“Any person who operates a motor vehicle in the state shall be deemed to have given consent to field testing of his or her mobile telephone and/or personal electronic device for the purpose of determining the use thereof while operating a motor vehicle, provided that such testing is conducted by or at the direction of a police officer.”
That’s language from the text of a bill currently working its way through the New York state legislature. The legislation would allow cops to search through drivers’ cell phones following traffic incidents — even minor fender-benders — to determine if the person was using their phone while behind the wheel.
Most states have laws banning the use of mobile devices while driving, though such laws are rarely enforced. This is largely because it’s nearly impossible to catch someone in the act. What person would admit to an officer that they broke the law, the argument goes, particularly when it’s after the fact? After all, cops don’t show up until after the accident occurs.
Now, technology exists that would give police the power to plug drivers’ phones into tablet-like devices — being called “textalyzers” in the media — that tell officers exactly what they were doing on their phone and exactly when they were doing it. And if the readout shows a driver was texting while driving, for instance, the legal system will have an additional way to fine them.
“Recording your every click, tap or swipe, it would even know what apps you were using. Police officers could download the data, right on the spot,” Jeff Rossen of NBC News said in a video report on the technology.
Proponents of the legislation point to the rise in traffic fatalities associated with using mobile devices while driving. But rights activists, such as Rashida Richardson of the New York Civil Liberties Union, says it’s a societal issue and no excuse to violate an individual’s privacy:
“This is a concern because our phones have some of our most personal and private information — so we’re certain that if this law is enforced as it is proposed, it will not only violate people’s privacy rights, but also civil liberties.”
New York state isn’t alone. Currently, similar legislation is being considered in Tennessee and New Jersey
Everyone is so smitten with high tech and other political correctness ‘awareness’ goings on, no one is paying attention to the fact our Constitutional Rights, especially those emphasized in the first ten amendments, aka the Bill of Rights, originally proposed and then written by James Madison, are being overlooked, denied and, basically, thrown to the winds as if they did not exist!
As I hear the drumbeats of what’s going on around the country with regard to all sorts of consumer and taxpayer issues, I think I understand how all these crises are being rolled out simultaneously so everyone thinks they are the new norm. Well, let’s think again! I say. We still have the U.S. Constitution, which is the basic law of the USA, and also we have individual state’s Constitutions which, in most cases, parrot some of the rights in the U.S. Constitution. So, what’s gone wrong, you say?
Well, there are two perfect examples in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The first occurs in a sleepy little Borough of Pottstown. Pottstown’s ‘city fathers’ apparently enacted a biannual rental inspections policy requiring rental properties to be inspected, even against the renter’s wishes!
Question: Doesn’t that type of inspection require a warrant based upon probable cause? According to KYW 1060 radio news reports, those inspections can include moving beds, looking into closets—actions which are “off limits for government” unless there is “probable cause.”
Dorothy and Omar Rivera, who rent a home from landlord Steven Camburn, filed a lawsuit against the borough to prevent such inspection. Coincidentally, their landlord also joined in the suit! The Riveras contend such inspections are unconstitutional; they are represented by an attorney with the Virginia-based Institute for Justice.
So, which Constitutional rights are the Riveras concerned about? According to Dorothy Rivera, “I’m a private person. I’ve done nothing wrong, and I don’t want people snooping around my house.”  Add to that the fact their landlord says, “Everybody deserves privacy. If there’s no real probable cause, they should not be entering a house that is occupied.” 
Meagan Forbes, the plaintiffs’ attorney, says, “People should know about how intrusive these searches are.”  However,
In the lawsuit, attorneys claim that Pottstown’s policy is too broad, allowing for inspectors to conduct “highly-intrusive, wall-to-wall searches for compliance with on-the-spot standards that inspectors are free to make up as they go along.” 
Hold the phone! Stop the presses! How about AMI Smart Meters?
What’s going on in Pottstown regarding rental property inspections is NOTHING compared with what’s happening to every Pennsylvania utility customer who is supplied electric, natural gas and water with more than 100,000 customers.
Customers’ appliances and usage are being monitored, collected and SOLD to third parties unknown to consumers without their knowledge and consent, nor a legal warrant to collect such personal information. Check out Onzo and what that algorithm does with smart meter data and information.
Talk about “highly-intrusive and wall-to-wall searches” and being “too broad”!
AMI Smart Meters surveil and collect information, plus interact with customers’ appliances 24/7/365 in total violation of Amendments IV, V, and XIV §2 of the U.S. Constitution, including the Pennsylvania Constitution art. 1 §1. 
And the most egregious part about the AMI Smart Meter snooping without a warrant is that AMI Smart Meters and their incessant snooping are mandated ‘supposedly by law’ by an erroneous interpretation of the PA Public Utility Commission’s “belief” interpretation of HB2200/Act 129 (2008), which actually was enacted in reality as an Opt-In Smart Meter bill as publicly published of record in section 2(i) below:
(2) Electric distribution companies shall furnish smart meter technology as follows:
(i) Upon request from a customer that agrees to pay the cost of the smart meter at the time of the request.
(ii) In new building construction.
(iii) In accordance with a depreciation schedule not to exceed 15 years. 
Furthermore, PA State Senator Fumo is on record in PA Senate Journal October 8, 2008 (pp. 2626-2631) stating, “In addition we did not mandate smart meters, but we made them optional.” 
However, the piece de resistance is this most damning of admissions by the PA PUC’s Office of Communications’ Dave Hixson in his letter to Thomas A. McCarey dated March 22, 2017 wherein Hixson says:
As I stated in my earlier email correspondence with you, the Commission believes that it was the intent of the General Assembly to require all covered electric companies to deploy smart meters system-wide.
[CJF emphasis added. Thereby supposedly and illegally, the PA PUC made smart meters mandatory—not the state legislature!]
But that’s not all!
Every U.S. state—bar none, except those states which provide opt-outs from AMI Smart Meters—are breaking federal law! Did you know that? The federal law which individual states are violating when they mandate smart meters is Public Law 109-58, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, §1252 Smart Metering . Nothing is said about AMI smart meters being mandated! That would be unconstitutional, I contend, so that’s why “mandated” is not in the language! However, the feds offered a few ‘carrots’ i.e., grants and monetary incentives, to those utilities that would implement AMI Smart Meters. What does that tell you? Follow the money!
In essence, sleepy little Pottstown is “small potatoes” compared with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in denying Constitutional rights to citizens.
What’s going on in your state?
Have you looked into your state’s AMI Smart Meters ‘law’; how AMI SMs are snooping on you; and that you don’t have to have them retrofitted; plus how your constitutional rights are being abrogated?
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.