Comments on: City Council’s Directive: 3% Cut for Workers

By: Mark Koroi

Mark Koroi — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:38:34 +0000

Cell phone usage while driving kills 1,400 Americans per year.

On the other hand, the Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable searches and seizures.

A practical aspect is enforcement, which will be diffficult. How can a police officer, who is perhaps several hundred feet away distinguish a cell phone user with perhaps someone listening to a portable radio or tape recorder.

The careless driving section of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code could be used currently to proseute those not paying attention to the road while driving.

I see potential abuses by police trying to initiate pretext stops under this proposed ordinance.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:04:31 +0000

Once again, Dave Askins, thank you for the very comprehensive writeup. This is a tremendous service to the community.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:30:55 +0000

If that’s the point you’re trying to make, then why not just say that? Put this way it seems pretty obviously true. It was only the constitutional red herring–both here and in the Moravian thread–I was taking issue with.

By: ChuckL

ChuckL — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:40:49 +0000

The point I keep trying to make and the point people seem to be missing is that passing a law and handing out tickets do not necessarily make us safer. Just because some activity has been proven to produce safety related issues does not mean police enforcement is the most effective way to attack the problem or that it will even be effective at reducing accidents. As I’ve said, we could end up with a situation where the number of distracted drivers is still the same but now the only difference is that we are paying the state millions to “protect” us and giving up our civil rights along with the millions in protection money.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:16:43 +0000

As mentioned above, there is action in other states toward cell phone-distracted driving. Question: what is happening in Michigan in this regard? (As a state-wide rule.)

By: Larry Works

Larry Works — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:41:13 +0000

The fact is there is growing regulatory action in other cities, states, and countries regarding cell phone regulation that is driven by safety concerns. Here’s what I found our Canadian neighbors in British Columbia did recently regulate the technologies. FYI – This
law was in effect during the Olympics in Vancouver. Whether it was enforced I don’t know, but I do know I never heard any reporter or athlete complain about it and if you watched the closing ceremonies you couldn’t possibly keep count of all the cell phone devices in use. One interesting point in the BC law is that NEWLY licensed drivers have more restrictions. I kind of like that approach since kids get in more accidents and they’re using more mobile devices then older, more experienced drivers.

The British Columbia Cell Phone Ban (went into effect 1/1/10 w/ 1 month grace period). There’s an interesting video that goes along with it with this article. [Link]

Here’s the nuts and bolts of what is being regulated, and what’s not.
Note, they take into account lots of technologies including 1/2 duplex hand microphones, 2-way radios and data terminals. [downloadable .pdf file]

Since I still believe it’s not the technologies that need regulating but rather the vehicle operators my concerns to city council have been expressed from that perspective.

Here’s what I think should be considered.

“Professionally trained vehicle operators, with proof of active federal, state, or municipal licensing, OR professional certification, THAT INCLUDES SAFE MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS OPERATIONS, are exempt from this law.”

So if I wrote that single sentence as I meant to, it would replace many of the separate line item exemptions in the current draft and help improve professional training in effected organizations.

I look forward to a spirited debate.

Cheers!
Larry
aka a2works
aka KD8MZM

By: ChuckL

ChuckL — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:50:07 +0000

Rod,

Homicide is homicide even when justified and an infringement is an infringement even when justified. The Fourth says we have a right to be left alone; if the state wants to impinge on our right to be left alone it needs a good reason to do so. If we do not see an improvement in safety as a result of this ordinance, it should be eliminated.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:23:47 +0000

Fred, my only point is that since Carroll, it is simply not true that “anytime a police officer is allowed to stop a vehicle, an infringement of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution has occurred.” If there’s probable cause, you can stop and search without a warrant. If an officer observes someone violating an ordinance (like the cell phone ordinance), that seems like the kind of thing a court might recognize as probable cause. Even if it’s a dumb law, fighting it on constitutionality grounds seems unlikely to get anywhere. (Kind of like the guys who, year after year, argue that they shouldn’t have to pay income taxes for similar reasons.)

I agree with you otherwise. I was in Marshall yesterday, lost, and started to make a call, and then thought wait, is cell phone use legal in Marshall? How would I know, if I’m just passing through some random town? What if I get dinged for cell phone use in Ann Arbor but it turns out I’m in a township island? I’m not opposed to this law in principle–if it can be justified–but it should be done at a state level, It seems stupid to have a patchwork of laws like this based on invisible municipal boundaries.

By: Fred Posner

Fred Posner — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 04:10:53 +0000

The Carroll Doctrine simply allows police to search a vessel, that is mobile (or capable of mobility), without a warrant based on the ability of said vessel to be mobile while the officer obtains a warrant. It does not stop the officer from needing probable cause to engage in the search nor does it protect the officer from liabilities should the search be conducted without probable cause. So, it’s not really exempt from the protection of the 4th amendment per se. That being said… I think this law is a ridiculous waste of time.

Of the “24,000 traffic deaths nationwide,” how many occurred within the jurisdiction of Ann Arbor? What percentage of the traffic deaths in Ann Arbor are a direct result of this issue? Even should we assume that all life is precious, surely there are more important activities to target to improve the safety of our roads; not to mention the physical roads themselves.

I disagree with this proposed ordinance. What’s next? Shall we ban singing in the car? Will you not be allowed to adjust your radio, turn on windshield wipers, or put a cd in the player? Enough is enough.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:33:25 +0000

I get the point that you think it’s wrong and unwise, and I’m not necessarily in favor of this law. I’m just doubting your specific Constitutional reasoning about unlawful searches and seizures. You say “anytime a police officer is allowed to stop a vehicle, an infringement of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution has occurred.” But in Carroll v. US the Supreme Court held that motor vehicles are to some extent exempt from 4th Amendment protections. So that’s why I’m asking what you’re basing your claim on.