Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I doubt texting and driving is a felony or even misdemeanor anywhere. At most it would result in a citation like a speeding ticket, not arrest.
And that needs to change.
Texting while driving should be treated exactly the same way as drinking and driving.....especially since it is even MORE dangerous than drinking and driving.
I doubt texting and driving is a felony or even misdemeanor anywhere. At most it would result in a citation like a speeding ticket, not arrest.
That brings up some interesting points. The bill states the call history can be examined. What if your texting is not part of call history? I never text with my carrier's texting. I use Google Voice so I can read on my computer and get transcribed voice mail.
Call history is not defined in the bill or current law. In plain language call history means telephone calls not texting.
The penalty is $100 for being on the phone or $300 for texting. Hands free is still legal. You get 2 DL points but no insurance points and it doesn't seem to enhance criminal penalties such as causing death.
In a way I think it makes this law worse. Such low penalties for such a lowering of rights.
Cops can confiscate your phone over a $300 fine? Phone use kills people but it only costs $300?
Maybe the logic is that it provides more proof that you are at fault.
Another bad idea that infringes upon our privacy rights and ultimately will do nothing to stop distracted driving.
Are folks going to willingly give up their cell phone (never to be seen again) even if the accident wasn't their fault? Don't bet on it.
Texting while driving should be treated exactly the same way as drinking and driving.....especially since it is even MORE dangerous than drinking and driving.
Well then so should picking your nose, reading historical markers, changing radio stations, following a GPS..
There should be a self destruct application on all cell phones...a sequence you press and the thing bursts into flames...So they want to look at my cell phone if I get into a fender bender? I would rather stomp on the stupid thing that ad another vulnerable aspect of my being due to technology...I survived with out high tech before and can do it again - smart phone and commuter addiction are not needed for human survival - We just thing we need them...and thinking something does not manifest that something into reality...Wake up folks...You don't need an electronic neck tie?
Leave it to NJ to attempt to get another terrible idea of an oppressive law passed. This is a terrible law. It just lets police collect a cell phone, which is your personal property, without a warrant. If the state thinks you caused an accident by texting and driving then show your probable cause and get a warrant and put the person in jail. What if the person is a physician, or an attorney or other person who has confidential, protected information on their cell phone? What if the person has a lock? Can the cop force you to give him the password? What ever happened to the 5th Amendment? Police need a warrant to search your personal property, that should be required here. The worthless NJ legislature's attitude toward this was to pass the law and then have the Supreme Court decide if it's constitutional. Excuse me, but last time I checked all branches of government swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Our governments become more worthless by the second.
I mean the driver in question. An accusation by another is not justification unless it is reasonable. Otherwise, people could just accuse and that would be all that was needed. The officer investigating needs to have reasonable means to justify further inquiry and there has to be urgency in some situations. Even then, there are civil discourses by those who are accused falsely. Point is, Probable cause is needed.
A warrant is needed.
Some laws will place such as "automatic fault", but all that means is that the person who did the rear ending needs to provide a good explanation as to why they weren't at fault. In most cases, rear ending someone is really an issue of ones lack of attention, poor driving skills, etc... Even so, it does not guarantee fault, it really just is a matter of "well, it should be pretty obvious, do you have any legitimate reason why you would hit someone like that?" By the way, there are legitimate reasons and such areas which have "automatic" laws as such have learned why (in some areas, a 2 car scam where one pulls in close in front of another before they can increase a cushion distance while another in front of that car slams it breaks causing a chain in the hopes that the target will rearend producing a means of insurance fraud claim.
In New Jersey, striking another car from behind is prima facie' evidence of liability, or an irrebuttable presumption. I can only think of a handful of instances in which the person hitting the car from behind would have any possibility of a defense.
Point is, if the officer doesn't have probable cause, they can't search. A car accident is not evidence of "texting". It could have been they were simply not paying attention, the were tuning the radio, drinking/eating something, reading something (paper, book), putting on makeup, and the list goes on and on.
I agree. But you still need a warrant. Do not let the opinion of fascists lead you to believe that the officer's "probable cause" is enough.
It is one of the reasons why I think these phone/texting laws are just stupid. I can drive and text without getting in an accident (though I apply proper defensive techniques and adjust my need for such depending on traffic). In police academies, they teach them to drive high speed and be able to use their radios/terminals.
The real problem of people getting into accidents in such cases is not the "action" they are doing, but their irresponsible application of a given action (when and when not to) combined with existing poor driving habits (ie they don't defensive drive in the first place).
With this, I agree
Point is, if they ask me for my phone... they will be doing so based on nothing more than speculation, not evidential means of establishing a given requirement to do so.
My response is in bold.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
