I’m sure most of you have heard of Waze, possibly even use it yourself. On the off chance that you haven’t heard of it, Waze is a smartphone app developed by Google that provides real-time traffic information for drivers. Users simply plug in their destination address or location and Waze provides the quickest possible route using GPS and real-time user input while en route. While driving, not only are users directed to the fast route, but they are also made aware of upcoming traffic, obstacles in the road, street closures, and yes, police presence, including the location of DUI checkpoints.
The New York Police Department is not happy about it and is seeking to stop it.
The NYPD has sent a letter to Google demanding that it stops allowing users to post the location of DUI checkpoints claiming that the app is â€œencouraging reckless driving.â€
“Individuals who post the locations of DWI checkpoints may be engaging in criminal conduct since such actions could be intentional attempts to prevent and/or impair the administration of the DWI laws and other relevant criminal and traffic laws. 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,” NYPD acting Deputy Commissioner Ann Prunty said in the letter to Google dated February 2.
Although Waze does not have a feature that specifically alerts drivers about upcoming DUI checkpoints, it does notify drivers of upcoming police presence.
“We believe highlighting police presence promotes road safety because drivers tend to drive more carefully and obey traffic laws when they are aware of nearby police. We’ve also seen police encourage such reporting as it serves as both a warning to drivers, as well as a way to highlight police work that keeps roadways safe,” a Waze spokesperson said in a statement to CNN last week. “There is no separate functionality for reporting police speed traps and DUI/DWI checkpoints â€” the Waze police icon represents general police presence.â€
However, in Wazeâ€™s feature that displays upcoming police presence, users can report the presence of a DUI checkpoint as a comment about what they have observed including whether the police presence is a DUI checkpoint.
Law enforcement complaints on the posting of DUI checkpoint locations is nothing new. In July of 2016, the National Sheriffâ€™s Association released a statement which said, â€œEvidence on social media shows that people who drink and drive use Waze’s police locator feature to avoid law enforcement. …The facts are clear. It is just a matter of time before we start seeing the dangers that lurk within the Waze app’s police locator feature.”
The California Supreme Court in the 1987 case of Ingersoll v. Palmer held that, for DUI checkpoints to be constitutional, they must meet the following criteria:
- The decision to conduct checkpoint must be at the supervisory level.
- There must be limits on the discretion of field officers.
- Checkpoints must be maintained safely for both the officers and the motorists.
- Checkpoints must be set up at reasonable locations such that the effectiveness of the checkpoint is optimized.
- The time at which a checkpoint is set up should also optimize the effectiveness of the checkpoint.
- The checkpoint must show indicia of official nature of the roadblock.
- Motorists must only be stopped for a reasonable amount of time which is only long enough to briefly question the motorist and look for signs of intoxication.
- Lastly, the Court in the Ingersoll decision was strongly in favor of the belief that there should be advance publicity of the checkpoint. To meet this requirement law enforcement usually make the checkpoints highly visible with signs and lights.
Three years later in the case of Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, the United States Supreme Court held that the stateâ€™s interest in preventing drunk driving was a â€œsubstantial government interest.â€ It further held that this government interest outweighed motoristsâ€™ interests against unreasonable searches and seizures when considering the brevity and nature of the stop. In doing so, the court held that sobriety checkpoints were constitutional even though officers were technically violating the 4th Amendment.Having said all of that, nothing prevents a driver, nor should it, from letting others know when and where a DUI checkpoint is. Waze has not provided a feature that specifically points out DUI checkpoints. Rather, users can advise of DUI checkpoint locations in comments. How is this any different than speaking about police activity with friends and family in person, or in a text, or in an email? How is it any different that speaking about police activity on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram? It isnâ€™t any different, and to allow law enforcement to prevent such speech would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. Doing so would also open the door to allow law enforcement to dictate what we can or canâ€™t say on our social media sites. That is not acceptable.