People v. Nelson
California Court of Appeal
200 Cal. App. 4th 1083, 132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 856 (2011)
Facts
Carl Nelson (defendant) stopped his car for a red light, and while the car's engine idled, Nelson dialed his cellphone and placed it to his ear. Nelson put the cellphone down when a police officer drove up alongside Nelson's car. The officer cited Nelson for violating the state's distracted-driving statute, which prohibited "driving on a public roadway" while using a handheld cellphone. Nelson contested the citation, and the matter went to trial before a county traffic commissioner. The traffic commissioner found Nelson guilty of violating the statute, and the appellate division of the California Superior Court affirmed the conviction. Nelson then appealed to the California Court of Appeal. Nelson raised several hypothetical situations such as an hours-long traffic backup caused by a major crash, in which it would be absurd to allow a driver to apply makeup or eat a sandwich, but not to call his family to alert them to the situation. Nelson also cited Mercer v. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 809 P.2d 404 (1991), which held that the California drunk-driving law applies only to vehicles that are in motion. The state responded that the distracted-driving statute's legislative history clearly revealed a legislative intent to prevent drivers from "operating" their vehicles while using handheld cellphones.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lambden, J.)
Concurrence (Richman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 707,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
