# Question on the texting ban



## 78thrifleman (Dec 18, 2005)

Hey guys... I'm returing to work in a few weeks and I just want to get some insight on the texting/internet law.

If you observe a person looking down while driving or at a red light (or even looking up at their phone, for that matter) and you stop them, how are you going about proving that they actually WERE texting and not dialing a phone number?I'm sure that PDs are not going through the trouble of attempting to subpoena cell phone records. How are you guys dealing with this?


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

It is just another "feel good" law passed by our legislation. They pass this in to law, but at the same time, unless you witness them texting, there's little you can do in my opinion.

Maybe we should start gigging each other when we see one another running plates while we drive? After all, is that not "Texting"?


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

> It's for the children.


So is Melannie's law, yet the courts still fiddle-fuck with the OUI conviction guidelines.


----------



## GreenMachine (Mar 26, 2007)

ask for consent search of the phone if they refuse hold them there for 2 hours while you apply for a search warrant


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

GreenMachine said:


> ask for consent search of the phone if they refuse hold them there for 2 hours while you apply for a search warrant


You suck :tounge_smile:


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

GreenMachine said:


> ask for consent search of the phone if they refuse hold them there for 2 hours while you apply for a search warrant


 Funny, I think I would be told to GF myself by my CO


----------



## jettsixx (Dec 10, 2005)

Why not if you see the car swerving all over the road just charge distracted to wit cell phone? Yet another feel good law that we didnt need because it was already there.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

jettsixx said:


> Why not if you see the car swerving all over the road just charge distracted to wit cell phone? Yet another feel good law that we didnt need because it was already there.


Fuck it, why not Operate to Endanger and do an Immediate Threat? We can "What if" this until we blue in the face. We have other tools in our disposal. As far as I am am concerned, it's only "End Game" when I say it is.


----------



## BLUE BLOOD (Aug 31, 2008)

If the phone was in their hand just go with impeded operation, welcome back to the circus 78, hope you enjoyed the time off.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2011)

The only time I've cited someone for that, they admitted to me they were texting right before they crashed. I don't think I'd waste my time with someone just driving....as mentioned, nearly impossible to prove, and while I don't write many $$ CMVI's, the ones I do write are richly deserved, and I hate to have them thrown out.


----------



## BRION24 (Sep 19, 2008)

BLUE BLOOD said:


> If the phone was in their hand just go with impeded operation, welcome back to the circus 78, hope you enjoyed the time off.


Why would you write for impeded operation just for having the phone in their hand.

You can only write for impeded operation if the use of the cell phone somehow disrupts their operation.


----------



## BLUE BLOOD (Aug 31, 2008)

Looking down or looking up at the phone while operating can be considered impeded operation in my opinion. The point is why bother with the stop if the texting or phone is not impedeing. Thats the issue with the law.


----------



## BRION24 (Sep 19, 2008)

The law is bullshit and we all know that. They should have just banned cell phone use all together.


----------



## TopCop24 (Jul 11, 2005)

Haven't written one yet, nor do I ever plan on it...same with the civil marijuana


----------



## 78thrifleman (Dec 18, 2005)

BLUE BLOOD said:


> If the phone was in their hand just go with impeded operation, welcome back to the circus 78, hope you enjoyed the time off.


TIme off may be extended. I have a softball sized, fluid filled cyst on the knee now (Yummy!)

---------- Post added at 23:23 ---------- Previous post was at 23:22 ----------



BRION24 said:


> Why would you write for impeded operation just for having the phone in their hand.
> 
> You can only write for impeded operation if the use of the cell phone somehow disrupts their operation.


I consider anything that causes a driver to look away from the road or keeps them from being able to have 2 hands on the wheel impeded operation.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Another law this is almost impossible to enforce. Nearly impossible to tell when passing by in a cruiser and even at a light it is difficult. Only time I can successfully Tell if someone is texting and driving is typically when I am on a detail as they (on rare occasion) are going slow enough and are close enough for me to tell.

Only other time was when I pulled a kid over because I though he may be DUI and he admitted to me he Texting and that was his reason for poor driving. This was before the law passed though.


----------



## Big.G (Nov 28, 2006)

78thrifleman said:


> I consider anything that causes a driver to look away from the road or keeps them from being able to have 2 hands on the wheel impeded operation.


The driver's ed instructor says you have to have 2 hands on the wheel, not the law.

While we're at it, just glancing at your speedometer or fuel gauge would be impeded operation in your opinion, right?


----------



## 78thrifleman (Dec 18, 2005)

Big.G said:


> The driver's ed instructor says you have to have 2 hands on the wheel, not the law.
> 
> While we're at it, just glancing at your speedometer or fuel gauge would be impeded operation in your opinion, right?


Yep.

And I never said they HAD to have 2 hands on the wheel. But if they have a cell phone in one hand and for some reason they suddenly need that hand, they have become impeded. I DO realize that in my original post I said 2 hands... but you get what I'm saying now.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2011)

Of course, if you happen to see a "person of interest", and they're texting away while driving, it would be your obligation to stop that person and at least counsel them about the infraction.


----------



## Big.G (Nov 28, 2006)

mtc said:


> Fuel gauge should be checked before starting out, and speedometer should be visible in one's perifferal vision.


Let me guess, you can see everything in your mirrors in your peripheral vision too.... So that means everybody sees the cruiser coming from behind with the lights on but decide to willfully obstruct an emergency vehicle....


----------

