ILNews

Indiana's texting ban difficult to enforce

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Texting while driving is a Class C infraction in Indiana, with a fine of up to $500. But look around as you’re driving, and you’ll likely see at least a few motorists who appear to be fiddling with their phones.

Since July 1, 2011, Indiana Code 9-21-8-59 has prohibited texting while driving. It does not outlaw checking Facebook, searching for nearby restaurants, or any number of distracting activities that can be performed on a smartphone.

koch-eric-mug.jpg Koch

Police are not permitted to confiscate a phone for the purpose of determining whether someone was texting while driving, which leads some people to question the enforceability of the law. And others wonder whether the law will have any measureable effect on changing dangerous behaviors.

Enforceability

In Indiana, texting-while-driving is a primary offense, meaning officers can pull over a motorist for suspicion of texting alone.

Between July 1 last year and June 1, 2012, Indiana State Police issued 125 citations and 114 warnings for texting statute violations; in that same time, ISP issued 141,276 speeding citations and 48,889 seatbelt violation citations.

Chris Daniels, traffic safety resource prosecutor for the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, said that most prosecutors have not seen an influx of texting tickets. “I cannot say whether it’s because the law has had a deterrent effect, difficulties in enforcement, or a combination of both,” he said.

Attorney and Rep. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, authored House Bill 1129, which created the new statute.

“I think we are still watching it and getting feedback on it,” he said. “It’s not necessarily a perfect law – I’m not sure any law is perfect, and there had been some concern about the difficulty of enforcement. But at the same time, it does make a public policy statement.”

Koch said that failing to outlaw texting while driving could cause new and inexperienced drivers to assume it’s OK for them to text while driving.

“The data show that people do want to and try to comply with the law, so I think when we make a statement like we did – that people should not text and drive – people who want to be law-abiding will follow that,” he said.

Rep. Sean Eberhart, R-Shelbyville, voted against the bill last year.

“I did vote against it, and the first reason is it’s unenforceable, and we’ve seen that and heard that from many law enforcement folks who say there’s no way they can enforce this law,” he said. “I’m not in the habit of supporting a piece of legislation just to try to make a point.”

The Governors Highway Safety Administration’s report, “Distracted Driving: What Research Shows and What States Can Do,” advocates texting bans for drivers but notes the difficulty of enforcing those laws. The GHSA also advises that not enforcing existing statutes sends a message that the law is unimportant.

But enforcement – as one experiment showed – may mean more than simply initiating a traffic stop.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted a test in two states with laws against driving while using hand-held cellphones to determine whether high-visibility enforcement initiatives would result in increased compliance with state laws. High-visibility enforcement combines dedicated law enforcement during a specific period and a media campaign that supports the enforcement-based message. The most well-known campaign is “Click It or Ticket,” which used a multi-pronged approach to encourage seat belt law compliance.

In Syracuse, N.Y., and Hartford, Conn., the study looked at the effectiveness of enforcement waves at a time when television, radio and online ads promoted the enforcement message. It also explored different methods of spotting offenses.

mcmillin_jud-mug.jpg McMillin

In four “waves” of enforcement, the percentage of drivers observed holding their phones to their ears decreased through the end of the fourth enforcement wave. Compared to control cities, where no media campaign took place and police did not engage in a targeted cellphone-use enforcement campaign, the reductions in Hartford and Syracuse were significant, reflecting a 57-percent decline in observed cellphone use, compared to a 15-percent decline in the control cities.

The research also supported the conclusion that police were more successful in seeing violations when they used creative approaches. Hartford police favored a team approach, where a stationary officer would radio ahead to a partner anytime the first officer saw someone using a cellphone while driving, and the second officer would initiate the traffic stop. Syracuse preferred roving patrols in either unmarked cars or vehicles such as SUVs that offer a higher vantage point, enabling officers to see texting and hand-held violations more clearly.

Other approaches

Rep. Jud McMillin, R-Brookville, is an attorney and former prosecutor who voted against Koch’s legislation.

“I had three basic problems with it at the time. One is that the problem we’re trying to fix is already covered in the law,” he said.

During discussions about the bill last year, he argued that if a driver were eating, applying makeup, texting, or otherwise distracted and caused a crash resulting in injury or death, the criminal recklessness statute would apply.

“If I was a prosecutor, I wouldn’t have any problem taking the case to trial under a criminal recklessness statue if someone had hit somebody and hurt them or killed them,” he said.

Another reason he objected to the law is that it could have the unintended consequence of people driving more poorly as they attempt to conceal their texting from police.

In September 2010, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute reported that an analysis of collision loss claims in four states that had enacted texting bans showed no decline in crashes. Rather, claims appeared to increase slightly, and researchers theorized that could be because drivers in those states responded to the ban by placing their phones in their laps when texting in order to avoid detection. However, the researchers went on to say that the study had some weaknesses, because collision claims were not a perfect indicator of crashes in which distraction was a factor.

textingAngie Rinock, spokesperson for State Farm Insurance, said Indiana’s law is a good first step toward raising awareness about the dangers of distracted driving. State Farm also emphasizes the importance of graduated driver’s license requirements in reducing teen crashes.

Indiana enacted its GDL restrictions in 2009, which state that drivers younger than 18 may not use any telecommunication device while driving, except to make emergency 911 calls. Washington, D.C., and 31 other states have imposed regulations that prohibit younger drivers from using cellphones while driving.

Sending a message

On June 6, a Massachusetts judge sentenced 18-year-old Aaron Deveau to prison for a fatal crash he caused when he was 17. Prosecutors said Deveau had been texting before he crossed a center line and collided with another vehicle, killing the occupant. The judge reportedly wanted to make an example out of Deveau in issuing the sentence of 2 1/2 years, with all but one year suspended. But penalties are not a deterrent for all people, as shown by the ongoing incidences of fatal crashes caused by drunk driving.

The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute reports that last year, the state had 1,027 crashes where cellphone use was listed as a contributing factor. Of those, five were fatal crashes, and seven fatalities occurred.

McMillin said he thinks Indiana’s law will not stop people from texting and driving, because the root cause of that problem is simply poor judgment. He thinks that the time spent hearing testimony and gathering the input and research necessary to craft a new law would be better devoted to educating people about making smarter decisions.

“We seem to overestimate what we have the ability to do in the Legislature a lot,” he said.

A study by the NHSTA in New York and Connecticut found most drivers reported a willingness to text or use their phones while driving and at the same time believed it was important for police to enforce laws preventing such practices. Those conflicting viewpoints highlight the difficulty of getting people to understand the risks associated with their own behaviors.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  2. A high ranking bureaucrat with Ind sup court is heading up an organization celebrating the formal N word!!! She must resign and denounce! http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  3. ND2019, don't try to confuse the Left with facts. Their ideologies trump facts, trump due process, trump court rules, even trump federal statutes. I hold the proof if interested. Facts matter only to those who are not on an agenda-first mission.

  4. OK so I'll make this as short as I can. I got a call that my daughter was smoking in the bathroom only her and one other girl was questioned mind you four others left before them anyways they proceeded to interrogate my daughter about smoking and all this time I nor my parents got a phone call,they proceeded to go through her belongings and also pretty much striped searched my daughter including from what my mother said they looked at her Brest without my consent. I am furious also a couple months ago my son hurt his foot and I was never called and it got worse during the day but the way some of the teachers have been treating my kids they are not comfortable going to them because they feel like they are mean or don't care. This is unacceptable in my mind i should be able to send my kids to school without worry but now I worry how the adults there are treating them. I have a lot more but I wanted to know do I have any attempt at a lawsuit because like I said there is more that's just some of what my kids are going through. Please respond. Sincerely concerned single parent

  5. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

ADVERTISEMENT