DOCSLIB.ORG

Cell Phone Use-Related Distracted Driving a Graduate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cell Phone Use-Related Distracted Driving a Graduate CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE Effectiveness of Policy: Cell Phone Use-Related Distracted Driving A graduate project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Public Administration, Public Sector Management and Leadership By Kirby Mayeda August 2020 Copyright by Kirby Mayeda 2020 ii The graduate project of Kirby Mayeda is approved: __________________________________________ _________________ Dr. Paul D. Krivonos Date __________________________________________ _________________ Dr. Elizabeth A. Trebow Date __________________________________________ _________________ Dr. Henrik Palasani-Minassians, Chair Date California State University, Northridge iii Acknowledgment I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Henrik Palasani-Minassians for his counsel and support throughout the thesis process. I would also like to give thanks to my other professors in the Master of Public Administration program, who all brought a wealth of knowledge and real-world experience into the classroom. iv Dedication I would like to dedicate my thesis to the following loved ones: My mother, Cathy; my father and stepmother, Kirk and Caroline; my aunt and uncle, Shar and Dean; my maternal grandparents, Grammy and Grampy; my paternal grandparents, Ba-Chan and Ji-Chan; and last, but not least, my partner, Anthony. Words cannot express my gratitude for their presence in my life, and I fully recognize my good fortune in being given their boundless love, patience, and support. v Table of Contents Copyright page ii Signature page iii Acknowledgment iv Dedication v Abstract vii Introduction 1 Literature Review 4 Adverse Effects 4 Mechanisms of Distraction 7 Policy 11 Methods 15 Limitations 16 Conclusion 18 References 19 vi Abstract Policy Effectiveness: Cell Phone-Related Distracted Driving By Kirby Mayeda Master of Public Administration, Public Sector Management and Leadership Cell phone use-related distracted driving causes many adverse effects, including injuries, deaths, and financial problems. Many drivers do not adhere to laws against cell phone use behind the wheel, whether or not they are aware of laws prohibiting such behavior. Policy must be implemented more effectively. A review of the literature and surrounding cell phone use-related distracted driving and legislation was conducted to explore what policies may be most effective in preventing drivers from using cell phones in order to inform future policies. A qualitative study was conducted using archival research and text analysis. vii Introduction Each year in the United States, thousands of lives are adversely affected by distracted drivers who choose to use cell phones while simultaneously operating an automobile. Distracted driving, defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (n.d.) as “any activity that diverts attention from driving, including talking or texting on your phone, eating and drinking, talking to people in your vehicle, fiddling with the stereo, entertainment or navigation system” (“What Is Distracted Driving?,” para. 1). Distracted driving may include any activity which detracts from a driver’s ability to fully focus on the driving activity and is to blame for thousands of deaths each year (Abouk & Adams, 2013; Tashea, 2016). Deaths due to distracted driving include those of drivers themselves, passengers, motorcyclists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and others (Hahn & Dudley, 2003). Those who use cell phones while driving are a major cause of automobile accidents (Robbins, 2013). Moreover, several hundred thousand more are injured due to distracted driving, causing physical, financial, and economic difficulties. The risks of distracted driving due to cell phone use have been acknowledged for decades. Adding to the issue, the dangers of distracted driving are not always well understood by drivers. It seems as though drivers sometimes conflate convenience and safety when it comes to their vehicles. According to the National Safety Council (NSC) (2020), 53% of drivers feel that if automobile manufacturers include technologies such as infotainment systems or hands-free capabilities, the vehicle is safer than a vehicle which does not include such features. The NSC also found that because many states have set prohibitions with regard to motorists’ manual use of mobile phones, motorists tend to believe that hands-free options are automatically safer options. Seppa (2013) also found that drivers tend to believe hands-free options make it safe to use a cell 1 phone while driving. Drivers with this belief think that because they are not holding their cell phone, the level of risk of automobile accidents diminishes, or even disappears. However, even hands-free options are not always safe, as drivers may still be distracted visually and cognitively, which may be just as dangerous as one’s manual operation of their phone (Mack, 2003; Strayer & Drews, 2007). The placement of driver focus on cell phones, rather than the road, can lead to unintended, and sometimes tragic, consequences. Although there exist policies, laws, and campaigns across the U.S. which aim to stop motorists from using mobile phones while operating their private vehicles, the statistics noted earlier indicate that there remains much to be desired in the realm of actual effectiveness (Lim & Chi, 2013). Thousands continue to use their phones while on the road, leading to avoidable injuries and sometimes deadly results. Also worth noting is that many drivers use their phones while driving and are not caught by law enforcement, so there may be little to no consequence. In the absence of punishment, people may choose to do as they please. Clearly, not all drivers endeavor to refrain from using their mobile phones while driving. Some drivers will use their phones while driving simply because they wish to do so, feel that they cannot wait until they park their vehicle to use their phone, or even feel that their cell phone use behind the wheel does not affect their driving quality (Kareklas & Muehling, 2014; Robbins, 2013). Other times, people are completely unaware of regulations or campaigns which outlaw or discourage cell phone-related distracted driving behaviors. This suggests that information must be disseminated in a more effective manner and that implementation of policies must be strengthened. Although some drivers will certainly continue to use their phones despite being educated on the risks of such conduct, knowledge and encouragement can make a difference for 2 others, thereby lowering the number of injuries and deaths owed to cell phone-related distracted driving. What policies have been implemented effectively in the U.S. in order to address the issue of cell phone use while driving, thereby reducing adverse human impacts? 3 Literature Review Adverse Effects Motorists’ use of cell phones for text messaging, engagement in verbal conversation, and use of phone applications while driving has many unintended yet serious negative consequences. Cell phone use while driving is a significant contributor to traffic accidents. Most would likely agree that injury and loss of human life are the worst consequences of cell phone use-related distracted driving. Text messaging requires one to avert their gaze from the road and toward their phone, as well as direct their concentration at least partially toward their phone. Using cell phone applications requires similar driver attention. Engagement in verbal conversation can also lead to attention being paid somewhere other than to the activity of driving. These factors add up to the creation of dangerous opportunities for overlooked traffic signals or signs, other vehicles, pedestrians, and more. Some negative outcomes include fatal and non-fatal injury as well as financial and economic effects. For these reasons, cell phone use while driving is a detrimental behavior and is a significant contributor to traffic accidents. Lamentably, aside from causing injury to drivers, passengers, and any others unlucky enough to be involved, as well as causing negative financial and economic effects, many accidents involve fatalities as well. If drivers engage in less risky driving behaviors and refrain from using their phones in order to better pay attention to the road in front of them, the number of undesirable effects which occur due to cell phone use while driving may easily be lessened or prevented. According to the NSC’s Injury Facts website (2019), of the 276,000 non-fatal injuries caused by distracted driving overall in the year 2018, 21,000 were directly attributed to the involvement of drivers’ cell phone usage while driving. In other words, just over 13% of all 4 distracted driving non-fatal injuries were caused by drivers who were distracted by cell phones. Considering the various other defined distracted driving activities which are included in the total number of distracted driving non-fatal injuries recorded, this number is significant. Unsurprisingly, Ferdinand et al. (2019) found that in 16 U.S. states, bans on texting while driving positively correlated with a four percent reduction in emergency room visits. Undoubtedly, injury frequently has quite a negative effect on people’s lives, as it can often lead to many unwanted life effects. One will invariably experience discomfort due to physical pain and suffering. Tasks which were once routine may now be difficult or impossible, and independence may wane. As such, an injured person faces the potential for major temporary
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet
    Research Collection Monograph ON/OFF: Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet Author(s): Genner, Sarah Publication Date: 2017 Permanent Link: https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-010805600 Originally published in: http://doi.org/10.3218/3800-2 Rights / License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported This page was generated automatically upon download from the ETH Zurich Research Collection. For more information please consult the Terms of use. ETH Library ON | OFF Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet Sarah Genner This work was accepted as a PhD thesis by the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Zurich in the spring semester 2016 on the recommendation of the Doctoral Committee: Prof. Dr. Daniel Sü ss (main supervisor, University of Zurich, Switzerland) and Prof. Dr. Urs Gasser (Harvard University, USA). Published with the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation. Bibliographic Information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. This work is licensed under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. Cover photo: fl ickr.com/photos/zuerichs-strassen © 2017, vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich ISBN 978-3-7281-3799-9 (Print) ISBN 978-3-7281-3800-2 (Open Access) DOI 10.3218/3800-2 www.vdf.ethz.ch [email protected] Table of Contents Preface ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ONLINE at Enddd.Org | TOLL-FREE at (855) 363-3478 October 23, 2017
    October 23, 2017 Theresa Eagen Executive Deputy Director NY Dept of Motor Vehicles Re: “Texalyzer” Technology Dear Commissioner Eagen: My daughter Casey was killed by a distracted driver while walking through a crosswalk in New Jersey. It was a beautiful summer day. The driver rolled through a stop sign and killed her. He said he never saw her. I founded EndDD.org (End Distracted Driving), which is a campaign of the Casey Feldman Foundation, to work to keep others safe from distracted driving. I have spoken with more than 100,000 students and 15,000 adults across the country since then and work each and every day to keep others safe from distracted driving. I work with traffic safety professionals on the national, state and local levels, researchers, law enforcement and educators. I have been a practicing attorney for more than 35 years and received a master’s in counseling after Casey’s death. As you know traffic fatalities are increasing and, according to NHTSA, in 2015 fatalities attributable to distracted driving grew on a percentage basis faster than those caused by drunk driving, speeding or failing to wear seat belts. The “textalyzer,” by name and intended purpose invites comparison to the breathalyzer and efforts to combat drunk driving. So how does the prevalence of distracted driving compare with that of drunk driving? While verifiable fatalities attributable to drunk driving are about three times those for distracted driving, we know that distracted driving is vastly underreported. According to a AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study we also know that more than 50% of serious teen crashes are caused by distracted driving.
    [Show full text]
  • Distracted Driving White Paper
    Distracted Driving White Paper Prepared by: Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators June 2018 *Table 5 Amendments, December 2018 JUNE 2018 ISBN: 978-1-927993-33-0 Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators 1111 Prince of Wales Drive, Suite 404 Ottawa, Ontario K2C 3T2 T: 613.736.1003 F: 613.736.1395 E: [email protected] ccmta.ca ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CCMTA’s Distracted Driving Task Force was established to help reduce distracted driving as a contributing factor to motor vehicle collision fatalities and serious injuries in Canada. A significant role of the Task Force was to provide guidance to the development of CCMTA’s Distracted Driving Action Plan. The Distracted Driving White Paper is an important key deliverable of this Action Plan. CCMTA gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the Distracted Driving Task Force members and their colleagues to the White Paper’s structure, content development and for their review of the final document. CCMTA DISTRACTED DRIVING TASK FORCE Fazelah Ali, Government of Ontario Michael DeJong (CCMTA Board Liaison), Transport Canada Shannon Ell, SGI Christine Eisan, Government of Nova Scotia Joanne Harbluk (Co-Chair), Transport Canada Mychele Joyes, Government of Alberta Caroll Lau, Transport Canada Doug MacEwen (CCMTA Board Liaison), Government of Prince Edward Island Nadia Maranda, Government of Quebec Michael Marth, Transport Canada Caithlin McArton, Government of Manitoba Mark Milner (Co-Chair), ICBC Rebecca Rego, Government of Alberta Contents 1.0 Executive Summary……………………………..…………………………………………………………………………….….………..1
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Communication in Criminal Justice
    TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATION 9 A New Frontier When I started my career in law enforcement LEARNING OBJECTIVES nearly 35 years ago, the only “technology” we needed was the police radio and the location of After students have completed this the nearest pay phone. Today police radios scan chapter, they will be able to do the 30 channels and officers typically have in-car following: video cameras, traffic monitoring radar units, distribute in-car computer data terminals with Internet 1. Identify and explain how criminal access, body cameras, a department issued justice agencies are using technology cellphone and, of course, personal cellphones. orto improve communication, With all this technology in the cruisers, it’s a investigation, prosecution, and wonder we don’t have more officer-involved incarceration crashes than we do.1 2. Identify types of social media, and —Brian Cain and Michael Bostic, explain how criminal justice agencies Police Magazine are employing social media in their post, communities and beyond he criminal justice field has made tremendous 3. Identify alert systems, and explain strides in the last 40 years, with the most notable T their purposes for criminal justice developments being in the area of law enforcement agencies and corrections. The process of prosecution or the application of law has undergone societal changes; 4. Describe ways in which the use of and court decisions have altered some of the protec- smartphones and other tools has tions afforded offenderscopy, and, in some cases, hindered impacted criminal justice agencies law enforcement. Technological advances in the area 5. Explain cybercrime, and identify the of crime detection, investigation, incarceration, and types of cybercrimes communication have made the greatest impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Tpp-2013-04-Save Me a Parking Space
    THE BUSINESS OF PARKING FINANCELEGAL SAVE ME A PARKING SPACE By Leonard T. Bier, JD, CAPP e often ask our friends and family to save us a place in line to purchase tickets at a concert venue, to get into a theatre, or for in-store promotions. Not as common Wbut certainly a practice that occurs on a daily basis is a similar attempt to save parking spaces for friends or relatives. One of the most com- Using Objects mon ways to do this is to Another common space-sav- have a person physically ing scenario occurs in areas stand in an on- or off-street that are subject to significant municipal or commer- snowfalls. In these cases, a cial public parking space chair, garbage can, traffic to block a vehicle from cone, or other object is placed parking in the space un- in an on-street parking space til their friend’s or family that has been cleared of snow member’s vehicle arrives. by a local resident. In Boston, The practice of trying to it is a time-honored practice save a parking space is not for residents to shovel out without peril. None of the parking spaces and claim state or local jurisdictions them, sometimes for the surveyed has a law or ordi- entire winter. City of Bos- nance prohibiting a person ton ordinances do allow an from attempting to save or reserve a parking space individual who has cleared an on-street parking space of by standing it. snow during a snow emergency to reserve the parking Recently, in separate incidents at a university park- space for up to 48 hours.
    [Show full text]
  • Note the Textalyzer: the Constitutional Cost of Law Enforcement Technology
    NOTE THE TEXTALYZER: THE CONSTITUTIONAL COST OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY I. INTRODUCTION The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence. That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment.1 The unlawful use of mobile telephones, especially “smartphones”2 (as well as other portable electronic devices),3 has drastically increased the prevalence of distracted driving.4 Statistics from the National Safety Council (“Council”) found that motor vehicle deaths were eight percent higher in 2015 than 2014—the largest year-over-year increase in fifty years.5 The Council estimated 38,300 people were killed and 4.4 million were seriously injured on U.S. roads in 2015, making 2015 the deadliest driving year since 2008.6 In 2001, the New York State Legislature enacted a law prohibiting the use of mobile telephones (and subsequently amended the law to include portable electronic devices) 7 while driving. 1. Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435, 466 (2013) (Scalia, J., dissenting). 2. Fredrick Kunkle, More Evidence that Smartphones and Driving Don’t Mix, WASH. POST (Apr. 4, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tripping/wp/2017/04/04/more-evidence-that- smartphones-and-driving-dont-mix/?utm_term=.e5656bdfc03c (citing statistical data to support the proposition that “smartphones” have made the nation’s highways significantly more dangerous). 3. See N.Y. VEH. & TRAF. L. § 1225-c(1)(a) (McKinney 2018) (defining “mobile telephone” for purposes of statute); id.
    [Show full text]
  • Get a Warrant: Balancing Individual Privacy Rights Against Governmental Interests Through Textalyzer Technology
    GET A WARRANT: BALANCING INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY RIGHTS AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS THROUGH TEXTALYZER TECHNOLOGY Edward Wells III TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 516 II. Background ......................................................................................... 518 A. Textalyzer Framework ................................................................. 518 1. Implied Consent through Chemical Tests ............................. 520 2. Field Testing under Illinois Vehicle Code through PBTs...... 521 B. Fourth Amendment ...................................................................... 521 III. Analysis ............................................................................................... 523 A. Is a Textalyzer Scan a Search? .................................................... 523 1. Jones Test .............................................................................. 523 2. Katz Test................................................................................ 524 B. Balancing Test in Sitz .................................................................. 526 1. The State’s interest in preventing texting and driving ........... 526 2. The extent to which the Textalyzer could reasonably be said to advance the interest of preventing texting and driving ...... 527 3. The intrusion on individual liberties ...................................... 529 C. Exigent Circumstances ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Subject: an Act in Relation to the Field Testing of Mobile Telephones And
    Subject: An Act in relation to the field testing of mobile telephones and portable electronic devices (S.2306/A.3955) Position: Oppose Distracted driving is a behavior that puts the safety of drivers, passengers and pedestrians at risk. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines distracted driving as any activity that could divert a person’s attention from the operation of a motor vehicle – this includes using a phone, eating, drinking, grooming, smoking, attending to child passengers, using a navigation system, or adjusting radio or vehicle controls.1 Persons who engage in distracted driving create a serious public safety hazard (but distracted driving is the cause of a relatively small proportion of injuries and deaths caused by motor vehicle collisions2). This bill, however, would broadly expand the authority of police officers to engage in the search and seizure of electronic devices in the possession of those suspected of distracted driving. The seized devices would then be tested to determine their use by drivers suspected of distracted driving. This legislation has been introduced in the absence of evidence that this police procedure will prevent distracted driving, or car accidents caused by distracted driving. There is no question, however, that this proposed law would authorize police to obtain sensitive personal information in violation of the constitutional protections against search and seizure. For this reason, the NYCLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, TechNet, and the State Privacy and Security Coalition must oppose this proposal, notwithstanding the legitimate public safety concerns the bill seeks to address. ___________________________ This legislation (S.2306/A.3955) would allow law enforcement officers at the scene of an accident or collision to request that a driver surrender his or her mobile phone or portable electronic device for the purpose of field testing the device.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Deborah A.P. Hersman President and CEO National Safety Council Before the City of Chicago Committee on Public Safety
    Testimony of Deborah A.P. Hersman President and CEO National Safety Council Before the City of Chicago Committee on Public Safety January 11th, 2018 The National Safety Council (NSC) is pleased to discuss the potential of technology to address the dangers of distracted driving to the Chicago Committee on Public Safety today. I would like to thank Chairman Reboyras, Vice Chair Cochran and members of the committee for convening this hearing to examine the textalyzer, a technology that could potentially help inform our collective efforts to curb distracted driving. The National Safety Council is a 100-year-old nonprofit committed to eliminating preventable deaths in our lifetime by focusing on injuries in workplaces, in homes and communities and on the road. Our more than 13,500 member companies represent more than 50,000 U.S. worksites, including over 2,400 in Illinois. Motor vehicle fatalities in Illinois have increased 18 percent over the past two years; 1,078 lives were lost in 2016, according to National Safety Council estimates. 1 Because many drivers do not realize that there is no safe way to use a mobile device while driving, these distractions are responsible for too many of these preventable deaths. NSC analysis of NHTSA FARS data show that 3,450 lives were claimed by distracted driving across the United States in 2016 but acknowledges that this is an undercount. Each of these numbers represent a person who leaves behind loved ones. Public Perceptions of Distracted Driving We know that hands-free is not risk-free. Research indicates drivers using handheld or hands- free phones only see about 50 percent of all the information in their driving environment.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 New York State YMCA Youth and Government
    2018 New York State YMCA Youth And Government WWW.YMCANYS.ORG Committee Assignment: Assembly Freedom 1 Bill #:AF-01 1 Sponsors: Ben McNutt and Aidan Kendrick 2 3 AN ACT TO: Amend § 353 of Article 26 of the Agriculture and Markets Law to 4 create a registry for those who are convicted animal cruelty and subsequently 5 prohibit certain registrants from owning animals for a set period of time. 6 7 The People of the State of New York, represented in the Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 8 9 PURPOSE: 10 We initiate this bill to create an online registry that those who are convicted of 11 animal cruelty are legally required to enter their information into, in conjunction 12 with prohibiting abusive individuals from legally owning animals for a determined 13 period of time based on the number and severity of animal cruelty related offenses 14 they commit. 15 SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: 16 Section 1: Definitions 17 Animal: In ordinary use, animal means all living beings except humans. 18 Animal Cruelty: The crime of inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an 19 animal, usually a tame one, beyond necessity for normal discipline. It can include 20 neglect that is so monstrous (withholding food and water) that the animal has 21 suffered, died or been put in imminent danger of death. (Animal abuse and animal 22 cruelty are interchangeable terms). 23 Registry: A place where registers or records are kept. 24 Prohibition: The action of forbidding something, especially by law. 25 Ownership: The act, state, or right of possessing something, in this case an animal.
    [Show full text]
  • Candidates Focus on Board Experience by Tracy A
    • -1 r,j -;;. • u> r-: I-- -J -:;- 1 '"• "* •-< j -:;- 1 2'• f- -i n: H 'II-J •;;• « •- (I—. f.. -;; > • -i.?:-':.'N. -::- ri inr- -;:• .<- "i f— > H! C •-> L> -t. A f. f 1 ^< 1i |— m r~ i 1 c h r ,» 1 "' o • -( r L • I -L !' i !. : Mayor of f ^1 •i Springfield Maya x> was honored M •-; Summit, Springfield and Mountainside'*^'^'' Gateway Cham merce. Candidates focus on board experience By Tracy A. Politowicz and critical thinking are key. As an have to be covered," said Tinnirella. Managing Editor information technology and manage- Schaumberg said, "I want to clari- MOUNTAINSIDE —- The topics ment consultant, he "must stay on top fy, initial public participation is for of board experience and community of emerging .technology and trends." items on the agenda, so it is inaccurate involvement and communication Schaumberg, noting her prior two to say it's after the vote is done." dominated the Mountainside candi- terms on the board, stated that it is "The meeting isn't a town forum, dates' night on March 22. important board members understand or else we wouldn't get the business of All four candidates — incumbent their role of setting goals and estab- the board done," she noted. MaryBeth Schaumberg and challengers lishing policies. She noted an incum- Each candidate expressed a com- Joseph Tinnirella, Geraldene Duswalt, bent is "ahead of the learning curve," Jakositz Tinnirella Schaumberg Duswalt mitment to the borough and its educa- Spring and Cathy Jakositz — participated in but acknowledged that new board answer session, an audience member questions of the community before a tional system, including maintaining the forurn.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Extraction: the Widespread Power of U.S
    October 2020 Mass Extraction: The Widespread Power of U.S. Law Enforcement to Search Mobile Phones Logan Koepke Emma Weil Urmila Janardan Tinuola Dada Harlan Yu Mass Extraction: The Widespread Power of U.S. Law Enforcement to Search Mobile Phones October 2020 Logan Koepke Emma Weil Urmila Janardan Tinuola Dada Harlan Yu This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. About Upturn Upturn is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that advances equity and justice in the design, governance, and use of digital technology. For more information, see https://www.upturn.org. Mass Extraction: The Widespread Power of U.S. Law Enforcement to Search Mobile Phones | 3 Contents Executive Summary 4 1. Introduction 6 2. Technical Capabilities of Mobile Device Forensic Tools 10 A Primer 11 Device Extraction 13 Device Analysis 24 Security Circumvention 26 3. Widespread Law Enforcement Adoption Across the United States 31 Almost Every Major Law Enforcement Agency Has These Tools 35 Many Smaller Agencies Can Afford Them 36 Federal Grants Drive Acquisition 37 Agencies Share Their Tools With One Another 39 4. A Pervasive Tool for Even the Most Common Offenses 40 Tens of Thousands of Device Extractions Each Year 41 Graffiti, Shoplifting, Drugs, and Other Minor Cases 42 Officers Often Rely on Consent, Not Warrants 46 A Routine and Growing Practice 47 5. Few Constraints and Little Oversight 48 Many Agencies Have No Specific Policies in Place 49 Overbroad Searches and the Lack of Particularity 50 Police Databases and Unrelated Investigations 53 Expanding Searches From a Phone Into the Cloud 54 Rare Public Oversight 55 6.
    [Show full text]