Niki Kelly, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, has an article entitled “Young Drivers Hit with Cell Ban: Even lawmakers taken by surprise”.
The bill was HB 1394-2015 authored by Rep. Soliday and sponsored by Sen. Crider. At issue is a provision that prevents drivers under 21 from using a cell phone at all — even for GPS, texting, or music. The digest (written by LSA as a tool for lawmakers, but not actually part of the legislation) reads:
Supervision of probationary drivers. Amends existing supervised driving requirements to receive a learner’s permit or an operator’s license. Provides that an individual with a disability who satisfies certain requirements is eligible to receive an operator’s license. Repeals a superseded provision concerning probationary operator’s licenses. Provides that an operator’s license issued to an individual who is less than 21 years of age is a probationary license. (Under current law, the age limit for a probationary license is 18 years of age.) Requires the bureau of motor vehicles to adopt rules to establish minimum hours of instruction for approved driver education courses.
(emphasis added)
The story reports that some lawmakers were caught flat-footed, unaware of the expansion. The probationary license is the mechanism creating the expansive prohibition of cell phones. From the text of the legislation, it appears that was already in place for individuals under 18.
On page 6 of the legislation, it says, “(4) The individual may not operate a motor vehicle while using a telecommunications device until the individual becomes eighteen (18) twenty-one (21) years of age unless the telecommunications device is being used to make a 911 emergency call.”
The language is pretty clear if you’re reading it. But I can see where this is something you’d gloss right over when scanning. The definition of “telecommunications device” is not changed by this legislation but is defined in IC 9-13-2-177.3 as meaning “an electronic or digital telecommunications device. The term includes a: (1) wireless telephone; (2) personal digital assistant; (3) pager; or (4) text messaging device.”
I suppose one could very legitimately take issue with the interpretation that this prohibits using your iPhone in its capacity as a music player or in its capacity as a GPS system. Yes, it’s a “telecommunications device” but it’s also many other things. Are you “using a telecommunications device” when you check the time on a machine with both clock and telecommunications functions? I’m skeptical.
Another potentially interesting angle: does this open the State up to a class action for taking without due process and without compensation by those people between 18 and 21 who had a full operator’s license prior to July 1, 2015, but now have a license of diminished value? I have not done any research on this — so take it with a huge grain of salt, but the theory would go that an individual has a property interest in a license issued by the State and the State can not just arbitrarily take that away from you or limit the scope of your license. For example, see some language in the 1971 case of Bell v. Burson:
Once licenses are issued, as in petitioner’s case, their continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood. Suspension of issued licenses thus involves state action that adjudicates important interests of the licensees. In such cases the licenses are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Seems like a case where a grandfather clause would have saved everyone a lot of trouble.
I say this only half facetiously, What’s the problem? Just like with smoking, the later you start, the less damage it does in the long run!
Then there is the insurance question. I know that some insurance companies charge more for drivers with less years of experience, but do any use surcharges for “probationary” licenses?
Of course this measure wouldn’t affect the many, many “adult” drivers who believe they are in a mobile phone booth.
It’s been my understanding (please correct me if I’m wrong) that if you are in your vehicle it’s presumptive that you are using it (see OWI’s for parked, passed out people in the drivers seat) So if my 19 year old gets lost and wants to use their phone as a map in a dashboard holder, it’s now a violation? Or if they want to use the camera in their phone to record a traffic stop by the police, then that’s a crime too even thought they may start recording after the vehicle is already stopped and it’s been established that it’s legal to record police encounters?
Since the current law against texting and driving is not enforced AT ALL despite visible evidence of about half the rush-hour commuters doing so on a given day, I doubt teens have much to worry about.
Is this part of the new legislature philosophy where they pass the law and then let the courts figure it out?
Suppose one could very legitimately take issue with the interpretation that this prohibits using your iPhone in its capacity as a music player or in its capacity as a GPS system. Yes, it’s a “telecommunications device” but it’s also many other things. Are you “using a telecommunications device” when you check the time on a machine with both clock and telecommunications functions? I’m skeptical
I am skeptical too, Dog. And I wonder if this interpretation of the statute would meet the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, is the law rationally related to a legitimate government interest. And consider the pager/ Suppose the person was a nurse (you can get an RN or an LPN in two years) and are on call and wearing a pager?.
I believe LPN is one year of schooling. Otherwise, there would be no difference between an RN with an associate’s degree and an LPN. As for pagers, not sure how many people use them. They probably are called on their phones. Either way, they’d be screwed with this new law.
Pila, you are right about one-year for an LPN. But people in healthcare, often in long term care, still use pagers.
Well, I guess it’s a matter of where the person works. I worked in a long-term care facility, and how I wished that the clinical people wore pagers. If any of them received an urgent call, whether from within the facility or elsewhere, that call came through the main office, and we had to try to track the person down. Of course, the idgit administrator at that particular facility also did not allow people to use cell phones while on duty. Some staff did have radios, however.
Years ago, when my mother was a health care VP, she did have a pager for times when she was on call or out of town.
1) What? A legislator votes for something they didn’t read/ understand. consider the consequences of? SHOCK!
2) I guess no one is a citizen until 21 now? Why not take away the vote and their ability to enter contracts, etc? But they know that 18-21 won’t vote right?
3) Does this generation even pay attention to local or state news? Their sources – if they have any – only focus on Indiana stories if they are aggregious. I’d think this one qualifies.
4) So many legitimate uses of the cell by 18-21 as above. Too bad legislators never have REAL hearings and hear from DIVERSE set of voices, BEFORE they vote this crap in.
I was driving my wife’s car yesterday. It is a Scion FR-S sports car. Best sports car dollar for dollar in the world. It has already earned me two tickets. But I digress.
It has a a blue tooth and I was listening to music stored on my cell phone. I also talked with my friend and my dad hands-free. And like Big Brother, the phone tracked me wherever I wandered.
And it dawned on me what an incredibly stupid law this is. Pathetically moronic and overreaching beyond belief. Equally important is what this does to the young people between 18-21 and their conception of the government and their willingness to comply with the law.
Laws that are needlessly draconian, misguided, unenforceable and not related to the common good engender a rightfully disregard for the law and the institutions that enforce the law.