Thank you this bringing this to our attention. It is just another instance of the us or them way of thought that is so prevalent in todays govern - we know better - ment . I am writing to bring up a small issue that irks me.

In the quote below you state that “officers already had the right”.

“…meaning that police officers already had the right to pull over a driver when their actual bad driving endangered other people…”

What I want to put to you is that officers do not have any other “rights’ than do the people they serve. No one by virtue of a title has any “special rights” afforded them. Only individuals have rights, officials have no rights by virtue of their officialdom

Laws and code grant power not rights. It may be nitpicking but words have meanings and these ones are powerful and are commonly misused.

A California escapee,

Mike Spivey in Las Vegas NM

Thanks goes to you on two counts: 1) for writing on a blog to keep your constituents, and any other concerned citizen, informed as to what is going on in California from your vantage point and, 2) for bringing this specific story up. This is a classic example of the side affects that come with laws that intrude on individual liberty and freedom.

The public safety must be protected, but as you said, this law does not take into account what the driver is actually doing besides talking on the cell phone. Laws designed to punish and correct dangerous behavior are good, but at the time the violation of this law occurs there is nothing but a mere probability of future harm occurring.

Seeing all of the other regulations that California promotes, such as those requiring a disclaimer about the cancer causing properties of some particular thing, it will probably come to light years from now that hands-free devices for cell phones cause cancer. Such is the repetitious nature of excessive government regulation.

Best Regards from Indiana,

Brian Sikma