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

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, Sunako said:

But when it is a check point it is publicly safety and every one is checked it is legal.

Not in the US.

[Vanderburg]

26 minutes ago, Sunako said:

But when it is a check point it is publicly safety and every one is checked it is legal.

Negative. This is similar to a drag net, which have largely been ruled unconstitutional. Police have to have particularized suspicion about you, specifically, and it has to be suspicion of a specific crime. A lot of types of checkpoints are also unconstitutional. DUI checkpoints, specifically, and a couple others are mostly tolerated by the courts (and regularly get attention from them) because it's considered a "brief" detainment (but still a detainment), and you're not required to participate. You can just sit there and not say anything to them if you want.

[Ithanul]

On 2/6/2019 at 11:55 PM, Razor Blade said:

What I find hilarious is the area I live in, Police that run "sobriety checkpoints" actually warn the public when they run them and where they'll be. They still get drunk morons rolling through

Same where my parents live in Alabama.  They will annouce the checkpoints and where they be at.  They still nab a few drunks on occasions.  Indeed, very hilarious. They just basically ask for driver license and insurance (no searching, no breath test unless they smell it on you or see open beer cans in a seat).

[Sunako]

6 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Not in the US.

 

6 hours ago, Vanderburg said:

Negative. This is similar to a drag net, which have largely been ruled unconstitutional. Police have to have particularized suspicion about you, specifically, and it has to be suspicion of a specific crime. A lot of types of checkpoints are also unconstitutional. DUI checkpoints, specifically, and a couple others are mostly tolerated by the courts (and regularly get attention from them) because it's considered a "brief" detainment (but still a detainment), and you're not required to participate. You can just sit there and not say anything to them if you want.

I have already posted on the ruling from the Supreme Court from 1990 it is constitutionally legal. There are just stipulations that the checkpoints must be made public 24 hours ahead of its opening.

[TempestCatto]

The way I see it, if you're driving legally (as in not drunk) what do you have to worry about? The only worry is time lost through traffic and the checkpoint itself. So long as you're using half your brain, you're not gonna get in any sort of trouble. I fully support the NYPD here, especially because we're talking about drunk driving. I work IN the streets for a living, drunk drivers have almost killed me a handful of times, and have almost killed other motorists in my work zones (refusing/failing to stop when I tell them, which means they go careening into oncoming traffic) more than that. Maybe it's because I can't drink due to my medications, but I'll never get why people want to get slammed, attempt to drive home, and blackout. Just not appealing to me.

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

what do you have to worry about?

My rights being infringed, and it being used as justification to push a little further. And then further. And even further.

 

As we've seen with 1A, 2A, taxation, etc.

[79wjd]

10 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

The way I see it, if you're driving legally (as in not drunk) what do you have to worry about? The only worry is time lost through traffic and the checkpoint itself. So long as you're using half your brain, you're not gonna get in any sort of trouble. I fully support the NYPD here, especially because we're talking about drunk driving. I work IN the streets for a living, drunk drivers have almost killed me a handful of times, and have almost killed other motorists in my work zones (refusing/failing to stop when I tell them, which means they go careening into oncoming traffic) more than that. Maybe it's because I can't drink due to my medications, but I'll never get why people want to get slammed, attempt to drive home, and blackout. Just not appealing to me.

The whole 'if you have nothing to hide' argument is a really dangerous one.

 

If you have nothing to hide, then why not let the FBI rummage through all your pictures just in case there is some information regarding another case in the background.

 

I can definitely see cases where the ends seem to justify the means -- DWI checkpoints, rape/framed rape cases, terrorists attacks, etc... But at the end of the day it's still a very fine line before things start to get abused, and they will given the levels of corruption that exist in the groups that are in power.

[TempestCatto]

9 hours ago, Drak3 said:

My rights being infringed, and it being used as justification to push a little further. And then further. And even further.

 

As we've seen with 1A, 2A, taxation, etc.

The reason the Waze app is a thing is so people can have accurate info about accidents, and police speed traps. Same with these checkpoints. You shouldn't have to wanna know if there's a checkpoint somewhere if you don't drink and drive. That's not infringing on anyone's rights.

9 hours ago, 79wjd said:

The whole 'if you have nothing to hide' argument is a really dangerous one.

 

If you have nothing to hide, then why not let the FBI rummage through all your pictures just in case there is some information regarding another case in the background.

 

I can definitely see cases where the ends seem to justify the means -- DWI checkpoints, rape/framed rape cases, terrorists attacks, etc... But at the end of the day it's still a very fine line before things start to get abused, and they will given the levels of corruption that exist in the groups that are in power.

In this case that "argument" is valid, mainly because we're talking about catching drunk drivers which only needs a breath test for. Not a backdoor into your personal NAS so the FBI can be sure whether or not you have illegal p0rn. In cases about internet privacy, it never is. As I said above, if you're not drunk while approaching a checkpoint then there's no reason for you to need to know where it is, or be worried that you could get caught simply because you're not doing anything wrong. I agree with the app notifying people about police speed traps, because on a highway where speed is natural, you sometimes end up following the flow of traffic which may be going 10 even 20 mph over the limit. So I still support and love this app, but the DWI checkpoints are a bit crucial here in order to help curve drunk driving. Check points are in random places, at random times, etc. So drivers can't just know to avoid them, hence the app having this feature. If drunk driving weren't such an issue, then maybe I wouldn't care either way. But having to deal with drunk drivers first hand on a daily bases, this is important to me, my coworkers, and the clients we help protect.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, TempestCatto said:

The reason the Waze app is a thing is so people can have accurate info about accidents, and police speed traps. Same with these checkpoints. You shouldn't have to wanna know if there's a checkpoint somewhere if you don't drink and drive. That's not infringing on anyone's rights.

In this case that "argument" is valid, mainly because we're talking about catching drunk drivers which only needs a breath test for. Not a backdoor into your personal NAS so the FBI can be sure whether or not you have illegal p0rn. In cases about internet privacy, it never is. As I said above, if you're not drunk while approaching a checkpoint then there's no reason for you to need to know where it is, or be worried that you could get caught simply because you're not doing anything wrong. I agree with the app notifying people about police speed traps, because on a highway where speed is natural, you sometimes end up following the flow of traffic which may be going 10 even 20 mph over the limit. So I still support and love this app, but the DWI checkpoints are a bit crucial here in order to help curve drunk driving. Check points are in random places, at random times, etc. So drivers can't just know to avoid them, hence the app having this feature. If drunk driving weren't such an issue, then maybe I wouldn't care either way. But having to deal with drunk drivers first hand on a daily bases, this is important to me, my coworkers, and the clients we help protect.

The law is funny though, a breach of freedoms is a breach regardless of what specific freedoms are being breached. And a dangerous precedent will be set while the line to cross will be shifted closer and closer as time goes on.

 

And your argument is still based on having nothing to hide, so why not befit society and get rid of drunk driving. Well, if you have nothing to hide, then you should let the FBI have backdoors to everything -- they would save a lot not lives by preventing planned murders that accidental drunk driving accidents.

[TempestCatto]

Just now, 79wjd said:

The law is funny though, a breach of freedoms is a breach regardless of what specific freedoms are being breached. And a dangerous precedent will be set while the line to cross will be shifted closer and closer as time goes on.

 

And your argument is still based on having nothing to hide, so why not befit society and get rid of drunk driving. Well, if you have nothing to hide, then you should let the FBI have backdoors to everything -- they would save a lot not lives by preventing planned murders that accidental drunk driving accidents.

You're clearly being ignorant and not listing to my argument, rather you're just saying "let the fbi have back doors" when it has no relation to the argument here. A fucking random Breathalyzer test is NOT a breach of freedoms dude. Seriously, what makes anyone fucking think that? This isn't setting a dangerous precedent, these things have existed before the fucking internet for fucks sake. If it was a breach of freedoms, it would have been addressed decades ago. I don't know why some people are just heart set on this whole fbi back door argument. It's not relevant here, we're not talking about going into people's homes to remove their beer so they don't potentially drink and drive. We're talking about catching people in the act, in the moment it's happening, using a method we've used since before the vast majority of people on this forum were born, and now there's a thingie for your mobile thingie that can tell you if there's a Breathalyzer test somewhere in front of you so your drunk ass can avoid it and still be a danger to everyone on the road. 

[79wjd]

25 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

You're clearly being ignorant and not listing to my argument, rather you're just saying "let the fbi have back doors" when it has no relation to the argument here. A fucking random Breathalyzer test is NOT a breach of freedoms dude. Seriously, what makes anyone fucking think that? This isn't setting a dangerous precedent, these things have existed before the fucking internet for fucks sake. If it was a breach of freedoms, it would have been addressed decades ago. I don't know why some people are just heart set on this whole fbi back door argument. It's not relevant here, we're not talking about going into people's homes to remove their beer so they don't potentially drink and drive. We're talking about catching people in the act, in the moment it's happening, using a method we've used since before the vast majority of people on this forum were born, and now there's a thingie for your mobile thingie that can tell you if there's a Breathalyzer test somewhere in front of you so your drunk ass can avoid it and still be a danger to everyone on the road. 

Except it is a very clear violation of freedoms and always has been. It's not new.

 

I'm not being ignorant about anything. Without reasonable suspicion they have no right to pull you over. Allowing them to do so is giving up personal freedoms.

[TempestCatto]

10 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

Except it is a very clear violation of freedoms and always has been. It's not new.

 

I'm not being ignorant about anything. Without reasonable suspicion they have no right to pull you over. Allowing them to do so is giving up personal freedoms.

How is it violation of freedoms? How is it a violation to breath in a tube for five seconds then drive away? It's not a freedom to drink and drive, it's not a freedom to not take a Breathalyzer test either.

 

If you're not swerving around the road the police will have no suspicion to pull you over anyway. They're looking for people who very clearly can't stay in the lines, not just arbitrarily picking people out. That's not how it works.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, TempestCatto said:

How is it violation of freedoms? How is it a violation to breath in a tube for five seconds then drive away? It's not a freedom to drink and drive, it's not a freedom to not take a Breathalyzer test either.

It's a freedom to not be subjected to an unwarranted search, which is what a breathalyzer check without reasonable suspicion is. There's a reason why officers need an explicit reason to pull someone over and not just because they hope they might have an expired license.

1 minute ago, TempestCatto said:

If you're not swerving around the road the police will have no suspicion to pull you over anyway. They're looking for people who very clearly can't stay in the lines, not just arbitrarily picking people out. That's not how it works.

That's not how checkpoints work. If they only pulled people over for doing something suspicious then that would be fine. Checkpoints are when police pull every/every other/some regular interval person over and test them without reasonable cause.

 

 

[Drak3]

58 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

That's not infringing on anyone's rights.

Being stopped to be searched without probable cause is infringing my rights.

[Drak3]

48 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

it has no relation to the argument here.

Actually, it does. With big government, you pursue taking the next logical step when the current one doesn't work or if it furthers your claimed goal (in this case, saving lives). It must be stopped the second the rights of the people are being infringed, regardless the severity of the infringement at the time.

[Drak3]

17 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

They're looking for people who very clearly can't stay in the lines, not just arbitrarily picking people out. That's not how it works.

Unless it's bumper to bumper traffic, they're stopping as many people to illegally search as they can. That's the purpose of a checkpoint.

[TempestCatto]

13 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Being stopped to be searched without probable cause is infringing my rights.

You're stopped and asked for your ID and registration. If you're not being an idiot, you won't get fucking searched.

9 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Actually, it does. With big government, you pursue taking the next logical step when the current one doesn't work or if it furthers your claimed goal (in this case, saving lives). It must be stopped the second the rights of the people are being infringed, regardless the severity of the infringement at the time.

This is nonsense in this case. While I would agree normally, we're not talking about firearm regulations or taxes, we're talking about stopping to see if you're drunk or not. That's very different. We should NOT stop DWI checkpoints, it gets more drunkards off the roads before they can do any damage. All it does to a soccer mom is mildly inconvenience her when she's stuck in traffic and has to stop and give her papers for the officer to check that she didn't steal her minivan. She's not gonna be told to step out of the van for a search. 

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Unless it's bumper to bumper traffic, they're stopping as many people to illegally search as they can. That's the purpose of a checkpoint.

The only checkpoints I've been through, never even tried to stop me, they let me go by no problem (which is why I thought what I did originally). But regardless, they're not fucking searching you. They talk to you, ask for your ID and papers, and that's it. If they smell beer on you, then obviously you're getting tested. If they don't smell anything on your breath, or if you're not acting all weird, then you're good to go. They don't make you get out and search your boot for no reason.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, TempestCatto said:

You're stopped and asked for your ID and registration

Again, that is an illegal search.

 

1 minute ago, TempestCatto said:

This is nonsense in this case.

History demonstrated that no, it's not.

[TempestCatto]

23 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

It's a freedom to not be subjected to an unwarranted search, which is what a breathalyzer check without reasonable suspicion is. There's a reason why officers need an explicit reason to pull someone over and not just because they hope they might have an expired license.

That's not how checkpoints work. If they only pulled people over for doing something suspicious then that would be fine. Checkpoints are when police pull every/every other/some regular interval person over and test them without reasonable cause.

 

 

As I just said in my other post (I forgot to quote you) I thought they worked that way because I've never been stopped. I did research it and now know how they work. You don't get a tube shoved in your face, you get asked for papers and if you're acting weird or have beer on your breath, then you get tested. They don't make you get out and search you.

[TempestCatto]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Again, that is an illegal search.

 

History demonstrated that no, it's not.

So you're saying when a cop pulls you over for speeding, that when they ask for your papers that it's illegal search? That's fucking retarded.

 

Again, we're not taking about fucking taxes or gun laws, we're talking about DWI checkpoints. There is nothing infringing here, big brother is not trying to take away your damn beer. You're fucking mad, man.

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

So you're saying when a cop pulls you over for speeding, that when they ask for your papers that it's illegal search? That's fucking retarded.

 

Again, we're not taking about fucking taxes or gun laws, we're talking about DWI checkpoints. There is nothing infringing here, big brother is not trying to take away your damn beer. You're fucking mad, man.

No, because they have cause to pull you over. They have no such cause at a checkpoint where they're pulling people over at random.

 

Again, precedents are dangerous as they get used in other, unrelated, matters.

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

So you're saying when a cop pulls you over for speeding, that when they ask for your papers that it's illegal search? That's fucking retarded

No, they have probable cause becuase they are actively observing you doing something illegal.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, TempestCatto said:

You don't get a tube shoved in your face, you get asked for papers and if you're acting weird or have beer on your breath, then you get tested.

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. 

Quote

In spite of the general rule, the Supreme Court has found that temporary DUI checkpoint stops (without reasonable suspicion) do not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of drivers. Basically, the Court said the importance of keeping impaired drivers off the road generally outweighs the inconvenience and intrusion to motorists. (Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).)

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.

 

[mr moose]

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.  

[Hellion]

I hate to side with google but all they are doing here is providing a platform to engage in freedom of speech and information.

 

As hard as the SJW's of the world try to encroach on everyone else's rights to prevent their precious vulnerable feelings from being hurt at all costs, you can't pick and choose what topics are and aren't allowed. You either allow everything or you don't. Otherwise it's a contradiction and violation of the charter.

 

Looks to me like the NYPD need to up their game or find other measures of apprehending impaired drivers.