Google Glass Distracted Driving Victory is a Win For Freedom Loving People

Google glass can end up costing you money.

Google glass can end up costing you money.

So the nanny state took a big hit yesterday in regards to raising revenue as against those people like Cecilia Abadie, simply wearing “Google Glass” on their heads (What is “Google Glass”? Go here).  First, let me start off with an introductory set up, so you can get into the mindset of one of the few tort attorneys in California who supports the notion that less government means more freedom.

When my wife and I commute around Santa Monica, and the West Side, I snap pictures of law enforcement officers chatting on their smart phones while on patrol. The law says that no one, including cops, are legally allowed to chat on their non hands free phones while operating a motor vehicle for personal business and our servants get to regulate themselves for the most part, and also regulate us simultaneously.

California Vehicle Code Section States:

23123 Hand Held Wireless Telephone Prohibited Use

Hand-Held Wireless Telephone: Prohibited Use

23123.  (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while 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.

(b) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.

(c) This section does not apply to a person using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity.

(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.

(e) This section does not apply to a person driving a school bus or transit vehicle that is subject to Section 23125.

(f) This section does not apply to a person while driving a motor vehicle on private property.

(g) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2011.

Added Sec. 5, Ch. 290, Stats. 2006. Effective January 1, 2007. Operative July 1, 2011.
Amended Sec. 3, Ch. 214, Stats. 2007. Effective January 1, 2008. Operative July 1, 2011. (See California DMV Website.)

 As one can see, there is zero exception for policemen, including the CHP in regards to driving and holding your personal phone, unless they are “engaged in the course and scope of their duties”. Good luck them being honest first off, and good luck them regulating themselves. It is basically a get out of jail free card to public employees and a go straight to jail do not pass go for anyone else. Are you getting this so far?
Blackstone spoke of: “The preservation of a man’s health from such practices as may prejudice or annoy it . . ” So in the instant case, we have a government, or at least a large number of “public servants” that ignore the very laws it/they is/are supposed to enforce, and on the other hand we have the natural rights of individuals that are granted by our “Creator”. (See Declaration of Independence.)
Since time immemorial, arbitrary, vague and capricious laws are void as a matter of law. (Read more.) But, I am certain we all know the outcome of failing to “obey” one of these laws, unless we are in the protected political or government class.  Here below, is a video example of a handcuffed woman who drank too much, who is being tazed, while her jailers look on as if nothing happened at all. So we can see numerous abuses of the law by “law enforcement” and lawmakers, all the time just by cruising around in our cars and looking, or by turning on the TV set when we see the news.

The Intent of the Vehicle Code is to Raise Revenue, Not Increase Public Safety

In fact, congress is allowed to engage in insider trading, since they “exempted” themselves from those laws. So first, we must all recognize that driving laws, and in fact the Vehicle Code itself, was not set up for public safety, it was in fact, a REVENUE generating device. In fact, the original CVC was part of the California Revenue and Taxation Code (May 16, 1939.) It is good to have rules of the road, but like all laws, criminals don’t obey them, and here, the laws are so numerous that the police themselves seem to consider themselves exempt.
As one famous philosopher pointed out:
“The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” – Ayn Rand
So here, we have a state government hell bent on disarming private citizens by use of pre-textual arguments, feeling obligated to pass more Draconian laws to justify their [government’s] existence, pretending like criminals, let alone their [the state’s] own employees will abide by the laws. For you and I virtually anything we do is a crime.  Even failing to buy a healthcare plan is a potential crime now.
Of course, if you are broke, and vote for politicians in power, they can exempt you from many of these laws, and give you someone else’s money, in the form of a subsidy, or “bail out”.  But alas, let’s not sway too far from the Google Glass case. First, let’s take a look at some picture of cops on cell phones.

Pictures of Cops Chatting Away on Personal Cell Phones

So here, we see a typical example of what I see while driving around Los Angeles County.  Police on cell phones, visibly upset that you just took  their picture.  Let’s take a look at some other examples of government employees paid for by those of us who work and actually pay taxes. Of course, recording the police when they break the law, does have its consequences.  Expect to be charged with the “catch all” Penal Code Section 148 misdemeanor, and going to jail. See below video.

Freedom Loving People and The Implications of the Google Glass Case

We are already expecting some Sacramento politician to come up with some Orwellian titled bill, like: “Protect California From Google Glass Act”, for example.  So we wanted to beat them to the punch and expose this non sense once and for all.  Alas, I spoke too soon, some other statist politicians are doing just that as we speak, in the states of New Jersey, Delaware, and even West Virginia. The facts of our instant story relate that a woman was cited by the CHP for wearing her Google Glass several months ago, and she just had her day in court about 16 hours ago.

The Case in Chief

Cecilia Abadie’s was found to be not guilty as charged yesterday, even though she was wearing her computer-in-eyeglass, Google Glass.  San Diego County Traffic Court Commissioner, John Blair, stated that there was “no proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant was actually operating the hands free device.  She was actually not charged under the above cell phone law, but the creative CHP officer found another “Charge” (Remember “revenue raising” and the “charge” discussed above?). Here, the officer charged the defendant with watching TV while driving, despite the fact that his initial investigation revealed zero evidence her device was even turned on.  Rather than get into the Civil Rights violations, let’s just discuss what happened and why this issue is not dead.
First, this was a traffic infraction, which is really quasi criminal, and administrative, if anything. So a commissioner, who is not a judge, and who must be consented to, was acting as the “magistrate”, but not really a judge.  So the decision has zero force or effect in law. Since the DA was not even a participant, which is also required in a criminal matter, it is doubtful they will be putting of much of a fight.
So mark my words, some goody two shoes legislator will get a bill passed that further restricts our personal liberty under the guise of safety.  Soon, it will be like Nazi Germany with a techno twist.  Police will pull you over, demand your device, check to see if it was on, and cite you.  With technology will come less freedom, not more.
Our only chance as a free people would be to fall off the grid, or to dis-empower the govt back to what our founding fathers had sought for this once great Republic.  Freedom loving groups are out there. Organizations like the Three Percent, and the Oathkeepers are actually comprised of police who support the literal meaning of the Constitution and the historical underpinning of unalienable rights.
Google Glass doesn’t kill, people do. The responsibility of citizens is to behave reasonably.  There are already criminal statutes that prohibit the harming of others, such as vehicular manslaughter.  There is already the law of negligence with which to sue people for violating their duty to behave reasonably for the given situation. Harassing citizens, and coming up with ways to charge them with vague, ambiguous and stupid laws, that many police themselves ignore, is exactly the type of political climate that existed at the time of our revolution against King George. What side are you on?

Sources:

William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:120–41 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIXs1.html 

Woman Cleared:

Distracted Driving in California: http://caraccidentattorney.ehlinelaw.com/inattentive-driving/