Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday February 08 2019, @03:39AM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday February 08 2019, @06:38PM (1 child)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday February 08 2019, @06:38PM (#798466) Journal

    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.)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:58PM

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:58PM (#800615) Journal

    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.