State Lawmakers Eye Tougher Ban on Texting While Driving
The changes to the Senate bill put the proposal closer to a House measure, which made its first appearance of the legislative session on Tuesday.
March 26, 2019 at 01:18 PM
4 minute read
An effort to put more teeth into Florida's ban on texting while driving continued its Senate journey, after lawmakers stripped out proposals that could have allowed police to pull over motorists for potential distractions such as talking on cellphones, eating hamburgers or self-grooming.
The changes to the Senate bill (SB 76) put the proposal closer to a House measure (HB 107), which made its first appearance of the legislative session on Tuesday.
Rep. Jackie Toledo, a Tampa Republican sponsoring the House proposal with Rep. Emily Slosberg, D-Boca Raton, said she doesn't anticipate trouble for the measure, which received House support a year ago.
“This is the bill that was passed last year in the House, exactly as it was passed, so we had bipartisan support, 112 members supported the bill,” Toledo said.
The Senate version, which was approved by the Judiciary Committee, would shift texting while driving from a “secondary” offense to a “primary” offense. Currently, police can only cite motorists for texting if they are pulled over for other reasons. By making it a primary offense, police could pull over motorists for texting behind the wheel.
However, senators removed from the bill language that would have broadly defined distractions to include reading, writing, grooming, applying beauty products or interactions with pets or unsecured cargo. Also eliminated was a proposal that would have banned talking on cellphones that are not “hands free.”
Senate Judiciary Chairman David Simmons, an Altamonte Springs Republican who offered the amendment that limited the listed distractions, said the change was in reaction to questions about law enforcement potentially using the wider definition to conduct stops involving racial profiling.
“If you're on a phone, or you are eating a hamburger, or drinking a cola, or listening to your significant other yell at you, or if you are singing with too much gesticulation, the fact of it is that each one of those would be circumstances that would be distracted driving that would permit a law enforcement officer to go ahead and … certainly stop you,” Simmons said.
The ban on texting and driving as a secondary offense was approved in 2013 but has faced criticism from traffic-safety advocates who say it should be a primary offense.
The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles reported 1,671 citations issued in the state last year, of which 39 were for repeat offenders.
While the House last year passed a measure to make texting while driving a primary offense, the measure failed to advance in the Senate amid concerns about issues such as racial profiling. This year's Senate proposal, sponsored by Sen. Wilton Simpson, R-Trilby, has been approved by three committees.
The House went before the Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee on Tuesday.
Last year, then-House Speaker Richard Corcoran, now the state's education commissioner, publicly announced his support for the measure, saying he had become convinced by statistics showing the dangers of texting while driving, particularly for younger drivers.
House Speaker Jose Oliva, R-Miami Lakes, is “supportive of distracted driving legislation,” Oliva spokesman Fred Piccolo said on Monday.
Toledo anticipates Oliva's support for the current proposal.
“From what I understood he preferred the distracted driving bill, all of the distractions, but this is a good step in the right direction,” Toledo said.
The Senate proposal would lead to a public-awareness campaign, with warnings being handed out to violators from Oct. 1 through the end of the year, at which time citations would start to be issued.
Users' billing records for wireless devices would be admissible as evidence only when the drivers are involved in crashes involving death or serious bodily injury. First-time offenders could, if eligible, get their charges dismissed by taking a distracted driving program.
Jim Turner reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMorgan & Morgan Sues Law Firm, Managing Partner for Violating Settlement Over Misleading Ads
3 minute readJudge Gives Green Light to Bal Harbour Developer in Legal Dispute
11th Circuit Rejects Private School's Religious Rights Claim When Stopped From Broadcasting Public Prayer
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and Pryor Cashman have entered appearances for Diageo Americas Supply d/b/a Ciroc Distilling Co. and Sony Songs, a division of Sony Music Publishing, respectively, in a pending lawsuit. The case was filed Sept. 10 in New York Southern District Court by the Bloom Firm and IP Legal Studio on behalf of Dawn Angelique Richard. The plaintiff, who performed as a member of producer Sean 'Diddy' Combs girl group Danity Kane and later his band, Diddy - Dirty Money, claims that she was financially exploited by Combs and subjected to inhumane working conditions. Among other violations, Richard claims that Combs required group members to remain at his residences and studios, deprived them of adequate food and sleep and forced them to rehearse for 36 to 48 hours without breaks. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, is 1:24-cv-06848, Richard v. Combs et al.
Who Got The Work
Mathilda McGee-Tubb and Kevin M. McGinty of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, as well as Jesse W. Belcher-Timme of Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, have stepped in to defend Peter Pan Bus Lines in a pending consumer class action. The suit, filed Sept. 4 in Massachusetts District Court by Hackett Feinberg PC and KalielGold PLLC, accuses the defendant of charging undisclosed 'junk fees' on top of ticket prices during checkout. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni, is 3:24-cv-12277, Mulani et al v. Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250