SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the where-there's-a-will-there's-a...waze dept.
NYPD asks Google to scrap Waze's DUI checkpoints
The NYPD has sent Google a cease-and-desist letter, asking it to axe a Waze feature that allows users to mark cops' locations on the navigation app. Based on the letter first seen by Streetsblog NYC and CBS New York, authorities believe the feature is making it harder to enforce the law and keep the roads safe. The NYPD sent the cease-and-desist just a couple of weeks after Waze debuted speed camera notifications, but the cops' letter mostly focused on the fact that the ability allows users to give each other a heads-up about sobriety checkpoints.
[...] [Based] on the statement it provided to NYT, [Google] doesn't have any intention to give in to the NYPD's demand. It told the publication that safety is a top priority for the company and that "informing drivers about upcoming speed traps allows them to be more careful and make safer decisions when they're on the road."
Also at Gizmodo.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday February 08 2019, @03:05PM (6 children)
That's not quite true. The Supreme Court in the U.S. has carved out a few somewhat narrow exceptions for cursory searches. A checkpoint merely has an officer stopping and asking a few questions -- generally, it's only if they smell alcohol or have other reason to believe you're drunk that you are then asked to pull off and take a test for drunkenness. That is -- the "probable cause" is not in driving, as merely stopping you is not considered a "search." The probable cause to do the actual search comes from evidence they spot (supposedly) to then search/test you. (Also, note even in that case that they don't generally have cause to do more than test you for drunkenness -- if they want to search your car, etc., they need specific probable cause to do so. I believe in many cases, police are basically barred from other law enforcement activity that's not DUI-related during such searches -- and if they aren't, they should be.)
Note that I'm not defending this legal reasoning, just noting how it usually works.
I will, however, defend the general concept of DUI checkpoints, assuming they have significant oversight. (By which I mean checkpoints only set up in known areas with high risks of drunk driving and/or on holidays where it is common, required body cams for cops, detailed audit records of who cops flag for testing, as well as stats on how many "false positives" they flag -- if a cop flags too many false positives, they should be retrained or permanently removed from DUI testing, etc.)
The reason I'm somewhat in favor of DUI testing is because the risks of driving are significant. Accidental death in vehicle accidents is one of the top causes of death and serious injury in young people and children. Driving or riding in a car is the single most dangerous activity most people participate in on a regular basis.
A core principle of libertarianism is that you should have all the rights in the world, but only up to the point that your rights begin to infringe significantly on the rights of others. You have no right to put some other person in significant danger of death or serious injury. Given that cars are essentially giant multi-ton projectiles if their driver is incapacitated, you are recklessly endangering others if you choose to drive while intoxicated.
Given the greater danger and risks to others posed by driving compared to other activities, I think it's reasonable for the government to intervene to try to curb such a danger to the public. With sufficient cause and limited circumstances (as I mentioned above), with reasonable checks that probable cause is respected, this is one of the few cases where I'm mildly in favor of such government invasions. Unless you have another way to curb drunk driving that is as effective....
(And note that this really is an unusual stance for me: I think the TSA is an abomination against Fourth Amendment rights, I think random invasion of privacy and warrantless searches are a serious problem in the U.S. But if the police have reasonable evidence to believe that a significant number of drivers in an area may have been drinking, I'm not necessarily going to condemn all DUI checkpoints... particularly if police are ONLY allowed to check for DUI there.)
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday February 08 2019, @04:27PM
All of that may have been true, before the whole protection racket that's called the "Patriot Act". That sucker pretty much gave the police carte blanche. Unless I've been asleep and the "Patriot Act" has been repealed/not renewed. It should really be called the "We're afraid of the terrorists, so please search everyone, if you feel like it. Then detain them indefinitely, because we're not the bad guys. And we know you're not going to arrest us." Act. Hmm..., maybe that's a bit too long for the name of a bill? How about the
Terrorist Act"? Or the "Unpatriotic Act"?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by DavePolaschek on Friday February 08 2019, @05:20PM (2 children)
If you want more about the history of these sorts of stops (including stop & frisk) check the Wikipedia article on Terry Stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday February 08 2019, @06:38PM (1 child)
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure in most states (if not all), a DUI checkpoint doesn't constitute a Terry stop. A Terry stop requires "reasonable suspicion," which is less than "probable cause," but it still requires specific facts arguing for the detention of an individual. Once a motorist has been flagged for a sobriety test because of alcohol breath, slurred speech, or other drunken behavior, then one can argue it becomes a "Terry stop" (as is true of just about any time a police officer stops and car and detains the driver even temporarily). But Terry doesn't justify a general roadblock that checks all cars (even cursorily).
Or in other words, when the police are stopping all cars, they obviously don't have reasonable suspicion against all motorists, so they're not legal stops under Terry. Instead, the justification for DUI checkpoints comes out of Martinez-Fuerte [wikipedia.org], which was the SCOTUS decision that legalized immigration checkpoints that weren't necessarily on the border itself. (They now commonly operate at points as far as 100 miles internal to the U.S.)
That was the precedent relied on when SCOTUS ruled DUI stops legal [wikipedia.org]. It's a much broader -- and more Constitutionally questionable -- category than Terry stops.
(Sidenote: If I remember correctly, Terry stops were sort of how pre-TSA airport security worked in part. That is: prior to 9/11, airport security was run privately by airports/airlines. Which means (1) you weren't being searched by the government, and (2) you consented to the searches as a condition of travel. So, you went through the metal detector and your luggage was scanned because you consented to it. If you didn't want to consent, the airlines could deny you passage, since they were partnering with the airports to conduct searches. However, if something bad did show up when you went through the metal detector or in scanning your luggage, then an actual law enforcement person could potentially be called in, who could then detain you on "reasonable suspicion" though a Terry stop procedure. Police could also stand near security lines if they had a tip that someone might be trying to bring something through, and pull you out of line for search if you acted suspiciously or had a weird bulge or whatever, similar to what happens in a DUI checkpoint. Again, "reasonable suspicion" was required for law enforcement intervention, and police/government agent supervision could only happen at airports during elevated security risks for limited times.. After the Patriot Act and the TSA, all of that complex legal balancing was gradually thrown in the trash, so it's hard to see how we have any Fourth Amendment operating at airports anymore.)
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:58PM
There was also up until the hijackings crisis from the late 60s to the early 80s the ability to go with family or friends straight up to the gate.
You could kiss someone goodbye (or more platonic equivalents) right at the jetway and watch the plane back away from the gate. Wired ( https://www.wired.com/2013/06/fa_planehijackings/ [wired.com] ) says that through the early 70s metal detectors were only used on passengers who displayed suspicious traits but it was presumed you were innocent unless you did something.
Then again, planes hadn't been hijacked all that much until the late 60s/early 70s, and hadn't been used as impact weapons since World War II AFAIK until 2001.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 09 2019, @02:29AM
Once you're willing to surrender liberties in exchange for safety - whether that safety is real or imagined - you have opened the door to tyranny. Since the US is supposed to be the country of 'give me liberty or give me death,' everyone should be willing to die in the name of freedom.
Which doesn't mean that the government can violate everyone's liberties because a small number of people endanger others. Go after the specific people who are harming others. This may make it harder to catch them, but that's worth it in the name of liberty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10 2019, @08:29PM
The search part shouldn't even matter. We are supposed to have "free and unrestricted travel through these united states". Checkpoints are unconstitutional and should be attacked.