California Cell Phone Ticket While Checking GPS

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

I received a cell phone ticket (23123(a) VC - Driving while using a wireless telephone)

What had happen was, I just left my friends from Huntington Beach and was on my way to The Honda Center where I work security for the Ducks Game that night. I was already running a little late and had google maps on to find the best route to work. As I was driving I picked up my cell real brief just to see what my eta was. Once I put it down I notice a Motor Office next to me who asked me to pull over.

Is this something that I could fight

*Biggest Issue is that before I left I texted my girlfriend I was heading out. Started to drive and loaded google maps, 4 minutes later I was pulled over.

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.

Notice that the statute says “using a wireless telephone,” not “talking or texting on a wireless telephone.” Using a mapping ap is using the phone. However, I have heard that some California courts have taken the “allow hands-free listening and talking” wording as meaning that it should only apply to verbal communication on the phone, not aps. Maybe someone else more familiar with California court decisions can cite a court precedent to support that? But, my interpretation of the wording would be that ALL cell phone use is prohibited while driving, EXCEPT hands free verbal communication...just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Quoting PTPD22

---

Notice that the statute says “using a wireless telephone,” not “talking or texting on a wireless telephone.” Using a mapping ap is using the phone. However, I have heard that some California courts have taken the “allow hands-free listening and talking” wording as meaning that it should only apply to verbal communication on the phone, not aps. Maybe someone else more familiar with California court decisions can cite a court precedent to support that? But, my interpretation of the wording would be that ALL cell phone use is prohibited while driving, EXCEPT hands free verbal communication...just my opinion.

---

There is such a court decision from the California Court of Appeals. People v. Spriggs directly contradicts all of your assertions. 23123 VC was held to refer only to talking and listening, not to use for other ancillary features such as moving maps , etc... The last line of the decision pretty much spells it out:

In sum, based on the legislative history of section 23123 and the statute's language, as well as the Legislature's subsequent enactments of sections 23123.5 and 23124, we conclude that section 23123(a) does not prohibit all hand-held uses of a wireless telephone. Instead, it prohibits “listening and talking” on the wireless telephone unless the telephone is used in a hands-free mode. Accordingly, Spriggs did not violate the statute when he held his cellular telephone in his hand and looked at a map application while driving and his conviction must be reversed.

Quote:

---

Quoting mike142

---

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

I received a cell phone ticket (23123(a) VC - Driving while using a wireless telephone)

What had happen was, I just left my friends from Huntington Beach and was on my way to The Honda Center where I work security for the Ducks Game that night. I was already running a little late and had google maps on to find the best route to work. As I was driving I picked up my cell real brief just to see what my eta was. Once I put it down I notice a Motor Office next to me who asked me to pull over.

Is this something that I could fight

*Biggest Issue is that before I left I texted my girlfriend I was heading out. Started to drive and loaded google maps, 4 minutes later I was pulled over.

---

Given the Spriggs decision, you'll need to submit your cell phone records to show that no calls were made immediately prior to the time on the citation.

A 4 minute interval might or might be an impediment to your defense.

My advice: Get a dash or console mounted GPS and NEVER touch your cell phone for any reason while driving. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Thanks, Ron. I thought I remembered a court ruling along those lines, but didn’t remember if it was a binding appellate precedent. Just goes to show how interpretation of legislative intent can vary 180 degrees from reading the same statutory wording.

To add a bit of uninvited and irrelevant commentary, IMO, that court ruling leaves a big gap in statutory law that negatively affects public safety. I’m sure that California has some catch all “distracted driving” statute, but those can be rather subjective and problematic to enforce. After seeing some of the bone-headed things people do while screwing around with the damn cell phones, I believe that ANY interaction with an electronic device that cannot be done in hands-free mode should be prohibited. I have seen people playing game apps while driving…had one gal that drove onto the sidewalk and into a tree while trying to get directions on a navigation ap…sheer luck that she crossed onto the sidewalk about 20 feet past the three pedestrians she could have easily mowed down like bowling pins. To me, those damn aps are significantly more dangerous than simply holding a cell to your ear and having a convo.

The courts are bound by their interpretation of what the law says. If the legislature wants to band texting or gps use, they'll need to write the statute appropriately. Sort of right up there with Paul Busso's observation.

Quote:

---

Quoting PTPD22

---

Thanks, Ron. I thought I remembered a court ruling along those lines, but didn’t remember if it was a binding appellate precedent. Just goes to show how interpretation of legislative intent can vary 180 degrees from reading the same statutory wording.

---

The section was poorly written, and did not anticipate the technology advancing as fast as it did. It also left "hands free" use up to interpretation - is it bluetooth? Or, is is in speaker phone mode? The section has long been a head scratcher and subject to much local interpretation.

Quote:

---

I’m sure that California has some catch all “distracted driving” statute,

---

You'd think so, but, sadly - no. What we DO have is an interpretation of the basic speed law per VC 22350 that has been successfully used for a dozen years or so (primarily by the CHP) to interpret various distracting actions as "conditions" that might render driving at a particular speed (i.e. above zero MPH) unsafe. Whether one feels this is an appropriate use of this section has been a matter of some debate here on this forum and elsewhere. But, it has been used without any challenge (yet ... that I am aware of) throughout the state - mostly in So. Cal. - as a de facto distracted driver statute.

Quote:

---

To me, those damn aps are significantly more dangerous than simply holding a cell to your ear and having a convo.

---

Yep. In CA you cannot talk or text, but you can toggle your playlist, set your GPS, scroll through Twitter, etc., and it is generally not a violation of any specific statute. It is soo unnerving to glance over at the car next to you on the freeway and watch it veer to one side or the other as the driver is staring at their phone screen! I just drove many hours to San Diego last night and saw this sight once too often! Yowza!

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

The courts are bound by their interpretation of what the law says. If the legislature wants to band texting or gps use, they'll need to write the statute appropriately. Sort of right up there with Paul Busso's observation.

---

Who is Paul Busso?

Fortunately, negligence law picks up where statutes leave off.

If you cause an accident because your attention is on something else (anything else) you might or might not get cited for something but your insurance company WILL pay for the damage you cause and WILL surcharge your policy for three years which will cost you a lot more than most traffic citations cost.

With younger drivers that surcharge could run into thousands of dollars over a three year period.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Who is Paul Busso?

---

Actually it was Paul Buzzo, who at age 11 realized the statute on throwing lighted tobacco products had a glaring defect in it and wrote to the legislature to have it fixed. You'll see him immortalized in 23111 vc

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

Actually it was Paul Buzzo, who at age 11 realized the statute on throwing lighted tobacco products had a glaring defect in it and wrote to the legislature to have it fixed. You'll see him immortalized in 23111 vc

---

23111. No person in any vehicle and no pedestrian shall throw or discharge from or upon any road or highway or adjoining area, public or private, any lighted or nonlighted cigarette, cigar, match, or any flaming or glowing substance. This section shall be known as the Paul Buzzo Act.

The defect was that the words "or adjoining area" didn't appear in the statute. Paul pointed out that throwing cigarette butts on the asphalt isn't likely to cause a problem but flicking them into the roadside weeds would be.

Interesting. I hadn't noticed the name before. But, I haven't actually looked at that section in years.