Introduction
Effective June 5, 2025, Pennsylvania’s Paul Miller’s Law, enacted as Act 18 of 2024 (formerly Senate Bill 37), makes hand-held device use while driving a primary offense. For the first 12 months—through June 4, 2026—officers issue written warnings to allow drivers to adapt. Beginning June 5, 2026, violations carry a $50 fine plus court costs and fees. The statute amends Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes to prohibit hand-held interactive mobile device use while driving, reflecting a statewide effort to reduce distraction-related crashes and standardize enforcement.
What counts as an “interactive mobile device” and “use”
The law covers a broad range of interactive mobile devices, including hand-held cell phones, smartphones, tablets, and similar portable electronics capable of calls, texting, email, browsing, messaging, gaming, image/video capture or streaming, or social media.
Use includes holding the device in the hand or against another part of the body, pressing more than one button to initiate or end a communication, or reaching for the device in a way that removes the driver from a seated, seat-belted position. Hands-free operation via integrated vehicle systems, Bluetooth, or voice commands is permitted. Emergency calls are allowed, and drivers may lawfully use a device after safely pulling off the roadway to a stationary position.
The statute defines driving to include periods when a vehicle is temporarily stationary at a traffic control device or due to traffic or another momentary delay. The law preempts local ordinances to ensure uniform statewide rules.
Criminal law intersection when distraction contributes to crashes
Because hand-held use is a primary offense, officers may initiate a stop based solely on observed device use. In serious collisions, prosecutors may pursue enhanced penalties when distraction is a causal factor. Where a fatality or serious bodily injury occurs, charging decisions may include homicide by vehicle or aggravated assault by vehicle, with sentence enhancements available when distraction is proven. Expect greater reliance on device metadata, event data recorder information, and video evidence to establish causation.
Practical defense insights and early mitigation
Stop and “use” challenges
Examine whether the officer observed conduct that meets the statute’s definition of use (for example, more than a single button press). Confirm whether the device was mounted and operated hands-free or whether the driver was actually stopped off the highway in a safe, stationary position.
Causation in crash cases
When charges escalate, test the Commonwealth’s causation theory with precise timing evidence. Compare device logs and forensic downloads against event data recorder timestamps, dash/body-cam footage, and reconstruction analysis to distinguish mere temporal proximity from actual causation.
Probable cause and scope of investigation
Scrutinize the basis for the stop (lighting, distance, obstructions, duration of observation) and any subsequent device inspection or seizure. Challenge conclusions drawn solely from posture or brief hand movements that do not meet the statutory threshold for use.
Traffic-stop data and selective-enforcement arguments
The law requires collection and publication of traffic-stop data by the State Police and larger local departments. In appropriate cases, request this material in discovery to assess patterns relevant to equal-protection or selective-enforcement claims.
Early mitigation during the warning year
For clients who receive warnings, document corrective steps (installed mounts, activation of Do Not Disturb While Driving, completion of a safe-driving program). These records can support later negotiations if new charges arise after the warning period.
CDL and professional-driver considerations
Even summary violations can affect employment and fleet policies. Ensure company handbooks reflect the hands-free rule and train drivers on the statute’s more-than-one-button threshold.
Looking ahead: how this law may shape vehicular-offense prosecutions
Paul Miller’s Law will likely appear more frequently as a predicate fact in reckless endangerment, aggravated assault by vehicle, and homicide by vehicle prosecutions. Uniform preemption may reduce local-ordinance disputes, while mandated stop-data reporting could influence suppression litigation and policy debates. Over time, enforcement patterns and appellate decisions will clarify evidentiary standards for proving distraction and causation.
References
PennDOT – Distracted Driving overview (warning period, fines, primary-offense status):https://www.pa.gov/agencies/penndot/traveling-in-pa/safety/traffic-safety-driver-topics/distracted-driving.html Pennsylvania Government
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes – 75 Pa.C.S. § 3316.1 (Prohibiting use of interactive mobile device):https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?chpt=33&div=0&sctn=16&subsctn=1&ttl=75&txtType=HTM Pennsylvania General Assembly
SB 37 – Final bill text:https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/text/PDF/2023/0/SB0037/PN1588 PA General Assembly
PennDOT Newsroom – “Paul Miller’s Law” effective June 5 notice:https://www.pa.gov/agencies/penndot/news-and-media/newsroom/statewide/2025/-paul-miller-s-law--effective-june-5.html Pennsylvania Government
Optional local-summary reference (for lay reader context):https://chester.crimewatchpa.com/scpd/251585/post/pennsylvanias-distracted-driving-law-effective-652025
NOTHING IN THIS OR ANY OTHER BLOG POST CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE OR FORMS AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FIRM AND THE READER. INFORMATION ORIGINATING FROM THIS WEBSITE IS INTENDED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.
Comentarios