Ticket for Cell Phone Use, CVC 23123.5(a)

[EFrancisco]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: CA

I got pulled over for using my cell phone. The officer wrote on the ticket that I "appeared to be reading". I was at a red light and I was "reading" my GPS and looking at the map and directions. I was not inputting anything. I just picked up my phone and pressed a side button to illuminate the phone.

When I told the Officer that I was using my GPS, he said it was still illegal. I replied that I didn't know it was illegal to look at my GPS at a red light and he said it was a little known law, which one would only know through research or by getting a ticket. I spoke to an LAPD officer after wards, and he said I should contest the ticket which I am doing.

Do I have a case because I was not communicating with anyone at the time of my violation?

Thank you for your assistance.

[Mr. Knowitall]

The statute covers your conduct.

(a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a textbased communication.

(b) As used in this section “write, send, or read a text-based communication” means using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with any person using a text-based communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail.

(c) For purposes of this section, a person shall not be deemed to be writing, reading, or sending a text-based communication if the person reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or name in an electronic wireless communications device for the purpose of making or receiving a telephone call.

(d) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.

(e) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using an electronic wireless communications device while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.

[driver13]

The same thing happened to me. I am unclear with the vehicle code. I was stopped at a red light and was pulled over because the officer thought I was texting. When I explained to him that I was looking at directions on the gps on my phone, he said it did not matter. I can prove with my phone records that I was not on the phone nor texting and I was at a complete stop. Will this help my case to fight the citation?

[flyingron]

There's no exemption for doing applications. If it's a hand-held phone, you can't use it while driving.

[vc4re]

You are not in violation of the law. Look at subsection b. Fight it! Get the officer to admit your on GPS. You were not communicating with anyone so you're not guilty of that law.

[LBaker]

There's no exemption for doing applications. If it's a hand-held phone, you can't use it while driving.

You can if you are using it for reading, selecting, or entering a telephone number or name in an
electronic wireless communications device for the purpose of making or receiving a telephone call per 23123.5(c).

[That Guy]

There's no exemption for doing applications. If it's a hand-held phone, you can't use it while driving.

You can if you are using it for reading, selecting, or entering a telephone number or name in an
electronic wireless communications device for the purpose of making or receiving a telephone call per 23123.5(c).

23123.5. (c) For purposes of this section, a person shall not be deemed to be writing, reading, or sending a text-based communication if the person reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or name in an electronic wireless communications device for the purpose of making or receiving a telephone call.

Which part of 23123.5(c) exempts "applications"

And if you didn't notice, thus thread is over 15 months old... Please don't revive old threads, thanks!

[LBaker]

Which part of 23123.5(c) exempts "applications"

The part that allows a person to use the 'Contacts' application in your cell phone per 23123.5(c)? Please don't tell me you are going use a strict definition of 'applications' now after using a broad definition for 'using a wireless telephone' in the other thread. Also, as you probably learned in the other thread, using the GPS 'application' in your cell phone is not illegal.

BTW, if you read my quote correctly, it's obvious it's the second sentence ("If it's a hand-held phone, you can't use it while driving.") I was refuting. The first part was included for context reason. Please do not take replies out of context and argue selectively.

And if you didn't notice, thus thread is over 15 months old... Please don't revive old threads, thanks!

I didn't, the website pulled it up. The website will list older threads based on keywords under 'Similar Threads' (and searches) so correcting old information on relevant and topical subjects improves the accuracy of the forums.

[That Guy]

The part that allows a person to use the 'Contacts' application in your cell phone per 23123.5(c)?

The "contacts list", is NOT an "application". It is a feature/function of the "Phone" application on a wireless device... That list is also shared as a source for contacts to use with the text application and/or with the e-mail application... But it is NOT an "application" in and of itself! But even if it was an "application", the fact that the language of the code section is specific enough to only include that "application", that does not by any stretch suggest that all applications are allowed!

So here is my question again:

Which part of 23123.5(c) exempts "applications"?

And the correct answer is:

There are NO EXEMPTIONS for any applications in 23123.5(c)... The only action permitted under that code section, is for a driver who "reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or name in an electronic wireless communications device for the purpose of making or receiving a telephone call"... I don't know where you're pulling "applications" and/or specifically "using a GPS" comparison from!

Please don't tell me you are going use a strict definition of 'applications' now after using a broad definition for 'using a wireless telephone' in the other thread.

So just because I used a broad definition in that context, that obligates me to use broad definitions for the rest of my life?

Also, as you probably learned in the other thread, using the GPS 'application' in your cell phone is not illegal.

I am yet to "learn" anything in the other (aside from the fact that you are too obtuse for your own good)...

23123.

(a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.
(b) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.
(c) This section does not apply to a person using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity.
(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.
(e) This section does not apply to a person driving a schoolbus or transit vehicle that is subject to Section 23125.
(f) This section does not apply to a person while driving a motor vehicle on private property.
(g) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2011.

Where in that code section does it say a using the GPS application on your phone is allowed?

Let me answer than for you, simply because I know you're going to get it wrong:

The ONLY ALLOWED use of a cell phone while you are driving is to use it for listening and talking BUT ONLY IF IT IS DESIGNED AND CONFIGURED AS A HANDS FREE DEVICE... (meaning, you cannot be holding it in your hand while you use it as a phone, and you are not allowed to have it in your hand as you used it as any other contraption)!

I didn't, the website pulled it up.

You didn't what? "didn't realize it", or "didn't revive it"?

Even if the forum pulled it up, forum etiquette dictates that you not post to old threads... The results of a search DO show the date a specific thread was started as well as the last date someone posted to it!

And lastly, you did not "correct" anything... In reference to flyyingron's post, and even if you want to split it up into two statements, both statements are 100% correct:

There's no exemption for doing applications.

The only TWO exemptions which exist are:
1) for using it a for hands free listening and talking AND/OR
2) to read, select, or enter a telephone number or name in an electronic wireless communications device for the purpose of making or receiving a telephone call...

If it's a hand-held phone, you can't use it while driving.

Meaning if it is a phone that can only be used while you hold it in your hand, YOU CAN'T use it while driving!

Its pretty simple!

So, it is obvious that your understanding of the related code sections is what needs to be corrected?

[EWYLTJ]

LBaker,

My advice: don't argue with TG. It's like arguing with a drunk.

23123.5 is an vaguely written statute and it is obnoxiously interpreted by ridiculous people who think EVERYONE is guilty of anything they are cited with (i.e. TG).

Where in the VC does it interpret what an app is or is not?

Why would one think that something is illegal unless a statute specifically provides an "exception" for the action that makes it legal?

You see... when people like TG are shown where there are huge holes in their logic, they simply fabricate whatever they need to in order to fill the holes.

He makes my point for me when he states:

Meaning if it is a phone that can only be used while you hold it in your hand, YOU CAN'T use it while driving!




Its pretty simple!

despite the fact *23123.5 says nothing about the wireless device being a phone or anything about your hand being involved.



Here's an interesting point that someone as ridiculous as TG may well believe:

VC23123.5 does NOT provide an "exemption" for devices that are not inside the vehicle. So, when you driving down the road and you read an amber alert on one of those huge DMV electronic signs over the road, or one of the portable orange DMV electronic signs (which are both wireless, text-based communication devices), then you are in violation of the statute!!!

How about this: when you look down at your XM radio to see the name of the song that is playing, you are "reading text-based communication" and therefore you are in violation of the statute. After all, the statute does NOT say the wireless electronic device has to be a cell phone or even in your hand to constitute a violation.




Obviously, these are absurd interpretations (much like TG's perspectives). However, they are just as reasonable interpretations of the statute as TG suggesting that using a GPS device is a violation of the statute because "apps" are not specific exceptions.


This is a ridiculous law that is simply waiting for a reasonable person to take the effort to challenge a stupid ruling in a traffic court and get some case law to clarify the situation.