Court: Cell phones not OK to use at red light

[alp227]

Source: SF Chronicle

A driver who stops at a red light is "driving" and is still prohibited from using a handheld cell phone, a state appeals court ruled Monday in upholding a $103 fine against a Richmond motorist.

Carl Nelson was ticketed by a police officer who saw him dialing a phone and holding it to his ear at a stoplight in December 2009. Nelson appealed his citation, arguing that a 2007 state law, which forbids using handheld wireless devices while driving, applies only when a vehicle is in motion.

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco was unpersuaded.

The law was intended to cover "persons driving on our public roadways, who, like (Nelson), may pause momentarily while doing so in order to comply with the rules of the road," said Justice James Lambden in the 3-0 ruling.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/15/BAL91LV1C0.DTL

[dipsydoodle]

1. Quite right

Should've been charged with wasting the courts time too.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. Meh. He may have a case on appeal to the state Supreme Court as the state Supreme Court already...

... ruled "driving" requires movement. They ruled that way in a much more serious drunk "driving" case. California is one of the few states that distinguish between "driving" and the catch-all "operating a vehicle." So merely operating a vehicle shouldn't count.

His argument is the relevant precedent, from a similar (drunk driving sleeping) case concerning safety while driving, should take precedent.

It may sound nit-picky, but laws should be unambiguous if they are to be enforced. And where there is doubt, the benefit should go to the defendant.


From the case:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A131301.PDF

Defendant further argues that rules of statutory construction support the conclusion that the trial court erred. He correctly points out that “similar statutes should be construed in light of one another.”

Finally, defendant argues that, in the event we find section 23123 ambiguous, we must follow the well-settled rule that “where a penal statute is ambiguous and susceptible to two reasonable interpretations, we must adopt the construction that is most favorable to defendant.”

[LiberalFighter]

2. They can issue a DUI while in the vehicle too.

At least if they are in the drivers seat even before they start the car.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

13. Maybe, maybe not. Here:

But Nelson's lawyer, Darren Kessler, accused the appellate panel of disregarding the state Supreme Court's definition of driving in a 1991 case and said he would appeal to the state's high court.

"Driving requires volitional movement, and when you're stopped at a light, you're not moving," Kessler said.

The 1991 ruling involved a man who was arrested for drunken driving after police found him asleep and slumped over the steering wheel of a car that was legally parked, with its motor running. The court threw out his arrest, saying that driving requires "proof of volitional movement of a vehicle."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/14/BAL91LV1C0.DTL#ixzz1dqp0FCqQ

[robinlynne]

3. GOOD. I have to avoid about 3 accidents a day while people gab on their cell phones, oblivious

to pedestrians, other cars, the world. Pull over if you want to make a phone call. It's really that simple.

[reggie the dog]

5. yet the law lets people use hands free

which does not reduce the risk of accident, if people have the right to put others lives at risk with hands free phones why not with hands on phones?

[uppityperson]

7. In WA, if you wear hearing aids you can hold your phone. Am waiting to get picked up

by a cop and see if they know about this. I'd rather not, but if they do, will see what happens.

[saras]

11. The rest of us are just waiting for you to hit someone - will see what happens

[uppityperson]

20. Why would I hit someone? Just because we disagree doesn't mean I'll hit them.

Do you think using a hands free device is safer? Why?

Have you considered WHY people with hearing aids aren't made to use hands free devices? How about not being able to hear traffic or emergency noises if we have a hands free device in our ear rather than a hearing aid. If they really wanted to stop people using cell phones, they would ban them here, not say "hands free device is ok".

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. How about not using the phone while driving?

Sorry, but that's just a fantastically stupid thing to be doing in the first place.

[uppityperson]

22. I'm careful, have gotten into trouble, almost, changing radio.

There are lots of things to distract a driver. Radio, CD player or little music thingie, talking or listening to passengers, kids. Guess it is fantastically stupid to talk to others, change radio, etc, while driving also.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. Except...

there have been studies; your attention is differently focussed and you're more distracted when talking on a phone (handheld or handsfree) than talking to a passenger there in the car with you, or listening to the radio.

[uppityperson]

26. Not "listening" to the radio, but tuning it. Or putting in cd, or doing something

like that. All those things we think are normal to do but take our attention off the road. I've almost gotten in an accident messing with my radio.

[NYC Liberal]

14. IMO it's because a handsfree ban would be impossible to enforce.

It's pretty easy to see someone holding a cell phone. It's not to easy to catch someone talking using a handsfree device.

If it was enforceable I'd be all for it.

[sofa king]

19. Oh, it's totally possible.

In fact, right now more than one entity is tracking your general location, your speed, who you're talking to, what you're saying. The GPS unit inside of every modern phone operates independently of the cell signal, allowing observers to improve their accuracy. Many automobiles already use other communication options as well, can detect a cell phone in the car, and could easily be programmed to sound an annoying alarm when the vehicle is found to be moving. Very little privacy has survived a decade of conservative right-stripping.

The thing is that pedestrians are generally much less expensive to kill than car owners. That's why it's still unenforced.

[Psephos]

24. Unless you turn the GPS off.

Which is what I do.

Your points are, of course, well-taken. :)

[reggie the dog]

4. meanwhile in illinois we do just fine talking and driving

outside of chicago anyways

[leftyohiolib]

6. an "A" for effort though

[Ter]

8. I miss the days when we all could talk and drive anywhere we wanted

Freedom was great. :(

[christx30]

12. 5 years from now.. 10 years from now...

I wonder what we are going to fondly look back on being able to do.

[boppers]

16. Hey, we used to be able to lynch minorities!

Stoopid nanny state.

:sarcasm:

[christx30]

17. We also used to

be able to get on an airplane without taking off our shoes. And be able to carry liquids on as well. And not have to go through a backscatter x-ray machine or get fondled by TSA agents.

The question is... how many freedoms are you willing to give up? And what are we getting in return?

[boppers]

18. You posit a good question ("what will we tolerate") and contrast it against a concept.

What defines "freedom"?

There doesn't seem to be an easy answer.

[christx30]

27. What I was saying

is that there is a line that those people (the ones in favor of laws like this) do not want to cross. Banning of junk food, like everywhere? Profanity?
Do they want the kind of world like in Demolition Man? Where everything that was bad for you, or annoying to other people is banned? Where is the
Dr. Raymond Cocteau for our world? Is what he is offering worth giving up everything that makes us, US, as a people? I seriously doubt it. I would more likely be either a supporter of Edgar Friendly, or one of his men.

[Taverner]

9. Makes sense to me. You can't be drunk at a red light either.

Well, while driving.

I'm sure stumbling through a crosswalk won't necessarily get you arrested.

FYI: I have nothing wrong with banning drinking and driving, and doing everything you can to get the drunk drivers off the roads. It's just that the fines, jail time, etc don't do any good. The punishment does not fit the crime.

[Xithras]

10. That's OK. I only text at red lights anyway.

:hide:

[happyslug]

23. The Actual opinion is here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A131301.PDF

The opinion re-state the law in question:

“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.”

The Defendant cites the case of Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1991) 53 Cal.3d 753 where the California Supreme Court ruled that when the term "Drive" is used in a Statute the term "Drive" includes the concept that the Vehicle is moving (Mercer the defendant in that case was found, asleep, drunk, engine running but car transmission in PARK, thus he was parked in a parking spot on the side of the road. The Supreme Court then say it was clear the term DRIVE did NOT include someone who is behind the wheel, engine running BUT THE CAR IN PARK AND IN A LEGAL PARKING SPOT.

In this case, the Driver was OPERATING his vehicle in that he was stopped for a Red Light used his Cell Phone and when the Light turn Green, laid the phone down. The Court then took the term "Driving" to mean "Operating" and then to state that not only California but most other states differentiate between those two terms, i.e. "To Drive"
includes that the Vehicle is in motion, but "Driving" and "Operating" does NOT mean the car MUST be in motion, but includes time periods when the car is stopped for various reasons while being used.

In simpler terms "TO DRIVE" means the car is moving under the control of the Driver. "To Drive" means the car is under the control of the driver, even when the car is stopped for any reason. This seems to be the heart of the matter AND the Court cited not only other California Court Cases upholding that difference, but cited cases from other states Court that also recognized the difference between those two terms.

Sorry, the Court even cited the Mercer Case and its language the the that decision was based on the narrow facts of that case (i.e. the car was found PARKED with the transmission in PARK) thus I suspect this case to be upheld.

[wordpix]

28. why can you not talk on cell phones but you can eat & drink while driving?

:shrug: that requires use of a hand, too

[area51]

29. Or listen to the radio,

which was considered a dangerous distraction in the past.