People v. Nelson
200 Cal. App. 4th 1083, 132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 856 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The term 'while driving' in California's statute prohibiting the use of hand-held wireless telephones encompasses the period when a vehicle is temporarily and briefly stopped in the course of a journey, such as at a red traffic light.
Facts:
- Carl Nelson was driving a motor vehicle on a public roadway in Richmond, California.
- He stopped his vehicle at a red traffic light, keeping the car in gear.
- While stopped, a police officer on a motorcycle pulled alongside Nelson's car.
- The officer observed Nelson holding a flip-type cell phone, dialing it, and then placing it to his ear.
- When the traffic light turned green, Nelson put the phone down and drove through the intersection.
Procedural Posture:
- Carl Nelson was cited by a police officer for violating Vehicle Code section 23123(a).
- Nelson contested the citation in the Contra Costa County Superior Court traffic division, the court of first instance.
- The traffic commissioner found Nelson guilty and ordered him to pay a fine.
- Nelson, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the appellate division of the superior court.
- The appellate division affirmed the conviction but certified the case for transfer to the Court of Appeal to resolve a question of law.
- The Court of Appeal granted review of the matter.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the term 'while driving' in California Vehicle Code section 23123, which prohibits using a hand-held wireless telephone, apply to a person who uses their phone while their vehicle is temporarily stopped at a red traffic light?
Opinions:
Majority - Lambden, J.
Yes, the term 'while driving' applies to a person using a hand-held phone while their vehicle is temporarily stopped at a red light. The court distinguished this case from Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles, where the defendant was found asleep in a legally parked car, emphasizing that Nelson was in the midst of operating his vehicle on a public roadway and paused only momentarily to comply with a traffic signal. The court reasoned that interpreting 'while driving' to mean only when the vehicle is in motion would lead to absurd results in other statutes and frustrate the legislative intent, which was to address the broad public safety risks of distracted driving. The legislative history, which interchangeably used the terms 'drive' and 'operate,' further supported the conclusion that the prohibition was not meant to apply only when a vehicle is in literal motion.
Concurring - Richman, J.
Yes, a person is 'driving' for the purposes of the statute even when temporarily stopped at a red light. The extensive analysis of legislative history is unnecessary because the resolution is a matter of common sense. The precedent in Mercer is inapplicable because that case involved a legally parked vehicle, whereas Nelson was stopped as a normal part of operating a vehicle in traffic. Brief, mandatory stops for traffic signals, pedestrians, or other common road events are an inherent part of the act of driving; therefore, 'driving' necessarily includes 'stopping.'
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that California's hands-free cell phone law applies to the entire duration of a driver's journey on a public road, not just the moments of physical movement. It prevents the creation of a significant loophole where drivers could legally use hand-held devices during frequent, brief stops in traffic. By distinguishing the narrow 'volitional movement' requirement from Mercer, the court establishes that the definition of 'drive' must be interpreted in the context of each specific statute's purpose, in this case, public safety. The ruling solidifies the broad application of distracted driving laws to enhance road safety.
