Enabling BlueTooth Feature by hand violation of 23123(a)? Contra Costa Appellate Div.

[PooperScooper]

Maybe some clarity will help me understand your view.

Are you saying that people cannot touch their phone while driving?
Are you saying that people are not allowed to accept a call, even though they don't talk or listen?
Are you saying that if the phone is not configured to allow hands free listening and talking, it can't be used for other operations?

Well, apparently the two courts you have been in believe the law does not agree with your interpretation. Constantly repeating yourself won't change that and it won't change my opinion.






23123.
(a) 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.

That does not say this;
23(a) says you can't "listen and talk" while not in hands-free mode. It does not say "only when talking and listening. It says it must be configurable FOR hands free talking and listening AND used in that manner while driving.

So how does that suport your statement:


but I only used my hand to press the BlueTooth button and engage the call through bluetooth system





So your phone was not configured in hands free mode when you went to accept the call (use the phone) That is the violation.

Sprigs:

It would also be a violation to hold
the telephone in one�s hand, even if configured for hands-free listening and talking, and
look at the time or even merely move it for use as a paperweight. The People do not
point to anything in the legislative history to suggest the Legislature intended such a
broad prohibition.


Do you see anything about touching it to activate the phone, turn on the Bluetooth or anything else? The statement was that uses that are not related to the use of the phone as a phone should not be prohibited. What you did was using the phone as a phone.


If you want to expand that to your violation, get out your wallet and have at it. Maybe you'll make new law.

 

[PooperScooper]

Where did I admit to breaking the law?

Software incompatibility is not the courts problem. What is clear by your own admission is you broke that law.

 

[justalayman]

I'm not saying anything. I live in a state where I can freely use my phone, hands free or not. The law is what you are dealing with and i provide nothing more than my opinion and perspective.

The law says, simply, you cannot use your phone unless it is configured to operate in s hands free mode while driving.


Yes, I agree a simple touch to activate Bluetooth , and realize under that interpretation you couldn't even touch the phone to accept or end a call, is beyond what reason dictates. I simply cannot make the same connections you have in the law.

The last question; no. That is another oddity of the law. While it singled out you must use hands free when using it for a texting device, it does not prohibit its use as a gps device or perhaps as a camera (can't think offhand what else you might use a "phone" for.).

 

[PooperScooper]

I think I understand your view now, thank you.

Do you agree with me that 23123(a) only prohibits conversation (listening and talking), as stated in P. v. Spriggs (2014), and legislative intent within 23123.5 contributed to this interpretation?

"...The Legislature’s subsequent enactments of sections 23124 and 23123.5 confirm it intended section 23123(a) to only prohibit a driver from holding a wireless telephone while conversing on it...In sum, based on the legislative history of section 23123 and the statute’s language, as well as the Legislature’s subsequent enactments of sections 23123.5 and 23124, we conclude that section 23123(a) does not prohibit all hand-held uses of a wireless telephone. Instead, it prohibits “listening and talking” on the wireless telephone unless the telephone is used in a hands-free mode."

I'm not saying anything. I live in a state where I can freely use my phone, hands free or not. The law is what you are dealing with and i provide nothing more than my opinion and perspective.

The law says, simply, you cannot use your phone unless it is configured to operate in s hands free mode while driving.


Yes, I agree a simple touch to activate Bluetooth , and realize under that interpretation you couldn't even touch the phone to accept or end a call, is beyond what reason dictates. I simply cannot make the same connections you have in the law.

The last question; no. That is another oddity of the law. While it singled out you must use hands free when using it for a texting device, it does not prohibit its use as a gps device or perhaps as a camera (can't think offhand what else you might use a "phone" for.).

 

[justalayman]

I agree with you point on spriggs to a point. I suspect their intent was to end up with what you are looking for but I question if they made it clear enough to be used as such support.

 

[PooperScooper]

I reason that if 23123.5's legislative intent contributes to the legality and definition of 23123(a), as stated in P. v. Spriggs (2014), the following excerpt would seem to make that final connection (also from p. v. Spriggs (2014):

"According to legislative analyses, the amendment to subdivision (c) of section 23123.5 was needed because �the predominant technology in use now typically requires that the driver physically touch a speaker phone or other wireless communication device (e.g., Bluetooth speaker) to initiate or end contact with the other party,� which was a technical violation of existing law. (Assem. Com. on Transportation, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1536, as introduced Jan. 24, 2012, p. 1.) A �Fact Sheet� on the bill explained that its aim was to �clarify the use of hands-free devices while driving and still protecting the freedom to communicate,� and �nder current law it�s illegal to physically touch your electronic device to initiate or end a call. AB 1536 will simply allow a driver to touch their device to use the necessary functions to make or receive a call and still be protected under the law.� (Fact Sheet, AB 1536 (Miller), Hands-Free Devices.)"

...

"[23123.5] is not violated by activating or deactivating a feature or function on an electronic wireless communications device by adding the following language to the end of subdivision (c): �or if a person otherwise activates of deactivates a feature or function on an electronic wireless communications device.� (� 23123.5, subd. (c).)"

I agree with you point on spriggs to a point. I suspect their intent was to end up with what you are looking for but I question if they made it clear enough to be used as such support.

 

[Zigner]

@Zigner - My phone and car bluetooth pairing disconnects randomly. I don't know why. I've tried deleting both devices from their respective memory and reinstalling, but it eventually happens again. It also seems to be a problem with other people I've spoken to, who have different phone/car setups. My phone didn't do this with another car I had it paired to, so I imagine it has to do with my main vehicle

Ok, but why, at that particular moment, did you feel the need to reconnect the phone to your car?

 

[PooperScooper]

If I answer your question in the context of its language, on face value, I would say that I didn't "feel a need" to reconnect my phone to my car. A need is defined as something required or necessary. I acted out of normal operation under the law (AB 1536, an amendment to 23123.5). As such, I also don't usually "feel a need" to answer my phone when someone calls while I'm at home either, but I do anyways out of curiosity or some other reason. Your question implies that I could/should have reconnected my phone another time. Yes, I could have, but should I have to when the law provides rights for citizens to do so?

With that said, I'll explain the background for transparency. I received a phone call while driving and accepted using a button on the steering wheel, automatically connecting via Bluetooth in a hands-free manner. My phone's Bluetooth feature spontaneously unpaired from my car's Bluetooth system. This left my phone on and connected to the call. I picked up the phone and pressed the Bluetooth button to re-engage the hands-free mode. Ironically, the person who called was an insurance agent for a person who, just 1 week earlier, rear-ended me because she dropped her lotion on the floor and "needed to pick it up". I was stopped, she was going 50-60, and destroyed my Explorer. The Bluetooth system in my Explorer did not spontaneously unpair.

Ok, but why, at that particular moment, did you feel the need to reconnect the phone to your car?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

You have adopted your own personal interpretation. Debate is pointless. Run it by the judge and see if he buys it or is feeling generous. You obviously have invested the time in research the judge may just find you not guilty as you intended to comply with the spirit of the law.

 

[Zigner]

If I answer your question in the context of its language, on face value, I would say that I didn't "feel a need" to reconnect my phone to my car. A need is defined as something required or necessary. I acted out of normal operation under the law (AB 1536, an amendment to 23123.5). As such, I also don't usually "feel a need" to answer my phone when someone calls while I'm at home either, but I do anyways out of curiosity or some other reason. Your question implies that I could/should have reconnected my phone another time. Yes, I could have, but should I have to when the law provides rights for citizens to do so?

With that said, I'll explain the background for transparency. I received a phone call while driving and accepted using a button on the steering wheel, automatically connecting via Bluetooth in a hands-free manner. My phone's Bluetooth feature spontaneously unpaired from my car's Bluetooth system. This left my phone on and connected to the call. I picked up the phone and pressed the Bluetooth button to re-engage the hands-free mode. Ironically, the person who called was an insurance agent for a person who, just 1 week earlier, rear-ended me because she dropped her lotion on the floor and "needed to pick it up". I was stopped, she was going 50-60, and destroyed my Explorer. The Bluetooth system in my Explorer did not spontaneously unpair.

In other words, your phone was NOT operating in a "hands-free" mode. You picked up your phone to manipulate it with regard to a phone call. You violated the law.

 

[drruthless]

To reconnect the Bluetooth? More like thirty seconds.

Really? that fast.. one button my how things have changed... well I'm going to crawl back under my rock.
I use Win 95, at 14k b/s, I outa be out surfing the net around sometime tomorrow..
Later...

 

[PooperScooper]

I'm curious, how would you interpret the Court's interpretation of bill AB 1536 (shown below)?



"According to legislative analyses, the amendment to subdivision (c) of section 23123.5 was needed because �the predominant technology in use now typically requires that the driver physically touch a speaker phone or other wireless communication device (e.g., Bluetooth speaker) to initiate or end contact with the other party,� which was a technical violation of existing law. (Assem. Com. on Transportation, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1536, as introduced Jan. 24, 2012, p. 1.) A �Fact Sheet� on the bill explained that its aim was to �clarify the use of hands-free devices while driving and still protecting the freedom to communicate,� and �nder current law it�s illegal to physically touch your electronic device to initiate or end a call. AB 1536 will simply allow a driver to touch their device to use the necessary functions to make or receive a call and still be protected under the law.� (Fact Sheet, AB 1536 (Miller), Hands-Free Devices.)"

In other words, your phone was NOT operating in a "hands-free" mode. You picked up your phone to manipulate it with regard to a phone call. You violated the law.

 

[Zigner]

I'm curious, how would you interpret the Court's interpretation of bill AB 1536 (shown below)?



"According to legislative analyses, the amendment to subdivision (c) of section 23123.5 was needed because �the predominant technology in use now typically requires that the driver physically touch a speaker phone or other wireless communication device (e.g., Bluetooth speaker) to initiate or end contact with the other party,� which was a technical violation of existing law. (Assem. Com. on Transportation, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1536, as introduced Jan. 24, 2012, p. 1.) A �Fact Sheet� on the bill explained that its aim was to �clarify the use of hands-free devices while driving and still protecting the freedom to communicate,� and �nder current law it�s illegal to physically touch your electronic device to initiate or end a call. AB 1536 will simply allow a driver to touch their device to use the necessary functions to make or receive a call and still be protected under the law.� (Fact Sheet, AB 1536 (Miller), Hands-Free Devices.)"

You weren't touching the device to make or receive a call. You picked it up (different from simply touching) in order to manipulate the device in order to continue a call. You had already received the call.

As was mentioned above, go for it. You might get lucky. However, IMO, you did violate the law.

 

[justalayman]

You weren't touching the device to make or receive a call. You picked it up (different from simply touching) in order to manipulate the device in order to continue a call. You had already received the call.

As was mentioned above, go for it. You might get lucky. However, IMO, you did violate the law.

I love to see this continuing fiasco.

so, since you cannot hold the phone to text or to use it as a telephone yet you can when using it as a GPS (and we haven;t even broached the possibility of me playing soduko on it), how does the cop know the difference? I know, if your're talking, your on the phone.....but are you?


I can talk to my GPS app.

I think S Job's progeny need to get their arses in gear and get on with a fully implantable phone/PEA*/time waster game device



*PEA personal electronic assistant






so, how are the laws going to deal with a driverless car? Will the navigator (since he won't be driving, what else do you call him?) be able to text and make phone calls physically holding their phone?

 

[PooperScooper]

Right, I touched/held the device to make contact, not to make or receive a call, which is exactly what is stated..."to initiate or end contact with the other party". Not that it matters, I could have touched to make contact, touched to receive, or touched to end and be protected under AB 1536/23123.5.

23123(a) only prohibits "talking and listening" while not in hands-free mode. it is perfectly legal to hold your phone and do all sorts of things while not in hands-free mode, you just can't "talk and listen".

I've enjoyed debating this with you folks, it's given me a better understanding of the law itself and its presentation. I'm out.

You weren't touching the device to make or receive a call. You picked it up (different from simply touching) in order to manipulate the device in order to continue a call. You had already received the call.

As was mentioned above, go for it. You might get lucky. However, IMO, you did violate the law.