Police to sieze mobile phones after a RTC

yangptangkipperbang

Judging by the intelligence of many of the people that "appear" on the TV programmes about traffic police - I really can't see many people being bright enough to "do away" with their phones.

If I was driving a car with no tax/insurance/MoT/boot full of drugs or stolen property/etc I would make sure that I had my seat belt on, was not using my mobile, speeding or doing anything that might attract police interest.

[Deleted User]

I wonder if it is also standard practice, to seize mobile phones from pedestrians, involved in very serious collisions, to see if they were phoning/texting, when they stepped out in front of traffic?

Joe_Horner

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.

They probably charge you under S.53 of RIPA (failing to disclose a key to protected information).

Not at all what that part of RIPA was intended for but, as with so much recent "kneejerk"law, it's been worded so loosely that it can fit just about anything they want it to.

A._Badger

There is something decidedly fishy about all this.

First, the police can get records of mobile use from the phone companies.

Second, in any case, the evidence is of extremely limited use, as I found from my own experience.

A few years ago I was involved in an RTA fatality (as a witness). The car driver may have been using her mobile but the police didn't even try to get her call records from her mobile supplier.

I asked why, on several occasions, and was told that unless they had the exact time of impact (ie 22.10 and 15 seconds) and if there were no witnesses who could say whether the driver was actually using a phone at the time, then there was enough room for a lawyer to say it was not provable that the phone was being used at the moment of impact or just prior to it.

I wasn't very impressed, but that was the official position of Sussex police and, indeed, no evidence regarding phone use was produced at the subsequent trial.

Unless they find a phone which is halfway through being used to send a text, I can't see what possible function seizing the handset would serve.

[Deleted User]

Joe_Horner wrote: »

They probably charge you under S.53 of RIPA (failing to disclose a key to protected information).

It's not that simple.

On being served with a Section 49 notice, you are allowed time to confirm, with NTAC, that the Section 49 notice is genuine, and to seek technical and legal advice, before handing over the key.

arcon5

Stupid idea.

I feel for anybody who's reliant on their phone for business and does a lot of traveling. Bye bye livelihood if you're the victim of a idiot on the road - until they get their phone back anyway, and knowing police efficiency who knows how long it could take.

arcon5

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.

Because like the confiscation idea, it's stupid. To prevent the use of phones altogether is ridiculous - many people use them legitimately using handsfree. Many people use them as passengers. Many passengers have the likes of iPads with cellular use which would also be restricted.

Geodark

Terrible idea, my wife doesn't use her mobile phone, but often calls the daughter from mine as we leave work (me driving by the way) so if we crash while I am driving and she is on my mobile what happens? I am all for people not using mobiles as they drive, but this is way over the top

Aretnap

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.

Presumably the procedure is that it takes weeks for you to get your phone back, rather than the few minutes it would have taken had you unlocked.

Nilrem

Aretnap wrote: »

Presumably the procedure is that it takes weeks for you to get your phone back, rather than the few minutes it would have taken had you unlocked.

Aye, and possibly you face the law (can't remember which one it is) which requires you to provide the password for any encryption when lawfully required to.

IIRC it's aimed at computer users, but could easily be applied to modern smart phones etc.