New bill NJ; Police can confiscate cellphones at accident scenes ,no warrant.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


It's all over the news here. That's one article. On the televised news here,they're saying you may not get the phone back .I just saw it said on two different stations,and its what I was citing .

reply to post by terriblyvexed


Funny enough that in todays society with Everyone (except me ) having a cell phone, 911 calls are made the instat that they see an accident. That pretty much pinpoints the exact time frame.

Also, OBERs are Not required by law yet,. so why use one ?

Originally posted by PtolemyII
reply to post by jam321

 

You can read a book or map while driving ,completely obliterating your view . This is legal .

What on earth makes you think that??

Page 81 of the NJ Driver manual (5mb download) has a list of distractions to be avoided:

• Lighting a cigarette
• Trying to fasten a safety belt while driving
• Reaching across the seat to close a door or look in the glove compartment
• Reaching for coins in pockets while driving up to a toll booth
• Trying to adjust a wristwatch
• Watching children or pets in the vehicle
• Trying to remove a coat
• Reading maps and newspapers
• Eating while driving
• Adjusting a mirror while driving
• Using a cellular phone or any other electronic device
• Adjusting the radio or CD player
• Shaving
• Using a laptop computer or fax machine
• Applying makeup

It says this is some examples - so it is not exhaustive or exclusive!!

reply to post by BoogieMan911




And I love your avatar !

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by PtolemyII

 

I have mixed feelings about this. I hate that any state wants to give law enforcement more power for warrantless invasion of privacy, but on the other hand this past fall one of my daughters was walking down the sidewalk in town when a guy ran off the road, jumped the curb and darn near ran over her and her friend. If they had not been paying attention and jumped they would have been killed. The driver was texting when it occurred- the people in the car next to him saw it- but the police couldn't search his phone without a warrant and he swore the witnesses were mistaken. The police gave him a ticket for failure to control his vehicle and let him go.

And what do you think would have been a more appropriate ticket for the driver?

After all, judging by what you describe, no one was hurt. No one was killed. I can understand being upset about what had happened, but he was given a ticket for what he should have been given a ticket for. Are you suggesting the driver should have been arrested? If so, on what charge considering no one was hurt?

Personally I see this whole debate as stupid.

Once upon a time, people used to get in accidents by reaching down to change the station on a radio.

Once upon a time, people would get into accidents because they dropped something and reached down to pick it up while still driving.

Texting is no different. It is another gadget that distracts from people's driving and can cause an accident. Creating legislation against it is just stupid. Should we have created legislation against changing the radio station while you drive 50 years ago?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


And no one has ever gotten a ticket for doing any of those while driving .
It says to avoid them,not you will get points on your license or mascara wand confiscated .

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

What on earth makes you think that??

Page 81 of the NJ Driver manual (5mb download) has a list of distractions to be avoided:

• Lighting a cigarette
• Trying to fasten a safety belt while driving
• Reaching across the seat to close a door or look in the glove compartment
• Reaching for coins in pockets while driving up to a toll booth
• Trying to adjust a wristwatch
• Watching children or pets in the vehicle
• Trying to remove a coat
• Reading maps and newspapers
• Eating while driving
• Adjusting a mirror while driving
• Using a cellular phone or any other electronic device
• Adjusting the radio or CD player
• Shaving
• Using a laptop computer or fax machine
• Applying makeup

It says this is some examples - so it is not exhaustive or exclusive!!

It is not "illegal". There is no legislation against doing these things, it is just recommended that you do not do it.

Originally posted by EViLKoNCEPTz
It removes the voltage regulator from the kernel and causes a hard reboot which shorts the entire logic board out frying everything on it.

The voltage regulation is done in hardware. It can't be done in software - what would regulate the voltages before the kernel loads?

I think anyone blatantly disregarding the law,texting or talking on a hand held ,should be held accountable ,but searching someone's phone for a fender bender is ridiculous .
It also won't differentiate between wether you were the one who allegedly caused the accident ,or were the victim the other car.
They will take phones from all the parties involved .Again ,there's something inherently wrong with that picture .

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


My extreme lack of knowledge of all things technical are showing,I knew they could look up your phone records before I jumped in this debate, and not once did I think about that.

Alright I'm out of this.

reply to post by MrWendal


There are rumblings in NY,they want to make eating while driving illegal .
*shakes head* points on your license and tickets .
Not sure if slurping a soda thru a straw will count ,but if its a large sugared soda ,I'm sure bloombarf will be all for it .

Know who eats while they drive the most ,as it may be the only chance they get to eat at all ,......ambulance workers .
I don't know anyone who's had an accident while wolfing down their food inbetween calls saving the Damn city .
Our law makers are HYPOCRITES

HOLY HELL, .. I just figured it OUT ! ! ! EUREKA ! ! !

Let's look at who is backing this damn Greek Tragedy .. .

Who has the MOST to gain .. .. ?

Although it may seem that it is about an Invasion of Privacy, It is a really about DENIAL.

Do you get it yet. .. . ?

This gets the INSURANCE companies a Foot in the door. So now,. .. when a victim has filed a claim against your Texting and Driving stupidity, the Insurance company will Now be able to Legally DENY the Claim.

I think Everyone is BRitching and Complaining about the Wrong Thing.

Edit: Since nobody else bothered, I looked up the bill.
If anyone wants to read it...
2783


And yes, it does use the word "confiscate" but not in any permanent sense...

Upon confiscating the telephone, the police officer may review the hand-held
wireless telephone’s call history data in order to determine whether the motor vehicle
operator was in violation of section 1 of P.L.2003, c.310 (C.39:4-97.3) at the
time of the accident.
After reviewing the call history data, the law enforcement officer shall return the
hand-held wireless telephone to the motor vehicle operator.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


Ahhhh,I should have gotten this ,given my livelihood depends upon the claims being denied or not .
Good one .

reply to post by alfa1


And as I said in the post up there /\ ,the actual reports on the news on tv here in nyc ,are saying they can and will confiscate .
Two stations I watched said it .

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It's not an app, it's a script so it has no GUI for anyone to find. It's locked into the /system partition so it can't easily be removed and can be used to activate a 2nd app that will transmit the GPS coordinates of my device, pictures and/or video from the front and rear camera's as well as activate the mics and record audio. Mostly those options are for theft events, BUT they could come in handy for retrieving information to use in my defense. Oh and I wouldn't have to tell them per say when the wipe or brick commands are triggered it has a popup that says "Oops, I planned for this situation. Self destruct sequence complete." Then it shuts off. But yes I would probably say something like "best use of a phone call ever, huh?" Then start laughing as the beat the crap out of me and gave my attorney's even more ammo for a civil suit. I don't like cops, I mean not cops as individuals but cops as what they now stand for and their corruption. I actually work with my local sheriff's dept TRU (Tactical Response Unit) during their live fire training exercises, and all of those guys are cool as hell. But by and far the "law" has over stepped their bounds and infringed on too many rights for me to like them all that much. Cops shouldn't do anything unless called for, they have no need to be driving around interfering with people's daily lives when they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. Who does not wearing a seat belt affect? No one but the person not wearing it. Cops have a purpose when they're needed but most of the crap they stick their noses in doesn't require their assistance to be resolved. Especially parenting, unless the parents are torturing or raping the child/ren then there's no need for legal intervention. And now I've gone off and started ranting.

reply to post by EViLKoNCEPTz

You know, it's not often I can say my respect for a guy goes up by a single post, but it sure did with yours. Despite the 'Oh Mighty Wall of Text ' lol..... Anyway, I appreciate your distinctions in that. Very important there, I agree.

I love your set up though and you're right! Some cops these days would definitely grab their baton and give you a little attitude adjustment after such a msg popped up and you broke out laughing. Then, as you note, you could retire on their animal instincts.

I like your style!

reply to post by Bedlam



In Android the kernel has it's own code that controls the hardware, my script disables the hardware. The hardware cannot function without the software to activate and tell it what to do. The only hardware voltage regulator that does not require software to work in a smartphone is the charging circuit inside the battery which is to prevent overcharging and damage caused by overcharging. The voltage regulator in the logic board that controls the different voltage levels to the different hardware componets is controlled directly via code in the kernel that says component y is x amount of current while components z and a get b and c amount of current.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Sorry man I'm on my phone I didn't even realize my post was that long til I saw it after it sent. Since there's no mobile app for ATS and no Tapatalk support my formatting suffers severely. Also have issues with the reply field freezing up from time to time, guess I need to write me a little forum runner for ATS so I don't end up throwing my phone at a wall when I type up a long reply and then lose it cuz the reply field took a dump.

I suggest NJ residents carry a second, old phone...just in case their new one doesnt work....wink.