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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
Google-owned GPS navigation app Waze allows suspicious drivers to mark and expose the location of police DUI/DWI checkpoints on a map, but the feature has ticked the NYPD off, prompting the agency to send a cease-and-desist to the search giant demanding it axe the feature. Big Apple police are warning users of “engaging in criminal conduct since such actions could be intentional attempts to prevent and/or impair the administration of the DWI laws and other relevant criminal and traffic laws.”

“The posting of such information for public consumption is irresponsible since it only serves to aid impaired and intoxicated drivers to evade checkpoints and encourage reckless driving. Revealing the location of checkpoints puts those drivers, their passengers, and the general public at risk.” Mothers Against Drunk Driving chief Helen Witty told The New York Times, though, that sobriety checkpoints are typically publicized in advance of the roadblock, but they still serve their purpose. Drunk drivers that go through checkpoints might be too confused to be aware of what's happening anyway -- they are intoxicated, after all.
 
Yeaaah not a chance. It’s not criminal at all unless they can prove you assisted in an impaired driver in subverting the checkpoint. Otherwise it’s as simple as just wanting to take the fastest route, ie the one without extra stops imposed by police checkpoints.

Not like anyone is impeding an active investigation.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'm surprised this didn't happen years ago.

That said, this is a freedom of speech issue, and I don't think they have any standing with which to make these demands.
Click to expand...
No, they don't but it never hurts for them to try and protect that revenue stream. As long as the NYPD do not try to go any further with it than just this statement, it's fine. It is not a crime, and then trying to make it out to be one would just get it slapped down sooner rather than later in the courts.
 
Gorankar said:
No, they don't but it never hurts for them to try and protect that revenue stream. As long as the NYPD do not try to go any further with it than just this statement, it's fine. It is not a crime, and then trying to make it out to be one would just get it slapped down sooner rather than later in the courts.
Click to expand...

Agreed.


Don't get me wrong. Those who drive drunk deserve everything that's coming to them if they get caught, but you can't violate the freedom of speech of others in the process of trying to catch them.
 
Shikami said:
I do want responsible drivers, but isn't a sobriety check technically illegal? Also, it has been proven that there are issues with the firmware of the breathalyzers giving incorrect/false positives. Well, at lest I do not have to deal with Canada's new law: https://www.google.com/search?q=new...1.69i57j0l5.5732j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Click to expand...

They are legal.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/496/444.html
Though there are rules in how they are conducted to prevent violations of the 4A.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
What's your thought process there? Do you mean that they need to have reasonable suspicion and can't just require every single car to do a breathalyzer?
Click to expand...

Gorankar said:
They are legal.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/496/444.html
Though there are rules in how they are conducted to prevent violations of the 4A.
Click to expand...

Figures that case law comes from Michigan. Where refusal to blow comes with an automatic suspension of your license among other things.

I’ve wondered lately though, how is refusing to blow into a breathalyzer not protected by the 5th amendment? The right to not self incriminate, not much of a right if you face repercussions for enacting it.
 
Nolan7689 said:
Figures that case law comes from Michigan. Where refusal to blow comes with an automatic suspension of your license among other things.

I’ve wondered lately though, how is refusing to blow into a breathalyzer not protected by the 5th amendment? The right to not self incriminate, not much of a right if you face repercussions for enacting it.
Click to expand...


The law is the same here in Mass. Refuse to blow if requested, and that's an automatic suspension.

I think the rationale behind it is that the permission to operate a vehicle, granted by the state by issuing a drivers license is legally defined as privilege, not a right, and as such the state reserves the right to remove it from anyone for any reason without legal justification. I don't like it, but that's how they frame it in bold font in the drivers manual here.

Another one that drives me batty is that for the purpose of tickets, both parking and traffic violations you are presumed guilty. It is absolutely nuts. It is up to you to prove your innocence if you challenge them, not the other way around.
 
or better yet NYPD, why don't you just ask (would be) criminals to turn themselves in and make it easier for everybody involved? you don't have to setup a checkpoint, they don't have to drive thru it. saves everyone the hassle of the lines and time wasted. /s

I like this notification of other wazers helping me out. especially during holidays. lets me know to take a different route to avoid getting stuck.
 
engaging in criminal conduct since such actions could be intentional attempts to prevent and/or impair the administration of the DWI laws and other relevant criminal and traffic laws."
Click to expand...

Lol. Good luck getting that one to stick.

If I put up a sign that says "cop is here --->" it's a public message and completely different than if I tell my buddy who just robbed a bank (and I'm aware that he did) not to go down X street because there's a cop there.
 
Shikami said:
I do want responsible drivers, but isn't a sobriety check technically illegal? Also, it has been proven that there are issues with the firmware of the breathalyzers giving incorrect/false positives. Well, at lest I do not have to deal with Canada's new law: https://www.google.com/search?q=new...1.69i57j0l5.5732j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Click to expand...

Gorankar said:
They are legal.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/496/444.html
Though there are rules in how they are conducted to prevent violations of the 4A.
Click to expand...

Depends on the state. It's not a super easy issue but from a legal opinion they are not....But so are many other things the government does, laws can also change. But as it stands now, they are not legal in I think about 12 states. Most field checks are also a joke, and training is based on visual assessment in many if not most cases which has been shown to have a very high error rate, many of the cases that made it to court involved blood tests after the field checks and arrests, but blood tests showed clear. LEO who are trained for this are honestly brain washed, as they think they are the be all, end all of test, a number of them even stated in court that the blood tests were wrong and they were right.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Depends on the state. It's not a super easy issue but from a legal opinion they are not....But so are many other things the government does, laws can also change. But as it stands now, they are not legal in I think about 12 states. Most field checks are also a joke, and training is based on visual assessment in many if not most cases which has been shown to have a very high error rate, many of the cases that made it to court involved blood tests after the field checks and arrests, but blood tests showed clear. LEO who are trained for this are honestly brain washed, as they think they are the be all, end all of test, a number of them even stated in court that the blood tests were wrong and they were right.
Click to expand...

Yes, some states do not allow them, and the state appeals court in MI actually ruled against the state in regards to them, but the Scotus overturned them, and their opinion is that they are constitutional.

I am not saying I am for them, merely that there is case law saying they are constitutional. I think a first time DWI offense should include a minimum of 90 days in jail, and a 5 year suspension. Of course I believe the same about people caught texting while driving, so take it for what it is..
 
Oh well you guys would freak out over here lol, I know of a street where a photo rader can be anywhere within kms and reporting a speed trap on waze never works, need to report hidden police otherwise it's ignored.
Also, in Canada, police can now ask for DUI test whenever they want...

I really do not like where this is going...
 
Waze has steadily started working poorly as an app since Google took over.

Back to the article, there are plenty of online resources to see where checkpoints will be, that even if the NYPD is successful in shutting this feature down (I highly doubt it), it won't make a difference.
 
potency said:
Waze has steadily started working poorly as an app since Google took over.

Back to the article, there are plenty of online resources to see where checkpoints will be, that even if the NYPD is successful in shutting this feature down (I highly doubt it), it won't make a difference.
Click to expand...

Police should simply report multiple dummies operations. That should scare a lot of people too.
What is their end goal ? Reduce drunk driver or catch drunk driver ? (What do you think?)
 
MMitch said:
Also, in Canada, police can now ask for DUI test whenever they want...
Click to expand...


Like, anywhere. Like... If they knew you were driving up to 120m ago... They can breathalyze you in your own home. For any reason, at any stop. Etc. Crack two beers with dinner after driving for groceries 90m ago? Bam. DUI. Especially with the 0.05 limit.

It's absolutely insane. It's getting worse than California up here.
 
MMitch said:
Police should simply report multiple dummies operations. That should scare a lot of people too.
What is their end goal ? Reduce drunk driver or catch drunk driver ? (What do you think?)
Click to expand...

I would think their goal is to reduce drunk driving as much as possible by any reasonable means. However, DUI offenses bring in a whole lot of revenue IJS.
 
Glad i don't have that evil cop problem, actually aside for them being under staffed here and so have to prioritize a lot and that's not really their fault, then i like cops, even did when i was a criminal drug / weapon peddling leech punk.





Many Americans ask for cameras / dashcams to document these evil police officers. i don't get that though i am as freedom loving as any American, actually my like for freedom was what stopped my criminal career back in the day, before someone else ended if for me in a unpleasant ( and for me deadly ) way
 
Nolan7689 said:
I’ve wondered lately though, how is refusing to blow into a breathalyzer not protected by the 5th amendment? The right to not self incriminate, not much of a right if you face repercussions for enacting it.
Click to expand...

It's a civil penalty for not blowing. Basically, there is "implied consent" to have a driver's license and if you refuse, your license will be suspended. Driving is a privilege not a right.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Depends on the state. It's not a super easy issue but from a legal opinion they are not....But so are many other things the government does, laws can also change. But as it stands now, they are not legal in I think about 12 states. Most field checks are also a joke, and training is based on visual assessment in many if not most cases which has been shown to have a very high error rate, many of the cases that made it to court involved blood tests after the field checks and arrests, but blood tests showed clear. LEO who are trained for this are honestly brain washed, as they think they are the be all, end all of test, a number of them even stated in court that the blood tests were wrong and they were right.
Click to expand...

what? Police have to judge your impairment by visual assessment?! How does that work?

MMitch said:
Oh well you guys would freak out over here lol, I know of a street where a photo rader can be anywhere within kms and reporting a speed trap on waze never works, need to report hidden police otherwise it's ignored.
Also, in Canada, police can now ask for DUI test whenever they want...

I really do not like where this is going...
Click to expand...

Same here, you can be asked to take the breathlyzer at any give time. Just as they can demand your ID at any time, anywhere.

On the other hand, a police won't shoot you unless you are actively trying to kill him and have the means to do so. Not "potential" means. Actual means.


Arcygenical said:
Like, anywhere. Like... If they knew you were driving up to 120m ago... They can breathalyze you in your own home. For any reason, at any stop. Etc. Crack two beers with dinner after driving for groceries 90m ago? Bam. DUI. Especially with the 0.05 limit.

It's absolutely insane. It's getting worse than California up here.
Click to expand...

WHAT?! Are you telling me that you go to the pub, have some beers, take the gamble to drive home... and then, once the car is parked and all, you can be asked to take the DUI up to 2 HOURS after that?!?!?!?!??!?! If that ain't bullshit I don't know what is. Jeeez. And the 0.05 limit... we talking miligrams per liter of air?
 
umeng2002 said:
More idiot cops not knowing/ caring about the law.
Click to expand...
When are you guys going to get it? If you don't like the laws, work to have them changed. The cops don't make the laws, and they don't get to choose where the checkpoints are. Everything is set in motion by your politicians, NOT the cops.

That said, I find DWI checkpoints to be not just useless (as anyone can take back roads to avoid them, and I have at times) but more to the point, they do nothing to help. Those cops should be on patrol ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR DRUNKS. There are plenty of people who drink who can still drive very well (and yes, I know someone like that, he was my boss at one time, and yes, I'd trust him to drive me home if I couldn't drive for some reason). And there are others who are sober and yet drive terribly.
 
Last edited:
nightfly said:
When are you guys going to get it? If you don't like the laws, work to have them changed. The cops don't make the laws, and they don't get to choose where the checkpoints are. Everything is set in motion by your politicians, NOT the cops.
Click to expand...

I'd say additionally that cops don't get paid extra to make more arrests. The only ones that benefits from additional revenue are the state and local legislators and guess what...they write the laws then tell the police to go enforce them.
 
It’s weird to me that so many here are for (directly or indirectly) having more drink drivers on the road. Over here you can and will be breathalysed at any time (including any crashes where police attend) and if you’re over the 0.05 limit you’re given 15 minutes before a retest, fail again and you’re down to the station for a blood test (to avoid inaccuracies in handheld units). Refuse either test and you lose your licence on the spot (for two years I think). I’ve been breath tested maybe 8 times in my 20 odd years of driving, it takes 2 minutes of your time and you’re on the way assuming you’ve not been over drinking. We don’t have an issue with being shot by police though, so that may factor in to people’s desire to interact with them?
 
I can kind of see suspension of license for refusal to blow - there's nothing at all that guarantees your right to drive. Your driver's license is a privilege granted by the state (as much as it irks me to type that, as paying the taxes that builds all those roads isn't a privilege at all).

What I couldn't see, would be automatic lockup/jail for refusal to blow. That should be protected by 5A.
 
kirbyrj said:
I'd say additionally that cops don't get paid extra to make more arrests. The only ones that benefits from additional revenue are the state and local legislators and guess what...they write the laws then tell the police to go enforce them.
Click to expand...
Quotas are a thing. Yes, yes, supposedly they don't exist, and in some department actually don't. However a LEO, like as not, is going to be rated based on arrests, convictions, and revenue generation. Who gets that raise, that promotion? Why do you think civil forfeiture has become such a problem? LEO's are people too. Give people the power to make things better for themselves, and people generally do go ahead and make things better for themselves.

masquap said:
It’s weird to me that so many here are for (directly or indirectly) having more drink drivers on the road. Over here you can and will be breathalysed at any time (including any crashes where police attend) and if you’re over the 0.05 limit you’re given 15 minutes before a retest, fail again and you’re down to the station for a blood test (to avoid inaccuracies in handheld units). Refuse either test and you lose your licence on the spot (for two years I think). I’ve been breath tested maybe 8 times in my 20 odd years of driving, it takes 2 minutes of your time and you’re on the way assuming you’ve not been over drinking. We don’t have an issue with being shot by police though, so that may factor in to people’s desire to interact with them?
Click to expand...

Not for it directly or indirectly. We are not "over there" and we don't really want to be. We prefer to try and err on the side of freedom. So breathalyzers on demand anywhere at anytime, and anything the state does to interfere in our day to day without probable cause, is a bit much for most of us here in the US.
 
Last edited:
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.

357350_600_980_0_134_3789_2368_2.jpg
 
Oldmodder said:
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.
Click to expand...
And the drunks will still be on the road. All it takes is having a GPS and driving the back and side roads, because no one's going to set up DWI checkpoints on seldom used roads, as they won't catch enough drunks to pay for the staffing of those checkpoints.
Eliminate the checkpoints, and people will take the roads that they always do, and not only will they pick up intoxicated drivers, they will find the jerks who are driving recklessly for other reasons, as well. It puts the cops back where they belong, patrolling the streets. NOT sitting on one spot, waiting for someone to break the law right in front of them.
 
prava said:
what? Police have to judge your impairment by visual assessment?! How does that work?
Click to expand...

They call them "visual indicators". And that is ALL they need for an arrest, this is used country wide. They claim that the visual assessment can detect impairment that blood tests can't....Yes, they drink their own koolaid. There has been lots of coverage for these "DUI task forces", but they just get rammed through anyway because "think of the kids!" mantra.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top