
California employers are encouraged to review their cellular phone and driving policies in light of a recent Court of Appeal decision which bars drivers from using any functions on a handheld cellular phone while driving. People v. Porter, 111 Cal. App. 5th 927, 333 Cal. Rptr. 3d 168, 171 (2025).
On June 3, 2025, the California Court of Appeal issued a ruling in Porter, which reinstated the traffic conviction of a driver who had viewed a mapping application on his cellular phone while holding the phone and driving. The defendant, Nathaniel Gabriel Porter, who was convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 23123.5(a) – which prohibits drivers from “holding and operating” a handheld cellular phone unless it is used in a manner that allows voice-operated and hands-free operation - appealed his traffic conviction to the appellate division of the Santa Clara Superior Court. Porter argued that the statute prohibited only listening and talking on a handheld phone. The appellate division agreed and reversed the conviction, concluding that “operating” a cellular phone under the statute requires active use or manipulation of the device, such as talking, listening, emailing, or otherwise engaging with the phone, rather than simply observing GPS directions. The Court of Appeal then reviewed the case, ultimately reinstating Porter’s conviction.
The court’s ruling concluded the statute prohibits all use of a cellular phone’s functions while driving and holding the phone, including passively looking at an application on the phone. The Legislature intended to curb distracted driving stemming from the expanded functionality of modern phones by banning all use of a phone’s functions while held in the hand. Further, the court reasoned that Porter’s use of his handheld cellular phone while driving implicated safety concerns. Under Porter’s interpretation of the statute, the court opined that a driver could not only view a mapping application, but also watch a video or other similarly dangerous, distracting activities, while driving. The court decided that Vehicle Code section 23123.5(a) was correctly interpreted as barring drivers from using any application or function on a cellular phone while holding the phone and driving.
Given this ruling, California employers should consider if any updates are necessary to their employment policies. While many employers may already have policies in place which require hands-free cellular phones to make and receive calls while driving, the Porter case holds that any use of a cellular phone violates the law when holding the phone and driving. Employers may need to review their policies to ensure the policy bars employees who are driving for work purposes from engaging in any use of a handheld phone and to suggest alternatives such as a cellular phone windshield mount so that drivers can observe mapping applications if necessary.
Employers with questions about their cellular phone, driving, and other employment policies may contact the authors of this post or their usual counsel at AALRR.
This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.
© 2025 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo
- Partner
Jennifer Grock focuses her practice on advising and counseling employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. She is dedicated to client service and believes in taking a proactive approach that emphasizes each ...
- Partner
Jonathan Judge heads the Private Labor and Employment Group’s Advice and Counsel Team of attorneys. He represents clients, large and small, in employment advice and counsel matters including wage and hour, leaves of absence, and ...
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- SB 513 Expands Employers’ Recordkeeping Requirements for Education and Training Records
- California Court Clarifies Sick Leave Pay Calculation for Outside Sales Employees
- California’s Minimum Wage to Increase to $16.90 Per Hour on January 1, 2026
- California Agency Issues Guidance on Violence Leave
- California Employers Should Review Their Cellular Phone and Driving Policies Following Recent Court of Appeal Decision
- Numerous Local Minimum Wages Poised to Increase Effective July 1, 2025
- U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services Issues Updated I-9 Form
- President Trump’s Executive Orders on DEI
- California Court of Appeal Upholds Revocable, Prospective Meal Period Waivers
- SPRING CLEANING: Have You “Cleaned Up” Your Arbitration Agreement?
Popular Categories
- (131)
- (35)
- (51)
- (33)
- (16)
- (14)
- (37)
- (9)
- (7)
- (17)
- (4)
- (15)
- (1)
- (9)
- (1)
- (3)
- (3)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (3)
- (3)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Mae G. Alberto
- Steve Araiza
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Sarkis A. Atoyan
- William M. Betley
- Michele L. Collender
- Kevin R. Dale
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- William A. Diedrich
- Paul S. Fleck
- Grant C. Furukawa
- Lauren S. Gafa
- Priscilla Gamino
- L. Brent Garrett
- Evan J. Gautier
- Carol A. Gefis
- Jennifer S. Grock
- Jonathan Judge
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Joshua N. Lange
- Catherine M. Lee
- Thomas A. Lenz
- David M. Lester
- Martin S. Li
- Mia A. Lomedico
- Jorge J. Luna
- Brian D. Martin
- Ronald W. Novotny
- Michael J. O'Connor, Jr.
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Nora Pasin
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Saba Salamatian
- Casandra P. Secord
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Ann K. Smith
- Julie F. Smith
- Amber M. Solano
- Susan M. Steward
- April Szabo
- Jay G. Trinnaman
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Robert L. Wenzel
- Glen A. Williams
Archives
2025
- November 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
2024
2023
2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
2018
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
2017
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
2016
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
2015
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
2011
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011

