"Textalyzer" Aims at Deadly Distracted Driving

A new device promises to tell police when a driver has been sending messages while behind the wheel, but is it legal? Larry Greenemeier reports.

PhotoDisc/Getty Images

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Fifty years ago, British inventors made and marketed the first electronic “breathalyzer”. The alcohol gauge has become standard issue for U.S. law enforcement cracking down on drunk driving.

In a sign of the times, U.S. police are now hoping to enlist the so-called “Textalyzer.”  The device, in development by a company called Cellebrite, plugs into a driver’s smartphone and can tell police whether that person sent a text, e-mail or some other type of electronic message. Much of this information could be found by checking the device’s call log and messaging apps, but the Textalyzer aggregates all of that information in one place.

Sending or reading a text typically takes a driver’s eyes off the road for about five seconds. At 55 miles per hour, that's like driving the length of an entire football field with your eyes closed, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The NHTSA reports that in 2015 nearly 3,500 people were killed, and 391,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving drivers who were talking on the phone or texting.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


But several open questions remain related to the Textalyzer. For one, it’s not clear how officers will access a device if it’s password protected. Textalyzer’s legality is also up for debate. In 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers cannot legally search a mobile phone for content created within the past 180 days without a warrant. Regardless, several states plan to test the device.

Over the years all sorts of bad advice has been given to help people “beat” Breathalyzer tests. Let’s hope the only way people beat the Textalyzer is by keeping their hands on the wheel and their eyes on the road.

—Larry Greenemeier

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe