"Criminal Conduct": NYPD Asks Google to Scrap Waze's DUI/DWI Checkpoints

[kirbyrj]

doesn't seem like they specified that they weren't going to accept low iq people did they?

Did you even read the article before posting it other than to cherry pick some random fact from it? They only accepted applicants that ranged from 20-27 on their scale. The average applicant scoring 21-22 which equated to an IQ of 104 which is in the average range. A low applicant of 20 still wouldn't fall into the below average range of IQ. And that's the point of the article...As long as they applied the range consistently, neither the high IQ nor the low IQ person could argue it was discrimination.

Not to mention you are implying that one department out of 18,000+ nationally is indicative of the other 17,999+ departments which is simply foolish.

 

[wizzi01]

Last year on Danish roads drug drivers caught passed the number of drunk drivers, as a former pothead i have know this factor existed for decades but it is only lately Danish police got the equipment to do preliminary drug testing on site ( conviction based on blood sample )

And BTW we have not legalized weed here, but it is being smoked in the xx tonnes.

I just hope people in any way favoring letting idiots roam our streets get loved ones killed or injured by one of those SOBs, so i will take the occasional stop ( for me about once every 5 years ) or checkpoint ( never run into one of those but they are also used here ) over idiots any day.

View attachment 140821

Last year on Danish roads drug drivers caught passed the number of drunk drivers, as a former pothead i have know this factor existed for decades but it is only lately Danish police got the equipment to do preliminary drug testing on site ( conviction based on blood sample )

And BTW we have not legalized weed here, but it is being smoked in the xx tonnes.

I just hope people in any way favoring letting idiots roam our streets get loved ones killed or injured by one of those SOBs, so i will take the occasional stop ( for me about once every 5 years ) or checkpoint ( never run into one of those but they are also used here ) over idiots any day.

View attachment 140821

Lol project much. Wishing people get killed because you think you are high and mighty for letting the police roll over you is crazy.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

Jeeez christ.

So they arrest you ON THEIR ASSUMPTION that you are impaired? On THEIR FUCKING ASSUMPTION? And you have to fight it back to get it reversed?

I would give our officers hell if that were the case hes. Yes, they can stop you at any given time, they don't even need a reason (driving or walking on the street), but for alcohol they will use a breathlyzer (that you can contest on the spot with a blood test if you don't agree with the breathlyzer, so they will take you to the hospital) and for drugs they will use a drug test (same as before, you can contest it on the spot with a blood test at the closest Hospital. They will even take you there, you are only required to pay for the test if it is positive, it only costs around USD200). Moreover, if they don't think that you are impaired even when being tested positive for alcohol or drugs you will have a lesser charge (as they recognise that drugs will test positive even after days of consumption). Also, you will not get arrested unless you harm somebody. Your car gets towed unless you can produce a friend or relative that can drive the car away (if you have an accident or hurt somebody yes, then they will arrest you, of course). Worse case, you get a citation and next working day have to go see a judge where he will take away your driving license for some time (between 6 and 24 months). After the time, you will have to do a course to get your license back. That is all.

Your system seems so fucking arbitrary it is scary. One the one hand they need a legitimate reason to stop you and ask you shit... on the other they can arrest you because they think that you are impaired.




What? If they do a DUI they test every fucking body?



Agreed, only a smart ass would assume that he is qualified to precisely determine drugs on people to the point of arresting them.

Yes, many parts of it are quite stupid and random, however these programs have been pushed by parent groups, like MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), anything in the US that gets the "if it saves only one child" mantra behind it, all common sense goes out the window, it is a truly frightening mindset, as they are willing to put ANY freedom on the chopping block for it.

One thing I am happy about is my state, they are not legal.

doesn't seem like they specified that they weren't going to accept low iq people did they?

Did you even read the article before posting it other than to cherry pick some random fact from it? They only accepted applicants that ranged from 20-27 on their scale. The average applicant scoring 21-22 which equated to an IQ of 104 which is in the average range. A low applicant of 20 still wouldn't fall into the below average range of IQ. And that's the point of the article...As long as they applied the range consistently, neither the high IQ nor the low IQ person could argue it was discrimination.

Not to mention you are implying that one department out of 18,000+ nationally is indicative of the other 17,999+ departments which is simply foolish.

Not to step on other peoples debate, but yall are looking at the wrong thing. Yes, most LEO and military are average IQ or lower, however read some psychology papers on the topic, it is really more about the mentality of the people that are attracted to these kind of jobs, many are not the kind of people you want in those positions of power. Just like the video I posted, they might come off as "low IQ" but really it's ignorance and a superiority complex, they are right and in control, IQ doesn't matter in a situation like that. Which might be even more frightening than the "low IQ" theory.

 

[Draax]

that's not a solution here in canada.

they can breath test you up to 2 hours when you get home or when you get to your destination.

get home and have a drink? busted.

that's fascism.

papers please.

I actually live in Canada and what I suggest is actually a solution, perhaps the only solution in your hypothetical situation.

In your hypothetical scenario the only way you would be “busted” would be if you drove, then arrived home and got drunk ... and for some unexplained reason police showed up to your house, by coincidence somehow I guess?

The change in laws would not result in people who have not driven somehow being charged with DUI.

 

[wizzi01]

I actually live in Canada and what I suggest is actually a solution, perhaps the only solution in your hypothetical situation.

In your hypothetical scenario the only way you would be “busted” would be if you drove, then arrived home and got drunk ... and for some unexplained reason police showed up to your house, by coincidence somehow I guess?

The change in laws would not result in people who have not driven somehow being charged with DUI.

Not yet anyways. They will just say someone saw you driving.

 

[Master_shake_]

I actually live in Canada and what I suggest is actually a solution, perhaps the only solution in your hypothetical situation.

In your hypothetical scenario the only way you would be “busted” would be if you drove, then arrived home and got drunk ... and for some unexplained reason police showed up to your house, by coincidence somehow I guess?

The change in laws would not result in people who have not driven somehow being charged with DUI.

they can breath test you at home after you got home any time. and if it was less than 2 hours after you drove you are fined and jailed.

fascism.

and you don't need to be drunk have 2 beers in less than 45 minutes.

 

[Draax]

I don’t know about you but the cops don’t just randomly show up to my house on the regular, or ever for that matter. I guess I just can’t envision a scenario in which I arrive home, have a few beers, and the cops show up to my house wanting to randomly give me a breath test.

I also don’t see the cops having some axe to grind with me so they get someone to lie and say I have just been driving so they can pin a DUI on me for some unknown reason.

 

[c3k]

It's not that it hasn't happened...it's that it's _allowed_ to happen.

 

[wizzi01]

I don’t know about you but the cops don’t just randomly show up to my house on the regular, or ever for that matter. I guess I just can’t envision a scenario in which I arrive home, have a few beers, and the cops show up to my house wanting to randomly give me a breath test.

I also don’t see the cops having some axe to grind with me so they get someone to lie and say I have just been driving so they can pin a DUI on me for some unknown reason.

Yet it happens to people. If you want to be blind that's cool. Just don't cry when you get pinched.

 

[Burticus]

I didn't even know Waze had a special classification for such a thing. I thought it was just a general "cops are here" button. Either way I don't see how it's illegal.

 

[mlcarson]

The video that BlueFireIce posted is scary as hell. I always wondered how they tested for drugs on DUI arrests since a breathalyzer won't show them. I never imagined that it's just based on the arresting officer's opinion and that you could get arrested and convicted of a DUI even if the tests came back negative. There really needs to be an objective test that you can take to at the very least prove your innocence but since when has that been the standard? Our system is based on the assumption of innocence and the concept of proving guilt.

If a blood tests shows you're positive for anything, is that really proof of guilt? Shouldn't there be a required measurement that would prove impairment as there is in alcohol? I'm the poor guy that would get arrested because he has dry eyes (so there's redness) and had taken a Benadryl within 24 hrs and ended up losing his license, job, and any chance at future employment because of the arrest.

 

[kirbyrj]

Yet it happens to people. If you want to be blind that's cool. Just don't cry when you get pinched.

It doesn't happen to people. What really happens is people are driving, see a cop and try to get home before the cop pulls them over. They get out of the car and try to run in their houses before the cop can get out of his car. Or they flee the scene of a crash leaving their car at the scene. I can guarantee you that a cop will not randomly pull up to your house and ask you to take a breath test without some other exigent circumstances almost certainly involving your car. If it did happen due to some rogue cop being a bad police officer, any evidence seized would be thrown out.

 

[umeng2002]

Actually, I believe the supreme court ruled that cops have to have signs warning of DUI checkpoints, and turning around cannot be used as an excuse to check you out, or give a public notice in a newspaper. So what is the difference between that and an "APP?"

The cops know very well WAZE and anyone else is within their rights to warn about DUI check points and other police activity, yet they still send that letter disguising a request as a demand.

 

[kirbyrj]

The video that BlueFireIce posted is scary as hell. I always wondered how they tested for drugs on DUI arrests since a breathalyzer won't show them. I never imagined that it's just based on the arresting officer's opinion and that you could get arrested and convicted of a DUI even if the tests came back negative. There really needs to be an objective test that you can take to at the very least prove your innocence but since when has that been the standard? Our system is based on the assumption of innocence and the concept of proving guilt.

If a blood tests shows you're positive for anything, is that really proof of guilt? Shouldn't there be a required measurement that would prove impairment as there is in alcohol? I'm the poor guy that would get arrested because he has dry eyes (so there's redness) and had taken a Benadryl within 24 hrs and ended up losing his license, job, and any chance at future employment because of the arrest.

First of all, there are several way police look for "visual indicators." One of which is your regular "Standardized Field Sobriety Tests" (walk and turn, one leg stand, etc.). ARIDE (Advanced Roadside Impairment Driving Enforcement) tests, which is what that video portrays is another. It's not the "opinion" of the officer so much as it is basic knowledge that certain types of drugs (depressants, narcotics, stimulants, etc.) cause different physical reactions in people. If you see certain involuntary physical reactions (such as the various eye movement in Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus tests), there is now sufficient evidence to request a blood draw.

If you refuse the blood draw, there is a chance you could be found guilty as there is no evidence for or against your taking drugs and it comes down to the testimony of the officer (not to mention most states will suspend your driver's license). If you take the blood draw, you can point to the fact that no substances were found in your system. If you have a clean blood draw, you will beat a DUI 99.999% of the time.

 

[c3k]

The presumption of innocence is missing...

Law officers, being "officers of the court" are somehow assumed to always have probity beyond reproach. I.e, officers never lie...or make mistakes.

This is how tyranny starts. Sounds like a good intention. If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear...comrade.

It just never ends well.

 

[Oldmodder]

Danish police like the popular waze like APP many use here, and in spite of many using it they still capture plenty of speeders, though when they deploy their mobile speed trap vans 9 out of 10 times it are in the regular spots where you can almost set your clock by them
They also always announce when they will be doing DIY checks ASO, just follow your local PD on that bird thing.

I have never gotten a speeding ticket, which by my insane driving in the 80 and 90ties are kind of a miracle, i was so bad i have even driven my car 10 - 12 M on 2 wheels ( clipping inside curb on a turn and so getting flipped up onto my left wheels )
And often driving 2 -3 miles in a suburban scene had me arriving at goal with severe brake fading due to overheating brake disks, brake disks i changed at least one time every year.
Just to make sure, i have never been in a accident or wrecked any of my cars, my first car i did but a dent in, but that was solely blamed on utter stupid dumb assery.

 

[wizzi01]

It doesn't happen to people. What really happens is people are driving, see a cop and try to get home before the cop pulls them over. They get out of the car and try to run in their houses before the cop can get out of his car. Or they flee the scene of a crash leaving their car at the scene. I can guarantee you that a cop will not randomly pull up to your house and ask you to take a breath test without some other exigent circumstances almost certainly involving your car. If it did happen due to some rogue cop being a bad police officer, any evidence seized would be thrown out.

Lol rogue cop theory again. Let me guess only one in a million is a bad cop, right? Things happen more than they should, but it's ok because it doesn't happen to you.

 

[kirbyrj]

Lol rogue cop theory again. Let me guess only one in a million is a bad cop, right? Things happen more than they should, but it's ok because it doesn't happen to you.

Actually I think it just shows how little comprehension you have of the criminal justice system in general.

 

[Creig]

The "screw the pigs" keyboard cowboys here are beyond hilarious. Don't want to get into trouble? Don't break the law. Simple.

Oh, and keep thinking that the police aren't intelligent. They love criminals who underestimate them. It makes their job SOOOO much easier.

 

[c3k]

The "screw the pigs" keyboard cowboys here are beyond hilarious. Don't want to get into trouble? Don't break the law. Simple.

Oh, and keep thinking that the police aren't intelligent. They love criminals who underestimate them. It makes their job SOOOO much easier.

There's a big difference between "screw the pigs" and giving up your rights. I've had several family members in law enforcement. It was the stories they told me about the actions of law enforcement officers that has solidified my belief that the presumption of innocence should NEVER be shed by any judiciary when taking up a prosecution. Abuse of power may not be commonplace, but it is not uncommon.

There are "bad apples". I hope, for your sake, you never run into one.

 

[Creig]

There's a big difference between "screw the pigs" and giving up your rights. I've had several family members in law enforcement. It was the stories they told me about the actions of law enforcement officers that has solidified my belief that the presumption of innocence should NEVER be shed by any judiciary when taking up a prosecution. Abuse of power may not be commonplace, but it is not uncommon.

There are "bad apples". I hope, for your sake, you never run into one.

I never said one word about "giving up your rights". If someone is truly innocent, then I hope the judicial system works as intended and they are ultimately exonerated. Over the years, I've run into "bad apples" who were individuals, business owners, elected officials, etc. It happens. And it sucks when it happens. But the overwhelming majority of police officers out there are honest.

 

[c3k]

Can a shopkeeper lock you up? Can he strip search you? Can he take your cash away (asset forfeiture)?

That is why there must be iron-clad guards against abuses. Because men are not angels, it should never be assumed that men will act as angels.

 

[Lizard Testes]

I drive better when I'm drunk.

 

[Creig]

Can a shopkeeper lock you up? Can he strip search you? Can he take your cash away (asset forfeiture)?

That is why there must be iron-clad guards against abuses. Because men are not angels, it should never be assumed that men will act as angels.

I've had two people that caused a collision with my vehicle lie directly to the police in order to try and place me at blame instead of them (one of them a rich old guy who owned multiple businesses). Luckily there was a witness to the one with the old guy who phoned the police and gave an eyewitness account. So yes. If this business owner had managed to convince the police that his story made more sense than mine, I could have been found at fault and had to pay.

 

[c3k]

I've had two people that caused a collision with my vehicle lie directly to the police in order to try and place me at blame instead of them (one of them a rich old guy who owned multiple businesses). Luckily there was a witness to the one with the old guy who phoned the police and gave an eyewitness account. So yes. If this business owner had managed to convince the police that his story made more sense than mine, I could have been found at fault and had to pay.

No. The liar could not lock you up and strip search you and seize your goods. He could, and did, LIE. But, he had no power of coercion over you.

When cops lie, the damage they do goes far beyond what anyone else can do.

Edited to add: I just saw this story: https://www.foxnews.com/us/body-cam...an-at-least-11-times-during-2017-traffic-stop

Now, I haven't watched the video. (I think body-cams and dash-cams should be mandatory for EVERY court appearance. It protects the police officer and the accused.) I have no idea if this particular tasing was justified or not. But, they pulled a PASSENGER out of a PARKED car because he refused to show his driver's license.

"Papers, please!"

 

[wizzi01]

The "screw the pigs" keyboard cowboys here are beyond hilarious. Don't want to get into trouble? Don't break the law. Simple.

Oh, and keep thinking that the police aren't intelligent. They love criminals who underestimate them. It makes their job SOOOO much easier.

Hmm, wonder why it says you quoted me. Anyways, I actually support police. Hell, I grew up around them. My best friend's mom and his two brothers are DPD. It doesn't mean I won't speak up against cops doing dirty or violating rights.

They just found evidence in a retired homicide detective's home he was evicted from. I wonder if any of that evidence could have proved someone's innocence. We will have to wait and see.

https://www.wxyz.com/news/region/wa...lice-homicide-detectives-home-during-eviction

Oh yeah, don't forget to use your turn signal as they will medically check your rectum.

 

[Creig]

No. The liar could not lock you up and strip search you and seize your goods. He could, and did, LIE. But, he had no power of coercion over you.

When cops lie, the damage they do goes far beyond what anyone else can do.

And what do you think happens to someone falsely accused of rape? Or murder? If he's convicted, he gets locked up, strip searched and has his goods seized.

EVERYBODY has the potential to completely destroy someone else's life with a lie. Not just the police.

 

[c3k]

And what do you think happens to someone falsely accused of rape? Or murder? If he's convicted, he gets locked up, strip searched and has his goods seized.

EVERYBODY has the potential to completely destroy someone else's life with a lie. Not just the police.

No. A shopkeeper is not allowed to restrain you, threaten you with pain/torture/death if you do not comply, strip search you, lock you in a cage, or take you away. Now, that may happen...but that's one messed up shopkeeper who will (hopefully) be arrested -> by the very police I think do a good service.

You keep trying to equate normal citizens with police. The police are given broad, sweeping powers over the citizenry, and afforded gross protections even when they overstep their bounds.

My comment about pain/torture/death when you are restrained: are you allowed to put an armlock on a shopkeeper if you think he's lying about being out of beans? Police can do that when the "arrest" you. Grounds for arrest? Anything they want. I was detained for not wearing a seatbelt. I was. I always have. The state trooper lied. He pulled me over...because he could. Maybe he thought I was someone else. Shrug.

My son was gang-tackled, at 17, by 6 state troopers. (He flipped them the bird after he was released at a check point. No, I did not raise him to be disrespectful.) So, there they are, gang-tackling him. My other son filmed it. The one trooper kept yelling, "Stop resisting!". There was no resistance when 6 guys have you pinned, spread-eagle, on the asphalt. My other son's phone was taken and the film deleted. The charge for the first one was, as you guessed, resisting arrest. Nice lie. Now there's a record on file against him. Can a shopkeeper's lie do that?

Now, no-one likes having the bird flipped at them, but this was clearly an abuse of power. This type of action ("we're the toughest gang on the block") is typical. My beer-drinking, poker-playing, paintball in the woods buddies are all cops.

Back to pain/torture/death: Armlocks, pressure points, etc, to force "compliance" are standard. So is taser use. If I handcuffed you and then tasered you, would you not think that torture? And, of course, death. Police are given latitude to shoot first and ask questions later. "I thought he was reaching for a gun."

It'd be interesting if I had the same standards applied to my behavior.

So, when police lie, it is FAR different than when someone else lies, like Blasey Ford.

 

[Creig]

My comment about pain/torture/death when you are restrained: are you allowed to put an armlock on a shopkeeper if you think he's lying about being out of beans? Police can do that when the "arrest" you. Grounds for arrest? Anything they want. I was detained for not wearing a seatbelt. I was. I always have. The state trooper lied. He pulled me over...because he could. Maybe he thought I was someone else. Shrug.

My son was gang-tackled, at 17, by 6 state troopers. (He flipped them the bird after he was released at a check point. No, I did not raise him to be disrespectful.) So, there they are, gang-tackling him. My other son filmed it. The one trooper kept yelling, "Stop resisting!". There was no resistance when 6 guys have you pinned, spread-eagle, on the asphalt. My other son's phone was taken and the film deleted. The charge for the first one was, as you guessed, resisting arrest. Nice lie. Now there's a record on file against him. Can a shopkeeper's lie do that?

We don't know the whole story here, only your side.

Now, no-one likes having the bird flipped at them, but this was clearly an abuse of power. This type of action ("we're the toughest gang on the block") is typical.

No, it isn't typical. At least it isn't in most of the country. Maybe you live in an area where the police are constantly in danger of their lives on a daily basis. I try to steer clear of places like that. And if I did need to visit such an area, I would be VERY careful not to provoke law enforcement officials.

Back to pain/torture/death: Armlocks, pressure points, etc, to force "compliance" are standard. So is taser use. If I handcuffed you and then tasered you, would you not think that torture? And, of course, death. Police are given latitude to shoot first and ask questions later. "I thought he was reaching for a gun."

Again, those kinds of scenarios are highly non-typical. I am in much greater danger of being shot by a member of the public trying to rob me than I am by the police. Even though I live in a pretty relaxed area, the times I have been pulled over I rolled down my window and kept both hands on the steering wheel while the officer approached. I maintained eye contact and followed his/her directions. And not once was I tasered, handcuffed, tortured or killed.

 

[Guarana [BAWLS]]

The "screw the pigs" keyboard cowboys here are beyond hilarious. Don't want to get into trouble? Don't break the law. Simple.

So the video where multiple people who weren't on drugs or alcohol, and passed blood tests were put in jail for DUI and spent months and thousands of dollars fighting to clear their record werre breaking the law somewhere?

 

[Deleted member 184142]

So the video where multiple people who weren't on drugs or alcohol, and passed blood tests were put in jail for DUI and spent months and thousands of dollars fighting to clear their record werre breaking the law somewhere?

Some people can only hold one view, you have to be extreme for or extreme against something, you are not allowed to support the general idea (LEO's) and call out it's issues for improvement (corrupt, bad training, bad programs) at the same time for some reason.

 

[FrgMstr]

Get back on topic or this thread will be closed.