Terry 1

Devon Terry
Martin Phillips
Criminal Justice 1010-012
13 April 13, 2014
Dont Text and Die
Monday of July 8
th
2013, young 18 year old Devereaux Hallett had been on his way to
work when Jeff Hanes, age 38, crashed into him. Hallett, riding his bike at the time of the
impact, was thrown 78 feet and received serious injuries. Soon after, Hallett was reported dead
from the injuries caused by the hit. As investigations progressed it was discovered that Jeff
Hanes, the driver of the vehicle, had run a red light before hitting Hallett due to texting while
driving his vehicle (Adams, Family). The small text message was more important than Halletts
life.
Later, Hanes was charged with a Class B Misdemeanor for use of a cell phone while
driving, and a Class C misdemeanor for running a red light (Adams, Family). A Misdemeanor is
A criminal offense that is not a felony; usually punishable by a fine and/or a jail term of less
than one year (Gaines and Miller, 71). From the above description, it is apparent why the family
of Devereaux Hallett was so upset about Jeff Haness charges. Is less than a year in jail really
equal to the cost of young Devereauxs life? And are laws that prohibit the use of handheld
devices while driving strict enough, or could they use some work?
In the year 2012, the St. George Police Department began a new activity to help
demonstrate to their citizens this growing issue. They began to park in various different parts of
the city and take pictures of texting drivers recording how long they had been looking at their
phones; later posting it on Facebook with stunning details such as the following. Manipulating
Terry 2

the phone for at least four to six seconds, passing us at 35 miles per hour. That is about 215 feet
traveled (Boal and Richards).
Texting drivers generally do not realize the amount of time theyve spent looking down at
their phones, neither the distance they have traveled as they were looking down. Sight is the most
important thing we can have while driving. A car accident can happen in only the matter of a few
milliseconds; just as easily it may be avoided in the same amount of time. Another reporter,
Andrew Adams, wrote, Information from insurance companies indicates that texting while
driving increases your chance of getting in an accident by 23 times (Do Bans on Texting).
Texting while driving is already illegal. But current Utah law does not specifically ban
us from doing all kinds of other distracting things with our phones. wrote Jed Boal in one of his
articles. Adams stated in his article that law makers and police officers are doing what they can
to remove texting from the street, but theyre finding it very difficult since it seems to increase
the amount of danger rather than decrease it. Adams went along to explain that experts have
found that most people instead of obeying the law and putting their phones away, attempt to hide
it under the steering wheel or out of sight when an officer does pass. This causes drivers to have
to take their eyes even further off the road where its impossible for them to see and often
requires looking at their phone for longer periods of time.
Adams also wrote The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says that 3 of every 4
states that have enacted a ban on texting while driving have seen crashes actually go up rather
than down. According to this statistic, current laws are not resolving the issue; rather the
accidents are increasing from continued texting while driving.
Starting the 13
th
of May of this year, Utah will start a new ban on using handheld devices
while driving. This ban will include the use of cell phones and laptops, restricting text
Terry 3

messaging, web browsing, changing music, playing games, emailing, and all other activities with
the exception that they are done by voice commands. You can, however, still dial your phone
with your hands during a medical emergency, reporting a safety hazard, or reporting criminal
activity. On the job law enforcement and emergency personnel are also allowed to use their
hands (Boal, New Cellphone Laws).
Considering the new laws that will take place, just how effective will they be? Jed Boal
in New Cellphone Law Tightens Restrictions for Drivers interviewed a few people on their
opinions of the new law and its potential for effectiveness. One interviewee claimed the need to
make little to no change at all in his driving habits. He simply stated that he does not text while
driving very often, but feels the law just makes sense for all the people that do. Clearly he
supports the idea of this law and feels that it will be effective.
On the other hand, Kyle Berezay who was also interviewed by Boal strongly opposed this
new law. Berezay stated that he along with several other drivers use their smartphones and/or
iPod to change the music in their car as they are driving. Berezay said that using a smartphone
for music is no different than pushing a button to change the radio station. He feels as though this
simple act is not hazardous, that the law is ridiculous, and that it will resolve very little (New
Cellphone Laws).
Though Berezay has a point as to why this action will likely not resolve the issue of using
handheld devices while driving, many will disagree that it is not hazardous. If driving at the
speed of 35 miles per hour can be equal to about 40 feet per second, any action that may take
your sight away from the road can be very dangerous. This may also depend on the driver, as
quite often a song isnt changed just one at a time, rather the driver may confront a list of songs
he would like to skip or may be looking for one specific song in the playlist.
Terry 4

Another person interviewed by Boal named Royce said, We feel it will save some lives
out there on the roadway, later stating, You're [sic] probably see a lot of warnings and a lot of
education done (New Cellphone Laws). Boal then continued explaining that after the warnings
are out and the troopers begin to hand out the real tickets, then will the real punishment start.
Officers will then be handing out class B misdemeanors resulting in a $100 dollar fine and if
someone is injured during the incident it may result in a class C misdemeanor.
Another possible previous issue that officers were having with finding those using their
phones may now be resolved. It is difficult to know what a person is doing with their phone
without the ability to see the screen at the time they are using it. The new law allows officers to
pull over drivers who are simply showing signs of negligence to the road as result of using their
cell phones or other handheld devices. Although, it still does not remove the possibility of
drivers claiming to have been navigating, using their cellphones for a medical emergency, or
claiming that they were distracted by something entirely different such as a spilt drink in the car.
As this new law also raises the punishment, it may have an impact on some peoples
decisions whether to use their phones while driving. On the contrary, are these punishments deep
enough to make up for the risk they hold in play? Jeff Hanes was given these same charges after
killing Devereaux Hallett. The most jail time he will spend is up to 1 year, is this a significant
enough amount of jail time for the crime he committed considering Hallett lost his life at such a
young age.
Clearly, as great of an idea these laws are, in the end they just wont quite be enough. The
purpose of having laws is to prevent crime, not to stop crime in action. Robert Hull, the director
of traffic and safety said, The ultimate responsible driving behavior is 100 percent focus on
your driving (Boal, New Cellphone Laws). Driving in the United States is considered as a
Terry 5

privilege and not a right or obligation of the state to allow. Being a privilege, we as citizens
should be obligated to drive according to State and/or Country regulations and laws; we have the
obligation to give our full and undivided attention to the road when we get behind a steering
wheel. If State Legislatures took this truth more into thought, they could clearly find better ways
to improve driving laws.
Just as an automobile must go in yearly to be approved for its ability to be safely driven,
we could include new regulations to cellphone usage. Today there are various devices built to
either detect, connect to, or even scramble signals of cell phones, some of them being very
cheap. If we required every car to have and use at least one of these devices, we could easily
reduce the need to dial numbers by hand or if necessary remove the ability to use a handheld
device while driving altogether.
Though this does not remove the possibility of someone hacking the system, it will still
reduce greatly the need for law enforcers to take their time to search for this new type of
criminal. Since driving is a privilege, the state may easily require all drivers to purchase and
install this device within their cars; those intelligent enough to realize the risk of using a
cellphone may gladly oblige to this purchase as they realize the reduction in accidents and cost
towards repairs afterwards.
Life is the greatest value we have, whether it is our life or anothers. Drivers need to
understand to a larger extent the dangers of their choice to text while driving. Though the new
laws will be an improvement, it is clear that law makers need to consider a more preventive
action.


Terry 6

Work Cited Page
Adams, Andrew. Do bans on texting while driving actually increase accidents? 22 October
2012. Web. 26 April.
Adams, Andrew. Family believes misdemeanor charges arent enough in sons death 22 March
2014. Web. 13 April 2014.
Boal, Jed. New cellphone laws tighten restrictions for drivers KSL News. 3 April 2014. Web.
13 April 2014.
Boal, Jed. and Richards, Mary. Police Post Photos of Texting Drivers KSL News. 26 December
2013 Web. 25 April 2014
Gaines, Larry K, and Miller, Roger L. Criminal Justice in Action 7
th
Edition. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, 2013. Print.