A woman drives with both hands on the wheel. Her phone sits face-down on her lap. No officer pulls her over. No lights flash. Weeks later, a $1,251 ticket arrives in the mail. The evidence: a single frame from a Camera surveillance app. The charge: phone use while driving.
Automated camera companies market their devices as automated license plate readers — tools for catching stolen cars, flagging warrants, and aiding serious investigations.
Sold as a Crime Tool. Used as a Fine Machine.
Great. Let me make sure my phone sits somewhere that hides it from view overhead when im not using it.
Ive been leaving my phone home more and more when I go places. I can’t wait until I get a citation for not having a phone.
Would be funny if it was a more modern vehicle, with a massive ipad that’s nearly bolted to your forehead and has displays on the back of every headrest.
“Take cops out of the equation for traffic enforcement.”
“NO, not like that!!!”
Correct… Not like that
“Law enforcement should be conducted specifically in the way that I imagine, not in the way that people vote for.”
- Someone speaking unironically, believe it or not.
Alternate viewpoint, it’s not about doing it a specific person’s “way” but more about not doing it the objectively stupid way.
One person’s opinion is another person’s “objectively stupid.”
I have yet to see a reasonable proposition on how to do traffic enforcement that seems to sit right with the vast majority of people.
My point in making the above joke(s) is that this is the alternative that many people cried out for. It feels like goal-post moving when every way to enforce the law is “but not this way, a different way.”
My guess at the common denominator that cannot possibly be objectively confirmed is that people simply don’t want to be met with consequences for breaking the law, and no matter how that’s done it will be rejected.
In other words, every way to enforce traffic has downsides - every single one. This is the one that does not involve cops. As you see, this is the downside. It’s laughably easy to “THIS IS BAD” at it while proposing no alternatives, and very amusing when an alternative (like this one) is eventually picked apart for being “objectively stupid” when its downsides inevitably crop up.
I dunno man you come off as pretty objectively stupid, but whatever
An example of what people in positions of authority think is perfectly acceptable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_School_District
School authorities surreptitiously and remotely activated webcams embedded in school-issued laptops the students were using at home. After the suit was brought, the school district, of which the two high schools are part, revealed that it had secretly taken more than 66,000 images.
A lawsuit wasn’t enough, the administrators should be branded as sex offenders and the parents should have taken them out behind the school and beat the crap out of them.
I seem to recall something about a story where, like, a kids mom didnt know the camera was remotely turned on and walked through the room naked, after having just gotten out of the shower, and there was some kind of CPS investigation about it?
or is my brain mixing up several different school district voyeur stories together?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_School_District
The school took 66,000 pictures of students in their bedrooms. School administrators should be listed as sex offenders but that doesn’t happen in the U.S. Case in point - our child rapist in chief.
Nope, that happened. If the institution spying on you in your home sees you naked, in your own home where you foolishly expect privacy, you’re a criminal.
Traffic cams violate our constitutional right to face our accuser in court.
Traffic violations are rarely criminal cases.
Wouldn’t you just need a police officer to go to court and say they are accusing you based on said evidence and then you still face the accuser
The huge invasions of privacy seem like a much bigger issue but I am also not a legal expert
It doesn’t violate constitutional rights as long as whatever the camera can detect/see would be the same as a police officer. If it has a license plate reader and face detection or whatever it’s unconstitutional because an officer probably wouldn’t have been able to issue a ticket if it were a person there instead of a camera. If it’s something like an obviously missing seatbelt or phone use seen through the window at a reasonable angle it’s constitutional.
I don’t understand the “face an accuser in court” argument. It’s a photo. You argue about the photo with the judge. The photo is your accuser.
Did you ever have a misunderstanding with someone that simply explaining it to each other cleared it up? How can a camera explain what it saw. The police officer wasn’t there and isn’t a witness. Also these cameras are not owned by the police. It’s a third party company that has a lease with them. So someone with no authority to make traffic stops is taking pictures of you and sending the bad stuff to police for money. Doesn’t that sound like a conflict of interest?
No
The company sending the letter is the acccuser.
They need to explain how they interpreted the photo
Since the article appears to be mostly a weird collection of badly referenced random cases, let me give you the primary source on the case in the headline:
https://www.tiktok.com/@kristakampz/video/7640403411845877012
Edit and also to save you having to go to tiktok, here’s a frame extracted from the video:
Note, this was in Alexandra Headland in Queensland in Australia. So no idea why the article cites Georgia law…
Also this is relevant: https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/mobile-phones
Illegal mobile phone use while driving includes:
- holding it in your hand
- resting on any part of your body (eg. your lap or shoulder)
If you hold your phone or have it on your body, you will be fined even if you’re not operating the phone, or it’s turned off.
So no idea why the article cites Georgia law…
Because there was another case in Georgia in December that they were citing as well. In fact they cite several cases in different parts of the country. The article is making a case for a supreme court challenge to these Constitution violating cameras and fines. The Australian cases just a viral opener for the topic.
Can’t be that viral if the tiktok is already two months old. I think they are just too bad at journalism to check their sources.
Does a phone in the pocket count as resting on any part of the body?
Why is it illegal to have a phone in your lap? That doesn’t make sense. That’s bizarre.
Edit:
Really? This is a hot take? WTF!
If you slam on the brakes or maybe brake too sudden and it flies off and onto the floor, then it could potentially slide under a pedal (like the brakes), hindering its function.
Is it likely? Probably not, but it is a dangerous hazard waiting to happen.
I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around the logic of this law and this was one of the things I considered they must be worried about. It’s not so much people using them, it’s just they don’t want them in the lap. Because Uber and Lyft drivers have to use them for work in the US. Here they have they often have a mount on the dash board to hold their phone and they’re constantly taking calls and checking maps.
As you say though it’s like a one in a million event freak accident if it flies off the lap and gets stuck under the pedal. It would be weird to pass a law for some off the wall scenario like that.
Yes it does. Your phone is in your lap so you can look at it. Keep it away. I know everyone is addicted to them but just drive without looking st it.
I don’t own a car. I ride a bicycle and take Ubers and Lyfts for long distance travel, and smart phones are like the spice mélange to those drivers. They seem to need them to navigate the Universe. So this law just seems terribly ill-conceived. The lap is just an oddly specific place to focus on. So you can set them on the dashboard, center console, or anywhere else, but the lap is the danger zone?
My main phone is a dumb phone. I hate smart phones and only got one specifically for Ubder and Lyfts, so I’m not addicted. So I’m standing outside looking in and it’s a bizarre law. Sure, we don’t want people playing Angry Birds while driving, but I don’t think this is a well thought out solution that does anything at all except cause more chaos and suffering.
Why is it illegal to have a phone in your lap?
Likely to make the law in any way practical to enforce. Many people will use their phone in the car by keeping it between their legs like a middle schooler hiding their phone use from their teacher. They can read messages or watch videos while keeping it out of their hands, but it’s still just as distracting.
You could just ban looking at a phone in your lap while driving, but then you have the nightmare of proving that someone who glanced down was actually looking at their phone, rather than just randomly glancing down for some other innocent reason. And they would have to glance down at their phone at the exact moment a camera or police officer saw them.
Phone use is actually very hard to enforce because of the nature of its use. People using their phone while driving don’t tend to continuously look at the phone the whole time they drive - they would be completely incapable of driving if they did so. Instead, they use it intermittently, such as while stopped at a traffic light or while cruising down the highway. That use is still enough to degrade their driving performance to the level of a drunk driver, but it’s not continuous. To make enforcement practical, you need to write the law so that it doesn’t require a lucky coincidence to enforce.
For an older comparable example, consider open container laws. You might reasonably ask, “wait, as long as I’m not drinking from it, why can’t I have an open beer in the car? Maybe I just want to take my half-finished beer home from the bar and finish it at home!” And while that would be a perfectly innocuous reason to have an open container of alcohol in the car, it would also make drunk driving laws much more difficult to enforce. You could only ticket someone for drinking in the car if they happen to take a sip right when you’re watching. Instead of trying to outlaw the infrequent action, you instead outlaw the necessary but continuous action. It’s not practical to only ban drinking in vehicles. Instead you ban having an open container, as “possessing an open container” is something a drunk driver will be doing for a protracted period of time.
It’s not a perfect approach to writing laws; you do end up criminalizing some innocuous behavior. But trade offs have to be made. Yes, it’s unfortunate that open container laws also make it so you can’t bring your half-finished drink home from the bar. And yes, it’s unfortunate that banning cell phone use while driving also requires banning just having a phone in your lap.
But if you’ve ever worked in a classroom, you’ll know that this is the only way to actually ban cell phone use while driving. Teachers learn very quickly they can’t just ban students from using their phones, they have to completely ban them from having them out at all. Relying on lucky coincidences to enforce laws is not a practical solution.
If you write enough laws in a manner that makes it easy to violate them accidentally, then anyone can be prosecuted at any time and civil liberties can be removed via technicalities.
Vague / broad laws that allow anyone to be arrested or fined for anything are a distinguishing feature of police states, and solid basis for blanket opposition-to or at least skepticism-of laws in general (e.g. “illegal strike” are we slaves?).
I’m not opposed to law itself; however, I struggle to respect laws from non-democratic governments. Unfortunately, that’s all governments right now. I’m not aware of any electoral democracy at any level of government. Electoral Democracy has four required mechanism: Ranked Voting, Lottery Option, Recall Mechanism, Randomized Districting. That’s what it takes to acquire consent of the governed. That’s what it takes for legitimacy. Most governments are electoral oligarchies that function like weak police states for the lower classes.
This is a tragedy, but we can start installing the mechanisms required for electoral democracy at a local level and in private organizations to slowly entrench democracy and establish norms / standards before we slide farther into the oligachic police state we’re currently facing.
The only reason to have a phone in your lap while driving is if you intend to use said phone while driving.
Or you are currently using it and trying to be sneaky about it
Your phone fell off the dashboard phone stand, you caught it and set it in your lap.
That logic can be applied to anywhere in the car that the driver can reach. Is the Australian government suffering a collective stroke? Should we send help?
I honestly throw mine wherever without thinking about it. Def has been on lap or in crotch a few times.
A law that specified you were actively using the phone would be hard to enforce. Simmiliar to how it is usually illegal to have open alcohol within reach of the driver. The officer doesn’t have to actually see you drinking it.
How would it be hard to enforce? You can see it next their head.
Ever since video playback is possible. You no longer need to put your phone on your head to use it.
These are cargo cult laws. They don’t understand what the original laws were about. They just know “use phone in car bad” but they don’t know why. Used to you had to hold the phone to your head and block half of your vision.
i keep mine in the space between the console and the seat not quite resting on my leg just sitting there unused and charging. the case on it kinda keeps it from looking like a phone as well
Article:
Georgia law (OCGA 17-4-23) generally requires a traffic offense occur in the presence of an officer for a citation to be valid — raising direct legal questions about mail-in AI camera tickets.
Washington State caps automated camera fines at $145 under RCW 46.63.220 — far below what you might be paying too much when the viral ticket hits $1,251.
Five Albany, Georgia officers were criminally charged for misusing Flock plate-reader data for personal reasons, according to USA Today.
This was in Australia though
Find a flock employee and place its favorite pet around its house.
This has nothing to do with Flock, these cameras catch people who are breaking a law and don’t store/index footage otherwise, Flock is purely survailance tech, even if you do nothing wrong the point of flock is to survail.
and don’t store/index footage otherwise
How do they manage that, with the current surveillance regime? Is all the image processing on device? What’s it sampling against? How does it send the tickets? One-way infrared flashes?
I could be wrong but pre-Flock and letting the tech-Bros actually build a survailance state, most traffic cameras were designed to only flash when they caught someone breaking the law and so only send data off the device when needed.
How do they manage that
For speed/red light cameras it’s trivial, for something like this it’s pretty easy to process on device to detect a phone in your hand/lap, but probably does need someone to check for false positives.
Is all the image processing on device?
It should be, this is simple to do on device (unless it’s outsourced to Palantir & frens)
How does it send the tickets
Obviously when it triggers it uploads data.
it uploads data
… So. To the internet?
simple to do on device
Image recognition is not computationally cheap. There are more and less expensive ways to do it, but the absolute floor of it turns your phone into a hot plate. So whatever’s in there would need to be at least a phone chip.
someone needs to check
So it is kept and stored.
pre all-this-shit
Red light/speed cams, triggered on motion sensor boolean when light red or radar speed reading>x.
You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, which is fine, but why are you speaking confidently and assuming such good will about proven constant brazen liars saying they’re not doing the shit they literally always do?
You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about
Lmao.
You can literally detect phones with a raspberryPi the idea that you need to upload it to a server is ridiculous.
You can ‘detect phones’ via anything with WiFi. Are you trolling? Do you not understand the difference between image processing and simpler more computer readable signals?
You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. How are so many people so rabidly and confidently ignorant?
One I got a $125 ticket for driving 27 near a school on a Saturday in Washington, so no system is perfect…
That’s the law here. Phone has to be securely stowed. Driving with it on your lap gets you a distracted driving ticket. Even if you weren’t planning on looking at it. A sudden traffic move means its falling on the floor and driver is going to try to reach for it.
My uncle once wrapped his car around a telephone pole because an orange fell off the seat and he was trying to pick it up.
I feel like there’s a clever fruit/apple/iphone joke in there somewhere but I can’t find it and I give up.
A coworker hit a parked car that way. Turning a RH corner he hooked his arm through the steering wheel to get to the passenger side, then popped up to see himself rear ending a car
Wouldn’t they have to prove it was a phone and not some black address book or something
I remember the NSA massive surveillance machine during the George W. Bush administration and Obama administration that tracked phone metadata and internet traffic that left or entered the US (which was used to justify a lot of surveillance of US citizens). Even after the Snowden disclosures of 2013 we were promised that the system was only meant to track foreign terrorists.
Then we learned that DEA had full access to it, and that NSA was sending hints to law enforcement about large amounts of cash in transit so it could be intercepted for purposes of asset forfeiture, what is nothing short of robbery of civilians by law enforcement officers.
This is an example of mission creep, in this case how it affects the surveillance state. Once we allow a method or technology to be used for major crime (like terrorism), it will eventually be used even for minor crime (like drug possession or distracted driving).
It’s very common for courts to forgive a violation of fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search when the violation presents evidence for a major crime, but then that case will be used as precedent when the same violation occurs and discovers a minor infraction.
This is how, during the aughts and 2010s, the Fourth Amendment was gutted by a long run of carve-outs. Now, a police officer or state agent can violate your privacy without a warrant via a whole range of exceptions:
~ If the crime they discover is significant (SCOTUS suggested controlled substance possession as an example)
~ Using specialized technology, say long-range multi-spectrum cameras, or using a drone.
~ If probable cause can be established. A favorite is a detection dog that signals on anything and has a 90%+ false positive rate.¹ (This is a particular beef of mine, since fake detection dogs are now more common than actual detection dogs, and dogs are losing their presumption of regularity as a result.)
~ If the police officer was acting in good faith, which is obtusely defined and is very hard to disprove.
~ If the suspect is non-white or otherwise suspicious due prejudice. Really, in a lot of counties, law enforcement are allowed to operate on hunches, or have a suspicious activity parameter list that is so encompassing (and often contradictory) that it’s impossible to not be suspicious.If you want to know how we got here these were already problems during the Obama administration when we had allegedly reasonable people in elected offices. And while they discussed the risk of too much power falling into the wrong hands, they felt compelled to keep it.
Whether the One Ring, or the Ring of Gyges, power without consequence is too seductive.
¹ A similar issue is the $2 roadside drug test which reacts to a lot of substances that aren’t controlled, such as glazed sugar off a donut. These were originally supposed to be then verified later in a lab, but instead were used to establish probable cause, and eventually were used as evidence in court.
This is wildly whack:
https://www.propublica.org/article/common-roadside-drug-test-routinely-produces-false-positives
The system must do everything in its power to drive false convictions down to absolute zero.
Blackstone would agree with you.
Many, many people, in law enforcement and the judiciary would disagree…
…especially when it comes to minorities.
obviously LLM-generated article from an odd outlet that publishes five articles every hour
the news is real because it just regurgitates 404media
The summary OP posted is LLM slop as well
that’s not a summary; that’s the first paragraphs of the article
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
I think this is fair. It’s reasonable to require a stowed phone, and we don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy while driving our cars. No essential liberty is being violated.
Spoken like a true fascist. Government mass surveillance and AI consolidation is tyranny.
You don’t think an anarchist society would have any mechanism to stop people from driving dangerously?
Harsh
Funny, isn’t liberty an inalienable right granted by The Creator?
Ben Franklin was an atheist
Are you sure? He definitely said and wrote things to the contrary, including the Declaration of Independence.
I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that He made the world, and governed it by His providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter.
I have no dog in this race, being neither American nor religious, but it seems like an important historical detail.
I assume they were thinking of Jefferson, but he would have been more of an agnostic (maybe). He just thought the virgin birth was bullshit, Jesus was some guy, and the point was to believe in caring for others basically. Apparently he just took all the miracles out and said, people should treat people better.
Which honestly sounds like a much less toxic version of beliefs. (But I’m sure that’s been white washed or rose tinted or what not over the years)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
I think we can agree he was a critic of organized religion, and that it’s pretty enlightened to not have the state impose religion on anyone.
That said I still think he (at least for a large chunk of his life) believed in the existence of a god, the god of Abraham/Christianity in particular.
Not every religious person feels the need to forcibly convert others.
im glad she was fined, but i hope there is someone auditing the fines, and checks the pictures
Her phone was face down, she wasn’t looking at it that we can see. All we know here is her hands were on the wheel, she was in her lane, and she wasn’t looking at her phone right then. Anything else is speculation without evidence.
Sure then but why is her phone face down on her lap? Cause she was using it. Cops going to give you a ticket also if he sees that.
You understand that most women’s clothing don’t have pockets, right?
Nah, if a cop charges her for that, she’d be right to contest it. Maybe it had fallen, and she tucked it in her lap to let her get safely clear of traffic before stowing it properly. Doesn’t matter if it’s likely or not, the burden of proof is on the accuser, and it’s not met here.
Let’s not let the police assume lawbreaking without clear proof, and lets especially not let them automate that accusation process!
Yes, but you slam on the brakes or maybe brake too sudden and it flies off and onto the floor. It could potentially slide under a pedal (like the brakes), hindering its function.
Is it likely? Probably not, but it is a dangerous hazard waiting to happen.
Okay - so charge her with having an unsecured object in her vehicle.
The fine was for use of a phone while driving, when the phone was not in use. Not for having unsecured items in the vehicle. Not saying it’s a good idea to drive that way - it’s pretty clearly not - but that’s not the actual issue here
you slam on the brakes or maybe brake too sudden and it flies off and onto the floor. It could potentially slide under a pedal (like the brakes), hindering its function.
That’s nothing but speculative and hypothetical, and not a violation of any statute. That might happen with a lunchbox or a bag of groceries. Your phone might fall out of its window mount suction cup if you brake hard too. Your floor rug might scoot up over your accelerator pedal and cause an accident. If any of those happen, they might be the “reason” for an accident but the fact that the potential exists isn’t a violation. You might wish that were so but it’s not.
I’m not sure the evidence that’s available here is proof enough she was distracted driving.
