Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hands Free Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee removes 'prima facie' language, advances hands‑free bill after debate
Summary
The committee reviewed a research memo on holding mobile devices and voted to strike a 'prima facie' presumption from Senate Bill 324; debate centered on enforceability, constitutional concerns and differences among 21 states' statutes before the committee passed SB 324 favorably as amended.
The Senate committee considered an updated memorandum summarizing how 21 states handle prohibitions on holding a mobile communications device while driving before debating Senate Bill 324, a hands‑free measure that would prohibit using a mobile device in construction zones with workers present and in school zones.
Jill (research presenter) summarized the handout, which grouped state statutory language into categories such as statutes that ban "holding," statutes that bar "supporting [a device] with any part of the body," and statutes that define "hold or use." The packet included Westlaw notes and selected case excerpts from states with reported decisions.
Walter Nelson of KLRD explained that Rhode Island, New Hampshire and New York contain statutory language that, in some cases, creates a presumption that holding the phone indicates a call or use; he and Jill cautioned that many of the reported cases are fact‑intensive and that other observed factors (for example, the phone being at the ear or actively manipulated) frequently appear in judicial findings.
Senator Warren moved to remove the bill’s "prima facie" presumption language, arguing that combining a mere act of holding with a presumption of use risks criminalizing people who are not actually using their phones and could implicate Fourth Amendment concerns. Warren also argued the bill, as drafted, lacks a definition of "use" and could disproportionately affect lower‑income drivers who lack integrated vehicle screens.
Opponents of the amendment argued that prima facie presumptions appear throughout criminal statutes and that the bill seeks to protect workers and children in construction and school zones. Other senators noted enforcement would rely on context and that some states include additional observable factors alongside any presumption.
After extended debate, the committee adopted the amendment to strike the prima facie language by voice vote. The committee then voted to report SB 324 favorably as amended; Senator Klooz moved the committee motion to pass and Senator Corson seconded. The motion carried by voice vote.
The hearing record shows the committee relied on statutory comparisons and case excerpts in the packet rather than on new empirical studies of safety outcomes; a committee member asked whether implementation data (fatality reductions) had been identified, and presenters said that was outside the scope of their research.
