Summary
The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, considered whether viewing a mapping application on a handheld wireless telephone while driving constituted “operating” the telephone under Vehicle Code section 23123.5, subdivision (a). The court held that operating prohibits all use of a handheld phone’s functions while driving, including viewing an application, and ordered the defendant’s traffic conviction reinstated.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a driver who holds a handheld wireless telephone while driving is operating the telephone within the meaning of Vehicle Code section 23123.5, subdivision (a), by viewing a mapping application on its screen.
- Whether Vehicle Code section 23123.5, subdivision (a), is unconstitutionally vague because the term operating allegedly requires active manipulation and does not provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct.
Holdings
- Operating a handheld wireless telephone under Vehicle Code section 23123.5, subdivision (a), prohibits all use of the telephone's functions while driving, including viewing a mapping application, when the driver is holding the telephone.
- Vehicle Code section 23123.5 is not unconstitutionally vague because the term operating can be given a reasonable and practical construction in light of the statutory language, legislative history, statutory purpose, and judicial construction.
Key quotations
“We conclude, pursuant to the rules of statutory interpretation, the term “operating” under section 23123.5 prohibits all use of a handheld phone’s functions while driving, including looking at an application on the phone.” (3)
“Based on the legislative history of section 23123.5 and public policy, we conclude “operating” under section 23123.5(a) prohibits all uses of a handheld wireless telephone’s functions while driving, including observing a mapping application.” (16)
“Based on this analysis, we conclude the Legislature’s purpose is not vague: its intent is to prohibit drivers from holding and using a phone’s functions in any manner while driving. We conclude that section 23123.5 is not unconstitutionally vague.” (18-19)
Factual background
A police officer cited Porter for violating Vehicle Code section 23123.5, subdivision (a). At trial, Porter and the officer agreed that Porter was holding his cellular telephone in his left hand while driving and looking at a mapping application on its screen. The traffic commissioner found him guilty and imposed a $158 fine.
Procedural history
A Santa Clara County Superior Court traffic commissioner found Porter guilty of violating Vehicle Code section 23123.5, subdivision (a), and imposed a $158 fine after he was observed holding a cellular telephone and viewing a mapping application while driving. The superior court appellate division reversed and dismissed the conviction, holding that operating required active use or manipulation and that merely observing GPS directions was insufficient. The Court of Appeal reversed the appellate division and ordered Porter's conviction reinstated.
Remand instructions
The judgment of the appellate division was reversed, and Porter's traffic conviction was ordered reinstated.