State to Allow Cops to Snatch Your Phone After Being Stopped and Search it Using a TextalyzerBy Justin Gardner New York is a leader in developing laws and regulations to protect us from ourselves, perhaps most famously with the Big Apples attempt to ban large-size sugary drinks. The Empire State has the highest cigarette taxes in the nation, which fuels a black market, and it places heavy restrictions on other sins. No one doubts that cigarettes and an excess of sugary drinks are bad for the health, but it is not the states responsibility to manage this behavior. The issue becomes trickier when bad behavior puts other peoples lives in danger. New York was the first state to place restrictions on cell phone use while driving, which has prompted 46 other states to ban texting while driving over the last seven years. The issue of driving while distractedespecially textinghas undoubtedly become a huge problem. Unfortunately things are not getting better, as road fatalities are up sharply after years of decline. While the impact of texting while driving is debated, the fact remains that personal responsibilitythrough good parenting, awareness campaigns and common senseis the surest way to address the problem. New York legislators are seeking to expand the states involvement in the issue, and this time with dire consequences for privacy rights. The proposed bill would allow cops to take a persons cell phone and connect it to a machine called the Textalyzer. The technology could determine whether a driver had used the phone to text, email or do anything else that is forbidden under New Yorks hands-free driving laws, which prohibit drivers from holding phones to their ear. Failure to hand over a phone could lead to the suspension of a drivers license, similar to the consequences for refusing a Breathalyzer. The legal theory of implied consent that is used for the Breathalyzerwhere drivers consent in advance when obtaining a licensewould also be employed here. Instead of insisting that a person breathe into a tube, cops would be able to snatch your cell phone and analyze its data. Proponents of the bill are quick to say that the Textalyzer would not allow police to look at emails or texts. One sponsor of the bill, Felix Ortiz, expressed his enthusiasm at the heavy-handed tactic. We need something on the books where peoples behavior can change, said Mr. Ortiz, who pushed for the states 2001 ban on hand-held devices by drivers. If the Textalyzer bill becomes law, he said, people are going to be more afraid to put their hands on the cellphone. If passed, the law would surely meet with resistance from advocates for constitutional rights. In 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police need a warrant to search a cell phone, even after an arrest. Some would argue that because the Textalyzer is only checking to see if certain apps were usednot scraping content off your phoneit is not considered a search. But as Noah Feldman, a Bloomberg View columnist, points out, the device would have to look at all of your apps and differentiate between texting and others that are permissible, such as audio apps. Also, would people be forced to unlock their phones, or would the Textalyzer be able to bypass encryption? It seems that it would be easy to demonstrate to a court that the device is indeed a search tool and subject to the warrant requirement. Proponents of the bill are relying heavily on equating the Textalyzer to the Breathalyzer. However, measuring the carbon dioxide in ones breath is a simple and proven test that accurately detects blood-alcohol level. The Textalyzer is not straightforward and cannot reliably tell if the driver was distracted or even using a cell phone. Several scenarios could render the test meaningless. What if the driver asks a friend to send a text message? What if the driver had texted just before getting behind the wheel? Is the time frame arbitrary? What if an automated email response was sent, and the driver didnt touch the phone? What if the driver is using a GPS app, and something in the program was mistaken for using the keyboard? There are many ways in which the Textalyzer could give the wrong impression to cops. Finally, there is the very real issue of cops being unable to resist trampling on your rights. Once they have the phone in their hands, safely in their vehicle, how many cops will go ahead and search it, actually looking through your text messages, emails and pictures? Far too often we have seen police violate rights in this way and get away with it. It really invites police to seize phones without justification or warrant, said Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Rather than using the power of the state to further dismantle privacy rightswith a device that would easily produce false positivesefforts should focus on awareness campaigns. Harvards School of Public Healththe same entity that created the designated driver campaign in the 1980sis developing a new campaign for distracted driving, including encouraging parents to set a better example. Groups are pressuring social media like Facebook and Twitter to discourage distracted driving. YouTube will be recruiting stars to create original content pushing the message to refrain from texting and distracted driving. ATT, NASCAR and a major automaker are other potential partners in Harvards awareness campaign. There is an app called LifeSaver that automatically locks a cell phone when driving starts, and unlocks it after a programmed wait time upon stopping. It is aimed toward teenage drivers; parents can track phone activity and reward good behavior. Cell phone providers are responding, too, with features that turn off text notifications when in a moving car. It can even respond with an automated text saying that you are driving. In the age of smartphones, distracted driving is certainly a dangerous problem. There are many paths to a solution, but giving police the power to invade your privacy through a Textalyzer, thus giving them more temptation to further violate your rights, is not the answer. Justin Gardner writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared. If they dont have probable cause they cant take your phone. This is like the DUI check points. I hope you enjoy spending 72 hours in holding. The second you mention probable cause, You will a arrested and held over for a hearing. Then, regardless, the judge will charge you court costs to be paid in cash before youre released. You must have a plan other than its my right. I do have other plans for the corporate police and the judge and they will pay me!! Look up Carl Miller. Tell that to the jackboot standing at your window shining a 5 D-cell Maglite in your face and his other hand on his Glock that he is seriously thinking of shooting you in the face with. Explain to them at that point what is constitutional and what is not. Im sure they will eagerly have that conversation with youwhile you are in the back seat going to booking and in-processing. which prohibit drivers from holding phones to their ear you dont hold a phone to your ear when you text. This is only supposed to be used if the person is involved in a collision as long as it stays that way then cool, but what do you bet that this will be used at most stops whether or not they involve a collision. What are they going to do if you left your phone at home and dont have it with you? Will they try to search your car? Thats a 100% guarantee! Theyll probably go as far as calling in a drug unit so that they can forfeit your car. And some people have no phones or two or more phone The cell phone is a weapon of mass destruction. You meant distraction, right? Bloody autocorrect spoiling jokes again. Hang up and drive, doesnt mean, Stand and deliver to highwaymen. The verbiage states, It would work like this: An officer arriving at the scene of a crash could ask for the phones.. Does this restrict the law to accidents only or just driving along? Important distinction here. And the textalizer; if the arriving officer doesnt read or look at texts, then specifically WHO does do that? First Ive heard (read) of this. TY AP. This is the type of s%t that happens when you allow the government to tell you driving is a privilege. They know driving is a necessity for most people to live, so theyre gonna take any chance they get to to hold that over your head if you dont comply Driving is NOT inherently a privilege, regardless of what the DMV, police, courts and government say. Pretending for a moment that our Constitution is still operational, its EXPLICIT about our free right to travel. (Yes, I know cars did not exist when the Constitution was created. But, regardless of the MODE of travel, it is still an inherent right!) In a nutshell, what the government has done is convert basic RIGHTS into PRIVILEGES (thereby making activities like driving licensable and taxable!) Essentially, when we obtain a drivers license from the various states, we have entered into a CONTRACT. But make no mistake about it: These contracts are fraudulent! Obviously, thats a whole other subject area for further exploration (for those who have inquiring minds). Anyhow, after entering into these bogus contracts with the government, they use those contracts as the basis to presume certain OTHER things about you that arent true. (For example, youve waived your rights, youre subject to the Motor Vehicle Code, etc.) You are absolutely 100% correct. Any time something becomes a privilege, that means you have up your right at some point, usually in the form of licensing. Citizens paid for the roads, own the roads, and own their own vehicles. Where does the government have any authority to to tell you how and when you can use them? I do agree everybody should know how to drive a vehicle before travelling on the roads, but after that, you can drive all you want. Licensing and motor code laws are big business for the government. Theyve successfully brainwashed millions of people into giving away that right to travel in fear that everybody will be killing each other in car accidents unless the government steps in to control it Rights were converted to privileges of citizenship by the 14th amendment. Citizenship happened involuntarily in violation of the 13th amendmentgo figure. Recall the nanny state oath of office violator Ortiz or just be a bowled over sheep and shut up? Since my life was derailed by someone who thought their phone call was more important than watching where they were going, good. Could be abused but as the parameters are laid out here its ok. I am curious if the STATE made sure you received restitution or just took the money for itself. I live in a YOYO state so, no. Too bad you cannot see past the tip of your own nose. You might see some seriously SERIOUS problems with this whole topic and the tech that goes with it if you could. All the tech is a double edged sword. I just happen to agree with this one. It is steps like the one that you are asking for that has gotten us into the police state in which we currently live. That I believe is what the disagreement here is all about. A term I have read that sums it up nicely is totalitarian tiptoe. The reason you agree with it will be the very thing they do not do with it once implemented, Lud. How is it that you still believe they will do the right thing with tech? So far they have not. Just more Stupid, Stupid, Stupid insanity of government. Tell me please how the textalyzer is going to show that you pulled over before texting. Tough Call! Now that I am retiredI can speak my mind. I seen (and investigated,) a LOT of accidents where distracted driving was evident. As long as this App. ONLY tells the officer WHEN activity was doneI would support it. (Most officers wont pursue a search warrant-unless death or critical injury occurred in the accident.) But! On the other side of the fence, I spent 40+ years in military, and being a street deputy. Government has over stepped its boundaries, and has infringed on law abiding citizens rights to live a normal life. Whatever happened to innocent UNTIL proven guilty? Sir, it is STILL a direct violation of our 4th Amendment! I too was in Law Enforcement and knew VERY clearly the Bill or Rights AND the entire Constitution! Not to get into semantics with your comment, but to try and clarify mine. So you were a tree killer, and then you moved on to a rewarding career following the orders of eggheads. Neat. Contain your rabid environmentalism. Not everyone worships New-Agey mother earth gaia heathenism. My comment has nothing to do with that, nothing to with worship either. I have never heard the term Gaia Heathenism but its pretty stupid. If someone doesnt love the earth they live on and that sustains every single thing they do to exist, theyre pretty stupid. Tree Killer?? Explain yourself-please. As for my career, and what I didyou dont know me, (or anything about me.) But, you are entitled to YOUR opinion. I guess the first impression I made on you was not good. Sorry about that. 99.5% of all the people I have dealt with in my life would disagree with you. I wont lose any sleep over it-trust me. You knowyou might want to seek some professional help for your (apparent) insecurity in life. There IS help available. Hope you find peace in your troubled world. I am so sorry. I thought that chopping trees off at 800 yards meant you were killing trees, not people. Let me amend my statement then, to allow that you were following the policy of eggheads for your entire life, and youre apparently very proud of that, whereas people like me who dont kill people on the orders of eggheads are insecure and need help. and people wonder why our world is so freaking screwed up. Ok! I see you are deeply committed to your beliefs, and you are to be commended for it. It would be fruitless for me to try and tell you that I hope that the day never comes for you that you have to KILL. (To defend a loved one, OR this country.) You have lived a very sheltered life. Not your fault. Its how you were raised where. I on the other hand have experienced, lived, and almost have died in the real world. Its not a matter of living a sheltered life, you know nothing of my life. Youre the one who laid your life out for all to see and admire, not me. No, its a matter of choice, Deputy. You chose what you did with your life and I chose what I did. No one calls me a hero, but the killers demand to be called heroes and respected for doing all the dirty work. Ive been hearing this line since Nam. That is how you justify killing the purported enemy, and I imagine the black ops people feel the same justification for what they do willingly today. Im sorry you decided to go to Nam. Many didnt, they were called cowards for standing up for their beliefs. Not much as changed, I see. Never asked to be called a HERO, thats for TV Movies. And, anyone shooting at me IS the enemy. I dont know any black ops, but suspect they have honor-still. I didnt decide to go to Nam on my own, I was drafted, and did my civic duty. And you are right in your assessment of the cowards who ran to Canada. They are heros in the Liberal world of today. There hero meme is in TV and movies, any everywhere else, in order convince young people to sign up to be killers. You still believe that going to a country thousands of miles away to kill people who are no threat to you or your country is doing your civic duty? Im still waiting, since the 70s, for someone explain to me how killing people in countries that are no threat to the US is keeping us safe and allowed me to live this sheltered life you suppose Ive led. I have been to Vietnam and I have seen with my own eyes the devastation caused by people doing their civic duty the question is, duty to whom and to what? Those who shoot someone out of trees because someone told them they are the enemy only serve dark masters, there is no honor in it anywhere. This is not self-defense, you traveled to their world and opened fire, they didnt come to your country or pose any threat to us whatsoever. I believe you are probably a good person because you are still working out your guilt for having participated in a huge mistake and getting praise, admiration, or brotherhood from others helps. Maybe you should just forgive yourself so you can stop flying your fake hero flag and move on into truth (and some logic would help.) Yes, its good we are talking. Perhaps its time we had these conversations finally. I had another comment you may have seen but I decided to delete because this is what I really want to say to you- This is what I know about civic duty: my husband is a volunteer fireman, EMR, search and rescue and wildland firefighter. He has spent most of his life training for all these duties, on his own free time, weekends and nights, and is on call 24/7, every day of the year, to fight fires, rescue people lost or injured in the wilderness, respond to traffic accidents and medical emergencies in the middle of the night, in frigid winters and sunny holiday weekends. He was a draft dodger (nice meme, eh?) who left the country because he was a conscientious objector- he simply refused to kill anyone, ever. He is not a coward in any way, shape or form and sometimes his bravery astounds me. The insults and the legal battles he fought for his beliefs have hounded him his entire life, yet he has no guilt, shame, or anger burdening his soul. Instead he does his civic duty quietly, without fanfare, without pay of any kind- no benefits, no retirement, no military discounts, no free college, no insurance and he helps people and saves their lives and property instead of shooting them out of trees and bragging about it. There are no glorified monuments to death, no national holidays and parades, and no praise, other than a simple thank you from the people he helps. He is a real-life hero who actually keeps people safe, me and you included. Sadly your husband is paying for his failure to duty country, by lack of the countrys support in his later years. I can tell you are very proud of your husband, for standing up for his beliefs. I may not agree with HOW he did it, but a person has to stand for what they believe in. I believe that this adage serves us allAll actions have unwanted reactions. No, there was no failure to duty and country and you have no right to make that judgment. Even if they dragged you there in chains and made you shoot people out of trees, bragging about now is pathological. You knowyou might want to seek some professional help for your (apparent) insecurity in life. There IS help available. Hope you find peace in your troubled world. it isnt a judgement call on my partit WAS a failure of your husband to respond to the draft AND serve his country-period. I dont (and never did) interpret the law, I enforced it. By the laws of the United States, what he did was illegal-period. OMG. you are proud because you served your country by shooting people out of trees? Ya, you hit a raw nerve, the nerves that I possess and you dont called morals, ethics and brains. You not only cant hold a candle to my husband, you are an embarrassment to humanity. So now we see the Liberal in you. All I did was bring your attention to the fact that what your husband did WAS illegal, and they actually prosecuted jailed people that refused to do their duty to country. But that bothered YOU, and now you resort to Liberal name calling. I thought better of you we could have an intelligent discussion. Maybe I was wrong. Well hello, Mr. Robo Cop/Soldier. Now that youre awake and your brain is functioning on all cylinders, maybe its time to stop being so freaking proud of your role as a dutiful slave to the egghead masters and start acting like a human being who can think for themselves instead of blindly following orders and enforcing authoritarian laws. Congratulations, try staying awake long enough to actually earn a place to comment on an activist forum. I will admit that I used to be a texting and driving fool and thankfully there was no personal or property damage involved. Today I see and understand the dangers and no longer own a cell phone. That being said this statement is the most chilling of the article Cell phone providers are responding, too, with features that turn off text notifications when in a moving car. Listen, I gave up NY as a lost cause decades ago it IS ENEMY TERRITORY in my eyes. Might as well have all of its slave wear red coat, imho. Cowards, every one of em. Police try to run plates before stopping someone. So I suggest that when the plates of an elitist-globalist are run, the cop gets a message to not pull the car over. That includes above all Pilgrims Society members (greatest concentration is in New York City and state); CFR members, Trilateralists, Bilderbergs, Skull Bones, Wolfs Head Society, Sphinx Head Society, Berzelius Society, Scroll Key, Book Snake, Porcellian, St. Georges Society, Rhodes Scholars, Masonic leaders and key MDs, attorneys and government officials. Its a big club and you only get to be hit upside your head with it. I see so many drivers texting that Im angry enough to support a law that says the texters are guilty of attempted murder or at least reckless endangerment. This is a blatant violation of our IV (4th) Amendment! The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall NOT be violated. That is about as plain to understand as anyone can make it! IF they start pulling this idiotic, unconstitutional practice, we ALL need to file Federal Law Suits! What we test or send/receive from our Families and significant others is NO ONES BUSINESS! It is past time we fight the idiots in Court! Some Attorneys WILL take on a case such as this at no upfront charge until a settlement has been reached where in they receive a percentage of the settlement! I have done just that concerning my Open Carrying of a gun in a State that totally ALLOWS the practice, three (3) times in the past two (2) years and, won the cases hands down! Very short Court time required!! I would encourage everyone to do just this! It DOES stop the harassment by Law Enforcement!! May the circumstance be visited upon you. This is not a violation of privacy rights. Considering your inability to spell correctly, I will assume that you are a victim of the lousy school system in your area and therefore unable to understand the ideas that the words convey in the article. No, Lud. Nothing you wrote is hard to grasp. He is just DISAGREEING WITH YOUR LOUSY OPINION. Lack of intelligence is not needed to explain his behavior. Another one who can not read. I said the article. You have to read beyond the catchy headline to see what it really says. Are you one of these Libertarian Narcissists that thinks they can do whatever whenever just because of FreeDumb? I think that pooper scoopers replies to me, laced with ad hominem attacks in place of any real substantive discussion, underlines his lack of intellect, education, or ability to persuade anyone of his fuzzy position. Have you educated yourself on the culture of S Ohio yet? Do you get all of your exercise by jumping to conclusions? I never mentioned death, you implied it. As for your mindless inarticulate stream of ad hominem invective , yo sound just like the dumbass Biffs and Buffys on FAUX News, which judging by your knowledge of anything, comes directly from them. 