The researchers conducted five focus groups at police departments in West Virginia, USA. An average of four officers (total N=19) partook in each focus group, which lasted approximately 45–60 min in duration. Focus groups were conducted in a private conference area at the participating police departments to ensure participant confidentiality and clear audio recording. Participation was voluntary. Informed consent and permission to audio record the session for transcription purposes was obtained from all study participants. Written permission to conduct the focus group at the police department was obtained from chief management of the agency. All focus groups were asked the same semi-structured, open-ended questions to allow for probing/follow-up questions, if needed.¹⁷ The script used in the focus group sessions was pilot tested in an interview conducted with a former police officer; the script for the focus group sessions and remarks/rationale for the question are provided in the online supplementary appendix 1. Two researchers facilitated each focus group session; one researcher served as the facilitator and the other an observer for all focus groups. The observer audio recorded the session and documented any field notes/observations of the study participants. After the focus groups, the observer and facilitator discussed and summarised pertinent findings to aid with the analysis. To ensure validity, a member check was conducted at the end of each focus group.¹⁸ The member check consisted of a summary of the focus group session/conversation that was written by the facilitator and sent via email to one member of the focus group for distribution to the other members generally within 3 days of the focus group. Any comments or discrepancies of the conversation were emailed back to the facilitator for clarification and incorporated into the analysis.

Police departments and their respective officers were recruited via convenience sampling; the sampling frame consisted of any university, local, city, county or state police detachment. Chief management of the law enforcement agency (ie, Chief, Commander, Sherriff, etc) was initially contacted via phone and/or email and made aware of the study and its purpose. Permission was garnered from chief management of the police department to recruit and/or contact individual officers for participation in the study; the recruitment of officers most often occurred via email. To be eligible for inclusion, participants had to be: 18 years of age or older at time of recruitment, been employed and sworn into their department as an officer, was eligible at time of recruitment to write CPWD citations (ie, be a patrol officer or still go on active patrols) and have held their position for at least 1 year. All participants were male and had an average of 13 years (range: 2–30 years) of experience in law enforcement. No other demographic information was collected to protect the identities of those who participated.

The audio tapes from focus group sessions were transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service with all personally identifying information removed. To ensure accurate transcription, the audio recordings from focus group sessions were compared with the transcripts. NVivo V11 qualitative analysis software was used for all aspects of data management, including the searching, coding and categorisation of the data obtained from the focus group sessions. The data were analysed for themes surrounding CPWD and barriers to cell phone law enforcement using conventional content analysis. Conventional content analysis is often employed when little information or research exists on a particular phenomenon.¹⁹ Three researchers were involved in the data analysis process. To minimise potential bias, one researcher who was not present during any focus group sessions was involved in the data analysis. The data analysis began with all three researchers thoroughly reading and re-reading the transcripts. Each researcher independently developed code words or phrases that labelled thoughts or concepts found in the transcripts. All researchers assembled and compared their initial coding schemes. A consensus was then reached on how thoughts or concepts found in the text should be coded.²⁰ These codes were then operationally defined and documented in a data dictionary.²⁰²¹ After all transcripts were coded for these operationally defined codes, the research team reconvened. The operationally defined codes were sorted and collapsed into broader, more encompassing categories or subcategories of thoughts and concepts. A thematic map was drawn to help guide this process.²² To ensure the reliability of the analysis, the researchers assessed the overall percentage of coding agreement between one another. This inter-rater reliability was evaluated using a Cohen’s kappa statistic; reliability was considered adequate as the kappa statistic was between 0.8 and 1.0 (eg, κ=0.96) which indicated excellent agreement between coders.²³ Once core themes were established, a final reading of the transcripts occurred to ensure that themes were adequately refined and accurately depicted the data.

The current culture surrounding cell phones and CPWD appeared to be a challenge for many of the officers. Essentially, the officers are trying to enforce a law which restricts a behaviour that has become a social norm. Four subthemes pertaining to culture emerged during the focus groups and these were cell phone culture, prevalence of the behaviour, driver habits and driver risk perception. Most of the groups acknowledged that cell phones are part of American culture. Most people use them every day for a myriad of reasons, but mainly as a form of instant communication with their social networks. Thus, people are inherently dependent on their devices. To this effect, one officer stated:

Another officer remarked:

Because cell phones are part of the culture, many people continue to use them even while driving. Thus, most officers acknowledged that CPWD is a prevalent and pervasive behaviour among drivers which complicates enforcement. As one officer commented:

Because so many drivers interact with their phones, the officers remarked that certain behaviours have become almost habitual. For example, almost all groups acknowledged that many drivers routinely use their phones at traffic lights. The officers also noted that when they pull up beside other vehicles at traffic lights, many drivers will throw/drop their phones or try to conceal their cell phone use because many know they should not be engaging in the behaviour. Some officers revealed that a lot of drivers they pull over are just holding their phone, but not actually using it. One officer stated:

Many of the officers indicated that CPWD is so commonplace that it may have altered drivers’ perception of risk. Several officers felt that drivers tend to underestimate the safety risk that it poses to themselves or others; many officers also felt that individuals tend to overestimate their ability to safely drive while using a cell phone. As two officers’ explained:

Many officers felt that drivers’ perception of being apprehended for CPWD has also been skewed. Some of the officers commented that when they pull drivers over, many drivers appear defensive or annoyed. As one officer explained:

The officer went on to say:

The legal system was another overarching theme that heavily influenced how officers perceived the ability to enforce CPWD. Several subthemes emerged during the focus groups which included support from the court or judge, problems with how CPWD laws are enforced and written, different state laws and the need for a general distracted driving law.

An issue discussed in virtually all groups was the adjudication process. While officers write citations, it is ultimately up to a judge or court to decide if a driver should be convicted of the offence, if a fine is contested. Therefore, the officers must prove their case and the judge/court may or may not agree with the citation, which can be frustrating to the officers. One officer explained a recent encounter he had:

A second officer explained his frustration:

Another challenge discussed in all focus groups was problems with how CPWD laws are written. In most of the focus groups, officers discussed the issue with ‘hands-free’ legislation. There are exceptions written into this law which allow drivers to perform certain activities such as dial phone numbers, input directions into GPS or make emergency calls. Drivers may know these exceptions and use this knowledge as an opportunity to mislead officers if they are at risk of receiving a hands-free ticket. Drivers may also legitimately be using their phone for one of the exceptions to the law, but officers and courts may have no way to discern the truth. GPS appears to be a major point of contention, especially if it involves a GPS application on a phone. One officer exemplified the problem with these exceptions and ‘hands-free’ legislation:

Another officer quipped:

Another officer explained what would help make this easier for enforcement:

The officers also all discussed how the current legislation is too narrowly focused. The laws do not permit drivers to send/read text-based messages or have hand-held phone conversations. The laws are somewhat vague and do not specify other phone activities, such as using phone applications, which could be equally distracting or dangerous. As one officer explained:

Law enforcement and first responders are exempt from the hands-free law and may use their phone while driving. This exception exists because these groups are often dispatched to emergencies by their cell phones or they use their cell phones to reduce congestion on the police radio. Focus group participants indicate that they perceive that the public, often unaware of this exception, will feel unfairly persecuted for the same behaviour. Officers, themselves, express varying opinions on this issue. In one exchange between two officers:

The officers also mentioned that CPWD laws with age specifications may have limited utility. For example, young driver all cell phone bans do not permit drivers of certain ages (ie,<18) or licensure status (learner’s permit or intermediate licenses) from using cell phones. Also, most officers explained that they rarely cite drivers under 18 years of age due to graduated drivers’ licensing laws which restrict their driving. As two officers explained the situation:

Officers also expressed that drivers who travel across state borders are unaware of differences in state laws regarding CPWD. Thus, some behaviours, such as hand-held cell phone conversations, may or may not be permitted depending on the state. While states often erect signage at their borders indicating the idiosyncrasies of their traffic laws, this can be missed by drivers, which often results in traffic stops.

One officer explained:

The officers also discussed the need for a general distracted driving law. Many of them claimed that there are other distractions which are just as dangerous as cell phone use and the law should include these other behaviours. As one officer explicated:

The nature of a police officer’s job can influence CPWD enforcement. The subthemes which arose during the focus groups were officers’ individual characteristics, physical/structural challenges and resources.

Policing is a multifaceted job. It involves numerous tasks such as responding to criminal complaints, performing investigations, reacting to emergency calls, completing paperwork and making court appearances. Consequently, officers often have to prioritise their responsibilities throughout their shift which can influence whether or not they are able to enforce traffic code, such as CPWD. As one officer stated:

Police often have some discretion in their work. Officers may enforce certain codes more or less than others. Some will write citations a certain way (ie, give warnings as opposed to tickets). These actions are based on numerous factors such as their personal habits, personal conviction or perceived risk that a behaviour poses to others in the community. One officer explained:

Another officer stated:

The perceived risk that a behaviour poses to others also influenced many officers. Interestingly, all groups stated the perception that drivers using cell phones are more dangerous than drunk drivers. As one officer explained:

Another aspect that seemed to influence several officers was their relationship with the public. As one officer claimed:

Therefore, this relationship with the public is something that some officers felt they must try to preserve. One officer explained one issue with enforcing CPWD because it is so commonplace.

Besides individual characteristics, there were several physical/structural challenges that the officers identified which can make enforcing CPWD laws difficult. For example, the officers have to be able to see what the driver is doing. Therefore, numerous things can complicate this such as the time of day (ie, night), the design of the vehicle the officer is in or the driver is in, the way a driver’s mirrors are positioned or even location/topography (ie, being in an elevated position). As one officer described the importance of being able to see a driver:

Cell phones are multifunctional. People can use their phones for a myriad of reasons such as to make calls, send texts, use applications, interact with the internet and email and music/song libraries. Sometimes it can be difficult or impossible for officers to see what drivers are actually doing on their phones. As one officer explained:

An important issue that virtually all groups discussed was the ability to safely conduct a traffic stop. Sometimes they cannot pull someone over logistically because it could endanger themselves or other drivers. One officer described a common scenario:

Resources, such as officers’ time and staffing issues, can influence officers’ ability to enforce traffic laws such as CPWD. Virtually, all officers discussed federal highway safety grants that are given to states to enforce certain infractions such as CPWD. Most of the officers spoke positively about the grants because it gave them additional time, money and manpower (ie, man hours) to enforce CPWD. However, one group expressed some frustration with these grants because they perceived that the grant forces them to issue so many tickets within a specified time frame, which, they indicated felt like they were being asked to meet a quota; all the officers mentioned quotas are illegal. One officer explained why these grants are helpful:

Issues with prevention of CPWD was a theme across focus groups. Most of the officers were dubious that CPWD is something that could be completely eliminated or prevented. However, many officers acknowledged there were ways in which the behaviour could be reduced among drivers. The subthemes which emerged involved technological solutions, increasing penalties and driver education. There seemed to be a general agreeance among most groups that technology may be a more viable resolution to decrease CPWD than harsher penalties or driver education. One officer stated:

Most groups suggested that cell phone manufacturers or carriers could design phones in such a way that certain features were disabled when a vehicle was in motion. As one officer shared:

In almost all focus group sessions, increasing the penalties for CPWD citations was discussed. Most groups debated raising minimum fines, increasing points and possibly even licensure suspensions for CPWD citations. However, the officers were often ambivalent that harsher penalties would reduce CPWD as evident by an exchange between two officers:

When discussing penalties, most groups referenced driving under the influence (DUI) violations, which often result in exorbitantly high fines/penalties. As one officer stated:

Most officers seemed to agree that most drivers seem to know that they should not engage in CPWD. As one officer stated:

Although, many officers believed there were some aspects of the law or even technologies to prevent CPWD in which the public could be more educated. For example, many officers mentioned how they do not believe the public knows that drivers are not permitted to be on a cell phone at a stop light or stop sign. One officer mentioned:

Additionally, the officers also mentioned how some drivers may not fully understand the term ‘hands-free’ as many drivers they pull over think that they are permitted to hold a phone in their hand as long as it is on speaker. One officer recounted:

Officers expressed that drivers could be more educated about technologies which minimise hand-held cell phone use such as in-vehicle technology (ie, Bluetooth) or external hands-free devices or dashboard cell phone mounts. Several officers remarked that many drivers whom they pull over do not realise that their vehicles have hands-free technology or know how to use it. For example, one officer stated:

Finally, related to the above discussion about first responder exemption, many of the groups discussed that the public may benefit from increased awareness that emergency services (ie, police, firemen, first responders) are permitted by law to engage in CPWD as it helps them communicate to dispatchers when responding to urgent calls.