{"id":2629,"date":"2014-03-04T21:42:24","date_gmt":"2014-03-04T21:42:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=2629"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:53:44","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:53:44","slug":"2629","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/2629\/","title":{"rendered":"Checking a Map App Is Not \u201cUsing\u201d a Cell Phone, California Court Decides"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cA 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.\u201d \u2013 California Vehicle Code Section 23123(a)<\/a>
\nA California police officer issued a $165 ticket to Steven Spriggs for violating the above state law after the officer observed Spriggs checking a map on his phone while behind the wheel.
\nSpriggs challenged the ticket in court, arguing that checking a map app on his phone did not constitute \u201cusing a wireless telephone\u201d within the intended meaning of the statute. The state claimed that the common-sense reading of the statute only protected a driver using a hands-free phone in conversation, and that all other cell phone uses while driving were banned. (See the opinion cited below for the state\u2019s exact wording.)<\/p>\n

Had the legislature intended to prohibit drivers from holding the telephone and using it for all purposes, it would not have limited the telephone\u2019s required design and configuration to \u2018hands-free listening and talking .\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Spriggs\u2019s ticket was affirmed by the traffic court commissioner and the appellate division of the superior court. However, the Court of Appeals, in an opinion issued last Thursday<\/a>, agreed with the Spriggs\u2019s interpretation of the statute. \u201cHad the legislature intended to prohibit drivers from holding the telephone and using it for all purposes, it would not have limited the telephone\u2019s required design and configuration to \u2018hands-free listening and talking,\u2019 but would have used broader language, such as \u2018hands-free operation\u2019 or \u2018hands-free use.\u2019\u201d
\nWhile this holding has no direct consequence on the state of North Carolina, it does shed some light on the North Carolina Supreme Court\u2019s upcoming decision regarding the Chapel Hill ban on drivers using cell phones.
\nOn March 26, 2012, the town of Chapel Hill passed an ordinance banning cell phone use while driving<\/a>. Though an officer cannot stop the driver for this offense alone, violating the ban will cost the driver a $25 fine. The ban applies to hands-free devices as well as handheld devices, with the town citing studies that either form of phone use<\/a> can cause distractions and \u201cinattention blindness.\u201d The town described its interest in the ban as protecting the significant number of Chapel Hill pedestrians from a younger-than-average driving population.
\nBoth the plaintiff challenging the ordinance<\/a> and the town of Chapel Hill<\/a> filed briefs with the North Carolina Supreme Court in late January 2014. The plaintiff challenged Chapel Hill\u2019s ban on the grounds that the state had already created a comprehensive regulatory scheme for cell phone use while driving, which preempted the town\u2019s ability to legislate on the issue.
\nThe door is still open in North Carolina for a defense on the meaning of \u201ccell phone use,\u201d as in the California case. Unfortunately, because this ordinance is more recently drafted and because it bans hands-free driving as well, it may be easier for a court to find that the town intended to include all uses of phones while driving within the language of the ban. At the very least though, the California case provides a reasonable argument by which North Carolina citizens could attempt limit the reach of a ban on cell phone use while driving.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cA 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.\u201d \u2013 California Vehicle Code Section 23123(a) A California police officer issued a $165 ticket to Steven Spriggs for violating the …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2629"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2629"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2629\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7491,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2629\/revisions\/7491"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}