“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:
Did RNC "Scripted" Rules Change Start A Civil War In The Republican Party?
Retired General: Drones Create Terrorists; Iraq War Helped Create ISIS
The Bank Branch: An Endangered Species?
Fund managers joining Buffett in preparing for an 'ugly' downturn
Swedish minister declares his support for principles to protect privacy
Maybe the Most Orwellian Text Message a Government's Ever Sent
Military-Industrial Complex Presstitutes Get SMACKED DOWN By A Real Journalist
Mapping the Bitcoin Economy Could Reveal Users’ Identities
Cristina Fernandez wants you to have an erection
Lonely Jeremiahs
Romney's Convention Power Play: Sununu Evades Ron Paul Delegates To Avoid Floor Fight
LBMA: Volume Of Gold Transferred Climbs To 12-Year High In May On ETF Redemptions
The Next Step in Killing Cancer
Pakistan bans BlackBerry messaging, e-mail for “security reasons”
Student Debt Bubble Officially Pops; 90+ Day Delinquency Rate Goes Parabolic