By Michael Cayes
Mooring Tech, Inc.
This article is provided by Mooring Tech, Inc. and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Police1.
The statistics for auto accidents caused by distracted driving are overwhelming. The Texting and Driving Safety website states that in 2011, 23% of all auto collisions involved cell phones; in all, that accounts for a whopping 1.3 million wrecks. Over the past ten years, 39 states plus Washington D.C. have legislated bans on texting while driving.
Recently, the media was alerted to a picture of an officer in DeKalb County, Georgia. In the picture, the police officer is clearly using his phone. News stations and residents of Georgia were quickly whipped into a frenzy. In the following days, it was revealed that Georgia State Code provides several exceptions to laws regarding wireless communication in vehicles. Specifically, the code reads that “a law enforcement officer… during the performance of his or her official duties” is fully authorized to use any type of wireless device, including but not limited to cell phones, tablets, and laptops.
Of course, there is no way of knowing if the DeKalb County officer’s correspondence related to his job. There is also no way of knowing if the photo was taken before or after July 1st, 2010, the day Georgia banned use of wireless devices while driving. For many people, the purpose of his phone use is beside the point; law enforcement sets an example for the rest of the population to look to. The fundamental argument is that exceptions to the law put people above the law, an idea that Americans have always railed against.
Between July 2010 and July 2012, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution found that only 16 people in DeKalb County were prosecuted for texting and driving. Yet assuming the statistics from across the country in 2011 apply to Georgia, significantly more than 16 people were involved in auto accidents as a result of texting and driving. Given all of this, it would seem that the objections raised against the unknown officer have more to do with the fact that the officer was openly using his phone than anything else.
It is certainly worth noting that all of the other exceptions listed in the Georgia state code pertain to people reporting or responding to a crime or emergency situation. There is no way to know if the woman in the car next to you is calling in an emergency situation. And there is no way to know if the officer next you is using his or her laptop to map a location with an ongoing and dangerous situation. Obviously, officers need to use best judgement in deciding what is necessary to respond to while on patrol in a moving vehicle, especially in unfamiliar places and heavy traffic. Only emergency communications should be handled in accordance with the law. But such communications are necessary exceptions to the law, and that needs to be recognized if citizens expect continued rapid response to emergency situations, in Georgia and in the other 38 states with similar legislation.