CA CVC 23123.5 / AB-1222 Hands-Free Update On 11 July 17, Bob Venditti, Glen Pitts and myself, Jim Aspinwall, attended the CA Senate Transportation and Housing Committee hearing, in which AB-1222 was “being heard” and we submitted Opposition to. Since we had front-loaded the Committee members with our opposition points, no doubt they ‘shared’ with the author, so our presence was essentially ‘token’ but not insignificant for what else we learned about processes and politics. I introduced our issue and Bob presented its significance on our public service value. In rebuttal the author, Assemblymember Quirk and then one of his staff/supporters, offered: - they intended to work with CHP on proper enforcement advice - they would deal with the legal/Constitutional issue of over-/unintended-enforcement if and when appropriate Court cases came up. - they also claimed that we had requested a specific exemption for amateur radio, which is not in evidence, plea, communication, etc. (they lied!) We were not offered the opportunity for counter-argument. No questions were directed to us. Instead an acknowledgement of the first two points was issued, vote was taken. The Bill is now headed to the ‘appropriations’ committee, which will pass and be forwarded as there is NO money involved in this. Then it will go to the Senate at-large for vote. Expected to pass. Then to the Governor. Rarely has anyone at any of those three levels acknowledged, amended or otherwise not passed the legislation into law. That leaves a couple of anticipated questions and issues: - when will AB-1222 turn into law as CVC 23123.5? - when if at all will we see any new communications with/from CHP? - can we create any interest in the Senate at-large? - how do we collect evidence and case records of any violations/citations of the eventually revised CVC 23123.5? - what do we do with what we may or may not collect of eventual case-findings? Bottom-line: - we did NOT lose ground (current AB-1222 will not be scrubbed, some ambiguity has been removed) - we did not gain ground (we did not get the “not limited to” removed) - our recourse is to establish a Constitutional precedence (leverage the “not limited to in case law) Take-aways for ‘us’: - obtain, print and have present a copy of the CHP enforcement memo and the current Legislative Analysis to RESPECTFULLY OFFER to any citing officer, certainly to have on-hand for any Court case - DO NOT *push* or insist this matter at the enforcement/citation level encounter with a peace officer – they have at least one other vehicle code they can cite for instead. In California that may be the Basic Speed Law – do NOT get cited for that! - share and advocate for this cause… “not limited to” means UNLIMITED - DO, please DO be aware of and come forward with ANY citations for violation of 23123.5 NOT specific to cellphones/”smart devices”, etc. WE NEED CASE LAW to work with. - we will explore and expand this effort to other ‘social’ venues as appropriate, which may or not involve forming a ‘PAC’, mustering and funding clear legal action, etc. In closing… for myself, Glen, Bob, Al, Mike, especially in memory of Norm Lucas WB6RVR (sk) whose last words with me were “stay the course”, and many other contributors to this effort and our audience – hearty thanks and appreciation for your interest and support. We DID effect a change of law from a VERY grass roots, organic level amid very obscure “technology law.” We are indeed ‘GOOD’ with what we could get changed. We all learned A LOT. We know what to do to continue forward. THANK YOU!!!! Please join the follow-on discussion at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/CVC23123