Logan, Utah – In most states, if somebody is texting behind the wheel and causes a crash that injures or kills someone, the penalty can be as light as a fine.
Utah is much tougher.
After a crash here that killed two scientists-and prompted a dogged investigation by a police officer and a local victim’s advocate-Utah passed the nation’s toughest law to crack down on texting behind the wheel. Offenders now face up to 15 years in prison.
The new law, which took effect in May, penalizes a texting driver who causes a fatality as harshly as a drunken driver who kills someone. In effect, a crash caused by such a multitasking motorist is no longer considered an “accident” like one caused by a driver who, say, runs into another car because he nodded off at the wheel. Instead, such a crash would now be considered inherently reckless.
“It’s a willful act,” said Lyle Hllyard, a Republican state senator and a big supporter of the new measure. “If you choose to drink and drive or if you choose to text and drive, you’re assuming the same risk.”
The Utah law represents a concrete new response in an evolving debate among legislators around the country about how to reduce the widespread practice of multitasking behind the wheel – a topic to be discussed at a national conference about the dangers of distracted driving that is being organized by the Transportation Department for this fall.
Studies show that talking on a cellphone while driving is as risky as driving with a .08 blood alcohol level – generally the standard for drunken driving – and that the risk of driving while texting is at least twice that dangerous. Research also shows that many people are aware that the behavior is risky, but they assume others are the problem.
Treating texting behind the wheel like drunken driving raises complex legal questions. Drunken drivers can be identified using a Breathalyzer. But there is no immediate test for driving while texting; such drivers could deny they were doing so, or claim to have been dialing a phone number. (Many legislators have thus far made a distinction between texting and dialing, though researchers say dialing creates many of the same risks.)
If an officer or prosecutor wants to confiscate a phone or phone records to determine whether a driver was texting at the time of the crash, such efforts can be thwarted by search-and-seizure and privacy defenses, lawyers said.
Prosecutors and judges in other states already have the latitude to use more general reckless-driving laws to penalize multitasking drivers who cause injury and death. In California, for instance, where texting while driving is banned but the only deterrent is a $20 fine, a driver in April received a six-year prison sentence for gross vehicular manslaughter when, speeding and texting, she slammed into a line of cars waiting at a construction zone, killing another driver.
But if those prosecutors want to charge a texting driver with recklessness, they must prove the driver knew of the risks before sending texts from behind the wheel.
In Utah, the law now assumes people understand the risks.
The law “is very noteworthy,” said Anne Teigen, a policy specialist with the National Conference of State Legislatures, an organization of state legislators. “They have raised the bar and said texting while driving is not just irresponsible, and it’s not just a bad idea — it is negligent.”
Ms. Teigen said legislators throughout the country were struggling with how to address threats created by new technology, just as they once debated how to handle drunken driving.
Ray LaHood, the transportation secretary, has said drivers should not text behind the wheel, and several United States senators recently introduced legislation to force states to ban texting while driving.
Utah, governed by a Republican legislature with a libertarian bent, may seem an unlikely state to pursue particularly tough penalties governing driver behavior.
But the issue forced itself onto the legislative agenda here because of what occurred on the rainy morning of Sept. 22, 2006.
The accident occurred on a two-lane highway just west of Logan, in a verdant valley in Utah’s northernmost county. Reggie Shaw, a 19-year-old college student working as a house painter, was driving west to work in a Chevy Tahoe. Approaching him, in a Saturn sedan, was James Furaro, 38, and his passenger, Keith P. O’Dell, 50. The senior scientists were commuting to ATK Launch Systems, where they were helping to design and build rocket boosters.
Mr Shaw crossed the yellow dividing line on the two-lane road and clipped the Saturn. It spun across the highway and was struck by a pickup truck hauling a trailer filled with two tons of horseshoes and related equipment.
The two scientists were killed instantly.
At the scene, the investigating officer, Bart Rindlisbacher of the Utah Highway Patrol, said he could not pinpoint the cause of the crash. Mr. Shaw said he could not remember doing anything out of the ordinary.
The trooper figured it was an unfortunate case of “left of center”, a catch-all for a traffic offense that involves crossing the yellow divider.
But a witness told the police he had seen Mr. Shaw swerving several times just before the accident, raising the officer’s suspicions. The trooper’s concerns grew as he drove Mr. Shaw to the hospital. He saw Mr Shaw pull out his phone and start texting.
Mr Shaw denied texting while driving when asked by the officer. The trooper was not convinced, and figured out how to subpoena Mr. Shaw’s phone records and found out that Mr Shaw and his girlfriend had sent 11 text messages to each other in the 30 minutes before the crash, the last one about 1 minute before Mr Shaw called 911. Investigators concluded he sent the last text when he crossed the yellow line.
Still, county prosecutors thought they were unable to charge Mr. Shaw with something other than “left of center”. For instance, if they wanted to prove Mr. Shaw guilty of negligent homicide, a misdemeanor, they would need to show he knew of the dangers of should have known of the dangers of texting while drivign.
Mr. Shaw, who had retained a lawyer, would not discuss the issue with law enforcement or prosecutors.
Then Terryl Warner, a victim’s advocate in the county where the accident ocurred, got involved.
Ms. Warner had a personal interest in the case because she knew the family of one of the scientists.
In July 2007, Ms. Warner, convinced by the trooper’s evidence, wrote to prosecutors arguing for a vehicular manslaughter charge. Just before Thanksgiving in 2008, at a hearing, Mr. Shaw looked at the families of the two dead scientists and decided he could no longer keep dismissing the phone records that showed he was texting. He pleaded guilty to two counts of negligent homicide.
Back in February this year, the state House Subcommittee on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice was considering a ban on texting for motorists. The measure seemd likely to fail given the legislature’s lack of interest in previous such efforts. Then Mr. Shaw stood before them to talk about the crash. “I was the one driving and texting,” Mr. Shaw said through tears. “Excuse me. I apologize. I didn’t know the dangers.” Ms. Warner, the victim’s advocate, said that moment was a turning point. “Before he spoke, some legislators were talking and texting,” she recalled. “After he started talking, there wasn’t a dry eye in the room.”
Under Utah’s new law, someone caught texting and driving now faces up to three months in jail and up to a $750 fine, a misdemeanor. If they cause injury or death, the punishment can grow to a felony and up to a $10,000 fine and 15 years in prison.
Drivers in Utah are now on notice that texting while driving is inherently reckless. And as drivers across the nation become more aware of that notion, judges and prosecutors will feel more comfortable asking for bigger penalties.
By Matt Richtel
New York Times August 28, 2009
ABOUT FAMILY INSURANCE
Phone # (405) 329-9780
Fax # (405) 823-6917
http://www.gotomypolicy.com
paul@familyinsu.com