Question about new texting law.....

Gov Scott signed the bill today outlawing texting while driving....The question suppose a driver is stopped after either being observed or reported as texting while driving and appearing to drift outside of their driving lane...when stopped is the driver under any obligation to provide their cellphone to the officer in order to prove that they were texting at the time?...Would that fall under self-incrimination?...Same for a traffic crash...if one driver makes the accusation of the second driver texting...would the driver be compelled to provide their phone?....The law allows hands-free (voice) texting and texting at a red light...the problem--records for cellphones do not distinguish between a handfree text and a regular text...

No. If officer saw person, maybe.

I have not seen current mud records from phone companies, but the current cell technology will allow a gps location and time, and the prosecutor simply needs to subpoena those records. Good questions.

The prohibition is enforceable as a secondary offense. A first violation is punishable as a nonmoving violation, with a fine of $30 plus court costs that vary by county. A second violation committed within 5 years after the first is a moving violation punishable by a $60 fine plus court costs. The bill allows for the admissibility of a person’s wireless communications device billing records as evidence in the event of a crash resulting in death or personal injury.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2013/html/437

Yep, hard for me to distinguish when using my smart phone and dialing a number which requires my eyes to see those numbers and not the road, and texting a message.......how can one be a problem and the other not?

newswatcher wrote: Gov Scott signed the bill today outlawing texting while driving....The question suppose a driver is stopped after either being observed or reported as texting while driving and appearing to drift outside of their driving lane...when stopped is the driver under any obligation to provide their cellphone to the officer in order to prove that they were texting at the time?...Would that fall under self-incrimination?...Same for a traffic crash...if one driver makes the accusation of the second driver texting...would the driver be compelled to provide their phone?....The law allows hands-free (voice) texting and texting at a red light...the problem--records for cellphones do not distinguish between a handfree text and a regular text...

...............................................

Do you text while driving...? Or do you have that phone glued to your ear, chattin' and such....?

Call me a cynic, but I asked those two questions because there is a preponderance of evidence indicating that most conservatives start looking for loopholes as soon as ANY law is passed, especially when they think it will interfere with their daily routine.

Just sayin...

newswatcher wrote: Gov Scott signed the bill today outlawing texting while driving....The question suppose a driver is stopped after either being observed or reported as texting while driving and appearing to drift outside of their driving lane...when stopped is the driver under any obligation to provide their cellphone to the officer in order to prove that they were texting at the time?...Would that fall under self-incrimination?...Same for a traffic crash...if one driver makes the accusation of the second driver texting...would the driver be compelled to provide their phone?....The law allows hands-free (voice) texting and texting at a red light...the problem--records for cellphones do not distinguish between a handfree text and a regular text...

The Leo would need a warrant to see the cellphone. They cannot take it.

I have heard LEOs have devices which can download your cellphone without touching it...???? dunno.

We have cars that drive themselves now.

Texting while driving is dangerous...otherwise, there would be no need to enact laws against it. I don't even like to talk to people when they're driving...what if talking to me caused them to have an accident. I've seen plenty of people on the highway texting while they're driving, sometimes at 80 mph. Just stop doing it. It's not safe; it's self-centered, as it seems many people are these days...not thinking about what might happen...thinking only about their next "move".

The Leo would need a warrant to see the cellphone. They cannot take it.



This is incorrect. LEO can take cell phones pursuant to an arrest if the cell phone is part of the criminality:

1. Any controlled substance as defined in chapter 893 or any substance, device, paraphernalia, or currency or other means of exchange that was used, was attempted to be used, or was intended to be used in violation of any provision of chapter 893, if the totality of the facts presented by the state is clearly sufficient to meet the state’s burden of establishing probable cause to believe that a nexus exists between the article seized and the narcotics activity, whether or not the use of the contraband article can be traced to a specific narcotics transaction.

They cannot under recent Florida Supreme Court decisions look at the content of the phone without a warrant, which will only issue pursuant to probable cause that the content on that phone can be tied to a criminal act, however they can depending on the circumstances take possession of the phone.

Now in some states if the person driving is charged with a DUI, the vehicle and its contents may be subject to civil forfeiture. Typically, a cell phone would be released in a DUI , but in a drug related forfeiture probably not. Texting while driving where the officer believes the texting was part of the scope of the criminal actions would certainly require the warrant where recently in 2013 the Florida Suprmes struck down where police officers looked at the phone content of suspected robbers and saw that they had taken pictures of the robbed loot and them holding the money.

So to give a general statement that they cannot take possession of a phone in incorrect, but once they have possession the Florida Supreme Court wants to see a warrant before the content of that device is disclosed.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I have heard LEOs have devices which can download your cellphone without touching it...???? dunno.

Highly doubtful as most LEOs would be too incompetent to operate that tech. The few I have known are corrupt to the core.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I have heard LEOs have devices which can download your cellphone without touching it...???? dunno.

Highly doubtful as most LEOs would be too incompetent to operate that tech. The few I have known are corrupt to the core.

Yeah that's too bad. Most forces probably run like Denzel's Training Day where the bad cops lure the good ones in to corruption.

2seaoat wrote:The Leo would need a warrant to see the cellphone. They cannot take it.



This is incorrect. LEO can take cell phones pursuant to an arrest if the cell phone is part of the criminality:

1. Any controlled substance as defined in chapter 893 or any substance, device, paraphernalia, or currency or other means of exchange that was used, was attempted to be used, or was intended to be used in violation of any provision of chapter 893, if the totality of the facts presented by the state is clearly sufficient to meet the state’s burden of establishing probable cause to believe that a nexus exists between the article seized and the narcotics activity, whether or not the use of the contraband article can be traced to a specific narcotics transaction.

They cannot under recent Florida Supreme Court decisions look at the content of the phone without a warrant, which will only issue pursuant to probable cause that the content on that phone can be tied to a criminal act, however they can depending on the circumstances take possession of the phone.

Now in some states if the person driving is charged with a DUI, the vehicle and its contents may be subject to civil forfeiture. Typically, a cell phone would be released in a DUI , but in a drug related forfeiture probably not. Texting while driving where the officer believes the texting was part of the scope of the criminal actions would certainly require the warrant where recently in 2013 the Florida Suprmes struck down where police officers looked at the phone content of suspected robbers and saw that they had taken pictures of the robbed loot and them holding the money.

So to give a general statement that they cannot take possession of a phone in incorrect, but once they have possession the Florida Supreme Court wants to see a warrant before the content of that device is disclosed.

That is correct....the problem or grey areas in the law seems to be in the traffic infraction area...when a crash or a dui is involved that's not a problem...and under minor traffic situations are officers going to bog down the system to obtain a warrant for a minor traffic offense?....Now the officer observing the infraction is a different situation....To the 'guest'...to question the areas of this law is neither a conservative or liberal question and to politicize something like this is more than being narrow minded...Of course texting while driving is dangerous and should not be done...perhaps down the road vehicles will have device that the texting portion of phones will not work while the vehicle is running...

2seaoat wrote:The Leo would need a warrant to see the cellphone. They cannot take it.



This is incorrect. LEO can take cell phones pursuant to an arrest if the cell phone is part of the criminality:

1. Any controlled substance as defined in chapter 893 or any substance, device, paraphernalia, or currency or other means of exchange that was used, was attempted to be used, or was intended to be used in violation of any provision of chapter 893, if the totality of the facts presented by the state is clearly sufficient to meet the state’s burden of establishing probable cause to believe that a nexus exists between the article seized and the narcotics activity, whether or not the use of the contraband article can be traced to a specific narcotics transaction.

They cannot under recent Florida Supreme Court decisions look at the content of the phone without a warrant, which will only issue pursuant to probable cause that the content on that phone can be tied to a criminal act, however they can depending on the circumstances take possession of the phone.

Now in some states if the person driving is charged with a DUI, the vehicle and its contents may be subject to civil forfeiture. Typically, a cell phone would be released in a DUI , but in a drug related forfeiture probably not. Texting while driving where the officer believes the texting was part of the scope of the criminal actions would certainly require the warrant where recently in 2013 the Florida Suprmes struck down where police officers looked at the phone content of suspected robbers and saw that they had taken pictures of the robbed loot and them holding the money.

So to give a general statement that they cannot take possession of a phone in incorrect, but once they have possession the Florida Supreme Court wants to see a warrant before the content of that device is disclosed.

WTH! We were talking about texting NOT A ROBBERY, YOU DORK! I was not incorrect. They can't take your cell phone for merely texting. Nobody said a damn word about other crimes. You consistently do this in order to appear superior. You have a problem,Seaoat.

WTH! We were talking about texting NOT A ROBBERY, YOU DORK! I was not incorrect. They can't take your cell phone for merely texting. Nobody said a damn word about other crimes. You consistently do this in order to appear superior. You have a problem,Seaoat.


I consistently have to correct your utter lack of knowledge, it would make me feel superior if the lack of knowledge was worthy of superiority, but in your case you consistently mismanage even the simple concepts.....if anything I am embarrassed for you......So you make a general statement that a stop on texting cannot have the phone taken by LEO.....you are simply wrong. After the stop for texting, if the officer believes that the texting is part of the criminality, the phone will be taken incident to the arrest. The very Florida Supreme Court case which limits the State from dealing with the content of a cell phone was an arrest where other crimes were disclosed by the cell phone just this year in 2013, yet you think that an arrest for texting is limited to where an officer could not keep the phone.....you are clueless....you continue to spew absolutely incorrect information, and when I correct you blushing at your simplicity, you think I do this because I am superior.....hell any kid as a freshman law enforcement major would blush at your conclusions which just continue to spill forth on these pages......priceless.......but the use of the term dork....double dutch priceless.......

You consistently do this in order to appear superior. You have a problem,Seaoat.


You nailed it correctly, Dreams!

2seaoat wrote:WTH! We were talking about texting NOT A ROBBERY, YOU DORK! I was not incorrect. They can't take your cell phone for merely texting. Nobody said a damn word about other crimes. You consistently do this in order to appear superior. You have a problem,Seaoat.


I consistently have to correct your utter lack of knowledge, it would make me feel superior if the lack of knowledge was worthy of superiority, but in your case you consistently mismanage even the simple concepts.....if anything I am embarrassed for you......So you make a general statement that a stop on texting cannot have the phone taken by LEO.....you are simply wrong. After the stop for texting, if the officer believes that the texting is part of the criminality, the phone will be taken incident to the arrest. The very Florida Supreme Court case which limits the State from dealing with the content of a cell phone was an arrest where other crimes were disclosed by the cell phone just this year in 2013, yet you think that an arrest for texting is limited to where an officer could not keep the phone.....you are clueless....you continue to spew absolutely incorrect information, and when I correct you blushing at your simplicity, you think I do this because I am superior.....hell any kid as a freshman law enforcement major would blush at your conclusions which just continue to spill forth on these pages......priceless.......but the use of the term dork....double dutch priceless.......

Again Seaoat, you're making a fool of yourself trying to be a lawyer. This thread was about texting solely-not other crimes. I didn't make this up. I listened to a segment on NPR where they had a lawyer discussing the new law.He explicitly said they cannot take your cell phone w/o a warrant for texting. They can't even ask to look at it. You need to stop trying to interpret the laws and one up people. You're not superior.You just try to be and it's funny.

Dreamsglore wrote:

2seaoat wrote:WTH! We were talking about texting NOT A ROBBERY, YOU DORK! I was not incorrect. They can't take your cell phone for merely texting. Nobody said a damn word about other crimes. You consistently do this in order to appear superior. You have a problem,Seaoat.


I consistently have to correct your utter lack of knowledge, it would make me feel superior if the lack of knowledge was worthy of superiority, but in your case you consistently mismanage even the simple concepts.....if anything I am embarrassed for you......So you make a general statement that a stop on texting cannot have the phone taken by LEO.....you are simply wrong. After the stop for texting, if the officer believes that the texting is part of the criminality, the phone will be taken incident to the arrest. The very Florida Supreme Court case which limits the State from dealing with the content of a cell phone was an arrest where other crimes were disclosed by the cell phone just this year in 2013, yet you think that an arrest for texting is limited to where an officer could not keep the phone.....you are clueless....you continue to spew absolutely incorrect information, and when I correct you blushing at your simplicity, you think I do this because I am superior.....hell any kid as a freshman law enforcement major would blush at your conclusions which just continue to spill forth on these pages......priceless.......but the use of the term dork....double dutch priceless.......

Again Seaoat, you're making a fool of yourself trying to be a lawyer. This thread was about texting solely-not other crimes. I didn't make this up. I listened to a segment on NPR where they had a lawyer discussing the new law.He explicitly said they cannot take your cell phone w/o a warrant for texting. They can't even ask to look at it. You need to stop trying to interpret the laws and one up people. You're not superior.You just try to be and it's funny.

Seriously, Dreams, what do you think you are doing on this forum? You constantly try to one up other posters by belittling them. Then, when it comes back your way, you accuse other posters of trying to belittle you.

Strange.....

PBulldog2 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

2seaoat wrote:WTH! We were talking about texting NOT A ROBBERY, YOU DORK! I was not incorrect. They can't take your cell phone for merely texting. Nobody said a damn word about other crimes. You consistently do this in order to appear superior. You have a problem,Seaoat.


I consistently have to correct your utter lack of knowledge, it would make me feel superior if the lack of knowledge was worthy of superiority, but in your case you consistently mismanage even the simple concepts.....if anything I am embarrassed for you......So you make a general statement that a stop on texting cannot have the phone taken by LEO.....you are simply wrong. After the stop for texting, if the officer believes that the texting is part of the criminality, the phone will be taken incident to the arrest. The very Florida Supreme Court case which limits the State from dealing with the content of a cell phone was an arrest where other crimes were disclosed by the cell phone just this year in 2013, yet you think that an arrest for texting is limited to where an officer could not keep the phone.....you are clueless....you continue to spew absolutely incorrect information, and when I correct you blushing at your simplicity, you think I do this because I am superior.....hell any kid as a freshman law enforcement major would blush at your conclusions which just continue to spill forth on these pages......priceless.......but the use of the term dork....double dutch priceless.......

Again Seaoat, you're making a fool of yourself trying to be a lawyer. This thread was about texting solely-not other crimes. I didn't make this up. I listened to a segment on NPR where they had a lawyer discussing the new law.He explicitly said they cannot take your cell phone w/o a warrant for texting. They can't even ask to look at it. You need to stop trying to interpret the laws and one up people. You're not superior.You just try to be and it's funny.

Seriously, Dreams, what do you think you are doing on this forum? You constantly try to one up other posters by belittling them. Then, when it comes back your way, you accuse other posters of trying to belittle you.

Strange.....

It's a two way street so what are you talking about? I'm not complaining.There are plenty of posters who belittle me and I don't respond so when I complain about it then you can say that. You come on here and don't read the whole thread and then make a false accusation. What do you call that?

Seriously, Dreams, what do you think you are doing on this forum? You constantly try to one up other posters by belittling them. Then, when it comes back your way, you accuse other posters of trying to belittle you.

Strange.....

Nope........this is basically my fault.....after she was calling Chrissy stupid on a couple threads......I thought I would point out that she is consistently unable to grasp complex concepts, and in that process she is in a Tizzy and is pretty riled up......entirely my fault......but she told me she could handle tough discussions.....and I believe she can......but I think I am developing a real sadistic streak......because my victims are now pooling together in their anger........I love this place......but I do have a tendency to piss people off.....and sadly......I am getting some pleasure from the same.......kinda sad in and of itself, and I should probably not make Dreams any stranger on these forums when she really does make great contributions......so if you want to point fingers.....I am stirring BP, Hallmark, and Dreams into a tizzy.........maybe I need to quit discussing certain subjects so they can catch their breath.......but BP and Hallmark are huffing that glue to put the naysayers humpty dumpty together....and Dreams is explaining legal stuff......I love this place......we have great people who are intelligent and fun.......and when folks get pissed.....well maybe I need to cut some folks some slack........nah.....maybe next week.

blah blah blah

2seaoat wrote:Seriously, Dreams, what do you think you are doing on this forum? You constantly try to one up other posters by belittling them. Then, when it comes back your way, you accuse other posters of trying to belittle you.

Strange.....

Nope........this is basically my fault.....after she was calling Chrissy stupid on a couple threads......I thought I would point out that she is consistently unable to grasp complex concepts, and in that process she is in a Tizzy and is pretty riled up......entirely my fault......but she told me she could handle tough discussions.....and I believe she can......but I think I am developing a real sadistic streak......because my victims are now pooling together in their anger........I love this place......but I do have a tendency to piss people off.....and sadly......I am getting some pleasure from the same.......kinda sad in and of itself, and I should probably not make Dreams any stranger on these forums when she really does make great contributions......so if you want to point fingers.....I am stirring BP, Hallmark, and Dreams into a tizzy.........maybe I need to quit discussing certain subjects so they can catch their breath.......but BP and Hallmark are huffing that glue to put the naysayers humpty dumpty together....and Dreams is explaining legal stuff......I love this place......we have great people who are intelligent and fun.......and when folks get pissed.....well maybe I need to cut some folks some slack........nah.....maybe next week.

Nah, no tizzy.Many people know bullshit when they see it. You excel in that. You just need to deflate your helium head. You way overinflated it w/ buffoon helium.

Nah, no tizzy.Many people know bullshit when they see it. You excel in that. You just need to deflate your helium head. You way overinflated it w/ buffoon helium.


They had a sale at ace hardware.....I got a three year supply.....but damn the grandkids have been opening their balloons and inhaling.....now there are little seaoats with big heads.....that buffoon helium does the trick.