Police to sieze mobile phones after a RTC

Retrogamer

HappyMJ wrote: »

You get charged for hindering a police investigation. They can get past simple screen locks anyway.

Their IT specialists might, but i was meaning the ones that arrive on the scene.

Marvel1

Retrogamer wrote: »

I wonder what the procedure is when you refuse to unlock it for the officer to check, they take it away to inspect it and find out you had done no wrong.

Devils advocate of course.

If you have nothing to hide, why refuse?

System

cjdavies wrote: »

If you have nothing to hide, why refuse?

I wondered when the above trigger question would appear.

iltisman

Blimey it took 23 posts for one of them to turn up.

Retrogamer

cjdavies wrote: »

If you have nothing to hide, why refuse?

It's a hypothetical question.
I'm just curious if someone did refuse, what powers the police have at that stage to probe further.

[Deleted User]

cjdavies wrote: »

If you have nothing to hide, why refuse?

There may be any number of private/confidential things on your phone, which you may not want others to look at.

custardy

Strider590 wrote: »

How about while they were making manufacturers fit DRLs, they made them fit mobile phone signal blockers that switch on if the engine is running?

If they really wanted to stop people using phones in their car, they could.
Same goes with speeding, we have the technology to limit cars to the prevailing speed limit.

Why not implement this?

They're too interested in the revenue it brings in!!

I personally would like to see a temporary ban for using a mobile phone whilst driving.

are passengers not allowed to use their phones either?

F1F93

custardy wrote: »

are passengers not allowed to use their phones either?

Also, am I not allowed to use my hands-free bluetooth kit?

custardy

F1F93 wrote: »

Also, am I not allowed to use my hands-free bluetooth kit?

Well heres an interesting one.
In the last week ,I have reported 2 separate cases of people walking on the M8.
This morning I reported a suspected drink driver(braking from 50 for 10 miles) on the city bypass.
All hands free via voice dial.
Probably 'safer' to leave those peds and drink drivers alone?

Johno100

Seems either the press have got it wrong or Ms. Davenport, head of Roads Policing for ACPO, was talking out of turn.

Statement from ACPO

http://www.acpo.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Reports-of-police-seizing-mobile-phones-after-every-road-traffic-collision-are-inaccurate-2e8.aspx

Following wide reporting that guidance has been issued to officers to examine or seize mobile phones after every road traffic collision today (Saturday, July 26), the National Policing Lead for Roads Policing, Chief Constable Suzette Davenport, has issued the following statement:

"At no point have I issued guidance to officers to seize mobile phones from drivers at the site of every road traffic collision.

"It is fair to say that we as a service are looking at ways of making officers and drivers more aware of the difference between the offences of driving while not in proper control of the vehicle - which is a distraction offence - and driving while using a mobile phone. Part of this process involves making sure officers know the best means of using information within a driver's mobile phone when building evidence for a successful prosecution, such as finding from call or text logs if the phone was in use at the time of an incident.

"It has been standard practice to seize mobile phones from drivers at the scenes of very serious collisions for some time as part of the information and evidence gathering process, but it is not now, nor will it be, standard practice to seize phones from drivers after every collision.

"Drivers must continue to be aware not only of the risks posed by being distracted by mobile phones while in control of a car, but the serious penalties which they will face if they are caught. We are unequivocal in our determination to keep all road users safe."