Montclair Passes Broad Ordinance to Combat "Distracted Walking"

The city of Montclair in Southern California recently passed an ordinance that bans crossing the street while talking on the phone, looking at the screen of an electronic device, or wearing headphones or earbuds on both ears (regardless of whether they are playing music).

Many outlets have reported on this ordinance. I learned about it this morning from a teaser for a local public radio report that you can find here. Illustrious publications such as the LA Times reported on the ordinance. Local outlets as well report on it here and here.

Because I'm a lawyer with a blog and not a "journalist," I'm going to depart from the standard practice that all of these reports have in common, which is to fail to provide a link to the text of the ordinance. Here it is. You're welcome. Here, also, are the minutes for the December 4, 2017 meeting where this Ordinance was approved.  The minutes contained the ordinance number (17-791), which finally led me to the text. (Two links to the text in one post. I'm out of control.) 

To make things even crazier, here's (most of) the text of the municipal code sections that the ordinance added to the Montclair Municipal Code (and which became effective on January 3, 2018):

8.02.010. Definitions. 
As used in this Title, the following definitions shall apply. For purposes of Title 8, these definitions shall supersede any other definitions of the same terms elsewhere in this Code.  

Emergency Responders include, but are not limited to, public safety officers of either a municipal or county police department or fire department, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, private ambulance service responders, emergency management workers, and federal and state law enforcement and fire service officers on duty and responding to an emergency service request.  

Mobile Electronic Device means any handheld, head- or body-mounted, or portable electronic equipment capable of providing wireless and/or data communication between two or more persons or a device for providing amusement, including but not limited to a cellular phone, smart phone, text messaging device, paging device, personal digital assistant, laptop computer, video game, video/audio player, digital photographic device, or any other similar electronic device. 

Pedestrian means a person who is afoot or who is using any of the following: (1) a means of conveyance propelled by human power other than a bicycle; or (2) an electric personal assistive mobility device.  

Personal Audio Equipment means any device placed in, on or around a person's ears capable of providing an audible sound, including but not limited to headphones or ear buds.  

Viewing means looking in the direction of the screen of a mobile electronic device.  

Chapter 8.28 PEDESTRIANS  

8.28.020. Pedestrian Use of Mobile Electronic Devices.  

A. No pedestrian shall cross a street or highway while engaged in a phone call, viewing a mobile electronic device or with both ears covered or obstructed by personal audio equipment.  

B. Upon presenting evidence, it is an affirmative defense to any citation for a violation of subsection (A) that the cited person was engaged in, or making, a "911" emergency communication with a mobile electronic device.  

C. Emergency responders viewing a mobile electronic device, or whose ears are covered or obstructed by audio equipment, while in the performance and scope of his or her official duties are exempt from subsection (A).  

D. Persons with medically prescribed hearing aides [sic] are exempt from subsection (A).  

E. Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter is guilty of an infraction violation punishable in accordance with Chapter 1 .1 2 of Title 1 of this Code.

A few things.

Montclair City Manager Edwin Edward Starr said that he wanted to address "distracted walking" in the city, and that he eventually found Honolulu's distracted walking ordinance which was passed in 2017. (For the record, the LA Times did not link to the text of Honolulu's ordinance, but the Daily Bulletin did).

I too had heard of Honolulu's ordinance, which I blogged about here. I concluded that while Honolulu's ordinance could give rise to some strange situations and maybe abuse of discretion in its enforcement, it was narrow enough that these problems either would not arise, or at least only have a minimal negative effect. Starr claims that he "took cues" from the Honolulu ordinance, but it is unclear what this means, as Montclair's ordinance prohibits far more conduct than Honolulu's ordinance.

Honolulu banned looking at the screen of an electric device while crossing the street. This makes sense because if a pedestrian is looking at the screen, they are not looking elsewhere -- such as to either side to ensure that no cars are coming, or ahead to see if the "Walk" sign is indeed lit. Montclair, on the other hand, bans looking at screens, but also bans talking on phones and having headphones on both ears while crossing the street. These activities may distract pedestrians to a certain degree, but they at least involve circumstances where the pedestrian not necessarily looking at the screen, and therefore far less likely to be blindsided by a car or to fall into a pothole.

Not Montclair's ordinance, however.  Montclairs broad ban means that anyone who is jogging while listening to music must now remove their headphones before crossing a street. The ordinance does not defined "engaged in a phone call," so it is not clear if simply putting a phone down by one's side before crossing the road is fine, as the phone is still "engaged" in that call. The safest bet would be to hang up your phone while crossing the street, so good luck if you are on the phone asking for directions to anywhere in Montclair.

While Starr and his staff who drafted the ordinance attempted to curtail its foolish overreach to exempt people with hearing aids from the ban's gratuitous scope, they even failed at this.  The ordinance states that people with medically prescribed "hearing aides" are exempt from the ban.  This apparently refers to the rare circumstance in which a doctor decides to address a patient's hearing loss by prescribing two or more assistants to follow the hard-of-hearing person around and yell any words that the person may not have heard, or scream at the person to alert them to quiet noises that may otherwise be missed. I think it would have been better had they exempted people with "hearing aids," but I'm not the municipal-code-drafter.

If Montclair had copied and pasted Honolulu's ordinance, that would have been fine. But the ordinance that Montclair passed prohibits a far greater range of conduct, which could give rise to selective enforcement of the law. After all, if the number of people who violate the ordinance is far greater than the number who may be practically cited, it falls on law enforcement to decide when to enforce it and against whom the ordinance should be enforced. This makes it all the more likely that the law will be enforced along racial or class-based lines.

"But it's only a $100 fine!" a supporter of the ordinance may say. To which I respond: $100 is a significant amount for some, these penalties could add up since they prohibit such a routine activity, and fines are often accompanied by various court and administrative fees that expand the amount that people end up needing to pay.

"But the city is going to put 'stencils' on every crosswalk corner warning people not to use phones!" a supporter may argue. To which I respond: the sign itself should be enough to alert people, removing the need for an ordinance, and the city's plan to put up "decals depicting a no-cellphone symbol below the words: 'Don't be Distracted'" is misleading because those decals imply that only cellphone use is prohibited when, in fact, the ordinance prohibits far more.

Honolulu's ordinance banning looking at screens while crossing the street was fine, if perhaps unnecessary. Montclair's ordinance is sloppy, overly-broad, and should never have been passed.