Do You Support a ‘Breathalyzer for Texting’?

What’s the story?

• Nevada is considering a law that would allow police officers to use a “textalyzer” to test if a person was using a cellphone during a car crash.
• Distracted driving contributed to 3,450 auto fatalities in 2016, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Textalyzer

• This device connects to a cellphone and scans for user activity, like opening a Facebook messenger call screen, Twitter, or messaging app.

What are people saying?

Anti-textalyzers

The American Civil Liberties Union argues that police should only be allowed to use a  textalyzer with a warrant—otherwise it’s a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizures.

When a similar bill was introduced in New York in 2017 (it ultimately failed), the ACLU outline the following unanswered questions that they said were ongoing cause for concern:

•  How would textalyzer software reliably identify those phones that were in use in ways that were actually dangerous and illegal? For example, how would they distinguish between texts manually entered by a driver and texts using other means such as hands-free speech-to-text?
• If multiple people were in the car during an accident, how would a textalyzer establish that it was the driver operating a phone around the time of a crash and not a passenger?
• How could the public be certain that a textalyzer is not invading privacy in the way it accesses data?
• If drivers are required to give a police officer possession of their phone so that a textalyzer analysis can be applied, how can they be sure that the officer won’t look at data on their phone?
• What happens if a driver refuses to unlock their phone for a police officer?

Pro-textalyzer

Ben Lieberman of New York, who lost his 19-year-old son to a crash where a driver had been texting, has become an advocate for the device.

"When I was growing up, drunk driving was a joke. Now it's not a joke," he told Nevada lawmakers earlier this month. "Device use is a joke. Make it so it's not funny." 

Lieberman cited a paper by an Ohio State University law professor who argued that testing a cellphone after a crash is “minimally intrusive" and does not violate the Fourth Amendment. 

Democratic Assemblyman Ozzie Fumo questioned if the legislation was needed as police can already get search warrants to access cells.

"Wouldn't it be better just to give this technology to (the police) and so that they can utilize it after they get the warrant already?" he said. "Nothing in this bill is actually new, 'cause the law enforcement (agency) already has the techniques and tools that we're providing."

What do you think?

Do you support textalyzers? Should more states use them? Take action and tell your reps, then share your thoughts below.

—Josh Herman

(Photo Credit: iStockphoto.com / globalmoments)