NYPD To Google: Stop Revealing the Location of Police Checkpoints (nypost.com) 389
schwit1 shares a report from the New York Post: The NYPD is calling on Google to yank a feature from its Waze traffic app that tips off drivers to police checkpoints -- warning it could be considered "criminal conduct," according to a report on Wednesday. The department sent a cease-and-desist letter over the weekend demanding Google disable the crowd-sourced app's function that allows motorists to pinpoint police whereabouts, StreetsBlog reported. "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," wrote Acting Deputy Commissioner for Legal Matters Ann Prunty in the letter, according to the website. My $0.02 is that the NYPD loses on first amendment grounds.
Response: (Score:5, Insightful)
SOTU to NYPD: STFU
Re:Response: (Score:5, Insightful)
If only there was a way for the police to use this to their advantage, eg. to herd all the checkpoint-evaders into a trap.
Response (Score:5, Interesting)
There is. [usfca.edu]
TWO FRIENDS ARE DRIVING HOME after a night on the town. A few miles from their freeway exit, they see a sign that reads “Drug Checkpoint 1 Mile Ahead.” There is nothing to worry about—neither party is carrying contraband and the driver is sober. But their exit is only a few miles away and the weary travelers want to avoid the hassle of a stop. The driver takes the first exit he sees after the sign; much to his surprise, he encounters a drug checkpoint located at the bottom of the off-ramp. The bewildered driver turns to his companion and asks; “Can they do that?” Regardless of whether law enforcement can use such tactics, they have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. While it is illegal for you to lie to law enforcement, it is not illegal for law enforcement to lie to you.
Re:Response: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think we get to FINALLY do away with that pesky 4th amendment -- police shouldn't need probable cause to search someone without a warrant, my gods they're just trying to keep us safe!
Re:Response: (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen to that. You claim it's all about safety and not revenue? Visible cops will deter bad driving more than hidden speed traps and these bullshit "Checkpoints"...
Fuck you and your secret police shit.
Re:Response: (Score:5, Insightful)
I totally agree. In fact I think the hidden speed traps are more hazardousness than they are helpful.
There have been too many times when I'm jamming on the breaks and swerving into the median trying not to hit the car in front of me, or seeing this in cars ahead, because we went from 70 down to 45, just because over a hill or around a corner was a speed trap.
when you see the police just driving in traffic, people slow down, less abruptly, and drive more safely. The speed traps are all about revenue and have nothing to do with public safety.
Re:Response: (Score:5, Insightful)
If you need to swerve to avoid hitting the car in front of you, you are too close. Leave a larger stopping distance for your own safety.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen this happen on interstate where speed limit is 70. I've seen cars ahead of me nearly plow into cars ahead of them because cars ahead of them dropped down to 60 or 65 as they passed a cop parked in the median running his radar. The cop picked a spot where he could radar people coming over the crest of a hill before they had a chance to see him. The accordion effect of that rolled backward until cars farther back basically stopped on the interstate. People coming over the hill had no chance.
Re:Response: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
This has always been a tongue-in-cheek requirement. They'll post it on their website, on a bulletin board in City Hall, and/or a local newspaper knowing damn well that drunk drivers plan their nights around the postings.
Said drivers, however, are willing to throw on Google Maps/Waze when they stumble into their vehicles after a night out. And Google/Waze will be there to help them crash into someone instead of being arrested.
Re:Response: (Score:4, Insightful)
NYPD is willfully ignoring the law (Score:5, Interesting)
About 5-10 years ago, there was a Supreme Court opinion that said people flashing their headlights to indicate a police presence was a 1st amendment right.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:NYPD is willfully ignoring the law (Score:5, Informative)
I haven't found a Supreme court opinion on the subject, but a Federal district court judge granted a preliminary injunction against the City/Police in Ellisville Missouri regarding this. See "Elli vs Ellisville" from 2014. (I am not the same AC you asked for a citation, just thought I'd give googling for one a shot)
Re:NYPD is willfully ignoring the law (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't found a Supreme court opinion on the subject, but a Federal district court judge granted a preliminary injunction against the City/Police in Ellisville Missouri regarding this. See "Elli vs Ellisville" from 2014. (I am not the same AC you asked for a citation, just thought I'd give googling for one a shot)
And the standard here isn't that people were helping people get away with criminal behavior. Flashing your lights at someone (and by anology letting people know about a police checkpoint) is the equivalent of telling someone not to commit that crime. This isn't the equivalent of a look out for a drug lab radioing in to let them know about a police raid.
So if you are speeding and I flash my lights to warn you of a speed trap that doesn't help the furtherance of a crime, you are going to slow down and comply with the speed limit. Likewise if there is a police checkpoint then you are going to drive more carefully or might just decide to stop driving if you had a couple. People are going to stop the criminal behavior, at least for a period of time.
Deterrence is the whole point of having speed traps and police check points... which is completely in-line with people being made aware of them.
Say what? (Score:3)
Deterrence is the whole point of having speed traps and police check points... which is completely in-line with people being made aware of them.
Speed traps and check points have NOTHING to do with deterrence. They generate revenue, plain and simple. And perhaps prevention in the case of DWI checkpoints.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: NYPD is willfully ignoring the law (Score:3, Interesting)
Elli v. Ellisville, 2014.
Initial hearing in Federal District court was a temporary injunction against the town of Ellisville, second hearing resulted in a permanent injunction. The district court judge noted that headlight flashing was a personal expression and protected under the first amendment. Read Section 32.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4299176/elli-v-ellisville-missouri-city-of/
Since it's caselaw in the 8th Circuit court, to win, the NYPD would have to sue Google in a higher appellate court
Re: (Score:2)
well they sure as fuck can't stop people from posting photos from a public place either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, they have guns, so you have to agree. This is at the same time they protest that you shouldn't have guns, because it weakens the violence-factor of their guns.
It seems the government wants their cake and wants to eat it, and then order another 50 cakes. You can't put the whole universe under 100% intense surveillance daily and expect they won't want to know what you're up to. Government acts don't carry zero consequences by public measure.
Also, we're mostly clued into the idea that your goals don't co
Re:NYPD is willfully ignoring the law (Score:5, Informative)
About 5-10 years ago, there was a Supreme Court opinion that said people flashing their headlights to indicate a police presence was a 1st amendment right.
This popped up way back in the 70's in the US, when social media was Citizen Band (CD) radios.
Truckers would alert each other to where "Smoky" (a cop) or other "Bears" (yet more cops) were hiding.
Normal folks would just tune in and listen to the "traffic reports", and were most grateful to the truckers.
Re: NYPD is willfully ignoring the law (Score:3)
Re: NYPD is willfully ignoring the law (Score:2)
badges for bad guys (Score:4, Interesting)
When did policing in the United States become gestapo-like? I mean, it's always been that way for certain minority groups. I get that. But now it's just across the board, from local cops to staties to border patrol and that deepest of the deep state, ICE (who is actually not under the jurisdiction of any US court, if you can believe that).
It's gotten to the point that anyone who wears a badge is the enemy. Cops in neo-Nazi gangs. Well, maybe not park rangers, but everyone else? Fuck them.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because if you're gestapo-like to minority groups nowadays, everybody hears about it? This way, it's non-discriminatory. Plus, when you have Google and Facebook, assistive technologies such as this levels the law enforcement playing field across demographic boundaries. Primarily, though, I think law enforcement is losing power to the people through this kind of immediate democratization of information -- if one person has a "police radio" now, effectively everybody does, globally.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's as simple as a means-to-an-end metric. Constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure are a rather regular hindrance to the average LEO's daily grind. To be fair, they are often doing a thankless job trifling with the dregs of society on a nightly basis, but protections offered to citizens are frequently in the way of the implementation of their duties.
Regarding the predisposition to be heavy handed with minority groups, it's very likely personal biases play a role... but don't kid y
badges make bad guys? (Score:2)
Re: badges make bad guys? (Score:2)
Inholder. Now there's a word only inholders would know. And now it's uselessly cluttering my head. Next time just translate it to "forest fire afficianado".
Re: (Score:2)
When did policing in the United States become gestapo-like?
This isnt like that at all. These are traffic cops.
To continue to be a traffic cop they must consistently bring in at least as much as they are paid, in revenue. Thats the bare minimum too.
When ticket revenue is down, they get chewed out hard for sure. That money was expected.
Re: (Score:2)
To continue to be a traffic cop they must consistently bring in at least as much as they are paid, in revenue
Bullshit.
Traffic police provide a valuable public service in helping keep the roads open and usable, with vast economic benefits significantly beyond mere law violation related revenues.
That role is recognised and justifies employing police to manage and support transport infrastructure even without generating any revenue.
The revenue generation is both a genuine outcome of financially encouraging people to obey the law and also a seedy cash grab intended to mitigate the cost of operating the necessary traff
Re: (Score:2)
Re:badges for bad guys (Score:5, Interesting)
Ahm.... these are DUI checkpoints. The revenue is not much, but they get drunk drivers who are currently drunk off the road. This isn't speed cameras or other big ticket revenue generators.
DUI convictions are huge money for municipalities. If somehow all alcohol users stopped driving, there would be budget shortfalls. A budget shortfall actually happened in the city of Westland Mi about 10 years ago due to a "labor action" on the part of the police department over contract negotiations. They stopped pulling people over & arresting them for DUI for several months.
The massive fines for DUI is actually part of many cities budgets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:badges for bad guys (Score:5, Informative)
To continue to be a traffic cop they must consistently bring in at least as much as they are paid, in revenue. Thats the bare minimum too. ...
I doubt america is so retarded that traffic cops get paid by the ticket "revenue" they bring in
Then your doubt is ill placed. Years ago, a local police chief admitted to the Washington Post that they have quotas for traffic tickets. It's been common knowledge that this is the case in most jurisdictions. You'll also note that police departments are able to confiscate just about anything used in a crime, from cars to cash.
Re:badges for bad guys (Score:4, Informative)
Quotas are different than getting paid by the ticket. Cops don't get a commission for giving tickets. They are expected to give a certain number per month.
I also know some states have non-tickets that count towards this quota. So, for instance, warnings for headlights being out or pulling over someone suspected of being drunk (but is just a little sloppy) still results in some paperwork. Because how do you know your traffic cops are doing anything if they go out for eight hours and wrote nothing down? They could be goofing off like in Super Troopers.
And confiscation is a different kettle of fish altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
If in germany police men had quotas, we had riots instantly.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt america is so retarded that traffic cops get paid by the ticket "revenue" they bring in ...
Hghway patrol for example. Its not that the cops or even their departments get ticket revenue, but the state gets that revenue. Traffic tickets are a revenue source for the state, just like the sales tax, income tax, etc. The state can then "pressure" the highway patrol to generate more revenue. Similar story with towns and their police departments, and "pressure" applied to traffic officers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:badges for bad guys (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
These leftists start sounding more and more like conspiracy theorists.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:badges for bad guys (Score:5, Insightful)
"DWI checkpoints" are not used to catch drunk drivers. They mainly go after expired plates, unpaid tickets, outstanding warrants. auto insurance, minor drug offenses.
They're document checks, nothing more. The statistics on this are pretty clear.
Re: (Score:2)
When they became the enemy depended on your social status, ethnicity, skin color and sometimes if you failed to pay the vig. Police corruption is not rare or new. It's a bit more visible now we don't rely on dead tree media.
Go look up Beau of the Fifth Column (Score:5, Informative)
Long story short it's a symptom of Tough on Crime Laws and police militarization that's created an "Us vs Them" mentality. The Drug War hurts a lot too since a large percentage of folks smoke pot or know someone who does and that means you're always scared shitless when a cops around since they can arrest you and take your stuff.
The solution's easy: Stop Voting for Tough on Crime politicians, end the Drug war and stop civil asset forfeiture (which was created for the Drug War anyway). There's a few other odds and ends we can do (California has an anti-speed trap law, and properly funding your police so they're not dependent on civil asset forfeiture is a good start) too.
For speed traps, even more effective (Score:5, Interesting)
The article talks both of DWI and of other speed and safety traps.
The goal for speed enforcement is (or should be) for drivers to slow traffic down to the speed limit and drive safely. When the alerts show up, that is exactly what drivers do near the checkpoint. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, at least in that zone.
What they should be asking for is inserting extra markers when dangerous conditions are forming, so those app users can reduce traffic speeds before a crash occurs.
Re: (Score:2)
This kind of warning would not even need to be a fake police sign. Even 'dangerous driving conditions ahead, slow down' could help.
They have traffic density and speed data, they could choose to identify waves of dense, dangerously fast vehicles. They certainly can detect suddenly-slowing traffic. They could probably also pick up cars weaving through traffic with so many GPS-enabled phones. All of them could trigger a shout out to pay some extra attention.
Re:For speed traps, even more effective (Score:5, Interesting)
In some other European countries it is illegal to announce the location of speed traps. One radio station got around that by reporting incidences of “falling stars” instead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are there any studies on how many extra accidents speed traps cause?
Sudden braking, people looking for the hidden speed camera vans instead of at the road, driving too slowly because they aren't sure what the limit is or don't trust the janky speed detectors, that kind of thing.
This has happened to me a few times. People suddenly braking when they see the van, or doing 15 in a 40 zone. Once I was distracted by a van that looked kinda like a speed cam van, and when the real ones are out my strong instinct is
Re: (Score:2)
Sudden braking, people looking for the hidden speed camera vans instead of at the road, driving too slowly because they aren't sure what the limit is or don't trust the janky speed detectors
If that's the problem, then issue fines on the basis of average speed between 2 speed traps. It should be easy to calculate the speed based on the time it took to go from one to the other.
when the real ones are out my strong instinct is to keep checking the speedo rather than watching the road carefully.
Drive 5 below then, or 10 below if you're truly terrible at maintaining a speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ultimate goal is to slow people down to the speed limit. To try and accomplish that, the police issue fines: “you don’t want to pay that every time you drive too fast”, and to instill the idea that the likelihood of getting a fine when speedin is quite high: “we are watching”. For the second point, the police over here actually do publish the locations of speed traps themselves... just not all of them. A study suggests that it actually helps; people don’t keep checking the mile markers to see if they are near the speed trap, they tend to stick to the limit for a far larger stretch rather than keep speeding (and slamming the brakes as soon as they spot the camera).
In some other European countries it is illegal to announce the location of speed traps. One radio station got around that by reporting incidences of “falling stars” instead.
Which European countries? I wish to make a note to avoid them.
The UK publishes the locations of fixed and average speed cameras... It's almost as if they just want you to slow down.
I've never been a believer in the "revenue" conspiracy theory because it just doesn't make sense to have a revenue stream designed to discourage repeat custom (if they truly were trying to raise revenue, they'd lower the fines so they're less trouble to pay and maybe give you a 14 day period where it's halved, like parking
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The goal for speed enforcement is (or should be) for drivers to slow traffic down to the speed limit and drive safely. When the alerts show up, that is exactly what drivers do near the checkpoint. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, at least in that zone.
No, all that happens is that loads of drivers slam on their brakes just before the cop/speed camera and potentially cause more accidents. They also go faster between speed traps.
Re: (Score:2)
They also go faster between speed traps.
Of course. We've got to make up for the lost time.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are operating on the assumption that traffic tickets are about safety. In reality its about looting the public for money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If people know where the speed traps are then they feel free to speed everywhere else.
And of course, the idea that the speed limit is simply too low is never even considered.
Re: (Score:3)
And of course, the idea that the speed limit is simply too low is never even considered.
One thing I don't understand about the US is that almost everyone drives 5-10mph over the speed limit, no more, no less. I mean, if you care, why not drive at the speed written on the sign? It the tip culture so well established that you also need to tip speed limits?
The worst part is that I'm sure that if someone decided to actually set the speed limit to the actual speed people drive, people will just drive faster, so road planners most likely take that into account when setting speed limits. That's a vic
Re:For speed traps, even more effective (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixed.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Fixed.
Just because the government is asking for a voluntary donation for the ability to break the law doesn't mean it's primary purpose is revenue raising.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Speed traps are pop quizzes for reaction time (Score:2)
Well, either slow down or else pay much better attention. Every time I've gotten a speeding ticket, it wasn't really because I was speeding. I speed all the time but haven't gotten a ticket in over a decade now. The reason I got tickets, was because I wasn't on my game and paying sufficient attention to detect the cop (and slow down).
If I see him in time and demonstrate that I saw him by sl
Avoiding checkpoints (Score:5, Insightful)
This app also assists Lawful and Non-Impaired drivers in avoiding the inconvenience or uncomfortable situation of happening upon an unexpected checkpoint and possibly becoming subject to some search or test that they wish to avoid.
In other words.... this functionality has lawful and beneficial uses, contrary to what their letter suggests.
Furthermore, the submission, sharing, and dissemination of this information about government activity is speech of a political nature among the types of speech most strongly protected by the 1st Amendment of the US constitution, which the NYC PD is not above.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If a built-up zone has a 30 km/h limit and someone is driving 60 km/h, hopefully most people can see why that is a problem. I wouldn't flash my lights to warn the driver there's a cop with a speed gun waiting down the road because that's a safety issue and there's no reason a pedestrian should be run over because someone can behave responsibly.
On the other hand, if a country road with no hou
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
good for both (Score:2)
Do you think one can be enabled, and the other is not?
DUI check points need to go back to the Supreme Co (Score:3)
DUI check points need to go back to the Supreme Court. Decades ago they were deemed a necessary limitation to our right to not be detained by the government for absolutely no reason, in the name of public safety (getting drunks off the roads). In the last couple of decades though multiple studies have shown that saturation policing is both cheaper and more effective at stopping drunks rendering that ruling inaccurate
Fuck checkpoints (Score:3)
Public Slashdotters. (Score:3)
Back when speed limits was very low and there was no alternative to drinking and driving majority of the public hated the speed traps and DWI check points. And would be in a mood to support the dodgers because they might need to dodge it themselves at some point.
But now with easy Uber clones and public info campaign, most people avoid drinking and driving. Speed limits have gone up to 70. A very large majority of the the public no longer feel these checkpoints are targeting them, but instead they are targeting the "others", "them speed maniacs, and them drunken drivers". Public support is likely to be with NYPD, whether they win in courts or not. Google has a "win the court lose the people" dilemma in its hand.
Re: (Score:2)
A very large majority of the the WHITE public no longer feel these checkpoints are targeting them
Fixed that for you.
They're going about this wrong (Score:2)
Instead of threatening Google, why isn't the NYPD asking Google to dump the traffic data... Then filter out the folk who are regularly speeding along the same route?
Re: (Score:2)
But what the hell does Google care? Aren't they legally based overseas? So they can avoid the local arm of the law?
Google is a FOR-PROFIT company. They care about REVENUE! The NYPD should find a way where posting checkpoints hurts Google's bottom line, not threaten them with arrest since they really can't anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell the cops to go pound sand (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're allowed to get away with this, you can bet it won't be long before they'll be trying once again to make it illegal to video them when they're beating the crap out of somebody.
The police need to be smacked down hard. If you happen to be part of a demographic they don't particularly like, your odds of getting beaten or killed by the cops for no particular reason are higher than your chances of being injured or killed in a terrorist attack.
Re: (Score:2)
>> demographic they don't particularly like
That demographic is those who break laws, and it isn't a matter of "liking" or "disliking"; it is the enforcement of laws that someone else made. I'm sure your insinuation is "poor innocent ," but this whole line of thinking is completely propagandist. The stats are available for you to peruse if you dare to look at what the propagandists have labeled "hate stats."
Most cases that the media push as "bad policing" have extremely relevant yet unreported details.
So, NIMBY (Score:2)
Google gives LEO all our data.
Google will find a way.
NYPD is losing money (Score:2)
What to say (Score:5, Informative)
I do not consent to this search.
Am I being detained? Am I free to go?
Am I under arrest? What are the charges?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:People who look out for traffic cops (Score:5, Insightful)
The law says you have a right to not be detained without reasonable cause, and freedom in security of your belongings from unwarranted searches.
Checkpoints prevent these lawful protections.
They get around this in some areas by publishing where these checkpoints will be. All of these actions take away rights by claiming exigent circumstances or public interest. Due to well-deserved lawsuits, they have to restore those rights somehow to prevent abuses.
But you're complaining about how those rights are restored. You are backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
The person with a ten minute drive to pick up their kid from day care would really love to know whether they're going to get caught in a 15 minute queue because the police are breathalysing everybody that goes past.
Leaving five minutes earlier and taking a detour avoids a frightened upset child with a ruined evening.
What the fuck do traffic laws have to do with it?
Re: People who look out for traffic cops (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
RTFA. This is about DWI checkpoints. Speed traps are one thing, but fuck you if you think driving drunk is some sort of right.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway red light cameras with fines are going away. People vote out politicians who support red light cameras with fine.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Contrary to the ridiculous police claims... the Red Light Cameras and Speed Traps are a greedy money grab.
In the same way that people in the street ask for voluntary donations from a charity. You know you are entirely within control here right? You can easily not pay money to these people. In fact in order to pay money to these people you basically have to break the law.
Re: (Score:3)
n fact in order to pay money to these people you basically have to break the law.
No, that does not really work... well, maybe, unless you need to Park your Car [autoblog.com]; or you just somehow happen to be near the camera's view after someone else recently made a violation.
Re:State wants it to be illegal to tell each other (Score:5, Insightful)
You have not been paying attention.
When you give your money to a company to build the road, they will make sure they own the road.
You will pay for it, though the nose, because they have you over a barrel. But they will own it
And they will charge you extraordinary amounts of money to use it. You and everyone.
Sure, government needs to be watched ( so, why arent we watching ), but corporations need watching too.
The Randian notion that corporate execs are uniformly stalwart pillars of truth, justice and fairness does not seem to apply.
I wish like heck it did, but it dont.
Re: (Score:2)
If the government pays for something then gives ownership to a corporation, that's the government's fault not the corporations. Of course, Rand would never have had the government paying the corporations to build the road. She would have had the corporations do it with their own money.
Re:State wants it to be illegal to tell each other (Score:4, Insightful)
No victim, no crime.
Someone hits you, then you own their ass until repaid.
That and voluntarily insuring yourself will cover it.
If nothing else, you sovereign citizen lunatics give me something entertaining to watch on youtube. I love watching your dumb asses blather on about how you're "not driving, you're travelling, and you don't need a license for that!", then get your car window busted out and dragged out of a car while screaming "no victim, no crime." Not sure why, but that amuses me.
Actually on topic... sorry. "Someone hits you, then you own their ass until repaid." So when someone kills my wife/brother/mother/son because they were driving way too fast for conditions and caused an accident I "own them" until they provide me a replacement loved one? I'm not sure if you know, but that's not how things work. Do we incarcerate that person for the rest of their life? Do they owe me some number of millions of dollars? When should I consider myself "repaid"?
Seems to me that a mutual understanding that "this road was designed to handle traffic at 25mph", posting some sort of notice that indicates as such, and paying a couple people to make sure motorists drive within those established guidelines would make a bit more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
you also don't realize until you go to court, most times those people have no money and will never pay you.
Re:Good luck with this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any smart phone is detected.
No smart phone detected? Talking at the checkpoint is the voice print.
The constitutionally approved magic is a K9 unit that can alert on command.
That allows for the K9 approved "search"
Re: (Score:2)
Well, TFS said this was about DWI checkpoints, not speed traps.