South Carolina’s $600 Million Problem

South Carolina’s $600 Million Problem.

Cell phone use while driving costs American’s $43,000,000,000.00 (that’s $43 Billion) in annual losses, says Harvard University. To put that number in context, the trade deficit in September was $43 Billion dollars. That means, texting drivers rack up $3.58 Billion in losses every single month.

South Carolina’s share of annual distracted driving losses is $636 Million per year or $53 Million per month. I’ve written about the dangers of texting while driving before. Additionally, I’ve explained why South Carolina’s texting ban is worthless.

What we know is that twenty five percent of all crashes involve cell phone use; that texting while driving doubles reaction time; that distracted driving may contribute up to twenty percent of all fatal crashes; and that distracted driving causes over 330,000 injuries every year.

The damage, injuries, and deaths are horrifying. Additionally, the dollar figures are astonishing. What makes the numbers more staggering is that crashes due to distracted driving are completely preventable. South Carolina could decide tomorrow to become $600 Million Dollars richer by just putting down the cell phone.

Brian R. Murphy is a South Carolina personal injury and car accident lawyer. His law firm helps people who have been hurt by the negligence and recklessness of others. He believes that safety rule violators should take personal responsibility and pay for the harm they cause. Brian’s firm is dedicated to promoting and pursuing justice for the injured. For more information, visit the firm online at www.brianmurphylawyer.com

Don’t Get Sued by a Zombie!

The Zombie Apocalypse is coming. Even the Center for Disease Control has published tips for how to prepare for an outbreak. Before you take the streets and start hunting down the undead, learn how to avoid getting sued by a Zombie.

What Are Zombies?

This is a difficult question and popular literature and media disagree. In AMC’s The Walking Dead, Zombies are reanimated humans. In other words, they have already died and come back to a semi-state of living—or the undead. Not quite dead, but not quite alive.

In other examples, Zombies haven’t yet died and can be cured. The cartoon, South Park, showed how Zombies could be healed from the curse by killing the original Zombie. Once the original Zombie has been killed, all the other Zombies turn back to normal.

Therefore, there are two main types of Zombies. One has has already died and been reanimated. The other has not yet died, but remains a type of undead that can be cured.

The type of Zombie you are dealing with is important in analyzing how to deal with the Zombies and how to properly defend yourself from an attack.

Some Zombies Are Protected

Zombies who have died and been reanimated can’t be persons under the law. After all, the person who turned into a Zombie has already died. Once they have died, their legal rights as a living person have ceased. Some legal rights remain, but must be asserted by other living persons. For instance, the person’s estate or living relatives must open an estate or bring a lawsuit.

Although there is no law directly on point, I believe that the law would treat reanimated Zombies as corpses. The law treats corpses as a quasi property—or almost property, seemingly property, or apparently property. That Zombie property belongs to the relatives of the Zombie. Additionally, the law does protect corpses from certain mistreatment, like negligent or willful mutilation.

Other Zombies Have Rights

Other Zombies, like the South Park Zombies, would have legal rights. These types of Zombies have not yet fully died. Additionally, these Zombies can return to full humanhood once the spell is broken. That spell can be broken either through an antidote, or cure, or once the main Zombie is killed. The law would treat these Zombies as living beings with a full set of legal rights.

How Not To Get Sued by a Zombie

So what is my advice for how you can deal with a Zombie Apocalypse?

There are two scenarios. The first involves imminent danger. In this case it does not matter what type of Zombie you are dealing with. The law allows you to defend yourself from “death or great bodily harm.” Certainly, “death or great bodily harm” would include being turned into a Zombie yourself. However, you should know that using deadly force to protect oneself from Zombies has never been used in court as a legal defense before.

The second scenario deals with combating the packs of wild Zombies that would roam the earth. Without imminent danger it is not likely that one could simply “hunt” down the Zombies, at least not the ones who have yet to fully die.

With the Zombies who have died and been reanimated, there is no law preventing a second death. However, the law does say that the Zombies will likely be treated as property of the dead person’s relatives. For this group of Zombies, I would recommend against negligent or intentional mutilation. Perhaps even consider a proper burial for any of these types of Zombies you kill.

Dealing with Zombies that have not yet fully died is much more problematic. Killing these types of Zombies, without provocation, might get you sued by the Zombie’s relatives for wrongful death. The problem is that I have found no way to distinguish between a Zombie that has died before they turned into a Zombie from one who has not yet fully died. Without an ability to make that distinction, the best practice is to avoid hunting Zombies and only use deadly force when a Zombie poses a threat of “death or great bodily harm.” Following that rule should keep you from being sued by a Zombie.

I hope you enjoyed this fun article. My firm assists people who have been hurt by other’s negligent actions. If you would like to discuss your case with me, please call 888-510-9359 or visit my website at www.brianmurphylawyer.com. Also read, 3 Things to Know Before Talking to Anyone About Your Car Accident Case or request my free South Carolina Car Accident Claims Guide in Plain English.

Frivolous: Walmart Blames Tracy Morgan

Frivolous: Walmart Blames Tracy Morgan After Walmart Trucker Causes Crash

Last month, Walmart blamed Tracy Morgan for the injuries he received when a Walmart trucker crashed into Tracy’s vehicle. Walmart’s offensive came in a legal response to Tracy Morgan’s lawsuit.

Everyday, valid cases are filed across thousands of courthouses across our nation. Some are frivolous. However, some responses to valid lawsuits are frivolous also. These practices abuse our civil justice system and make it more difficult for deserving cases to achieve justice.

This month’s frivolous case is Morgan v. Walmart. Famed comedian and actor, Tracy Morgan is suing Walmart out of a horrific traffic collision that has been widely reported. I previously wrote about it here, 3 Things South Carolina Drivers Can Learn from Tracy Morgan’s Accident.

Walmart Says It Will Take Full Responsibility, but Legally Blames Others

Walmart’s public relations people have said that Walmart will take full-responsibility if its driver caused the collision. However, Walmart’s legal team has denied all responsibility. Worse yet, Walmart’s lawyers blamed Tracy Morgan! Walmart says that Tracy Morgan was not wearing his seat belt, and as a result, he is to blame for his injuries.

What Are The Facts

Lets take a look at the facts as they have been reported:
• Walmart’s driver was reportedly awake for 24 hours before the crash;
• The National Transportation Safety Board says that Walmart’s driver was traveling 20 miles per hour over the speed limit, in its preliminary report;
• New Jersey Police claim that Walmart’s driver was dosing and didn’t observe traffic slowing;
• New Jersey Police have charged the driver with death and assault by auto;
• People don’t wear seat belts in a limousine;
• Tracy Morgan suffered broken ribs, a broken nose, a broken leg and brain injuries—his lawyer has said he may never work again.

Here is a picture of Tracy Morgan’s damaged vehicle. I don’t want to sensationalize the crash, but I’m showing it so you can see the destruction that Walmart’s driver caused.

Walmart’s Legal Response is Frivolous

My take is that Walmart’s legal filing should be thrown out by the court. It is clear that Walmart is attempting to take as little responsibility in the courtroom while trying to publicly save face. Its actions drip with hypocrisy.

If you would like to discuss your meritorious case, please call me at 888-510-9359 or visit my website at www.brianmurphylawyer.com. Also read, 3 Things to Know Before Talking to Anyone About Your Car Accident Case or request my free South Carolina Car Accident Claims Guide in Plain English.

Open Greenville Office

Brian R. Murphy Law Firm Opens Greenville Office

South Carolina – the Brian R. Murphy Law Firm announced the opening of its Greenville Office today. Located at 220 North Main Street, Suite 500 in Greenville, South Carolina, the firm focuses on personal injury and car accident cases.

Brian R. Murphy is a South Carolina personal injury and car accident lawyer. Brian’s practice promotes the timeless principles of justice and personal responsibility by holding wrongdoers accountable for the harm they cause. He is a trial lawyer who fights for those who have been hurt through no fault of their own. Brian has been recognized as one of the Top 40 Trial Lawyers Under 40 in South Carolina by The National Trial Lawyers and one of the 10 Best Under 40 in Client Satisfaction for personal injury litigation by the American Institute of Personal Injury Attorneys.

Brian said, “I am excited for the opportunity to serve additional clients in the Greenville area.” Greenville is one of the largest and fastest growing areas in South Carolina. “As growth increases, it is important that the Greenville community continues to hold wrongdoers responsible for the harm they cause,” said Brian.

To learn more about Brian R. Murphy, please contact:

Brian R. Murphy Law Firm
220 North Main Street, Suite 500
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
www.brianmurphylawyer.com
888-510-9359
864-509-9059

Main Office: 1201 Carolina Place Drive, Suite 103, Fort Mill, SC 29708

Brian R. Murphy Wins Award!

October 1, 2014

South Carolina – The American Institute of Personal Injury Attorneys recognized Brian R. Murphy as one of the “10 Best Under 40” Attorneys for South Carolina. The American Institute of Personal Injury Attorneys is an impartial third-party attorney rating service. The Institute awarded Brian R. Murphy the recognition as one of the “10 Best Under 40” Attorneys in Client Satisfaction for personal injury litigation.

Brian R. Murphy is a personal injury and car accident lawyer with offices in Greenville, Fort Mill, and Rock Hill, South Carolina. Brian’s practice promotes the timeless principles of justice and personal responsibility by holding wrongdoers accountable for the harm they cause.

“I am humbled by my selection as one of the 10 Best under 40 attorneys in South Carolina and proud to continue to represent those who have been hurt through no fault of their own.” The American Institute of Personal Injury Attorneys requires that members “be formally nominated…, have attained the highest degree of professional achievement …, and have an impeccable Client Satisfaction rating.”

To learn more about Brian R. Murphy, please contact:

Brian R. Murphy Law Firm
www.brianmurphylawyer.com
888-510-9359

To learn more about the American Institute of Personal Injury Attorneys, please visit www.aiopia.org.

Frivolous: Man Sues McDonalds

Everyday, valid cases are filed across thousands of courthouses across our nation. However, some are just frivolous. These lawsuits abuse our civil justice system and make it more difficult for deserving cases to achieve justice.

This month’s frivolous case is Lucas v. McDonalds. Mr. Lucas is suing McDonalds for $1.5 Million Dollars after receiving only one napkin. Mr. Lucas purchased a “Quarter Cheese Deluxe Burger”, but only got one napkin with his order.

When Mr. Lucas complained to the McDonald’s manager, Mr. Lucas felt the manager victimized him. His lawsuit claims that the store manager discriminated against him because he is African American and the manager is Mexican American. Additionally, Mr. Lucas’s suit says that the manger reminded him “of a [Mexican American] gang member who hated Blacks.”

Mr. Lucas filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California. He sued McDonalds directly and the manager, individually. His claims include general damages and loss of earning capacity. His lawsuit says that his undue mental anguish caused him miss work and demanded $1.5 Million Dollars.

Rational people agree that racial discrimination is not tolerable in any form. However, this lawsuit does not seem to me to be about racial discrimination. This case seems frivolous to me because of Mr. Lucas’ outrageous claims that he couldn’t work and shocking demand of $1.5 Million Dollars.

Cases like Mr. Lucas’ should never see the inside of a courtroom.

If you would like to discuss your meritorious case, please call me at 888-510-9359 or visit my website at www.brianmurphylawyer.com.

Family Communications Plan

September is National Preparedness Month. It is also the month that terrorists attacked our country in 2001. Most of us remember that day. Where we were. What we were doing.

Most of us remember tuning into the television, not sure what was going on. Then it happened. Another plane hit the South Tower. We gasped when the towers fell. We looked around, scared. We wondered if the attack was over. We wondered where our family was.

Most of us will never experience a disaster like what happened on 9/11. However, disastrous events will impact every family at some point. For some it may be a catastrophic collision. For others it may be a fall or a house fire. Others may experience a natural disaster.

These emergencies can happen without warning. No one knows the date or time when a disaster may strike. However, you can prepare today. FEMA has published a Family Communication Plan and Worksheet. Download the forms here, fill them out, and review them with your entire family. Make sure the plan is in a safe plan and accessible to each family member.

Family Communications Plain for Parents

Family Communications Plain for Children

Tony Stewart’s Last Clear Chance

No one is discussing the pending civil lawsuit that Tony Stewart will likely face.

Tony Stewart’s involvement in a recent race track death has been well reported in the news media. People around the water cooler and on Facebook are debating whether or not Tony Stewart should face criminal charges. Whether or not Stewart is charged, we should all mourn the tragic death of Kevin Ward. From what we know now, it appears unlikely that Tony Stewart will be charged with a crime. However, I believe that Kevin Ward’s family will likely bring a civil suit.

What We Know

Lets review what we know right now. Kevin Ward was struck and killed when he was hit by a sprint car driven by Tony Stewart on August 9, 2014. Stewart and Ward were competing on a dirt track in New York in a sprint car event. Sprint cars are open wheeled race cars with high powered engines. Here is what happened according to the Associated Press:

After a bump from Stewart sent Ward’s winged car spinning into the wall, the young driver climbed out and walked onto the track in his black firesuit, gesturing angrily. Stewart’s No. 14 car seemed to fishtail, and Ward was thrown through the air as his parents and fans watched in horror.

A video of the incident has gone viral on social networks with people commenting on what they think happened. Some folks think Stewart should be charged with murder, others put the blame on Ward. No one is talking about the pending civil lawsuit.

The Video Doesn’t Tell Us Anything

I’ve seen the video and believe it is impossible to justify criminal charges based solely on that tape. People should consider that these sprint cars don’t drive the same as street vehicles. Additionally, driving on a dirt track is completely different. To turn a race car on a dirt track, the driver must use the throttle and steering wheel to slide around the turn.

Stewart is only captured on the video moments before hitting Ward. Ward is in the middle of the track in a turn. As Stewart’s car enters the video, you can see that his car is already sliding up the track. After the car hits Ward, Stewart’s vehicle moves up the track. Additionally, one can hear an engine accelerating just before the collision. We need to see Stewart’s path well before the collision.

To see Stewart’s trajectory, we would need to see more of his path around the track. Additionally, it is difficult to say that Stewart turned into Ward or sped up to hit him. Some people point out the sound of the engine revving just before the collision as evidence of Stewart’s guilt. However, we don’t know where the microphone was that picked up that sound.

It appears from the video that it was recorded from the opposite side of the track and it is likely that the microphone was on the opposite side as well. The microphone is more likely to have picked up sounds from the numerous other cars that were on the track that night. There is no objective proof that the sound is from Stewarts car.

Additionally, we don’t know Stewart’s view of the track as he was coming around to Ward’s position. Was Stewart able to see Ward? There was no radio communication telling Stewart that there was a driver on the track. Additionally, it appears that Stewart was already into the turn, which means his wheels would have been pointing up the track. That Stewart’s car traveled up the track after the impact is also expected physics even without steering input from the driver.

It has been reported that there is another video that may have another perspective. Hopeful, it gives us additional information about the collision so we can come to some conclusion.

For criminal charges, the government must bring enough proof into court to establish Stewart is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in South Carolina, a civil lawsuit only requires the preponderance or greater weight of the evidence. This means just enough evidence to tip in Ward’s favor and not Stewarts. That is a much easier case.

What was Stewart’s Last Clear Chance?

One burning question, even if you believe that Stewart did not intend this collision, is whether he could have avoided it. No one believes that Ward should have been out of his car and on the track to confront Stewart. Ward clearly put himself in harm’s path . South Carolina law says that when someone puts themselves in danger, they are responsible for the harm. However, if another person sees someone in danger, could have voided the harm, and fails to do that, they are, at least partially, responsible. This is known in the law as the Last Clear Chance.

Some have commented that Stewart may have been attempting to get close to Ward to scare him. I don’t think there are any facts that support their belief. However, if true, Stewart may have had the last clear chance to avoid the collision and death. If that is the case, Stewart may be responsible for money damages in a civil lawsuit.

The law allows a jury to place percentages of fault on the people involved in a collision. Lets say you believe that Stewart might not be 100% wrong, but deserves some of the blame. The law allows that. However, South Carolina law also says that an injured person can’t win if the injured person was 51% or more at fault. New York law allows an injured person to recover even if the injured person was the majority cause of his injuries.

So we have to get answers to these questions:

• Did Tony Stewart mean to hit Ward?
• Could Tony Stewart have avoided hitting Ward?
• Is Ward to blame at all, and if so, how much?

What do you think?

If you have been hurt in a car accident:

1. Please read why I don’t believe it was an accident, here;
2. Request my Free Guide, South Carolina Car Accident Claims Guide in Plain English, by clicking here.
3. Call at 888-510-9359 or contact me for a free consultation. There is no obligation.

Boating Under The Influence Law

SECTION 50-21-112. Operation of moving motorized water device or water device under sail while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol; offense; penalties. 

(A) It is unlawful for a person to operate a moving motorized water device or water device undersail upon the waters of this State while under the: 

(1) influence of alcohol to the extent that the person’s faculties to operate are materially and appreciably impaired; 

(2) influence of any other drug or a combination of other drugs or substances which cause impairment to the extent that the person’s faculties to operate are materially and appreciably impaired; or 

(3) combined influence of alcohol and any other drug or drugs, or substances which cause impairment to the extent that the person’s faculties to operate are materially and appreciably impaired. 

For purposes of this section “drug” means illicit or licit drug, a combination of licit or illicit drugs, a combination of alcohol and an illicit drug, or a combination of alcohol and a licit drug. 

(B) A person violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be punished: 

(1) for a first offense, by a fine of two hundred dollars or imprisonment for not less than forty-eight hours nor more than thirty days. However, in lieu of the forty-eight hour minimum imprisonment, the court may provide for forty-eight hours of public service employment. The minimum forty-eight hour imprisonment or public service employment must be served at a time when it does not interfere with the offender’s regular employment under terms and conditions, as the court considers proper. However, the court may not compel an offender to perform public service employment instead of the minimum sentence; 

(2) for a second offense, by a fine of not less than two thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars and imprisonment for not less than forty-eight hours nor more than one year. However, the fine imposed by this item may not be suspended in an amount less than one thousand dollars. Instead of service of imprisonment, the court may require that the individual complete an appropriate term of public service employment of not less than ten days upon terms and conditions the court considers proper. Upon imposition of a sentence of public service, the defendant may apply to the court to be allowed to perform his public service in his county of residence if he has been sentenced to public service in a county where he does not reside; 

(3) for a third offense, by a fine of not less than three thousand five hundred dollars nor more than six thousand dollars and imprisonment for not less than sixty days nor more than three years. 

(C) Any person convicted of operating a water device in violation of subsection (A), in addition to any other penalties, must be prohibited by the department from operating any water device within this State for six months for the first conviction, one year for the second conviction, and two years for the third conviction. Only those violations, which occurred within ten years including and immediately preceding the date of the last violation, shall constitute prior violations within the meaning of this section. 

A person whose privilege is suspended under the provisions of this section must be notified by the department of the suspension and of the requirement to enroll in and successfully complete an Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program certified by the Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services prior to reinstatement of the privilege. An assessment of the extent and nature of the alcohol and drug abuse problem, if any, of the applicant must be prepared and a plan of education or treatment, or both, must be developed based upon the assessment. Entry into and successful completion of the services, if such services are necessary, recommended in the plan of education or treatment, or both, developed for the applicant is a mandatory requirement of the restoration of privileges to the applicant. The Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program shall determine if the applicant has successfully completed the services. The Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services shall determine the cost of services provided by each certified Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program. Each applicant shall bear the cost of services recommended in the applicant’s plan of education or treatment. The cost of services must be within the limits set forth in Section 56-5-2990(C). No applicant may be denied services due to an inability to pay. Inability to pay for services may not be used as a factor in determining if the applicant has successfully completed services. If the applicant has not successfully completed the services as directed by the Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program within one year of enrollment, a hearing must be provided by the Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program and if further needed by the Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services. 

The department and the Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services shall develop procedures necessary for the communication of information pertaining to reinstating the privilege, or otherwise. The procedures must be consistent with the confidentiality laws of this State and the United States. 

A person convicted under this section, in addition to any other penalties, shall be required by the department to attend and complete a boating safety education program approved by the department. The person required to attend the program shall reimburse the department for the expense of the program. The person’s privilege to operate a water device within this State shall be suspended until successful completion of the required program. 

(D) The suspension penalties assessed under this section are in addition to and not in lieu of any other civil remedies or criminal penalties which may be assessed. No part of the minimum sentences provided in this section may be suspended. 

(E) For the purposes of this chapter any conviction, entry of a plea of guilty or of nolo contendere or forfeiture of bail, for the violation of any law or ordinance of this or any other state or any municipality of this or any other state that prohibits any person from operating a vessel or water device while under the influence of alcohol or drugs or a combination of both constitutes a prior offense for the purpose of any prosecution for any subsequent violation of this section. Only those offenses which occurred within a period of ten years including and immediately preceding the date of the last offense constitutes prior offenses within the meaning of this section. 

HISTORY: 1991 Act No. 138, Section 1; 1993 Act No. 181, Section 1269; 1999 Act No. 124, Section 2.E. 

South Carolina Texting Ban Full Text

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-5-3890 SO AS TO DEFINE CERTAIN TERMS RELATED TO THE USE AND OPERATION OF A WIRELESS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DEVICE, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO USE A WIRELESS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DEVICE TO COMPOSE, SEND, OR READ A TEXT-BASED COMMUNICATION WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE, TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS PROHIBITION, TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION, TO PROVIDE THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION MUST NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE OFFENDER’S MOTOR VEHICLE RECORD OR REPORTED TO HIS MOTOR VEHICLE INSURER, TO PROVIDE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SHALL ISSUE ONLY WARNINGS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION DURING THE FIRST ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY DAYS AFTER ITS EFFECTIVE DATE, TO PLACE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO ENFORCE THIS SECTION, TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TO MAINTAIN STATISTICAL INFORMATION REGARDING CITATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION PREEMPTS ALL ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES REGARDING PERSONS USING WIRELESS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DEVICES WHILE OPERATING MOTOR VEHICLES ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

Unlawful use of a wireless electronic communication device while operating a motor vehicle

SECTION 1. Article 31, Chapter 5, Title 56 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

“Section 56-5-3890. (A) For purposes of this section:

(1) ‘Hands-free wireless electronic communication device’ means an electronic device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, a personal digital assistant, a text-messaging device, or a computer, which allows a person to wirelessly communicate with another person without holding the device in either hand by utilizing an internal feature or function of the device, an attachment, or an additional device. A hands-free wireless electronic communication device may require the use of either hand to activate or deactivate an internal feature or function of the device.

(2) ‘Text-based communication’ means a communication using text-based information, including, but not limited to, a text message, an SMS message, an instant message, or an electronic mail message.

(3) ‘Wireless electronic communication device’ means an electronic device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, a personal digital assistant, a text-messaging device, or a computer, which allows a person to wirelessly communicate with another person.

(B) It is unlawful for a person to use a wireless electronic communication device to compose, send, or read a text-based communication while operating a motor vehicle on the public streets and highways of this State.

(C) This section does not apply to a person who is:

(1) lawfully parked or stopped;

(2) using a hands-free wireless electronic communication device;

(3) summoning emergency assistance;

(4) transmitting or receiving data as part of a digital dispatch system;

(5) a public safety official while in the performance of the person’s official duties; or

(6) using a global positioning system device or an internal global positioning system feature or function of a wireless electronic communication device for the purpose of navigation or obtaining related traffic and road condition information.

(D)(1) A person who is adjudicated to be in violation of the provisions of this section must be fined not more than twenty-five dollars, no part of which may be suspended. No court costs, assessments, or surcharges may be assessed against a person who violates a provision of this section. A person must not be fined more than fifty dollars for any one incident of one or more violations of the provisions of this section. A custodial arrest for a violation of this section must not be made, except upon a warrant issued for failure to appear in court when summoned or for failure to pay an imposed fine. A violation of this section does not constitute a criminal offense. Notwithstanding Section 56-1-640, a violation of this section must not be:

(a) included in the offender’s motor vehicle records maintained by the Department of Motor Vehicles or in the criminal records maintained by SLED; or

(b) reported to the offender’s motor vehicle insurer.

(2) During the first one hundred eighty days after this section’s effective date, law enforcement officers shall issue only warnings for violations of this section.

(E) A law enforcement officer shall not:

(1) stop a person for a violation of this section except when the officer has probable cause that a violation has occurred based on the officer’s clear and unobstructed view of a person who is using a wireless electronic communication device to compose, send, or read a text-based communication while operating a motor vehicle on the public streets and highways of this State;

(2) seize, search, view, or require the forfeiture of a wireless electronic communication device because of a violation of this section;

(3) search or request to search a motor vehicle, driver, or passenger in a motor vehicle, solely because of a violation of this section; or

(4) make a custodial arrest for a violation of this section, except upon a warrant issued for failure to appear in court when summoned or for failure to pay an imposed fine.

(F) The Department of Public Safety shall maintain statistical information regarding citations issued pursuant to this section.

(G) This section preempts local ordinances, regulations, and resolutions adopted by municipalities, counties, and other local governmental entities regarding persons using wireless electronic communication devices while operating motor vehicles on the public streets and highways of this State.”

Time effective

SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

Ratified the 5th day of June, 2014.

Approved the 9th day of June, 2014. — S.