Legislator fights for Arizona texting law but hits roadblocks

Jim Walsh
The Republic | azcentral.com
View Comments

A Tucson state senator saw a glimmer of hope last week in his nearly decadelong, Don Quixote-like quest for a state law to ban text messaging while driving.

Texting and driving

Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, has clashed with Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, over a text-messaging bill since 2007, when both were in the House. During those nine years, 44 states have passed bans outlawing texting while driving under all circumstances.

Only Arizona and Montana do not restrict texting, either for all drivers or for novice drivers. Arizona bans texting only for school-bus drivers.

Farley is encouraged this year that the Senate Government Committee passed his bill, albeit in a watered-down form. It restricts only the act of texting; it does not prohibit a driver from receiving or reading a text message.

The first-time victory was achieved after Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, suggested amendments that narrowed the bill's focus as as a compromise.

In making his case, Farley cited the May 2013 death of state Department of Public Safety Officer Tim Huffman, 47, as a tragic example of why a texting-while-driving law is needed. Relatives of Huffman have testified for the bill's passage.

"I don't want more Tim Huffmans, that's the bottom line," Farley said. "We don't want to give any defense attorney an opportunity to get someone off because we haven't done our job here."

He said truck driver Jorge Espinoza's defense attorney recently used the lack of a texting-while-driving law as part of Espinoza's defense. Espinoza, 36, was charged with second-degree murder in Huffman's death, but jurors on Feb. 6 found him guilty of a lesser charge of negligent homicide.

The minimum prison sentence for negligent homicide, a non-dangerous Class 4 felony, is one year in prison. For second-degree murder, it's at least 10 years.

Espinoza's sentencing is scheduled for March 4.

Prosecutors argued that Espinoza, who was driving an empty tanker truck, was viewing pornography on his cellphone before he plowed into Huffman's patrol car as the officer wrote a report on a traffic accident on Interstate 8 east of Yuma. Michael Donovan, Espinoza's defense attorney, and prosecutor Roger Nelson did not return calls seeking comment.

But the Yuma Sun reported that Espinoza's defense included that he was blinded by the sun, that DPS failed to set up a lane closure at the scene of the original rollover accident and that there was no law against texting while driving.

Tammy Huffman, who is married to Huffman's identical twin, Warren, said she believes Arizona failed to do everything possible to protect her brother-in-law through its lack of a texting-while-driving law.

"It's the failure to protect him and every other officer out there on the roads," she said.

If Farley's bill were to pass, she said, it would become "Uncle Tim's law."

Tammy Huffman said her brother-in-law, a bachelor, would often visit her family in Michigan during holidays or attend one of her children's basketball games.

"He would often say, 'Do you think they would remember me if I passed?' He wanted his life to mean something," she said. "I would love to see Tim living on in the future and protecting other people."

After failing to ban text messaging so many other times, Farley acknowledged the likelihood of getting a text-messaging bill passed is not high. But he said he finds solace in the thought that media coverage about his quest and the dangers of texting while driving might convince some drivers to put down their smartphones and focus on the road.

Farley noted that The Arizona Republic, azcentral.com and five television stations covered the Senate Government Committee hearing. But as of Monday, two committees that would need to pass the bill this week for it to reach the full Senate did not have it on their agendas.

"I still hold out hope, but I know Andy Biggs is a hard man to budge. He has blocked it every time before," Farley said. "When we make that decision to take that electronic device in our hands and do something else than drive, we are creating the possibility that we all could be murderers."

Biggs declined to be interviewed for this story, but he released a statement. He said he has not changed his long-held position that a law banning texting while driving is unnecessary, and that generic traffic laws that can be applied to many different forms of poor driving are more effective.

"There are many laws on the books that are designed to punish poor driving. Each of those laws deters a person who is texting while driving," Biggs said in the statement. "It may seem counterintuitive, but laws specifically prohibiting texting while driving have little effect. Such laws are virtually unenforceable. It is the other driving laws that allow the police to pull a driver over while texting."

In a videotaped Senate floor debate with Farley in April 2013, Biggs picked up four volumes of Arizona traffic laws to demonstrate his point. The Senate defeated Farley's amendment on a 15-12 vote that year.

"I resent the implication that by opposition to this bill, someone says I am OK with texting while driving. What a false, false, contentious argument," Biggs said in the statement. "If you weave in your own lane, an officer can pull you over for texting while driving. Whether it's texting while driving, whether it's fatigue, an officer can pull you over."

But Kavanagh, a retired police officer, said during last week's committee hearing that he believes a specific law would be a deterrent as well as help educate people about the dangers of texting behind the wheel. He is also concerned about forcing officers to "bend the law" by citing drivers for texting under the "speed not reasonable and prudent" law.

"One of the purposes of the penal code is to give people fair warning of what is not acceptable," Kavanagh said. "I think we want to send a message that texting while driving is dangerous and kills people and maims people."

During the first 81/2 months of 2014, DPS officers made 309,654 traffic stops, with 19,800 related to distracted-driving behavior, according to a September 2014 news release. DPS attributed 3,642 of those stops to cellphone use, 3,508 to other occupant-related issues and 2,385 to outside distractions, such as "rubbernecking" at accident scenes.

DPS attributed 2,400 collisions to distracted driving. In cases where contributing factors were listed, common factors included outside distractions (393 instances), reaching for objects (238 instances) cellphone use (167 instances).

Farley said even if his bill hits a procedural wall, he might attach it as an amendment to another bill, a backdoor move that failed in 2013.

"Every time we fail, we get the opportunity to do another huge public-safety announcement, in effect," Farley said. "I will do whatever it takes. I have had enough families (of texting-collision victims) in my office, and I have seen the pain in their eyes."

Driving while distracted

In the first 81/2 months of 2014, DPS officers made 19,800 stops related to distratcted driving. The Department of Public Safety said 3,642 were related to cellphone use. It said 2,400 collisions were attributable to distracted driving; cellphones were a factor in 167.

Text ban

Only two states do not restrict texting, either for all drivers or for novice drivers. One of those states is Arizona.

View Comments