Slashdot Mirror
Proposed NJ Law Allows Cops To Search Phones At Crash Scenes
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?'"
Yes. Yes he does.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
So what do they do with my locked and encrypted device?
I surely cannot be compelled to remember the password after being in an accident. The trauma could easily explain why I can't remember.
with a subpoena.
The point that there's almost no chance the cop saw the violation is exactly why they should NOT be able to go through the device. What "probable cause" could they POSSIBLY have to think the phone caused the accident if the they didn't witness the person actually using it?
>then he’s got to do what? Subpoena the service to see if the phone was actively used or not?'"
Yes?
...Yes
"then he’s got to do what? Subpoena the service to see if the phone was actively used or not?'""
Yup! There is no imminent danger of another crash, take your time and do police work the proper way, not by violating civil liberties.
I thought the Supreme Court had all ready ruled that the pigs can't search your phone with out a warrant.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
"Cops can thumb through phones without a warrant."
This isn't how it'll be written (I hope) but the true version won't be far enough either.
It'll get passed under the cover of "Oh we're just after macfags who tweet and drive" but like most every other law ever the ambiguity will stretch more than [vulgar sexual reference removed].
Unless you can accurately identify exactly what time the wreck happened, there is no way to tell if someone was texting when the crash happened. They sent a text a minute or 2 ago? "Officer, I sent that while stopped at a red light", or "I was in a store, I sent that text before I drove off in my car". If you get a text right after the crash, better not read it, as the police could assume that you were reading the text when you wrecked.
Also:
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?'"
Yes, that is what he should do. You know, actual police work. What exactly constitutes "reasonable grounds" to search the phone? The phone is laying in the car? The person has the phone in their hand? Ever pass a wreck on the side of the road? People always have their phones out to call for a wrecker, or their insurance, or their family. Unless the person flat out says they were looking at their phone, I cannot think of any type of evidence that would provide "reasonable grounds" to suspect phone use.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Yes, officer, I was on the phone. On my NJ-approved Bluetooth-based hands-free communication device.
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.
Chris Knight is my hero.
Find where: jobTitle= (cop || police officer)
Replace with: jobTitle= (judge && jury && executioner)
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
There's a difference between the proper duties of a police officer and what is described here.
A police offer exists to serve and protect. This describes procedures to fish for charges. Society has naught to gain from giving cops the authority to search mobile phones without a warrant.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
All those anti-gun people should start realizing that if you want a gun-free society, you should start with disarming police officers first because they seem to be at least as large a threat as civilians... and in my opinion, more of a threat since they seem to have a much more 'entitled' sense of firearm use.
And if you agree we can't disarm the police, why should the remaining population be rendered helpless against the police and others? Sorry, but I just can't get past the natural right to self-defense and self-preservation.
Anyway... off-topic right? But when I hear "NJ Cop" this story comes to mind. As for searching phones at the scene? Sorry. The best they should be able to do is request the phone number of their device and let them subpoena the phone company for activity on the phone "on or about the time of the accident." Should be perfectly acceptable and will yield far more accurate reporting.
This will be used by a responding officer to indicate fault in an accident report, issue a citation, or place someone under arrest if appropriate. If you think this amounts to being an "executioner", I don't understand how you can get through the day given all the other ways that you could have been "executed" by "executioners" up until now.
would be due process.
When driving I'll often hand off my phone to the navigator in the passenger seat to talk for me.....if we happened to have a collision while passenger is talking on my phone, what sort of protection against false positives are there?
i don't know karate, but i know ca-razy
If the collision has been determined to be an accident, then by definition the driver isn't at fault. And if the driver isn't at fault, then what's the purpose of searching the driver's phone?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
This tends to re-inforce my idea that politicians are generally objectively stupid -- they probably have a high social intelligence, but very poor analytic skills.
In this case, this is probably the worst time to introduce such a bill. Wait until the furor about the NSA has died down (the US population has a short span of attention for such issues) and then introduce it. But right now? Pure, unbridled stupidity.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Well... good luck to some random cop when he tries to find how to check call history on my Openmoko Neo Freerunner :)
This will make it even easier to "accidentally" erase those incriminating three minutes of beating a suspect with a billy club.
And after he thumbs through your cell phone, he can arrest you, and then take a DNA sample. All without your consent.
Land of the free? Who are we trying to kid? nobody takes it seriously.
I've just understood "immigration reform" -- make it so abysmal to live here that even the Mexicans don't want to cross the border anymore.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
1) There's no mention in the summary or TFA that the cell phone will be perused at the scene of the accident. Just that it will be confiscated.
2) Anyone else seen "Air Crash Investigation"? The investigators check all data available for the cause of accident.
That second one is a killer. If I'm driving a Toyota and I hear that there's been lots of accidents in other Toyotas, I want to know the cause of those accidents. Toyota brakes failing or idiots texting.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Good luck getting into my cell phone.
And while you're at it, check to see if they were changing the radio station, talking to their passenger, turning around and hitting their kids, pump their stomachs to see if they were eating anything, rubbing their eyes or any other thing that could possibly have caused a driver to be distracted and crash. Cell phone laws are just like hate crime laws. A crime is a crime, doesn't matter why. If someone's distracted and they cause an accident, they're at fault and bear the responsibility of any damages they've caused.
Check that, FUCK no. As a new NJ resident this is stupid. What if the text was "written" hands free using Siri, etc? How exactly do you know crash times? What if it wasn't a deadly accident and someone made a phone call right after. It could be argued that you were on the phone before the crash, depending on whose clock you time the accident on. What if your cellphone has a password? Can they then compel you at the scene to give it up? I wouldn't. :P
Republicans see no problems with weakening the 1st (church/state, non-christians unable to get permits to build religious centers), 4th (eavesdropping, DNA swaths, invasive searches in public terminals, now this turd of a law), 5th (tell us how to read the hard drive for evidence), 6th (detain people indefinitely), 7th (forced arbitration), 14th (no more anchor babies and no equal protections for all legally married couples), 15th (lets make voting hard for minorities), 16th (taxes are for the poor), and 17th (make senators appointed again -- yes it's true).
Yet the 2nd amendment must never be touched even by reasonable restrictions like background checks.
Got a phone? Smash the fucker or leave it at home.
Morons.
See title. Laws only work when they are enforceable. Until such a time...um, oops, I dropped it.
Phones can be set to not save copies of sent messages or calls..
So then what?
Wasted law, wasted money - nothing but vote pandering, but government is GOOD right? RIGHT?
In addition to all of the good comments posted above, it is still possible to make calls and send text messages legally through bluetooth headsets, car synchronization systems, etc. And there is currently no way to prove you were using the headset/sync system during the time of the crash which means that there would be strong evidence that you were doing something illegal and weak/non-existent evidence that you were doing it legally.
How will this prove or disprove anything, what if I say get in an accident and prior to their arrival I say delete my text and call histories. I realize they can just get a warrant for my records but still then they would have to do it legally.
Perhaps they just gave me an idea for a new app for iPhone and Droid, with 1 button push you can wipe your phones call and text history, I'll call it the FUCK YOU NJ POLICE app.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
What is considered "reasonable grounds"?
As you can see from the impromptu search of the defendants phone when I arrived on scene that they had called 911 within the time-frame of the accident clearly indicating they were using their phone while driving!
Already rule that this was actually against the 5th amendment. And yes it is against the 4th amendment as well.
I am as rabidly anti phone use in the car as anyone you'll ever meet. But this is way beyond reasonable.
i love that ... only way it could be better is if it were also dipped in chocolate!
There are numerous studies that show that a driver who is texting is at least as degraded in terms of driving ability as one who is just over the legal limit for alcohol.
Officer: What is your passcode to unlock your phone.
Driver: I decline to provide you that information as it would potentially violate my rights as outlined by the fifth amendment.
Assuming the air bags deploy, there is almost certainly a record of the time of deployment in the car's on-board computer (assuming a recent enough car).
Subpoena the service? Yes, absolutely that is what the officer has to do. Because in the time it takes him to arrive at the scene, the driver could have deleted his logs, making the exercise misleading and useless. Sorry, but that's the way it goes when you pass these kinds of laws that are virtually unenforceable.
Proverbs 21:19
the passenger was using my phone...
If I could walk that way I wouldnt need cologne.
Unless you can accurately identify exactly what time the wreck happened, there is no way to tell if someone was texting when the crash happened.
Given the ever-increasing level of techology in cars, I'd be surprised if the on-board computer doesn't have a record of when the crash occurred.
While I realize that in many places hands-free is still allowed (here too) there is quite a bit of research that shows that it's still a significant distraction to the driver.
I'd personally be fine with a rule that if a vehicle is travelling above a certain speed (20mph for example) then they shouldn't be allowed to talk on the phone at all. Might be hard to enforce though.
>> then heâ(TM)s got to do what? Subpoena the service to see if the phone was actively used or not?'"
Wait make cops follow due process? Thats outrageous. Whatever next...
not to mention inaccurate ... an accident is never without fault and to suggest that it is is asinine.
an accident is something that occurs without intent therefore every collision that isn't a deliberate act is an accident.
the fact that it wasn't intentional doesn't absolve the actor from responsibility for their actions.
It should be trivial for police to:
- Record the time stamps of the phone's recent uses.
- Record the timestamp of the collision event as recorded by the car's black box (e.g. Airbag Control Module).
http://www.crashforensics.com/automobiledatarecorders.cfm
- Synchronize the clocks on the phone and black box to enable comparison.
Pwned.
From what I can tell, this is not an obvious 4th ammendment violation.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Common misconceptions aside, the 4th ammendment does not require a warrant, so long as the search is reasonable. If, as the summary states, the bill requires the officer to have reasonable grounds to believe the law was broken, I don't really have a problem with this. I think there are likely few cases in which they would have these grounds, however, unless someone in the car with the driver outright admitted it.
It should be trivial for police to:
- Record the time stamps of the phone's recent uses.
- Record the timestamp of the collision event as recorded by the car's black box (e.g. Airbag Control Module).
http://www.crashforensics.com/automobiledatarecorders.cfm
- Synchronize the clocks on the phone and black box to enable comparison.
Pwned.
None of which should involve the police officer on site taking and looking through the phone of the persons involved in the wreck. He can go to the phone company with a court order to access the records there.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
What is the goal of such legislation? The liability of the accident, who was at fault, isn't going to change much beyond a few percent. So this small, rather inconsequential matter, is reason to give the police still more investigative privileges?
Of course, the cynic in me simply sees this as a Corporatist law to allow the insurance companies to charge more for coverage while allowing the State to have another revenue source.
Now, when one has an accident, video the scene. It establishes who was where, at what time. Anything else done with the phone, was obviously after the accident.
Well, not obviously, since some handset clocks must be manually set. But that problem belongs to the police officer.
If there is reasonable suspicion (multiple witnesses say they saw the driver phone-in-hand moments prior to the accident / driver was found unconscious or immobilized with the phone in their hand / phone is discovered serendipitously mid-call that started before the accident / etc.), I'm quite certain that current law already permits officers to perform such a search based on said suspicion.
I would be extremely wary of any proposition that seeks to broaden the power of police and lower standards of evidentiary permissibility, basically to make their jobs easier. The only way that's possible is by shaving away yet more of the public's scant-remaining rights.
But you can use your legally-purchased, concealed-carry firearm to shoot your phone and then hand it over, I guess.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Here's the thing: reckless driving is reckless driving. It doesn't matter if they were stone-cold sober, texting, drunk, high, etc. If someone drives reckless, THAT is the problem not whatever else they were doing.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
then you have nothing to worry about...
> then he’s got to do what? Subpoena the service to see if the phone was actively used or not?'"
Lemme see.... YES. That's exactly what he's got to do, and that's what law enforcement has to do now. It's called
Let's see, how could this be misused? When daughter and I ride in her car, her phone says "text messageeeeee". At her request, I (the passenger) pick it up, see that it's a question from someone I also know, send the answer and am about to set it back down when there's an accident. In NJ she's absolutely screwed because it's my word against the cops that she was not handling the phone at the time of the accident. No, I suspect forensic DNA evidence would not be sought in a traffic accident.
Or,,,, if "the passenger was the one using the phone" becomes an acceptable excuse, everyone would use it whether it's true or not. Either way, the law serves no purpose except to screw with people. If this passes, it seems like a clear 4th amendment constitutional case. I feel for the police and the tough job they have, but they still better have a warrant before they touch my stuff.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Everyone going on about their rights to due process, privacy, and all that shit.
What about the right to life to the person who gets killed because some wackaloon decided to text on their cellphone?
F your goddamned rights. Either you have unlimited rights, or no rights at all. We made this shit up, people. Get over it, STFU, and GTFO.
Could an officer asking/forcing a driver to unlock a locked phone violate the driver's 5th ammendment rights? There must be a better way to review a proposed law when it's obviously going to skate on the line of violating rights. Having it pass, then having to fight it over and over again, to possibly eventually having it repealed costs a lot of time and money. I pay my taxes, so when I see something like this which looks like a bunch of fail, it annoys me a bit.
He will establish probable cause to conduct a search of the suspect's effects, then petition a judge for a warrant, as is required by the Fourth Amendment.
You know, the 4th amendment is the law. The Bill of Rights is not a list of suggestions.
New Jersey is a handsfree only state and yet they still have that many accidents caused by talking on the cell phone? Maybe even handsfree shouldn't be allowed.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
More than half the country has an IQ of 100 or less. I wouldn't get in the car where the driver had a 100 IQ. Bad enough I have to get on the road with them and have to watch out for their non-signal flashing, lane-straddling, highbeam-abusing, weaving, texting, drunken, sex-having shenanigans, you BET that I'm not going to fucking ride with them. We're talking driving with the derp brigade.
They'll just get the logs from the carrier by subpoena which is what they should be doing in the first place. Unless you were the only person in the car, they will also have to prove that you used the phone while driving.
That doesn't help with texting. A lot of texting-based accidents happen while the user is typing a message, or reading a message.
When typing, there is no way for the provider to know whether you're typing it. Only if you clicked the send button at a specific instant. In which case, if the *bam* comes before that, no dice.
With reading... they can tell if you received a text a couple of minutes prior to the accident. But not if you're actively reading it at a specific time. Personally if I hear my phone chime while driving I wait until I pull over. So... no luck there.
He can look at mine all here wants, but he needs a warrant for me to even THINK about unlocking it for him.
Keep in mind that driving is considered a privilege and not a right in the U.S. To get your license you had to agree to certain things, like submitting to a breath analysis if requested. Refuse to do so and they can revoke your license. They will probably handle phone unlocking in a similar manner, you refuse, they revoke you license.
Problem solved. Set a basic non-1234 password that kicks in at 5 minutes and bazinga.
"You have the right to remain silent..." ring a bell with you?
"Driving is a privilege not a right", ring a bell? They will probably revoke your license if you refuse, as various states may do with respect to breath analysis. Asserting your rights is not always without consequence. Keep in mind that you entered into a "contract" with the state to obtain your "driving privilege". That contract obligates you to do certain things upon request.
The cops are all corrupt
Except for the exception
I don't mean to be abrupt
It's not beyond conception
That somewhere, somehow
locked up in a darkened office
I'm sure some cop's straight up
no lies, no artifice
But for the rest you'd best believe
the rumors all are true
that cop right there is quite unfair
and gets thrills from screwing you
From raising your insurance
to throwing you in jail
just to make their quota
or perhaps, just your bail
Now you need a lawyer
Time to mortgage all you own
The wrongness of your actions
You're about to have well shown
When you get to court
If your lawyer knew the judge
Apply sufficient monies
And out you'll get to trudge
Otherwise you're going down
and they think that's such a hoot
fines and jail and sex with Leroy
who thinks your buns are cute
Then when you get out, if you do
All your stuff is gone
You're a felon now, a perma-freak
unemployable, you're done
But the smiling cop will tell you
Your life's not all bad deal
He knows a guy, who knows a guy
who'll fence anything you can steal
There's just one thing that you should know
Before you steal and destroy
The guy who's known to the other guy
His name... his name is Leroy.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
so, it's not good enough that the phone was used. big shit, the phone was used. did it cause the accident? Let's even go so far as to say that if it was being used during the accident then it can be held at fault anyway. Sure. Let's pretend that it's my responsibility to actively avoid other bad drivers. Quite frankly, I'd even be okay with that.
So how does the officer know if the phone was being used during the seconds of the accident, and not twenty-five seconds prior?
And if the phone is at fault, then clearly so is the radio, the cruise control, the climate control, adjusting the seat belt, and fiddling with sun visor. Bring it on. I want to see the headline: "crash caused when driver rolled down the window on a summer's day.".
It will run in the background and if it sees g's of a certain level it will delete all that data. And or replace it with bogus data. Thanks I was looking for something cool.
... from the carrier, for the limited time window around the accident. I would have no problem with the carriers handling those routinely and quickly, since the data requested is much less intrusive than looking at everything on my phone (which is what they'll do if they take your phone at the scene of an accident).
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
So now they want to search your phone for evidence the accident was caused the driver talking or texting.
Or, it could have been caused by your lack of sleep due to sleep apnea. So you should surrender your medical records, too.
Or, maybe your lack of sleep was because you have been working too hard. There goes your job records.
Or, maybe you were distracted by that hot blond by the roadside. Why not search her too (I could get behind that).
Or, maybe you were getting a bj while driving. Yes Maam, open up. Gotta swab the mouth ya know.
When is this going to stop? Why do these politicians keep passing laws that directly violate the constitution. We have protection under the 4th amendment against unreasonable search:
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.
That's absolutely disgusting. Why do people let their governments do things such as that? Wait... I know: They're imbeciles.
Do politicians even know that Judge Dredd was not supposed to be a to do list?
"Driving is a privilege not a right", ring a bell? They will probably revoke your license if you refuse, as various states may do with respect to breath analysis. Asserting your rights is not always without consequence. Keep in mind that you entered into a "contract" with the state to obtain your "driving privilege". That contract obligates you to do certain things upon request.
Reminds me of what happened to Amanda Bynes, the actress. A cop pulled her over on suspicion of being under the influence. She claimed that was trying to escape the paparazzi which was even then clicking away. The cop insisted on a field test and she refused, stating that she would be willing to submit a blood test at the station instead. The cop insisted and she continued to refuse, citing the paparazzi presence and refusing to 'perform' in front of them. The cop didn't care and she got arrested and as the law requires charged with a automatic DUI and stripped her of her license, despite the blood test clearing her of any intoxication. The entire incident was recorded by the paps and can be found on the gossip site tmz.com among others. She later drove without a license and got arrested again, once more in full view of the ever-hunting paps.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Broad daylight. I'm crossing the street at a corner I had used often and people always slowed and stop to let me cross. One morning this guy appears down the road as I start to cross. He's coming along a turn in the road about a city block away. My guess is might have going 40 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. As I cross I get more and more amazed that he isn't stopping. Finally, instead of taking one more step, I reverse and move my forward going foot behind me. That saved my life, I'm sure. He missed me by a foot. Talking on a cell phone. He was even blabbing into it when he stopped....
I urge everyone no matter what you think of the AG's proposal, to not talk on the phone and drive at the same time.
'then heâ(TM)s got to do what? Subpoena the service to see if the phone was actively used or not?'
"Policin's haaaaaard!"
Large police departments now have wonderful little machines (kept right next to their military-level assault rifles, no doubt) that plug into phones and can bypass any and all user protections to suck it dry of data.
Smell the freedom.
They're the ignorant ones. Oink Oink.
"That is correct officer, I have never made a single text or call with this cell phone, as you can plainly see from the history..."
that the officer is only getting what he's supposed to.
If doing one is too much trouble for a small traffic accident, then the holder of the driver's license could be required to bring in some phone records later to keep his license.
But it would be hard to know exactly what time to look at to know if the text was related to the accident.
And any thing else would be just a fishing expedition.
"You have the right to remain silent..." ring a bell with you?
"Driving is a privilege not a right", ring a bell? They will probably revoke your license if you refuse, as various states may do with respect to breath analysis. Asserting your rights is not always without consequence. Keep in mind that you entered into a "contract" with the state to obtain your "driving privilege". That contract obligates you to do certain things upon request.
Fortunately, my contract was with a different state than NJ.
There's a reason Jefferson suggested the judicial was our government's despotic branch.
Really though, when you look at the case, the truly disturbing thing is that the case was not ruled on any constitutional grounds which reflected the text nor the known intent of the founders, nor was it in line with over a century of precedents regarding the Commerce Clause. It argued that having the potential to have an effect upon a federal law's ability to manipulate both supply and prices if enough farmers did the same thing as Filburn. And that somehow, this was sufficient not just to force him to destroy his crops and fine him under the Commerce Clause, but to create a precedent that gave legitimacy to what has become a vast amount of federal micromanagement of local and private actions that have nothing whatsoever to do with interstate commerce.
I'm not saying everything done under the Commerce Clause today is necessarily even bad (even if much of it is), but I'm certainly saying that the proper means would have been amendment, not court rulings.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
They could try, and they'd be embarrassed on the court challenge. Forcing a detainee to unlock a phone without a warrant would be very unlikely to hold up against a 5th amendment challenge.
I'm not sure how that is possible, since California law states:
The officer shall advise the person of that fact and of the person's right to refuse to take the preliminary alcohol screening test.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11_5/vc23612.htm
They could try, and they'd be embarrassed on the court challenge. Forcing a detainee to unlock a phone without a warrant would be very unlikely to hold up against a 5th amendment challenge.
You misunderstand. They will not force you, you have the right to refuse. However you have no right to a license as well. To avoid redundant posts see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3852847&cid=43985793.
If you do not have a warrant you can not search my personal property for assumed evidence.
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
You have the right to travel on public roads but being the driver is a privilege.
... While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules,” Lykins said. “If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege."
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/law_talk_who_says_driving_is_a.html
"n 1999, the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, in the case of Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, ruled that there simply is no “fundamental right to drive."
Glad that's not the law in my state.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Wait, when does one adjust the seatbelt while the car is in motion?
How does cruise control impair driver focus? it certainly doesn't impede the driver's ability to brake.
one adjusts the seatbelt when the belt gets stuck between one's belly and one's belt.
cruise control impairs driver focus whilst the driver is pressing the button. cruise control also specifically impairs driver focus because that's exactly what it's designed to do -- to allow the driver to relax a leg.
What if you butt texted / dialed someone? Would that be a violation?
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs