Michigan to fight drunk driving with... talking urinal cakes?!

"Don't drive drunk." That's the message every government, charity and local organization wants to get out during the Fourth of July holiday. It's sound advice, too, even from a potty mouth.

According to The Detroit News, the state of Michigan has bought 400 talking urinal cakes that will remind men that if they've had a few drinks, they shouldn't drive.

"Listen up. That's right, I'm talking to you. Had a few drinks? Maybe a few too many?" the urinal cake says after being activated by a tiny motion sensor in it. "Then do yourself and everyone else a favor: Call a sober friend or a cab. Oh, and don't forget to wash your hands."

The brainchild of the Maryland-based Wizmark, which has broken new ground with its electronic urinal advertising devices, the $21 talking cake is part of a bigger campaign to promote safe holiday driving.

 

 

Credit : Autoblog

Rides : California to stop towing cars of unlicensed drivers

California features a large Latino population, and some are in the state illegally. Right now if one of those undocumented citizens finds themselves in a sobriety checkpoint, their vehicle will be impounded for up to 30 days. The reason? Illegal aliens aren't permitted to have driver's licenses. And if the driver cannot afford fines that crest the $1,000 mark, in many cases the towing company will become the owner of the vehicle, which can then be sold at auction.

The law has led to web services that warn illegal immigrants of the roadblocks before they are set up. The social media sites and text messages have greatly reduced the vehicle confiscations, but a new law should eliminate them all-together. The Associated Press reports that California will stop the practice of towing effective January 1.

The news good for some and bad for others, particularly tow truck companies which can pay up to $75,000 per year for the right to tow away the vehicles, and since many cars and trucks go unclaimed, the companies were making a lot of money selling vehicles at auction.

Texas judge says warrantless cellphone tracking violates Fourth Amendment

 

Rev up the bureaucratic turbines, because a judge in Texas has determined that warrantless cellphone tracking is indeed unconstitutional. In a brief decision issued earlier this month, US District Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the Southern District of Texas argued that seizing cellphone records without a search warrant constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. "The records would show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made," Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling, linked below. "These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion." The decision comes in response to an earlier ruling issued last year by Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith, also of the Southern District of Texas. In that case, Judge Smith argued against unwarranted wiretapping on similarly constitutional grounds, pointing out that with today's tracking technology, every aspect of a suspect's life could be "imperceptibly captured, compiled, and retrieved from a digital dossier somewhere in a computer cloud."

The federal government appealed Judge Smith's ruling on the grounds that the Fourth Amendment would not apply to cellphone tracking, because "a customer has no privacy interest in business records held by a cell phone provider, as they are not the customer's private papers." Judge Hughes' decision, however, effectively overrules this appeal. "When the government requests records from cellular services, data disclosing the location of the telephone at the time of particular calls may be acquired only by a warrant issued on probable cause," Judge Hughes wrote. "The standard under [today's law] is below that required by the Constitution." The law in question, of course, is the Stored Communications Act -- a law bundled under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which allows investigators to obtain electronic records without a warrant. This month's decision implicitly calls for this law to be reconsidered or revised, though it's certainly not the only ruling to challenge it, and it likely won't be the last, either.

California Court Criminalizes Using Cell Phone While Stopped

Checking email or using the phone while stopped at a red light is now illegal in California.In a decision with wide-ranging implications for people who might check their email on an iPhone while stopped at a traffic light, the California Court of Appeal ruled Monday that it was a crime to use a phone at any time behind the wheel of a stationary or moving vehicle.

Three days after Christmas in 2009, a motorcycle cop in Richmond pulled up to a red light and noticed Carl Nelson, driver of the stopped car next to him, appeared to be making a cell phone call. Nelson put down the phone as soon as he saw the officer. Nelson said he was just checking his email while waiting for the light to turn green. The Golden State banned the use of handheld cell phones while driving in July 2008.

"A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving," the law states.

A subsequent update to the statute made it also illegal to read or write an email while driving. Nelson was fined $103, and he challenged the fine by arguing that he was not "driving" when he used the phone. He added that if the prosecutors were correct, drivers stuck in dead-stop traffic for hours behind a major accident would not be allowed to make a call while the road is cleared.

"One can [use] a cell phone while stopped at a red light (because it is safe to do so) without having used it while moving the vehicle to the red light and without using it when one resumes one's voyage after the traffic light turns green," Nelson argued. "Thus, the fact that one is using a cellular phone while stationary simply cannot give rise to a reasonable inference that one was using the phone before or after the period that one was stopped at a red light."

The three-judge appellate panel was not persuaded. It argued that the word "drive" applies even when the vehicle is stopped at a traffic light, citing a number of cases interpreting search and seizure and drunk driving laws.

"Any mom or dad driving kids to school can expect to stop while parents in cars in front of them are unloading their kids," Justice James A. Richman wrote in a concurring opinion. "A shopper driving to a store near Lake Merritt in Oakland may have to stop while a gaggle of geese crosses the street. A couple going for a Sunday drive in West Marin County may have to stop for a cattle crossing. And, of course, all of us are expected to stop for red lights, stop signs, crossing trains, and funeral processions. In short, all drivers may, and sometimes must, stop. But they do so while 'driving.' Just like defendant."

The court majority went on to argue that allowing cell phone use in motionless vehicles would create a safety hazard.

"Were we to adopt defendant's interpretation, we would open the door to millions of people across our state repeatedly picking up their phones and devices to place phone calls and check voicemail (or text-based messages) every day while driving whenever they are paused momentarily in traffic, their car in gear and held still only by their foot on the brake, however short the pause in the vehicle's movement," Justice James Lambden wrote. "This could include fleeting pauses in stop-and-go traffic, at traffic lights and stop signs, as pedestrians cross, as vehicles ahead navigate around a double-parked vehicle, and many other circumstances... Drivers paused in the midst of traffic moving all around them (behind them, in adjacent lanes, in the roadway in front of them) would likely create hazards to themselves and public safety by their distracted use of their hands on their phones and devices."

A copy of the decision is available in a 220k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: California v. Nelson (Court of Appeal, State of California, 11/14/2011)

Florida sued for ticketing motorists who warn others of speed traps

Florida is facing a class-action lawsuit from drivers who have been ticketed for attempting to warn other motorists of hidden speed traps. According to WTSP 10 News, Eric Campbell was recently cited for just that, despite the fact that there is no law against using one's headlights to communicate with other drivers. The officer who ticketed Campbell used Florida State Statute 316.2397, even though the courts ruled that the police were wrongfully applying the law to crack down on vehicle-to-vehicle communication in 2005. Now Campbell wants his $100 ticket refunded and $15,000 in damages.

Since 2005, over 10,429 drivers have been cited for flashing their high beams, and if Campbell wins his case, Florida could be facing over $1 million in ticket refunds. But that's nothing compared to the $156.4 million the state could have to pay out if each driver is awarded $15,000 each. Hit the jump to take a look at news report on the lawsuit.