesting that he did understand it and was lying? I don't see a judge doing that over a speeding ticket - they tend not to be big on lying, they just make the ruling so specific it can never apply anywhere else or expressly say that they don't feel this creates a precedent.