Proposed NJ Law Allows Cops To Search Phones At Crash Scenes 397
New submitter WML MUNSON sends this quote from NJ.com:
"License, registration and cell phone, please. Police officers across New Jersey could be saying that to motorists at the scenes of car crashes if new legislation introduced in the state Senate becomes law. The measure would allow cops — without a warrant — to thumb through a cell phone to determine if a driver was talking or texting when an accident occurred. It requires officers to have 'reasonable grounds' to believe the law was broken. There were 1,840 handheld cell phone-related crashes in New Jersey in 2011, resulting in 807 injuries and six deaths, according to the state Division of Highway Traffic Safety. 'Think about it: The chances of the cop witnessing the accident are slim to none,' said the bill’s sponsor, state Sen. James Holzapfel (R-Ocean), who has worked as a county and municipal prosecutor. 'He’s dispatched, and by the time he gets there — unless they’re unconscious and the phone is in their hands, or some passenger says they were on the phone — then he’s got to do what? Subpoena the service to see if the phone was actively used or not?'"
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
And that's only if he has court admissible probable cause to believe that cell phone usage was a factor.
My counter proposal: Sen. James Holzapfel drives to every single crash scene in New Jersey and personally apologies to the people who crashed for trying to introduce such a law and personally ensures their cell phones are dirt free and sparkly, replacing any broken ones.
Bluetooth? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, you want to see the headset? Sorry, it's integrated into my car.
The text message? My car reads them back to me though the stereo. I wasn't looking at the screen.
Cops have a hard enough job, and there are already enough laws on the books. More laws do not fix stupidity, nor does increasing the punishment afterward fix the damage that was done.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
What happened to figuring out which car actually caused the accident?
Doesn't always matter entirely. If the victim of a car accident was breaking the law, but driving fine, he could still be in trouble. We had an incident in town where everyone who saw the wreck was pointing at one person as being at fault, but the guy who got hit was drunk. Guess who got cuffs?
In this case, the person causing the accident may get some leniancy by pointing out that the person was driving illegally and could have avoided the accident had he not been.
Re:Yes (Score:2, Interesting)
"I didn't say it was right, I just pointed out the way it is. You cause a fender bender, you've got a little bit of trouble to deal with. You get caught drunk behind the wheel, regardless of how you got caught, pose for your mug shot."
And once that insanity was accepted the slippery slope to the destruction of the 4th amendment was only a matter of time.
Re:Yes (Score:2, Interesting)
I am not exactly using circular logic here.
On of the reason why DWI laws work is because of implied consent. You get into a car, you consent to getting a breathalyzer. A much lower level of proof than probably cause.
In most car accidents there would be no proof of texting. If I get rear ended on a busy highway there is next to no chance that an eye-wittiness will come forward. And it’s not like a beer bottle in the back seat. The phone would be slipped into a pocket and it would not be obvious that they were texting. So what then?
Do we have a worthless law on the books saying that you can’t text but there is no way to check and enforce it? I am against worthless laws like that. The logical choice would be to have some lower level than probably cause, such as DWI’s implied consent. If you get into an accident you phone is pulled and check.
And as I posted in my OP, I am not sure if I would be o.k. with that.