Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Traffic topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes distracted‑driving ban as secondary offense after intense floor debate
Summary
The House passed Representative Glorioso’s distracted‑driving bill, making handheld cellphone use a secondary offense that requires an observed traffic violation before an officer may stop a driver. The bill drew extended, partisan floor debate about enforcement, equity and civil‑liberties safeguards.
The House on May 6 approved legislation to restrict handheld wireless device use while operating a motor vehicle, voting to make handheld cellphone use a secondary offense with specific guardrails for law‑enforcement stops.
Representative Greg Glorioso’s bill prohibits several categories of use while driving — texting, posting to social media, watching video content and similar actions — and makes the offense a secondary one. The bill explicitly requires that an officer have observed another traffic violation before stopping a driver for the device offense and that the officer visually observe the device in the driver’s hand to establish probable cause for citation.
Glorioso said the measure is modeled on laws in other states that reduced fatalities and severe injuries by addressing distracted driving; he cited figures showing an increase in fatalities attributed to distracted driving and argued the law would reduce insurance costs. Several questioners pressed for additional safeguards, including data collection on citations to detect possible pretextual policing, and Glorioso said he was willing to work on reporting mechanisms after floor passage.
Critics raised concerns about equitable enforcement, noting poorer drivers are less likely to have vehicles with factory hands‑free systems and warning the law could be used as a revenue source in “speed‑trap” jurisdictions. Representative Bayham argued the law could disproportionately affect those without newer vehicles equipped with integrated hands‑free systems and urged caution. Supporters, including Representative Hughes, said the bill balances safety and civil‑liberties protections and that laws in other states have reduced fatalities.
An amendment offered by Representative McCormick that would have removed the prohibition on holding a device in one or both hands was rejected by the House. The chamber ultimately passed the bill by a recorded vote of 71 yeas and 28 nays.
The text exempts fully automated vehicles that meet the state’s existing standards for hands‑off operation and includes language limiting law‑enforcement authority: officers may not use the device offense as the sole basis for a stop and may not seize devices without additional legal predicate. The transcript reflects robust debate over enforcement, equity and whether reporting data should be captured to evaluate disparate impacts.
