If this isn't clearly a free speech issue I don't know what is.
3
There's a lot wrong with Waze, not least that it's owned by far-past-the-Creepy-Line Google and it isn't free(dom-respecting) software; use OpenStreetMap instead.
But the police pushpins ain't one of them, and our courts must ensure the First Amendment kicks the cops' lawyers out the door on their rump if they dare make a legal issue of this.
How rich that cops who endorsed the co-conspirator to seize the White House; use "collar" quotas as a measure of employee worth, army surplus as a gun and tank shop, and parking and DWI tickets as a slush fund; and tie DAs' hands whenever one of their own is charged with killing a black man now dare talk about the same "direct undermining of the rule of law" they've long perpetrated or supported via Blue Wall.
Waze is rooted in math. It will send you on some unscenic, convoluted route to save you 40 seconds. Mostly I hate it.
When I generally know where I am going I only turn it and the other nav systems on when I am near my destination to guide me precisely to the destination. Otherwise they are annoying.
3
On the one hand we have a Freedom of Speech issue here.
On the other hand, Freedom of Speech is not unlimited. To cite a we'll-worn example, you may not shout "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
When Freedom of Speech morphs into obstruction of justice, Freedom of Speech in regard to the obstruction takes a back seat.
1
“Our ticket revenue is down, and people are avoiding our checkpoints... wahhh”
Everyone knows tickets are about revenue generation and not safety, has been this way for years.
As for checkpoints, I am pretty sure they violate the civil rights of driver’s. When stopped, you are assumed to be guilty until you are proven innocent. Refuse to comply? You are either held, or arrested which violates your right to not be detained without due process. Your car is then invariably searched which violates your 4th amendment.
I regularly use Waze and applaud their innovative software!
1
Jonathan F. Thompson seems to have regard for the rule of law, but police often push its bounds. Sobriety checkpoints seem like a good thing, but questioning people without probable cause that they have committed or are planning to commit a crime is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. My most recent safe-driving class said that police can require any driver, with or without any reason, to take a breathalyzer test, and refusal is considered proof of DWI. That makes me think that publicizing the locations of police checkpoints is a good thing, helping to curtail police overreach.
2
For as long as I can remember, it has been common practice for Massachusetts drivers to flash their high beams at oncoming traffic to warn of speed traps ahead. Actually, this goes back centuries, to when Paul Revere warned his fellow colonialists that the British were coming.
4
Any app that helps ordinary law abiding citizens to evade speed traps and/or a ticket is a good thing. Police officers need to be out on patrol and not hoping the criminals just come to them. I'm all for catching the bad guys but when I see heavy traffic and it's usually because the officer(s) refuse to park correctly, I thank god I have waze that gives me an alternate route. I can't believe the audacity of how some cops will block the road intentionally all for a little traffic stop. Do some work NYPD like the rest of us!
1
Police act with way too much abuse of authority. Have way too much power. They can issue tickets arbitrarily and do. It is a one way street that has long needed a lane in the other direction. Anything that can be done to blunt police authority and make them more accountable and enforce penalties against these authoritarian thugs who retire after two decades of work should be implemented. Long live google. Long live Waze. Long live crowdsourcing. Now if we can only have an app based democratic voting system in the US.
4
Easy fix; make the penalties for drunk driving much much harsher. Close down bars that over-serve.
1
As someone who has encountered a drunk driver going 60 miles per hour in the wrong direction down Interstate 95, I am all in favor of sobriety checks.
That would not have been a survivable collision with a closing velocity of about 120 mph.
I (and another motorist going in my direction) were able to swerve out of the way at the last minute.
[While we are on the subject... Why is it so hard to get the drivers licenses of drunk drivers permanently revoked? It seems like every time we have a fatality involving a drunk driver one reads that they have had multiple DUI convictions but nobody does anything to get them off the road until they finally, and inevitably, kill someone.]
4
What other information are you going to censor? NYC has no right to demand what anyone can disclose. The reason behind the concerns have some validity, but the letter is obnoxious and counterproductive.
6
Cops out cruising is more effective than checkpoints which maybe find 1 offender out of dozens checked. Mostly they find expired licences, outstanding warrants, and such; you know the money-makers.
2
As with any computer application that tracks human behavior, it can be neutralized by swamping it with bogus reports by fictitious users. The drinking driver will soon loose interest in the application.
2
We have a tendency to blame technology and forget what it was like without it. Before Google maps how many lost drivers trying to find their way on maps while driving got into accidents? That nasty map blowing around in the convertible while we smoked our non-cancerous cigarette and let the wind whip through our hair without a seatbelt at 80 MPH.
1
The police ought to broadcast their location for Google and then move twelve blocks away. Or, they can move after every bookable event so that they can set an ambush for would be wanna be’s. Drunk drivers ought to disgust everyone like molesters. Google is a monopoly. It ought to be broken up.
2
It’s a shame, but not surprising, that police, and NYPD in particular, are not the best guardians of our First Amendment right of free speech. Recall the way in which protesters were treated the last time a Presidential convention was held in town.
Just as motorists are not violating any law by flashing their headlights to warn oncoming motorists of speed traps ahead, so to Waze has the absolute right to publish this kind of information.
What is needed here, is a stiff spine by Google to resist the threats of the NYPD. I am not optimistic, given the way corporate culture has led internet companies to fold like a cheap suit in the face of government pressure about content.
If Waze folds, I will stop using the app.
What's the difference in end result between getting killed in a terror related plane crash, and getting killed by a drunk driver (possibly self) caused car crash?
The latter won't make front page news because 29 people a day die that way - over 10,000 people a year. When it's a large number, people stop caring. Until it affects you.
Should we have voluntary checkpoints at the airport? Bypass if you want to?
1
why not ban CB radios
1
Not seeing the problem here. Police must publicize the location ahead of time anyway. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that DWI checkpoints are constitutional, but they mandated that checkpoints must be publicized ahead of time. If the police don’t publicize a checkpoint it can be considered a detention without reasonable suspicion, and that violates your Fourth Amendment rights.
4
This is one of those slippery slopes that the tech giant must tread carefully. In the end, if these apps are being designed to empower the ‘endusers’ or ‘people’, then let the public decide whether or not they want this feature removed.
However, if the taxpaying public trusts the police to keep them safe, then they should let the police do their job by administering sobriety checks that keep everyone safe.
We’re really at a crossroads here, esp. with this type of technology being used (by the people) to report on the police rather than the other way around.
1
I firmly am of the opinion that these stops are on constitutionally thin ice and are another way to skirt the fourth and fifth amendments. Citizens have the right to tell whomever they want when they see these exercises in lazy law enforcement. Broadcasting these locations is a public service to allow the law abiding to not be bothered. I do not want to give up my rights just because the cops may catch someone drinking or whatever other scare story justifies their interference in my life
3
@Slow fuse
A drunk driver driving on the wrong side of the highway can permanently endanger your life. I drove I95 for years, often after working late. Fear of a drunk driver was very real to me. A good idea was to have a designated driver in a night out who remained sober. That doesn't impede the single drunk driver; however it helps. Your inconvenience is minor compared to the loss of an innocent life due to a drunk driver. I was stopped more than once, and that was okay with me.
I agree that there is a first amendment issue here. The police are trying to restrain publication of news. I would be more willing to agree with the police if we did not have the pesky issue of many communities, including NYC, looking on fines as a handy revenue source. Our parking tickets are adjudicated by the Department of Finance, not an independent and impartial body.
Another reason that I do not lose any sleep over this issue is the ease and speed with which speed detection locations and inebriated driving checkpoints can be moved. We are not talking about large fixed structures.
5
I agree with Ms. Witty, that these apps keep a portion of the drunk drivers off the road, and therefore serve a useful purpose. What the real reason the police do not like them is not that they help people avoid law enforcement as mus as the fact that they help people to avoid fines, a revenue detraction for the municipalities (or, in the case of more venial officers, avoiding the chance to shake down motorists).
3
Kidnappers will use this data to avoid checkpoints?
That's quite the stretch.
And what about that pesky First Amendment?
8
Waze information on "police ahead" is useful, shared information about a public activity: police activity in the direction one is traveling. To insist that this public information cannot be shared electronically -- so that police can maintain the element of surprise and ticket unwary motorists -- puts the interests of police coffers ahead of the constitutional rights of drivers. Trying to extend the "blue wall of silence" to all citizens, to protect actions that the police prefer to be hush-hush, is a non-starter. Hopefully google and waze will resist this lobbying.
7
I don’t buy the police arguments. For them, this is about lost revenue, plain and simple. I don’t support limiting our constitutionally protected right to free speech based on such a flimsy rationale.
9
Is it obstruction of governmental administration (a crime) or is it good citizenship to help motorists not drive while intoxicated ? I say it’s the latter.
1
This obviously impacts their revenue. I would love to see statistics on how much money police departments have lost since Waze became popular.
2
How about this, lets accelerate the process of autonomous vehicles. Sober or not, drivers are terrible. Does anyone reading this enjoy a single commute without witnessing dangerous behavior by other drivers? My fellow drivers are by far the biggest threat to the safety of my family. I am usually very cautious about government intrusion, but not with this. Until people can get off their phones, etc. and pay attention to the 5000 lb. missile they are hurtling across concrete, give the police everything they need. Drones, sensors, satelites, you name it. If you are irresponsible enough to drive intoxicated on public roads you should be treated the same way we treat people who attempt murder.
1
@Scott B - Active observant patrol is what you want. That is not what a roadside checkpoint is going to accomplish. When I was a kid, "Show me your papers" was a gag line from old WWII movies about the Germans.
Here in Georgia, Union Point lost their ability in the court system to operate a legal speed trap to finance almost all their city government. All those expensive Chargers gone to waste.
Waze is your friend, even in the middle of nowhere. Next, they need to do something about Doraville.
2
What right does the NYPD have to DEMAND that people stop using Waze to report DUI checkpoints. They lack any authority to do so. Police enforce the laws and the NYPD does a pretty good job. However they have no ability to make a law. Let the legislators enact a law against this use of Waze or similar apps before the police start demanding what we can and can not do. I myself don't drink any alcohol at all or use any drugs, and I dread the thought of getting stuck in a DUI stop. It wastes my time and if an officer detects my irritation, who knows what they will do or claim. I want to avoid these checkpoints completely. I think driving while impaired is a terrible, dangerous and very serious crime but the police have no right to make demands on a private or public entity.
8
Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag on this one, no matter what Waze does. If Waze caves (which I don't think they should) and stops allowing the reporting of police specifically users will just switch to using one of the other reportable road events - since you can leave text on any event, people can just switch to another event and still put text that says "sobriety checkpoint." Unless Waze removes all reporting, in which case, Waze becomes useless and someone else will write another app that allows it.
2
Sounds like a losing battle for the police. Don't know how many people blindingly drunk use WAZE to get home.
2
The police have no legitimate privacy expectation when they are out doing their job in public. This is just an advanced form of flashing your high beams to warn on coming traffic of a speed trap. I know of at least one court which has rejected a summonses issued to the person who flashed the lights on first amendment grounds.
11
@Marc Leibman, the same applies to people photographing traffic stops and arrests in public places. Any citizen with a cell phone camera can legally record and document police abuse of others in public places according to rulings of the Federal Courts. Police executions of African-Americans have been documented and admitted into evidence to obtain convictions in such cases.
After years of using Waze I have yet to encounter a DUI roadblock, flagged or unflagged, while using the app. However, app users do mark hundreds of speed traps daily, with not perfect accuracy. Perhaps an investigative journalist from the Times could discover how much lost speed ticket revenue to police departments and local governments has resulted from the use of this app? Less revenue seems the real gripe here, with DUI and "safety" as the disingenuous pretext. Police departments should know that in the age of social media there will always be workarounds to people alerting each other to the presence of speed traps, so it will always be a digital form of whack-a-mole. A 75% marginal tax rate on the 1% seems a better source for public funds.
7
Not illegal. Sorry nypd
9
This is no different than drivers in the opposing lanes flashing their lights to warn drivers of a speed trap. I believe that just like the patriots in the revolutionary war putting lamps in the church tower "one if by land, two if by sea" this was ruled legal.
As others have said these checkpoints violate all manner of probable cause statutes and now in Texas we're supposed to allow them to take blood samples too? At what point have we surrendered too much to law enforcement? BTW what happens to the blood samples? If we are ruled "sober" do I get them back or do the samples get repurposed into a national DNA database?
We should be scared...
3
NO!
2
Tangent alert.
Besides slowing down traffic for everyone, sobriety check points are (in my not so humble opinion) blatant violations of the Fourth Amendment (pesky Constitution protecting us from undue government intrusion!). Merely driving on a road cannot possibly interpreted as grounds for "reasonable suspicion" (by contrast, erratic driving would be "reasonably suspicious"); therefore, the police cannot detain everyone who who happen to be on that road for the purpose of forcing them to submit to a breathalyzer test.
7
I am a retired trial lawyer. I once had an affluent client who insisted I handle his traffic case. I had to bend my rules to do it. I did not handle traffic tickets to be sure.
The fellow was charged with flashing his lights to warn on-coming cars that a police officer was waiting up ahead with a radar device.
Our defense was the Ist Amendment right to free speech. My client admitted he flashed his lights to warn of the speed trap. Moreover by warning oncoming traffic my client was helping to slow traffic down, a laudable goal.
Obviously there is nothing illegal that my client did and the judge agreed. The police were very unhappy, feeling like this wealthy man was impeding their rights. What right do the police have to operate in secret or by surprise on a public roadway?
17
@Harry Schaffner
Retired lawyer w/o knowledge of Rehnquist's decision huh?
@Allen Braun What decisions was that? How did the Supreme Court address the First Amendment issue? Do you have a name and citation for the decision?
The police location feature on Waze has the same effect as the presence of police on the highway has on most drivers. Slow down, pay attention to what's going on around you. If the police would come out from behind their blue wall, they might better understand that the vast bulk of the population have no criminal intent, but may need a reminder now and then.
7
@GeorgeS
“According to Centers for Disease and Control Prevention data, sobriety checkpoints reduce the risk of drunken driving accidents by 20%.”
Your answer is right there in the article.
3
@CaliMama
GeorgeS has trouble with the notion that the police are doing this. They wouldn't if it were a waste of time, manpower and money.
The letter from NYPD and others cited in this article are ridiculous attempts at bullying. The police cannot legally suppress speech as it is expressed on Waze, similar to how they could not prevent a driver mentioning to another driver at a gas station that there is a cop up on the road ahead.
The officers quoted in this article also mention how they fear being targeted through Waze. Yet they wear uniforms in public and have clearly marked police cars. We the public have as much right to observe the police as they have to observe us.
5
It would seem that successfully being able to get the location from Waze and successfuly avoid it is a sobriety checkpoint in and of itself.
What's the problem?
9
@Especially Meaty Snapper Excellent point! Any driver who is seriously impaired, is probably too seriously impaired to effectively use Waze to avoid sobriety checkpoints.
This is kinda funny... I used to live in a city in West Virginia and there they had to publish the location and timing of the drunk driving checkpoints the day before in the newspaper!
7
In Ohio they issue press releases telling where they are going to set them up.
2
While I don’t condone some police behavior, I fail to follow the logic in defending the right to drive beyond the legal limit. Why call it a speed “trap” when someone is caught breaking the law? If there was an app for bank thieves , would we want alerts regarding which banks have no guards? Are TSA employees “trapping” people trying to bring guns and knives on a plane???
1
not all laws are just. getting pulled over for doing 35 in a 30 is unjust.
4
@Daniel B Some rural towns, not to mention major cities, set up speed traps to generate revenue. They often do it by rapid reductions of the speed limit at the town boundary, i.e. from 50 t0 25. Their motivation is not to enhance traffic safety, but to generate revenue from unsuspecting motorists.
There seems to be an easy way around this. Drivers decide to use another icon to mark cops. The “car in shoulder” icon is useless. It can be like the “secret” menu at In n Out. You just look it up online and there you go.
2
I just have to laugh. Policing would be so much simpler if we just trimmed a little fat off the Constitution. If only people wouldn't report on what they see in public spaces we could do a much better job.
5
I thought the police had tried this before, preventing people from announcing speed traps, etc., and were told it was a violation of first amendment rights. It was in reference to flashing headlights to alert drivers, and some guy who put up a sign. It won't stand up and Waze shouldn't cave.
7
Has the police arrest rate gone down recently?
We don't like people knowing what the police are doing, as it interferes with our desire to punish people. Besides, the checkpoints are revenue spinners.
6
Appears to be a 1st Amendment issue. Checkpoints inevitably congest traffic, and many "traffic" software programs have for years been providing information to the public about traffic congestion. That's not going to stop. Perhaps the answer is for WAZE et al, is to filter the info to let its users know that there is traffic congestion in a specific area without denoting the cause.
This takes me back to the use of CB Radios in the 1970's to avoid police speed traps. Very difficult to stop "free speech" on the CB Radios. Most likely the same issue here.
6
While I see the PD’s point re sobriety checkpoints, the PD’s credibility seems to be undercut by leveraging using speed and ticket traps publicly in the name of safety and privately in the name of revenue generation. I see too many officers/traps posted at confusing intersections to prey on the unaware, where “safety” would dictate that the intersection and/or signage should be improved to eliminate the confusion in the first place.
It will be interesting in the not too distant future when autonomous vehicles are mainstream — which will likely curtail (if not end) revenue generation from tickets. FWIW, as many have posted, the majority of officers are outstanding individuals who put their lives on the line and while saving others’ lives. But the practice of disguising cash grabs under the rubric of safety — which may be driven by municipalities and the state more so than the PD — is rather disingenuous.
5
I don't necessarily agree with sobriety check points but I do find the amount of information about traffic surveillance that Waze provides to be dismaying. The fact that waze tells you when there is a red light camera or a police officer watching traffic seems ridiculous to me. Perhaps it is because traffic in Dallas is hellacious with people speeding and breaking the rules all the time but, having been on the receiving end of bad drivers, perhaps that skews my opinion? The traffic cops need all the element of surprise that they can get. Can we talk about radar detectors next?
1
I don't think they should. Public knowledge is just that. These are traps set by the police. When I was younger, if you drove past a cop with a radar light, it was common to flash your lights at oncoming traffic, to warn them. I NEVER heard of anyone being stopped/cited for that.
I don't see this as any different, but just with an app.
The cops should lose this argument.
6
There was an analogous court case where a driver flashed his lights to warn on-coming traffic of a radar trap. The police arrested him for obstruction a police investigation. In court, the charges were dropped and the judge reprimanded the police, reminding them that the 1st Amendment was still in full force and that freedom of speech was still legal.
7
As someone who drives over 30k miles a year, here are my thoughts:
1. Waze police reports' slow down speeding traffic as a collective - as opposed to the police following a single chasing car at a time. Yes, this leads to lesser revenue for the police force in terms of fines but more importantly keeps the roads safer.
2. Now, there are going to be people who misuse the police report by going fast at other times. To address this, Google + Police force could work together to inform police of speeding drivers within their vicinity - Waze already tracks speed on the app. It would be a simple matter of building a 'Police Waze' app that subscribes to excessive speed reports from phones. I do acknowledge that this method has privacy concerns but if you're flaunting the law then privacy should be deprioritized.
@Razor Your "idea" means that Google should collude with police, doesn't it? That should never be allowed in our free country. Will WAZE/Google customers agree to pay for a private police force app, used against them? I think not, and I doubt the courts would either.
BAD IDEA.
3
What's needed here is the data that show that sobriety checkpoints really reduce the number of intoxicated drivers on the road. If, as I believe, they do, case closed. Helping intoxicated drivers avoid getting pulled off the road would then be enabling dangerous behavior, and might even make Waze and Google legally liable if a thus-assisted driver hits somebody. Driving under the influence kills thousands and seriously injures tens of thousands every year, and many of those are the victims of drunk drivers. However, let's see the numbers, so we know what's what.
3
@Pete in Downtown, how many impaired drivers have Waze, the presence of mind to actually use it when they get behind the wheel and comply with its suggestions. Sobriety checkpoints overwhelmingly inconvenience non-impaired drivers in relation to the few implied drivers that they intercept.
3
@Mike 71 That is why I ask for the data; if these checkpoints are keeping impaired drivers off the road, it should show up in the statistics. If there is little or no evidence, then they would be indeed mostly a nuisance.
Unrelated to that, I also wonder if sobriety checkpoints could expedite the process by focusing on checking for sobriety, and not run the full program for each and every driver.
Google Maps and Waze show you the fastest route from one place to another. if a route is blocked by a sobriety checkpoint, it may not be the fastest way. Will the law prevent apps from giving the fastest route?
6
It's funny to think about cops griping about the people who use technology to avoid being caught or arrested in the context of all the speeding and unnecesary aggressive driving I see them just ignore and allow to go unchecked everyday. Regardless of the folks they might not catch due to information on Waze, it seems like they have plenty to keep them occupied if they cared to be occupied by something other than sitting in their cruisers.
7
@ChrisH What could be easier than forcing the "violators" to come to them? "And there are donuts."
1
Maybe it's where I live. But most police--not all, any more than most teachers, or lawyers, or doctors--are decent people here. Most are professional in their dealings with some of the worst, most hurt, or most desperate that a city has to offer, and that covers a lot of ground. From meth addicts who are lost, hurt, and sometimes dangerous and even crazy, to rapists and gang-bangers (we do have those here, too), to domestic violence and workplace attacks, to drunk driving, fist-fighting, animal abuse, medical emergencies unfolding, traffic troubles--today we had an ice-storm and they're out in that helping motorists. They do a job most of us wouldn't want or couldn't do. And though I am a long-time democratic socialist, a protester of old, a disliker of the right-wing attitudes that crop up in some (not all) police, I know most are decent, and most are standing up for us without much pay and in the hard weather of our times. So I want to say a word, heard or not, to counter the ease with which many in our nation attack whole groups of others, their enemies du jour--with some words of likely unpopular truth.
1
I use Waze everywhere I go. It's a great app. The only thing I don't like about it is the fact that it tracks me wherever I go, but I'm not in the habit of committing crimes so I don't care if I'm tracked.
My experience has been that most motorists around me slow down when one of these icons pops up on my screen.
The NYPD would rather hide, pull you over, and issue tickets in order to generate fines than act as a highly visible deterrent to motorists on the highways.
Banning these notifications on Waze is like passing an ordnance that truckers can't announce the police over their CB radios.
9
Yes Waze tracks you while you drive, but your IPhone tracks you 24 hrs a day
Nothing terrifies me more than the sight of someone’s eyes staring down at their phone...while waiting at a stop light or driving.
Waze can’t help with that, Waze is a part of that.
Nothing..,.nothing on anyone’s phones should work unless the phone can ring through the cars Bluetooth speaker and also if using the phone for GPS navigation purposes, also audible via Bluetooth. There is nothing anyone needs to be doing with their phones while driving. Nothing.
If you need to use your phone on the go, which is possible, use that phone and call a Lyft so you can sit with your phone safely and let another person drive.
Otherwise, everyone else might as well all be out there on the road with a flask of whiskey because having a conversation about Waze and avoiding sobriety checkpoints is kind of like not talking about the elephant in the room.
And that elephant got his/herself a beautiful new phone it just cannot stop using and that elephant doesn’t drink but when it drives it’s just as dangerous!
The argument is ridiculous.
4
@Colleen Thank you. I've seen cops pass me while they're using their phones (in hand). Phone use/misuse is a YUGE problem, which the cops are NOT addressing.
3
Let’s just skip the formalities and make the US a police state. So much safer...
4
DWI check pounts under the guise of public safety, just a cynical cash cow generating revenue stream.
Arresting, prosecuting drunk driving should be based on provable actions, not prior restraints.
7
The systemic corruption that likely lies at the root of the law enforcement sector's demand to restrict drunken-driving checkpoints is that Sheriffs and other LEO's profit directly from their "productivity."
Up here in Greene County, NY, for example, the local "Sheriff's share" of such revenue is not inconsiderable, as the county will see a projected $156,465 in funding over the next year.
As reported by the Daily Mail in Greene County, "The state Stop DWI Program was created in 1981 and is the nation’s first and only self-sustaining impaired driving program. All funding originates from fines paid by drunken drivers, according to the program’s website. The projected budget for Greene County’s program is $156,465.
The budget for Seeley’s position as program coordinator is $23,400.
The sheriff’s salary is listed at $97,231, according to See Through NY. "
The local sheriff, a controversial character, sees an additional 25% boost in salary from the projected "revenue" he generates from "Drunk Driving Checkpoints." This is activity that Waze threatens.
(https://www.hudsonvalley360.com/article/stop-dwi-program-funding-raises-concerns)
The Times should provide some additional scrutiny to upstate petty law enforcement corruption. They will find that the NY Police have a lot of company in the "enemy of the U.S. Constitution" department. Our local paper, needs help as budgets for in depth investigative reporting are tight.
14
@jwp-nyc Yes, even closed to NYC this is common. The Times should definitely turn a searchlight on the cops. They are out of control.
4
NYPD is right. Google is aiding and abetting criminals, who are responsible for thousands of annual traffic deaths. Drunk drivers and speeders should be caught and Google shouldn't be protecting them.
In Ohio, I believe they have to publicly release the location of DUI checkpoints by law.
7
NYC PD is just complaining over lost income. Welcome to the herd!
6
As a non-lawyer, this clearly seems to be protected free speech. There is no substantive free-speech difference between discussing a police checkpoint with a friend over the phone and posting the information to Waze. The practical difference is the speed and reach of the notification. As I recall, when the head of New York City's Sergeant's Benevolent Association "demanded" that Waze prevent the posting of information on police location, he was rightfully ignored. Waze will likely also ignore this idiotic cease and desist request.
8
Here's a novel idea: why not have law enforcement post speed trap/checkpoint locations via Waze all over the place? That way people will think they're everywhere and drive the speed limit and sober. Fake news wins again!
10
Google should tell the NYPD to go scratch. An informed public is a safer public. We have a right to know where public resources are being used and for what reason. NYPD prefers an uninformed citizen so it can harass and ticket whoever it pleases. Step up your game NYPD and stop blaming the very citizens you are charged with protecting.
4
When cops stop shooting unarmed people and stop the wholesale aggression against nonwhites I’ll consider listening to their complaints. Until that day I’ll do my best to ignore the same fear-mongerers who promised crime would soar when stop-and-frisk was repealed.
Body cameras in every officer that can’t be muted or shut off under penalty of law. Now THAT’S something I can behind.
PS - I’m a middle aged white guy who’s never harassed for anything
8
MADD is wrong here. Buzzed drivers need to be caught before they kill somebody, and buzzed drivers are with-it enough to avoid checkpoints.
1
1st amendment is not relevant.
These are privately-owned platforms that can set terms of service and regulate their content (see Jones, Alex). Don't like the terms, don't use them.
In the neighborhood of 10,000 people die in drunk driving accidents per year and 300,000 are injured. Efforts to cut this down are worthwhile in my view.
Checkpoints are at times when the concentration of drunk driving problems happen (nights, weekends) to avoid unnecessary hassles.
With the cops on this one.
3
@horatio
The first amendment is entirely relevant. The NYPD (a government entity) is requesting - informally at the moment - that private citizens stop communicating about police checkpoints.
That's borderline "abridging the freedom of speech."
The checkpoints themselves are fine.
7
Actually, the apps want to give the checkpoint locations. The government telling them that they can't is exactly a first amendment violation.
5
@htg
Ok, 'not relevant' is probably a stretch.
But, NYPD is requesting that a company remove a feature that (in their view) hinders law enforcement and adversely affects public safety. That's not the same as trying to tell people they can't call/text/CB radio with each other.
1
So many are claiming that preventing drivers from alerting potential lawbreakers is interfering with a Constitutional right. Really?
So, if I go into a bank, note when the guard is on break, and relay that info to those who would rob it . . . that's speech protected by the First Amendment? Not as a member of one gang, but a broadcast to all would-be bank robbers when it is safe for them to do so.
I don't think so.
3
The smartest response I've seen is that drunk driving checkpoints should rove instead of stay in one spot. Word has always gotten around to other drivers where the checkpoints are.
I've had a different impaired driving issue on my mind lately- driving on Route 95 in Connecticut, when I get behind or next to someone who is clearly swerving on the road- almost every single time, it is a texting driver. And on local roads, I see a lot of moms with kids in the back seat speeding before and after school, from one carpool drop off to the next, and continuing to text after stop lights, posing a hazard to cars turning left. I guess what I have in mind is a way for other drivers to verbally post an easy alert to local police that there is a driving hazard on the road. We have a couple hundred driving deaths a year in our state due to people believing that the minutiae in their lives is worth more than the lives of their passengers and the lives of pedestrians and people in other cars.
14
@common sense advocate
I completely agree. Don't drink and drive, or vice versa. This noted, I see more people texting while driving than I can count.
In 2016, while living in Jersey City, NJ, I was walking (on foot) down the sidewalk, which runs adjacent to Montgomery Street. At the intersection of Washington Street, the light was red so I stopped walking. After the light changed, and the green "Walk" sign was lit, several other people and I began to cross Washington Street at the designated Crosswalk (of course). This is right next to my destination, the main Post Office in Jersey City, NJ.
Please note: In this area downtown, Montgomery Street 4 lane, 2 way street with a media about 12' wide. As I neared the middle of the street, a woman in an SUV was driving towards us on Washington Street (unbeknownst to me and anyone else), and ran clean through the red light. By the time I noticed her coming, I did not have enough time to jump out of the way. She saw me (and others crossing the street), and slammed on her brakes; coming to an abrupt stop no more than 6" from my waist (I am 6'2" tall).
I assure you, if she had hit her brakes 1 second later, I do not know if I would be able to walk, or even be alive.
She was texting while driving. She mouthed the words, "I'm sorry". There was a Jersey City police officer who saw it all. A pothole being repaired next to us; in Jersey City, a police officer is required to be present for all street work or repairs. He did nothing.
2
If it's illegal to communicate location of police via an app, then it would seem to follow that yelling down the street "police coming" would be illegal as well for the same reasons the police organizations state. This seems a direct infringement of free speech.
9
Where is the evidence that drunk drivers are using Waze to avoid sobriety checkpoints? All I see is an assumption.
Waze helps drivers avoid congestion and resulting delay, providing s useful benefit to all users of the road. We shouldn’t be curtailing such a useful product based merely on the chance that someone “might” be using it to avoid getting stopped.
16
Recently I was snared in a sobriety checkpoint and after a 20 minute wait I was grilled by an extremely rude state police officer. I somehow needed to explain that they weren't serving alcohol at the school board meeting I had just attended.
Cops don't need any more power
149
@Rob You don't have to explain your behavior to any police officer. It's none of their business, legally, where you have been.
12
@Ernest Montague
Exactly. But, point that out to them on the Bear Mountain Bridge and you'll be "walking the line." Or getting a DAT for "appearing to be under medication and driving impaired."
We live in a police state, unless you can afford a retired NYC police officer as your chauffeur, who doubles his income intimidating witnesses on your behalf. Whoops, I don't mean Donald Trump.
7
@Rob And had you been a drunk driver wouldn't you rather the cops got you off the street before you killed someone? I think this is similar to TSA checkpoints - you either see it as a service designed to keep non-drinking/non-terrorists like yourself safe or see it as an inconvenience to the more important things you've got going on.
4
I love Waze. But let’s let law enforcement does it’s job in helping the public safe. All of the excuses why it’s ok to share police location are clever sounding lies, and anyone who is not completely naive and foolish knows it. The purpose is to evade law enforcement, plain and simple. Everyone knows this. If you are afraid of tickets or arrest, drive close to the speed limit, and sober. Case closed. The extra thirty seconds it takes to arrive somewhere may save your life someday.
35
@Johnson
Not all of us are as willing to cavalierly surrender our constitutional rights as you evidently are. I'm all for road safety, but I'm even more in favor of the safety provided by a robust interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
66
@Johnson If I knew the location of speed traps, I would simply slow down rather than change my route, and I think most people would do the same. Information about sobriety checkpoints is different, though.
7
@Johnson Sorry johnson, I don't agree, I have no desire to sit behind a checkpoint and get sobriety tested because I am tired. this is akin to blinking your lights to people coming the other way when there is a speed trap ahead. When the police stop monetizing misdemeanor offenses to fill their coffers maybe they will get some sympathy
42
Sobriety checkpoints never should have been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. Police efforts to censor speech which allegedly interferes with checkpoints is a bridge too far, constitutionally. This reminds me of police efforts in many states (e.g., MA) to prevent bystanders from recording police activities that occur in public and broad daylight. The police have been slapped-down by the courts on the recording issue; let's hope the same happens on the disclosing of checkpoints issue. After all, if it were up to the police, there would be no 1st and 4th Amendments whenever they inconvenienced the police. Google should fight this, rather than cave.
123
@Chris-zzz
My safety trumps your whining. And that's why sobriety checkpoints do exist without interference from the courts (generally).[1]
I agree on the free speech point, and really, if Google heed NYPD's request it will be worked around in a day by the tribe.
Bringing up the irrelevant issue of bystander photography is just whatboutism.
[1] "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment." - Rehnquist in the deciding SCOTUS case.
9
@Allen Braun
You are presuming these checkpoints actually increase safety but where is the actual data that shows they are more effective at that than, say, targeted patrols in certain areas? There is little evidence that these costly checkpoints do much in terms of actual reduction in DUI’s that cannot be achieved through other means that do not impinge on my liberty.
31
@George S
It's up to the police to decide, based on experience, what is the most "cost effective" way to do this function. Based on their own results they probably have a very good idea what is worth it. (Definitely better than you do).
And in the end, good tacticians will "change up" their tactics so that any given tactic does not go stale.
As long as the checkpoint cannot be used for any other purpose than checking for DUI, then it's valid IMO and SCOTUS's.
Touting the word "liberty" is really poor argument.
Finally, as pointed out in the article, often the fact that checkpoints will be deployed, causes people to plan their outings to avoid drinking and driving. (Though admittedly it may just allow re-routing).
Besides police checkpoints being a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment, officers are public servants doing their job in full view of the public. The US does not now nor has ever had a Secret Police force. This is not East Germany.
Why are they constantly so afraid of Americans?
113
@Steve
Where in the Fourth Amendment does it say that police can't set up checkpoints to check for drunken drivers? And who exactly is so afraid of Americans?
@murph the police who are constantly telling us we can't watch them work, can't photograph or video them at their jobs, can't record our own interactions with them, and are now claiming that Waze is assisting people in breaking the law, those are the people afraid of the citizens they work for. I understand that being a cop is a tough job, but since they publish sobriety checkpoints in the media in advance, and since a police sighting on Waze is not always a speed trap or sobriety checkpoint, there's no reason that Waze should be forced to remove a useful feature.
11
The police can complain all they want. Sharing information about public police activity is protected speech under the 1st amendment. QED.
4
@Greg D.
So a lookout calling his stash house to tell hs boss that a raid is imminent is protected speech?
Good luck with that one.
2
@Texas Liberal
Prior restraint is illegal according to all first amendment jurisprudence. You can't forbid someone from speech before they've made it.
1
@Rob
And once they have made that "speech", they can be arrested and prosecuted. Hate speech, for example, or warning the mob boss that the cops are about to raid. The Waze warnings are designed to protect those breaking the law from being caught -- not as serious as mob activity, but in the same category: Interfering with police apprehension of law breakers.
T'row da book at 'em!!
1
I was thinking about my dad driving our family car, an old Green Plymouth. I was the one that came up with his CD handle: "The Green Fury". It was a great moment of pride for me to hear him brag to his friends that his son was the one that claimed our identity in this (online) community. Hearing my dad casually click the mic, lean back in the seat, and with an breezy air of confidence and community say "Breaker 19, this is The Green Fury. Smokey northbound on I-88 at mile marker 106" still makes me smile.
The users of this app are a community. Instead of trying to dictate how the members of this community communicate, perhaps the NY Police could be creative and suggest ways to work within that community.
72
@brooklynkevin You make too much sense for the police to understand.
7
Once it is set up and operational, the whereabouts of a Police checkpoint is not private information. Prior to the use of this app, it was not uncommon on a night out for a friend to mention, "oh, I noticed a police checkpoint at XYZ location". The only difference now is the app provides a louder voice to those documenting the checkpoint location.
There is freedom of speech in our country, and someone mentioning the location of a police checkpoint on a social media platform, in an app, on a phone call, or via a text message should not be put in the same box as someone who yells "Fire" in a movie theater where there isn't one.
188
Crazy idea, but maybe people could simply stop driving drunk. Then the cops would have no need to violate the 4th by checkpoint, and no need to stifle the 1st by social media. Unfortunately, some of us literally don’t care about endangering other human beings, so the police do what they can.
By the way, you can get rid of the apps that publish checkpoints. But people were communicating checkpoints on Facebook seven years ago. And if you ban it on Facebook, they’ll just text it to each other. Seems like this is a failure of people addicted to a publicly marketed drug called alcohol, and the rest of us enjoy drunk driving fatalities and rights infringements.
9
@Ryan Swanzey I like to know where checkpoints are because I don't want to be delayed and interrogated while going about my business.
I don't drive drunk, or support drunk driving--I spent a year in physical therapy after being rear-ended by a drunk driver when I was 18 (and I still have neck pain, decades later). I understand the damage drunk drivers can do. That doesn't mean I want the police to decide to deny people their freedom of speech.
12
@Ryan Swanzey: When you shift the obligation of following the laws and the US Constitution aways from the police, you start that slip down hill to an authoritarian dictatorship. You admit that forcing people to go through sobriety checkpoints is unconstitutional but you see a "Greater Good" in allowing the police to do so. Think about that for a moment. Where have we seen people's basic rights being destroyed for the "Greater Good." How about every dictatorship in the world.
6
@Lizbeth I have been in traffic jams resulting from sobriety checkpoints where the checkpoint itself managed to cause two accidents. A sobriety checkpoint on a four lane highway is NOT a Smart Things To Do.
Tough one here. Free speech is free speech. Sharing places of "Police Activity" helps traffic flow. Sharing places of speed traps slows people down. Which should be the intended result. Not generating money from fines or logging tickets for quotas. Sharing places of sobriety check points may help drunks avoid. If they can remember to check for them and understand how to avoid. Also helps sober drivers avoid the delay. Sharing places of Regi and Inspection sticker check points may help illegal and unsafe cars and drivers avoid. But also allows legal drivers avoid delays. I think a balance should be struck. Plus citizens should use common sense. Some things shouldn't be shared. Some should.
13
@Gil - "Sharing places of speed traps slows people down. Which should be the intended result."
The intended result is to improve safety >everywhere<, not just where there are speed traps.
@Craig H. The intended result of speed traps is revenue. That's the nature of a speed trap; a sudden reduction in a speed limit, often announced by a purposely obscure sign, for no valid reason. The intent is that, even if a driver sees the sign and begins to slow down, he has violated the limit the moment he passed it. That's why it's called a trap.
And it’s not up to the government or you to decide what we can share via any communication method unless it’s illegal such as child porn. Talking about what the police are up to isn’t and definitely shouldn’t be illegal.
Give me a break. Sobriety checkpoints target and inconvenience thousands of innocent people who have given the police no probable cause for stopping and questioning them.
Are they effective at incarcerating people? Of course they are, as would be even more routine checkpoints, say on your way to work, or entering the subway, or at the entry to Walmart, to see if you might in some way be breaking the law.
Same with speed traps. They're rarely positioned at places where accident risks are greatest. They're positioned at places where the police have the best chance of surprising and "catching" you, usually speeding where it is of little consequence.
Waze helps us fight back against these police tactics just a little bit, knowing that there is a cop hidden at the bottom of that long, straight downhill where speeds naturally tend to rise, often without the driver even realizing it's happening.
Or to avoid the delays that a sober and innocent person might encounter at a sobriety checkpoint where he's forced to wait in line and answer question about his behavior when he's done nothing to warrant that.
What is really be asked here is that citizens not be allowed to communicate with each other regarding what they see along the road, a dubious proposition in a country with supposed free speech. We certainly need effective policing but must always be on guard against the tendency for the term police to morph into police state.
159
@Terry, the police tried to stifle communications when they arrested, beat, or harassed witnesses to traffic stops and arrests for photographing events which took place in public. Now, any citizen with a cell phone camera can document instances of police abuse, which has somewhat reduced racial profiling of African-Americans. The right to photo, and/or audio, record police activity has been upheld in the Federal Courts, and despite the fact that most departments still disapprove of the practice, there is little they can do about it, unless the photographer interferes with legitimate police activity.
3
Sobriety checkpoints are "searches and seizures" which the US Constitution requires "probable cause" to be legal. There is no probably cause when the police force everyone to stop and there is no probable cause when they force them to be examined to see if they are not sober enough to drive. Everyone has the Constitutional right to avoid checkpoints and it is typical for police forces to try to use "Law and Order" or "Public Safety" as a way to violate the US Constitution.
4
The technology is out there and is not going away; trying to suppress it is a waste of time. Move away from fixed checkpoints and use roving patrols instead, or keep a checkpoint in place only for an hour or two before moving it elsewhere. Unpredictability is probably a better strategy anyway so people can never be sure when or where they might be pulled over.
80
I first want to say drinking and driving is never a good idea. That said, I can walk outside and see a DUI checkpoint. It isn't a huge secret mission they are trying to pull off, so why does it matter if it shows up on any application. Furthermore, they are texted to people and put on social media by users. Find a new project to waste tax dollars on please.
6
First amendment issues aside, MADD has it right, NYPD has it wrong.
The policy goal of sobriety checkpoints isn't to catch drunk drivers, though that's their practical effect. It's to deter people from driving drunk in the first place by increasing the chance of arrest. More publicity of checkpoints is a good thing because it reminds people they exist.
7
Apps or not, being a cop is an inherently dangerous job. If a perp has an app, blame the perp. The courts, out of fear of blowback, have authorized police checkpoints and speed traps to continue without reasonable suspicion, never mind probable cause, to implement a search and seizure in violation of the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court, just like all political figures (yes, they are political appointees) like to look tough on crime. That is why you have the vast proportion of minorities who are the ones sitting in prison for non-violent offenses -- because they are typically poor and can't afford a decent attorney. As long as the police and politicians want to enforce their dictiorial rules, then I say, Go Waze!
4
@John - Agreed! I say fight Big Brother with any and all available anti-Big Brother means, even if, ironically, it's from Google.
2
A police state is what the police want. It is what white Americans want. It ain't what I want.
6
@Mogwai
Please define "white" in this context. Thanks.
1
So... the goal is not public safety, but who can write the write the most tickets. The absurd, ridiculous argument that kidnappers might use the app to sneak their victims past checkpoints demonstrates how desperately opponents try to dream up reasons for their unsupportable arguments. Seems to me the MADD president makes sense -- the fewer drunks on the road -- for whatever reason -- the better.
5
There’s a police checkpoint in the 1st ave tunnel right around the United National.
2
Wonder if Larry or Sergy or both were pulled over while driving high and this is their revenge.
1
Dear NYPD,
No.
Love,
The First Amendment
14
@jenn
That's it exactly. Cops around here had to learn that they can't ticket people for flashing their lights to warn oncoming drivers to slow down so they won't get caught speeding. It's the drivers' 1A right to flash their lights in order to communicate anything they want.
1
NYPD Must Stop Using Their First Amendment Rights Citizens Demand
3
Those pesky laws sure do get in the way of the police doing their job... Oh wait, it is their job to work within the boundary set by the law... What will these poor LEOs do? How will they perform their sworn duty if they too have to follow the rules? They are, after all, in their feeble minds, the law... Or are they?
2
@Adam, if you hear noises in the night, and home invasion seems imminent, you can be sure that there are some who will run to help you even at the risk or loss of their own lives. A neighbor afraid to help you will call them. And you might not scorn them so deeply then. When a drunk driver is veering on the highway, you might not mind his or her being stopped by someone who has the will and authority to do it. Actually most police officers are not people worse than you or those you care for. In war-torn cities where there is no law enforcement, men (and women) much worse than the LEOs you hate will be knocking at your door. And I do say that as a socialist myself. But a realist, too, who believes in being fair to all, as best I can.
1
1st Amendment
3
The police also don't want anyone to know where speed traps are because the goal for them is not to get more people driving safely, their goal is to write more tickets. Wake is cutting into their ticket quota and they don't like it. $$$
4
What about the law abiding citizens who do not want to be hindered by these checkpoints? They have jobs and responsibilities. They pay the taxes that pay these law enforcement folks. Traffic is horrible already in New York. Maybe they don't want to be delayed by these checkpoints. What if someone phoned a friend driving not too far behind them and told them about the checkpoint? Is that going to be made a crime?
4
What's the concern since DUI checkpoints must be published in advance anyway in order to be legal. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that "sober checkpoints" are legal, even though they are an intrusion on individual liberties under the Fourth Amendment. In New York, courts have ruled that police can conduct weekly DWI checkpoints so long as:
The reason for the checkpoint is clearly stated and published in advance.
The checkpoint cannot intrude on motorists' privacy to an "impermissible degree"
The checkpoint must include safety precautions such as adequate lighting and fair warning of the existence of the checkpoint.
Police cannot hold a driver at the checkpoint for an unreasonable amount of time.
Police must use a predetermined, random formula when stopping cars.
Supervisors must be present at the checkpoint and make decision regarding the checkpoint.
5
I was going to say the same thing; the law requires that the checkpoint be published in advance. I don't see how this is any different, and I'd love to see the legal memoranda justifying the NYPD's stance.
1
@Dan Sciannameo - Where exactly is notice of these checkpoints published in advance?
Same thing as marking speed camera locations. People might say it's about free speech or warning drivers about dangerous locales, but no one is fooled by that, not even the people saying it. It's about the freedom to speed and drive drunk on the understanding that the odds of getting caught are low. The thing is you do not have those freedoms. Those things are illegal already, so the restricting freedom argument is a non starter. Likelihood of getting caught does not make an illegal action any more or less illegal.
Unless I am missing something, doesn't the PD have to publish the dates and locations of the Drunk Driving Checkpoints in order for them to pass constitutional muster vis-a-vis the 4th Amendment? That being the case how is Waze making that information more readily available anything beside a public service. Now I do want to make it clear that I am no fan of drunken driving. People who do it are selfish and I do hope they get caught before they hurt someone. All I am arguing is that I don't see how making public information more accessible is wrong.
6
Shutting down our freedoms of any kind portends shades of authoritarianism.
No, no, no, no, no.
14
@Mimi, that's an over-statement. Our freedoms have many constraints aimed at keeping us from being dangers or nuisances to others. Being drunk in public, making excessive noise, even covering up your license plate--most laws are essentially about protecting the public good. Including laws that seek to remove impaired drivers and change their behavior--before they kill innocent people and ruin their own lives too. There are times we must fight for freedom against tyranny, yes. But this isn't one of them.
4
@jb
I disagree with you 100%.
I said "portends SHADES" of authoritarianism. Which is exactly what the shutting down of any and all freedoms CAN do.
It is just not true that law enforcement has the right to shut down our freedom to inform others of a sobriety check down the road.
You have been proven wrong by many lawsuits already and in many courts. (See Conneticut's blinking headlights.) Such a law prohibiting our freedom of speech is what Communist Russia does.
@Mimi, arguing with points another has not made is called a straw man argument. It doesn't actually disprove what others actually say.
Other departments have also complained about the police presence icons in Waze with different rationales. This particular angle is extremely tenuous because there is no way to indicate a "dui checkpoint" as opposed to an accident or some other kind of investigation - they will all look the same on the little screen, and I would think that all but the most desperate fugitive would give up on the idea of driving through New York and avoiding any hint of the police.
Frankly, the department should be more concerned with the public perception this creates, that they are a bunch of irrational whiners.
7
Having an app that alerts drivers to the public location of police officers falls under free speech. With regard to speed traps, rather than checkpoints, having the app show the location of police also encourages drivers to slow down, which is the stated goal of speed traps. Or is that they just want to catch people in order to issue fines?
30
@Beth: Bingo!
5
If you want to avoid the delays and harassment caused by the breathalyzer cops who will demand that you practically perform The Dance of the Hours, pirouette on command, be a spectacle while parading one foot in front of the other,..then we must avoid them, as one would a bully, by all means necessary.
These servants of the public, should be out on our roads, available and serving the citizenry while looking for bad actors and impairment as they perform their rounds and duties,. Law abiding citizens, minding their own business, should not be subjected to the delays and zeal of the breathalyzer "search and seize" cops.
How many drunks and sober folks get away with dangerous driving while the cops are delaying and harassing the innocent?
But, there is money to be made charging folks under the alcohol laws.
Anyone subjected to a breathalyzer charge should be able to take a driving test with the same blood alcohol level that was used to charge them with, and actually "be allowed" to prove they were Not impaired, once proven innocent they should receive compensation for the harassment & lost time.
Imagine living in a country where folks are allowed to prove that they are innocent of being impaired? But there is no money in that.
Let's see how the breathalyzer's/lawyers/insurance companies/DMV surcharge artists, and all the other vultures that circle around a victim that is being abused by breathalyzer cops. They are always there, relishing taking their piece of the action.
6
“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"
Uh or sober people who don't want needless interactions with the police.
12
Check points should not be allowed.
They are unreasonable.
8
Ah, that pesky 1st Amendment. Police never never did like that one much, or the 4th, 5th, 13th, 14th, or even the 2nd, except when it applies to them and theirs or kin.
Checkpoints are notorious failures for detecting drunk drivers, but generating nuisance revenue and police overtime.
From direct observation troopers and sheriffs could generate a lot of revenue writing up one another for illegal use by one another of their cell phones while driving. We have way too many police on our roads, pension systems, and overlapping jurisdictions, not to mention ICE. It is helping to turn us into a police state and has been a disturbing retrogressive trend since 9/11.
35
@jwp-nyc
What an excellent idea -- they should ticket one another.
8
@Wimsy - In upstate New York, where I moved after the wrap-around-sirens of New York City got to be a bit much, the sheriff was ticketed for DWI after local villagers got tired of his cleaning the chrome off the side of their legally parked cars as he felt his way home in his own vehicle from the local watering hole. He opted to retire.
Unfortunately, his replacement decided to grow his budget by pushing an agenda that foretold the emergence of the Age of Trumpism or a return to what Richard Hofstadter accurately described as "The Paranoid Style," in American Politics.
After a decade of pursuing rock festivals and driving away tourist dollars, while growing his sheriff's department, the replacement sheriff is now poised along with the Greene County Legislature to encumber the taxpayers with a $90,000,000 first call obligation via a bond for a new (unnecessary) jail, based upon manipulated numbers projected from his drug and DWI arrests of tourists and visitors.
The overall impact of this Sheriff will be to rob Greene County of $320,000,000 over the next 30 years, minimum. That is based on the jail bond, plus the loss of tourist revenue based on the recent loss of the Mountain Jam Rock Festival which is departing for less predatory venues.
So, on top of the affront to the Constitution, NY Police and Sheriffs are eating our young and destroying our economy as the worm eats its tail will invariable discover that it has consumed itself.
17
@jwp-nyc
My son was "busted" attending the "Mountain Jam," about seven years ago. It cost me and my then husband about $17,000 in lawyers and court fees to finally get charges dropped. He was pulled off of a bus as they entered the campsite. There belongings were all improperly searched. The sheriffs claimed they found drugs in his backpack. The DA and the Sheriff up there are totally in cahoots, like something out of a bad Burt Reynolds movie. I turned me off of upstate NY that's for sure.
4
A PoC may see this a different way considering they’re much more likely to be detained/harassed by the “benevolent” NYPD. This request is a joke. People avoid police because they see time and time again in their communities that they do nothing to help until a crime is committed. Often times overworked and underpaid and undertrained officers make mistakes. They can often act with impunity citing the same tired excuses and then it’s a closed book on their end even when the communities they’re “serving” see the scales tilted almost completely towards officer discretion or account even when it contradicts video and audio evidence. No wonder people want to avoid them.
4
When are cars going to be fitted with technology making inebriated/“buzzed”/drunk driving impossible? I go to Japan fairly often, which leads me to ask, When will Americans make driving while intoxicated as socially unacceptable as going to the grocery store stark naked is? In Japan, whoever’s driving doesn’t drink, perio—doesn’t have one beer. The Japanese I know don’t have a problem with that—and, believe me, they do like their beer, as well as other kinds of alcohol.
1
@David
DUI is socially unacceptable and illegal. The issue here is totally different
2
Ah, the vision of the driver who’s drunk enough to be driving while texting (furiously interactive with Waze to route around sobriety checkpoints)...
Sports Illustrated runs a weekly feature they call “sign of the apocalypse.”
3
If they were smart, they'd route their drivers through the checkpoints when a reasonable choice.
If the State can monitor my activities, I can monitor the State's activities.
16
Boo
If it's not this, they'll be some other way to circumvent the police, let's face it, we're not dealing with Harvard MBA's here....
1
The well intentioned demand of the NYPD would, if heeded, fall flat on its face.
The "tribe" will find other ways to use Waze/Google maps, etc. to signal the sobriety checkpoints in any case.
Or someone will simply put an app out for the purpose under the guise of something else. Indeed adapt an existing app to the purpose.
I'm all for sobriety checkpoints and getting drunks off the road, but this will backfire, IMO.
2
Police sobriety checkpoints and speed traps are nothing but extortion vehicles for the cops. These entrapment schemes are nothing more than a game for the cops to intimidate people and make money for the towns and the state. Unlike in parts of Europe, where the cops trundle along in the slow lane, allowing motorists to pass while they look for people who actually need help, American police are themselves drunk, on their perceived power and authority. If the cops want respect, they should start to earn it.
7
As an ex NYPD officer, this has nothing to do with drunk driving and ALL to do with summonses and numbers. I would bet almost anything that country wide, the number of speeding tickets must be way down year to year.
It's all about the cash!
34
Sounds like a first amendment issue. I’d be very curious to see how this can be justified.
8
I am thinking the same thing. Even national security agencies and the White House understand that they have no legal ability to censor what is published or free speech. What they CAN, and actually DO, is call in a particular publisher with particular information about a national security issue, that if known would put lives at risk and expose an intelligence operation. The publisher, without coercion, usually withholds publishing the information on a voluntary basis. The Times has done so from time to time. But everyday traffic speedtraps and checkpoints? Uh, no. That is not a national security issue. People know the risks of driving. It does not mean police cannot go after drunk drivers, but it DOES mean they cannot suppress 1st Amendment rights. There seems to be a major, serious issue with police in this country. They do not seem to understand or value our Constitution, and that protecting civil rights of citizens is first and foremost. More stealth and agile pplice operations can change locations quickly and make WAZE posts obsolete within minutes.
1
The police probably make a lot of money writing tickets for not wearing seatbelts, using cell phones while driving, headlights out, expired registrations, etc... during these checkpoints. They're fighting back because their revenue stream is being threatened - this has nothing to do with public safety.
25
@Jeremy All of the things you mention do in fact impact public safety, and that is why there are laws against the activities and penalties may be imposed.
2
@Jeremy
What? Not wearing seat belts, using cell phones while driving, headlights out, and expired registrations have EVERYTHING to do with public safety! Those people should be ticketed. Jeeezeeee.
3
@DC Please read the 4th Amendment!
1
These apps are going to force the police to stop using check points.
They will have to actively patrol and pull over dangerous drivers.
Who will really benefit here? Certainly not ordinary citizens who are going to see more risky drivers off the streets.
We ask so much of our police already- is it really fair to ask them to use their training to differentiate between criminals and law-abiding citizens?
Check-points have a proven history of being effective and popular- just look at Afghanistan.
14
In the same way as I lose my expectation of privacy when I go on a public road, the police cannot expect people to keep its “secrets” when they set traps on it.
31
Any type of “checkpoint” is probably not legal. Imagine a sidewalk checkpoint stopping all passerbys on foot, demanding a search to know who has illegal substances on their person?
There must be probable cause to search anyone, and probable cause to ask for a breathalyzer.
A cop should not be able to pull anyone over unless they observe behavior that would make them suspect a problem.
7
@GN
Roadside checkpoints have been upheld by courts. They are subject, however, to a variety of constitutionally mandated constraints.
10
I’m sure we all remember that line in the drivers ed book that stipulated “Driving is a privilege and not a right”. As much as I do not agree with intrusive checkpoints et al, we all signed the contract. Buyers remorse?
The Supreme Court erred years ago when it allowed DUI check points to exist. Many police departments have ended them for economic reasons as the manpower and effort expended usually results in very few, if any, actual DUI arrests.
But this effort to suppress the sharing of information that is clearly evident to the public, free for everyone to see on a public street, is un-American and anti-democratic. If it is deemed "illegal" for Waze to share such information, is it not illegal to also post that on your Facebook page, for instance, or telling a friend, drunk or not? What else should be suppressed? I've seen, for instance, the NYT telling us to avoid a certain area of the city due the president coming to town with the attendant traffic issues...is that also a violation, threatening his security? Can the press be told not to air a video of an arrest on a public street as well? Where does this line of thought end?
This undue effort to squash free speech should be resisted.
60
Rolling stop and frisks have always had a questionable legal basis in the first place, in my opinion.
When it comes to what's easiest for the police versus rights and public trust, the police seem to always prefer the former.
The growing disquietude with the police seems like a major story that the news media is overlooking. It's not just about blatant police harassment or misuse of force.
19
The legality over sobriety checkpoints has been challenged over and over again. As always police security and protection rules over an individuals rights. However, why can't we exercise our 4th admendment rights by diverting ourselves away from a checkpoint with an app?
10
@j fink
I think you mean first amendment rights.
Police checkpoints are just an easy way for police to make arrests. It's more work and less arrests if they drive around patrolling and looking for impaired drivers. People have lots of ways to share information about police locations. They can put it on Facebook, use other kinds of apps, or even email, text or call each other. Are the police going to try to outlaw all of it?
14
How’s it feel PD to have the shoe on the other foot? You’ve been spying on New Yorkers for years. Your cameras and mics everywhere. Not so nice is it? Here’s a deal: cops stop their spying and Google stops its. Seriously though can’t the cops up their game?
13
@Joe and everyone else interested in the constitution. I agree with joe. It’s sad to think that the New York police can’t go back to the good old days. Remember that following this video there was no outrage by any policeman or police associations. In fact, these policeman literally turned their backs on a mayor that actually acted concerned regarding this issue. The police administrators and the police prosecutors should be shamed of themselves for their actions following this event. I believe that Waze should change its icon and add this dead man’s picture instead of that cute little emoji. It’s important for all of us to never forget this video.
https://youtu.be/_s8JklrBSlk
https://youtu.be/_s8JklrBSlk
If you’re really drunk you’re not going to think to check into Waze or Google to see where the cops are checking cars.
37
And when the first person dies on the way to a hospital because they're stuck behind a checkpoint rather than being able to drive around it....?
7
A smart tort attorney could bring in the deepest of deep pocket defendants -- Google -- if s/he could demonstrate that a drunk driver was aided in staying on the road and hurting someone by a warning from Waze.
4
Absurd. Back in my reporting days (not in NY), a cop once threatened to "arrest [me] for trespassing at a non-secured crime scene" - the highway shoulder where he was conducting a vehicle search. I told him if he could find that in the book, to go right ahead.
9
Law enforcement uses information gathered by the likes of Google and Facebook to surveil people all the time. ALL THE TIME. And, man do they get upset when you challenge that surveillance in court. I mean temper tantrum throwing MAD. So, I have little sympathy for them. Moreover, there are legitimate reasons the information is helpful sober drivers--If I know I can avoid a slowdown by taking another route I'll take it.
47
Sounds like the police would rather catch drunk drivers than prevent them from getting behind the wheel in the first place. MADD has the right idea - what is the intention?
Besides, who’s going to be coordinated enough to operate Waze when they’re too drunk to drive? Probably not the people to worry about.
21
A police force that is afraid of the citizens it supposedly serves sharing information about its activities is a police force that those citizens should fear.
Thank God for the 1st Amendment.
89
In Connecticut the police used to arrest people who alerted other drivers to speed traps by blinking headlights. A few lawsuits based on the 1st Amendment and the practice of questionable arrests was greatly diminished. There was a case of police arresting a person who stood on the shoulder of the highway and holding a sign that said "Speed Trap Ahead". It is amazing what a few court rulings can do to curtail certain police practices, especially when damages have to be paid. The !st. Amendment is still in effect, thank god.
105
Sharing info on Waze is freedom of speech. NY police department is clearly more interested in ticketing and arresting people than in protecting and serving. No one will take Waze seriously if they start stripping basic features that help people be more responsible drivers.
53
@chase
"Ticketing and arresting" is a major part of "protecting and serving." Ultimately, individuals will have to take some moral responsibility and limit how much they share this type of information. I have never been stopped for speeding when I wasn't actually speeding (and by a significant amount.)
2
Umm I would think it would be a deterrent to drive if you know their out there. If they are that concerned why not park outside a bar?
25
@J Clark Right, why not park outside some bars and dissuade people from drinking and driving in the first place. No income stream?
15
@Roger S
Of course if preventing drunk driving was the primary goal cops would be stationed outside bars and restaurants checking BAC before people even had a chance to get out on the road. But that would deter business and lead to lost revenue, so we cannot have that.
12
@J Clark Can you imagine the blowback if the police did as you suggest? And the police could also start trying to persuade people to file accurate tax returns, have their kids vaccinated, and to not have abortions.
It's going to be hard to stop this. In the old CB days, it was easy to speak in code about speed traps etc. People will find ways to use Google and Waze to represent checkpoints as something innocent but ironic, like a zoo or a rest stop.
37
Yes, Waze should not post drunk driving checkpoints.
Google has become entirely too invasive in the lives of the users. Nothing done in Google or Waze or its myriad other apps is not recorded and, if nothing else, used to push unwanted advertising to users.
6
@pjswfla: First Amendment guarantees otherwise.
14
@pjswfla
What does your comment about Google and its being "invasive in the lives of the users" have to do with merely truthfully identifying an area of a public roadway with a check point on it? The police certainly have no expectation of privacy in publicly conducted operations.
9
@Jay Trehy
Just because you have a right to do something does not make it the right thing to do. Google can save lives or make more money. "Don't be evil!"
1