Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

In the event of a car accident should police be able to check your cellphone for activity (but not the content) leading up to the incident?

Poll - Total Votes: 14
Yes
No
Show Results
You can only vote on one answer.
[b]Not looking at what you said or photos you took but just checking to see if the phone was used leading to the accident.[/b]

No different than a breathalyzer as far as i'm concerned.

Feel free to explain your reasoning.
Consider we can't even get these fools to wear a body cam when they are shooting people I don't see any sign whatsoever that they should be trusted with people's data. They can already find out if a phone was used during that time by contacting the provider and asking a simple yes or no question. If anything police consistently prove they cannot be trusted with anything more then that.
REMsleep · 41-45, F
Maybe with a search warrant depending on severity of accident/potential criminal accountability.
In most cases for basic traffic accidents checking the phone isn't needed.
It is often clear who is at fault and it dosent matter if they were picking their nose or texting. They are in the wrong.
So my basic response is No
@REMsleep

[quote]Breathalyzers can be legally refused although there may be consequences.[/quote]

Sure. And it would be the same here.

The technology exists to check a phone's activity without the officer seeing the content of that activity.

So what's the difference?
REMsleep · 41-45, F
@Pikachu I mean as long as it can legally be refused I guess I don't have any major problem with it but at the end of the day any technology that accesses your device to mine data has the ability to detail other info also turning over my phone to " the police" for a potential detail free search means that I have confidence in the officers to be trustand I personally don't
@REMsleep

Well i'm sure there would be rules in place to control what police can and cannot do in that area. Maybe they'd have to do it in front of you so that you can see they're not checking content.
BlueVeins · 22-25
Yes, but only if it's not on a discretionary basis.
@BlueVeins

What do you mean?
BlueVeins · 22-25
@Pikachu i mean it shouldn't be another weapon the cops can just arbitrarily apply to people they don't like. Either everyone gets it or there has to be specific rules governing when it is and isn't used.
Sharon · F
@BlueVeins I agree. Police often abuse their power, even falsely claiming powers they don't in fact have.
SW-User
I hate the thought of my rights being violated yet, I don't text and drive. And, if I was in an accident with someone who did text and drive, I'd want the police to be able to put it on the incident report. A person should be held accountable with cell phone misuse as they are with DUIs. I suspect the laws will eventually be changed to cover cellphones the way alcohol is covered. People can say no to a check but, then, their conduct comes into question.
@SW-User

Well i can understand that. But it's not very comfortable being asked to blow into a breathalyzer either lol
SW-User
@Pikachu lol. Exactly my point actually. Anything they ask me to do, I'd be anxious about. Being pulled over would make me anxious. I think it has to do with loss of control.
@SW-User

Yeah i think most of us are a little nervous in any interaction with the police.
CestManan · 46-50, F
Cell phone records can be pulled later, it is not the pigs job to rummage through somebody cell phone.
Sharon · F
@Pikachu The breathalyser tests the breath of a known person; a cellphone could have been used by anyone in the vehicle or hands-free by the driver.
Graylight · 51-55, F
@Sharon Studies have shown hands-free phone use to be every bit as dangerous as holding the unit. It's a brain thing, not a dexterity thing.

And as long as it's only metadata with no details, what matter who's phone it is? You can be caught 9 times on camera within the space of a city block - knowing whether a phone was in use is hardly a violation, especially if there's a law against phone use and driving.
@Sharon

Well that's true but if you're driving and your phone sent a text there's a pretty reasonable chance it was you who sent it.
IMO

That would require a search warrant.

No different than a LEO asking to "Search your car" during a routine traffic stop.

As I have explained... "I have nothing to hide but my civil rights and nothing to do today so I don't mind waiting on your dog."
@Threepio

[quote]Should it be?... that is a question for your state legislature to decide.[/quote]

lol it's definitely for them to [i]decide[/i] but it's you i'm asking.

so...?
@Pikachu Then the answer is still....

NO.
@Threepio

So now that we're clear about what we're actually talking about, what do you have against it? If we're talking about it being used in the same way as breathalyzers, what's the problem?
beckyromero · 36-40, F
No. Leave that up to the Courts.

If there's a lawsuit, records can always be subpoenaed from the cell phone company to see if the person was on a phone call at the time of the accident.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
They will anyway.

Have done in the UK for a long time.
@Picklebobble2

Yeah i actually have no idea what the laws around this are in various places. I know i heard about the concept on the radio a couple years ago.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@Pikachu Insurance companies will start insisting on it. Especially now you have this new breed of moron out there who get into accidents deliberately with the intention of massively over-estimating repair costs to the other party's insurers !
That's a small price to pay if a person's life is in danger.
@DudeistPriest

Yeah doesn't seem like a huge deal
adorbz · 26-30, F
I think yes but tbh I am not really sure
@adorbz

I don't see it as any different than a breathalyzer.
Powderflask · 31-35, M
No. I don't consent to any police activity involving my property.

 
Post Comment