by Philip Smith
Today, a very tragic accident took place just outside the Liberty city limits ... an Anderson man was hit head on by a car driving in his lane.
For the majority of the day, the headlines described only a few facts about the types of cars involved, then ended with "an investigation is pending."
As "facts" surfaced - it seems the driver that caused the accident was coerced to make a statement about the cause. Without the consultation or proper advice from an attorney (her right before making the statement) it seems she admitted to using her cell phone - texting while driving.
Now, the proponents of texting while driving legislation are shouting, "See!"
Plain and simple: Distracted driving contributed to the accident. The woman "texting" was also not wearing her seatbelt.
While very tragic, this is obviously not a situation where the driver was conscious of hers or anyone else's safety. She would have STILL been texting had a law been in place. Why? How long has a "mandatory seatbelt" law been in place?
We should think about this as our cities and State pass "texting while driving" laws - are they doing it for revenue or for public safety?
[UPDATE] I feel that an important detail should be added to this story - the woman failed a sobriety test. She has now been charged with felony DUI. Texting had little to do with her driving problem. I'll also reiterate that she was not wearing her seatbelt.
16 COMMENTS / Make your own:
My opinion on this matter is just like yours..An Opinion.. If your spouse had been in the other car and got killed by this driver while texing and driving would it change your mind? Doughtful..I am totally in agreement with having a law against Texting, Driving under the influence of Drugs and or Alcohol, and driving with a seat belt fasten... These are all proven methods of distraction from driving and Murdering someone else. If you want to do Texting and driving at the same time and run off the road, crash into a tree and take your own life, then have at it, but please leave me and my loved ones out of your site while driving...
I don't think he's for or against texting while driving - I think he's against the enforcement which is an invasion of privacy. No one ever surrenders a god given right.
Thank you for your comments ...
My wife asked the same thing after she read this ...
"Would you change your mind if my daughter or I had been killed by a texter?"
No ... as tough as that may sound. I would probably pursue charges against the person for gross negligence though.
Here's part of my reasoning ... first and foremost - the woman texting that caused the accident is obviously not thinking about anyone - not even herself.
There are two reasons I say this.
1) She wasn't wearing a seatbelt. This shows me she doesn't even care for her own life. What would possibly make her care for others?
2) Without considering the impact on her case - which may likely turn into a murder trial - she willingly, without an attorney, told police that she was texting. This tells me she has no considerations for her family which will end up paying the price if any damages are awarded in the case.
I won't even get into the near permanent impact on her insurance or the "Scarlet Letter" treatment she will have for the rest of her life.
Don't get me wrong - I may be for a texting while driving law - what I am against is pre-crime and the enforcement - where police on the spot will seize your phone (as they did in this case) - therefore violating my 4th amendment right.
Seatbelt and drunk driving laws ARE in the interest of public safety. Texting bills are being designed SOLELY for revenue and being pitched as public safety to gain support.
Just because someone violates your rights - does not mean they seceded any of theirs.
Look at the Liberty Quotes tag:
Liberty Quotes
Look specifically at the liberty precedent.
I would ask you ... if you were distracted as a driver for any reason, and you inadvertently killed someone - would you want to be put on trial for murder? Would you want to be the precedent for a law that put people on trial for murder? Would you even want to be the topic of news and websites saying YOU were the one that first erased our fourth amendment rights?
In this case the fourth amendment was not violated. The reason for the accident was from her (admitted) gross negligence which was caused by the cell phone. So at that point the cell phone must be taken as evidence to the crime. That is how it works.
The way I interpret your #2 comment, is that she should have concealed the cause of the accident or have gotten a lawyer to do so. It is dangerous to text and drive like it or not. Driving and texting has been compared to DUI. I just wonder if she happened to be drinking would you feel as strongly?
Driving is not a right, but a privilege. The state grants you the privilege to drive on the roads, as long as you follow the law. Anytime your attention is diverted from the road it is considered reckless driving and violators should be prosecuted. A law needs to be in place that prevents cell phone diversions. I'm not saying that a person should not text, but they should do it responsibly, just like drinking. Keep it out of the cars! Who's to say this man's life wouldn't have been saved if there was a law in effect.
It sounds like you are really worried about the scarlet letter the insurance companies will put on her, as you say that you would take her to civil court for gross negligence. In your eyes she is guilty of gross negligence for her reckless driving in a civil case but should not even be charged for her gross negligence criminally. You would only want to take action if it meant a big payday for you to ease the pain of the loss of a family member.
Thank you for your comments although a complete misinterpretation of my meaning.
Everyone has the right to an attorney. Period.
No one has the right to take anything of mine that would be considered a "personal affect". Period.
I think she should be charged and even face involuntary manslaughter - not for the payday - but for punishment.
DUI and TWD are totally different - one is a vice (drinking in excess) the other is a poor decision. Everyone who drinks (regardless of their own estimatations) is impaired. Not everyone looking at their phone for a second or two is texting - nor are they doing anything different than you changing a radio station, adjusting your air conditioner, or giving a look at a bad child.
Drinking while driving is a valid charge - it is a certainty. Seatbelts are a certainty. Texting is a pre-crime charge if no erratic driving is detected - then a charge already exists - reckless driving. In this case - additionally - involuntary manslaughter.
The woman was most likely going to be charged with a crime - this means arrested. She has Miranda Rights regardless of her crime. If any information she released was given before she was read her rights; it is inadmissable and will likely be tossed out.
A car rarely contains evidence inside that pertains to a charge of Driving Under the Influence other than physical evidence (bottles, cans, maybe other substances).
Texting while driving is considered an arbitrary law - it's a judgement call. When a mayor says crack down on it, is he truely motivated by safety or by revenue? This is why we have a constitution. We are supposed to be immune to arbitrary law.
I think the commentor explained it themselves. The charge is covered under current law (reckless driving) ... we don't need a law for everything - we need laws that are general. Following all of man's laws does not a law abiding person make. As we legislate against the specific WATCH OUT - I don't like the color orange!
This is straight from the SC law website, it defines partly what is considered Reckless Driving:
"All vehicles operated upon the public highways of this State under the authority of this section must:
(1) be operated in a safe manner;"
I still justly compare the impairment of DUI to the impairment of TWD. In either case your full attention is distracted from the road. I have seen countless people swerve from side to side in an attempt to respond to an urgent text. It has become so common that I guarantee the next time you see a vehicle driving unsafe the reason will be texting. Check it out, that is if you can put your cell phone down for a minute while driving.
I have never seen anyone successfully send a 2 second text. That is why it is so dangerous. I don't know you may be able to, if so I think you have an amazing talent.
I still do not see where she was denied a lawyer. I believe that she did the right thing by admitting to her crime. I think the only rights that have been violated in this case was the poor man who's life was taken, because of reckless act, being texting.
Your "personal effect" will be considered evidence once is causes a law to be broken.
I just strongly urge people to please drive responsibly and keep the use of cell phones out of cars. It is truly dangerous, this story just backs my opinion.
I appreciate your response.
First, I am not defending reckless driving in any form.
Second, she was asked to give a statement about the cause WITHOUT being informed she had the right to an attorney first. This is a right no matter what the consequence of your crime. It is a right that is a basic summary of rights 4 through 7.
Your mistake in logic is that somehow, someone loses a God given right.
You also make the mistake by not reading the Bill Of Rights that explicitly grant the rights I'm talking about. No where in the Constitution does it say in one circumstance or another you lose a God given right.
You also make some kind of association that I personally text while I drive and that I want to protect my right to endanger others lives.
I'd rather be dead in a free state; than live in a dictatorship. Through grace; God allowed me to be born into a Country, that at this moment, is still free.
I'll state again for the record - she should be charged with reckless driving and possibly involuntary manslaughter. She should have her cellphone records subpoenaed from her cellphone company. This is the "evidence" the police department needs. She should have an attorney, not to conceal, but to assist her in statements so she doesn't get treated unfairly by the law - which SEEMS to be trying to make an example out of her. Is she a violent criminal? Does she deserve life? Does she deserve the electric chair? Neither. She deserves a fair sentencing that is commuted to 1/2 of that - possibly. Only an attorney can get her the fair sentencing. Police have coerced her into possibly not getting a fair trial - a jury will now be biased. The texting accusation should have come out in trial.
The last time I checked it is innocent until proven guilty and the 5th amendment = receipt of due process of law (meaning attorney privileges); no self-incrimination (meaning she CAN'T disclose this without making a personal statement under proper advice and it has to separate from her statements at the time of the crime); no double jeopardy (she can't be charged for reckless driving AND texting while driving - if such a law was in place).
I don't understand what right she has been denied. She has not been arrested, therefore her Miranda Rights have not been read to her. Her right to an attorney has not been denied nor even mentioned and rightly so.
What you are basically saying is that she broke a law and admitted to it so now she has been denied her "God" given rights. I just don't understand.
She should not have been questioned before consulting an attorney. Her phone has nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence - only her phone records - which legally should be subpoenaed. These are her protected rights.
FYI - a traffic stop is an arrest / she has been charged with reckless driving - you do not have to post bail with mist traffic violations - you are free with no bond until trial. It is an arrest none the less.
The reading of the Miranda warning might be omitted during arrest, such as if the evidence is already sufficient to indict, or if the suspect is talkative and volunteers information (without being asked).
I'm not sure if you're speaking from a legal perspective or opinion here:
"The reading of the Miranda warning might be omitted during arrest, such as if the evidence is already sufficient to indict, or if the suspect is talkative and volunteers information (without being asked)."
For a potential murder charge ... Miranda Rights are essential.
I think one fallacy we have here is what she deserves vs what is fair under the law vs what the consequences of new laws will do to erase our many freedoms.
"You also make some kind of association that I personally text while I drive and that I want to protect my right to endanger others lives."
Well, my assumption that you text and drive is accurate when you admit to it:
"I "broke the ice" sarcastically reading them a text message I sent to my wife on the way down 123 to Clemson,
"Bcause it may B 1 of the last times I get 2 do this - I luv u - I wrote this while driving"
You need to make up your mind. If you do text or maybe do or maybe not at all. It is pretty confusing.
If Clemson's intention was to create revenue, then why not charge $445 fee for reckless driving as opposed to their $100 fee for texting while driving?
I am a business major and it doesn't make sense to me.
I think you missed the "sarcastically" part and my texting has nothing to do with the issue. This is privacy and rights issue.
I can tell you're not a law major.
Comments are being closed for this article due to a commenter that went from debate to hyperbole that added nothing further to the conversation.
The issue is now also moot because of a more important detail in the case has emerged, "The driver accused of texting that caused the accident was also charged with DUI." It would be impossible at this point to know what contributed to the accident.
The media made a big deal about the facts of texting while driving being THE cause of the accident.
Post a Comment