Friday, Aug 21 - 24 hour no cell phone when driving enforcement
Aug 20, 2009, 9:37 pm
#1
In Memoriam
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Easton, CT, USA
Programs: ua prem exec, Former hilton diamond
Posts: 31,801
Friday, Jan 22, 2010 Cell phone crackdown
Midnight Thursday night / Friday morning for 24 hours.
It will be like shooting fish in barrel out there tomorrow if they do the city wide enforcement they have been talking about on the news for a few days.
It will be like shooting fish in barrel out there tomorrow if they do the city wide enforcement they have been talking about on the news for a few days.
Last edited by cordelli; Jan 20, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Aug 20, 2009, 9:46 pm
#2
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York City/NY22
Programs: AA Platinum 2.3MM (Lifetime PLT)
Posts: 5,285
Aug 21, 2009, 7:47 am
#4
In Memoriam
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Easton, CT, USA
Programs: ua prem exec, Former hilton diamond
Posts: 31,801
Unless apparently you are a police officer or traffic enforcement officer, they are always driving with their phones in their hands and one hand on the wheel. Or they just make a ton of official calls.
But just to be clear, I meant this:
§1225-c. Use of mobile telephones.
1. For purposes of this section, the following terms shall mean:
(a) "Mobile telephone" shall mean the device used by subscribers and other users of wireless telephone service to access such service.
(b) "Wireless telephone service" shall mean two-way real time voice telecommunications service that is interconnected to a public switched telephone network and is provided by a commercial mobile radio service, as such term is defined by 47 C.F.R. S 20.3.
(c) "Using" shall mean holding a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, the user's ear.
(d) "Hand-held mobile telephone" shall mean a mobile telephone with which a user engages in a call using at least one hand.
(e) "Hands-free mobile telephone" shall mean a mobile telephone that has an internal feature or function, or that is equipped with an attachment or addition, whether or not permanently part of such mobile telephone, by which a user engages in a call without the use of either hand, whether or not the use of either hand is necessary to activate, deactivate or initiate a function of such telephone.
(f) "Engage in a call" shall mean talking into or listening on a hand-held mobile telephone, but shall not include holding a mobile telephone to activate, deactivate or initiate a function of such telephone.
(g) "Immediate proximity" shall mean that distance as permits the operator of a mobile telephone to hear telecommunications transmitted over such mobile telephone, but shall not require physical contact with such operator's ear.
2. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway while using a mobile telephone to engage in a call while such vehicle is in motion. (b) An operator of a motor vehicle who holds a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of his or her ear while such vehicle is in motion is presumed to be engaging in a call within the meaning of this section. The presumption established by this subdivision is rebuttable by evidence tending to show that the operator was not engaged in a call. (c) The provisions of this section shall not be construed as authorizing the seizure or forfeiture of a mobile telephone, unless otherwise provided by law.
But just to be clear, I meant this:
§1225-c. Use of mobile telephones.
1. For purposes of this section, the following terms shall mean:
(a) "Mobile telephone" shall mean the device used by subscribers and other users of wireless telephone service to access such service.
(b) "Wireless telephone service" shall mean two-way real time voice telecommunications service that is interconnected to a public switched telephone network and is provided by a commercial mobile radio service, as such term is defined by 47 C.F.R. S 20.3.
(c) "Using" shall mean holding a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, the user's ear.
(d) "Hand-held mobile telephone" shall mean a mobile telephone with which a user engages in a call using at least one hand.
(e) "Hands-free mobile telephone" shall mean a mobile telephone that has an internal feature or function, or that is equipped with an attachment or addition, whether or not permanently part of such mobile telephone, by which a user engages in a call without the use of either hand, whether or not the use of either hand is necessary to activate, deactivate or initiate a function of such telephone.
(f) "Engage in a call" shall mean talking into or listening on a hand-held mobile telephone, but shall not include holding a mobile telephone to activate, deactivate or initiate a function of such telephone.
(g) "Immediate proximity" shall mean that distance as permits the operator of a mobile telephone to hear telecommunications transmitted over such mobile telephone, but shall not require physical contact with such operator's ear.
2. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway while using a mobile telephone to engage in a call while such vehicle is in motion. (b) An operator of a motor vehicle who holds a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of his or her ear while such vehicle is in motion is presumed to be engaging in a call within the meaning of this section. The presumption established by this subdivision is rebuttable by evidence tending to show that the operator was not engaged in a call. (c) The provisions of this section shall not be construed as authorizing the seizure or forfeiture of a mobile telephone, unless otherwise provided by law.
Aug 21, 2009, 8:38 am
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not here; there!
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold
Posts: 29,584
It's about time. Let's hope that bus and taxi drivers will not be given a free pass, either.
Of course, there would be a much greater deterrent effect if the law permitted the police officer who observed the violation to seize the cell phone as evidence.
Of course, there would be a much greater deterrent effect if the law permitted the police officer who observed the violation to seize the cell phone as evidence.
Aug 21, 2009, 9:30 am
#6
In Memoriam
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Easton, CT, USA
Programs: ua prem exec, Former hilton diamond
Posts: 31,801
I always find these things to be way more effective if they are not broadcast on the news for several days before. Oh, I better remember not to use my phone tomorrow because they will ticket me.
Aug 21, 2009, 9:36 pm
#7
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York City/NY22
Programs: AA Platinum 2.3MM (Lifetime PLT)
Posts: 5,285
Indeed, counsellor. I love Bluetooth®. 
I don't know about TEAs but I have seen plenty of officers use the cells on legitimate police business when they did not want to broadcast something "over the air."
Thanks for the citation which people should know is from the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York.
A friend of mine has a law firm that does nothing but moving violations. He advises people that it is not worth retaining him for a "cell phone ticket" and to pay the fine instead. CORRECTION: He says this about red light camera tickets.
I don't know about bus drivers but aren't all TLC drivers prohibited from cell phone use while driving even with a hands-free device?
As for your "sieze it on violation" suggestion, I will leave it to someone else to research, but I seem to recall that was ruled unconstitutional in DWI cases. If so, by the same reasoning, it wouldn't work here.
And let's all avoid going through red lights too.
Unless apparently you are a police officer or traffic enforcement officer, they are always driving with their phones in their hands and one hand on the wheel. Or they just make a ton of official calls.
But just to be clear, I meant this:
[B]§1225-c. Use of mobile telephones.
. . .
But just to be clear, I meant this:
[B]§1225-c. Use of mobile telephones.
. . .
Thanks for the citation which people should know is from the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York.
A friend of mine has a law firm that does nothing but moving violations. He advises people that it is not worth retaining him for a "cell phone ticket" and to pay the fine instead. CORRECTION: He says this about red light camera tickets.
As for your "sieze it on violation" suggestion, I will leave it to someone else to research, but I seem to recall that was ruled unconstitutional in DWI cases. If so, by the same reasoning, it wouldn't work here.
Last edited by Landing Gear; Aug 25, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Aug 22, 2009, 7:04 am
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2000
Programs: UA Million Miler (lite). NY Metro area.
Posts: 15,079
When I was in college, I pumped gas on the Belt. One Saturday afternoon, I could see the Motorcycle cop coasting on the highway as he made his way to the station. It was a nice day and I was sitting on top of the pump. As he stops, I look down at him and ask what's wrong. He tells me that he was using a different motorcycle today and it ran out of gas.
I asked him why he didn't call in to have gas delivered. He broadly smiled and referred to some ribbing he'd get if this was broadcast over the air.
That was Motorcycle Pct #2 (now the Highway Patrol) on Flatbush Ave.
Aug 22, 2009, 7:52 am
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not here; there!
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold
Posts: 29,584
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8703e/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/104)
Yes, cabbies are prohibited even from using hands-free cellphones while driving. And we all know how well that prohibition works. (Also, that violation would be ticketed and prosecuted as a TLC violation, not as a traffic violation.)
As to the seizure issue, I know that there was a ruling requiring that the vehicle owner be afforded a prompt hearing to challenge the seizure, but had not heard about a ruling saying that vehicle seizure was unconstitutional. In any event, that's a somewhat different issue, I think. There, the seizure is (usually) predicated on the vehicle's being an instrumentality of a crime (even though the car itself might be of little evidentiary value on a DWI charge), and forfeiture of the car was often sought as a civil penalty. I was not suggesting that cellphones be the subject of forfeiture proceedings; merely that they be seized as evidence until the termination of the proceeding. (Of course, seizing a cellphone as evidence, and returning it weeks or months later, would be tantamount to a forfeiture for most people, who would likely seek to replace the seized phone immediately.)
From an evidentiary point of view, the cellphone's call log could be highly probative of the charge. By contrast, a seized vehicle will, in many cases, be of no evidentiary value in establishing when the vehicle was driven, or if the driver was drunk.
Originally Posted by Landing Gear
I don't know about bus drivers but aren't all TLC drivers prohibited from cell phone use while driving even with a hands-free device?
As for your "sieze it on violation" suggestion, I will leave it to someone else to research, but I seem to recall that was ruled unconstitutional in DWI cases. If so, by the same reasoning, it wouldn't work here.
As for your "sieze it on violation" suggestion, I will leave it to someone else to research, but I seem to recall that was ruled unconstitutional in DWI cases. If so, by the same reasoning, it wouldn't work here.
(Also, that violation would be ticketed and prosecuted as a TLC violation, not as a traffic violation.) As to the seizure issue, I know that there was a ruling requiring that the vehicle owner be afforded a prompt hearing to challenge the seizure, but had not heard about a ruling saying that vehicle seizure was unconstitutional. In any event, that's a somewhat different issue, I think. There, the seizure is (usually) predicated on the vehicle's being an instrumentality of a crime (even though the car itself might be of little evidentiary value on a DWI charge), and forfeiture of the car was often sought as a civil penalty. I was not suggesting that cellphones be the subject of forfeiture proceedings; merely that they be seized as evidence until the termination of the proceeding. (Of course, seizing a cellphone as evidence, and returning it weeks or months later, would be tantamount to a forfeiture for most people, who would likely seek to replace the seized phone immediately.)
From an evidentiary point of view, the cellphone's call log could be highly probative of the charge. By contrast, a seized vehicle will, in many cases, be of no evidentiary value in establishing when the vehicle was driven, or if the driver was drunk.
Last edited by guv1976; Aug 22, 2009 at 7:56 am
Aug 22, 2009, 1:09 pm
#10
In Memoriam
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Easton, CT, USA
Programs: ua prem exec, Former hilton diamond
Posts: 31,801
From the NY Daily News
Cops issued 7,432 tickets during this week's 24-hour crackdown on drivers caught yakking or texting on their cells while behind the wheel.
.......
The blitz marked a dramatic increase over the 580 phoning-while-driving tickets the NYPD issues on an average day.
Cops issued 7,432 tickets during this week's 24-hour crackdown on drivers caught yakking or texting on their cells while behind the wheel.
.......
The blitz marked a dramatic increase over the 580 phoning-while-driving tickets the NYPD issues on an average day.
Aug 22, 2009, 4:26 pm
#11
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York City/NY22
Programs: AA Platinum 2.3MM (Lifetime PLT)
Posts: 5,285
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8703e/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/104)
Yes, cabbies are prohibited even from using hands-free cellphones while driving. And we all know how well that prohibition works. (Also, that violation would be ticketed and prosecuted as a TLC violation, not as a traffic violation.)
As to the seizure issue, I know that there was a ruling requiring that the vehicle owner be afforded a prompt hearing to challenge the seizure, but had not heard about a ruling saying that vehicle seizure was unconstitutional. In any event, that's a somewhat different issue, I think. There, the seizure is (usually) predicated on the vehicle's being an instrumentality of a crime (even though the car itself might be of little evidentiary value on a DWI charge), and forfeiture of the car was often sought as a civil penalty. I was not suggesting that cellphones be the subject of forfeiture proceedings; merely that they be seized as evidence until the termination of the proceeding. (Of course, seizing a cellphone as evidence, and returning it weeks or months later, would be tantamount to a forfeiture for most people, who would likely seek to replace the seized phone immediately.)
From an evidentiary point of view, the cellphone's call log could be highly probative of the charge. By contrast, a seized vehicle will, in many cases, be of no evidentiary value in establishing when the vehicle was driven, or if the driver was drunk.
Yes, cabbies are prohibited even from using hands-free cellphones while driving. And we all know how well that prohibition works.
(Also, that violation would be ticketed and prosecuted as a TLC violation, not as a traffic violation.) As to the seizure issue, I know that there was a ruling requiring that the vehicle owner be afforded a prompt hearing to challenge the seizure, but had not heard about a ruling saying that vehicle seizure was unconstitutional. In any event, that's a somewhat different issue, I think. There, the seizure is (usually) predicated on the vehicle's being an instrumentality of a crime (even though the car itself might be of little evidentiary value on a DWI charge), and forfeiture of the car was often sought as a civil penalty. I was not suggesting that cellphones be the subject of forfeiture proceedings; merely that they be seized as evidence until the termination of the proceeding. (Of course, seizing a cellphone as evidence, and returning it weeks or months later, would be tantamount to a forfeiture for most people, who would likely seek to replace the seized phone immediately.)
From an evidentiary point of view, the cellphone's call log could be highly probative of the charge. By contrast, a seized vehicle will, in many cases, be of no evidentiary value in establishing when the vehicle was driven, or if the driver was drunk.
By the way, a cellphone log would be probative of nothing. My cellphone log will indicate that my phone was connected on a given date and time. That does not prove that I was using it without a hands-free device while operating a motor vehicle.
Aug 25, 2009, 6:19 pm
#12
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 55,189
Why don't they do this more often? The city needs money; what an easy way to get it.
Aug 25, 2009, 8:36 pm
#14
In Memoriam
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Easton, CT, USA
Programs: ua prem exec, Former hilton diamond
Posts: 31,801
I don't think they can handle the court cases if everybody decided to fight the tickets. It would take no time at all for people to realize if they overload the courts the city could not afford to pay the cops to sit in court, and the courts could not handle it.
Of course, if they took some of that money and got some cameras and just video taped before stopping, that would significantly cut back the court costs.
People are stupid. For over a year they have been enforcing the don't block the box at I think 35th and Madison four days a week at about 6 or so at night. Every day, eveyr light change, they get six or eight cars. Every day.
There's so many ways they could raise significant money out here, just photo radar, photo enforcement, etc.
Of course, if they took some of that money and got some cameras and just video taped before stopping, that would significantly cut back the court costs.
People are stupid. For over a year they have been enforcing the don't block the box at I think 35th and Madison four days a week at about 6 or so at night. Every day, eveyr light change, they get six or eight cars. Every day.
There's so many ways they could raise significant money out here, just photo radar, photo enforcement, etc.
Aug 25, 2009, 9:14 pm
#15
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York City/NY22
Programs: AA Platinum 2.3MM (Lifetime PLT)
Posts: 5,285
Any attempt at using photo radar here will surely be met with constitutional challenges.