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

[woob]

What a crock. Instead of doing something like this, why don't they make the actual infraction painful for the driver? $500 fine and 4 demerits. Losing your phone for 24 hours is a pain, but other than that, where is the lasting impact of the infraction?

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by flameswin

"Sir, hand over the newspaper, you can come down to district 8 in 24 hours to retrieve your property."

"Sir, I'm only going to ask once, hand over that whopper, immeditaly. You can pick it up and microwave it tomorrow, but right now it's property of the Calgary police."

Newspaper - $2, Whopper - $4, Cell Phone - $300-800. One of these three you will have on your person at all times and would not replace at will. Not a fair comparison.

I'm all for more enforcement on the idiots who constantly are looking at their phones instead of the road. People can't take care of themselves, so we need to help them get the picture.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by SebC

Pimp or drug dealer?

I wish.

I work in the US a lot, so it's cheaper to buy an unlocked iphone for when I go to the States. I buy a prepaid verizon sim and chuck it in there to avoid roaming fees.

I have old treos, bberries and iphones laying around that I've upgraded over the last 5 years, so if I had to I'd just activate one of those. I've done it before when I lost a phone and it takes about 10 minutes to call in and activate the sim.

Of course this is all hypothetical seeing as I never break the law, and would never use my phone while driving in order to allow for me to judge those that do aggressively on an internet message board.

[psicodude]

The risk to the police here is too great. I mean, I personally know several people who no longer have a land line at home and only use their cell.

Just make the penalties much more severe. I am talking about putting them on par with drunk driving.

[Titan]

Any indication about the number of tix actually written for cell phone distraction? I would have to be pretty heavily convinced that the current regime is not working. If it is so prevalent, why are the police I see cruising not stopping people all the time? I drive around and see distracted drivers all the time, how come the police don't? I would be impossible to drive the Deerfoot in the morning or afternoon rush and not have about 1000 potential tix to write.

I also agree with the privacy argument mentioned above.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Newspaper - $2, Whopper - $4, Cell Phone - $300-800. One of these three you will have on your person at all times and would not replace at will. Not a fair comparison.

I'm all for more enforcement on the idiots who constantly are looking at their phones instead of the road. People can't take care of themselves, so we need to help them get the picture.

That was my point. They picked the one thing that costs a lot of money and is a neccesity for many people. But they also picked something with personal information, something that the police require a warrant to have in their poccession, just like a computer or records from your home. Except if this law goes through, then police are in poccession of something personal with no warrant.

I know people always laugh off the old "slippery slope" argument, but these are the exact kinds of laws that fall into that catagory.

"Hmm, we'll just make a new law that allows the police to act as judge jury and executioner on the side of the road towards drivers who blow a warning into a breathalizer"

"...and folks, we need this to get drunk drivers off the road"

''Yeah, drunk driving, it's brutal. Do whatever you need to do to deal with it!!!"



"Awesome, the public's okay with it"

"How about this? We would like to introduce a new law that allows us to take private property with personal information into our poccession for a day without a warrant for breaking a traffic law"

"....and folks, we need this to stop distracted driving"

"Yeah, distracted driving's brutal. Do whatever you need to deal with it!!"

"Holy ****, they went for that one, too!!!"

"Well, let's keep going."

[ken0042]

I know in other provinces where radar detectors are illegal, the police sieze them when you get caught. This seems to be on par with that law; and less of a penalty as you do get your device back.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I know in other provinces where radar detectors are illegal, the police sieze them when you get caught. This seems to be on par with that law; and less of a penalty as you do get your device back.

No personal info on radar detectors, though. Also, they're seized because they've been made illegal, cellphones aren't illegal.

[ken0042]

Radar detectors are not illegal- the use of one in a moving vehicle is what is illegal.

Yes, I know there is personal info on your phone. So even more of a reason to make sure it doesn't get siezed.

The bottom line is the existing law has helped, but hasn't stopped people. I know many people that are willing to risk the fine. Same as I risk the fine by speeding. I don't know if this is the solution, but I do agree with others that the penalty needs to be tougher.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Yes, I know there is personal info on your phone. So even more of a reason to make sure it doesn't get siezed.

No, it should be a reason to not allow police the ability to take it because of a traffic violation. Police require a warrant to take your phone in any situation, so to make a law that allows them to do so with no warrant is a terrible precendent to set.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by 4X4

What are they allowed to do with your phone in that 24 hours? Maybe have a look through your contacts and see if you've got any bad friends? Check your pics? Read your email?

This idea is complete BS. I'm not paranoid about a police state, but taking away my phone is more of an invasion of privacy than an inconvenience.

If you end up in the klink and they take your phone they aren't allowed to open it. I suppose you really don't know what they're up to though.

Stupid potential law.

[flylock shox]

I don't see this going anywhere.

Driving is a legal licensed activity, so driving infractions can be penalized by suspending or revoking the license and impounding the vehicle (which can't be driven by its unlicensed owner).

Cellphones are not licensed. There is no basis to confiscate them anymore than there would be a basis for confiscating your dog or sunglasses or ipod or any number of things that might distract you while driving. They're also not evidence of a crime either - not in cases of merely distracted driving anyway.

Can't see this going through, and if it did, I imagine it would get tossed the instant it hits anything that looks like a courtroom.

[jayswin]

I wish Locke was here, he's always got my back in these brutal legal precedent threads.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

If you end up in the klink and they take your phone they aren't allowed to open it. I suppose you really don't know what they're up to though.

.

Actually, I really should keep my mouth shut.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

If you end up in the klink and they take your phone they aren't allowed to open it. I suppose you really don't know what they're up to though.

Stupid potential law.

Generally speaking, they can search the contents of your phone if they have reason to believe it contains relevant evidence. This was recently confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

But that's in cases of criminal arrests. Distracted driving is in the nature of a regulatory infraction, though I suppose it could be argued that data on the phone could be relevant to proving the infraction - for example a call history that shows the person was talking on the phone at the time the infraction was observed. But that doesn't sound like what they're getting at with the proposed law - they just want to create a new form of penalty as I understand it: the inconvenience of not having your phone for a day.

[MoneyGuy]

I can't believe people think the police would go through your precious cell phone data.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I can't believe people think the police would go through your precious cell phone data.

I can't believe people are naive enough to think it would never happen. Also, these days they wouldn't be taking cell phones, they'd be taking smartphones, which for a lot of people is like seizing a computer.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I can't believe people think the police would go through your precious cell phone data.

Jhunt. Really all that needs to be said.

[calgarywinning]

This is a great potential law... when they confiscate the cell phones they can resell them with a 2 year or a 3 year contract and charge for EMS and 911 service, texting. They can update the software to report any suspicious activity, directly to them before it happens as a feature to those who might be texting about breaking the law. Etc. etc.

I can see all these Policia Telephone stores opening to compete with Telus and Rogers and provide some real competition since they won't have to pay for the hardware they are re-selling.

Lol.. can't wait! Forget about driving and using your cell phone at the same time, I would like to thank the oblivious blonde at the Fratello coffee stand at the farmers market today who was blocking everybody from the coffee condiments while she texted on her Samsung Galaxy IIIs phone.

The funny thing is when they invented the telephone they came up with something called telephone etiquette. There were rules that came along with the technology that everyone had to use as to prevent the device from overtaking or invasively ruining simple things as courtesy. How come such a powerful device as a smartphone comes with no rules or etiquette?

[SebC]

Crap will really hit the fan once they confiscate someone's cellphone, and that person is in a situation where they'd need to dial 911 within the 24 hour period. Bad law is bad.