## Facts

- Steven R. Spriggs drove in heavy traffic and held his wireless telephone to view a map application to route around congestion.
- A California Highway Patrol officer observed Spriggs holding the phone and cited him for violating California Vehicle Code § 23123(a).
- Spriggs was not talking or listening on the phone; he was looking at the map while holding the phone and driving.
- A Fresno County Superior Court traffic commissioner found Spriggs guilty and imposed a $165 fine.
- The appellate division of the superior court affirmed, construing § 23123(a) as prohibiting all hands-on use of a wireless telephone while driving.
- The case was transferred to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District.

## Issues

1. Whether Vehicle Code § 23123(a), which forbids “using a wireless telephone” while driving unless it is used for hands-free “listening and talking,” prohibits holding a phone to view a map application while driving.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the conviction.
- The court held § 23123(a) prohibits holding a wireless telephone only while conversing on it (listening and talking), not while using non-voice functions such as a map application.
- The court rejected the lower court’s interpretation that § 23123(a) broadly bans all hands-on use of a wireless telephone while driving.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation begins with the text read in context; the hands-free exception’s focus on “listening and talking” indicates the statute targets voice conversations.
- Legislative history may confirm the statute’s intended scope where the text indicates a specific type of conduct (here, handheld phone conversations while driving).
- Subsequent related enactments addressing other device uses (e.g., texting or internet-related conduct) can support limiting an earlier statute to the conduct it expressly addressed.
- Courts avoid constructions that extend a statute to unreasonably broad applications not fairly supported by its wording.

## Conclusion

Vehicle Code § 23123(a) was construed to prohibit a driver from holding a wireless telephone while engaging in voice communication, and Spriggs’s act of holding a phone to view a map application while driving did not violate the statute; his conviction was reversed.


People v. Spriggs, 224 Cal. App. 4th 150 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)