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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

When they block off a major road to get you breathalyzed and don't have enough cops for the amount of cars passing through (which is often the case), it can mean a 30+ minute delay.
 
kirbyrj said:
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.
Click to expand...
Still pretty messed up to give up rights for privileges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: c3k
like this
BlueFireIce said:
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.

Click to expand...


Typical LOW IQ police officer who isn't qualified to do much else given a class and thinks he's a drug sniffing dog visually lol.
 
Nolan7689 said:
Still pretty messed up to give up rights for privileges.
Click to expand...

You are welcome to refuse to get a driver's license and use public transportation in order to maintain your rights.

This really isn't even the biggest government scam. Property taxes are. You have to pay the government rent to "own" your property and if you don't they take it from you.
 
TonyZ said:
Typical LOW IQ police officer who isn't qualified to do much else given a class and thinks he's a drug sniffing dog visually lol.
Click to expand...

"Typical Low IQ"? Sounds like a prejudicial statement invalidating whatever point you were trying to make.
 
Gorankar said:
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.
Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from but you are making assumptions about motivations. Most police I know are concerned about safety vs promotion and numbers. Around here, quotas are illegal also.
 
kirbyrj said:
You are welcome to refuse to get a driver's license and use public transportation in order to maintain your rights.

This really isn't even the biggest government scam. Property taxes are. You have to pay the government rent to "own" your property and if you don't they take it from you.
Click to expand...
Yeah, poverty sounds great. We all know that public transit is a joke in 99% of this country. It’s easier to just illegally drive.
 
Nolan7689 said:
Yeah, poverty sounds great. We all know that public transit is a joke in 99% of this country. It’s easier to just illegally drive.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the alternative was great I just said there was an alternative ;).
 
kirbyrj said:
I understand where you are coming from but you are making assumptions about motivations. Most police I know are concerned about safety vs promotion and numbers. Around here, quotas are illegal also.
Click to expand...

Quotas are illegal, but if raises and promotions are based on arrest, conviction, or revenue generation, those performance criteria become de facto quotas. Making the assumption that something being done that results in personal gain was motivated, at least in part, by personal gain, is something I consider reasonable. I am glad most of the police you know, (only most?), are seemingly above that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: c3k
like this
masquap said:
It’s weird to me that so many here are for (directly or indirectly) having more drink drivers on the road.
Click to expand...

because people here arent fanatics for removing every conceivable danger in life by any means possible or effect on existing freedoms. the ends dont justify the means.

would you support public flogging of drunk drivers? No? why are you directly or indirectly supporting drunk driving and dead kids? HUH???
 
Gorankar said:
Quotas are illegal, but if a raises and promotions are based on certain performance criteria, they become de facto quotas. Making the assumption that something being done that results in personal gain was motivated, at least in part, by personal gain, I consider it a reasonable assumption. I am glad most of the police you know, (only most?), are seemingly above that.
Click to expand...

Well as an example, one guy I know had a friend killed by a drunk driver so he likes to make DUI arrests. I guess it depends on the individual promotion policies of each department. I know a lot of departments just have a test and interviews.
 
purple_monster said:
because people here arent fanatics for removing every conceivable danger in life by any means possible or effect on existing freedoms. the ends dont justify the means.

would you support public flogging of drunk drivers? No? why are you directly or indirectly supporting drunk driving and dead kids? HUH???
Click to expand...

You know 20 years ago a lot of times people just got a ride home and a traffic ticket. Then mothers against drunk driving got involved and turned it into a shitshow.
 
Did these cops miss that back in the day they would print the DUI checkpoints both in the paper and announce it on the radio?

Quite a few people here did.
 
kirbyrj said:
How about you look it up and give me a concrete example preferably one that has been peer-reviewed.
Click to expand...

Proof is in the pudding and most of the morons employed by PD's cant even state statutes or ones they think they are enforcing when stopping law abiding citizens.
 
My problem with DUI "checkpoints" is they tie up however many cops that could be out actively doing something else instead of stopping everyone in the hopes of finding a drunk.

Let's not fool ourselves, this is really just a money grab. This will also get worse because as people get better (at not driving drunk, et al.) they move onto making it easier to be charged by lowering BAC levels. This is similar to the fact that e-cigarettes weren't illegal for minors. Ok kind of an oversight, but whatever. The problem being that this cut into the municipality anticipated funding because so many kids stopped trying to buy cigarettes. You couldn't bust the kids for smoking an e-cigarette (and fine them) because it wasn't illegal. You couldn't bust the merchant who was no longer selling cigarettes to minors, and that was massive fine money for the municipality. You couldn't bust the e-cigarette retailer so there was no possible fine money. Many municipalities are instituting (or already did institute) major fines for e-cigarettes (kids/merchant sales) to make up for that lost revenue.

Just you wait. Sooner or later the BAC will be .04 nationwide with calls for it to be lower. Anyone who opposes it will be labeled a supporter of driving drunk. The temperance organization MADD will ostensibly question it, but ultimately will support it even if only indirectly so nobody can outright call them a temperance group. Add in more jurisdictions seizing cars at lower and lower BAC levels, et al.
 
TonyZ said:
Proof is in the pudding and most of the morons employed by PD's cant even state statutes or ones they think they are enforcing when stopping law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

So outside of some YouTube video you saw once which you are now extrapolating to every police officer you have nothing... Got it.
 
I mean it won't really work because if everybody has Waze open on their phone it's going to report a traffic jam on that section of the road where the DUI checkpoints are and it will give you an option to go around it any way (people will report it as DUI or just a police sighted report)

Same thing happens on France as its illegal to have speed cam precise reporting but nothing stopping you from manually reporting it as police report on Waze or tomtom
 
Krazy925 said:
Did these cops miss that back in the day they would print the DUI checkpoints both in the paper and announce it on the radio?

Quite a few people here did.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm wondering about. I don't know about other states (I thought it was a nationwide law) but in Missouri all DUI checkpoints had to be advertised and announced in advance. That included location and time. If that's the case, there is literally no way that reports of a DUI checkpoint on a driving app could be even remotely illegal.

By the way, DUI checkpoints aren't about DUIs. They're about everything but DUIs. The cops are there looking for any type of infraction they can spot in order to ticket people for revenue with the chance of picking up the occasional person with a warrant or the very rare DUI. There would occasionally be reports of DUI checkpoints after the fact locally with stats on what the cops found. The stats indicated it was almost completely and totally about citations regarding revenue generation with the occasional arrest for outstanding warrant and the rare actual DUI. I don't regularly watch the news at all but I don't think they've done one of those reports in years simply because the for something called a DUI checkpoint they weren't getting very many DUIs out of it and people were catching on.
 
BlueFireIce said:
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.

Click to expand...


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.


Tsumi said:
When they block off a major road to get you breathalyzed and don't have enough cops for the amount of cars passing through (which is often the case), it can mean a 30+ minute delay.
Click to expand...

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

TonyZ said:
Typical LOW IQ police officer who isn't qualified to do much else given a class and thinks he's a drug sniffing dog visually lol.
Click to expand...

Agreed, only a smart ass would assume that he is qualified to precisely determine drugs on people to the point of arresting them.
 
prava said:
What? If they do a DUI they test every fucking body?
Click to expand...

In my experience, if there is a checkpoint, everyone has to stop and get breathalyzed. In addition to that, they will check your drivers license, insurance, and registration to make sure everything is up to date.
 
Tsumi said:
In my experience, if there is a checkpoint, everyone has to stop and get breathalyzed. In addition to that, they will check your drivers license, insurance, and registration to make sure everything is up to date.
Click to expand...

No wonder traffic flow goes to the dumpster.

Here they look at you, your car and occupants, and if you look suspicious you will be pulled over. They do it in places where they can have cars being stopped without affecting too much the general traffic. Insurance and registration they can check digitally, so plenty of times won't even ask for that.
 
Used to be .10 BAC was the limit. Yeah... you shouldn't be driving at .10.

Then, MADD ("what about the children?") got on a campaign to drop it to .08 BAC. Most folks went along. I mean, this is [H]: we all know that .08 is just 20% less than .10, right?

Wrong. It takes about 1/2 the drinks in the same time to get a BAC of .08 vs .10. It is non-linear.

Now, I don't want anyone drunk (stoned, high, or otherwise impaired) to be driving. But the .08 moved the line from "definitely trashed" to "well, might be".

Canada's .05 and 2-hour AFTER shutting down the car is...insane. Too bad for Labatt's and Molsen.

Meantime, we have people who are incompetent drivers, hang in blindspots, read, text, apply makeup, eat their burgers, etc...
 
Whoever the NYPD has for legal advice needs to be fired ASAP. This has already be adjudicated and found legal.

Here in OK, DUI checkpoints are advertised in advance with general times and locations given. Even with that, they always snag several drunk drivers, a bunch of uninsured drivers, several with expired/suspended/or never had license, and a few with outstanding warrants.
 
c3k said:
Used to be .10 BAC was the limit. Yeah... you shouldn't be driving at .10.

Then, MADD ("what about the children?") got on a campaign to drop it to .08 BAC. Most folks went along. I mean, this is [H]: we all know that .08 is just 20% less than .10, right?

Wrong. It takes about 1/2 the drinks in the same time to get a BAC of .08 vs .10. It is non-linear.

Now, I don't want anyone drunk (stoned, high, or otherwise impaired) to be driving. But the .08 moved the line from "definitely trashed" to "well, might be".

Canada's .05 and 2-hour AFTER shutting down the car is...insane. Too bad for Labatt's and Molsen.

Meantime, we have people who are incompetent drivers, hang in blindspots, read, text, apply makeup, eat their burgers, etc...
Click to expand...
There is an easy solution here. If you are going to drink any amount of alcohol don’t drive.
 
Draax said:
There is an easy solution here. If you are going to drink any amount of alcohol don’t drive.
Click to expand...

...and, since any amount of alcohol can lead to criminal behavior, then we should ban the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol.

Oh, wait: that was tried.
 
c3k said:
...and, since any amount of alcohol can lead to criminal behavior, then we should ban the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol.

Oh, wait: that was tried.
Click to expand...
What are you on about? I said nothing about the production, sale, or consumption being banned. It’s real .... real easy. If you are going to drink any amount don’t drive. If you can afford to drink you can afford a cab.
 
c3k said:
A cab? Oh, you're talking about city living.

For a second, I thought you were talking about the REST of the country.
Click to expand...

No need to be obtuse. Take your turn as a designated driver then. The point is pretty clear that there can be severe penalties for drinking and driving. Regardless of how you get home, wherever you happen to be drinking, even if you completely disagree with all forms of drunk driving enforcement, if you want to avoid the potential consequences, then don't drink and drive.
 
Master_shake_ said:
6 of one half dozen of the other.
Click to expand...

Not at all really...

A "Low IQ" is below 89. According to the article you posted, the "average" person they were looking for was 102 which is in the "Average IQ" range. A "high IQ" is above 111. So by definition, it is closer to being a high IQ score than a low IQ score based on the article that YOU posted. Average IQ seems like a much more appropriate term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Creig
like this
kirbyrj said:
Not at all really...

A "Low IQ" is below 89. According to the article you posted, the "average" person they were looking for was 102 which is in the "Average IQ" range. A "high IQ" is above 111. So by definition, it is closer to being a high IQ score than a low IQ score based on the article that YOU posted. Average IQ seems like a much more appropriate term.
Click to expand...

doesn't seem like they specified that they weren't going to accept low iq people did they?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top