• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Government Overreach vs Neccessary Evil

Government Overreach or Neccessary Evil

  • Total voters
    19
DashingAmerican said:
"Textalyzer" Device Allows Police to Determine if Drivers Were Texting and Driving - NBC News

I think this is a horrendous idea.

Are we supposed to just hand our phone over because they asked for it?

Does this violate our right to remain silent?

Just another cash grab labeled as a "crime."
Click to expand...

If police and others privy to the info are well controlled, say by recording their whole work day every day, I see no problem, especially as the suspected crime not only was commited in plain and public view and endangers random passersby.
 
joG said:
If police and others privy to the info are well controlled, say by recording their whole work day every day, I see no problem, especially as the suspected crime not only was commited in plain and public view and endangers random passersby.
Click to expand...

So would you be ok handing over your phone without them having a warrant?

You don't think the refusal of handing your phone over in this instance would be protected by the 5th amendment?
 
DashingAmerican said:
So would you be ok handing over your phone without them having a warrant?

You don't think the refusal of handing your phone over in this instance would be protected by the 5th amendment?
Click to expand...

It depends on the control mechanisms into which the situation were embedded.
 
The 5th Amendment protects you from speaking/testifying against yourself. Your phone is simple evidence, arguably subject to a warrant. A warrant can't force you to testify against yourself.
 
I'm torn, so when in doubt I err on the side of not giving the government more power.
 
Oh sure officer, whoops hard reset the phone. This is gross overreach.
 
DashingAmerican said:
"Textalyzer" Device Allows Police to Determine if Drivers Were Texting and Driving - NBC News

I think this is a horrendous idea.

Are we supposed to just hand our phone over because they asked for it?

Does this violate our right to remain silent?

Just another cash grab labeled as a "crime."
Click to expand...

They can legally retrieve phone records if you don't give them your phone.

I believe operating a cellphone or other electronic diversion while the vehicle is moving is an unnecessary evil.
 
WCH said:
They can legally retrieve phone records if you don't give them your phone.

I believe operating a cellphone or other electronic diversion while the vehicle is moving is an unnecessary evil.
Click to expand...

Rather than confiscating the phone, would it be possible to create a quick contact with the phones service providers? Maybe permit/require the service providers to give the time of the last text. Then the driver would need to give his private number also, so idk. Tough one. I sway to less government over reach tho.
 
I might change my answer when I learn more about this but actually looking into it these are the facts I found so far:

-Cops can't use it yet, just a new tach
- It only looks at activity, meaning it knows receive, transmit and activity of things. Like it knows you received or made a call (not who the call was) It knows you received or sent message (not who to or what the message was) It knows you accessed an app and what time, not what you posted etc.

Well I don't see that as an overreach or evil. Seems pretty cool to me. Now with that being said there is ONE thing I DO NOT LIKE. There shouldn't be any fines or punishments for NOT volunteering your phone. Just like other things there needs to be a warrant or additional circumstances like other searches. But again, cops can't not use this yet and those penalties don't exists.
 
LaylaWindu said:
I might change my answer when I learn more about this but actually looking into it these are the facts I found so far:

-Cops can't use it yet, just a new tach
- It only looks at activity, meaning it knows receive, transmit and activity of things. Like it knows you received or made a call (not who the call was) It knows you received or sent message (not who to or what the message was) It knows you accessed an app and what time, not what you posted etc.

Well I don't see that as an overreach or evil. Seems pretty cool to me. Now with that being said there is ONE thing I DO NOT LIKE. There shouldn't be any fines or punishments for NOT volunteering your phone. Just like other things there needs to be a warrant or additional circumstances like other searches. But again, cops can't not use this yet and those penalties don't exists.
Click to expand...

Too many bad instances of people getting harassed simply because they wanted to enforce their rights and told an officer 'no'. There may be no official or codified repercussions, but practical reality will be different.
 
radcen said:
Too many bad instances of people getting harassed simply because they wanted to enforce their rights and told an officer 'no'. There may be no official or codified repercussions, but practical reality will be different.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't disagree with that, just like with car/person searches and breathalyzers etc. but that's a separate issue IMO. This tool seems like a good one to me, if people abuse it then that's what needs fixed. Just like there are bad cops and judges etc.
 
DashingAmerican said:
"Textalyzer" Device Allows Police to Determine if Drivers Were Texting and Driving - NBC News

I think this is a horrendous idea.

Are we supposed to just hand our phone over because they asked for it?

Does this violate our right to remain silent?

Just another cash grab labeled as a "crime."
Click to expand...
Here's the thing: It is wholly and 100% unnecessary.

It's only to be used after an accident (as I understand it, though expansion is always a real threat). Ok, so the accident is done. It's not going to happen again. We're not going back in time and changing the outcome. There is no need for this device as phone records can be subpoena'd for prosecution afterward anyway, and by already established and legitimate means. It's not like blood alcohol levels, which do need to be established quickly as they dissipate over time. There is no need for an officer to have that info on the spot.
 
Yep, this is overreach. The police have far too much power already; it needs to be dialed back.
 
Pozessed said:
Rather than confiscating the phone, would it be possible to create a quick contact with the phones service providers? Maybe permit/require the service providers to give the time of the last text. Then the driver would need to give his private number also, so idk. Tough one. I sway to less government over reach tho.
Click to expand...

All the officer needs to do is open the message history.
 
LaylaWindu said:
Oh I don't disagree with that, just like with car/person searches and breathalyzers etc. but that's a separate issue IMO. This tool seems like a good one to me, if people abuse it then that's what needs fixed. Just like there are bad cops and judges etc.
Click to expand...

Problem is, once something becomes law it is incredibly difficult to repeal. Even tweaking takes time, sometimes a lot of time.

Goes for pretty much anything, not just here.
 
radcen said:
DashingAmerican said:
"Textalyzer" Device Allows Police to Determine if Drivers Were Texting and Driving - NBC News

I think this is a horrendous idea.

Are we supposed to just hand our phone over because they asked for it?

Does this violate our right to remain silent?

Just another cash grab labeled as a "crime."
Click to expand...
Here's the thing: It is wholly and 100% unnecessary.

It's only to be used after an accident (as I understand it, though expansion is always a real threat). Ok, so the accident is done. It's not going to happen again. We're not going back in time and changing the outcome. There is no need for this device as phone records can be subpoena'd for prosecution afterward anyway, and by already established and legitimate means. It's not like blood alcohol levels, which do need to be established quickly as they dissipate over time. There is no need for an officer to have that info on the spot.
Click to expand...

So, I'm thinking about this more, and this occurred to me: This item is being sold as a way to check for texting while driving, at least from what I have seen, here and other sources. Texting. Make note of that.

And don't get me wrong, texting and driving is dangerous. I get that. I believe texting and driving is actually more dangerous than drunk driving. It's bad.

But, if you notice even in the video example, there was a whole slew of other things that they officer immediately called up along with the texting information, i.e. Facebook use, phone calls, and so on. Basically, any swiping or picking type action.

Much of that is just as bad as texting, I'll agree, but they're being outright dishonest when they portray it as addressing or searching for texting only. Even allowing an unstated implication is a form of conscious portrayal. If they're going to have access to more than just texting, then they should be honest and forthright in exactly what they will have access to.
 
I truly don't know how the laws are written for the following scenario: If there is a car accident, and the driver of the car has an open beer can next to him, can he be forced to to submit bloodwork or some way of measuring blood alcohol content?

I would imagine the answer the answer to be similar, if the phone appeared to be easily accessible from the driver's seat.
 
You cannot be compelled to allow them access to your phone without a warrant and you cannot be compelled to turn over your password to your phone under any circumstances. This is already law.
 
Cephus said:
You cannot be compelled to allow them access to your phone without a warrant and you cannot be compelled to turn over your password to your phone under any circumstances. This is already law.
Click to expand...
They would probably use "implied consent" that you agreed to when you got your driver's license to get around that. They would argue it's safety-minded just like requiring a blood alcohol test if you're suspected of drunk driving. Refuse = automatic license suspension.

The whole "driving is a privilege, not a right" thing.
 
radcen said:
They would probably use "implied consent" that you agreed to when you got your driver's license to get around that. They would argue it's safety-minded just like requiring a blood alcohol test if you're suspected of drunk driving. Refuse = automatic license suspension.

The whole "driving is a privilege, not a right" thing.
Click to expand...

It's already been decided in the courts. Now yes, they can take your license away because you have no legal right to one, but you have a right not to self-incriminate. You can refuse. You can also refuse to take a roadside blood alcohol test.
 
Cephus said:
It's already been decided in the courts. Now yes, they can take your license away because you have no legal right to one, but you have a right not to self-incriminate. You can refuse. You can also refuse to take a roadside blood alcohol test.
Click to expand...

Ok, technically, on that we agree. They can't necessarily take it, but they can... and have... make the consequences so big that most people won't consider fighting it. It's easy to sit at a computer and say it's not legal, it's quite another to actually lose your DL and be faced with a serious downgrade in life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom