Judge tosses ban on cell phone use while driving
Share with others:
A Lehigh County judge has thrown out the city's ordinance that banned using a cellular phone while operating a vehicle, saying it was pre-empted by state law.
It remains unclear whether other municipalities' laws will face similar fates as a bill aiming to outlaw the act across the state that was overwhelmingly passed by the Pennsylvania Senate awaits approval from the House of Representatives.
Last month Lehigh County Common Pleas Judge James T. Anthony ruled in Commonwealth v. Steiner that until legislators pass a statewide law, it would be impossible to uphold the ordinance in the county.
"The Legislature can certainly pass a statute specifically covering the use of cell phones while driving, any other matters concerning distracted driving, but has yet to do so," Judge Anthony said.
On June 8, the state Senate approved a bill on a 41-8 vote that would make texting and e-mailing while driving a primary offense, and talking without a hands-free device a secondary offense. The bill, which also would outlaw Internet browsing and instant messaging while driving, is currently awaiting approval by the state House.
Allentown's Ordinance 14782 was passed in March 2010 and signed into law by Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski. Among the other municipalities in the state with laws that punish talking and driving are Conshohocken, Philadelphia, Bethlehem, Lebanon and Wilkes-Barre.
In Steiner, defendant Tyrone Steiner's attorney, Joseph P. Maher filed a motion to dismiss the charges against his client and never had to make an oral argument. Mr. Maher announced last year that he would defend anyone fined under the measure pro bono to combat the enactment, which he immediately identified as being pre-empted by state law.
"You shouldn't implement such a law," Mr. Maher said. "It doesn't make any sense."
The decision has not led to the removal of any other ordinances across the state, and one Philadelphia attorney said the city's ordinance had not yet been threatened.
"We still think that our ordinance is lawful," said Martha Johnston, a senior attorney who works in the city's law department. "We have a good argument why we're not pre-empted by state law."
But Ms. Johnston conceded that the city's 2-year-old ordinance was not fully safeguarded. "We are a home-ruled, first-class city ... so that argument gives Philadelphia a little more room to legislate. But I'm not going to say that makes us totally different from Allentown in the grand scheme of things."
Mr. Maher was adamant that if his client's case had gone to the appellate courts, Allentown wouldn't have been the only city forced to ease legislation on distracted driving.
"My belief is if we had gone to Harrisburg in front of the Superior Court, we would have won there too," Mr. Maher said. "And then [all the cell phone bans] would have been gone."
First Published June 27, 2011 12:00 am
