According to a new state appeals court ruling (PDF) on Thursday, California drivers can now legally read digital maps on their phones, even though a state law says that they cannot use phones while behind the wheel.

The case involved a man named Steven Spriggs, who was ticketed $165 by a California Highway Patrol officer who spotted Spriggs after he was stuck in traffic at an area encumbered by roadwork.

The officer then cited Spriggs for violating the California Vehicle Code section 23123, subdivision (a), which forbids drivers from “using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.”

Spriggs argued in court that he was not in violation as he was merely checking a map, not talking on the phone, and the court agreed in its 18-page decision. He told the Associated Press that he was sympathetic to the cause of combating distracted driving.

"We're distracted all the time," he said, adding that his own son sustained a broken leg from a driver who was talking on a phone. "If our distractions cause us to drive erratically, we should be arrested for driving erratically."

The 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno County wrote:

Based on the statute’s language, its legislative history, and subsequent legislative enactments, we conclude that the statute means what it says—it prohibits a driver only from holding a wireless telephone while conversing on it. Consequently, we reverse his conviction. . . . [The statute] does not state that it must be used in a manner that allows for hands-free looking, hands-free operation or hands-free use, or for anything other than listening and talking. Had the Legislature intended to prohibit drivers from holding the telephone and using it for all purposes, it would not have limited the telephone’s required design and configuration to “hands-free listening and talking,” but would have used broader language, such as “hands-free operation” or “hands-free use.” To interpret section 23123(a) as applying to any use of a wireless telephone renders the “listening and talking” element nonsensical, as not all uses of a wireless telephone involve listening and talking, including looking at a map application.

The court also noted that “when the statute was enacted in 2006, most wireless telephones were just that—a telephone—rather than an electronic device with multiple functions.” Since 2006, California has passed a related law specifically prohibiting texting while driving.

The state attorney general, Kamala Harris, has not decided whether she will appeal the ruling to the California Supreme Court.