A New York bill would require mandatory “textalyzer” phone scans for drivers after a crash cnn.it/1VsT9hu
Let see… and if your spouse is texting on your phone while you are driving then what? My wife has sent texts for me several times while I was driving. Heck some messaging apps allow you to have the phone read you a text and allows you to send a reply with voice recognition; no need to take your hands off the wheel or eyes off the road. My own phone allows me to send a text that says “I’ll call you later” with a voice command when someone calls me and I can’t answer.
I get why they are doing it, but I think there are too many instances where someone might get tagged when they are not involved in something that would decrease their awareness. What’s next? Mandatory polysomnography sensors to see if you were too tired to drive?
In the UK, I believe it’s routine for police to confiscate and examine a driver’s mobile phone if they’re involved in a serious accident. Texting whilst driving is an offence, and there have been numerous serious accidents (where someone innocent has been killed) which have been shown to have been caused by the driver being distracted by his or her phone.
Fortunately, I think Apple and other cell phone manufacturers would figure out a way for people to block it, or maybe even an app that disables or fools the ‘device’. This would be too intrusive imo.
VE MUST MAKE REGULATION! Vat number are ve up to? 21 trillion - dis is nutting!
DO THIS Comrade!
This info is already accessible through phone records, isn’t it?
Yes and more reliably. It wouldn’t be difficult to wipe the logs from your phone, but the carriers would keep the data for billing purposes. The difference is if you can intimidate a driver at roadside you don’t have to go through that legal hassle of probable cause and getting a judge to issue a search warrant. The carriers are really weird about just giving the police info that violates clients privacy without… you know… following the 4th amendment about reasonable search and seizure.
I suspect this is differences in laws between the US and the UK. I don’t know what the laws around search and seizure are in the UK, but in the US it is written into the constitution that the government cannot simply search or seize private property without due process. Normally this requires either a search warrant issued by a judge or there has to be imminent danger of further criminal activity or potential for evidence to be destroyed. Since the accident has already occurred and the records can be obtained from the carriers those exceptions would not apply.
Simply being in an accident does not provide probable cause to require a person to submit to search and seizure or risk summary revocation of their license. If there are not witnesses that say they saw a suspect texting immidiately before an accident then the police should have to get a warrant. To do otherwise assumes the cause without having a reasonable expectation that all serious accidents involve texting.
This is just how most cops are when it comes to getting consent to search someones car, Ive been thru it a few times, usually if you do not give them permission, they look at you funny and start with the questions, “why not if you have nothing to hide”, Why would you mind", eetc etc, of course, by then, normally they can think something up in order to gain access, say you were acting ‘suspicious’…they really have FAR too much lee way in this regard.
In my opinion, they should be required to leave if the person does not consent, end of story, no questions, nothing.
Thats why I would prefer to teach my children their rights when it comes to dealing with LE officers instead of telling them to obey anything and everything they tell you.