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.
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?
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
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 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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) --