LINK

In a letter demanding that Waze remove the function that enables drivers to see police locations, the corrupt and sneaky little bastards at the NYPD decided to approach this by highlighting DWI Checkpoints. They’re clearly using this approach in an attempt to get public support on their side. And it will probably work. When the question of DWI Checkpoints is brought up on this forum occasionally, a good portion of the members are fine with them. Many people don’t have an issue with LE violating people’s rights by stopping cars wholesale without cause.

Anyway, the real issue is that they’re also looking to block the sharing of “similar data”. They didn’t fool me about their true intention and, apparently, they’re not fooling Google either. Googles response: "We believe that informing drivers about upcoming speed traps allows them to be more careful and make safer decisions when they're on the road."

I read that and my first thought is "whatever the goobermint (including the NYPD) does in public is public knowledge."

Arrest someone and a non goobermint entity films/ live streams it - covered by the 1A... why not checkpoints and speed cameras?

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:
LINK

In a letter demanding that Waze remove the function that enables drivers to see police locations, the corrupt and sneaky little bastards at the NYPD decided to approach this by highlighting DWI Checkpoints. They’re clearly using this approach in an attempt to get public support on their side. And it will probably work. When the question of DWI Checkpoints is brought up on this forum occasionally, a good portion of the members are fine with them. Many people don’t have an issue with LE violating people’s rights by stopping cars wholesale without cause.

Anyway, the real issue is that they’re also looking to block the sharing of “similar data”. They didn’t fool me about their true intention and, apparently, they’re not fooling Google either. Googles response: "We believe that informing drivers about upcoming speed traps allows them to be more careful and make safer decisions when they're on the road."

Obviously cutting into revenue for them. Tennessee has a different approach - they publish all checkpoints in advance:
https://www.tn.gov/safety/tnhp/checkpoints.html

If the goal is to reduce violations, then obviously the information should be shared far and wide. It's only an issue if your goal is to generate revenue.

Google seems to do whatever the hell they want.

I'm not saying it's right, but it will be interesting if NYPD can do anything about it.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
Tennessee has a different approach - they publish all checkpoints in advance:
https://www.tn.gov/safety/tnhp/checkpoints.html

Same here in NJ. They're not publishing out of the goodness of their heart. I believe that's what technically allows them to stop people without probable cause.

Ohio informs also.

Maine publishes them as well.

This will be an interesting one to watch.

quote:

NYPD demands that Waze stop revealing their locations

They must have mistook NY for commie Russia. I know it looks similar and is run by the same type of folks but it's still in the USA.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:
LINK

In a letter demanding that Waze remove the function that enables drivers to see police locations, the corrupt and sneaky little bastards at the NYPD decided to approach this by highlighting DWI Checkpoints. They’re clearly using this approach in an attempt to get public support on their side. And it will probably work. When the question of DWI Checkpoints is brought up on this forum occasionally, a good portion of the members are fine with them. Many people don’t have an issue with LE violating people’s rights by stopping cars wholesale without cause.

Anyway, the real issue is that they’re also looking to block the sharing of “similar data”. They didn’t fool me about their true intention and, apparently, they’re not fooling Google either. Googles response: "We believe that informing drivers about upcoming speed traps allows them to be more careful and make safer decisions when they're on the road."

Obviously cutting into revenue for them. Tennessee has a different approach - they publish all checkpoints in advance:
https://www.tn.gov/safety/tnhp/checkpoints.html

If the goal is to reduce violations, then obviously the information should be shared far and wide. It's only an issue if your goal is to generate revenue.

I have to agree with this the goal should be prevention, not revenue!

WV State Police run ads in our local paper when & where checkpoints are held. They still catch a bunch of dummies!

Well, Comrade Mayor hates the police, so, they won't get any assistance on this.

This should go nowhere, but it will be interesting to watch.

There are a few issues to consider;

1 - There is no requirement in the only Supreme Court case on the issue to publicize locations in advance, however there are a significant number of studies that have been published that suggest the publicity greatly increases the effectiveness of DUI checkpoints as a deterrence to drunk driving, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency have published guidelines that recommend publicity in advance.

2 - Typically, what happens in public, is public information, and therefore can be published once it is known. The DUI checkpoint operation would seem to comply with this.

3 - People have been arrested and convicted of obstruction of justice for standing on the road side holding a sign that says "DUI Checkpoint ahead, turn now." Perhaps they had a crappy lawyer, but I don't see how that really flies, but it has happened.

As noted, this will be an interesting one to watch.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
I read that and my first thought is "whatever the goobermint (including the NYPD) does in public is public knowledge."

Arrest someone and a non goobermint entity films/ live streams it - covered by the 1A... why not checkpoints and speed cameras?

Because revenue.

has nothing to do with public safety

has everything to do with revenue generation

if the cops watch us, it only seems fair that we watch them as well

I say every speed trap, every DUI 'checkpoint' should be published by whatever means necessary

they're civil servants, not secret police

Good for Google, who has not done anything in response to this ridiculous demand.

Wouldn't it be a 1A issue restricting peoples freedom of speech to not allow them to post the information...

This is insane. If the NYPD is doing traffic enforcement for money then they are wrong. Traffic enforcement is about safety. It's about slowing people down and making them aware of unsafe driving behaviors. I would think the NYPD would want these locations known. At least people will slow down and be more safe, even if only for a minute as they pass the cop.


I've never liked writing tickets but I used to do a lot of traffic enforcement. I'd say 80 percent of the people I stopped got warnings. The other people see my lights and will slow down and pay attention because they don't want a ticket. They don't know I'm just giving the person a warning. I've never had a boss say a word to me for doing this. Again, making money isn't the purpose of traffic enforcement.

What is old is new again:

Recall back in the 1970's when the 55 MPH national speed limit was enacted, several police agencies requested to make CB radio "Smokey Reports" illegal per FCC rules. Didn't happen.

quote:

This is insane. If the NYPD is doing traffic enforcement for money then they are wrong.

Of course it's about the money. If it wasn't about the money there wouldn't be monetary fines attached to traffic violations.

It may not be about the money to you, but it's about the money to those who pass these laws.

Does it really count as "informed" when the notice is on page 36 of some paper no one reads anymore?

I'm also in the "if it's not about revenue, stop using unmarked cars for traffic enforcement" camp.