Use of handheld personal communications devices while driving; penalty. (SB778)

Introduced By

Sen. George Barker (D-Alexandria)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Use of handheld personal communications devices while driving; penalty. Expands the prohibition on manually entering multiple letters or text in a handheld communications device while operating a motor vehicle to also prohibit the manual selection of multiple icons and removes the condition that such manual entry is prohibited only if performed as a means of communicating with another person. The bill prohibits the operator of a motor vehicle from reading any information displayed on the device; current law prohibits reading an email or text message. The bill provides that this prohibition does not apply to reading any information displayed through the use of a global positioning system for the purposes of navigation. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
01/25/2016Unanimous consent to introduce
01/25/2016Presented and ordered printed 16104156D
01/25/2016Referred to Committee on Transportation
02/03/2016Reported from Transportation (10-Y 3-N) (see vote tally)
02/05/2016Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/08/2016Read second time and engrossed
02/09/2016Read third time and defeated by Senate (18-Y 22-N) (see vote tally)

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 2 clips in all, totaling 19 minutes.

Transcript

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.

THE SENATOR FROM ROANOKE COUNTY, SENATOR SUETTERLEIN?

Sen. David Suetterlein (R-Salem): MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ENGROSS THE BILL AND ADVANCE TO THE THIRD CONSTITUTIONAL READING.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE BILL BE ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO THE THIRD READING. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE BILL IS ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO THE THIRD READING.

Sen. David Suetterlein (R-Salem): SENATE BILL 778, A BILL RELATING TO USE OF HANDHELD PERSONAL COMMUNICATION DEVICES WHILE DRIVING; PENALTY. REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR FROM SOUTHERN FAIRFAX COUNTY, SENATOR BARKER?

Sen. George Barker (D-Alexandria): MR. PRESIDENT, I MOVE THAT THE BILL BE ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO THE THIRD READING.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE BILL BE ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO THE THIRD READING. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.


[Unknown]: THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN, SENATOR BLACK.

Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg): MR. PRESIDENT --

[Unknown]: I'M SORRY, THE SENATOR FROM --

Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg): WOULD THAT BILL GO BYE FOR THE DAY, PLEASE.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): WITHOUT OBJECTION. SENATE BILL 671 WILL GO BYE FOR THE DAY.

[Unknown]: SENATE BILL 768, RELATING TO RECKLESS DRIVING, EXCEEDING SPEED LIMIT. [ CAPTIONING WILL RESUME SHORTLY ] WE KNEW WHEN WE PASSED THE BILL THERE WOULD BE DMANGS TECHNOLOGY THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO COME BACK AND REVISIT THE ISSUE AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE. THIS IS THE YEAR IN WHICH WE ARE DOING THAT NOW, THREE YEARS LATER. WHAT IS PROPOSED IN THIS BILL IS ACTUALLY A VERY SIMPLE, SHORT AMENDMENT TO THE STATUTE THAT'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE IN THE LAST THREE YEARS AND IT SAYS NOT ONLY WOULD IT APPLY IN TEXTING WHILE DRIVING BUT MANUALLY, QUOTE, SELECT MULTIPLE ICONS AND THE REST OF IT REMAINS THE SAME. IT DOES PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION FOR USE OF A GPS SYSTEM SO THAT AN INDIVIDUAL DRIVING WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THAT PROHIBITION FOR USE OF A GPS SYSTEM. THAT BASICALLY IS THE ENTIRE BILL. THERE IS CLEARLY MANY INDICATIONS THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT ONLY TEXTING WHILE DRIVING BUT MANY ARE USING OTHER ICONS AND APPS, THAT TYPE OF THING, AND CLEARLY HAVING A SIGNIFICANT DISTRACTION TO THEIR DRIVING. THIS IS HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT IN THAT THE RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT SOMEONE ENGAGED IN THESE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES IS 23 TIMES AS LIKELY TO BE INVOLVED IN A SERIOUS ACCIDENT, SOMEONE WHO IS PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ROAD, AND NOT DISTRACTED WHILE DRIVING. IN ADDITION, I WOULD POINT OUT TO THE BODY THAT IN JUST IN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 2015, FROM JANUARY THROUGH JUNE, THERE WERE 46 TRAFFIC FATALITIES IN VIRGINIA RELATED TO AN INDIVIDUAL TEXTING OR OTHERWISE USING A CELL PHONE DEVICE WHILE DRIVING. IT IS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE, IT CAUSES A SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP, HEART BREAK TO FAMILIES AND TO INDIVIDUALS AFFECTED BY IT. IT'S TIME WE STAND UP AND MAKE SURE THAT WE TRY TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AS THOROUGHLY AS WE CAN. THIS IS A STEP THAT WILL KEEP US HEADING IN THAT DIRECTION. THANK YOU SENATOR, THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX, CITY, SENATOR PETERSON. WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? WILL THE SENATOR YIELD FOR A QUESTION? I WILL BE HAPPY TO YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM FAIRFAX, CITY. I'D ASK THE GENTLEMAN, LOOKING AT THIS STATUTE, 46.21078.1, WOULD A VIOLATION OF THIS STATUTE BE WITH PRIMARY OFFENSE SUCH THAT THE DRIVER COULD BE PULLED OVER BY A PEACE OFFICER FOR NO OTHER REASON? MR. PRESIDENT, YES I WOULD SAY THAT IT IS A PRIMARY OFFENSE, AND IT'S SUBJECT TO FIRST OFFENSE, A FINE OF $125, SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE, A FINE OF $250. FURTHER QUESTION MR. CHAIR IN. ADDITIONAL QUESTION? CERTAINLY I YIELD. HE YIELDS. I'D ASK THE GENTLEMAN, JUST BY THE MERE FACT OF LOOKING AT A PHONE SCREEN, WOULD YOU BE THEN LIABLE FOR BEING PULLED OVER BY A PEACE OFFICER?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM FAIRFAX.

[Unknown]: MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD SAY YOU WOULD NOT BE IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE BUT THERE CERTAINLY COULD BE A SITUATION WHERE A POLICE OFFICER WHO THOUGHT YOU WERE INVOLVED IN THE STATUTE COULD PULL YOU OVER. WHAT I COULD ALSO SAY, MR. PRESIDENT, THERE'S BEEN EXTENSIVE TRAINING IN POLICE OFFICERS THROUGHOUT THE COMMONWEALTH TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND IN EFFECT WHEN TO PULL SOMEBODY OVER AND WHEN FURTHER QUESTION NOT TO. MR. PRESIDENT? WILL YOU YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION? I'D BE HAPPY TO YIELD. HE YIELDS, SENATOR. I'D ASK THE SENATOR, IF HE LOOKED AT MY IPHONE, WOULD HE BE COMMITTING SUCH AN OFFENSE TO BE PULLED OVER BY A PEACE OFFICER AND HAVE HIS CAR SEARCHED. I'D SAY NO, HE CANNOT BE COMMITTING THAT OFFENSE. FURTHER QUESTION, MR. CHAIR? DOES THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION? SURE, WE'LL KEEP THIS GOING. DOES IT NOT SAY ON LINE 19 THAT IF YOU READ ANY INFORMATION DISPLAYED ON THE DEVICE, MEANING THE TELEPHONE OR THE IPHONE DEVICE, THAT YOU ARE COMMITTING AN OFFENSE WHICH WOULD BE LIABLE FOR HAVING YOU PULLED OVER. MR. PRESIDENT, IF YOU READ THE FIRST PART OF THAT SECTION, BUT THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL PROVISION IN THERE THAT SAYS PROVIDED THIS PROHIBITION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY NAME OR NUMBER STORED WITHIN THE DEVICE, OR INFORMATION RELATED TO A GPS SYSTEM. THERE ARE CLEARLY EXCEPTIONS BUILT INTO IT. FURTHER QUESTION MR. CHAIR? WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? YES I'D BE HAPPY TO YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION. I'D ASK THE GENTLEMAN, IF HE LOOKS DOWN AT MY IPHONE AND SEE THE DOW JONES HAS RISEN 15 POINTS THIS MORNING WHETHER OR NOT BY SIMPLY LOOKING DOWN AT THAT INFORMATION HE HAS NOW COMMITTED AN OFFENSE WHICH WOULD BE LIABLE FOR HAVING HIM PULLED OVER BY A PEACE OFFICER. MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE A AND YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO REBUTTABLE SITUATION HERE, STATE TO THE POLICE OFFICER THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL PULLING YOU OVER THAT YOU WERE LOOKING DOWN TO SEE WHETHER THERE WAS A NAME OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO THAT EXCEPTION. SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX. MR. PRESIDENT, SPEAKING TO THE MEASURE. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. MR. PRESIDENT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE, I DEFER BY 98 PERCENT OF THE ISSUES TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM SOUTHERN FAIRFAX, BUT THIS IS AN ISSUE WHERE I DON'T DEFER. I THINK THE BOTTOM LINE IS BEING POLICE OFFICER IS A TOUGH JOB TO DO BUT TO TRY AND HAVE THEM JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE ARE O'CLOCK LOOK AT THEIR IPHONE, I THINK THAT MAKES THEM JUST A COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE CALL, AND I UNDERSTAND THE SAFETY REASONS. I TURN MY CELL PHONE, I PUT IT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SEAT AND I TELL MY DAUGHTERS TO DO THE SAME WHEN THEY'RE DRIVING, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE ARE MAKING THIS A PRIMARY OFFENSE, OR IT IS ALREADY A PRIMARY OFFENSE, AND WE'RE CHANGING IT TO SAY READ ANY INFORMATION DISPLAYED ON THE DEVICE. WELL, IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE NOT IT TO LOOK AT INFORMATION ON THE DEVICE. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S GOOD OR BAD DRIVING, IT'S CERTAINLY BAD DRIVING, BUT IT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DECIDE TO PULL PEOPLE OVER NOT BECAUSE OF HOW THEY OPERATE THE VEHICLE, BUT SIMPLY FOR WHERE THEY PLACE THEIR EYES. SO MR. CHAIR, IF I MIGHT, I'D LIKE TO DEFER TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM GRAYSON COUNTY, BECAUSE I BELIEVE HE IS THE ONLY PERSON IN THIS BODY WHO HAS OPERATED AS A POLICE OFFICER AND I WOULD APPRECIATE HIS OPINION IF I MIGHT DEFER TO HIM. THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON, SENATOR CARRICO.

Sen. Bill Carrico (R-Grayson): SPEAKING TO THE BILL.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR.

Sen. Bill Carrico (R-Grayson): MR. PRESIDENT, I WANT TO THANK THE GENTLEMAN FROM FAIRFAX FOR DEFERRING TO ME. IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE BEEN OUT THERE, BUT I KNOW THIS IS A TOUGH SECTION OF THE CODE TO ENFORCE. CURRENTLY TODAY, WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DON'T ENFORCE THIS LAW BECAUSE OF ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTED TO TRYING TO PROVE THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL WAS TEXTING WHILE DRIVING. SO WITH ALL THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS IN VIRGINIA THAT ARE NEEDED OUT ON THE HIGHWAYS TO ENFORCE SEVERAL LAWS, THIS IS HOW ONE AGENCY THAT I KNOW OF ENFORCES IT. IT TAKES FOUR STATE POLICE OFFICERS TO ENFORCE ONE LAW, ONE IN THE VAN, DRIVING, ONE WITH A CAMERA, TAKING A PICTURE OF YOU IN THE ACT OF DOING IT, ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE IN CASE THEY ARE PASSING YOU WHILE THEY ARE DOING IT, AND ONE SITTING IN A CROSSOVER TO PULL YOU OVER WHEN THEY GET THE CONTACT TO SAY I'VE GOT THE PICTURE OF THIS VEHICLE COMMITTING THE CRIME. SECTION OF THE CODE HERE THAT SO BASICALLY WE HAVE A REQUIRES FOUR POLICE OFFICERS JUST TO DO AN ENFORCEMENT OF IT. AND WE ARE TELLING THEM THEY'VE GOT TO DO THIS. THAT IS HOW COMPLICATED THIS LAW IS TO ENFORCE. THE OTHER SECTION ON LINE 17, IT SAYS MANUALLY SELECT AN ICON WHICH MEANS I COULD PRESS MY CONTACT ON MY SMARTPHONE OR MULTIPLE LETTERS COULD BE A VIOLATION. SO I COULD SELECT ONE, I'M IN GOOD SHAPE, BUT I CAN'T PUT THE NAME RALPH IN TO FIND OUT WHO I'M GOING TO CALL. SO AS SOON AS I START SPELLING OUT A PEDIATRIC NEUROLOGIST ON MY PHONE, I'M IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS IN THIS LAW THAT IS SO UNENFORCEABLE AND IT'S NOT JUST A SIMPLE FINE. THE FIRST TIME, IT'S $125. THE SECOND TIME, IT'S ENHANCED TO 250. THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN SAY, AND THIS IS EXISTING LAW, BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THESE LAWS THAT I HAVE VOTED AGAINST CONSTANTLY, CONSISTENTLY, ON LINE 47, THAT MANY OF US IN THIS BODY HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF DOING THIS, VIOLATING THIS LAW, YOU'D BETTER JOIN A VOLUNTEER RESCUE OR FIRE DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE IT SAYS ANY VEHICLE AUTHORIZED TO BE EQUIPPED WITH ALTERNATE BE BLINKING OR FLASHING RED AND WHITE LIGHTS IS EXEMPT FROM THIS. IT DOESN'T SAY THEY HAVE TO BE OPERATING WITH THE BLINKING LIGHTS GOING. AS LONG AS THEY ARE IN THE VEHICLE, THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS LAW. SO THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS IN THIS LAW THAT ARE SO UNENFORCEABLE THAT IT IS JUST -- IT'S A TOUGH SELL FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO TELL THEM THAT YOU'VE GOT TO DO THIS, AND WHEN THEY HEAR THAT THIS IS A VIOLATION, THEY ARE GOING TO TRY TO ENFORCE IT, IF IT TAKES 420 TO DO IT. I HOPE YOU DEFEAT THE BILL.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR FROM FRANKLIN, SENATOR STANLEY.

Sen. Bill Stanley (R-Moneta): THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT, SPEAKING AGAINST THE MEASURE.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR.

Sen. Bill Stanley (R-Moneta): IT'S HARD TO FOLLOW THE -- MY FRIEND AND SEAT MATE, THE SENATOR FROM GRAYSON, BUT I WILL TRY. TO GIVE THE PERSPECTIVE THAT WE DON'T HAVE. WE HAVE HEARD NOW THE POLICE OFFICER'S PERSPECTIVE. LET ME HELP YOU WITH THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S PERSPECTIVE, OF THE PEOPLE, AND I'VE HAD A NUMBER OF THEM, WHO HAVE COME INTO MY OFFICE, AND HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THIS AS A PRIMARY OFFENSE. NUMBER ONE, IT'S QUITE AN INCONVENIENCE, NUMBER TWO, OF COURSE THEY ARE GETTING PULLED OVER, AND IN EVERY INSTANCE, THROUGH NOT JUST PROOF OF WHAT THEY TOLD ME BUT ALSO PROOF BY ELECTRONICALLY CAPTURING WHAT WAS GOING ON, THEY WERE NOT, MR. PRESIDENT, USING THE PHONE IN VIOLATION OF WHAT THIS STATUTE WAS IN ITS CURRENT FORM, NOT THE PROPOSED FORM THAT THE SENATOR FROM SOUTHERN FAIRFAX, COUNTY PROCESSES -- PROPOSES, BUT WHAT IT DOES, MR. PRESIDENT, IS THIS: IT ALLOWS A PEACE OFFICER TO STOP AND DETAIN YOU WHICH HAS CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS THE MOMENT IT OCCURS. REASONABLE SUSPICIONS THAT A CRIME OR OFFENSE IS TAKING PLACE BY WHICH THEY CAN THEN DETAIN YOU. THAT'S A SEIZURE. THAT'S CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. AND USUALLY I CAN TELL YOU THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES AND NOT ALL THE TIME, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES WHERE THAT WAS A PRETEXT. A PRETEXT TO STOP THE PERSON IN HOPES THAT SOMETHING ELSE NEFARIOUS MIGHT BE THERE. WE SHOULD NOT PUT OUR CITIZENS THROUGH SOMETHING WHICH, QUITE FRANKLY, IS UNENFORCEABLEFUL THE FINAL POINT, MR. PRESIDENT, I WILL TELL YOU THIS, THAT BY THE TIME WE GET TO COURT, AND I'VE TRIED THE CASE IN VIRGINIA BEACH, I'VE TRIED IT IN ROANOKE, I'VE TRIED IT DOWN SOMEWHERE ELSE, EACH TIME WE GET RIGHT INTO IT AND I PLEAD NOT GUILTY, THE JUDGE HAS LOOKED AT ME AND SAID UH, YOU ARE TELLING ME YOUR CLIENT DIDN'T DO IT? YES. AND THEY SAY EACH TIME THIS LAW IS UNENFORCEABLE. THEY TELL ME THIS IS THE MOST UNENFORCEABLE LAW IN OUR COURTS. AND UNTIL THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, UNTIL WE ARE READY TO GO TO THE POINT WHERE WE ARE HANDS-FREE, THEN QUITE FRANKLY, THIS IS A NICE POLICY STATEMENT. IT'S GOT NO TEETH. IT'S GOT CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS THAT AFFECT OUR CITIZENS ADVERSELY. AND QUITE FRANKLY, ANY ADDITION TO THIS IS MEANINGLESS AND WON'T CHANGE A THING WHERE WE LOST THOSE LIVES, AS THE SENATOR FROM SOUTHERN FAIRFAX SAID. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU IN SOUTHERN FRANKLIN COUNTY, TOO, MY FRIEND. WE CANNOT JUST KEEP PUTTING A LAW ON THE BOOK LIKE THIS THAT IS UNENFORCEABLE AND INVADES PEOPLE'S PRIVACY.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM EASTERN FAIRFAX COUNTY, SENATOR SUROVELL.

Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon): WILL THE GENTLEMAN FROM FRANKLIN COUNTY YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): WILL THE GENTLEMAN FROM FRANKLIN YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon): MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD.

[Unknown]: HE YIELDS, SENATOR. I'M JUST CURIOUS, MR. PRESIDENT, MY FELLOW TRIAL LAWYER FRIEND WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF NEGLIGENCE, PER SE. I WOULD ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN BY SAYING YES I AM. I THANK THE SENATOR. WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD. HE YIELDS, SENATOR. WILL THE GENTLEMAN AGREE THAT BY PUTTING THIS IN THE TRAFFIC CODE DOES NOT ESTABLISH A CLEAR LINE BY WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL COULD BE JUDGED IN A CIVIL CASE FOR LIABILITY IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT. SENATOR FROM FRANKLIN. THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN BY AGREEING WITH HIM THAT THAT WOULD, INDEED, CREATE SUCH A PRESUMPTION. MR. PRESIDENT? WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? MR. PRESIDENT, I WILL YIELD. HE YIELDS, SENATOR. WILL THE GENTLEMAN AGREE THAT OFTEN TIMES, WHALE IN CRIMINAL CASES YOU CAN'T FORCE SOMEBODY TO TAKE THE THE -- STAND AND OF IT, IN A CIVIL CASE YOU CAN TAKE THE STAND AND TESTIFY AND NOT ONLY CAN YOU FORCE THE PERSON TO SAY WHAT THEY WERE DOING ON THEIR OWN, WHY THEY WERE LOOKING AT IT, BUT YOU CAN ALSO TALK TO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE CAR AND GET THEM TO SAY WHAT THEY WERE DOING RIGHT BEFORE THAT COLLISION OCCURRED. SENATOR FROM FRANKLIN. MR. PRESIDENT, I'D ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN BY SAYING SO LONG AS THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING DOES NOT ATTACH, BECAUSE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION WOULD ATTACH IF THERE'S A PENNING CRIMINAL CASE OR THAT PERSON COULD SUBJECT THEMSELVES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, THAT FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT WOULD ATTACH, THERE WOULD BE AN ADVERSE PRESUMPTION FOR A PERSON ASSERTING IN A CIVIL CASE THEIR RIGHT OF FIFTH AMENDMENT. BE THAT AS IT MAY, FOLLOWING HIS COMPOUND QUESTION A LITTLE FARTHER DOWN THE LINE, THERE ARE WAYS WHERE ONE CAN PROVE THE ACTIVITIES AND ACTIONS OF SOMEONE IN A CAR AT THE TIME OF A COLLISION THAT MAY HAVE RESULTED IN INJURY TO ANOTHER PERSON. SENATOR FROM EASTERN FAIRFAX. WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? ONE MORE COMPOUND QUESTION? WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION? I WILL YIELD TO MY FRIEND, OF COURSE. HE YIELDS, SENATOR. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN AGREE THAT TYPICALLY WHEN A LAWSUIT IS BROUGHT FOR A COLLISION, TYPICALLY THE TRIAL OF THAT OCCURS MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE COLLISION OCCURRED AND THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMIT ASS ON A MISDEMEANOR IS ONE YEAR -- ONE YEAR, THEREFORE THEY CAN'T BECAUSE THEY CAN NO LONGER BE PROSECUTED. I WOULD ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN BY SAYING THE PRIVILEGE OF PRACTICING LAW HAS CARRIED ME ALL OVER THE COMMONWEALTH FROM FAIRFAX TO FRANKLIN. WHILE THEY HAVE THE WHEELS OF JUSTICE COME TO A GRINDING HALT IN FAIRFAX, WE TEND TO DO THINGS MORE QUICKLY IN THE CIVIL ARENA, SO THERE ARE THEN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AND PROTECTION MAY STILL ATTACH, WHILE A PROCEEDING IS GOING ON IN A CIVIL CASE. I THANK THE SENATOR. OTHERWISE, IN THE LEGAL WORLD THAT HE LIVES IN, I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THAT MIGHT EXPIRE. SENATOR FROM EASTERN FAIRFAX COUNTY. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. THANK YOU SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM SOUTHERN FAIRFAX, COUNTY, SENATOR BARKER.

Sen. George Barker (D-Alexandria): MR. PRESIDENT, THERE'S NO ONE ELSE TO SPEAK. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SUM UP THINGS, AND TO RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF THE ISSUES RAISED. CERTAINLY ENFORCEABILITY IS A CHALLENGE IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT HAVING TALKED WITH PEOPLE, STATE POLICE AND OTHERWISE, OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS INVOLVED, THEY CLEARLY HAVE DONE AN AWFUL LOT TO TRY TO OFFICERS AND ACTUALLY HAVE PROVIDE TRAINING TO THE BEEN FAIRLY SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING ADJUDICATION TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES IN MANY INSTANCES. IN ADDITION, OFTEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEONE IS STOPPED IN THESE SITUATIONS THEY READILY ADMIT TO IT SO THERE IS THAT SELF-ADMISSION THAT DOES RESULT IN A FINE BEING IMPOSED ON THOSE INDIVIDUALS, AND CERTAINLY I THINK IT'S MUCH MORE LIKELY THAT SUCH INDIVIDUALS WILL BE LESS LIKELY TO CONTINUE TO VIOLATE THE LAW IN THESE WAYS. IN ADDITION, I WOULD BRING TO THE BODY'S ATTENTION THE FACT THAT THE SURVEY HAS BEEN DONE SINCE THE LAW WAS PASSED AND WHAT IT SHOWED, IN VIRGINIA, WITH THE ATTENTION, A LOT OF PUBLIC ATTENTION FOCUSED ON THIS LAW WHEN IT WAS PASSED IN 2013, WHEN THE SURE VAY HAS SHOWN, A PERCENTAGE OF THE DRIVERS WHO ARE ADMITTING THEY ARE VIOLATING THIS SECTION HAS DROPPED DRAMATICALLY, AND THAT'S DESPITE THE FACT THAT PRIOR TO THE ACTION THAT WE TOOK IN 2013, IT WAS A VIOLATION. IT WAS JUST NOT A PRIMARY OFFENSE. SO THERE WERE NOT PEOPLE BEING PULLED OVER. WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IS BEHAVIOR IS STARTING TO CHANGE. UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S NOT CHANGED ENOUGH YET. IT'S STILL A SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE. AND THE 46 DEATHS THAT WERE RELATED TO A VIOLATION OF THIS STATUTE IN THE FIRST HALF OF 2015 ARE NOT INSIGNIFICANT. THAT WAS ABOUT 10 PERCENT OF ALL TRAFFIC-RELATED DEATHS IN VIRGINIA. SO IT'S NOT AN ISOLATED THING THAT AFFECTS ONLY THE FEW PEOPLE. IT IS A MAJOR FACTOR. WE HAVE DRAMATICALLY REDUCED OUR TRAFFIC FATALITIES IN VIRGINIA, AND THAT'S OCCURRED ACROSS THE COUNTRY AS THE SAFETY OF CARS HAS BEEN IMPROVED, AS THE DRINKING WHILE DRIVING HAS DRAMATICALLY DECREASED. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED TO DECREASE FATALITIES. THIS IS ONE THING, AND THE ONE SIGNIFICANT THING THAT HAS GONE UP. IT'S TIME WE TAKE THE NEXT