Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

"texting" and driving in California

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.

David99

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Jan 31, 2014
5,508
9,333
Nomad (mostly US)
Listening to the radio the other day someone got out of a 'texting' ticket in California. He mentioned that the law only makes it illegal to use text based communication. All other uses are still allowed. So at the trial he asked the officer if he saw what exactly he was doing on the phone. He said 'no', so the judge dismissed the case. I got curious and looked up the California vehicle code. Here is the quote:

Electronic Wireless Communications Device: Prohibited
Use
23123.5. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle
while using an electronic wireless communications device to
write, send, or read a text-based communication, unless the
electronic wireless communications device is specifically
designed and configured to allow voice-operated and handsfree
operation to dictate, send, or listen to a text-based
communication, and it is used in that manner while driving.
(b) As used in this section “write, send, or read a text-based
communication” means using an electronic wireless
communications device to manually communicate with any
person using a text-based communication, including, but not
limited to, communications referred to as a text message,
instant message, or electronic mail.
(c) For purposes of this section, a person shall not be deemed
to be writing, reading, or sending a text-based communication
if the person reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or
name in an electronic wireless communications device for the
purpose of making or receiving a telephone call or if a person
otherwise activates or deactivates a feature or function on an
electronic wireless communications device.

Section c specifically allows any other use of your phone. Only texting is forbidden. This means unless the officer actually saw that you were reading or writing a text message or email, he can't give you a ticket. In reality it's almost impossible to see the phone's screen through a car window to see exactly what you were doing. So you can probably always get out of a texting ticket in court. Making a phone call without a hands free device is also prohibited. And if you're under 18 you can't use any phones no mater what.

I know in other states and countries the laws are much stricter.
 
Last edited:
Listening to the radio the other day someone got out of a 'texting' ticket in California. He mentioned that the law only makes it illegal to use text based communication. All other uses are still allowed. So at the trial he asked the officer if he saw what exactly he was doing on the phone. He said 'no', so the judge dismissed the case. I got curious and looked up the California vehicle code. Here is the quote:



Section c specifically allows any other use of your phone. Only texting is forbidden. This means unless the officer actually saw that you were reading or writing a text message or email, he can't give you a ticket. In reality it's almost impossible to see the phone's screen through a car window to see exactly what you were doing. So you can probably always get out of a texting ticket in court. Making a phone call without a hands free device is also prohibited. And if you're under 18 you can't use any phones no mater what.

I know in other states and countries the laws are much stricter.

I've thought about this before. It seems completely unenforceable, as long as you don't admit to texting while driving. You might even be able to make the argument that it is an illegal stop, because the cop had no way to know what you were doing with your phone.
 
Doesn't California's legal system permit "scanning" of a phone's records to determine if it was being used to text at the time of the officer's observation?
 
Doesn't California's legal system permit "scanning" of a phone's records to determine if it was being used to text at the time of the officer's observation?

I've never heard of this. I assume, if there's probable cause, they can get a warrant.

- - - Updated - - -

Great. Let's encourage people to text and drive.:rolleyes:

I'm sure the laws will soon be toughened, if people start exploiting this.
 
I've thought about this before. It seems completely unenforceable, as long as you don't admit to texting while driving. You might even be able to make the argument that it is an illegal stop, because the cop had no way to know what you were doing with your phone.

The judge will have bailiff request call logs from cell provider.

My teens will have this hardwired to ignition ON behind glovebox:
245-tg_101a_heat_sink_vehicle_desktop_cell_phone_gps_gsm_signal_jammer_with_smart_cooling_system.jpg
 
The judge will have bailiff request call logs from cell provider.

That would violate the defendant's right to be free from unreasonable search, assuming this is a simple case of the cop pulling someone over because they saw the driver using a phone. In reality, there wouldn't even be a judge involved, because traffic infraction cases aren't typically heard by judges in California, and no attempt would ever be made to obtain cell phone records.

If it was a more serious case, such as someone getting hit and killed by a car, it would rise above infraction, and there might be cause for obtaining cell phone records.
 
This happened recently here in town, and the Fifth District Appellate Court dismissed the case.

Using cellphone map while driving OK'd by California court - San Jose Mercury News

The statute is worded poorly. I agree that a citation for "distracted driving" is more logical for those who are looking at their electronic devices. But in this particular case, the driver was stalled in traffic, so looking at a map on his cell phone (in my not-so-legally-trained opinion) would not constitute any driving infraction.

Here is the published opinion:

P. v. Spriggs :: 2014 :: California Court of Appeal Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia

I guess what I do not understand is how "law enforcement" officers make up the rules as they see fit. I presume that the CHP has our Department of Justice advising them of the statutory and case laws and how to apply them in their duties. The DOJ even has the legislative history and committee reports from the legislators, so know the legislative intent. As the unanimous decision correctly points out, the citation clearly was not in the spirit or the letter of the law. The CHP should know better. If they deem this sort of action a hazard (and it very well may be one) they should get the legislature to amend the statute.

Don't they teach the officers in their training school that the legislative branch makes the laws, and the executive branch enforces them?