Peoples Soviet Republic of New York

[NighthawkVTX]

In NY they are trying to pass a law that if you are in a personal injury or property damage accident, the LEO has the right to demand you to turn over your cell phone, unlock it, and connect it to a device they will carry that will enable them to see if you were texting at the time.
While a fan of not texting and driving, this potential law has me worried.

Not only can they tell if you were texting, they now have full access to your phones contact lists, pictures, or any other file on  your phone.

Opponents  have argued that this is a direct violation of the 4th amendment . The state has figured away around this.  The law will state, that when you agree to receive a drivers license, it will be noted that you will wave this right, or not be eligible to receive a license. In other words, if you want to drive in NY you will give up a constitutional right.

This comes from the same state that  prohibits gun magazines from holding more than seven rounds. The city that says you  can't drink a 32oz soda.

[_Sheffjs_]

Bye bye miss American pie!

[Robert]

Sucks that these people think that there has to be a law for this. When Bruce Jenner got into an accident his cell phone was confiscated and without a new law. I cannot see how they could pass the law since it would be coercion and people need a license for transportation to get to work. Then there also is an issue to people from out of state.

 What I really want to know is who thinks of these communistic laws and thinks they are good?

[bagelboy]

Most people are fools. They'll give up their rights to guns, and give up their privacy on Facebook and Twitter. Why should giving up their cell phone be any different. Once the dominoes start to fall, why should we be surprised?

[MNBill]

Well the law will not stand as written. States required you must imply (Implied Consent is what they call it in MN) that you will give consent to a blood test when you get your DL to see if you are drunk. The Supreme Court ruled that this is Unconstitutional and cops must get a warrant so I do not see this law on phones standing as blanket consent either.

[..]

Did you know that on the NY subway every subway car is monitored for every cell phone conversation?

Same with MARTA in metro Atlanta.

[da prez]

How many have we lost in this group due to cell phones,texting. If they were only allowed to check for texting time , I would not have a problem with it. I see so many on phones and not watching where they are going. The last second , veer in front to make a right turn from the left lane . I am mostly for it.

                    da.prez

[Willow]

I have no problem with the practice.  I'm not sure why they need a new law for it and I don't see that it should be limited to injury accidents. 

If you think you have "privacy" regarding what you do on a cell phone you're living in a make believe world.  The court can go through the effort to issue an order to release that information from your provider, but I, for one, would like catching those texting and driving to be a much simpler process.

I've got some issue with tracking activity that "might" contribute to an accident.  I've no issue with investigating activity to determine what did contribute to an accident.

[Momz]

What most drivers/riders fail to realize, is that a drivers licence is not considered a"right" but rather a "privilege"

[Chrisj CMA]

I think a cell phone can be evidence and with reasonable suspicion should be legal to confiscate temporarily, so a court order can be obtained so the inforrmation discovered will be admissible in court.  There should be a heavy penalty for getting officially busted for texting and driving.  Send a BIG message

[G-Man]

What most drivers/riders fail to realize, is that a drivers licence is not considered a"right" but rather a "privilege"

The two almost seem interchangeable nowadays.

The word "right" is thrown around so much that it has completely been watered down.

"I got my rights!" 

[G-Man]

Recently saw a story where a guy was pulled over for texting.  He said he wasn't texting, he was looking for a song.  He was telling the truth.  Don't recall the outcome.

These are not just phones anymore.  They are our file folders, our music holders, calendars, etc.

The next law will prohibit "phones" in the car, unless locked within the glovebox or trunk.

And now they're putting 8 inch computer monitors on the dash of every car.  How distracting is that gonna be for the already distracted drivers.  "I wonder what my gas milage was last thursday, here, let me press a series of 6 touchscreen commands..........BANG.  Uh, sorry, I didn't see that the light turned red".
"

[old2soon]

I have been advocating loudly long and almost constantly for cell phones to be disabled past 3-5 M P H. The disabling-I M H O-makes more sense to me than a bunch of patchwork laws. IF this new yawk law stays on the books I stay out of new yawk. Wasn't a particular fan of n y when I drove truck and-YES-I have friends that reside there!  But as they get more draconian with their laws can't come up with an excuse to go there-No MATTER how beautiful the Adirondacks are. Yes-I HAVE been there-LONG time ago. RIDE SAFE.

[Oss]

Privacy?  who are we kidding here?

If you have a cell phone there is no privacy any more than you have a secure credit card (unless it has a chip)  NSA, martians,  Serk, anyone with the tech can listen in

Driving is a privilege (supposedly) not a right, so to me, IMHO the "state" should be able to, after you have an accident, ask you to show the recent history on your call log and the recent history on text log
if you have a phone on you in the car

I would hope Anything else should need a warrant

YMMV

At least I can go 14 over the limit without being called reckless

[Serk]

I'm definitely no lawyer, but to me this would be a violation of the 5th amendment protections against self-incrimination.

Forcing your property to testify against you should be no different than forcing a person to testify against them.

But I'm funny that way.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm definitely no lawyer, but to me this would be a violation of the 5th amendment protections against self-incrimination.

Forcing your property to testify against you should be no different than forcing a person to testify against them.

But I'm funny that way.

Hmm...kind of sounds like Romney.

[bigguy]

I'm definitely no lawyer, but to me this would be a violation of the 5th amendment protections against self-incrimination.

Forcing your property to testify against you should be no different than forcing a person to testify against them.

But I'm funny that way.

And the 4th:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ...

[Jess from VA]

I'm definitely no lawyer, but to me this would be a violation of the 5th amendment protections against self-incrimination.

Forcing your property to testify against you should be no different than forcing a person to testify against them.

But I'm funny that way.

Lots of people feel that way, but the fifth is (and has forever been) testimonial only (talking).  They can hold you down (if necessary) and draw blood, collect urine, print you, take hair and skin samples, fingernail scrapings, take your spit for DNA.  Course they need some articulable reason, but you cannot claim the fifth for these things (and they are more personal than your phone, though God only knows what incriminating (and/or private) things people keep on their phones).  Never been a problem for me, my only phones are connected to my house.  

The old Ron White line about the right to remain silent, but not the ability is more true than you could imagine.  The vast majority of people who hear their rights and decide to try and talk around their problem, screw up and make damaging, incriminating statements.  

Implied consent, as in taking breath and blood tests for suspected DUI, as part of your (take it or leave it) agreement with the State to get a drivers' license, is almost if not universal.  It is the way to go with suspected texters/talkers too.  I think the best way to handle it is to disable all phones over X MPH (or some other disablement that does not prevent emergency calls if they are needed).  A driver who causes an accident from searching for a song, texting or talking or anything else distracting is all the same culpable negligence.

I appreciate my Const rights and will defend them.  But the texting/talking drivers are creating havoc, death and dismemberment, and I want it stopped.  Drivers killing themselves is fine with me, but killing me and mine is not part of their rights.  

It's beyond me how our goose stepping, socialist G regulators and safety fanatics are going along with all this distraction stuff being built into new cars.  Probably because they and our ruling class politicians want them in their cars.

[Willow]

I'm unable to understand the logic of folks who would cause everyone in a moving car to be denied the ability to use their phone but would object to someone who may have just put a lot of people's lives in danger being incriminated by a policeman seeing their cell phone log.

That's as deep as my comment will go other than stating that it's highly unlikely that the government, unless all governments in the world agreed, to cause cell phone manufacturers to create no devices that could be used over xx miles per hour.   

[DK]

A favorite phrase has been "There is no constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle.  It is merely a licensed privilege"

If Uncle Sugar chose to devote sufficient resources, automobile drivers could be monitored and regulated to the same extent as airline pilots.

Current technology is capable of efficiently controlling, monitoring and reporting driver conduct. It is simply a matter of whether we have the fortitude to avail ourselves of the technology.

(we have reporting devices on our autos pursuant to an Allstate program that will refund up to 30% of premium based on digitally reported driving activity including speed, # of miles, braking intensity, acceleration rates, time of day, & only God knows what else - Texting: I don't know) my experience so far is that it's a boondoggle. I drove one covered vehicle only 5K miles last year, but no refund because of braking intensity. The vehicle is a 6,000 lb. Landcruiser and Little Rock is hilly. You have no choice but to grind some brake pad to stop it.

Point of preceding paragraph: The technology is there. We just don't have the will to utilize it.

Dan

[scooperhsd]

A favorite phrase has been "There is no constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle.  It is merely a licensed privilege"

If Uncle Sugar chose to devote sufficient resources, automobile drivers could be monitored and regulated to the same extent as airline pilots.

Current technology is capable of efficiently controlling, monitoring and reporting driver conduct. It is simply a matter of whether we have the fortitude to avail ourselves of the technology.

(we have reporting devices on our autos pursuant to an Allstate program that will refund up to 30% of premium based on digitally reported driving activity including speed, # of miles, braking intensity, acceleration rates, time of day, & only God knows what else - Texting: I don't know) my experience so far is that it's a boondoggle. I drove one covered vehicle only 5K miles last year, but no refund because of braking intensity. The vehicle is a 6,000 lb. Landcruiser and Little Rock is hilly. You have no choice but to grind some brake pad to stop it.

Point of preceding paragraph: The technology is there. We just don't have the will to utilize it.

Dan

I have no desire to have them things - I ride a motorcycle, I was in a military flight training program , I love rollercoasters - I LIVE for accelerations.  And don't tell me that safe driving / riding is incompatible with this. I'm also sensible enough to pay attention to the conditions around me as to the appropriate level of  "aggressiveness".

As for the cell phones / driving thing - ABSOLUTELY !!!!!!  It scares me to death how many idiots out there lose all concept of being on the road and sharing it with other drivers - I constantly see people on their cell phone / texting, etc.....

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

I'm not sure how any law is going to fairly cover all bases as far as texting and driving goes.

Number one, some phones can now send a text by verbal command I think. Which means that talking to one's phone could be prohibited but talking to one's passengers isn't.

Number two, there are so many different operating systems and methods of operation in phones that no officer can possibly be able to find out texting info without sometimes rummaging through a persons personal info for half-an-hour or longer.

Number three, phones are much more than phones for many people, they are personal/business computers, databases, photo albums and more. An engineer may well have copy protected or proprietary technical info on his or her phone. A phone may contain data bases of customers and suppliers. Many FFL holders order ammo and firearms shipments via their phone. A business person may use their phone to accept credit cards or scan in and deposit personal checks from customers. The list of necessarily private info on phones goes on and on. I would think that any leo who took possession of someones phone without permission would have to be legally accountable for any business and/or personal damages which could be traced to loss of data from a phone.

Imagine for instance, defense industry computer login info being leaked to a competitor or hostile entity after an leo tapped into an engineers phone at a traffic stop.

Virtually any law made on this subject today will probably be obsolete in a year because of the rate of technological advancement anyway.

[Bighead]

Yeah and if they pull the beast over they would be able to read all kinds of Classified suff

[Patrick]

There have had a couple instances in NY that I'm aware of where a court order was received fairly quickly. If I remember correctly each time it was shown the driver was texting.  One such time 5 high school girls were killed because one of them was texting.

[Daycruiser]

Yeah and if they pull the beast over they would be able to read all kinds of Classified suff

And if they pulled Hillary over they could read even more Classified Stuff.

Phones have become a universal problem for distracted driving, from teen drivers to older drivers who should know better.  I followed a Sixty'ish woman yesterday and from my high sitting pickup I could see her trying to keep the smartphone down below the window level and texting.  I got up behind her and laid on the horn which caused her to jump, she was doing 25 in a 45, she dropped the phone on the passenger seat and speed away from me.  Both my vehicles and my Triumph TBird have total hands free phone control, so why hasn't there been a bill introduced into Congress to direct the NTSB and USDOT to require hands free?  This is no longer a State by State safety issue, this is a national safety issue.  We have a Federal Reg that specifically allows Headlight Modulators on motorcycles for safety purposes but we can't get a reg to require handsfree across the board......go figure.

[MP]

Yeah and if they pull the beast over they would be able to read all kinds of Classified suff

 so why hasn't there been a bill introduced into Congress to direct the NTSB and USDOT to require hands free?  This is no longer a State by State safety issue, this is a national safety issue.  We have a Federal Reg that specifically allows Headlight Modulators on motorcycles for safety purposes but we can't get a reg to require handsfree across the board......go figure.

Same reason we do not require a retest when a 70 year old retires from a job in a big city, where he seldom drives a car, and a car is as big a vehicle as he has EVER driven.  Him and the wife go pick out a BIG 43' Motorhome, hook up their car to the rear, and drive off! 

NO training required.  NO testing.  At least in most states.  Some do require minimal testing.

It is called "not offending voters".

Same reason one cannot retest a 85 year old person for regular driving.  Will lose votes.

It is about votes.  Not safety.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Yeah and if they pull the beast over they would be able to read all kinds of Classified suff

 so why hasn't there been a bill introduced into Congress to direct the NTSB and USDOT to require hands free?  This is no longer a State by State safety issue, this is a national safety issue.  We have a Federal Reg that specifically allows Headlight Modulators on motorcycles for safety purposes but we can't get a reg to require handsfree across the board......go figure.

Same reason we do not require a retest when a 70 year old retires from a job in a big city, where he seldom drives a car, and a car is as big a vehicle as he has EVER driven.  Him and the wife go pick out a BIG 43' Motorhome, hook up their car to the rear, and drive off! 

NO training required.  NO testing.  At least in most states.  Some do require minimal testing.

It is called "not offending voters".

Same reason one cannot retest a 85 year old person for regular driving.  Will lose votes.

It is about votes.  Not safety.

I'm not sure I understand your theory. Are you saying that if we made an 85 year old retake a drivers test, he would quit voting republican and start voting democrat ?

[MP]

Yeah and if they pull the beast over they would be able to read all kinds of Classified suff

 so why hasn't there been a bill introduced into Congress to direct the NTSB and USDOT to require hands free?  This is no longer a State by State safety issue, this is a national safety issue.  We have a Federal Reg that specifically allows Headlight Modulators on motorcycles for safety purposes but we can't get a reg to require handsfree across the board......go figure.

Same reason we do not require a retest when a 70 year old retires from a job in a big city, where he seldom drives a car, and a car is as big a vehicle as he has EVER driven.  Him and the wife go pick out a BIG 43' Motorhome, hook up their car to the rear, and drive off! 

NO training required.  NO testing.  At least in most states.  Some do require minimal testing.

It is called "not offending voters".

Same reason one cannot retest a 85 year old person for regular driving.  Will lose votes.

It is about votes.  Not safety.

I'm not sure I understand your theory. Are you saying that if we made an 85 year old retake a drivers test, he would quit voting republican and start voting democrat ?

Where did I mention repubs vs dems?  I cannot see it.  Please show me that.

I am merely saying, since the post I quoted is about failing to pass good safety laws, that getting votes, by all parties, seems to be more important than true safety measures.  Thus, no retesting, etc.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Then I will reword my question. Are you saying that testing old people would cause them to switch their votes ?

[scooperhsd]

Yeah and if they pull the beast over they would be able to read all kinds of Classified suff

 so why hasn't there been a bill introduced into Congress to direct the NTSB and USDOT to require hands free?  This is no longer a State by State safety issue, this is a national safety issue.  We have a Federal Reg that specifically allows Headlight Modulators on motorcycles for safety purposes but we can't get a reg to require handsfree across the board......go figure.

Same reason we do not require a retest when a 70 year old retires from a job in a big city, where he seldom drives a car, and a car is as big a vehicle as he has EVER driven.  Him and the wife go pick out a BIG 43' Motorhome, hook up their car to the rear, and drive off! 

NO training required.  NO testing.  At least in most states. Some do require minimal testing.

It is called "not offending voters".

Same reason one cannot retest a 85 year old person for regular driving.  Will lose votes.

It is about votes.  Not safety.

There ARE states that require EVERYONE above a certain age to retest to keep their license / driving priviledges, and their licenses expire sooner. And I'm all for that.

I also think that in most states, it is far too easy get said driving license in the first place. we ought to be more like Europe in this context.
 

[MP]

Then I will reword my question. Are you saying that testing old people would cause them to switch their votes ?

Yes.  Whenever a politician brings us retesting older drivers, they go nuts.  They go after the politician.  I have seen it happen a lot.  It is NOT a R vs D thing.  Does not matter which brings it up.  They will attempt to vote out any one who proposes it, regardless of party.  So, most politicians just leave it alone.

And, as noted, there are a few states that have actually done it.  Congrats.  As simple as state driving tests are, if you cannot pass one, you should be off the road.  I believe that drivers tests, both written and driving, should be harder to pass.

That said, I drove my first truck, 30,000#, not pickup, alone, at age 5 on the farm.  I had a North Dakota Drivers License at age 12.  A REAL drivers license.  It was good for anything farm related.

I could take a 30k truck, loaded with wheat, 18 miles to town to dump, but could not drive a car to the same town to get a burger!  I could have driven 350 miles across the state to get a farm part, if needed, at age 12.  And, one drove carefully.  If you got ANY ticket, for anything, that license was revoked until you were eligilible for a regular license, at age 14!  So, we guarded those licenses carefully! My best friend got a ticket for doing 30 up the street here in our 300 person town, in a 25.  He was 13.5.  Lost that license for 6 months.  I cannot say on here how PO'd his dad was!  LOL.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Then I will reword my question. Are you saying that testing old people would cause them to switch their votes ?

Yes.  Whenever a politician brings us retesting older drivers, they go nuts.  They go after the politician.  I have seen it happen a lot.  It is NOT a R vs D thing.  Does not matter which brings it up.  They will attempt to vote out any one who proposes it, regardless of party.  So, most politicians just leave it alone.

And, as noted, there are a few states that have actually done it.  Congrats.  As simple as state driving tests are, if you cannot pass one, you should be off the road.  I believe that drivers tests, both written and driving, should be harder to pass.

That said, I drove my first truck, 30,000#, not pickup, alone, at age 5 on the farm.  I had a North Dakota Drivers License at age 12.  A REAL drivers license.  It was good for anything farm related.

I could take a 30k truck, loaded with wheat, 18 miles to town to dump, but could not drive a car to the same town to get a burger!  I could have driven 350 miles across the state to get a farm part, if needed, at age 12.  And, one drove carefully.  If you got ANY ticket, for anything, that license was revoked until you were eligilible for a regular license, at age 14!  So, we guarded those licenses carefully! My best friend got a ticket for doing 30 up the street here in our 300 person town, in a 25.  He was 13.5.  Lost that license for 6 months.  I cannot say on here how PO'd his dad was!  LOL.

MP, thanks for the reply and explanation. I can see the old drivers becoming upset. God knows some of them get upset if their pkg. of Ground Beef is 2 hundredths over. I'm not too sure any would switch their party affiliation because of it though.

[MP]

Never about party affiliation.

[scooperhsd]

Never about party affiliation.

Exactly - it's about their "right" to drive. and THAT subject has been covered in this thread already...

[Moonshot_1]

A law that would have government confiscation of a phone after an accident would be ridiculous if there is not a law that would make using the phone while driving illegal.

While they are many reasons why you shouldn't phone or text while driving I imagine you can think of many reasons why you should or could. A host of reasons to dial 911 for example.

There isn't an easy solution to this. At least not one that could pass Constitutional muster.

One idea would be to use the technology (GPS) to determine phone use in moving vehicles.
Tax the hell out of the phone use during that time to discourage it. 911 calls would be exempt.

If something is real important, pull off the road, park in a lot somewhere and text and call.
Maybe limit it (the tax) to outgoing texts and calls.

If this were easy it would have been done by now.
 

[Bonzo]

Can't some states tap you crs computer and gleam the info off the hard drive  after an accident?

[Rams]

Watched a guy that was texting while driving a few mornings ago, it was obvious he wasn't paying attention to where his vehicle was in the lane.   Watched him at a traffic light continue to play with his phone.    As I looked ahead of us, I saw a semi (Vehicle Transport) with it's ramps down on the side of the road, the driver was unloading Toyotas.   

The texting driver apparently didn't notice..............

The light changed, he held back a bit (I guess because he wasn't watching the light) but eventually started to move.    I was ahead of him by now but, he wasn't far behind.

As I/we passed that semi, I heard a big noise..........    Yep, the texting driver had hit the left side ramp with his right front wheel and that noise was the sound of his SUV rolling over into my lane....

It took the rescue squad about two hours to cut him out of that SUV....    He was battered, bruised and beat up a bit but alive.    He said he must have been distracted and not seen the semi.

Personally, I have no problem with the government/police/courts getting access to cell phone data.   I think it should be done with a court order but, there is no more right to privacy on a cell phone than there is on a land line IMHO.......   If you want to keep something secret, don't tell anyone..

[..]

Same thing here in Roswell.

4 lane road with a center turn lane. Car transporter stopped in the center lane off loading to Honda Carland.

Northbound left hand lane there was an SUV with its front left corner firmly embedded up to the windshield into the right rear of the transporter.

[Varmintmist]

A law that would have government confiscation of a phone after an accident would be ridiculous if there is not a law that would make using the phone while driving illegal.

While they are many reasons why you shouldn't phone or text while driving I imagine you can think of many reasons why you should or could. A host of reasons to dial 911 for example.

There isn't an easy solution to this. At least not one that could pass Constitutional muster.

One idea would be to use the technology (GPS) to determine phone use in moving vehicles.
Tax the hell out of the phone use during that time to discourage it. 911 calls would be exempt.

If something is real important, pull off the road, park in a lot somewhere and text and call.
Maybe limit it (the tax) to outgoing texts and calls.

If this were easy it would have been done by now.
 

Its not illegal to own a pistol or revolver. It is not illegal to carry one with a permit in most states. If you are involved in a accidental shooting and someone is hurt, you bet the cops are going to hang on to your gun, and you have a right to bear arms, you dont have a right to have a cell phone.

You get popped speeding or get in a wreck, the police ask you if you were texting or using the phone in any way because it is a cause of distracted driving, they should take it until such time it is determined to not be a cause of the accident.

I drive a bucket truck for a living, way to many people out there paying less attention than a couple years ago and they are killing people at the worst, and raising your insurance rates at best.

[G-Man]

Current technology is capable of efficiently controlling, monitoring and reporting driver conduct. It is simply a matter of whether we have the fortitude to avail ourselves of the technology.

I recently read an article, sorry can't recall where, that showed how NYC was using people's EZPass to track "traffic patterns".  They showed a grid of big block of the west side where and how cars were tracked as they drove through this grid.

Found this: