united-states traffic illinois
What does &quot;using an electronic communication device&quot; mean?
<p>I was stopped for holding my phone while driving; I was listening to a podcast on speaker, and the phone was locked.</p>

<hr>

<p>In <a href="http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K12-610.2" rel="nofollow">625 ILCS 5/12-610.2</a>, subsection (b) says</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a roadway while using an electronic communication device.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Prior to <a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&amp;SessionId=85&amp;GA=98&amp;DocTypeId=HB&amp;DocNum=1247&amp;GAID=12&amp;LegID=&amp;SpecSess=&amp;Session#sthash.cEqSi4GO.dpuf" rel="nofollow">this amendment</a>, this subsection was less vague:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a roadway while using an electronic communication device to compose, send, or read an electronic message.</p>
</blockquote>

<hr>

<ul>
<li>Was I in violation of Illinois' "hands-free phone" law?</li>
<li>What constitutes <strong>use</strong> in this context?</li>
<li>How could the prosecutor prove I was actually using, and not just holding, a phone? (I wasn't fined; this is a hypothetical question)</li>
</ul>

<p>What a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation" rel="nofollow">statute <em>means</em></a> can be difficult to determine.</p>

<p>There are several approaches to statutory interpretation that could be helpful:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism" rel="nofollow">Textual</a>: The plain meaning doesn't confine "use" to a few particular types of uses.
The plain text provides an expansive prohibition on any use of an electronic communication device.</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_history" rel="nofollow">Legislative history</a>/<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent" rel="nofollow">legislative intent</a>:

<ul>
<li>The previous version of the subsection <em>did</em> limit prohibited uses to only composing, sending, or reading electronic messages. Given the amendment, it seems that the legislature no longer desired that limitation.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09800HB1247&amp;GA=98&amp;SessionId=85&amp;DocTypeId=HB&amp;LegID=&amp;DocNum=1247&amp;GAID=12&amp;Session=" rel="nofollow">When the bill was introduced</a>, Rep. D'Amico stated the purpose of the bill was to "[expand] the prohibition on driving while using an electronic communication device to include uses beyond composing, sending, or reading an electronic message."</li>
<li>During <a href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans98/09800022.pdf" rel="nofollow">debate</a>, when asked what a person should do that doesn't have Bluetooth, Rep. D'Amico suggested "You put it on speaker phone". When asked, "Where would you place the phone?", Rep D'Amico replied, "Wherever you feel like; just not next to your ear."</li>
<li>During the same debate, D'Amico described the bill: "What House Bill 1247 does is ban handheld cell phones while driving a vehicle."</li>
<li>In my opinion, the declaration of the bill's sponsor, and the debate surrounding the bill treated it as expanding the prohibition from including only texting and email to also include voice conversations.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>

<p>As far as I can tell, the full scope of "using" under this statute hasn't been tested in court, but I could see this going either way. The plain text provides an expansive prohibition on <em>any</em> use of an electronic communication device. However, a court might also be convinced by the legislative intent that only aims to add handheld voice communications to the previous list of prohibited activities (or it least it could be argued that this is the case).</p>

<p>Further, under a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purposive_approach" rel="nofollow">purposive construction</a>, a court could even look beyond the explicit legislative intent and find that the core purpose was to prevent distraction, in which case "using" could include any activity on your electronic device that distracts you <em>as if</em> you were texting, or making a phone call (eg. selecting the next song to play in your music app).</p>

<p>To add to nomen agentis's answer, in a test of "usage" the court may look to similar hands-free bans in other jurisdictions.  For example, consider <a href="https://www.sanantonio.gov/portals/0/Files/SAPD/Hands-Free-Ordinance-2015.pdf" rel="nofollow">San Antonio</a>, where the City Council takes care to define usage.  In particular, it</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>finds that the use of a hand-held mobile communication device to <br>
  1. engage in a call,<br>
  2. send, read, or write a text message,<br>
  3. view pictures or written text, whether transmitted by internet or other electronic means,<br>
  4. engage in gaming, or<br>
  5. engaging in any other use of the device while operating a moving motor vehicle is a traffic hazard and a danger to the public</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As to proof, they might rely on the officer's testimony or, in an extreme case &ndash; say one involving a serious accident &ndash; they might access the device's logs or otherwise analyze it forensically.</p>
