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

[transplant99]

I dont text more than a couple times a month and never ever talk while driving...and i am vehemently opposed to this kind of nanny/police state crap.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

I'm not misinformed. I know this stuff pretty well. The search must be related to the arrest reason and limited to the scope of either officer safety, the preservation of evidence or the discovery of new evidence. Specifically, a person may only be searched for purposes of ensuring the safety of the police and public, protection of evidence from destruction at the hands of the arrestee or others, or discovery of evidence which can be used at the arrestee’s trial. The search must be for a valid objective in pursuit of the end of criminal justice; i.e. the discovery of an object that may be a threat to safety, facilitate escape, or act as evidence against the arrestee.

How the policy underlying this type of search relates to taking someone's cell phone for talking while driving, I do not understand.

If I had a guess, they would justify it on the same reasoning they are allowed to issue 24-hour suspensions and tow cars on suspected drunk drivers: the belief that there is a credible threat to public safety.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

These problems are all solved by just obeying the law. I know it's a tough one to understand but you don't need to speed or to text while driving or to break any other laws. Yep people do it and will do it in the future but that adds zero to the argument.

It's dangerous plain and simple. You could end up killing someone just because of making a call to some bimbo. Now a hue and cry just because your precious cellphone is being taken away. Or your car on your example.

Don't break the law and there are no consequences other than the safety of everybody on the road going up.

First off, there is no reason to be condescending. I am more than capable of understanding your point.

Secondly I am not disagreeing that it's dangerous, my point is that there are many dangerous things people do while driving yet those are punished using a fine and demerits. I don't agree that there is a jump from a low fine of $172 to confiscating personal property. If the government feels that the punishment isn't stopping people from doing the act then why can we not just increase the fine and add demerits to it before jumping off the deep end?

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If I had a guess, they would justify it on the same reasoning they are allowed to issue 24-hour suspensions and tow cars on suspected drunk drivers: the belief that there is a credible threat to public safety.

I guess the difference is that you can't suddenly become sober when you're pulled over. You can pretty easily put your phone away. Arguing that possession of a cell phone presents a threat to public safety is pretty tenuous.

Really I just don't know why they're doing this. It's so much simpler to enforce the law as it stands and institute penalties sufficient for deterrence. If the fine cost as much as a cell phone to begin with, wouldn't that be more effective? Gets around the administrative issues involved with keeping track of everyone's cell phone, avoids weird consititutional problems, generates more revenue, and probably does a better job of deterring stupid behaviour.

Even a 24 hour driving ban would be easier to administer given that the mechanism to do that is already in place, and the same result is achieved - the offender wouldn't be able to drive and talk for 24 hours.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Even a 24 hour driving ban would be easier to administer given that the mechanism to do that is already in place, and the same result is achieved - the alleged offender wouldn't be able to drive and talk for 24 hours.

fyp

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

I guess the difference is that you can't suddenly become sober when you're pulled over. You can pretty easily put your phone away. Arguing that possession of a cell phone presents a threat to public safety is pretty tenuous.

Really I just don't know why they're doing this. It's so much simpler to enforce the law as it stands and institute penalties sufficient for deterrence. If the fine cost as much as a cell phone to begin with, wouldn't that be more effective? Gets around the administrative issues involved with keeping track of everyone's cell phone, avoids weird consititutional problems, generates more revenue, and probably does a better job of deterring stupid behaviour.

Even a 24 hour driving ban would be easier to administer given that the mechanism to do that is already in place, and the same result is achieved - the offender wouldn't be able to drive and talk for 24 hours.

I mostly agree, but I also stated support for a 24-hour confiscation for people who have been fined multiple times for this. At that point, it may well become a penalty sufficient for deterrence.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

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.

It's a punishment designed to lessen the load on the justice system by not requiring the officer go to court and prove that the person should lose their cell phone/car for a period of time. Are you saying that taking someone's phone, getting their name, and dropping it off at the station is more difficult and expensive in both time and money than going to court?

I have no problem with vastly increased fines for those caught, but that would mean some of them would fight the tickets in court. Well the gov't doesn't want that, as the courts are already busy, so it's easier just to amend the law to have people summarily punished with no recourse. That isn't how the law should work.

Further, it's a false analogy to link this with evidence seized to assist in the prosecution of a crime. This isn't that, as the seizure is incidental to the charge, not central to its proof - like (I think) flameswin said, if I'm eating a burger and I'm distracted should they impound the burger for 24 hours? Most people laugh at that idea, but it logically follows as a consequence of deciding to take away the instrument by which the infraction was committed as a precedent in law.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by jammies

Further, it's a false analogy to link this with evidence seized to assist in the prosecution of a crime. This isn't that, as the seizure is incidental to the charge, not central to its proof - like (I think) flameswin said, if I'm eating a burger and I'm distracted should they impound the burger for 24 hours? Most people laugh at that idea, but it logically follows as a consequence of deciding to take away the instrument by which the infraction was committed as a precedent in law.

What about when it's a person's kids that are causing the distraction. I actually witnessed an accident where a mother was struggling with her kids in the back seat of her over-sized SUV and rear-ended the vehicle in front of her as a direct result of the distraction. Do the kids then get impounded?

[Minnie]

I think the biggest issue is the huge jump from 'let's fine people for using cellphones' to 'let's confiscate them IMMEDIATELY.' It's dumb. There are no degrees to this, like there is with everything else.

Why isn't the natural progression to increase fines? Have they tried that? Not that I've heard. If there is still an issue, start with increasing fines and demerits. If a cop pulls over a person who has multiple offenses, then maybe start talking about confiscation.

It's like suddenly deciding to go from charging thieves with theft over $500 to 'you steal, we're going to impose the death penalty' - no ground in between. I get that it's perhaps a bit of an exaggerated example but still. Even with murder, there are degrees. This should be following a natural progression, it's not, and that's what is stupid.

[Flacker]

Taking away one's primary source of communication for 24 hours seems like a brilliant idea. How long until the BC government sees legal challenges of this because someone can't summon help (911)?

Our provincial government is actually publicly admitting to following this? Embarrassing!

[MoneyGuy]

As far as I'm concerned, driving after drinking and texting while driving are both highly dangerous. I don't care much what they do to those who practise those hazardous activities.

Take away the phone, fine.

Impound the car for driving under the influence, fine.

Don't do those things. It's pretty simple. When we save some lives, it's worth it for me.

The argument that someone may not be able to call 911 is lame, in my opinion. what if a drunk driver had his license taken away and was unable to drive to work, or the hospital in an emergency situation? I'm no lawyer but I doubt there would be a valid legal argument.

[YYC in LAX]

What a joke. Complete invasion of privacy and wrongful seizure of personal property IMO. Would like to see what lawyers have to say about this. Make the fines more severe if you want, but I'm very much against this.

They should definitely seize your right shoe as well if you're caught speeding. That'll teach you.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

As far as I'm concerned, driving after drinking and texting while driving are both highly dangerous. I don't care much what they do to those who practise those hazardous activities.

Take away the phone, fine.

Impound the car for driving under the influence, fine.

Don't do those things. It's pretty simple. When we save some lives, it's worth it for me.

The argument that someone may not be able to call 911 is lame, in my opinion. what if a drunk driver had his license taken away and was unable to drive to work, or the hospital in an emergency situation? I'm no lawyer but I doubt there would be a valid legal argument.

Except if you need to go to the hospital you can call 911 and get an ambulance to pick you up, not the same thing.

[MoneyGuy]

Oh, and for those who think the cops would go through your phones, I know many officers and have done quite a few ride-alongs and I seriously doubt they care what you have on your phone. The exception may be suspected drug dealers, but would they not be prohibited from looking at those phones without a search warrant? They can't stop a car for now reason, isn't that right?

The many cops I know are motivated by the desire to catch criminals and to uphold our laws and they don't have the time or the desire to be looking at your photos and phone history.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

As far as I'm concerned, driving after drinking and texting while driving are both highly dangerous. I don't care much what they do to those who practise those hazardous activities.

Take away the phone, fine.

Impound the car for driving under the influence, fine.

Don't do those things. It's pretty simple. When we save some lives, it's worth it for me.

The argument that someone may not be able to call 911 is lame, in my opinion. what if a drunk driver had his license taken away and was unable to drive to work, or the hospital in an emergency situation? I'm no lawyer but I doubt there would be a valid legal argument.

DUI ≠ texting and driving. Trying to make equate punishments between the two is pretty ridiculous.

Distracted driving takes on many forms, with cell phones being the worst culprit, how do you handle the other forms (eating, grooming, etc).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Frankster

What about when it's a person's kids that are causing the distraction. I actually witnessed an accident where a mother was struggling with her kids in the back seat of her over-sized SUV and rear-ended the vehicle in front of her as a direct result of the distraction. Do the kids then get impounded?

Heh, my high school banned playing cards because they were "gambling paraphernelia". I figured we could start betting on which assistant principal would confiscate the cards, and thus make the assistant principals gambling paraphernelia, and thus eligible for confiscation by their own logic.

[Tinordi]

Also a cyclist who's almost been killed by people driving while talking and texting I vehemently support very strong penalties for using a cell phone while driving.

[squiggs96]

Does anyone here support texting and driving? Does anyone here do it? If you answered no to both of these questions, I don't know why you're against this proposed action. It hopefully will make the road safer by reducing the number of people who are texting and driving, as they would have the fear of having their phone taken away. They are 100% in control of whether they text and drive or not. There is zero excuse for it.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Does anyone here support texting and driving? Does anyone here do it? If you answered no to both of these questions, I don't know why you're against this proposed action. It hopefully will make the road safer by reducing the number of people who are texting and driving, as they would have the fear of having their phone taken away. They are 100% in control of whether they text and drive or not. There is zero excuse for it.

The system is perfect. Mistakes never happen.

Legislation in the land of lolipops and rainbows.

[Tinordi]

This boils down to the classic argument of personal liberty vs. public safety. In this case, experiencing near fatal collisions with distracted drivers, I could care less about the rights of a driver that could have 100% avoided the situation.