Sutnick & Sutnick Attorneys at Law
X
X

Default Template

Drivers increasingly believe that they can multitask while behind the wheel. From using a navigation system to eating to making a phone call, individuals constantly allow themselves to be distracted by tasks that pull their attention away from the road. The most dangerous example of a distracting task is texting while driving.

According to a Huffington Post article, 341,000 motor vehicle accidents in 2013 involved texting. Additionally, nine Americans are killed every day in accidents that involved distracted driving. These types of statistics are staggering and highlight the danger that drivers on the road face. Even if you as an experienced, aware driver are paying attention to your surroundings, it is not unlikely that another driver changing lanes or crossing an intersection is not focused on the road.

New York thinks they have a solution.

The Textalyzer.

According to a New York Times article, proposed legislation in the state compares texting while driving to driving while intoxicated. Both situations prevent drivers from focusing on the road. A drunk driver loses cognitive function, has slower reaction times and suffers from blurred vision. A driver who is texting, manages to impact all three types of distraction - loss of manual control, loss of cognitive focus, loss of visual attention. As such, sponsors of the bipartisan Textalyzer bill say that police should be able to access a driver's cell phone records to see if the phone was used in an illegal manner while driving.

Law enforcement wouldn't be able to access sensitive material such as email, text messages or browser history. The Textalyzer device would simply read the phone's records and indicate what the phone was used for.

Opponents of the bill suggest that it is a slippery slope that could, one day, lead to a devastating invasion of privacy allowing police to seize phones without cause or warrant. Proponents of the bill suggest that a huge step forward is needed as a preventative measure. The bill's authors based the concept on the theory of "implied consent" that allows police to use the Breathalyzer. In short, when a driver obtains a license, they are consenting in advance to a Breathalyzer, or they risk serious penalties such as an automatic license suspension.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

What Our Clients Are Saying

  • "Sutnick & Sutnick are two truly outstanding lawyers. They have helped me with several difficult issues over the years, and have never failed me once.

    I wholeheartedly recommend them to whoever reads this, as I do to all my friends and family whenever they need help. They are kind, professional, and know what they’re doing." T.K.

Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

View More

Do You Have Questions? We Have Answers.

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

  • new jersey supreme court
  • HLA

No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Court Plaza South, West Wing
21 Main St #171
Hackensack, NJ 07601

Phone: 201-212-4532
Fax: 201-342-7557
HACKENSACK OFFICE

172 East 161 Street
Bronx, NY 10451

Phone: 201-212-4532
Phone: 212-414-4330
Fax: 201-342-7557
BRONX OFFICE

500 Valley Road
Wayne, NJ 07470

Phone: 201-212-4532
Fax: 201-342-7557
WAYNE OFFICE