BC aims to seize cellphones from drivers, Alberta top cop watching with interest

[AR_Six]

This strikes me as unconstitutional. It has been noted that phones can be seized pursuant to a search incident to arrest. However, that search is for officer safety purposes. This is a law that expressly permits a warrantless seizure. That would have to be demonstrably reasonable. I just don't see it.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Frankster

Perhaps it's myth, I do not have documented policy.

I have nothing to hide, no tickets, no accidents. But if they're not supposed to be doing it, they shouldn't. It's really no different than them looking at your cellphone without cause.

i would argue that you liscence plate is clearly on display and it is public knowledge. of course the average citizen can't do anything with that knowledge.

seems intuitve to me that while on patrol that the police would be running plates of vehicles they see, just in case......

[jammies]

I don't approve of these proposed confiscation laws, and I don't approve of them towing drunk driver's cars either. Better 99 criminals go free than 1 innocent man punished, or however the quote goes - except in our day, minor infractions are dealt with by summary punishment as if the police had dual roles as upholders of the law and vigilantes.

Designing laws to discourage behaviour outside the framework of the justice system is a bad idea no matter how dangerous the targeted behaviour is. Enforcing the law should never be based on how convenient it is for those in charge of enforcing it, but rather in ensuring that the rights of citizens are not abrogated by the state. A tyranny is just as suffocating if it is built one amendment at a time as by armed revolution.

[Ducay]

As someone said, all it will take is one person missing a life/death call, or not being able to call 911 and this whole "law" will be over.

Feels like highschool, impounding cell phones for a day, yeesh.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

This strikes me as unconstitutional. It has been noted that phones can be seized pursuant to a search incident to arrest. However, that search is for officer safety purposes. This is a law that expressly permits a warrantless seizure. That would have to be demonstrably reasonable. I just don't see it.

You realize that the police can impound your car if you break certain laws. I don't recall people being in an uproar about how that is unconstitutional so why a cell phone? People need to realize that driving is a priviledge not a right and all you need to do is abide by the laws of operating a motor vehicle and life is good but if you can't get off your cell phone while driving bad things are going to happen. You are either going to be ticketed, lose your phone for an amount of time, or worse get into a car accident injuring yourself and others. It's not a god givne right and if you are addicted to your phone, take public transit.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

When was the last time you used your phone for an actual emergency? I can't remember the last time I've done it, if ever.

Not exactly an emergency, but the last 911-call I've made was when I witnessed a kid smashing a window of a local business. I called the cops and tailed the perpetrator at a distance to maintain visual contact and keep the cops updated with his location until they picked him up. Had I not had my cellphone on hand, I would not have been able to do that. Which makes another point: my cellphone doesn't just serve my own interests, but also those of the community around me.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ducay

As someone said, all it will take is one person missing a life/death call, or not being able to call 911 and this whole "law" will be over.

Feels like highschool, impounding cell phones for a day, yeesh.

No it won't. When you get an impared your car is impounded immediately for 24 hours even though you usually wait months to go through the legal process and found guilty. Without your car for that 24 hours you wouldn't be able to make it to the hospital or respond to a life/death situation in a quick manner. That law is not over nor will it ever be. Cell phones like cars are material objects and not essential devices. The courts are always going to point back at you for breaking the law in the first place. Again the simple solution is to not use your cell phone while driving. Anthing bad that comes out of it is on you and it's no different than driving under the influence of alcohol. You know the law and you know the punishment. You still break the law then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

The fact so many oppose this just goes to show how deep the problem is here as the only people that would have issues with this are the people that can't stop themselves from breaking this law.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Thor

The research keeps coming in pretty clear on this issue, using a cell phone without hands free is like driving drunk, and not just a little over the limit, but a lot. Texting is the king of dangerous driving behavior.

When I see people talk about drunk driving there is no debate, and usually just a lot of people calling out those who do drive under the influence as horrible people. Yet even with what we know about the science of what happens when you are distracted on the phone, people treat this like some personal freedom issue.

Handsfree is much better, but even that still has you distracted, albeit much less than holding your phone or the worst of them all, texting.

I don't doubt that in 10 yrs time people will treat talking on your cell phone in the car or texting on the same level as drunk drivers, minus the hands free crowd.

Can you link to a study that shows the physical act of holding a phone to your ear is more dangerous than using hands free. I am sure there is a test somewhere where they had people drive around with a block of wood held up to their ear and they got into far more accidents than the control group who left their block in their pocket.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

If I wasn't using my phone I would jaunt show them the call and text history.

What if you were using hands free but the officer thought you were not.

Originally Posted by AR_Six

This strikes me as unconstitutional. It has been noted that phones can be seized pursuant to a search incident to arrest. However, that search is for officer safety purposes. This is a law that expressly permits a warrantless seizure. That would have to be demonstrably reasonable. I just don't see it.

You are misinformed. While police need a specific reason for the search even incident to arrest, there are other reasons to conduct a search.

So, if you commit an offence, and the law permits the seizure, it's completely reasonable and lawful. No different that having a motor vehicle seized for a traffic or criminal offense.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

What if you were using hands free but the officer thought you were not.

Well I'm assuming you can't text hands free( but I'm not tech savvy so maybe you can?) and if you're using hands free and show the officer you have hands free in your car be it a blue tooth headset or device pairing with your car then I'm sure you'd be fine. I'm certain police don't pull people over for having a blue tooth on their ear, they do it because someone has a phone up the side of their head.

Originally Posted by jammies

I don't approve of these proposed confiscation laws, and I don't approve of them towing drunk driver's cars either. Better 99 criminals go free than 1 innocent man punished, or however the quote goes - except in our day, minor infractions are dealt with by summary punishment as if the police had dual roles as upholders of the law and vigilantes.

Designing laws to discourage behaviour outside the framework of the justice system is a bad idea no matter how dangerous the targeted behaviour is. Enforcing the law should never be based on how convenient it is for those in charge of enforcing it, but rather in ensuring that the rights of citizens are not abrogated by the state. A tyranny is just as suffocating if it is built one amendment at a time as by armed revolution.

Right... because seizing things is so convenient for police. Like they would just take it and throw it in a basket and call it a day.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

No it won't. When you get an impared your car is impounded immediately for 24 hours even though you usually wait months to go through the legal process and found guilty. Without your car for that 24 hours you wouldn't be able to make it to the hospital or respond to a life/death situation in a quick manner. That law is not over nor will it ever be. Cell phones like cars are material objects and not essential devices. The courts are always going to point back at you for breaking the law in the first place. Again the simple solution is to not use your cell phone while driving. Anthing bad that comes out of it is on you and it's no different than driving under the influence of alcohol. You know the law and you know the punishment. You still break the law then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

The fact so many oppose this just goes to show how deep the problem is here as the only people that would have issues with this are the people that can't stop themselves from breaking this law.

A few things:

- People do object to having the police unilaterally seizing cars. Rightfully so, because they don't have recourse until after the penalty is applied.

- "If you don't want your phone confiscated, don't break the law" doesn't work. You can have your phone confiscated whether you've broken the law or not, because the police are acting as the judges as well as the police.

- Your Vic Teows logic doesn't work either, I very rarely drive at all and I'm not on my phone when I do. I will admit, however, that when I do drive I sometimes hit the "next track" button on my iPod while driving, which is technically distracted driving (despite not requiring me to take my eyes of the road at all).

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Actually you are not supposed to pull over to use it, you can get a ticket for that.

Really? Do you have a reference for this?

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

Exactly and that effectively ends the argument. It is against the law and they want to break the law. Take their phone and/or their car. Drive safely or get off the road and save your stupid excuses.

I don't get this line of thinking. We all know it's against the law and rightfully so. That's the whole purpose of the fine. Adding this unconstitutional punishment is stupid to me. If the fine is not working then increase it and add demerit points.

What if the punishment for texting was having your hand chopped off? Stupid punishments for laws that infringe on our rights and freedoms should be challenged regardless of the offence.

Originally Posted by jammies

I don't approve of these proposed confiscation laws, and I don't approve of them towing drunk driver's cars either. Better 99 criminals go free than 1 innocent man punished, or however the quote goes - except in our day, minor infractions are dealt with by summary punishment as if the police had dual roles as upholders of the law and vigilantes.

Designing laws to discourage behaviour outside the framework of the justice system is a bad idea no matter how dangerous the targeted behaviour is. Enforcing the law should never be based on how convenient it is for those in charge of enforcing it, but rather in ensuring that the rights of citizens are not abrogated by the state. A tyranny is just as suffocating if it is built one amendment at a time as by armed revolution.

Very well said.

Originally Posted by SebC

A few things:

- People do object to having the police unilaterally seizing cars. Rightfully so, because they don't have recourse until after the penalty is applied.

- "If you don't want your phone confiscated, don't break the law" doesn't work. You can have your phone confiscated whether you've broken the law or not, because the police are acting as the judges as well as the police.

- Your Vic Teows logic doesn't work either, I very rarely drive at all and I'm not on my phone when I do. I will admit, however, that when I do drive I sometimes hit the "next track" button on my iPod while driving, which is technically distracted driving (despite not requiring me to take my eyes of the road at all).

I am really tired of that cliche. By that logic, if i shoot my buddy, the police can't take my gun because they are acting as the "judges"... ridiculous argument.

Your argument supposes that police are corrupt.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

I don't get this line of thinking. We all know it's against the law and rightfully so. That's the whole purpose of the fine. Adding this unconstitutional punishment is stupid to me. If the fine is not working then increase it and add demerit points.

What if the punishment for texting was having your hand chopped off? Stupid punishments for laws that infringe on our rights and freedoms should be challenged regardless of the offence.



Very well said.

Well as far as I know it hasn't been enacted to law, hasn't been challenged on court so therefore hasn't been deemed constitutional or unconstitutional. Hands being chopped off? A little dramatic?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Really? Do you have a reference for this?

There was a story in the newspaper in the week after the law came into effect about a guy pulling over on Stoney so that he could take a call and was ticketed.

I think the ironic thing is that it's illegal to pull over and take a call while the vehicle is in park, put you could pull over, get out and make a call legally, which is significantly more dangerous on most roads.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by SebC

A few things:

- People do object to having the police unilaterally seizing cars. Rightfully so, because they don't have recourse until after the penalty is applied.

Yes but that hasn't change the law has it? Your car can still be impounded if you are driving without registration, speeding, dangerous driving, etc. t was implied by a poster that someone would claim they missed an important call and the law whould be instantly be canned. It won't.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Really? Do you have a reference for this?

From transportation.alberta.ca:

Can I park on the shoulder of a highway to make a call?

On provincial highways, outside of an urban area, section 43 of the Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation applies and vehicles are not permitted to park on the shoulder of a provincial highway except in an emergency. This is also for safety. If you have to make a phone call, do so at a rest area, or when you stop for gas or for a bathroom break. Alternately, have your passenger make the call.
Provincial highways are typically numbered roadways (e.g., Highway 2), but they may also be known by other names (e.g., Queen Elizabeth II or the Trans-Canada Highway).
Municipal parking bylaws vary from place to place. You will need to consider the parking bylaws for that area before pulling over.