NYPD demands Google to Stop Revealing Location Of DWI Checkpoints through Waze

[79wjd]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

People like to talk about corrupt cops and all the things that go wrong, but it would be prudent if people also took a second to think about the vast majority of cops who are awesome people, who are burnt out doing only good shit for an ungrateful community and would put their life on the line for yours.  Try not to paint all cops as corrupt walking arseholes just becasue a few are.  

Most officers are honest, but the minority that aren't make the risk associated with unwarranted searches needlessly high given that you could very easily have a corrupt cop.

 

In terms of it being a slippery slope with the corruption that exists, then that's referring to corruption amongst politicians and those in power, not cops.

[suicidalfranco]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

People like to talk about corrupt cops and all the things that go wrong, but it would be prudent if people also took a second to think about the vast majority of cops who are awesome people, who are burnt out doing only good shit for an ungrateful community and would put their life on the line for yours.  Try not to paint all cops as corrupt walking arseholes just becasue a few are.  

tfw my aunt and uncle are cops

[dalekphalm]

 

On 2/9/2019 at 10:31 AM, leadeater said:

The blow in to a tube/bag is the older testing tool as well, still widely in use but here we've upgraded to the proximity just talk near it kind. Those aren't evidential but they are extremely quick and accurate enough to indicate if a evidential blood or breath test is required. If you want to keep traffic flowing you use the proximity kind.

 

Asking for license and rego is also another general waste of time, in general here at those check points that's never asked for unless you give them cause to.

 

As for the legal status of DUI checkpoints that's already well established and in general counter to what's been repeated here. 

https://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/are-sobriety-checkpoints-aimed-at-catching-dui-offenders-legal.html

 

That is the Supreme Court and current Federal Law status of it, yes DUI checkpoints are legal and not a breach of Fourth Amendment rights. However state laws can, and do, change that. For a list, hopefully up to date, check here. https://dui.findlaw.com/dui-arrests/dui-checkpoint-laws-by-state.html.

 

The states that do not allow them are:

AK, ID, IA, MI, MN, MT, NH (Can but court approval required), OR, RI, RX, WA, WI.

 

In Canada, they typically don't ask for ID either. There's little point. They simply stop you, ask how you're doing/how your night is, and ask if you've had anything to drink.

 

99% of the time they're just checking for alcohol breath. if they smell booze on you, that's enough suspicion for them to perform a field sobriety test, and ask you to use a breathalyzer.

 

I've been stopped many times at DUI checkpoints, and never once took me more than say 2-3 minutes to get through the entire checkpoint. And at least where I live, they generally check every single car. They're just fast and efficient, because they aren't looking to waste everyone's time.

 

Also, the argument that this impinges free speech and is no different than texting your mom? Hell no. That's not comparable at all.

 

One is a private discussion between two individuals. That is and should remain legal. But there's a HUGE difference between me calling my mom to tell her to take a detour so she's not late from work, vs me posting to a publicly accessible app the exact location of a checkpoint.

 

They might have some similarities, but they are not the same.

[Drak3]

12 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Also, the argument that this impinges free speech and is no different than texting your mom? Hell no. That's not comparable at all.

Free speech is free speech. Either you have it, or you don't. There is no middle ground, no grey area.

[dalekphalm]

44 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Free speech is free speech. Either you have it, or you don't. There is no middle ground, no grey area.

Legally speaking, not so. There certainly are some members of the public (American and otherwise) that believe otherwise - they are usually speaking an an abstract sense, not a legal one. Very few countries have absolute free speech laws.

 

But besides that, even if they are both "free speech", my argument remains - people are comparing this to an entirely different situation. It's just simply not comparable to that.

 

It would be like me posting an Editorial in a news paper to inform my mom that she should take a detour. One is a directed, private conversation, with specific and intentional recipients. The other is a totally public, possibly anonymous system in which you're not talking to a specific person (or any person, directly).

 

Either way, I don't even necessarily agree with NYPD (though I most definitely understand their concerns) - but some of the arguments here are absolute bullshit (and frankly that can be applied to both sides of the argument).

[LAwLz]

23 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

It would be like me posting an Editorial in a news paper to inform my mom that she should take a detour.

No, that is not at all what is happening here.

This is as if you shouted from your window "hey mom, there is a police control on the road you usually take to work", and then the police goes "you can't tell her that! maybe she will drink and because she knows where we are she will take a detour!".

 

Nobody ion Waze are actually posting encouragements such as "take a detour because police are here, so that you can drive drunk". They are merely saying "there is a police control here".

 

There is a very big difference between encouraging someone to commit a crime, and giving out already public information to people in public, which they might misuse in some way.

Telling people that gasoline is flammable is one thing. Telling people that they should make Molotov cocktails and throw at the police is another one. The NTPD is trying to ban the former, and you say that's fine and them makes as example like the latter.

 

 

 

At the end of the day, Waze is an app which lets people inform other people where the police are. Should that be illegal or not? I don't think it should.

[dalekphalm]

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No, that is not at all what is happening here.

This is as if you shouted from your window "hey mom, there is a police control on the road you usually take to work", and then the police goes "you can't tell her that! maybe she will drink and because she knows where we are she will take a detour!".

Kind of. I agree that my analogy is flawed, but yours is as well (though perhaps less flawed).

 

It would be more like you posting on Twitter telling your mom that there's a checkpoint, but you didn't tag her.

 

Why is it not like yelling out the Window? Because on Waze they're posting a general message to any who want to see it. It's not directed at someones mom, or anyone in particular.

 

Whether that ultimately makes a difference? That's up for debate, but there is no debate that it's not the same as calling your mom or texting her.

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Nobody ion Waze are actually posting encouragements such as "take a detour because police are here, so that you can drive drunk". They are merely saying "there is a police control here".

Agreed - I do not disagree with this statement.

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

There is a very big difference between encouraging someone to commit a crime, and giving out already public information to people in public, which they might misuse in some way.

I agree with this statement as well.

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Telling people that gasoline is flammable is one thing. Telling people that they should make Molotov cocktails and throw at the police is another one. The NTPD is trying to ban the former, and you say that's fine and them makes as example like the latter.

I did not say it was fine. So let's stop that. I said I understand their motivations. Whether what they want to do is even legal is up for debate.

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

At the end of the day, Waze is an app which lets people inform other people where the police are. Should that be illegal or not? I don't think it should.

That indeed is the question. And in America, it might not even be a matter of law - at least, not "standard" law. The constitution might well indeed settle this for everyone, if it ever makes it that high.

 

I don't know if it should be illegal or not. I think it's worth debating and considering the various aspects, and not just yelling free speech and writing the whole thing off.

[FrostyRob]

On 2/6/2019 at 10:17 PM, dizmo said:

I don't think they should be able to report locations of checkpoints. They're there for a reason, and they're more effective than having nothing at all.

I don't think it'd fall under that, because they're not searching your vehicle. I believe they're allowed to insure that you're authorized to operate the vehicle you're in, check licenses, your operational status, etc.

They don't though, really. They're simply checking to make sure you're in compliance. There's nothing wrong with that, and a patrol won't catch nearly as many intoxicated people. People that are intoxicated (to a point they're a serious issue) are also less likely to be able to avoid such checkpoints. Driving around trying to catch drunk drivers is like trying to find a needle in a haystack, and honestly, would have similar issues in relation to guilt as a checkpoint would. Who's to say the person swerving slightly is just tired, a bad driver, etc.

This is not exactly true.  A police officer cannot detain any individual without probably cause.  You don't even legally have to turn over your driver's license at a check point. Immigration check points are another hot and similar topic and they cannot detain anyone without probably cause.  I agree that I don't want to be on the road with drunk drivers but the police also cannot restrict free speech and ban google/waze from posting this information.  Maybe police should patrol more effectively rather than park in one place in droves and delay innocent people from getting home etc.  

 

I definitely see both sides of the argument but just because you are the New York City police and don't believe that the constitution is important does not allow you to undermine the first AND second amendments.  Freedom of speech has protected worse things in my opinion.  Maybe the cops should be a little more proactive in patrol. 

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, FrostyRob said:

Maybe police should patrol more effectively rather than park in one place in droves and delay innocent people from getting home etc.  

I agree in principle with much of your post, but this is a ridiculous argument.

 

The odds of a cop being on the road and crossing paths with any particular driver - let alone a drunk driver - is pretty damn small.

 

Setting up a checkpoint that delays innocent people is hardly a major problem. By focusing their efforts on one spot, they can massively increase the odds of coming across all kinds of drivers, including drunk drivers.

 

Patrols are all well and good, and serve their own purpose, but you'd need to hire so many more cops and get so many more patrol cars to make up the difference, if you entirely relied on patrols to catch drunk drivers.

[FrostyRob]

Or... people could just stop driving drunk and act like mature adults?  That seems like the most cost effective and reasonable solution to me.  That way police officers can focus on the really bad  things like murder and other violent crime rather than having to chase after adults acting like children.  

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, FrostyRob said:

Or... people could just stop driving drunk and act like mature adults?  That seems like the most cost effective and reasonable solution to me.  That way police officers can focus on the really bad  things like murder and other violent crime rather than having to chase after adults acting like children.  

A) that's a nice thought, unfortunately people are shitty.

 

B) Even in the scenario where everyone is perfect, police will still find a reason to park and give out tickets as they desperately attempt to subsidize their lack of funding/irresponsible spending habits.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, 79wjd said:

A) that's a nice thought, unfortunately people are shitty.

 

B) Even in the scenario where everyone is perfect, police will still find a reason to park and give out tickets as they desperately attempt to subsidize their lack of funding/irresponsible spending habits.

The cops in the US must be horrible!  In Australia when the police need to meet stupid quotas for drink driving test, they just take turns blowing into the breath tester to get their quota up.  99% of cops don't want to unfairly give out tickets and shit to innocent people.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-30/victoria-police-record-fake-roadside-breath-tests/9817846

 

It was only a small amount (1.5%) but all the same the police are people too.