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



  • Reply 61 of 66
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    What I know is reading a book or cellphone while driving is bad for the motoring public. It needs to stop so what is the solution to this? I see people saying constitution blah blah blah...and all the reasons why they can't do certain things. What is the solution to the problem then?
    The solution already exists, they can get a warrant for a search! I really don't upset why this is so damn difficult to understand.
    tallest skil
  • Reply 62 of 66
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    lkrupp said:
    lkrupp said:
    And if the SCOTUS says it’s constitutional it is. They are the ones who decide, no one else.


    So who decides? You? Everybody gets to decide whether something is constitutional according to their personal moral compass? Then why even have a Constitution? The SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter, period. You may not like their take on something, their rulings may over time change but the Constitution itself gives them the power to decide, to interpret the document.  

    [email protected] said:
    It seems as though you will be punished for not unlocking your phone, and that punishment consists of suspending your drivers' license. Totally unconstitutional.
    You are already punished if you refuse a breathalyzer test and that has been established law for decades. Claiming something is unconstitutional does not make it so. 

    And to quote Old Hickory, Andrew Jackson,  “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” 
    Of late almost everything SCOTUS does has a political slant. This is why we have so much trouble in this country, the Bill of Rights gets mangled constantly and instead of enforcing the constitution we often see SCOTUS backing the political party in power at the time.
    tallest skil
  • Reply 63 of 66
    You worry about the FBI getting into a terrosist phone but no one can say when and how should the government be allowed in. At some point they have the right. That aside, this is what u should be complaining about. This is government over reach. Thanks New York. This is why I can't fathom anyone voting democrat. 
    tallest skil
  • Reply 64 of 66
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    icoco3 said:
    Rosyna said:
    Not just yet. The bill is still in the early stages and is likely to be tabled as unconstitutional. If it ever makes it to a vote (unlikely), it wouldn't be until 2017.
      Emperor Cuomo may pronounce an edict... B)
    Doesn't work that way especially with a strong Republican presence in the state legislature.   It's very, very early in the process.   No bill gets put into law without major changes and even then it can possibly be subject to Constitutional review.    

    Besides, New York law currently permits you to use a hands-free phone and it would be politically dangerous to try and change that. 

    The problem with this proposed law is that on the surface, it seems like a good idea ("accident...were they distracted by a cell phone?"), but when you get into the details, it's quite questionable.   Also, it may be completely unnecessary.   In an accident situation, the police already have the power to issue citations if it's obvious who caused the accident and they violated traffic laws in the process, like going through a red light or stop sign, speeding, driving dangerously, etc.   From an insurance standpoint, New York is a no-fault state anyway.   

    IMO, the problem with current enforcement is that it's primarily based around speeding.  That's not the primary cause of accidents.   It's far more likely that accidents are caused by tailgating, by changing lanes without signaling, and by weaving in and out of traffic.  On most highways, going 5-10 mph above the posted speed limit is not really dangerous.    And off major highways, there are speed trap towns where you'll get cited for going 2mph above the speed limit.    That has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with raising revenue for the town.    Having said that, I'll admit to checking my phone once and almost getting into an accident.   That was a good scare and now I keep my phone in my pants pocket where I can't get it out without standing up.
    On the other hand, I have heard reports in other states where the police are stopping people and if they have a phone on their lap, they're issuing citations.   
  • Reply 65 of 66
    linkmanlinkman Posts: 1,036member
    The US Supreme Court ruled in Missouri v. McNeely that a warrant is required for blood alcohol tests in almost all cases. It is considered a search protected by the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. "Implied consent" laws are effectively unconstitutional if they infringe on rights established by the Constitution. It does not matter if you are exercising a right or a privilege; you have a right against unreasonable searches regardless of what you are doing.
    edited April 2016 tallest skil
Sign In or Register to comment.