> It’s illegal to access your Digital Driver Licence when driving, including when stationary, unless you’re asked to do so by a police officer. Penalties apply.
"We made this thing you only need while driving, especially when stationary and stopped by the police, but it's illegal to do so unless specifically requested."
I wonder how this will be applied in reality. Will individuals stopped have to wait for the police to ask before readying their documentation without being cited in addition to whatever they were stopped for?
Drivers licences in Australia are the de-facto ID. Including proof of age to purchase cigarettes/alcohol, many bars scan IDs as you enter in case you cause damage or start a fight. To proving identity for a variety of things including (but not limited to) new phone plans, bank accounts, etc.
Most Aussies carry their drivers licence with them everywhere.
Regarding the stationary part. Though it varies state by state, my state (Victoria) considers it an offence to use your phone while stationary. If the vehicle is legally parked and engine off you're fine. This is to cover those using their phone while stuck in traffic.
Most days, I only carry my driver's license because, despite a head of rapidly graying hair, I might need it to buy tobacco. Otherwise, what the hell do I need a license for when I ride the scooter/bicycle to work?
I can already leave all of my cards at home when I go to work, save that license, because the gas station that cards me when they sell me tobacco also takes NFC payments. Digitize that license, and I can just carry my phone even when I drive to work.
Sometimes if I go for a walk or to the park without my wallet I feel like a criminal. I have the misfortune of living in one of the states where going out in public without ID is illegal.
At least it was the last time I looked at the ACLU web site.
Are you speaking of the AZ "show me your papers" law? As a white guy, I would so not carry ID. I can afford lawyers and a few nights in jail to make a stink about it, and others might not be so fortunate. But, of course, I'm not the target so it's easy to be Anonymous Internet Justice Guy.
Not that it would be a massive change in my behavior. With NFC payments and wearable communications devices, a lot of times I leave the house with nothing but an Apple Watch on my wrist (and at a minimum, running shorts; you're welcome). Dog walk? What am I going to buy in our suburban neighborhood? Go for a run? Same difference, though if I run by a 7-11 I can buy a Gatorade with my watch. I ass-u-me the EMTs know how to get my medical ID on an Apple device. Soooo, I kinda don't need a wallet a lot of times. Is it legal in the state of WA? I have no reason to believe that it isn't, but OTOH I don't really care. You want to know who I am? We have a legal process for that, at which time I will have my ID fetched.
I don't read that. It's undefined, in the sense that there is imprecise legislative guidance, and case law will determine the law asymptotically. But it's best not to be the case law yourself.
> If you’re stationary in your car in a parking lot, and you turn the engine on to use the heater are you “attempt[ing] to put the motor vehicle in motion”?
Their answer was yes, for this you can risk prosecution if you do this while intoxicated.
The second example asks:
> If you pull into a parking spot, and park your car, but do not turn off the engine, are you “parked”?
Their answer was no you’re not parked and are risking prosecution if you use a phone under these circumstances.
I don’t think there’s any legal nuance to those answers. I think most people would come to the exact opposite conclusions on those two examples, and the advice in that article simply states that the police may attempt to interpret the law in whatever way allows them to prosecute you. I don’t know if there’s any solid case law to answer those ambiguities, but if there is it’s not referenced in that source. I know from experience that in many situations like this case law tends not to help in any case, and the outcome will be decided by how well you can explain yourself to a judge, which kinda just emboldens the police to pursue even the most ridiculous cases.
> I wonder how this will be applied in reality. Will individuals stopped have to wait for the police to ask before readying their documentation without being cited in addition to whatever they were stopped for?
That's what they've been telling people, yes. Honestly, it seems rather over the top legalism.
I understand the point about the danger of using mobile devices while driving a moving vehicle. But, what exactly is the danger of using one when you are stationary, especially if you have been pulled over by a police officer? It is a law without a rational justification, and laws lacking rational justification are harmful.
> I understand the point about the danger of using mobile devices while driving a moving vehicle. But, what exact is the danger of using one when you are stationary, especially if you have been pulled over by a police officer? It is a law without a rational justification, and laws lacking rational justification are harmful.
The danger is loss of police revenue. In Australia it’s illegal to use your phone to pay at a McDonald’s drive through if your the one sitting in the drivers seat. Even if the car is in park.
This is basically the same thing as getting a seat-belt ticket because you unbuckled to get your ID before the officer arrived at your window to see you do it. I expect citations would be handed out in a similar manner.
"We made this thing you only need while driving, especially when stationary and stopped by the police, but it's illegal to do so unless specifically requested."
I wonder how this will be applied in reality. Will individuals stopped have to wait for the police to ask before readying their documentation without being cited in addition to whatever they were stopped for?