Texting While Driving: Should Cops Be Able To Check Your Cell Phone? [Poll]
One New Jersey police chief says it is unconstitutional in New Jersey. What do you think West Orange?
Photos
There is no doubt texting while driving is not safe, but should police officers be able to check your phone during a motor vehicle stop?
At least in New Jersey you don't have to worry about it, according to one state police chief.
"It is not legal in the state of New Jersey," said Ridgewood Police Chief John Ward. "It has been deemed unconstitutional."
According to Ward, the police cannot just grab the phone during a motor vehicle stop or at the scene of an accident.
"We need to get a warrant to look into it," he said. "The only way we would have the opportunity to seek cell phone records is if there's probable cause to believe the phone was involved ... but we'd need a witness and/or probable cause. We can't just arbitrarily check someone's cell phone."
While some states allow for police to search a phone without a warrant, many do not. The courts nationwide remain divided.
In 2011, "driver inattention" contributed to 178 motor vehicle fatalities, according to the New Jersey State Police's annual report.
While police cannot arbitrarily ask to check your phone, New Jersey has some of the stiffest fines in the country to curb cell phone use while driving.
Last year, the state increased the penalties for texting or talking on the phone while behind the wheel. The fines are now $200 for a first offense, $400 for a second offense, and $600 for a third or subsequent offense.
On the third offense, a driver could also forfeit his or her license for up to 90 days. Three points are added onto your license for the third offense and everyone thereafter.
What do you think, West Orange? Do you think police should be able to check your phone when you are pulled over? Would this lead to fewer accidents, and encourage more people not to text and drive?
Vote in the poll or add your comments below!
badbul
5:51 pm on Thursday, February 14, 2013
No they should not. And they should also not be aloud to talk on a cell phone themselves while driving. I see them everyday doing so.
Milton Armitage
8:53 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
Texting and driving is akin to drinking and driving. It's dangerous and should be dealt with accordingly. The self absorbed morons who text and drive have no clue that their brain farts are meaningless to those they cut off, veer into, and delay at traffic lights.
The rude, dangerous and uncivilized act of texting while driving must be curtailed. The best way to verify texting and driving is for the police officer to examine the texting device and photograph all evidence relating to the offense.
The right to privacy is void when the health and lives of those effected by this illegal act is in play. For those who text while driving: You're just not that important. Allow normal people to use the public roads as they were intended.
David Peart
10:10 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
I agree with most of what you wrote.......except,
"The right to privacy is void when the health and lives of those effected by this illegal act is in play."
Who decides at what point the behavior has effected the health and lives of other? I don't believe that an officer being reasonably suspicious of a motorist texting while driving would alone qualify for an exception under the fourth amendment. IMHO, there should be other factors before one surrenders their rights. Say an officer stops you because they suspect that you were texting while driving, checks your phone, then finds out they was wrong? How does one put that genie back in the bottle? We have other mechanisms to support an officers reasonable suspicion during routine stops that a motorist has been texting while driving, like video. If you can see it from the drivers seat, it should be able to be recorded. We should endeavor to protect our constitutional rights, not erode them. Distracted driving is a serious problem. But you don't address the problem by surrendering more of your rights. As Ken writes in this thread, should there be reasonable suspicion of texting while driving following an accident where someone is injured, that might be a legitimate exclusion.
Ken
4:39 am on Saturday, February 16, 2013
Absolutely not. If it's suspected to have been in use during a serious/fatal accident, they should be able to subpoena records from the provider to see the time stamps of incoming and outgoing texts, but people use their phones for WAY too many personal things for the device to be handed over. Who wants the law trolling through their phones, looking at their photos, reading their personal and corporate emails, etc? No way.
Milton Armitage
12:43 pm on Sunday, February 17, 2013
Checking a time stamp that indicates the time the phone was in use will tell whether the phone was in use immediately prior to the stop. Without that power the law against texting and driving is unenforceable. If you're in court for violating a traffic law you'd want the police to record information from your device that indicates the device wasn't in use. In traffic court you're presumed guilty. When it's your word against the police the Judge is inclined to believe the police.
When you're at a traffic light and the car in front of you won't move on a green light there's a reasonable chance the driver is texting. When vehicles are driving well below the speed limit and weaving, there's a reasonable expectation the driver is texting. Texting and driving is rude and dangerous. Normal people don't do it. If you believe your brain farts are that important, pull over and send your message. What next, watching Dancing With The Stars while driving? So by the logic expressed here, a driver weaving from side to side shouldn't be administered a drunk test unless there's an accident.
David Peart
2:33 pm on Sunday, February 17, 2013
Your conclusions are simply not based in fact. Police write summons based upon violations they observe, every day of the week. They don't need the time stamp on the text to support their testimony. When you're written a summons for failure to stop at a traffic control device, is there something other than the officers sworn testimony to support their complaint? Are red light summons "unenforceable" as as a result? You're not presumed guilty in any court until the case is adjudicated. If you plead not guilty, the officer must articulate his case and that presentation must be reviewed by a magistrate. There is no automatic presumption of guilt. Anywhere such a presumption exists, there is a problem. If you look at a traffic summons, you have the option to plead guilty or not guilty. If one is alleged to be observed using their phone, that person provides the phone to the courts for their review and no activity is found, that doesn't mean they weren't using it. The hands free statute hinges upon what the officer observes. They could just as easily been reading old texts. The officers observations are the basis for the complaint, not what's in the phone.
No one in their right mind is going to speak in support of texting while driving. But to support eroding the fourth amendment for the sake of ones contempt for those who text while driving, is equally as unconscionable.