A California appeals court decided Thursday some cellphone use while driving is legal.

Steven Spriggs of Fresno, Calif., successfully argued he didn't deserve a $165 fine for violating a state law against using cellphones while driving because he was not using his phone for communication, but instead using a map application to find a new route.

“Spriggs contends he did not violate the statute because he was not talking on the telephone. We agree,” a three-judge panel ruled. “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.”

The decision from the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal overturned a previous ruling against Spriggs from the Fresno County Superior Court.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris's office argued unsuccessfully for a more expansive interpretation of the state's 2008 anti-distracted driving law.

The appeals court ruled the government's assertion "that the statute bans all hand-held use of wireless telephones [while driving]" would "lead to absurd results and is opposed to the legislative intent.”

It’s unclear if Harris will appeal the ruling to the California Supreme Court.

“Our office is still reviewing the decision,” says Nick Pacilio, a spokesman for the state attorney general’s office.

Supporters of tough distracted driving laws are upset about the judges' decision.



“It’s an incredibly irresponsible ruling,” says Candace Lightner, founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and president of traffic safety advocacy group We Save Lives.

“It may be legal but it’s still dangerous,” she says. “All of a sudden now, people are going to think twice and perhaps not be as serious as they should, even though the problem is getting worse and not better.”

Lightner says people often claim they weren’t sending text messages when nabbed by police.

“It’s like saying, ‘I only had two beers,’ the old drunk driving thing,” she says.

Lightner, whose activism in the 1980s helped raise the national drinking age to 21, says she’s worried the ruling may erode the enforcement of anti-distracted driving laws in other states.

The ruling is not without its fans. Well-known George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr declared “reason has prevailed” in a post on The Volokh Conspiracy blog.

A spokesman for the California Highway Patrol, which ticketed Spriggs, told the San Jose Mercury News on Thursday “we will continue our enforcement the way we do it,” suggesting drivers won’t be able to automatically dodge a ticket by claiming they were looking at a map.

In the past decade 41 states passed laws against sending text messages while driving and many others banned hand-held use of phones to make calls. The ruling has no bearing on other states.