New Jersey Confiscation Law Lets Cops Take Phones Without Warrants

[BillyBob]

Fascism marches steadily forward.


Legislation introduced in the New Jersey state senate would greatly empower law enforcement (http://skimlinks.pgpartner.com/mrdr.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fskimlinks.pgpartner.com% 2Fsearch.php%2Fform_keyword%3Dlaw%2Benforcement) should it become a formal law. The law would allow police officers to confiscate the cell phones of drivers involved in accidents to determine whether or not the driver was in a call or texting at the time the accident took place.
Troublingly, no warrant is required for this search. Law enforcement (http://skimlinks.pgpartner.com/mrdr.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fskimlinks.pgpartner.com% 2Fsearch.php%2Fform_keyword%3Dlaw%2Benforcement) must merely possess reasonable grounds on which to search. New Jersey already has an active ban on the use of handheld cellular devices. Drivers can be pulled over for reading or writing a text message. Just in May, new legislation (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/new-jersey-bill-would-let-cops-search-cell-phones-after-car-crashes) imposed fines on drivers that texted, with $200 to $400 for first time offenders. However, supporters of the legislation still point to the numerous accidents caused solely because of distracted driving.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/696128/new-jersey-cell-phone-confiscation-la/#msHaUI43c1VtPGAO.99

[Thunderknuckles]

This one is being lead by Republicans.

[red states rule]

This one is being lead by Republicans.

We are talking about NJ R's. I wonder if Christie will sign this or veto it. I guess it will be up to whatever Obama tells him to do

[Thunderknuckles]

I guess it will be up to whatever Obama tells him to do
No, it will be up to whatever the polling in his state tells him to do. He has an election coming up you know.

[red states rule]

No, it will be up to whatever the polling in his state tells him to do. He has an election coming up you know.

Mel Brooks as Chris Christie



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M

[fj1200]

Fascism marches steadily forward.

Troublingly, no warrant is required for this search.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/696128/new-jersey-cell-phone-confiscation-la/#msHaUI43c1VtPGAO.99

I would think that would fall under evidence collection.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Since no one has posted a link to the bill text, I seriously doubt any of you have bothered to read it.

Here...

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/S3000/2783_I1.HTM

here's the important part...


1. (New section) Whenever an operator of a motor vehicle has been involved in an accident resulting in death, bodily injury, or property damage, a police officer who reports to the scene of the accident may confiscate the operator’s hand-held wireless telephone if, after considering the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident, the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the operator involved in the accident was operating a hand-held wireless telephone while driving a motor vehicle in violation of section 1 of P.L.2003, c.310 (C.39:4-97.3). Upon confiscating the telephone, the police officer may review the hand-held wireless telephone’s call history data in order to determine whether the motor vehicle operator was in violation of section 1 of P.L.2003, c.310 (C.39:4-97.3) at the time of the accident. After reviewing the call history data, the law enforcement officer shall return the hand-held wireless telephone to the motor vehicle operator. Any information contained in the call history data that indicates that the motor vehicle operator was in violation of section 1 of P.L.2003, c.310 (C.39:4-97.3) shall be included in the police report in accordance with R.S.39:4-131.

It's restricted to the operator only, not the passengers.
MAY confiscate, not MUST or WILL.
IF certain conditions are met.
SHALL RETURN THE PHONE...

I see no real problems here. It's just an additional part of the collection of pertinent information regarding the accident.

[Marcus Aurelius]

now RSR and BB don't have anything to whine about :laugh:

[BillyBob]

Since no one has posted a link to the bill text, I seriously doubt any of you have bothered to read it.

Here...

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/S3000/2783_I1.HTM

here's the important part...



It's restricted to the operator only, not the passengers.
MAY confiscate, not MUST or WILL.
IF certain conditions are met.
SHALL RETURN THE PHONE...

I see no real problems here. It's just an additional part of the collection of pertinent information regarding the accident.

If a cop tried to confiscate my phone without a warrant I'd tell him to go fuck himself. It's a damn shame how willing you libs are to submit to your government.

[Marcus Aurelius]

If a cop tried to confiscate my phone without a warrant I'd tell him to go fuck himself. It's a damn shame how willing you libs are to submit to your government.

So, to make sure we understand you correctly... if this were to become law in NJ, and all the criteria were met, you'd tell the police officer following the law to go fuck himself. Say hi to Bubba in the slammer... he's gonna like you.

[fj1200]

If a cop tried to confiscate my phone without a warrant I'd tell him to go fuck himself. It's a damn shame how willing you libs are to submit to your government.

It's more along the lines of evidence collection and less along the lines of fascism.

[BillyBob]

So, to make sure we understand you correctly... if this were to become law in NJ, and all the criteria were met, you'd tell the police officer following the law to go fuck himself.

Without a warrant? Yep. And I take it you're willing submit to the officer when he confiscates your phone without a warrant. Congratulations on your blind subservience.

[BillyBob]

It's more along the lines of evidence collection and less along the lines of fascism.


Then he can get a warrant.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Then he can get a warrant.

Please cite the laws that require a warrant to collect evidence at an accident scene.

[Kathianne]

Please cite the laws that require a warrant to collect evidence at an accident scene.

Indeed. "You can't have that bottle of Jack without a warrant!" Good luck with that.

[fj1200]

Then he can get a warrant.

There is plenty of evidence at an accident scene that doesn't require a warrant. Your expectations of privacy are practically nil at that point.

[Marcus Aurelius]

people with a problem here are confusing 'criminal investigation', for which a warrant is needed in most (not all) cases in order to search for evidence... with 'accident investigation', for which a warrant is NOT required to search for evidence at the scene.

[Kathianne]

There is plenty of evidence at an accident scene that doesn't require a warrant. Your expectations of privacy are practically nil at that point.

Indeed. What is seized at the scene of an accident may become the basis of obtaining a warrant for home or other places.

[BillyBob]

Please cite the laws that require a warrant to collect evidence at an accident scene.


A phone is private property. If he wants to confiscate it he needs a warrant. If that weren't the case, why do you think New Jersey is changing the law in order to allow the cops to search your phone and confiscate it without a warrant? Next year they'll be confiscating phones randomly. Fascism only flows in one direction.

[Marcus Aurelius]

A phone is private property. If he wants to confiscate it he needs a warrant. If that weren't the case, why do you think New Jersey is changing the law in order to allow the cops to search your phone and confiscate it without a warrant? Next year they'll be confiscating phones randomly. Fascism only flows in one direction.

It's already been explained why you're wrong. You're confusing two different situations, and being willfully stupid about it to boot.

If a bottle of scotch were sitting on the front seat of the car you just plowed into a school bus with, and the police were at the scene investigating and gathering evidence, you seriously think they'd need a warrant to search the car and confiscate the bottle?

Wow.. the depths of stupidity know no bounds with you.

[jimnyc]

Small warning, if you guys start with the little stuff and continue the jabs - if the thread veers into a flamefest, the thread bans start. If you guys want to fight, go to the cage. You have the ability to participate AND fight. If I have to clean up threads, then only the fighting in the cage will be available.

[BillyBob]

It's already been explained why you're wrong. You're confusing two different situations, and being willfully stupid about it to boot.

If a bottle of scotch were sitting on the front seat of the car you just plowed into a school bus with, and the police were at the scene investigating and gathering evidence, you seriously think they'd need a warrant to search the car and confiscate the bottle?

We're not talking about a bottle.





Wow.. the depths of stupidity know no bounds with you.


If it's already no big deal then why is New Jersey changing the law to allow for it?

[Marcus Aurelius]

We're not talking about a bottle.


It's already been explained why you're wrong. You're confusing two different situations, and being willfully stupid about it to boot.

If a cell phone were sitting on the front seat of the car you just plowed into a school bus with, and the police were at the scene investigating and gathering evidence, you seriously think they'd need a warrant to search the car and confiscate the phone?

[BillyBob]

It's already been explained why you're wrong. You're confusing two different situations, and being willfully stupid about it to boot.

You were just warned about that.





If a cell phone were sitting on the front seat of the car you just plowed into a school bus with, and the police were at the scene investigating and gathering evidence, you seriously think they'd need a warrant to search the car and confiscate the phone?

If it's already no big deal then why is New Jersey changing the law to allow for it? <---------This!

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://defenseattorneysd.com/california-court-of-appeal-says-no-warrant-needed-to-retrieve-and-review-information-from-an-automotive-black-box/


The Fourth Amendment stands as a powerful shield between the citizens and the state, protecting against intrusion and overreaching by the government. But the Fourth Amendment is not without its limitations. While it does provide its greatest protection to people within their homes, the protections of the Fourth Amendment are limited when a search or seizure is conducted in public, or as in the case of People v. Diaz (2013) 2013 Cal.App. LEXIS 92, involves activities conducted while in a car on public roads.

Diaz’s car and the victim’s car were totaled and towed to a police impound yard. More than one year after the accident, police officers investigating the incident downloaded information from the SDM (sensing diagnostic module) on Diaz’s car. The function of the SDM is to record information, both before and after a crash, for later evaluation. The data from the SDM is stored on the EDR, a device which controls the operation of the airbags. The EDR stores 5-second bits of information relating to vehicle speed, engine speed (RPM), the braking switch, and throttle position. Together the SDM and EDR function like a “black box” for automobiles.
After officers downloaded the information from the EDR, they were able to determine that Diaz’s car was travelling at 73 mph on a road with a speed limit of 50 mph.
Diaz was arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder and vehicular manslaughter. She was later convicted, after a jury trial, of involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Diaz appealed her conviction and argued that the officers’ search of her vehicle and the downloading of information from the car’s SDM and EDR violated her Fourth Amendment rights.






In reaching its conclusion, the Court of Appeal observed that the United States Supreme Court has long held that the expectation of privacy is diminished in the automobile, and that the California Supreme Court has upheld searches on grounds that the vehicle was an instrumentality of a crime, or was itself evidence.

IF a car is evidence at an accident, so is anything else in the car. People... objects.. cell phones.....

[BillyBob]

http://defenseattorneysd.com/california-court-of-appeal-says-no-warrant-needed-to-retrieve-and-review-information-from-an-automotive-black-box/




IF a car is evidence at an accident, so is anything else in the car. People... objects.. cell phones.....


If it's already no big deal then why is New Jersey changing the law to allow for it?



The ACLU of New Jersey even alluded to a legal battle on Constitutional grounds should the measure pass.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/696128/new-jersey-cell-phone-confiscation-la/#jJmvlItbMPpdD7Cu.99

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.co.wise.tx.us/constable/downloads/traffic%20accident%20investigation.pdf

Identify and Preserve Fragile Evidence


Any fragile evidence that can be damaged, altered, destroyed or removed from the scene by any willful or negligent act must be identified and secured. Prior to removal, its position should be noted, sketched, photographed and/or marked in chalk. Examples of such evidence are puddles of gasoline, oil, blood or

pieces of broken glass. The position of turn signal levers should be checked; although this is not a positive indicator of whether a turn signal was in use it can be helpful. Alcoholic beverage containers inside avehicle should also be secured. Evidence should be tagged, marked, and secured in accordance with proper

evidence gathering procedures prior to its removal from the scene.



If a container in the car is evidence, so is anythign else in the car... people, clothing, cell phone, etc.

[BillyBob]

http://www.co.wise.tx.us/constable/downloads/traffic%20accident%20investigation.pdf


If a container in the car is evidence, so is anythign else in the car... people, clothing, cell phone, etc.


If it's already no big deal then why is New Jersey changing the law to allow for it?

[Abbey Marie]

Small warning, if you guys start with the little stuff and continue the jabs - if the thread veers into a flamefest, the thread bans start. If you guys want to fight, go to the cage. You have the ability to participate AND fight. If I have to clean up threads, then only the fighting in the cage will be available.

In neither case is the existence of the item evidence that it was even used, let alone the proximate cause of the accident. Seems more like a fishing expedition to me, and I think it will be one for the case books.

[BillyBob]

In neither case is the existence of the item evidence that it was even used, let alone the proximate cause of the accident. Seems more like a fishing expedition to me, and I think it will be one for the case books.

That was an unexpected response to Jim's post. *chuckle

Fascism moves incrementally, sometimes almost imperceptibly. Just look at the people in this thread who are perfectly willing to allow the government to confiscate their phones, these people are usually what I would label as conservative yet here they are defending fascism.

[revelarts]

There is plenty of evidence at an accident scene that doesn't require a warrant. Your expectations of privacy are practically nil at that point.

You've got the right to remain Silent.

there's nothing that says you have to give your personal property as evidence to the police.

a bottle of Jack in plain view is different than riffling though your locked brief case.
you need a warrant for that.

until (if) it's overturned i say put a code on your phone to lock cops out. let them ask me for the code.
i don't give it.

You don't have to incriminate yourself.

[jimnyc]

I know not perfectly in line with this discussion - but - UNLESS of course someone is arrested and the car impounded. When that happens, the ENTIRE car and its contents are up for what they call "inventory", and if drugs are even found in the locked trunk - you're fucked. This has been upheld by the SCOTUS. ONLY if the car is being impounded though.

[fj1200]

You've got the right to remain Silent.

there's nothing that says you have to give your personal property as evidence to the police.

a bottle of Jack in plain view is different than riffling though your locked brief case.
you need a warrant for that.

until (if) it's overturned i say put a code on your phone to lock cops out. let them ask me for the code.
i don't give it.

You don't have to incriminate yourself.

True and true to the bold but define personal property and what sort of privacy expectations you have when involved in an accident on public roads. The Jack and the phone as potential causes of the accident are up for grabs.

Now the data that is in the phone, personal information, etc., that has no relevance to the accident should not be up for search. Were you texting and became distracted not what you were texting is relevant; that is akin to your locked briefcase scenario.


Text messaging would be the sole function (http://www.inquisitr.com/657009/more-teen-deaths-from-texting-and-driving-than-dui/) of the phone to come under scrutiny, since that action is among the most distracting.

[BillyBob]

I know not perfectly in line with this discussion - but - UNLESS of course someone is arrested and the car impounded. When that happens, the ENTIRE car and its contents are up for what they call "inventory", and if drugs are even found in the locked trunk - you're fucked. This has been upheld by the SCOTUS. ONLY if the car is being impounded though.


That brings up another point of contention, who gave the government the authority to confiscate an automobile when the driver is found possessing drugs? That's outrageous.

Not exactly on topic but it's certainly in the neighborhood.

[Marcus Aurelius]

You've got the right to remain Silent.

there's nothing that says you have to give your personal property as evidence to the police.

a bottle of Jack in plain view is different than riffling though your locked brief case.
you need a warrant for that.

until (if) it's overturned i say put a code on your phone to lock cops out. let them ask me for the code.
i don't give it.

You don't have to incriminate yourself.

I wasn't aware this was about rifling through someones locked briefcase. I thought it was about getting their cell phone as evidence in the accident. Silly me.

You're right to avoid self incrimination supposes you are being charged with a crime. This is about an accident investigation, not a criminal investigation. Certain people in this thread appear incapable of determining the difference between the two.

[Marcus Aurelius]

True and true to the bold but define personal property and what sort of privacy expectations you have when involved in an accident on public roads. The Jack and the phone as potential causes of the accident are up for grabs.

Now the data that is in the phone, personal information, etc., that has no relevance to the accident should not be up for search. Were you texting and became distracted not what you were texting is relevant; that is akin to your locked briefcase scenario.


Text messaging would be the sole function (http://www.inquisitr.com/657009/more-teen-deaths-from-texting-and-driving-than-dui/) of the phone to come under scrutiny, since that action is among the most distracting.




Text messaging while driving in NJ is also against the law,as is any hand held cellphone use while driving. Determining if cell phone use was a factor during the accident investigation is certainly a 'reasonable' search to perform, and thus not a 4th amendment violation.

[fj1200]

We're not talking about a bottle.

Right, we're talking about the potential cause of an accident; bottle, phone...


If it's already no big deal then why is New Jersey changing the law to allow for it?

Provides authorization.


Fascism moves incrementally, sometimes almost imperceptibly. Just look at the people in this thread who are perfectly willing to allow the government to confiscate their phones, these people are usually what I would label as conservative yet here they are defending fascism.

:rolleyes:

[revelarts]

I wasn't aware this was about rifling through someones locked briefcase. I thought it was about getting their cell phone as evidence in the accident. Silly me.

You're right to avoid self incrimination supposes you are being charged with a crime. This is about an accident investigation, not a criminal investigation. Certain people in this thread appear incapable of determining the difference between the two.

Cell phone info is personal data, on a personal device.
they can get what they can see in plain sight. not stuff out of you devices or cases.
But as Bill points out they are making a change to the law because they KNOW to look though a cell phone, a Black berry, iphone etc. IS akin to looking into a breif case.

the cops don't have that authority.

[BillyBob]

True and true to the bold but define personal property and what sort of privacy expectations you have when involved in an accident on public roads.

If you continue that line of reasoning to its conclusion, an American citizen will eventually end up with no rights while in public.





The Jack and the phone as potential causes of the accident are up for grabs.

Think of all the potential causes for accidents. Do those things involved suddenly become government property?





Now the data that is in the phone, personal information, etc., that has no relevance to the accident should not be up for search. Were you texting and became distracted not what you were texting is relevant; that is akin to your locked briefcase scenario.

But how will they know you were texting without looking through your phone? And now that they have your phone and are rifling through it, what else might they find to further prosecute you that had nothing to do with the accident? Did you call the local Tea Party last week? You are now potentially labeled a terrorist and will be further scrutinized. I can imagine nearly endless scenarios. The government is already spying on us, this just gives them one more way to do it.

[fj1200]

Cell phone info is personal data, on a personal device.
they can get what they can see in plain sight. not stuff out of you devices or cases.
But as Bill points out they are making a change to the law because they KNOW to look though a cell phone, a Black berry, iphone etc. IS akin to looking into a breif case.

the cops don't have that authority.


Text messaging would be the sole function (http://www.inquisitr.com/657009/more-teen-deaths-from-texting-and-driving-than-dui/) of the phone to come under scrutiny,
http://www.inquisitr.com/696128/new-jersey-cell-phone-confiscation-la/#pYhUcr4iRZpOrdhl.99


Officers would be required to return the phone after thumbing through its history.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/tech/new-jersey-cell-phone-traffic-stop/index.html

[Marcus Aurelius]

Cell phone info is personal data, on a personal device.
they can get what they can see in plain sight. not stuff out of you devices or cases.
But as Bill points out they are making a change to the law because they KNOW to look though a cell phone, a Black berry, iphone etc. IS akin to looking into a breif case.

the cops don't have that authority.

So, you're saying that in NJ, a state that bans hand held cell phone use while driving (talking or texting), the police do not have the right to investigate a hand held cell phone as a potential contributory factor in an auto accident.

Sorry, I don't buy that. 4th amendment protects against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. Examining a drivers cell phone (only the driver is affected, remember) as a possible contributory factor in an accident investigation is perfectly reasonable.

[BillyBob]

Text messaging while driving in NJ is also against the law,as is any hand held cellphone use while driving.


But should it be? This is a perfect example of fascist incrementalism.

[fj1200]

If you continue that line of reasoning to its conclusion, an American citizen will eventually end up with no rights while in public.

Godwin would have a field day with you.


Think of all the potential causes for accidents. Do those things involved suddenly become government property?


Text messaging would be the sole function of the phone to come under scrutiny,
http://www.inquisitr.com/696128/new-jersey-cell-phone-confiscation-la/#pYhUcr4iRZpOrdhl.99


Officers would be required to return the phone after thumbing through its history.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/tech/new-jersey-cell-phone-traffic-stop/index.html


But how will they know you were texting without looking through your phone? And now that they have your phone and are rifling through it, what else might they find to further prosecute you that had nothing to do with the accident? Did you call the local Tea Party last week? You are now potentially labeled a terrorist and will be further scrutinized. I can imagine nearly endless scenarios. The government is already spying on us, this just gives them one more way to do it.

Maybe your imagination is the issue and not the details of the law.

[BillyBob]

Godwin would have a field day with you.




http://www.inquisitr.com/696128/new-jersey-cell-phone-confiscation-la/#pYhUcr4iRZpOrdhl.99


http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/tech/new-jersey-cell-phone-traffic-stop/index.html



Maybe your imagination is the issue and not the details of the law.


Oh really? What were social security numbers originally used for? Now what are they used for?

[fj1200]

Oh really? What were social security numbers originally used for? Now what are they used for?

Private purpose use of a government issued number isn't an example of fascism, the reverse would be.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=646295#post646295)
Text messaging while driving in NJ is also against the law,as is any hand held cellphone use while driving.



But should it be? This is a perfect example of fascist incrementalism.

Yes, it should be. It is distracting, and causes accidents and deaths. But hey, if you're okay with your son or daughter being killed because the guy in the other car was updating Twitter, by all means, move them to NJ.

[Marcus Aurelius]

...Think of all the potential causes for accidents. Do those things involved suddenly become government property?

But how will they know you were texting without looking through your phone? And now that they have your phone and are rifling through it, what else might they find to further prosecute you that had nothing to do with the accident? Did you call the local Tea Party last week? You are now potentially labeled a terrorist and will be further scrutinized. I can imagine nearly endless scenarios. The government is already spying on us, this just gives them one more way to do it.

No, and neither does the cell phone confiscated. As the bill states (please go read it, I posted it), the phone is given back to the driver.

The ONLY things looked at are the call log and text logs. Whether or not you called the Tea Party is immaterial to the accident investigation, and therefore inadmissible in any possible proceedings... should calling the Tea Party ever become against the law, that is.

Of course you can. Conspiracy theorists generally can.

[BillyBob]

Yes, it should be. It is distracting, and causes accidents and deaths.

A perfect example of how fascism moves incrementally. It's even welcomed in many cases!

[BillyBob]

No, and neither does the cell phone confiscated. As the bill states (please go read it, I posted it), the phone is given back to the driver.

The ONLY things looked at are the call log and text logs. Whether or not you called the Tea Party is immaterial to the accident investigation, and therefore inadmissible in any possible proceedings... should calling the Tea Party ever become against the law, that is.

You are far too trusting of your government.





Of course you can. Conspiracy theorists generally can.


Conspiracy theorists warn about the government spying on the citizenry, about the IRS being used as a political tool against the citizenry and a corrupt government that lies to the citizenry. But we all know how crazy those things are....

[Marcus Aurelius]

the people in here throwing the word fascism around, obviously have no understanding of the word.

[Marcus Aurelius]

...Conspiracy theorists warn about the government spying on the citizenry, about the IRS being used as a political tool against the citizenry and a corrupt government that lies to the citizenry. But we all know how crazy those things are....

they also were tinfoil hats and claim aliens are stealing their luggage and doing anal probes on the masses.

[BillyBob]

the people in here throwing the word fascism around, obviously have no understanding of the word.

The people in here denying that this is fascism, obviously have no understanding of the word.

[revelarts]

http://www.inquisitr.com/696128/new-jersey-cell-phone-confiscation-la/#pYhUcr4iRZpOrdhl.99


http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/tech/new-jersey-cell-phone-traffic-stop/index.html


So, you're saying that in NJ, a state that bans hand held cell phone use while driving (talking or texting), the police do not have the right to investigate a hand held cell phone as a potential contributory factor in an auto accident.

Sorry, I don't buy that. 4th amendment protects against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. Examining a drivers cell phone (only the driver is affected, remember) as a possible contributory factor in an accident investigation is perfectly reasonable.

the police like to lean on unreasonable
but the amendment say "probably cause" and with "warrants".
you can't leave those parts off and just wave reasonable around.

if the police come to a scene of a crime they can investigate all they can, within the law.
remember the Andy Griffith clip.

the information on a personal device is "private". Hence the NEW LAW.

as far as what they are allowed to gather. OK sure. that's what the law says. the FISA laws and constituion says the NSA can't scoop up your phone records ethier. but you know safety trumps all rights.

the phone records can be subpenaed from the phone company for the court.
no need to make it easy to get other info and give the police a chance to play with your property, maybe copy it. or whatever.
yes i know the law doesn't allow that but it doesn't allow cops to beat the crap outta people either but i can post a few vids that show they do. no need to give them ONE MORE ACCESS POINT into controlling people on the street.

I think the police have QUITE ENOUGH authority already thanks. leave my phone alone.

[BillyBob]

they also were tinfoil hats and claim aliens are stealing their luggage and doing anal probes on the masses.


Typical liberal tactic, seen it a million times before.

Try staying on topic next time and leave your anal stuff in the cage. K?

[BillyBob]

I think the police have QUITE ENOUGH authority already thanks. leave my phone alone.


Hell yeah!!

[Marcus Aurelius]

Typical liberal tactic, seen it a million times before.

Try staying on topic next time and leave your anal stuff in the cage. K?

if I am off topic, then report the post, dumb ass.

[Trigg]

both of you knock off the insults and try to win the argument with a good debate. It ruins the entire discussion when it denigrates into insults.

[BillyBob]

both of you knock off the insults and try to win the argument with a good debate. It ruins the entire discussion when it denigrates into insults.


I didn't insult him. He, on the other hand...well, he always does that when he loses a debate.

[Trigg]

I didn't insult him. He, on the other hand...well, he always does that when he loses a debate.


than ignore the insult and reply to the argument.

Back on topic,

I happen to agree with the police looking through a cell phone to determine if the person who caused the accident was in fact texting. If one of my kids gets into an accident that's the first question I will ask them, why shouldn't the police

[Voted4Reagan]

In neither case is the existence of the item evidence that it was even used, let alone the proximate cause of the accident. Seems more like a fishing expedition to me, and I think it will be one for the case books.

Seems a breach of the 5th amendment. ... Self Incrimination.

Lets watch the legal fight over this.... should be interesting

[BillyBob]

than

It's 'then'.



ignore the insult and reply to the argument.


THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I FUCKING DID!


Go turn in your mod badge, you're horrible at it.

[jimnyc]

It's 'then'.





THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I FUCKING DID!


Go turn in your mod badge, you're horrible at it.

I am on the road so can only reply. I hope there is a damn good explanation for attacking trigg, while she was polite and spot on. She isn't here to be abused.

[BillyBob]

I am on the road so can only reply. I hope there is a damn good explanation for attacking trigg, while she was polite and spot on. She isn't here to be abused.


Well, when you get off the road you and I can PM each other and I'll be more than happy to explain.

She was not spot on and I'm not here to be abused either. This is getting fucking ridiculous.

[jimnyc]

Well, when you get off the road you and I can PM each other and I'll be more than happy to explain.

She was not spot on and I'm not here to be abused either. This is getting fucking ridiculous.

She is a staff member. She first posted:


both of you knock off the insults and try to win the argument with a good debate. It ruins the entire discussion when it denigrates into insults.

100% spot on, pointing out that the threads denigrate for others when the back and forth bickering starts. She encouraged good debate as an alternative.

You replied with:


I didn't insult him. He, on the other hand...well, he always does that when he loses a debate.

She replied with:


than ignore the insult and reply to the argument.

And you DID go off topic AND insult with the anal stuff. Trigg is SUPPOSED to try and stop that behavior and get threads back on track. She was polite about it. And then you are going to curse her out and tell her she is not a good moderator? She did EXACTLY what is expected of her and EXACTLY as I would have replied.

[Marcus Aurelius]

ignore the insult and reply to the argument.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I FUCKING DID!


Go turn in your mod badge, you're horrible at it.

You argue that you're ignoring insults, by insulting the moderator? How is that on topic?

Back on course please, and explain how its so fascist to allow police to actually fully investigate an accident scene.

[jimnyc]

Well, when you get off the road you and I can PM each other and I'll be more than happy to explain.

She was not spot on and I'm not here to be abused either. This is getting fucking ridiculous.

Btw, if you think asking you guys to stop bickering is abusing you, you're wrong. The 2 of you have fought in more threads than I can possibly count. Don't act like your innocent in everything and don't push buttons and push the envelope of the rules here. We are asking of you the same thing being asked of Marcus and the same being asked of everyone here.

[Robert A Whit]

If a cop tried to confiscate my phone without a warrant I'd tell him to go fuck himself. It's a damn shame how willing you libs are to submit to your government.

If that law passes, the state legislature did in a law what a judge could do.

Courts do not make laws, the legislature makes laws. Bear in mind the taking is evidence caused by an accident in dispute. The driver would claim he did not text. To prove he texted or not, the cops pick it up as evidence.

When you pay taxes, that too is a taking of your property. With no warrant of any kind.

[BillyBob]

And you DID go off topic AND insult with the anal stuff. Trigg is SUPPOSED to try and stop that behavior and get threads back on track. She was polite about it. And then you are going to curse her out and tell her she is not a good moderator? She did EXACTLY what is expected of her and EXACTLY as I would have replied.



Oh bullshit. If you wanna discuss it here instead of PMs, that's fine by me. Marcus posted the anal stuff first, for fucksake.



Here are the personal insults to which I did not respond. Am I the only person paying attention here?



It's already been explained why you're wrong. You're confusing two different situations, and being willfully stupid about it to boot.

If a bottle of scotch were sitting on the front seat of the car you just plowed into a school bus with, and the police were at the scene investigating and gathering evidence, you seriously think they'd need a warrant to search the car and confiscate the bottle?

Wow.. the depths of stupidity know no bounds with you.



It's already been explained why you're wrong. You're confusing two different situations, and being willfully stupid about it to boot.

If a cell phone were sitting on the front seat of the car you just plowed into a school bus with, and the police were at the scene investigating and gathering evidence, you seriously think they'd need a warrant to search the car and confiscate the phone?





if I am off topic, then report the post, dumb ass.



Now show me anything I posted that is similar. You can't because I didn't. Reign in your mods, they are ruining your forum. And make an executive decision and fucking stick with it: Either personal insults are acceptable or they are not. You can't fucking have it both ways, for christ sakes. Me? I'm fine with personal insults, I can give better than I get. You just have to decide if that's really what you want. But don't give me shit for someone else's insults. That's just fucking stupid.

[Robert A Whit]

If it's already no big deal then why is New Jersey changing the law to allow for it?



The ACLU of New Jersey even alluded to a legal battle on Constitutional grounds should the measure pass.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/696128/new-jersey-cell-phone-confiscation-la/#jJmvlItbMPpdD7Cu.99

A court can rule to change the law. Matter of fact, they can change laws against texting or calling using cell phones. CA has draconian laws and it seems other states intend to also implement them.

For instance, if you have a loaded pistol in the passenger area, you will be arrested. See the Jose Canseco case using Google if you want to follow his case in San Francisco. A pistol falls within the scope of the 2nd amendment and a phone under the 1st amendment.

Why is the ACLU taking so long?

[Marcus Aurelius]

A court can rule to change the law. Matter of fact, they can change laws against texting or calling using cell phones. CA has draconian laws and it seems other states intend to also implement them.

For instance, if you have a loaded pistol in the passenger area, you will be arrested. See the Jose Canseco case using Google if you want to follow his case in San Francisco. A pistol falls within the scope of the 2nd amendment and a phone under the 1st amendment.

Why is the ACLU taking so long?

No, a court can rule on the legality of a law... the constitutionality, etc. They cannot by judicial rule alter an existing law. They can only invalidate it. The legislative branch still has the responsibility to create/alter law.

[Robert A Whit]

In neither case is the existence of the item evidence that it was even used, let alone the proximate cause of the accident. Seems more like a fishing expedition to me, and I think it will be one for the case books.

I agree with Abbey. I object to the passage of the law as BillyBob does. Where is the ACLU when one needs them? We have those draconian laws in California. As to CA cops seizing the phones, I am not sure if they can do that or not.

[jimnyc]

Oh bullshit. If you wanna discuss it here instead of PMs, that's fine by me. Marcus posted the anal stuff first, for fucksake.

He made light of something towards the masses. But I'll assume it was an insult towards you. Then you acknowledge you were "second". I believe that makes both of you guilty. This is why Trigg spoke up and asked you BOTH to stop and encouraged debate.


Here are the personal insults to which I did not respond. Am I the only person paying attention here?

I saw it from both sides, hence me speaking up myself earlier. The bickering by BOTH of you goes on everywhere - and then it was in this cage. We tried to stem it before it kept on happening. Neither Marcus or yourself are innocent in this feud infecting the board.


Now show me anything I posted that is similar. You can't because I didn't. Reign in your mods, they are ruining your forum. And make an executive decision and fucking stick with it: Either personal insults are acceptable or they are not. You can't fucking have it both ways, for christ sakes. Me? I'm fine with personal insults, I can give better than I get. You just have to decide if that's really what you want. But don't give me shit for someone else's insults. That's just fucking stupid.

I will repeat myself, you BOTH are guilty of infecting the board with this hatred of one another. We are handling it equally and fairly. We either speak up, or thread ban when a member won't take something to the cage. Trigg chose to speak up and try to prevent fighting. I have asked staff members to intervene when they thought there was a fight happening, and try to keep the threads going.

And quite frankly, I don't care if she got it wrong, I'm wrong, you disagree with how we handle it or any of that stuff. NOTHING is going to make it cool for you to curse out a woman on this board, that had no ill will towards you, that was doing her job and what I asked of her. I'm not going to tolerate anyone being abusive towards a staff member. I allow it towards me of course, cause I'm a jerk, but I'm not going to allow Trigg to get cursed at an scoffed at because you disagree with her asking that the fighting cease. If you feel the same way in 3 days, I suggest you take it to PM as per the rules, not that it would matter though.

[Voted4Reagan]

http://www.jjchandler.com/tombstone/tombstone.php?line1=Here%20Lies&line2=Billy%20Bob&line3=5-13-13%20to%206-11-13&line4=Done%20in%20by&line5=His%20Own%20Big%20Mouth

[Voted4Reagan]

5127

[Robert A Whit]

than ignore the insult and reply to the argument.

Back on topic,

I happen to agree with the police looking through a cell phone to determine if the person who caused the accident was in fact texting. If one of my kids gets into an accident that's the first question I will ask them, why shouldn't the police

Today, in California, experiments proved those using hands free cell phones while driving are 8 percent more dangerous than those paying full attention and are more dangerous than those doing hands on texting.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Today, in California, experiments proved those using hands free cell phones while driving are 8 percent more dangerous than those paying full attention and are more dangerous than those doing hands on texting.

Not exactly.

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/211164721.html


But talking on a hands-free phone isn't significantly safer for drivers than talking on a hand-held phone, and using hands-free devices that translate speech into text is the most distracting of all, researchers reported in a study released Wednesday. Speech-to-text systems that enable drivers to send, scroll through, or delete email and text messages required greater concentration by drivers than other potentially distracting activities examined in the study like talking on the phone, talking to a passenger, listening to a book on tape or listening to the radio.

The greater the concentration required to perform a task, the more likely a driver is to develop what researchers call "tunnel vision" or "inattention blindness." Drivers will stop scanning the roadway or ignore their side and rearview mirrors. Instead, they look straight ahead, but fail to see what's in front of them, like red lights and pedestrians.



The study proved the use 'speech to text' systems was more distracting... not just hands free phone use. HUGE difference.

[Robert A Whit]

Cell phone info is personal data, on a personal device.
they can get what they can see in plain sight. not stuff out of you devices or cases.
But as Bill points out they are making a change to the law because they KNOW to look though a cell phone, a Black berry, iphone etc. IS akin to looking into a breif case.

the cops don't have that authority.

Isn't it true that most people keep their cell phones on their person rather than openly in the car?

If so, that seems to be what BillyBob was speaking of. Matter of fact, this lady at my office puts her cell phone into her purse.

[fj1200]

as far as what they are allowed to gather. OK sure. that's what the law says. the FISA laws and constituion says the NSA can't scoop up your phone records ethier. but you know safety trumps all rights.

Unfortunately when presenting the case before the courts the decision would be based on what is Constitutional, hopefully, and not that it shouldn't be allowed because of that NSA and FISA stuff.



And FWIW, I didn't watch the clip. :hide:

[red states rule]

now RSR and BB don't have anything to whine about :laugh:

No Marcus Anus I had other things to do last night. Sorry if your life revolves what I post on this board

This bill seems to be nothing more then a massive fishing expedition where the Police are looking for something - anything - but they do not know what

However I am sure given your slobbering love you have for Gov Christie if he should veto the bill - your position on this issue will quickly "evolve" and your opposition will be well known

[red states rule]

In neither case is the existence of the item evidence that it was even used, let alone the proximate cause of the accident. Seems more like a fishing expedition to me, and I think it will be one for the case books.

The path this country is on Abbey I would not be surprised if when someone is pulled over the Police Officer walks up and says "License, registration, cell phone, and party affiliation please"

[Marcus Aurelius]

No Marcus Anus I had other things to do last night. Sorry if your life revolves what I post on this board

This bill seems to be nothing more then a massive fishing expedition where the Police are looking for something - anything - but they do not know what

However I am sure given your slobbering love you have for Gov Christie if he should veto the bill - your position on this issue will quickly "evolve" and your opposition will be well known

care to bet your account on that, dumb ass?

[Voted4Reagan]

RSR.... Marcus....

Please dont pick up where Billy Bob left off... The name calling has to stop...Keep it in the Cage.

Jimmy has had enough and I wouldn't want to want to see either of you Banned for it.

The Ban-Hammer will fall again.... Jim has made that clear...

Both of you bring much to the Board... Dont let the SYI's and other minutia ruin the board for everyone.

Thanks guys...

http://cdn2.ripten.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BanHammer.jpg

[Marcus Aurelius]

RSR.... Marcus....

Please dont pick up where Billy Bob left off... The name calling has to stop...Keep it in the Cage.

Jimmy has had enough and I wouldn't want to want to see either of you Banned for it.

The Ban-Hammer will fall again.... Jim has made that clear...

Both of you bring much to the Board... Dont let the SYI's and other minutia ruin the board for everyone.

Thanks guys...

http://cdn2.ripten.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BanHammer.jpg

dude... I call everyone 'dumb ass' It's kinda my shtick. Management knows this. Thanks though.

Beside, anyone who thinks my opinion on a proposed law is going to suddenly change based on a politicians opinion (the hypothetical Christie veto), is a dumb ass. No other way to really say it.

[Voted4Reagan]

dude... I call everyone 'dumb ass' It's kinda my shtick. Management knows this. Thanks though.

Beside, anyone who thinks my opinion on a proposed law is going to suddenly change based on a politicians opinion (the hypothetical Christie veto), is a dumb ass. No other way to really say it.

I kinda think this violates unreasonable search and Seizure as well as Self incrimination...

we need to see this stand up to constitutional scrutiny...

[Marcus Aurelius]

I kinda think this violates unreasonable search and Seizure as well as Self incrimination...

we need to see this stand up to constitutional scrutiny...

then we agree to disagree.

[Jeff]

I haven't been on the road now in three years or so but they where doing this to ICC drivers back then , nope no formal law but tell them no and you could be assured of all kinds of tickets

[WiccanLiberal]

Given that hand held phone use and texting are illegal while driving, stands to reason that officials will want to know if a driver was doing so if an accident occurs. Some issues arise in my mind. If a passenger was present, how do you prove the passenger wasn't borrowing the phone? The info about call and text logs is available from the carriers so why not just allow officers to access the time and date info from the carriers rather than all the phone data? Should a person previously ticketed for cell use be treated differently? And if an officer saw the phone in use by the driver should that be the only case where checking it is valid. Seems to me there are too many questions yet.

[fj1200]

I kinda think this violates unreasonable search and Seizure as well as Self incrimination...

we need to see this stand up to constitutional scrutiny...

When you are involved in an accident on public roads there isn't much that is unreasonable and you're certainly within your rights to avoid self incrimination... evidence however is not "self" incriminating.

[Marcus Aurelius]

When you are involved in an accident on public roads there isn't much that is unreasonable and you're certainly within your rights to avoid self incrimination... evidence however is not "self" incriminating.

Unless of course you caused the accident and you know it, and thus wish to hide the evidence from the police.

[logroller]

I'm pretty sure people have been convicted of criminal negligence due to distracted driving from cell phones with warranted searches; so what's the problem that is being solved?

[fj1200]

Unless of course you caused the accident and you know it, and thus wish to hide the evidence from the police.

I think that's a whole different crime.

[logroller]

I happen to agree with the police looking through a cell phone to determine if the person who caused the accident was in fact texting. If one of my kids gets into an accident that's the first question I will ask them, why shouldn't the police
Fwiw, nothing keeps the police from asking. Free speech. However, minor children have no expectation of privacy from their parents. Not so from others, including police. However, what I suspect is this will become a condition of licensure, similar to how it is required that you submit to a breathalyzer/blood test. You can refuse, but it'll result in automatic suspension of driving privileges. As I've said previously though, I highly doubt police are called to the vast majority of accidents; usually it's just in serious accidents. In such circumstances, I do believe a warrant could be issued and any evidence to the fact could easily be found using existing methods of evidence gathering. Why change something that already works? It just seems to be an unnecessary intrusion upon privacy.

[Trigg]

Fwiw, nothing keeps the police from asking. Free speech. However, minor children have no expectation of privacy from their parents. Not so from others, including police. However, what I suspect is this will become a condition of licensure, similar to how it is required that you submit to a breathalyzer/blood test. You can refuse, but it'll result in automatic suspension of driving privileges. As I've said previously though, I highly doubt police are called to the vast majority of accidents; usually it's just in serious accidents. In such circumstances, I do believe a warrant could be issued and any evidence to the fact could easily be found using existing methods of evidence gathering. Why change something that already works? It just seems to be an unnecessary intrusion upon privacy.


Aren't the police called in all accidents, so that blame can be assessed for insurance purposes? I personally have no problem with this becoming a condition of licensure, texting while driving is a problem and a distraction that I don't want to see on the road.

[Gaffer]

Fwiw, nothing keeps the police from asking. Free speech. However, minor children have no expectation of privacy from their parents. Not so from others, including police. However, what I suspect is this will become a condition of licensure, similar to how it is required that you submit to a breathalyzer/blood test. You can refuse, but it'll result in automatic suspension of driving privileges. As I've said previously though, I highly doubt police are called to the vast majority of accidents; usually it's just in serious accidents. In such circumstances, I do believe a warrant could be issued and any evidence to the fact could easily be found using existing methods of evidence gathering. Why change something that already works? It just seems to be an unnecessary intrusion upon privacy.

The only thing I differ with you here is that a police report is necessary for an insurance claim to determine who's at fault, so yes the police are called to most accidents. If you want the repair costs covered you damn well better have a police report.

[logroller]

Aren't the police called in all accidents, so that blame can be assessed for insurance purposes? I personally have no problem with this becoming a condition of licensure, texting while driving is a problem and a distraction that I don't want to see on the road.
It varies by state I imagine. But in commiefornia it's a civil matter unless injuries result. Bear in mind, insurance is mandatory in Cali. You can call the police, but its not mandatory. I've been in four accidents and not once was a police report filed; the insurance companies do their own investigation to assess liability. If someone refuses to provide insurance info, you can call the police, or just write down license numbers (car, drivers license) phone number etc and them report it to your insurance or whatever. I mean, you can do nothing. I was rear ended earlier this year and I suspect the person who hit me was on the phone, but there was no damage to my car and I was just a little sore so I didn't file a claim against her (her insurance, really). But if she was on the phone, she knows what caused it and got her new Mercedes' radiator bashed in for good measure. The accident was indubitably her fault and it cost her either her deductible or the repairs to her car (likely thousand$). Lesson learned, no need to ream her for it. And like I said, existing methods could determine criminal negligence when necessary. Why make a new law when existing laws are sufficient. In sure, there some crappy drivers out there, and I'm all for stricter driving standards, but glamming onto cell use while driving is not going to make the roads safer. Not to mention the hypocrisy of seeing atleast one officer a week talking on the phone while driving....official use my eye.

[gabosaurus]

Aren't the police called in all accidents, so that blame can be assessed for insurance purposes? I personally have no problem with this becoming a condition of licensure, texting while driving is a problem and a distraction that I don't want to see on the road.

The police usually come out in smaller cities. In Los Angeles, they won't come out unless there is an injury or one of the vehicles is not drivable.

Texting should NOT be allowed while driving. If police believe a crime has been committed, they have a right to collect evidence. Your phone is evidence. If you are too stupid to know how to operate a hands free device, pull off the road to top. Nothing you have to say is that important.

[logroller]

The only thing I differ with you here is that a police report is necessary for an insurance claim to determine who's at fault, so yes the police are called to most accidents. If you want the repair costs covered you damn well better have a police report.
Like I said, maybe it varies by state; but insurance claim adjusters are perfectly capable of sorting out damage liabilities. The cost of challenging the claim, going to court etc, and submitting police reports as evidence is likely to exceed the damages, so why bother? If there's some suspicion of criminal actions (alcohol, hit and run... Felony stuff) then call the police; but talking on the phone, it's an infraction. That's like saying the guy was going 35 in a 25 and that's why the accident happened. We might as well require that the every car should have its computer track speed and that no warrant is necessary to get that either. It's a slippery slope and the existing laws and procedures handle the issues satisfactorily. If it ain't broke...
If there are Injuries...Yea, call the police. That gets expensive quick and it should be required that the police be called in the event (even the suspicion of) injuries that require medical attention. Not so with vehicle damage alone.
I advise anyone in an accident to ask if the person needs an ambulance; if not, exchange insurance and personal info, call your insurer and go from there. They get paid to handle that stuff. Insurance= in case shit happens.

[logroller]

The police usually come out in smaller cities. In Los Angeles, they won't come out unless there is an injury or one of the vehicles is not drivable.

Texting should NOT be allowed while driving. If police believe a crime has been committed, they have a right to collect evidence. Your phone is evidence. If you are too stupid to know how to operate a hands free device, pull off the road to top. Nothing you have to say is that important.
Txt while driving isn't a crime; it's an infraction, like failing to signal when changing lanes. You should signal when changing lanes; just as you shouldn't text while driving; or take your eyes off the road to tune your radio; buts its not criminal.
your car being undrivable, not a crime either. Your car is disabled and stopping traffic; even parked in a bike lane: that's Impeding a public thoroughfare, and that's a crime. Like I said, we have laws that deal with the issues already; why change it?

[Kathianne]

Txt while driving isn't a crime; it's an infraction, like failing to signal when changing lanes. You should signal when changing lanes; just as you shouldn't text while driving; or take your eyes off the road to tune your radio; buts its not criminal.

It is in IL, there are limitations on handheld cell phones to in certain conditions and in certain municipalities:

http://www.drivinglaws.org/ill.php


Summary: There is no prohibition on cell phone use while driving in Illinois except: (1) all cell phone use is prohibited while driving in a school zone; (2) all cell phone use is prohibited while driving in a highway construction zone, (3) all cell phone use is prohibited if you are a novice driver, or (4) handheld cell phone use is prohibited while driving in the City of Chicago and various other municpalities. All Illinois drivers are prohibited from texting.

...

[logroller]

It is in IL, there are limitations on handheld cell phones to in certain conditions and in certain municipalities:

http://www.drivinglaws.org/ill.php

It's my understanding that violations of the prohibition on mobile device use while driving can serve as evidence of negligent driving, a crime. But not every accident is the result of criminal activity, texting or not.

[Kathianne]

It's my understanding that violations of the prohibition on mobile device use while driving can serve as evidence of negligent driving, a crime. But not every accident is the result of criminal activity, texting or not.

I agree that not every accident is a result of 'criminal activity.' However, while texting may result in a citation if caught, by the very nature of the law if it were a factor in an 'at fault' accident, the consequences are going to be higher. Just not worth it. Yes, with the law in place, I'd assume like DUI if there is a phone or booze there, it becomes evidence.

The presence of a phone does not a cause make, but the time and activity on the phone does.

[gabosaurus]

Txt while driving isn't a crime; it's an infraction, like failing to signal when changing lanes. You should signal when changing lanes; just as you shouldn't text while driving; or take your eyes off the road to tune your radio; buts its not criminal.
your car being undrivable, not a crime either. Your car is disabled and stopping traffic; even parked in a bike lane: that's Impeding a public thoroughfare, and that's a crime. Like I said, we have laws that deal with the issues already; why change it?

Because texting while driving SHOULD be a crime. Because distracted driving leads to accidents. Same as impaired driving.
If you feel it is THAT necessary to answer your phone to text, pull over someplace. No message is that important.

Someone rear ended my sister once because they were distracted by their phone. When my sister stopped and went up to the driver''s side, the woman was STILL texting.
My sister took her phone and threw it into a ditch. :laugh:

[red states rule]

Because texting while driving SHOULD be a crime. Because distracted driving leads to accidents. Same as impaired driving.
If you feel it is THAT necessary to answer your phone to text, pull over someplace. No message is that important.

Someone rear ended my sister once because they were distracted by their phone. When my sister stopped and went up to the driver''s side, the woman was STILL texting.
My sister took her phone and threw it into a ditch. :laugh:

Using your "logic" then talking to your passenger, eating, drinking a soda, adjusting the CD player, or changing the radio station should also be "crimes".

[Nukeman]

Using your "logic" then talking to your passenger, eating, drinking a soda, adjusting the CD player, or changing the radio station should also be "crimes".I don't see it that way Red!! She specifically listed texting. You really don't have to nit pick on everything someone says..

[jimnyc]

Get busted texting while driving here in NY - 5 points on your drivers license now. - http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20130531/NEWS01/305310046/texting-driving-New-York

I'm all for whatever they need to do to prevent/stop this from happening. I always have my bluetooth on and will talk to text, or pull over. I've seen too many fatal accidents as a result of this, and the stuff I've read about and seen in videos from across the nation is even worse.

Something needs to be done on the spot if there's an accident, otherwise its much too easy to delete the evidence. A warrant to the phone company in question wouldn't be timely. If this law isn't agreeable or is shot down, they should be able to secure the phone on the spot and get a warrant, to prevent the destruction of evidence.

[gabosaurus]

In California, you can be fined up to $500. Double that if you are in a school zone.

[Voted4Reagan]

So, to make sure we understand you correctly... if this were to become law in NJ, and all the criteria were met, you'd tell the police officer following the law to go fuck himself. Say hi to Bubba in the slammer... he's gonna like you.

Poor Bubba.....


http://youtu.be/jVDN8yR3ig0

[logroller]

Get busted texting while driving here in NY - 5 points on your drivers license now. - http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20130531/NEWS01/305310046/texting-driving-New-York

I'm all for whatever they need to do to prevent/stop this from happening. I always have my bluetooth on and will talk to text, or pull over. I've seen too many fatal accidents as a result of this, and the stuff I've read about and seen in videos from across the nation is even worse.

Something needs to be done on the spot if there's an accident, otherwise its much too easy to delete the evidence. A warrant to the phone company in question wouldn't be timely. If this law isn't agreeable or is shot down, they should be able to secure the phone on the spot and get a warrant, to prevent the destruction of evidence.
What do you mean it wouldn't be timely? What's gonna happen? I understand exigent circumstances, but those don't seem to apply to cell phone records. Else, they wouldnt need to pass a new law, exigences would apply. Seems to me it's nothing more than a way of easing evidential discovery, not reducing the activity of using the phone while driving.

[jimnyc]

What do you mean it wouldn't be timely? What's gonna happen? I understand exigent circumstances, but those don't seem to apply to cell phone records. Else, they wouldnt need to pass a new law, exigences would apply. Seems to me it's nothing more than a way of easing evidential discovery, not reducing the activity of using the phone while driving.

The records could be gone. There is no law I am aware of that they maintain records, or for specific time periods (I could be wrong). Just as they can get a warrant or K9 for emergency situations, in the instance of an accident, they can do the same to search the phone (minus the K9 of course). Way too many things can disappear. In any evidence gathering situation it is best to gather as much as possible, as soon as possible. I worked at a law firm, and while we retained documents and other things, for years and years - emails were NOT retained on servers for longer than 7 days, just for that reason, to protect themselves. I know of other email websites and communication related sites, where they would purge all logs on the hour. They do this to keep themselves out of any future demands/lawsuits.

I'm not saying they can't get records down the road with a warrant, when they find out the carrier and such. But if they want to do their jobs properly, and ensure they get what they need for an investigation, they should get a warrant on the spot and verify.

The mere threat of consequences alone may prevent people from texting and driving. I have little doubt that they want to try any avenue possible to prevent senseless deaths. And if they get a warrant on the spot, then it's all legit, and I have absolutely no problem with that. Even if not an accident, and an officer witnesses someone texting while driving, and they deny it - I say let them get a warrant on the spot. If it's legal, and a judge signs off, then I don't see a problem. If I'm drinking a beer, and a cop witnesses it, but then I deny it, and refuse him access to search - they will detain me, get a warrant, and do the search anyway.

[Gaffer]

This goes back to the govt gathering data. The police can get the phone and they have a place to start for looking at what was said when on that phone. They can't do it now but that doesn't mean a system won't be set up for it down the road. Just a first baby step.

[red states rule]

I don't see it that way Red!! She specifically listed texting. You really don't have to nit pick on everything someone says..

Please read her post again including "Because distracted driving leads to accidents"

I listed other causes of "distracted accidents"

It is not "nit picking" Nukeman. I have read where politicians have tried to ban eating, drinking, and smoking while driving because they consider it "distracted driving"

[Robert A Whit]

Because texting while driving SHOULD be a crime. Because distracted driving leads to accidents. Same as impaired driving.
If you feel it is THAT necessary to answer your phone to text, pull over someplace. No message is that important.

Someone rear ended my sister once because they were distracted by their phone. When my sister stopped and went up to the driver''s side, the woman was STILL texting.
My sister took her phone and threw it into a ditch. :laugh:

Interesting you admit your sister robbed a woman.