ok. thx. probably an old post I read on that point. going back to the vagueness of the statute:
"unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking," a demonstration of the phone/headset should easily satisfy that clause, but as you pointed out, the second part of that: "and is used in that manner while driving."... what does that mean?
wearing the head set? is the vagueness enough to allow for "following the spirit of the law"? there aren't specific exemptions for "technical difficulties"...does the vagueness benefit the officer/court or the defendant? is it reasonable to argue the first clause against the second?

