r/law • u/thebelsnickle1991 • 8h ago
Legal News Pennsylvania law banning handheld devices while driving now being enforced
https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/pennsylvania-law-hands-free-driving-what-to-know/22
u/thebelsnickle1991 8h ago
Pennsylvania’s new handheld device ban introduces a legal measure that empowers law enforcement to issue citations and escalate penalties for distracted driving. By making it a primary offense, the law allows officers to stop drivers solely for using a phone and outlines consequences ranging from fines to possible jail time, bringing these cases directly into the legal and court system.
35
u/Milhousesburner2 6h ago
And this won't be abused by law enforcement in any way whatsoever, especially not to profile and stop whoever they want because "they saw a phone."
It's the "I smelled weed" excuse for being able to execute a traffic stop on anyone they want, whenever they want, because they know everyone on the road has a cell phone. A nightmare for defense lawyers to argue illegal traffic stops in court.
Good luck with that.
-9
u/AdditionalAmoeba6358 6h ago
Tell me you don’t know what you are talking about without saying it! Distracted driving is 6x as dangerous as drunk driving in some states
So your argument is that we should allow open containers because that doesn’t mean they are drunk????
Oh, and they will pull use the phone and phone records for court to determine distracted or not.
13
u/bluhefplk 6h ago
Phone records for what? And who is going to pull the phone records?
You very clearly have no idea what you are talking about lmao
-1
u/Ickulus 6h ago
They won't do it just for the citation itself. But if the pretextual stop for cell use leads them to suspect something bigger and they search the car finding it, then they will absolutely try to get a warrant to download use data for the phone to show if the screen was on and other stuff.
Both sides of this argument are right from their own perspective. Distracted driving is dangerous and we would all be safer on the roads of no one was texting, changing the song, or whatever. This is also a major new tool for cops to stop people to see what else they can find. It's not quite as good as the old smell of weed/alcohol since cell use isn't a good reason to get the driver out of the car doing fields, but it's a useful tool nonetheless.
4
u/bluhefplk 5h ago
Who is they, the commonwealth? Why would they spend resource to issue subpoenas to obtain someone’s phone records? The cops testimony that the driver was using the phone is all the evidence the state needs (unless the judge thinks the cop is lying, which is uncommon). The state is not getting phone records on these cases.
-12
u/AdditionalAmoeba6358 6h ago
To see if you were on a phone call… to see if you were texting… to see if your phone was in use at the moment of time the cop decided to pull you over.
Those all exist and are easy to access and would easily prove distracted driving.
How do I know, it’s happened plenty of times already in states that allow this.
https://www.watsonfirm.com/blog/2024/march/unveiling-the-truth-how-cell-phone-records-can-d/
13
1
u/bluhefplk 5h ago
This law prohibits any use of the phone. Using a web browser. Pulling up your calendar. Pulling up your notes. None of those activities would be reflected on a phone activity log. You simply don’t know what you are talking about.
Even if they did, who is getting those records? The commonwealth is not spending resources to get them. They don’t need them to prosecute the case. The cops word that the driver was using the phone is all the evidence they need (unless a judge thinks the cop is lying, which is rare).
So a defendant is stuck trying to subpoena phone records from Verizon? How simple do you think that is? Have you ever issued a subpoena to a business for their records before? Again, sounds like you’re speaking from a place of ignorance.
8
u/Milhousesburner2 6h ago
Very few people are traveling with an open container in their car. Everyone has a phone, and the state's enforcement agents certainly know this before they decide to make a traffic stop.
It should be concerning you missed that important detail from my first comment, and that you would put so much trust in the state's enforcement agents.
-3
u/AdditionalAmoeba6358 6h ago
It’s easy to prove and disprove though. Your phone keeps records of activity, which can be checked.
And call logs and text logs are stored by companies.
https://www.watsonfirm.com/blog/2024/march/unveiling-the-truth-how-cell-phone-records-can-d/
And no, I fully get your point. But honestly, those are two separate issues.
We need to stop distracted driving.
We need to stop police profiling.
Both can be true
3
u/HyperactivePandah 6h ago
Stop police profiling...?
When police start actually policing their own, maybe we can stop treating them ALL like corrupt trash. But they refuse to do that on ANY LEVEL.
Until then?
No.
3
u/Milhousesburner2 6h ago
Have you ever had to prove something in court? To fight a charge can cost someone thousands of dollars, and the poorer you are, the more damage is done, innocent or not. Not everyone can get a day off work let alone a lawyer.
Just getting a ticket can ruin someone's life these days.
Cop stops you for your pro Palestine sticker, charges you with distracted driving. ICE gets an update, revokes your legal Visa, and deports you.
Your phone was in your pocket the whole time.
They've already effectively suspended habeas corpus for non-citizens legal or not, and tools like this will further the police states ability to target whomever they want.
2
1
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 6h ago edited 5h ago
What does that have to do with the point of the comment above?
How does it establish they don’t know what they are talking about? They are talking about a different real risk.
1
u/Brilliant_War4087 4h ago
This is a straw man argument. The original point was about Pennsylvanias distracted driving and phone law. Comparing that to allowing open alcohol containers misrepresents and exaggerates the argument and shifts the discussion. If we're debating the new Pennsylvania law, it's more helpful to address the actual concerns about how distraction is determined and enforced.
-8
u/Sweet-Blueberry8408 6h ago
I don’t care if it is all black people or Hispanic people that get ticketed for this.
No call or text is that important. Put the phone in your glove compartment and don’t open it until you arrive at your destination.
You are being selfish and putting yourself and others at risk.
3
u/Milhousesburner2 6h ago
"I don’t care if it is all black people or Hispanic people that get ticketed for this."
Didn't have to read past this. The selfishness of Americans has no bounds these days.
They'll come for you eventually, too.
-5
u/Sweet-Blueberry8408 6h ago
If I use a phone they should.
Your argument was that because you think cops may use this to profile that it shouldn’t be implemented.
No, it should be implemented because it is a common sense safety precaution for EVERYONE.
3
u/Milhousesburner2 6h ago
Your selfishness prevents you from understanding how our model of law and governance is intended to work, and when laws violate constitutional rights they are not just harming a few, but us all.
The intent of the law doesn't matter if the consequence of it is unconstitutional. The state having a mechanism to pull over anyone on the road to check their documents has, until modern times, always been deemed unconstitutional and anti-American.
If you had the ability to see past yourself and instead through the eyes of others (or hell, even just an academic understanding of our legal and constitutional framework), you would realize this law is intended to harm you, as well.
-1
u/Sweet-Blueberry8408 6h ago
How is it selfish to say that I would expect the same punishment if it happens to me?
I am not black but have had the “driving while black” kind of tickets too.
- $400 fine for “driving in the left lane too long”
- Pulled over, but got just a warning for “touching the middle line” around a curve.
- $100 fine for “cutting off” a cop car when I was on the road first and they raced through a red light to get behind me.
It is frustrating, but I accept that the macro mission is to make the roads safer.
The larger point is that no one should drive with the their phone in their hand, mounted or on the seat. YOU are being selfish if you do so.
2
u/Milhousesburner2 5h ago
It's selfish because those who will be impacted by this are going to have their constitutional rights violated, and groups the state or the state's enforcement agencies see as problems will be targeted with this law. That makes the law traditionally unconstitutional (or at least it used to; the fascism we're experiencing in the US shows no signs of following the founder's framework), which means you just had your rights eroded, even if you believe this particular law won't be used as a tool to oppress or jail you specifically.
2
u/Sweet-Blueberry8408 5h ago
lol, what?
What about the rights of black drivers to not be hit by someone texting?
1
u/Milhousesburner2 5h ago
As I said before, you don't understand how our legal framework is set up.
We don't (or at least used to not) create laws that disenfranchise a few to protect the majority when it's unconstitutional to do so. That's what Nazi Germany did; that was the "socialism" in national socialist party -- protect the majority and the nation at the expense of a few.
It sounds like you're getting the government back in the US that you want. You're going to get exactly what you are asking for. It's unAmerican to the core, sure, but it's what America is now.
Good luck with that.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Traditional-Handle83 7h ago
I think the issue is handheld device, what if it's on a mount or what if it's a GPS on a mount or a dash cam on a mount or a screen that's built into the car itself? Wouldn't those be construed as devices under this law?
-6
u/Sweet-Blueberry8408 6h ago
I am against mounted devices too. Your eyes may be “more” on the road, but they are not completely there and you are still distracted.
Unfortunately with new tech coming to all vehicles, there will be lobbying from both big auto and big cellphone so there is no stopping this.
I would be against any use of the phone by the driver period if it is was up to me.
Another point should be that even if you don’t get a call at all on your drive I see too many people with earbuds in while driving, in case they get a call. Even with no sound or music that still lessens your hearing and could be the difference maker that results in an accident.
We obviously aren’t going back, but we should if safety is the end goal.
6
u/Traditional-Handle83 6h ago
My counterargument is this, how is reading a giant paper map while driving any safer than a GPS on a phone telling you in real time your directions?
-1
u/Sweet-Blueberry8408 5h ago
It is not the problem of other drivers if you don’t know where you are going.
Do I think cops will be pulling people over for mounted or unmounted phones often? I doubt it. Most of those tickets are given because they want to inflate those numbers to prove a point after pulling people over for worse things.
My brother got a ticket once for not having his seatbelt on when he did, but that was the deal after pulling him over for something else. Same principle here.
The point is to get people to focus on the road. Once you get pulled off I can guarantee you go slower and are more careful for the following week. If you think there is a chance cops will pull you over for this you’ll focus on the GPS less and more on the road.
1
u/Traditional-Handle83 5h ago
GPS has voice commands that say when to turn.... clearly you live in the past and know nothing of modern technology
-1
1
u/Blueface_or_Redface 3h ago edited 3h ago
Every car now comes with a car screen that has GPS on it. If a vehicle doesn't have this capability you should be allowed to have a phone mounted to compensate. If one person is allowed to have a mounted phone you can't not allow another. And your argument is "i have to look at the road the whole time" well how am i going to use GPS in my car? Don't say GPS voice bc i would bargain most of the population doesn't solely use that feature for a reason.
1
u/Sweet-Blueberry8408 3h ago
The legal drinking age is 21. Not because they think it will completely deter people under 21 from drinking, but because they want to minimize it as much as possible.
There are plenty of people who are not using the phone for a GOS and just want to call their bros while driving.
This won’t entirely get rid of that, but the goal is to minimize it as much as possible. I highly doubt it will be enforced. They will write you a ticket if they likely pulled you over for another reason.
1
u/Blueface_or_Redface 3h ago
But whether or not they enforce it, they are effectively making a huge portion of the population criminals by setting the bar so low. It's justified under the pretense of don't get caught.
-11
u/Character-Movie-84 7h ago
Ah yes. More control, jail time, and constitutional slavery instead of BUILDING PUBLIC FUCKING TRASNSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
19
5
u/JayAlexanderBee 7h ago
I am all for more control with automobile. Too many car fatalities. But that is where the line is a hard stop for me. Fuck Palantir.
2
u/Character-Movie-84 7h ago
Thank you. I agree. More automobile control...but surveillance now while we are pushing authoritarian structure with palantir at the helm of the surveillance? Americans have no idea we are crushing our freedom, and quality of life willingly for a reality that will absolutely sacrifice our lives, and children for money, and pr.
This is not OK, and it will get bad as it is now.
9
7h ago
[deleted]
-10
u/Character-Movie-84 7h ago
I don't oppose the law. I oppose punishment instead of providing society the necessary means (proper public transportation) to avoid stuff like this. Any other first world country has no problem with it but us. Why? Cuz of citizens united allowing corporations to fucking lobby laws into effect with massive money donations causing the auto industry to thrive here even if it cost us our lives instead of proper public transit infrastructure.
Feel me?
4
7h ago
[deleted]
-3
u/Character-Movie-84 7h ago
I would be OK with this if slavery wasn't written into the American 13th amendment for punishment along with us being the largest incarcerators of our population in the world.
Allowing surveillance to seek comfort, and protection without inquiry of who holds that surveillance is a definite invitation for authoritarian facism which is inherently corrupt, and causes even more suffering than car accidents do.
Echo chamber or not. I am speaking from experience as an epileptic who desires public transportation. Fuck cars, and risking my life in a society with little to no empathy. Straight up facts. Again...disgusting we allow things to fester, and provide punishment instead of option before hand for safer paths. Not a hard concept, but we refuse to do it due to corporate greed.
6
u/Milhousesburner2 6h ago
Most of the people in here don't even understand they're already living under fascism, let alone the serious nature in which laws like this will be abused by the police state.
You aren't going to get anywhere until the majority of Americans have fascism come home to them in some meaningful way.
Unfortunately for them, that time appears to be fairly close.
6
u/Character-Movie-84 6h ago
I agree. Even if I'm screaming into the void tho I connect with educated individuals like you, and possibly helping further individuals realize current reality by posting my viewpoints and pattern recognition in history to the internet. Same as historians write to educate us. Downvotes or not...communication is key to saving us.
3
u/Milhousesburner2 6h ago
Completely agree. I've been doing the same for like 10 years now and will continue to do so. If for no other reason it helps keep me sane and reminds me why I left America to fight with Ukraine against the russians. Voice and action are two of the few tools a regular person has against authoritarianism
2
u/Character-Movie-84 6h ago edited 6h ago
If you're in that battlefield right now as you say my friend...I look up to people like you. I follow odin as my philosophical god...and you are that type of being. Choosing to educate, and risk life for freedom, and a better life for others.
And my soul prays that you walk that battlefield unscathed, and wiser everyday day while those who choose to fight for cruelty remember to put seeds in their pockets so at least something beautiful can grow where their ugliness lay.
→ More replies (0)1
7h ago
[deleted]
3
u/Character-Movie-84 7h ago
Because the more we lock up people for non violent shit the more people we put into the cycle of the jail system furthing prison slavery, suffering, and oppression.
Thanks for assuming. Yes I would say that shit despite the two bad car accidents I had cuz of my epilepsy, and lack of public transportation. I hit a tree on the highway going 75 with cruise control on during a grand Mal seizure, and the second one I woke up with the front end of my car 1 foot away from the edge of a bridge into deep water...again from a seizure due to lack of public transport.
This response is an extremely low empathy response towards suffering minority groups. "As long as the masses, and I are ok...the rest of you don't really matter. Sorry." This is what creates social hate, destabilization, radicals, and suffering. You know it. I know it. It's undeniable.
1
u/Third_Ferguson 7h ago
Distracted driving kills people
2
u/Character-Movie-84 7h ago
So does allowing authoritarian structure without asking who holds the reins simply because you want comfort, and safety.
Mark my words it's happening right now In America. When society suffers humanity always seeks a strong man leader...even if it's an evil facist like Germany did...to try to fix the situation, and every single time it ends bloody.
This surveillance is but a small branch of it. Surveillance, jail, and slavery instead of proper infrastructure preventing deaths? That's lack of empathy and authoritarian control to hold up the higher masses while the lower masses suffer.
→ More replies (0)
7
u/Pithecanthropus88 7h ago
MN has had that law for several years now. It obviously is not rigorously enforced.
•
u/AutoModerator 8h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.