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?'"

Comments

Yes

[OverlordQ]

Then he’s got to do what? Subpoena the service to see if the phone was actively used or not?

Yes. Yes he does.

Re:Yes

[bobstreo]

Then he’s got to do what? Subpoena the service to see if the phone was actively used or not?

Yes. Yes he does.

Or maybe they could submit a request to the NSA.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that might breach national security. All he needs is a broad warrant that covers all the metadata of anyone communicating inside New Jersey, renewed practically automatically every 90 days. These sorts of things are easy and totally legal, I hear.

Re:Yes

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

But, but... Due Process is hard! *tearful face*

Re:Yes

[gnick]

What happened to figuring out which car actually caused the accident?

Doesn't always matter entirely. If the victim of a car accident was breaking the law, but driving fine, he could still be in trouble. We had an incident in town where everyone who saw the wreck was pointing at one person as being at fault, but the guy who got hit was drunk. Guess who got cuffs?

In this case, the person causing the accident may get some leniancy by pointing out that the person was driving illegally and could have avoided the accident had he not been.

Re:Yes

[girlintraining]

Or maybe they could submit a request to the NSA.

Not really necessary. TFA:

It requires officers to have 'reasonable grounds' to believe the law was broken.

Officer A: "Hey Lou, you see that cell phone?"
Officer B: "Yeah man, I do."
Officer A: "And the car's wrecked, right?"
Officer B: "Sure is, Lou."
Officer A: "Well there you have it. Reasonable grounds. Cell phone in plain site at the scene of an accident. No different than finding a beer bottle in the back seat and 'reasonably' concluding he could have been drunk..."
Officer B: "Sounds like a plan. Hey, you know we can't ordinarily go into glove boxes without a warrant, but I think I might have heard something vibrating in there!"
Officer A: "Could be a cell phone. Better open it up and look."
Officer B: "It sure could man... it sure could... hey, isn't it so much easier not having to ask anyone before we do whatever the hell we feel like these days?"
Officer A: "Sure is! Checks and balances, audits, constitutional freedoms... they were just slowing us down all these years."

Re:Yes

[noh8rz10]

but his general comment stands... texting while driving is against the law so getting in a crash while texting should be investigated by the cops, like DUI. or speeding or running a red light.

Re:Yes

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Doesn't always matter entirely. If the victim of a car accident was breaking the law, but driving fine, he could still be in trouble. We had an incident in town where everyone who saw the wreck was pointing at one person as being at fault, but the guy who got hit was drunk. Guess who got cuffs?

There is a good chance that the correct person at fault was noted on the accident report. Regardless of the cause of the accident, the drunk was still breaking the law and needed to be arrested.

Re:Yes

[cayenne8]

Err....don't most people lock their phones with a code? Nothing here says you have to give the cop the fucking number to unlock the phone if he asks for it.

He can look at mine all here wants, but he needs a warrant for me to even THINK about unlocking it for him.

I also disabled notices from showing to the lock screen, so he's not going to see anyone texting me or calls or notices for things either unless I were to unlock it for him/her.

Re:Yes

[kwbauer]

Somebody ran into me while I had a phone on my belt and after everything stopped moving I pull my phone out to let people know I'll be a bit late is probable cause that I am at fault.?!? Serious cognitive issues there houghi.

The point...

[frozentier]

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?

Re: OK,here it is good luck with the encryption

[AvitarX]

They can take blood from you, if they arrest you, using other probably cause to establish the need to arrest. They cannot take your blood pre-arrest.

Not very usefull

[Nidi62]

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.

Bluetooth?

[RedShoeRider]

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.

Re:OK,here it is good luck with the encryption

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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.

The law is totally worthless and up for abuse. First they would need to establish an accurate time when the accident took place. I'm sure an accurate time will be recorded while they wait the 10 minutes for the police to arrive. Better not use the phone after the accident, they may think that the call or text happened just prior to the accident and it would be up to you to prove otherwise (e.g. "I usually call may insurance agent AFTER an auto accident").

Yet another case of the 4th amendment being torn to shreds: DNA and now possible call records all without a warrant!