New law could allow roadside 'textalyzer' checks for distracted driving

Legion Troll said:
I must have missed the reference to "exempting law enforcement". Can you cite it?
Click to expand...

i must have missed highlighting the specific section i was referring to....

To date, it is against the law in 19 states to drive while texting

texas did the same thing last year and exempted law enforcement.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
i must have missed highlighting the specific section i was referring to....To date, it is against the law in 19 states to drive while texting texas did the same thing last year and exempted law enforcement.
Click to expand...

So, there was no reference to it the text I posted, was there?

If you think police would be exempt from prosecution and/or liability after a crash if they were found to have been driving distracted, by all means list those instances.
 
Legion Troll said:
So, there was no reference to it the text I posted, was there?

If you think police would be exempt from prosecution and/or liability after a crash if they were found to have been driving distracted, by all means list those instances.
Click to expand...


http://detroit.legalexaminer.com/au...oo-while-on-his-laptop-will-not-face-charges/


California prosecutors have declined to file charges against a sheriff’s deputy who struck and killed a prominent entertainment attorney and former Napster executive with his patrol car last year, according to a recent story in the Daily Mail.

Last December, Deputy Andrew Wood was allegedly distracted by his mobile digital computer when his patrol car drifted into the bike lane, running over cyclist Milton Olin Jr. in Calabasas. Olin was a 65-year-old attorney and former chief operating officer of the online file-sharing service Napster.

Prosecutors said in a letter cited by Los Angeles Daily News that because Wood was acting within the course of his duties when typing into his computer, criminal charges are not warranted:

“He was responding to a deputy who was inquiring whether the fire investigation had been completed… Since Wood was acting within the course and scope of his duties when he began to type his response, under Vehicle Code section 23123.5, he acted lawfully.”
Click to expand...

http://legacy.11alive.com/story/new...state-law-police-text-while-driving/25281643/

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_22964071/why-cops-are-exempt-from-hands-free-cellphone

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...=display_arch&article_id=2274&issue_id=122010

http://www.cbs7.com/content/news/Mi...Texting-and-Driving-Ordinance--328895181.html

http://www.santacruzlive.com/street...ficers-can-talk-non-hands-free-while-driving/

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/2008/08/22/why-are-cops-exempt-from-hands-free-cell-phone-law/

http://www.michiganautolaw.com/blog/2014/09/29/police-texting-and-driving/
 
Looks like the incidents were investigated. If you disagree with the findings and have standing, feel free to demand that the cases be re-opened.

Or not.

Would you argue that a driver observed to have slurred speech or a noticeable smell of alcohol should not be tested if they are involved in a vehicle crash?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so the police investigated themselves and cleared themselves.....have you always been that quick to say 'yessa massa'?
Click to expand...

What do you think I should do about it?

Would you argue that a driver observed to have slurred speech or a noticeable smell of alcohol should not be tested if they are involved in a vehicle crash?
 
If the police have reasonable suspicion that the driver was texting, I am okay with this. Without RS, I think it would be unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top