Dui checkpoints

[OldGnome]

Report it for the traffic impact.

Thanks, daknife. I appreciate the information.

[AndyPoms]

Report it for the traffic impact.

and the fact that there will be lane closures/restrictions/narrowing, people in the road, etc...

[erc775]

I would play the odds and say that a person that is too drunk to be driving will most likely not be using(or be able to accurately follow) Waze reports. I would absolutely report a checkpoint because a checkpoint is a delay. Isn't that what we are all here trying to avoid?

[pogglywoggly]

If you want DUI checkpoint direct reporting why stop there? Why not add registration/inspection checkpoints as well as giving road construction it's own dedicated tab

[AndyPoms]

Why not add registration/inspection checkpoints

Why not report it? These checkpoints effect traffic, pose a hazard (barriers, lane closures, police cars, officers in the road, etc)

...as well as giving road construction it's own dedicated tab

That's been suggested several times - it's own report would also allow for easier descriptions/lane closure info...

[majic12]

everything that would impact traffic and routing should be reported...isnt that the point.

[PhantomSoul]

I don't see any impact to the risk of drunk drivers being on the road in posting a report about a check point. From a delay standpoint - after all, they are stopping every car and interviewing the driver - there is a lot of value in telling drivers about the delays that causes.

I don't know how other people report it, but I, personally, would probably try to focus reporting on the delay aspect of it instead of the checkpoint aspect - maybe use a traffic pin instead of a cop pin and wording in the description that makes it more about the delay than it being a checkpoint. The main reason for this is if any of the authorities administering the checkpoint also run Waze, they can remove the reports if they feel they are compromising the stealth of their operation. Same thing goes for speed trap pins, though I think their aim is to capture a much shorter interval of time.

This may all be moot anyway, since many DUI checkpoints aren't exactly stealthy, instead operating under the assumption that the worst offenders they are trying to target won't, in their inebriated state, be savvy enough to avoid them anyway.

[WeeeZer14]

I don't remember what the laws are in NJ for checkpoints, but here in TN they actually need to be published in the newspaper ahead of time. So absolutely no stealth aspect at all. If you get caught, boy did you deserve it!

[daknife]

I'm not one hundred percent certain, but I'm fairly positive the public notice is a federal requirement imposed by the Supreme Court.

[BlazeTool]

I'm not one hundred percent certain, but I'm fairly positive the public notice is a federal requirement imposed by the Supreme Court.

Sort of, SCOTUS basically requires that there are safeguards, the NHTSA recommends the safeguards, but public notice isn't a federally established requirement. But in California the requirement established by the CASC is that "Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect." And there's a pretty good chance if a DUI checkpoint was set up in another state without notice it'd end in a case going to the state supreme court and there being a similar finding.

So is notice required everywhere in the US? No. Is it in the police department's best interest in giving notice so that the legality doesn't get challenged? Yes.