Back to Wyoming
Wyoming2010Enacted

SF0020

Wyoming Law Banning Handheld Texting While Driving

Last scannedOct 18, 2026, 2:19 AM

In one sentence

This law makes it illegal to use a handheld device to write, send, or read text-based communications while driving on a public street or highway in Wyoming.

What it does

  • Prohibits drivers from using a handheld electronic wireless communication device to write, send, or read a text-based communication while operating a motor vehicle on a public street or highway.
  • Allows drivers to use handheld devices to write, read, select, or enter a telephone number or name for the purpose of making or receiving a telephone call.
  • Permits the use of voice-operated or hands-free technology for text-based communications.
  • Exempts drivers who are lawfully parked from the prohibition.
  • Exempts drivers who are contacting an emergency response vehicle.
  • Exempts persons operating an emergency response vehicle while making communications necessary to the performance of their official duties as an emergency responder.
  • Sets a penalty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than seventy-five dollars ($75.00).

Who it affects

  • Drivers of motor vehicles on public streets or highways in Wyoming.
  • Persons operating emergency response vehicles.
  • Emergency responders making communications necessary to their official duties.

Limits and unknowns

  • The law applies only to public streets and highways.
  • The penalty is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than seventy-five dollars ($75.00).
  • The provided text does not specify procedures for law enforcement detection or stopping vehicles for this violation.

Plain language

Terms to know

Electronic wireless communication device
A mobile communication device that uses short-wave analog or digital radio transmissions or satellite transmissions between the device and a transmitter to permit wireless telephone communications to and from the user of the device within a specified area.
Text-based communication
Using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with any person using text-based communication including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text message, instant message or electronic mail.
Emergency response vehicle
Any ambulance, fire department, law enforcement or civil defense vehicle or other vehicle used primarily for emergency purposes.
Voice operated or hands free technology
Technology that allows a user to write, send or read a text based communication without the use of either hand except to activate, deactivate or initiate a feature or function.

Official record

Sources

Source checked
Read the official summary

Bill No.: <billno> Drafter: <drafterinit> Bill No.: SF0020 Drafter: JDA LSO No.: 10LSO-0102 Effective Date: 7/1/2010 Enrolled Act No.: SEA0045 Chapter No.: Prime Sponsor: Senator Esquibel, F. Catch Title: Text-based communications prohibited while driving. Subject: Motor vehicles handheld electronic wireless communication devices. Summary/Major Elements: Prohibits the use of a handheld electronic wireless communication device to send or read a text-based communication while operating a motor vehicle on a public street or highway. Provides exceptions to the prohibition for vehicles that are lawfully parked, for contacting emergency response vehicles and for a person operating an emergency response vehicle in the performance of his official duties. Provides that entering a number or word to make or receive a telephone call or using hands free technology is not a violation of the prohibition. Provides that a violation of the section is punishable by a fine not to exceed seventy-five dollars.

Public statements

Why lawmakers voted

Last checked Aug 8, 6:38 AM

Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker argues against concurring because the amendments create confusing loopholes that allow drivers to use devices in ways that are more dangerous by pulling their eyes further from the road.

Public statementFloor statement at 53:23 Watch the statement
Voted Yes

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports concurring with the amendments to ensure that modern voice-activated and hands-free technology is not inadvertently prohibited by the bill's definition.

Public statementFloor statement at 55:53 Watch the statement
Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the bill because it contains numerous loopholes, unintended consequences, and confusing definitions that make enforcement difficult. They also believe existing careless driving statutes are sufficient.

Public statementFloor statement at 37:04 Watch the statement
Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the bill because they believe existing careless driving laws already cover distracted driving and that this specific text-based restriction is unnecessary and unclear regarding GPS usage.

Public statementFloor statement at 45:31 Watch the statement
Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the bill because they believe it contains huge loopholes that allow for activities like Googling or Facebooking while driving, making it ineffective as a law.

Public statementFloor statement at 46:48 Watch the statement
Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the bill because they believe it unfairly segregates texting from other distracting phone functions that are already covered by careless driving laws, and feels the body cannot keep up with technology.

Public statementFloor statement at 47:47 Watch the statement
Voted Yes

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the bill because they believe specific rules are needed beyond reckless driving laws and cites a personal story of a friend killed by a texting driver.

Public statementFloor statement at 48:31 Watch the statement
Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the bill because they believe it restricts legal activities against the will of citizens and that government should not protect people from themselves.

Public statementFloor statement at 51:01 Watch the statement
Voted Yes

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the bill because they believe texting causes accidents and deaths, making it a necessary traffic safety issue rather than a constitutional one.

Public statementFloor statement at 54:03 Watch the statement
Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the bill because they believe it addresses the growing issue of distracted driving accidents reported by law enforcement and protects citizens from being hit.

Public statementFloor statement at 56:06 Watch the statement
Voted Yes

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the bill because their grandchildren wrecked cars while texting and indicated that fear of a ticket would have prevented them from doing so.

Public statementFloor statement at 57:53 Watch the statement
Voted Yes

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the bill because they believe young passengers are terrified when drivers text, and the legislature must protect citizens' health and welfare.

Public statementFloor statement at 1:02:40 Watch the statement
Voted Yes

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the bill because they observe that law-abiding people currently text while driving in their community, and this legislation will stop them.

Public statementFloor statement at 1:03:26 Watch the statement
Voted Yes

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the bill because they believe youth are brave but lack developed brains to make good decisions, leading them to drive dangerously while texting.

Public statementFloor statement at 1:04:39 Watch the statement
Voted Yes

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports introducing the bill to address safety concerns regarding texting while driving, noting that it primarily targets youthful drivers and cites reports indicating a significant increase in accident danger.

Public statementFloor statement at 55:28 Watch the statement

If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.

Wyoming roll calls

Recorded votes

9 roll calls

S Did Concur 23-7-0-0-02010-03-04 · Senate23 yes 7 no
H Reconsidered Passed 3rd Reading 32-26-2-0-02010-03-03 · House32 yes 26 no
H Reconsidered 33-25-2-0-02010-03-03 · House33 yes 25 no
H Passed 3rd Reading 32-26-2-0-02010-03-03 · House32 yes 26 no
H08 Recommended Amend and Do Pass 8-0-1-0-02010-02-24 · House8 yes 0 no
S Passed 3rd Reading 23-7-0-0-02010-02-15 · Senate23 yes 7 no
Amendment Failed 12-18-0-0-02010-02-11 · Senate12 yes 18 no
S08 Recommended Do Pass 5-0-0-0-02010-02-09 · Senate5 yes 0 no
S Introduced and Referred to S08 26-4-0-0-02010-02-08 · Senate26 yes 4 no

Official activity

Bill history

  1. Assigned Chapter Number - 105LSO
  2. Governor Signed SEA0045Governor
  3. H Speaker Signed SEA No. 0045House
  4. S President Signed SEA No. 0045Senate
  5. Assigned Number SEA0045LSO
  6. S Did ConcurSenate
  7. S Received for ConcurrenceSenate
  8. H Reconsidered Passed 3rd ReadingHouse
  9. H ReconsideredHouse
  10. H Passed 3rd ReadingHouse
  11. H Passed 2nd ReadingHouse
  12. Amendment FailedHouse
  13. H Passed CoWHouse
  14. Amendment AdoptedHouse
  15. H Amendments AdoptedHouse
  16. Amendment AdoptedHouse
  17. H Placed on General FileHouse
  18. H08 Recommended Amend and Do PassHouse
  19. H Introduced and Referred to H08House
  20. H Received for IntroductionHouse

Changes

Amendments

9 stored

SF0020H2001

Failed 2nd reading by SHEPPERSON

SF0020H3001

Withdrawn 3rd reading by QUARBERG

SF0020HW001

Adopted, Corrected Committee of the Whole by COHEE

SF0020HS001

Adopted Standing Committee by H08

SF0020S2001

Failed 2nd reading by PERKINS

SF0020S2002

Withdrawn 2nd reading by MEIER

SF0020S2003

Adopted 2nd reading by MEIER

SF0020S2004

Failed 2nd reading by MEIER

SF0020S2005

Adopted 2nd reading by MEIER