Background
James Lundeen was cited for violating R.C. 4511.204, Ohio’s statute prohibiting the use of electronic wireless communication devices while driving, after an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper observed him holding a cell phone near his steering wheel while driving on U.S. Route 30 in Crawford County. Lundeen admitted he was holding the phone to use its GPS feature.
On the eve of trial, Lundeen filed a motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds, arguing that R.C. 4511.204 violates equal protection because drivers with illegally dark window tint cannot be observed violating the statute, and that the statute is void for vagueness because its amendments over time created confusion about whether GPS use is prohibited. The magistrate denied the motion as untimely and without merit, then convicted Lundeen after a bench trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed the conviction. On the constitutional claims, which the court reviewed under a plain-error standard because Lundeen failed to file objections to the magistrate’s decision, the court held that R.C. 4511.204 does not violate equal protection because the alleged enforcement disparity caused by dark window tint is not a deficiency in the statute itself. The court also rejected the vagueness challenge, finding that R.C. 4511.204 clearly prohibits holding or physically supporting a device while driving, regardless of the function being used.
On the sufficiency of the evidence, the court held that the trooper’s observation of Lundeen holding a phone while driving was sufficient to establish the violation. The statute’s prohibition is on holding the device, not on a particular use of the device. The dissent argued the appeal was moot because Lundeen had already paid his fine and costs, leaving no live controversy.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio’s distracted driving statute (R.C. 4511.204) prohibits holding or physically supporting an electronic device while driving, regardless of whether the driver is using it for GPS, texting, or any other function.
- A claimed enforcement disparity (such as the inability to observe violations in vehicles with dark window tint) is not a basis for an equal protection challenge to the statute itself.
- The dissent’s mootness argument highlights a practical consideration: paying a fine and costs before appeal may extinguish the controversy unless collateral consequences exist.
Why It Matters
This is one of the first Ohio appellate decisions to directly address the application of R.C. 4511.204 to GPS navigation. Drivers and defense attorneys should note that Ohio’s hands-free law prohibits physically holding a phone while driving, period — there is no exception for GPS use unless the device is in a hands-free mount. The dissent’s mootness argument may also be relevant to practitioners advising clients on whether to pay minor traffic fines before appeal.