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, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday February 08 2019, @03:55PM (4 children)
First, because driving is a privilege and not a right. And there is never a right to drive intoxicated.
Probable cause has to do with search and seizure, not investigation. Investigation only requires reasonable cause.
The following is mostly from nolo (source [drivinglaws.org])
The Supreme Court in 1990 ruled that checkpoints are legal. They are not aimed at any one particular driver, but all drivers in an area. Typically the police establish the checkpoints at places that are known for higher accident rates. The court felt there is an overriding safety concern which overrides the "limited intrusion" that is stopping drivers (but one must stop either all, or at a set random interval, to avoid discrimination). 11 states do not permit them and most states have strict requirements for establishing them.
Away from Nolo.... The choking point for a lot of people are the beliefs that rights are absolute and can never be intruded upon whatsoever for any reason. The reality is that if there are overriding responsibilities to society then rights can in fact be redefined and limited, and in my opinion they should be. There are limitations that I balk at also (free-speech zones for one) but since there are drunk drivers and since I've both been with families who were victimized by a drunk-driving caused death and since I want them stopped, I'm willing to accept yielding my rights if it pulls someone off the streets who should not be behind the wheel.
Let's look at the first ten amendments and how they might be limited:
1st: A religion that actively promotes overthrow of the government won't fly (yeah, you can say Christianity but wrong and hopefully that's not too red a herring). While never actually tested the "falsely shout fire in a theatre" question by Holmes is another.
2nd: You will not be able to purchase a firearm if the government doesn't think you should have one. That includes mental instability, being a convicted felon, and restrictions on whether you could own a nuclear weapon (or the allowable-but-regulated destructive devices and NFAs).
3rd: Hard to find an exception, but if there literally was a foreign invasion of soil I don't think you'd find an army unit sympathetic to saying they can't quarter in a hotel - there's a potential provision for that anyway, but I hope this one is never tested. (It certainly was in the Revolution by the British, which is why it was prohibited).
4th: Unreasonable is the key, and there are certainly known exceptions to requiring a warrant - start with stop & frisk and go on to the automobile exception.
5th: Two words: Extraordinary rendition. Even if it was non-citizens only there are limits.
6th: Martial law and military tribunals.
7th: Mandatory Arbitration / "You can't sue."
8th: Well, that's all pretty relative. There are lots of people who can't make bail and it's a lot more than just having skin-in-the-game unless you're rich.
9th/10th: The Federal government is excellent at finding reasons why they need to be involved in otherwise reserved issues. Let's begin with Education and Healthcare. But the tension here keeps us from failing the way the Articles of Confederation did.
YMMV.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by http on Friday February 08 2019, @07:47PM (1 child)
Sorry, my bad. I should have posted that as suspicious behaviour as opposed to probable cause. Be thankful I am not your lawyer.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday February 08 2019, @11:49PM
And yes, it is noteworthy that they can stop people who aren't behaving suspiciously. Form objection noted and you have rephrased.
We do just seem to take it that when it comes to drunk driving that all drivers may be regarded with suspicion. OTOH, as several police officers and highway patrolmen have told me, EVERY car sooner or later does something in the course of normal driving that can warrant a traffic stop -and field interview. Slight weaves, "improper" cornering, speed variations - it takes WAY more attention to drive perfectly than any given driver is willing to do normally and nobody practices enough to be perfect enough when the squad car is behind you and you're nervous anyway. That said, many officers do indeed recognize patterns of drivers who are actually impaired, too.
Out of maybe a dozen roadblock field stops I've been at over the years, one... maybe two... were anything more than ten seconds of "Hello, where are you going? OK, goodnight!" Then again, I know I have privilege and I don't drive drunk.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 09 2019, @02:34AM
That's bad reasoning. Even if that is true, it doesn't follow that the government can therefore force you to surrender any and all liberties in exchange for being able to exercise that "privilege." People put forth that argument frequently, because they are authoritarians and have no critical thinking skills.
Also, most of the exceptions you list to the first ten amendments were totally invented by authoritarian courts. That doesn't mean those things are actually constitutional, much like how Japanese internment camps weren't constitutional, even though those were approved by the courts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10 2019, @08:31PM
"First, because driving is a privilege and not a right. And there is never a right to drive intoxicated."
BS, you fucking whore piece of shit. they have conned people into getting "licenses" for what is supposed to be a right.