Establish an essential protocol that can provide a respectful, efficient and accurate investigation at the scene of a car crash without violating privacy rights.
GOAL: Accurately assess the damage caused by this national epidemic but also, to identify offenders.
Education is essential, but without the support of deterrents this destructive behavior is not likely to change. The existence of the Breathalyzer has been instrumental in the improvement in drunk driving and this legislation and technology can have an equally positive result.
- New “Textalyzer” technology introduced to be used like a Breathalyzer except this test is done on mobile devices at the scene of a car crash where there is injury or property damage (Not for random checks).
- The technology has the capability of detecting illegal usage but does not have the capability to view any personal content.
- Technology can separate illegal activity from legal Bluetooth/voice activation. The technology will only monitor keyboard touches and screen swiping.
- The technology works on a tablet so the phone never leaves the driver’s hands
- If a passenger were using the drivers phone, this would not be implicated as the cause of a crash
The legal concept
Usage over content
- Privacy is meticulously respected by reporting only illegal usage without uncovering any personal content like conversations, contacts, pictures or any other personal matter.
All U.S. states have driver licensing laws which state that a licensed driver has given their implied consent to a field sobriety test and/or a Breathalyzer or similar manner of determining blood alcohol concentration.
- It is not a birthright or entitlement to own a drivers license, - rather, it is a privilege to have a drivers license. For example, a driver can’t ignore red lights at will. If they do, driving privileges are suspended. Similarly, DMV and legislators have successfully established that if a driver refuses to submit to a Breathalyzer test their driving privileges are in jeopardy.
- Reliable studies report that distracted driving with a device is an impairment equal to, or potentially worse than the drinking and driving impairment.
- Evan’s law expands implied consent to implement the same penalties for refusing distracted driving with a device testing that is in place for refusing drunk driving tests.
The sponsors of the Bi-Partisan legislation
- Assistant Assembly Speaker Felix Ortiz (D)
(Sponsored the 2001 handsfree phone law)
- Senator Terrence Murphy (R)
Senator Terrence Murphy, Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, Ben Lieberman
ACDD co-founder Ben Lieberman announcing Evan’s Law at Albany press conference
(Senator Terrence Murphy, Ben Lieberman, Assemblyman Felix Ortiz (D), Robert Greenstein New Castle Town Supervisor (D)
Senator Terrence Murphy, ACDD co-founder Deborah Becker, Assemblyman Felix Ortiz