- Journal Archives
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
“Sir, have you been texting this evening?”
You might want to practice your response to this question, especially if you live in Utah. Following the growing trend, Utah recently passed its own legislative ban on texting while driving. The fact that Utah passed such a law is not surprising–similar statutes exist in at least 14 other states, including Tennessee. Always the one-upper, however, Utah raised the bar significantly with regards to punishment. If caught texting behind the wheel, offenders now face up to 15 years in prison. Fifteen years. That was not a typo.
Okay, to be fair, I should point out that such punishment only applies in cases where a texting driver causes the death of another, as this law came in response to a text-caused crash that killed two scientists in 2006. Think vehicular manslaughter stemming from a DUI. In fact, that’s what Utah’s legislators did. “It’s a willful act,” says Lyle Hillyard, a Republican state senator and outspoken advocate of the law. “If you choose to drink and drive or if you choose to text and drive, you’re assuming the same risk.” While this is certainly an arguable point, I’m not here to discuss assumption of risk. I didn’t have much to say about it on my Torts exam, and I can’t imagine I’d be any more insightful now.
But Utah’s law does raise some other serious legal questions, especially since it relies on the premise that texting while driving is perfectly analogous to driving under the influence of alcohol. While proponents of such laws are quick to cite studies that show an increased risk of crashing when texting, opponents are equally quick-to-the-draw with perhaps the biggest concern: a lack of enforceability.
If an officer witnesses Bubba taking pulls from his handle of Evan Williams, enforcement is not a problem. But how is an officer to distinguish between a driver who is illegally texting and a driver who is merely dialing, a perfectly legal activity? Then there’s the issue of determining whether the crime has actually been committed. With drinking, this is also much simpler. First, an officer can often smell alcohol as he approaches or speaks with a driver. Next, he can subject said driver to a breathalyzer or other sobriety test to determine intoxication. It’s hard to see the same applying with texting, however. Unlike alcohol, texting has no odor. Nor is there any thumb-scanning technology that could, like a breathalyzer, determine levels of recent illegal activity. Add to these facts the general prohibition on unlawful search and seizure–whose importance bar an officer from simply confiscating your phone to determine recent texting activity–and texting seems like the perfect drug: cheap, easily accessible, and nearly impossible to detect.
While Tennessee has noted such problems with its texting law, there has not been a public uproar in response. This is likely because, like all other states save Utah, Tennessee’s law only imposes fines. The problems with enforceability and fairness are exacerbated in Utah, however, where an offender loses not only potential beer money, but up to a decade-and-a-half of his liberty. Generally, I do not disagree with punishing drunk drivers in vehicular homicide cases. And I would not be vehemently opposed to a law that punished texters in a similar fashion, provided that law was fair and enforceable. Until that day comes, however, I will just keep adding to my list of reasons I’m glad I don’t live in Utah.
– Jesse Bland
Recent Blog Posts
- Obama’s Cybersecurity Executive Order: Private Sector Must Help Police the “Wild West”
- Qualcomm Settlement May Reconfigure the Smartphone Market in China
- Who Rightfully Owns the Village People’s YMCA?
- Internet Elections Regulation: Another Pie in the Partisan Food Fight?
- Great Artists Steal? A Music Theory Thought Experiment & a Worry about the Litigation of Popular Music
- What to Expect After Teva v. Sandoz?
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution