Mobile Telephones and Motor Vehicle Operation

CRS Report for Congress
Mobile Telephones and
Motor Vehicle Operation
Updated September 30, 2004
Douglas Reid Weimer
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Mobile Telephones and Motor Vehicle Operation
Summary
In the United States, as well as worldwide, there has been substantial growth in
the use of mobile wireless telecommunication services (“mobile telephones”). The
use of mobile telephones by the drivers of motor vehicles has been the subject of^th^st
certain state and local restrictions. S. 179 (108 Cong., 1 Sess. (2003)) has been
introduced in the 108^th Congress to provide some federal oversight of mobile
telephone use by drivers of motor vehicles, by requiring the individual states to enact
legislation to restrict mobile telephone use by drivers of motor vehicles.
Noncomplying states would be subject to the loss of federal highway funds.
At the present time, eighteen states and the District of Columbia have enacted
legislation concerning the use of mobile telephones by drivers of motor vehicles.
The existing state laws vary greatly and are summarized in the report. Some state
laws expressly preempt local regulation of mobile telephones. As of the date of this
report, fifty-three pieces of legislation have been introduced in 2004 in twenty-six
states and the District of Columbia concerning the use of mobile telephones by
drivers of motor vehicles. The current status of state legislation is summarized state-
by-state in the report.
Over the years, Congress has repeatedly conditioned the use of federal highway
funds to encourage states to enact desired transportation-related legislation. For
example, Congress has used this legislative device in dealing with drunk driving.
The pending federal legislation making federal highway funding contingent on state
restriction on the use of mobile telephones by drivers of motor vehicles would appear
to follow the driving while intoxicated legislative models.
This report examines the pending federal legislation, pending and enacted state
legislation, and the possible effect that the federal legislation, if enacted, might have
on the existing state and local regulations.

Contents
Background ..................................................1
Summary of Legislation in the 108^th Congress.......................3
Summary of Existing State Laws Concerning the Use of Mobile
Telephones ...............................................4
Legislative Trends............................................11
State Legislative Activity in 2004................................12
District of Columbia......................................12
New Jersey..............................................13
Other States.............................................14
Legal Considerations Related to the..............................30
Enactment of Federal Legislation................................30
Conclusion ..................................................31
List of Tables
Table 1. State Laws Concerning the Use of Mobile Telephones.............4
Table 2. 2004 State Legislative Activity Concerning Mobile Telephone Use and
Motor Vehicle Operation.......................................14

Mobile Telephones and Motor Vehicle
Operation
Background
In the United States, as well as worldwide, there has been substantial growth in¹
the number of subscribers to mobile wireless telecommunication services. It is
reported that there are currently over 169,000,000 mobile telephone² subscribers in³
the United States. The number of subscribers is increasing each year, and this
growth is expected to continue.⁴
Concurrent with the increase in mobile wireless telecommunication services
(“mobile telephones”) has been the use of mobile telephones and related accessories
by drivers of motor vehicles.⁵ Opinion is divided regarding the desirability of mobile

¹ See CRS Report RS20664, Third Generation (“3G”) Mobile Wireless Technologies and
Services; and CRS Report RS20993, Wireless Technology and Spectrum Demand: Third
Generation (3G) and Beyond.
² For the purpose of this report, the term “mobile telephone” is used as a generic term for
any type of cellular or wireless telephone.
³ Figure reported by the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA). See
[http://www.wow-com.com/]. In 2002, the CTIA had reported that there were 137,000,000
subscribers. This indicates an average growth rate of over 20%, each year, in the past two
years. The CTIA updates its usage figures regularly.
⁴ Id.
⁵ Technological advances in wireless telecommunications are combining with Internet
technology to develop new generations of applications and services. Currently, the United
States and other countries are moving toward a third generation of mobile telephony, known
as 3G. The dominant feature of 3G technology is that the transmission speeds are
significantly faster. See CRS Report RS20993 at 1. A related development is in the use of
wireless fidelity technology, known as Wi-Fi. There are wireless networks which provide
high-speed access to the Internet. 3G technology can be described as bringing Internet
capability to wireless mobile telephones. Wi-Fi provides wireless Internet access for
portable computers and handheld devices, such as Personal Digital Assistants. These
technological advances have increased the communications technology available in motor
vehicles. In addition to making and receiving calls (other features include call forwarding,
paging features, Voicemail, and prioritizing of calls), modern mobile telephones can take,
send, and receive pictures. Mobile telephones permit users to surf the World Wide Web,
check stock quotes or sports scores, play video games, and perform a variety of other
functions, in addition to conversation. Modern motor vehicles may include other
technological devices such as televisions, navigation systems, fax machines, dvd players,
computers, and other devices. It is expected that additional features will be available for
(continued...)

telephone use by drivers. Arguments have been made that mobile telephone use by
a motor vehicle operator is a safety feature for summoning emergency personnel
and/or roadside assistance. Others argue that the operator’s mobile telephone use is
a driver distraction that could lead to hazardous situations and to possible accidents.⁶
Certain state⁷ and local jurisdictions⁸ have enacted and implemented restrictions
on the use of mobile telephones by the drivers of motor vehicles. Numerous foreign
jurisdictions restrict and/or prohibit mobile telephone use and/or other wireless
technology use in motor vehicles.⁹
Federal legislation has been introduced in the 108^th Congress — “Mobile
Telephone Driving Safety Act of 2003” — which would have the effect of placing
some restrictions on the use of mobile telephones by drivers of motor vehicles under
certain circumstances.¹⁰ This report examines the pending federal legislation
concerning mobile telephone use by the drivers of motor vehicles, pending and

⁵ (...continued)
mobile telephones, as well as other entertainment/communication devices for use in motor
vehicles. This report is limited to the use of mobile telephones by the drivers of motor
vehicles.
⁶ M. Sundeen, Cell Phones and Highway Safety: 2003 State Legislative Update, (2004)
[Report from the National Conference of State Legislatures] at
[http://ncsl.org/print/transportation/cellphoneupdate12-03.pdf]. (Cited to afterward as
“Sundeen”).
⁷ State legislative activity is discussed infra.
⁸ The National Conference of State Legislatures (“NCSL”) reports that twenty-five
municipalities or counties have passed restrictions on the use of mobile telephones while
operating a motor vehicle. See Sundeen at 15-16. These jurisdictions, listed alphabetically
by state, are: Miami-Dade County, FL; Pembroke Pines, FL; Westin, FL; Brookline, MA;
Bloomfield, NJ; Carteret, NJ; Hazlet, NJ; Irvington, NJ; Marlboro, NJ; Nutley, NJ; Paramus,
NJ; Santa Fe, NM; Nassau County, NY; Suffolk County, NY; Westchester County, NY;
Brooklyn, OH; North Olmstead, OH; Walton Hills, OH; Conshocken, PA; Lower
Chichester, PA: West Conshocken, PA; Lebanon, PA; Hilltown Township, PA; York, PA;
and Sandy, UT. In 2001, the NCSL had reported thirteen jurisdictions that restricted mobile
telephone use by drivers of motor vehicles, which represents nearly a 50% increase in two
years. However, it should be noted that although these jurisdictions may have
laws/ordinances which limit or restrict mobile telephone use by drivers of motor vehicles,
such restrictions may not be strictly enforced, or may not be enforced at all.
⁹ The NCSL reports (see Sundeen at 16) that certain restrictions have been placed on mobile
telephone use by drivers of motor vehicles in forty-two countries: Australia; Austria:
Belgium; Botswana; Brazil; Chile; Czech Republic; Denmark; Egypt; Finland; France;
Germany; Greece; Hungary; India; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Japan; Jordan; Kenya; Malaysia;
Netherlands; Norway; the Philippines; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Russia; Singapore;
Slovak Republic; Slovenia; South Africa; South Korea; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland;
Taiwan; Turkey; Turkmenistan; United Kingdom; and Zimbabwe. It is uncertain as to how
stringently the restrictions are enforced. It should also be noted that use may be limited by
drivers, as well as passengers in motor vehicles.
¹⁰ S. 179, 108^th Cong., 1^st Sess. (2003).

enacted state legislation, and the possible effect that the federal legislation, if enacted,
might have on the existing state and local laws.
Summary of Legislation in the 108^th Congress
In the 108^th Congress, Senator Corzine reintroduced his bill from the 107^th
Congress¹¹ as the “Mobile Telephone Driving Safety Act of 2003,” S. 179,¹² on
January 16, 2003. On that same day, the bill was referred to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, which was the last action on the bill.
Like its predecessor bill, S. 179 would direct the Secretary of Transportation to
withhold federal highway funds from any state that permitted an individual to use a
mobile telephone while operating a motor vehicle. The bill defines “motor vehicle”
to mean a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily
for use on public highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail.
The bill would withhold federal highway funds from the noncomplying states
during their period of noncompliance. The Secretary would be required to withhold
5 percent of federal highway funds from noncomplying States for FY2005. In
subsequent fiscal years, the Secretary is required 10 percent of federal highway funds
from noncomplying states.
A state would meet the federal requirements if it has enacted and is enforcing
a law that makes it unlawful to use a hand-held mobile telephone by an individual
operating a motor vehicle. However, the state may permit an individual operating
a motor vehicle to use a mobile telephone with a device that permits hand-free
operation of the telephone if the state determines that such use does not pose a threat
to public safety. Another exception is permitted in the case of an emergency or other
exceptional circumstances, as determined by the state.
Federal highway funds withheld from a noncomplying state are to remain
available until the end of the fourth fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the
funds were authorized to be appropriated. If a noncomplying state complies with
federal requirements within the withholding period, withheld funds will be
apportioned to it and remain available for expenditure during the following three
fiscal years. Any apportioned funds that are not obligated at the end of this period
shall be allocated among the states that meet the federal requirements.
S. 179 does not address the issue of the use of mobile telephones by public
safety personnel, such as police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel.
While the bill provides an exception for “emergency” situation, it is unclear whether
regular use of mobile telephones by these public safety personnel would fall within
this exception. Similarly, the bill does not provide a specific definition for the term
“mobile telephone.” Such definition may be left to the states, but it is possible that
such a definition might be interpreted to include other wireless technology. Also,

¹¹ S. 927, 107^th Cong., 1^st Sess. (2001).
¹² 108^th Cong., 1^st Sess.

there is no specific definition for the concept of a “hands-free” device. Another issue
may be that a headset type feature that covers both ears may prevent the driver from
hearing the approach of emergency vehicles and other traffic-related sounds. Some
states have laws which prohibit the use of two-earphone devices, whether in use for
mobile telephones or for other audio uses. The bill does not address the issue of
mobile telephone use by other passengers in the motor vehicle, other than the driver.
Summary of Existing State Laws Concerning the Use of
Mobile Telephones
At the present time, eighteen states and the District of Columbia have enacted
legislation concerning the use of mobile telephones by drivers of motor vehicles.
The scope and nature of these laws vary greatly. In 2001, New York became the first
state to prohibit drivers from talking on hand-held mobile telephones while operating¹³
a motor vehicle. California law requires that rental cars with mobile telephone
equipment must include written operating instructions for the safe use of the mobile
phone. Another recently enacted California law prohibits the operation of a school
or a transit bus while using a mobile telephone. Florida and Illinois permit mobile
telephone use, as long as the device does not impair sound to both ears of the driver.
Arizona and Massachusetts prohibit school bus drivers from using cell phones while
operating a school bus. Massachusetts law requires that all drivers have at least one
hand on the steering wheel at all times while using a mobile telephone.
The various state laws concerning mobile telephone use by drivers of motor¹⁴
vehicles are summarized in the following table:
Table 1. State Laws Concerning the Use of Mobile Telephones
StateRule or StatuteSummaryPenalties
ArizonaAriz.Admin, Code,A school bus driverNo penalty
Title 17 Chap. 6,may not wear anspecified.
Art. 1 R17-9-104audio headset or
(2002).earphones or use a
mobile telephone
when the school
bus is in motion.
ArkansasArk. Code Ann. Prohibits the driverUnclassified
§ 6-19-120 (2003).use of a mobilemisdemeanor.
telephone whileFine of $100 -
operating a school$250.

bus.
¹³ N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Code § 1225-c (McKinney 2002)..
¹⁴ Table prepared from information derived from Sundeen at 3.

StateRule or StatuteSummaryPenalties
CaliforniaCal. Veh. Code Rental cars with$100 maximum for
§ 28090 (Westmobile telephonefirst violation;
2001).equipment must$200 maximum for
include writtensecond; $250 for
operatingthird and
instructions subsequent
concerning its safeviolations
use.committed within
one year.
A.B. (AssemblyMakes it anDriving infraction.
bill) 2785 (CAinfraction to drive
2004), signed bya school bus or
the Governor ontransit vehicle
September 14,while using a

2004. To bewireless telephone.

codified as ChapterContains
No. 505.exceptions.
DelawareH.Con.Res. 30Established a taskNot applicable.
(2002)(apparentlyforce to study and
not codified).make findings and
recommendations
regarding driver
distractions,
including mobile
telephone use.
H.B. 379 (DEClarifies thatNo applicable
2004); Chap. No.school bus drivers(amendment to

274 (June 24,can use a radio orexisting law).

2004).electronic device to
make or receive
calls for assistance.
S. B. 174 (DEProhibits the use of$50 to $100 fine

2004); Chap. No.a mobile telephonefor first offense.

318 (July 6, 2004).while operating a$100 to $100 fine
school bus.and six month bus
driving suspension
for subsequent
offenses.

StateRule or StatuteSummaryPenalties
District ofD.C. Code §§ 50-Mobile telephoneFine of $100;
Columbia2151 to 2157use is prohibited byprovided that the
(2004).a driver of a motorfine shall be
vehicle, unlesssuspended for a
equipped with afirst time violator
hands-freewho, subsequent to
accessory. the violation but
Exceptions forprior to the
emergencyimposition of a
situations and lawfine, provides
enforcement andproof of
emergencyacquisition of a
personnel. hands-free
accessory of the
Total prohibitionrequired type.
of mobile
telephone use byViolation is to be
drivers of a movingtreated as a moving
school bus carryingviolation.
passengers; and a
person holding a
learner’s permit.
FloridaFla. Stat. Ann. Mobile telephone$30 for each
§ 316.304 (Westuse is permittedviolation; non-

2001).only if it providesmoving violation.

sound through one
ear and allows
surrounding sound
to be heard with
the other ear.
Illinois625 Ill. Comp. Stat.A single-sidedNo penalty.
5/12-610 (2003).headset or earpiece
is permitted with a
mobile telephone
while driving.

625 Ill. Comp. Stat.

5/12-813.1 (2003).Drivers of schoolPetty offense;

buses prohibitedpunishable by a
from using a$110 to $250 fine.

mobile telephone
while driving;
emergency
exceptions.

StateRule or StatuteSummaryPenalties
KentuckyKy. Rev. Stat. Ann.Prohibits localNot applicable.
§ 65.873 (2003).governments from
restricting mobile
telephone use by
drivers of motor
vehicles.
LouisianaLa. Rev. Stat. Ann.Local jurisdictionsNot applicable.
§ 33:31 (Westprohibited from
2004).regulating mobile
telephone use by
drivers of motor
vehicles.
MaineMe. Rev. Stat.Persons who have“Traffic
Ann. tit. 29-Abeen issued ainfraction.”
M.R.S. §§ 1304,learners permit
1311 (West 2003).may not operate a
motor vehicle
while operating a
mobile telephone.
Provides aLicense restrictions
restricted licensemay be extended
for those under agefor periods of time

18; such persons(180 days).

may not operate a
motor vehicle
while using a
mobile telephone.

StateRule or StatuteSummaryPenalties
MassachusettsMass. Gen. LawsMobile telephone$35 maximum for
Ann. ch. 90, § 13use is permitted asfirst violation; $35
(West 2004).long as it does notto $75 for second
interfere with theviolation; $75 to
operation of the$150 for third and
vehicle and onesubsequent
hand remains onviolations
the steering wheelcommitted within
at all times.one year.
Mass. Gen. LawsNo person shallNo penalty
Ann. ch. 90, § 7Boperate a movingspecified.
(West 2004).school bus while
using a mobile
telephone.
Emergency
exception.
MississippiMiss. Code Ann.Local jurisdictionsNot applicable.
§ 63-3-212 (2004).are prohibited from
enacting
ordinances
restricting mobile
telephone use in
motor vehicles.
NevadaNev. Rev. Stat.Local jurisdictionsNot applicable.

Ann. § 707.375are prohibited from
(Michie 2004).regulating use of
mobile telephones
by drivers of motor
vehicles.

StateRule or StatuteSummaryPenalties
New JerseyN.J. Stat. Ann.Use of a hands-freeNot less than $100
§ 39:4-97.3 (Westmobile telephoneand not more than

2004).by the operator of a$250.

moving motor
vehicle is
permitted only if
“its placement does
not interfere with
the operation of
federally required
safety equipment
and the operator
exercises a high
degree of caution
in the operation of
the motor vehicle.”
N.J. Stat. Ann. §Drivers of schoolNot less than $250

39:3B-25 (Westbuses areor more than $500.

2004)prohibited from
using mobile
telephones, except:
1) when the bus is
parked in a safe
area off highway;
or 2) in an
emergency
situation.
New YorkN.Y. Veh. & Traf.Drivers areNot more than
Code § 1225-cprohibited from$100.
(McKinney 2002).talking on hand-
held mobile
telephones while
operating motor
vehicles.
OklahomaH.B. 1081 (2001) Prohibits localNot applicable.

(apparently notjurisdictions from
codified).restricting use of
mobile telephones
by drivers of motor
vehicles.

StateRule or StatuteSummaryPenalties
OregonOr. Rev. State. A city, county orNot applicable.
§ 801.038 (2003).other local
government may
not enact or
enforce any charter
provision,
ordinance,
resolution or other
provision
regulating the use
of mobile
telephones in
motor vehicles.
Rhode IslandR.I. Gen. Laws The use of a$50 fine.
§ 31-22-11.8mobile telephone
(2004).by a school bus
driver is prohibited
while the bus is
transporting
children, except in
the case of an
emergency.
TennesseeTenn. Code Ann. School bus driverClass C
§ 5508-192 (2004).prohibited frommisdemeanor.
using a hand heldFine of $50.

mobile telephone
while such a
vehicle is in
motion and is
transporting
children.
Exception for
mobile telephone
or two-way radio
communications
made to and from a
central dispatch, a
school
transportation
department, or a
similar office.

Legislative Trends
States continue to consider and enact legislation concerning the use of mobile
telephones by the drivers of motor vehicles. The NCSL determined that, in 2003
alone, legislators in forty-one states and the District of Columbia considered one
hundred sixteen bills concerning mobile telephone use or related distracted driving
issues.¹⁵ However, most of these bills were not passed.¹⁶
To date, no state has outright banned all use of any mobile telephone device
while driving. However, there has been a trend toward at least considering a
prohibition on the driver use of hand-held telephones. For example, New York,
prohibits the use of hand-held telephones while driving except during emergency
situations; however, the New York law permits the driver to use hands-free mobile
telephone devices. Forty-eight bills which were introduced in thirty-three states
considered similar legislation to implement hands-free mobile telephone
requirements. None of these bills were enacted into law in 2003, although two such
bills have been enacted and implemented in 2004, which are discussed below.
Several states have begun to focus on mobile telephone use by young drivers.
Many proposals would restrict use based on age/or type of permit. In 2003, Maine
enacted a law to restrict mobile telephone use by drivers under the age of twenty-one
who have a learner’s permit or a restricted drivers license.
Currently, several states prohibit the drivers of school buses from using mobile
telephones while operating a school bus. In 2003, legislatures in six states proposed
bills which would implement such restrictions. Arkansas and Tennessee enacted
such laws in 2003.
A growing trend is to require the collection of crash data information. Several
states currently require law enforcement officers to collect information concerning
any connection between mobile telephone use and a motor vehicle crash. Other
states have enacted legislation which requires the conduct of studies of the effects of
mobile telephone use on traffic safety.
Another legislative theme is for the states to assert authority over the jurisdiction
of mobile telephone use and to restrict local mobile telephone use laws. Several states
— Kentucky, Louisiana, and Nevada among them — have laws that prohibit local
restriction or regulation of mobile telephone use by drivers of motor vehicles.
Certain proposals would place special requirements on the use of mobile
telephone use by the drivers of motor vehicles. Such requirements may involve the
use of special headsets or hands-free equipment. For example, California in 2001
enacted legislation that required rental cars equipped with mobile telephone
equipment must be furnished with written instructions for the safe use of such
equipment.

¹⁵ Sundeen at 4-11.
¹⁶ Id.

States have considered other distracted driving legislation concerning
distractions to the operator of a motor vehicle. In 2003, Louisiana enacted legislation
that prohibited driving a motor vehicle equipped with a televisions capable of
receiving any pre-recorded visual presentation, unless the device is behind the
driver’s seat or is not visible by the driver.
The state legislatures of six states considered measures that would have
increased driver responsibility for the involvement in a crash will the driver was
using a mobile telephone. None of these bills was enacted.
State Legislative Activity in 2004
In 2004, three jurisdictions enacted legislation concerning the use of mobile
telephones by the drivers of motor vehicles: the District of Columbia, New Jersey,
and Delaware. The District and New Jersey laws are summarized.
District of Columbia.
On January 4, 2004, the District of Columbia City Council approved hands-held
restrictions on mobile telephone use by motor vehicle operators as part of the
Distracted Driving Safety Act of 2004 (“Act”),¹⁷ an act that also set other standards
for “distracted driving.”
Beginning on July 1, 2004, it became illegal for drivers to use a mobile
telephone or other electronic device while driving in the District of Columbia, unless
the telephone or device is equipped with a hands-free accessory. The act is designed
to improve traffic safety in the District of Columbia by reducing the number of
crashes caused by inattentive drivers who become distracted by the use of phones or
other electronic devices.¹⁸ The District police department began issuing warnings on
July 1, 2004, and actual ticketing began on August 1, 2004.
The statute specifically states that no one “shall use a mobile telephone or other
electronic device while operating a moving vehicle in the District of Columbia,
unless the telephone or device is equipped with a hands-free accessory.”¹⁹
Exceptions to the prohibition is made for: 1) emergency use of a mobile telephone,
including calls to 911 or 311, a hospital, an ambulance service provider, a fire
department, a law enforcement agency, or a first-aid squad; 2) use by law
enforcement and emergency personnel or by a driver of an authorized emergency
vehicle, acting within the scope of official duties; or initiating or terminating a

¹⁷ D.C. Law 15-311 (effective Mar. 30, 2004); codified at D.C. Code §§ 50-2151 to 2157
(2004).
¹⁸ The D.C. Metropolitan District of Columbia Police Department website contains a
comprehensive summary of the act. See [http://mpdc.gov/info/traffic/distracteddriver.shtm].
¹⁹ Id. § 50-2153(a).

telephone call, or turning the telephone on or off.²⁰ The driver of a school bus is
specifically prohibited from using a mobile telephone, except in cases or emergency
or under certain very specific cases.²¹ A person holding a learner’s permit is
prohibited from using any mobile telephone or other device, including those with
hands-free accessories, while operating a moving vehicle on a public highway, except
in an emergency.²² No age restriction or limitation specified within the context of the
learner’s permit.
The statute requires that following a motor vehicle accident, the police officer’s
report must include whether a mobile telephone was present in a vehicle; whether the
use of such telephone contributed to the cause of the accident; and whether any other
distraction contributed to the cause of the accident.²³ The Director of the District
Department of Transportation is required to annually publish and submit to the City
Council a report containing statistics concerning the possible relationship between
motor vehicle accidents in the District of Columbia and the use of mobile telephones
or other electronic devices by motor vehicle operators.²⁴ The Mayor is also required
to submit a report to the City Council containing recommendations concerning
mobile telephone use in motor vehicles.²⁵
The statute provides penalty provisions. A fine of $100 is to be imposed for
violation of the statutory requirements. However, the fine shall be suspended for a
first time violator who, subsequent to the violation but prior to the imposition of the
fine, provides proof of a hands-free accessory of the type required by the law.²⁶
New Jersey.
The New Jersey statute was enacted into law on January 20, 2004, and is more
limited in scope than the District of Columbia law. The statute provides that the use
of a wireless telephone by the operator of a moving motor vehicle on a public road
or highway shall be unlawful, except when the telephone is a hands-free wireless
telephone, provided that its placement does not interfere with the operation of
federally required safety equipment and the operator exercises a high degree of
caution in the operation of the motor vehicle.²⁷ An exception is allowed to use a
hand-held telephone if: the driver has reason to fear for his life or safety, or believes
that a criminal act may be perpetrated against himself or another person; or the
operator is using the telephone to report a fire, traffic accident, hazard, or other

²⁰ Id. § 50-2153(b).
²¹ Id. § 50-2154(a).
²² Id. § 50-2154(b).
²³ Id. § 50-2156(a).
²⁴ Id. § 50-2158(a).
²⁵ Id. § 50-2158(b).
²⁶ Id. § 50-2155(a).
²⁷ N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:4-97.3(a) (West 2004).

dangerous condition. The penalty for the violation of the New Jersey statute is a fine
of not less than $100, and not more than $250.²⁸
Other States.
In 2004, various states have continued their efforts to regulate the use of mobile
telephones by the drivers of motor vehicles. Delaware²⁹ enacted two laws relating
to the use of radios or electronic devices by the drivers of school buses³⁰ and
prohibiting the use of mobile telephones while operating a school bus.³¹
Pending state legislation is summarized in the following table.
Table 2. 2004 State Legislative Activity Concerning Mobile
Telephone Use and Motor Vehicle Operation
StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
AlabamaH.B. 117 (ALProhibits the use ofReferred to the
2004).hand-held mobileHouse Public
telephones whileSafety Committee
driving. Headsets(February 3, 2004).

can only allow
sound to one ear.
Fines of up to $50.
²⁸ Id. § 39:4-97.3(d).
²⁹ See references on chart of state legislative activity in 2004.
³⁰ H.B. 379 (DE 2004) to be codified at Del. Code Ann. Ch. 274.
³¹ S.B. 174 (DE 2004) to be codified at Del. Code Ann. Ch. 318.

StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
ArizonaH.B. 2691 (AZProhibits the use ofReferred to the
2004).hand-heldHouse Rules
telephones whileCommittee
driving. (February 16,
Exceptions 2004).
provided for
emergency
situations.
Violations have
fines of $50. If
driver involved in
an accident, fine
may be $200. Law
enforcement
required to collect
information about
mobile telephone
use on crash report
forms.
CaliforniaA.B. (AssemblyProhibits the use ofReferred to the
bill) 1828 (CAa hand-held mobileAssembly
2004).telephone whileTransportation
operating a motorCommittee. Not
vehicle. heard (April 19,
Exceptions for2004).
emergency
situations.
Convictions for a
first offense are
punishable by a
$20 fine.
Subsequent
offenses are
punishable for a
$50 fine.
A.B. (AssemblyProhibits operatingSigned by the
bill) 2785 (CAa school bus or aGovernor on

2004). Enacted.transit bus whileSeptember 14,

using a mobile2004. To be
telephone.codified at Chapter
No. 505.
S.B. 1320 (CAProhibits the use ofReferred to the
2004).a mobile telephoneSenate
while driving in aTransportation
school zone.Committee (April

20, 2004).

StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
ColoradoH.B. 1173 (COMakes it aPassed House and
2004).secondary trafficreferred to the
offense for aSenate Committee
holder of aon Transportation.
temporary Postponed
instruction permitindefinitely (March
or a minor’s3, 2004).
instruction permit
to drive while
using a mobile
telephone or other
mobile
communication
device (other than
a hands-free
device). Provides
exemptions and
penalty
assessments.
ConnecticutH.B. 5553 (CTProhibits the use ofReferred to the
2004).hand-heldJoint Judiciary
telephones whileCommittee. Failed
driving. Prohibitsjoint favorable
drivers from usingdeadline (March
a mobile electronic22, 2004).
device to perform
any personal
computer function,
sending or
receiving any
electronic mail,
playing any video
game or digital
video disk, or
taking or
transmitting any
digital photograph
while operating a
motor vehicle.
Fines range from
$75 for a first
violation, to $150
for a second
violation, to $250
for a third and
subsequent
violation.
DelawareH.B. 224 (DEProhibits the use ofReported out of the
2004).hand-held mobilePublic Safety
telephones whileCommittee without

StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
Delaware (cont.)operating a motorrecommendation
vehicle and makes(June 11, 2004).
it a secondary
offense. Contains
emergency
exceptions.
Requires schools to
place inattentive
driving on the
school curriculum.
Prohibits use of a
mobile telephone
while operating a
school bus.
Preempts local
jurisdictions from
enacting
restrictions on the
use of mobile
telephones while
driving. Requires
sellers of mobile
telephones to
educate customers
about improper use
of the telephone
while driving.
Requires the Dept.
of Public Safety to
collect crash
statistics related to
mobile telephone
use while driving.
H.B. 379 (DEClarifies thatSigned by the
2004).school bus driversGovernor and
can use a radio orbecame Chapter
electronic device toNo. 274 (June 24,
make or receive2004).
calls for assistance.
S.B. 174 (DEProhibits the use ofSigned by the
2004).a mobile telephoneGovernor and
while operating abecame Chapter
school bus.No. 318 (July 6,
Penalties provided.2004).
S.B. 244 (DEProhibits driversPassed Senate.
2004).with only aReferred to House
learner’s permitPublic Safety
from using aCommittee. Laid

StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
Delaware (cont.)mobile telephone. on table (June 1,

2004).

District ofB15-0035 (DCProhibits the use of Enacted on January
Columbia (See2004).hand-held6, 2004.
discussion above).telephones while
driving. Provides
exceptions for
emergency
situations.
Violators may be
punished with fines
of $100. Requires
police to collect
information on
crash reports about
mobile telephone
use. Requires the
Department of
Motor Vehicles to
publish crash
statistics
concerning the
relationship
between mobile
telephone use and
motor vehicle
crashes.
GeorgiaH.B. 1241 (GAProhibits restrictedReferred to the
2004).drivers (Class D)House Motor
from using mobileVehicles
telephones whileCommittee
operating a motor(January 29, 2004).
vehicle.
IllinoisH.B. 5020 (ILProvides that aTabled by sponsor

2004).person who holds(March 25, 2004).

an instruction
permit, or a person
who has held a
driver’s license for
less than one year,
may not use a
mobile telephone
while driving a
vehicle. Provides
that a person who
is not subject to
those prohibitions
may use a mobile

StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
Illinois (cont.)telephone while
driving if he or she
obeys all traffic
laws. Provides that
if a person
permitted to use a
wireless telephone
commits a traffic
violation while
using a wireless
telephone, he or
she, in addition to
other violations, is
guilty of a petty
offense punishable
by a fine of not
more than $79.
Provides that a
violation of the
provision or a
similar provision
of a local
ordinance is an
offense against
laws or ordinances
regarding the
movement of
traffic. Contains
emergency
exceptions.
H.B. 6568 (ILProvides that aReferred to the
2004).person under ageHouse Rules
19 may not use aCommittee
mobile or other(February 6, 2004).
telephone while
driving. Contains
emergency
exceptions.
Violation is a petty
offense punishable
by a fine of $100.
H.B. 6636 (ILMakes it a pettyReferred to the
2004).offense to drive aHouse Rules
motor vehicleCommittee
while using a(February 9, 2004).

mobile telephone,
unless that
telephone is
designed for hands-

StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
Illinois (cont.)free operation and
is used in that
manner while
driving. Fine of
not more than $20
for a first offense
and not more than
$50 for each
subsequent
offense. Contains
emergency
exceptions.
S.B. 2575 (ILProvides that aReferred to the
2004).person who holdsHouse Rules
an instructionCommittee
permit or a(February 4, 2004).
graduated license
may not use a
mobile telephone
while driving.
Contains
emergency
exceptions.
IndianaS.B. 131 (INMakes it a Class BReferred to the
2004).infraction with aCommittee on
fine of $1,000 toCriminal and Civil
operate a motorand Public Policy
vehicle and(January 6, 2004).

simultaneously use
a mobile telephone,
except in
emergencies.
Authorizes a
person who views
the operation of a
vehicle with
simultaneous
mobile telephone
use and driving on
certain highways to
report the incident
to the state police
or sheriff.
Requires the state
police or sheriff to
issue a notice to
the registered
owner of the motor
vehicle.

StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
IowaH.B. 2158 (IAProhibits the use ofReferred to the
2004).a hand-held mobileHouse
telephone whileTransportation
driving. There is aCommittee
$25 fine upon(February 4, 2004).
conviction.
KentuckyH.B. 602 (KYProhibits the use ofReferred to House
2004).hand-held mobileTransportation
telephones whileCommittee
operating a motor(February 26,
vehicle. Requires2004).
the Department of
Transportation to
study the effects of
the use of mobile
telephones and
similar equipment
and driver
distraction on
traffic safety.
Department must
submit a report to
the Governor and
the legislature in
four years. Pre-
empts local laws.
MarylandH.B. 1151 (MDProhibits minorsReported
2004).under the age of 18unfavorably from
from using anythe House
mobile telephoneCommittee on
while driving. Environmental
ExceptsMatters (March 15,
emergencies. 2004).
Authorizes a
maximum fine of
$500 for violations.
H.B. 1152 (MDProhibits driversReported
2004).from engaging inunfavorably from
distracting activityHouse
including use of aEnvironmental
mobile telephoneMatters Committee
or other electronic(March 22, 2004).

device. Excepts
hands-free devices.
Excepts
emergencies.
Requires
information in
accident reports.

StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
Maryland (cont.)Requires report to
the legislature
regarding mobile
phone use and auto
crashes.
H.B. 189 (MDProhibits holdersReported
2004).of learner’sunfavorably from
instructionalthe House
permits orCommittee on
provisional driver’sEnvironmental
licenses from usingMatters (March 1,
specific interactive2004).
wireless
communication
devices while
operating a motor
vehicle. Excepts
emergencies.
H.B. 275 (MDProvides thatReferred to House
2004).evidence of aJudiciary
motor vehicleCommittee.
driver’s operationReported
of a hand-heldunfavorably
telephone may be(March 15, 2004).
considered by the
trier of fact in
determining
whether the driver
was negligent
under specified
circumstances.
Makes specific
exceptions.
H.B. 29 (MDProhibits hand-heldEnvironmental
2004).telephone useMatters Committee
while driving. reported
Makes specificunfavorably
exceptions. (February 13,
Requires that a2004).

violation be
enforced only as a
secondary action.
Violation of the
statute may not be
classified as a
moving violation
for assessing

StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
Maryland (cont.)points.
H.B. 5 (MD 2004).Requires the MotorReported
Vehicleunfavorably from
Administration tothe House
impose aCommittee on
restriction onEnvironmental
learners’Matters (March 15,
instructional 2004).
permits and
provisional drivers’
licenses that
prohibits permit
holders or
licensees from
using a specified
wireless
communication
device while
operating a motor
vehicle. Makes
specified
exceptions.
S.B. 630 (MDProhibits minorsReferred to the
2004).from using aSenate Judicial
mobile telephoneProceedings
while driving.Committee.
Reported
unfavorably
(March 1, 2004).
MichiganH.B. 5084 (MIProhibits anReferred to the
2003).individual under18Committee on
years of age who isTransportation
driving on a permit(September 25,
or in graduated2003).
licensing status
from using a hand-
held mobile
telephone while
operating a motor
vehicle.
H.B. 5085 (MIProhibits the use ofReferred to the
2003).a mobile telephoneCommittee on
while driving.Transportation
(September 25,

2003).

StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
MinnesotaH.B. 2712 (MNProhibits operationReferred to the
2004).of a mobileCommittee on
telephone in aTransportation
moving motorPolicy (March 3,
vehicle by the2004).
holder of a
provisional driver’s
license or
instruction permit.
S.B. 2805 (MNProhibits operationReferred to the
2004).of a mobileSenate Committee
telephone in aon Finance (April
moving motor26, 2004).
vehicle by the
holder of a
provisional driver’s
license or
instruction permit.
NebraskaL.B. 1111 (NEMakes changesReferred to
2004).regarding holdersLegislative
of provisionalCommittee on
operator’s permits;Transportation and
prohibits certainTelecommunica-
forms of mobiletions. Hearing
telephone use; setsnotice (February
forth penalty10, 2004).

provisions.

StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
New JerseyA.B.(AssemblyRequires driverIntroduced and
bill) 3159 (NJdistractionfiled (June 24,

2004).(including mobile2004).

telephone use) to
be noted in traffic
accident reports.
A.B. (AssemblyProhibits the use ofReferred to the
bill) 664; 965 (NJmobile telephonesAssembly
2004).while driving.Transportation
Committee
(January 13, 2004).
(See discussionS.B. 338 (NJProhibits the use ofEnacted January
above.)2004).a mobile telephone20, 2004.
while operating a
motor vehicle.
Permits hands-free
devices. Requires
the DMV to collect
data on crash
report forms.
New YorkA.B. (AssemblyProvides thatReferred to the
bill) 3675 (NYdrivers who, whileAssembly Codes
2004).using a mobileCommittee
telephone, cause(February 10,
accidents which2004).

result in serious
injury or death
shall be subject to
the same criminal
penalties as drivers
who cause serious
injury or death
while driving
under the influence
of alcohol or drugs.
Imposes a penalty
of two points
against a person’s
license when
convicted of a
violation of driving
while using a
mobile telephone.

StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
New York (cont.)A.B. (AssemblyRequires thatReferred to the
bill) 4114 (NYpolice motorAssembly
2004).vehicle crashTransportation
reports includeCommittee
information about(January 7, 2004).
whether mobile
telephones were
present in the
vehicles and
whether the mobile
telephones were a
contributing factor
to the crash.
A.B. (AssemblyProhibits driversReferred to the
bill) 5689 (NYunder the age of 18Assembly
2004).from using aTransportation
hands-free mobileCommittee (March
telephone while3, 2004).
operating a motor
vehicle.
A.B. 6379Prohibits driversReferred to the
(Assembly Bill)from using hands-Assembly
6379 (NY 2004).free mobileTransportation
telephones whileCommittee (March
operating a motor4, 2004).
vehicle.
S.B. 3521 (NYAmends existingAmended in the
2004).law so that driversSenate
receive one pointTransportation
on their drivingCommittee
records if they are(January 23, 2004).

convicted of using
a mobile telephone
while operating a
motor vehicle.

StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
Rhode IslandH.B.7065 (RIProhibits the use ofReferred to the
2004).hand-held mobileHouse
telephones whileCorporations
driving a motorCommittee
vehicle or a(January 8, 2004).
bicycle. Fines are
$35 for a first
offense; $70 for a
second offense;
and $140 for a
third or subsequent
offense.
H.B. 7107 (RIProhibits minors,Referred to the
2004).persons under theHouse Judiciary
age of 18, fromCommittee
using a mobile(January 8, 2004).
telephone either
while operating a
motor vehicle or as
a passenger. $50
fine.
South CarolinaH.R. 4412 (SCProvides that aReferred to the
2003).person whoCommittee on
possesses aEducation and
beginner’s permitPublic Works
may not operate a(January 13, 2004).
motor vehicle
while using a
mobile telephone
or other wireless
communications
device.
H.R. 4703 (SCProhibits the use ofReferred to the
2004).hand-heldHouse Judiciary
telephones whileCommittee
operating a motor(February 4, 2004).

vehicle.
Convictions for
violations are
punishable by a
fine of $50 and for
imprisonment of
not more than 10
days.

StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
South DakotaS.B. 126 (SDRequires the DMVTabled in Senate
2004).to collectTransportation
information aboutCommittee
mobile telephone(January 29, 2004).
involvement in
motor vehicle
crashes. Requires
the Department of
Public Safety and
the Division of
Insurance to
evaluate whether
the use or nonuse
of mobile
telephones by
motorists should be
a factor in
insurance
premiums, tort
liability, and safety
instructions.
S.B. 136 (SDNo person with aDeferred
2004).restricted minor’slegislative action
permit may operate(January 29, 2004).

a motor vehicle
while using a
mobile telephone
or other wireless
telecommunication
device. Emergency
exception. The
term, for the
purpose of the
statute, means the
talking, listening,
or placing or
receiving a call on
any mobile
telephone or other
wireless
telecommunication
device, or
operating its keys,
buttons, or other
controls.

StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
TennesseeH.B. 3306 (TNProhibits theReferred to the
2004).drivers of trucksHouse
with gross vehicleTransportation
rating over 16,000Committee
pounds from using(February 12,
a hand-held2004).
telephone while
driving. $50 fine.
S.B. 2293 (TNProhibits driversPassed Senate

2004).with a learner’s(March 30, 2004).

permit, an
intermediate
license, or a
restricted license
from using a
mobile telephone
while driving. $50
fine.
UtahH.B. 190 (UTProhibits schoolAmended

2003).bus drivers from(February 4, 2004).

using a mobile
telephone while
driving a school
bus. Exceptions:
medical
emergency, safety
hazard, or criminal
activity.
VermontH.B. 575 (VTProhibits the use ofReferred to the
2004).hand-held mobileHouse
telephones whileTransportation
driving. Committee
(January 14, 2004).
S.B. 199 (VTProhibits the use ofReferred to the
2004).hand-held mobileSenate
telephones whileTransportation
operating a motorCommittee
vehicle. (January 6, 2004).
Emergency
exceptions.
VirginiaS.B. 581 (VAProhibits the use ofPassed by
2004).hand-held mobileindefinitely by the
telephones whileSenate
operating a motorTransportation
vehicle. $100 fine.Committee
(January 22, 2004).

StateBill Number Bill Summary andStatus of State
Penalties Activity
WyomingH.B. 76 (WYProhibits the use ofIntroduced

2004).a mobile telephone(February 9, 2004).

(cellular or
satellite) while
operating a motor
vehicle.
Legal Considerations Related to the
Enactment of Federal Legislation
Over the years, Congress has repeatedly conditioned the use of federal highway
funds to encourage states to enact desired transportation-related legislation. For
example, Congress has used this legislative device in dealing with various issues
related to the issue of driving while intoxicated. The Highway Safety Amendments
of 1984 effectively established the national minimum drinking age by providing that
Congress would withhold 5 percent (increasing to 10 percent) of federal highway
funds for a state’s failure to enact a minimum drinking age of twenty-one.³²
Similarly, other federal legislation has been enacted that conditions the receipt of
federal highway funds on state adoption of federal standards governing the revocation³³
or suspension of drivers’ licenses of individuals convicted of drug offenses; the
operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated minors;³⁴ and the establishment of
minimum penalties for repeat offenders for driving while intoxicated or driving under
the influence.³⁵ The pending federal legislation making federal highway funding
contingent on state restriction on the use of mobile telephones by drivers of motor
vehicles would appear to follow these legislative models.
As the Supreme Court has stated: “Congress has frequently employed the
Spending Power to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal
moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative
directives. The Court has repeatedly upheld against constitutional challenge the use
of this legislative device to induce governments and private parties to cooperate³⁶
voluntarily with federal policy.” Various criteria concerning Congress’ discretion
have been provided by the Court. The conditions placed upon the receipt of funds,
like the spending itself, must advance the general welfare, but the decision of that

³² 23 U.S.C. § 158.
³³ 23 U.S.C. § 159.
³⁴ 23 U.S.C. §161.
³⁵ 23 U.S.C. § 164.
³⁶ Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 474 (1980)(Chief Justice Burger announcing
judgment of the Court).

rests largely, if not wholly, with Congress.³⁷ Since the states may choose to receive
or not to receive the proffered federal funds, Congress must set out the conditions
unambiguously, so that the states may rationally decide.³⁸ The Court has suggested
that the conditions must be related to the federal interest for which the funds are
expended.³⁹ Furthermore, the power to condition funds may not be used to induce
the states to engage in activities that would be unconstitutional.⁴⁰
If the state accepts the federal funds on conditions, and then does not follow the
prescribed federal requirements, the typical remedy is federal administrative action
to terminate the funding and to recoup funds that the state has already received.⁴¹ It
has also been determined that under certain circumstances the recipients and the
potential recipients in a particular program may sue to compel states to observe the
standards.⁴²
Conclusion
Along with the substantial growth in mobile telephone use has been concern
about the use of mobile telephones by the drivers of motor vehicles. At the present
time, a variety of state laws and local ordinances provide some regulation of mobile
telephone use. In addition, a number of states are considering legislation to regulate
mobile telephone use by drivers of motor vehicles.
Federal legislation has been introduced in the 108^th Congress which would
effectively require individual states to enact legislation to restrict mobile telephone
use by drivers of motor vehicles. Noncomplying states would be subject to the loss
of federal highway funds. The legislation appears similar to existing legislative
precedent directing states to enact certain legislation or be subject to the loss of
federal highway funds.

³⁷ South Dakota v. Dole, 480 U.S. 203, 207 (the placing of conditions on the receipt of
federal highway funds)(1987).
³⁸ Id..
³⁹ Id.
⁴⁰ Id. at 210-211.
⁴¹ Bell v. New Jersey, 461 U.S. 773 (1983); Bennett v. New Jersey, 470 U.S. 632 (1985);
Bennett v. Kentucky Dept. of Education, 470 U.S. 656 (1985).
⁴² King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968).