Posted on 06/11/2013 2:32:12 AM PDT by Libloather
TRENTON — 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.
Supporters say it could be an important tool for cops investigating crashes in a state where distracted driving causes lots of accidents and driving while using hand-held cell phones is illegal.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
As many astute Americans noted after the school massacre in Newtown, CT ... your misfortune doesn't allow you to trample on anyone else's Constitutional rights.
What happens when someone is involved in an accident and they hand over an old cell phone that is no longer active to the police?
This bill strikes me as like the use of GPS to collect taxes by miles driven. While it’s true that GPS info can be used to determine miles driven, it does so by recording your exact location every second of every day, obviously including exactly where and where you were at every single location, and how fast you were moving. The GPS data is vastly more invasive and intrusive than needed to collect miles driven. The odometer can do that. In fact, a gasoline tax also roughly does that, people who drive more use more gas and therefore pay more tax. (In particular, someone who drives none will pay zero such tax.) Searching your cell phone gives the cops vastly more information than whether you were texting at the time of the crash or not.
Keep in mind that I was reading it in the context of what I know has happened in New Jersey with law enforcement officers and cell phones.
A few years ago a young woman was pulled over and arrested for driving while intoxicated. They took all of her possessions from her while she was being held in the jail cell at the police station. Someone came and picked her up, and when she recovered from her hangover the next day she found something bizarre on her cell phone. Two cops at the police station had taken her cell phone into the men's bathroom and -- for reasons that only a New Jersey cop would ever be able to explain -- took various "Anthony Weiner" photos of themselves using her cell phone camera.
Yeah, the photos were on her cell phone when she checked it the next day.
Yeah, the police officers were fired.
No, I don't want any police officer f#$%ing around with my cell phone without a warrant.
Just a question:
Couldn’t a cell phone be produced that wipes the data from the device and possibly the account?
The fact is many LEOs already check the cell phones when there’s an autobile accident. It’s the primary factor that caused the accident. No need to make it a law for LEOs to be able to seize it during an accident anymore than they need to make a law for you to breathe. It’s clearly evidence of dustraction, inattention, and unawareness at the time of impact. But i do understand what you are saying; no need to make a law for this type if thing. The government us already legislating us to death under this administration though the low- inormation voters dont seem to understand the trap that is being lid or them. But you know as well as I do how those wacky retarded libs are about making rules for everyone else but themselves though.
There is no need to search the phone at that time. If the driver was on the phone the phone company will have a record.
Either we have a 4th amendment or we dont. Sounds like you are on the side of getting rid of it.
And you can bet your last dollar that the police will have, find, or manufacture "reasonable grounds" in every case in which they want to know what's on your cellphone.
Its weird how people focus on cell phones. I see crappy drivers all the time who aren’t on their phone. Some are putting make up on, shaving, eating, reading books, playing with the radio, sleeping, smoking and eating at the same time.
The fact is many LEOs already check the cell phones when there’s an autobile accident. It’s the primary factor that caused the accident. No need to make it a law for LEOs to be able to seize it during an accident anymore than they need to make a law for you to breathe. It’s clearly evidence of distraction, inattention, and unawareness at the time of impact. But I do understand what you are saying; no need to make a law for this type of thing. The government is already legislating us to death under this administration though the low-inormation voters dont seem to understand the trap that is being laid for them. But you know as well as I do how those wacky retarded libs are about making rules for
I think there was already a Supreme Court case that said they could search a phone on any stop, if it’s “available to the driver” or something like that. In that case, locking it in the glove compartment made it off limits.
I would refuse to give them my password.
That would be the California Supreme Court, not SCOTUS.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/05/california-supreme-court-cell
This is where I don't understand the legal rationale of many of this bill's supporters. It's only "clearly evidence of distraction, inattention, etc." if the LEO witnesses the motor vehicle accident. Otherwise, he/she has no basis to make any determination about whether the cell phone had any relationship to an accident.
I once got pulled over by a cop who thought I was talking on my cell phone while driving. I was able to talk my way out of a ticket because I didn't even have my phone in the car with me. What happens if I'm a driver involved in a motor vehicle accident and my passenger is talking or texting on a cell phone when the accident occurs?
This proposed law is an unmitigated disaster, and -- as is the case with many laws in a place like New Jersey -- will ultimately end up being completely unenforceable.
That depends. Does the phone belong to a Demorcrat or a Republican?
The idiocy of this was made clear by someone who pointed out that a driver using an electric shaver would be breaking the law, but a driver who covers his face with shaving cream and uses a Gillette disposable razor would be OK. LOL.
Other than it being a constitutionally bad idea, how about the practical side of thing? exactly do they get an accurate timestamp? If I am in a small fenderbender and I call my wife 2 minutes right after the accident, how does the cop know what time the accident occurred? Could he accuse me of being on the phone with my wife because there was a logged call near the time of the accident?
I've heard of that, years ago in a history class. Wasn't that part of the Constitution back before Obama fundamentally transformed America? I have no problem with a warrant based upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing that either my cell phone or my cell phone records are to be searched, but otherwise my right to be secure in my person, house, papers (including my cell phone provider's records), and effects (including my cell phone) against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.
This is yet another reason it is important to have a password on your phone.
Don’t know but I think that a little thing called digital footprint is the fly in the ointment. It’s that big NSA thumb drive thing that we built? Please note ( behaviourially) should be “ behaviorally” .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.