“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/
(Visited 53 times, 1 visits today)
Related posts:
The Senate Just Gave the Pentagon More Money Than Russia's Entire Military Budget.
Judge upholds Liberty Dollar founder's conviction, schedules sentencing
Appeals Court Ruling Throws Wrench in Maritime Drug Prosecutions
Japanese police ask ISPs to block Tor
Sgt. Bales sentenced to life in prison without parole for Afghan massacre
ATS Settles PlatePass Rental Car Ticketing Lawsuit
Developer warns: Take Twitter “write access” at your own risk
When ETF Paper Beats Gold Rock
Politicians, Staff Threaten To Quit Over Obamacare Exchange Mandate
Trump Impeachment Begins (But Not For War Crimes Or JFK Cover-Up)
Sweden moves closer to a cashless society with new business registry
Spain Plunders 90% Of Social Security Fund To Buy Its Own Debt
Heavy Smog In China Blocked Out Everything But A Giant TV Screen
US Plots Conquest of Venezuela in Wake of Chavez' Death
Court sides with lovers of boobies: School cannot ban breast cancer awareness bracelets