Driving and Texting
 

I kind of want to put this out there and get opinions on it.

Pennsylvania law just went into affect today making it illegal to text while driving. I agree with this and making it hands free. It's called blue tooth people let's be safe about it. When I get into my car and drive everyday my phone automatically connects with my blue tooth in my jeep and my phone stays in my pocket. Now with that said just to clarify.

I like this law, but I have one problem with how it could be abused on the end of the officer. He/she can pull you over on suspicion of texting and if you weren't apparently he/she can ask to see your phone as proof. This is were I start to have problems with it. I don't need some cop going through my personal messages just to prove my innocence. Those are my private messages. I am all about freedoms and rights and I am not about to comply with something that gives up my freedoms as a US citizen just to entertain this notion.

My question is, wouldn't they need a warrant to technically search your phone if they are not arresting you?

So I need some lawyer friends to chime in and give me something that will hold up when I say it to the officer to prevent my privacy from being invaded.

I heard this last night ,and they also have the right to subpena your phone records. Not so sure I like this part. They do not have to right to confiscate your phone.

Sacrifice some privacy for safety on the road.

We here in New Zealand made it illegal to txt or talk on a hands held mobile a year or so ago and it certainly "feels" safer not to see some stupid teen txt-ing while selecting tunes on the ipod and doing the compusary for any self respecting teen; driving faster than everyone else.

My opinion is it's impaired driving and should have the exact same penalty as DUI.
Your text is not worth my child's life.

Should he look at your phone? Maybe not, but it it would be up to the defendant to prove that he was not texting. How about it being seized on the spot in sealed evidence till the warrant can be signed?

Are you sure you understand what the law actually does?

I found this summary, which says nothing about the officer inspecting the phone or obtaining the phone records. It does say it is a $50, no-points ticket. Seems ridiculous to think the district attorney will be subpeonaing phone records to prosecute a $50 citation.

"What the Law Does
 The law prohibits as a primary offense any driver from using an Interactive Wireless Communication Device (IWCD) to send, read or write a text-based communication while his or her vehicle is in motion.
 Defines an IWCD as a wireless phone, personal digital assistant, smart phone, portable or mobile computer or similar devices that can be used for texting, instant messaging, emailing or browsing the Internet.
 Defines a text-based communication as a text message, instant message, email or other written communication composed or received on an IWCD.
 Institutes a $50 fine for convictions under this section.
 Makes clear that this law supersedes and preempts any local ordinances restricting the use of interactive wireless devices by drivers.
The penalty is a summary offense with a $50 fine, plus court costs and other fees.
The violation carries no points as a penalty and will not be recorded on the driver record for non-commercial drivers. It will be recorded on commercial drivers’ records as a non-sanction violation.
The texting ban does NOT include the use of a GPS device, a system or device that is physically or electronically integrated into the vehicle, or a communications device that is affixed to a mass transit vehicle, bus or school bus. The law does not authorize the seizure of an IWCD."

I also found this news story which quotes some police chiefs who apparently think their officers cannot look at your phone.

Texting-while-driving ban starts in Pennsylvania this week; police have enforcement concerns | lehighvalleylive.com
"If we can prove it, we'll enforce it or attempt to enforce it," Wilson Borough police Chief Steve Parkansky said. "However, it's going to be very difficult. Short of someone admitting they were texting, there's not much we can do. We can't look at the phone, we can't seize the phone, so our hands are really tied."

I don't know what the law actually says, that's up to you (the OP) to figure out. I
am just suggesting that you should do the necessary work to figure it out. Might take you half an hour on Google if you are really slow.

If your phone is safely tucked away in your pocket, how would the cop even know you had a cell phone?

Randy

It's very simple, phones should lock up at anything over 5 MPH. To activate them, you should have to enter a password. If you are alone in a car, traveling, and have used the password, you should be considered guilty once the history is examined. If you come to a stop for more than 2 minutes, the phone should unlock. If you need it for an emergency, use the password and explain that later.

Voice use of a phone while driving, hands free or not, is a distraction that cannot be permitted. It goes w/o saying that texting is outrages and should be considered negligent and therefore reckless driving and come with the same penalty.

This isn't a foking seat belt law that costs 50 bucks. Texting should cost 500.

A coworker in NJ has actually gotten a ticket for using a cell phone while driving. He says that he was just looking at the phone, not actually making a call or texting, but apparently, that was enough that the cop saw him being distracted and not watching the road and gave him a ticket.

While I fully agree that it would be a lot safer to have this ban and I do my part to add to the safety. I don't want anyone to get me wrong here. I am completely against texting while driving and using a hand held for a phone call.

I don't feel that I should sacrifice my privacy.

Here is why: I am a chemist and have a lot of correspondence on my phone with other colleagues discussing chemicals, testing, ordering and what not. All I need is for some idiot over zealous local cop to miss read that as something bad and try and arrest me for possible terrorist activities charge which would be totally bogus. Then there I am sitting in a jail until they collect evidence and put together a case for a judge, while I miss work, possibly get fired and waste my time just because I chose to sacrifice my privacy. Yeah I know I am not doing anything wrong, but how is the officer going to interpret that.

I push one button on my steering wheel. My music mutes and the name is displayed across my radio no different then a radio station and it speaks the name to me. Me talking into thin air is no different than talking to someone sitting in the passenger seat. To make a phone call I hit the same button on my steering wheel and say call: persons name. My eyes never leave the road and hands never leave the steering wheel. You are a bit ridiculous. In your definition picking your nose would be a distraction.

It's the same way in the UK.

Good.

I agree, my buddies Goldwing's GPS locks up as soon as you put it in drive. I would step it up and make the manufacturer legally liable for any injury/death due to texting and driving due to their device.
I bet they would then have locking technology on their devices PDQ.

So you guys have never talked to a passenger, consulted a map, changed the radio, looked for an address, yelled at a kid, etc, or any of the other million things that can be distracting while driving?

Instead of trying to ban things that might be distracting (passengers being the ultimate distraction IMO) why don't we focus on making people better drivers through better education and licensing.

Phones should not text or call out when moving (auto speeds via gps). Sorry train riders!

We have a ban on hand held devices here, last month during a safety blitz almost 2000 drivers were charged.

I have absolutely no sympathy at all, anyone who does this is irresponsible.

I believe if you are on a public highway and are suspected of being an immediate threat to public safety the police should be able to confirm whether you were being a threat on the spot. This is a case where I would rather see an err on the side of safety and against an absolute guarantee of privacy in a public place.

The only information relevant to the inspection of your phone is the time - not the content - of your last use.

complicated laws are bad laws.

How 'bout; "you were swerving severely." -no smell of booze- "here's a ticket for distracted driving." (?)

+1.

I have a hunch that the sentiments in this thread mirror a generational divide.