“Judge Hamlin reasoned that the law’s intent was to prevent all manual operation of the cellphone to curb distracted driving. Hamlin felt this even though Sprigg argued that when the original law specified voice calls, it was felt necessary to append the law to add texting to its purview. Using that example, if the law didn’t specify the other operations it covered, then it shouldn’t apply to those other operations. Hamlin’s decision countered that there was no legislative history that demonstrated the bill’s original supporters didn’t want texting covered by the law originally.”
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/04/08/why-using-google-maps-for-driving-directions-is-illegal-in-calif/
Related posts:
Georgia: The New CIA-NATO Arab Terrorist Training Center
Luzi Stamm: champion of a new Swiss gold initiative
The Great Gold vs Bitcoin Debate: Casey vs Matonis
Rise of Private Security Is Citizen Response to Declining Police Service
Behind the Saudi crack-up
How to get 2000ºF Solar Power From An Old TV
Directed History: A Fact of Life?
What happens when a central bank goes bust?
6-meter tall KamerMaker to 3D print Amsterdam house by year's end
Americans Indifferent About Destruction of Fourth Amendment
Kerry Bloody Hands Protest
Anti-drone devices for sale: military contractor claims to have counter-UAV technology
"The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ"
Atlanta High School Has A Rifle Range
Make Your Own 3-D Printer for $100