Cell Phone Fascists Flout Freedom
Posted by: Chuck DeVore | 07/11/2008 2:41 PM
Liberty is the first casualty of the nanny state.I wish I could take some measure of joy in saying, "I told you so." But, I can't. In fact, I'm just angry.
What happened? Scott Carpenter, one of my field representatives, was pulled over yesterday morning by one of Irvine's finest. The crime? Violating section 23123 of the Vehicle Code by talking on a cell phone without a hands-free device while driving.
The trouble was, Mr. Carpenter wasn't on his cell phone, he simply had his left hand up by his left ear at a stop light. From behind the car and to the left it certainly LOOKED like Mr. Carpenter may have been violating the new law, but he wasn't. You can see the potential for confusion from this series of three photos I took of Mr. Carpenter in his car.
As the police car's lights flashed from behind, Mr. Carpenter wondered, "What could I have done?" He pulled over. The cop walked up to the car and said, "I noticed you were on your cell phone." A violation of section 23123 is punishable by a $76 fine ($20 for the fine and another $56 for "penalty assessments") for a first offense.
Mr. Carpenter replied, "With all due respect, I think you're mistaken. I was not on my cell phone."
The officer smugly replied, "I saw you. I was right behind you."
Mr. Carpenter politely responded, "Well, sir, my hand was just at my ear. I'll show you my call log, if you like."
The cop said, "Sure, let's have a look."
After looking at Mr. Carpenter's cell phone, and seeing that the last call was at least 20 minutes prior, the officer, disappointment written on his face, said, "I must have been mistaken. But you know that's the new law, so be careful."
Mr. Carpenter speculated that the traffic officer was looking to write his first cell phone ticket. Regardless, this exchange shows what can begin to happen as we cede more and more of our personal responsibility to the state. Law enforcement officers begin the long migration from people whose main job is to catch criminals to people who become our keepers - minding our safety, telling us what to do.
Imagine if Mr. Carpenter challenged the officer and took his cell phone ticket to court. What a supreme waste of time and public safety money.
Unfortunately, the bill that outlawed some cell phone usage, SB 1613 by Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), was signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2006 after being supported by five Republicans in the Assembly and one in the Senate. I argued at the time that existing law was sufficient to the task of public safety, since Section 23103 of the Vehicle Code already makes it a crime to drive "...a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property..." meaning that police officers already had the right to pull over a driver when their actual bad driving endangered other people. To make matters worse, the new law won't have the public safety benefit it was touted to have, since studies published in the British Medical Journal, the "Human Factors" journal and others show that just talking while in a car, especially to someone not in the car, increases distraction, hands-free device or no.
Of course, some drivers appear to be able to drive and talk at the same time, which is why I thought Section 23103 on reckless driving was adequate to the task.
I'll offer this prediction: after Californians spend millions of dollars to buy all those wireless attachments for their cell phones, a study will come out showing no difference in California's accident rate, leading to another new law that will simply ban all cell phone use by drivers. Thus, liberty withers, bit by bit, as we use the law to compensate for our lack of common sense and personal responsibility.
CATEGORY:
California Stuff, Liberty
I'm hoping there was some sarcasm when you called the officer one of "Irvine's finest."
I'm sure Irvine has some fine officers, but that dodo is not among them.
I'm curious, Chuck: Would you be railing against the Patriot Act if one of your (innocent) employees had his bank accounts and library book records searched without a warrant, and had his home broken into and searched without a warrant, and then was told that he could tell no one about the searches -- not the press, not an elected representative, not a lawyer?
They say that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. I would go further and say that a libertarian is a conservative who's been wiretapped.
i guess Field Representative Carpenter needs to develop a gangsta lean to avoid getting caught with that lame finger in the ear cruising position
I don't think Scott has Al Qaeda on speed dial. He shouldn't have to worry about wire taps.
And what the heck is Mr. Whipple checking out of the library that is so top secret?
Do Democrats really look at the War on Terror and equate it with a nanny cop giving cell phone tickets? I knew that the drugs from the 60's would catch up with the liberal baby boomers eventuallly.
MRWHIPPLE: two things...
First, can you see a difference between a police officer being given another excuse to pull you over to save you from yourself and the issue of counter-terrorism?
Second, you appear to ascribe to the PATRIOT Act things that are not in it when you write, "...bank accounts and library book records searched without a warrant, and had his home broken into and searched without a warrant, and then was told that he could tell no one about the searches -- not the press, not an elected representative, not a lawyer?"
My reading of the PATRIOT Act is that it does require search warrants and other legal protections. Care to cite specific examples from the actual law?
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
I would expect more from Assemblyman Devore, rather than sarcastically referring to an IPD officer as one of Irvine’s finest and saying the officer replied “smugly” when showed the phone’s log. The officer could have said he was not interested in seeing the phone and still written the ticket, causing your man to have to appear in court or pay the ticket.
The law has been in effect for almost two weeks, so I’m sure the officer has had the chance to issue his first ticket. How about getting on board and supporting law enforcement, rather than being critical of them, Chuck? As the saying goes, the cops don’t write the laws (that’s your job), they just enforce them.
Actually, law enforcement officers do have complete discretion to enforce the law. They can choose what tickets to write or not to write. Lastly, I wrote the officer was "smug" because that is the way my staffer discribed his behavior. Do you not want me to be completely truthful and discriptive in my report? Or, would you rather I covered for the officer?
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
And by the way, your comment, "The officer could have said he was not interested in seeing the phone and still written the ticket, causing your man to have to appear in court or pay the ticket" scares the hell out of me. In other words, cops can cite us citizens regardless of the evidence or the law and haul us into court and you are fine with that. For the sake of the republic and all that is good, I do hope you do not have a badge.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
Chuck,
The Patriot Act permits federal agents to write their own search warrants (called "national security letters") with no judge having examined or approved them, and the Act makes it a felony for the recipient of a self-written search warrant to reveal it to anyone.
I don't think I can create URLs on this site, but if you Google "Patriot Act abuse" you'll discover that a 2007 DOJ review of the use of national security letters found rampant abuse, and that even Alberto Gonzales admitted this revealed serious problems at the FBI.
Let's see if this goes through -- you'll need to remove the spaces:
http: // arstechnica.com/ news.ars/ post/ 20070312-doj-report-finds-patriot-act-ripe-for-abuse.html
What this has in common with the cell phone law is that both were passed ostensibly to protect people, and yet both instead will and have become avenues for corrupt or incompetent police agencies to harass innocent civilians.
I fear Washington D.C. far more than I fear the al-Quaeda. My odds of being killed by a terrorist are minuscule when compared to the amount of money and freedom I've lost over the last 7 years.
I do have to say that I have been in almost MORE dangerous positions trying to get my "hands free" device pugged in while driving. That is quite a more dangerous distraction. :-)
MRWHIPPLE, so you cite abuse of the law? If so, you prove my point (i.e., if the law is so permissive, why did they have to abuse it to do what they wanted). What is the actual law? Please cite Federal Code so I can see it for myself. No opinion, urban legend, etc. just the facts. Thanks.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
Chuck,
The pertinent portion of the Patriot Act is Section 505. See, specifically, 505(a)(3)(B) and 505(b)(1).
You can read the DOJ report yourself (remove the spaces below):
http: // www.usdoj. gov/ oig/ special/ s0703b/ final.pdf
The Bush administration fought against the investigation, BTW.
The Patriot Act, by its very nature, lends itself to abuse because it allows federal officials to write their own warrants and then gag the recipients of the warrants. (Self-written search warrants was one of the practices of the British that outraged the colonists and led to the Revolutionary War.)
Recommended reading: Andrew Napolitano's 'A Nation of Sheep'.
Hey he swiped that title from William Lederer who used it in a book about failed US intelligence and misinformation in Southeast Asia.
I would like to see some of our fine limited government oriented councilmembers instruct their police departments not to enforce this intrusive law.
George, not being a Bay Area native, I unfortunately never developed the "gangsta lean" driving style.
MRWHIPPLE, perhaps we are not reading the same law. The section you cite, 505, appears to deal with counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records from phone companies including the name of the person with the phone, their address, length of phone service and local and long distance toll calls information. Mind you, this is not a wire tap, it is only administrative data.
Further, it is a far, far cry from your original charge, where you wrote, "Would you be railing against the Patriot Act if one of your (innocent) employees had his bank accounts and library book records searched without a warrant, and had his home broken into and searched without a warrant, and then was told that he could tell no one about the searches -- not the press, not an elected representative, not a lawyer?"
So, I ask you again, where in the actual law, not in myth, rumor or urban legend, is the authorization to do what you said? Again, perhaps it is there and I am mistaken.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
Nanny statism = government nanomanaging.
I believe Mr.Carpenter was pulled over due to his Dodgers license plate frame and LD sticker profiling him as an 'outsider'. If his car been represented with Angels' logos then the fine officer wouldn't have even took notice of Carpenter ;) I still believe the officer had the power to right a Scott a citation for "Driving While Being a Dodger Fan" (DWBADF)in Irvine.
The key part of the Patriot Act is section 206. The way it is worded, my entire city could be wiretapped if a "suspected terrorist" lived 3 miles away.
Correction on late nite errors:
*Right:write
I'm still sticking with the LD sticker since Scott has a knock-off LA sticker that he purchased on San Pedro St. in LA.
Mr. T and MRWHIPPLE, the two of you appear to grasping at rumor straws. Never mind that your responses are not even tangentially related to my original post – but then, that’s what you tend to do, isn’t it?
So, to your point, first it was Section 505 and now that that doesn’t work, it’s off to Section 206 of the PATRIOT Act.
Section 206 deals with the ability of intelligence and law enforcement to ask for a wiretap on a specific person, rather than a specific phone line. This is needed in today’s environment with disposable cell phones, VOIP phones, email, etc. Mr. T., Perhaps you can show me the offending wording of Section 206 to back up your claim that, “The way it is worded, my entire city could be wiretapped if a ‘suspected terrorist’ lived 3 miles away.”
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com