Tweeting Check-Stop Locations = Legal or Illegal?

“#yyc #checkstop Checkstop bowtrail just past sarcee,” reads the post.

Since Dec. 15, Pratt has used his Twitter account to post the location of 11 police Check Stops around Calgary, the most recent warning coming Friday night.

“I’m doing it for myself and others who would like to venture out for a dinner and drink or two,” wrote the owner.

“Lack of knowledge of what .05 is combined with the consequences of blowing over mean the odds should be a little back on our side as to avoid an unlawful search.”

www.calgarysun.com...

This brings up a good point. It does tramp on the right of "Freedom of speech" but it's also giving those users who are out and about who had too many drinks in them, reviewing Twitter/Facebook on their phone and deciding to take an alternate route home and possibly killing someone. Our law has dropped from 0.08 to 0.05 limit on alcohol, which I believe is one beer per hour.

This comes at a time where 4 people were killed by 3 separate drunk driving incident over the weekend here in Calgary. Did his Tweets cause any of the drivers to seek an alternate route home to avoid check stops? Cannot say for sure... but this makes for good discussions.

IMO, it should be illegal... Your assisting those who choose to drink and drive and danger the lives of others.

Don't see a problem with it. Here in Germany radio stations (works a lot faster than Twitter as most people have the radio running in their cars) have been reporting Traffic enforcement camera and such Checks for decades.

Years ago there was debate if this should be illegal, but even the police shrugged it off, saying that it doesn't prevent those people from being caught. Statistics prove they're right.

The last thing we need is more laws.
Especially laws like this that put a damper on free speech.
Or laws that help the govt. stop and sniff people out with no obvious reason.
Thats my take on it.

reply to post by CALGARIAN


It isn't illegal because we have free speech. I always tell friends from out of state where cops hide on I-5, this is really no different. But I live in a state where any check points are illegal.

I understand what you are saying, but he is also assisting drug dealers in telling them where the police are, so they can try an alternate route. Just because he lists it and with what he is saying doesn't mean that all drunk drivers will see/acknowledge the tweet and besides even if you haven't had a drink knowing where they are plotted up means you dont have to deal with them at all.

Police check points are a hastle. I don't drink, but I also don't like being stopped and treated like a criminal because some group of hired thugs think that there's a chance they might be able to get something over on me. Any excuse to circumvent the RCMP is great in my books.

But, as Canadians, we don't have freedom of speech. Our government and LEO doesn't put much stock into any sort of individual freedom.

I've also observed people being let through checkpoints by the police because of who they are. Multiple times I've seen this happen. If they're going to apply the law, they should apply it equally or not at all.

Don't have an issue with it, and it certainly shouldn't be illegal.

Here's an idea though.....how about they actually take people's licenses away for good after the 4th and 5th DUI. There seems to be more deaths from serial drunk drivers that have huge track records that we continue to allow back on the roads. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Originally posted by FFS4000
I understand what you are saying, but he is also assisting drug dealers in telling them where the police are, so they can try an alternate route. Just because he lists it and with what he is saying doesn't mean that all drunk drivers will see/acknowledge the tweet and besides even if you haven't had a drink knowing where they are plotted up means you dont have to deal with them at all.

Thats the same argument in principle that is used to steal our natural rights to liberty and freedom by claiming "terrorists" will use those freedoms to "commit terror", so those freedoms are stripped away (from writing, but not reality).

The argument is also like saying that since one person out of 80,000,000 legal gun owners sometimes gos nuts, that every single legal gun owner needs to be penalized and have their guns stolen by federal thugs.

An extremely dangerous argument to make, if you value your own rights and freedoms, as well as the ones of law abiding citizens.

I think drunk driving is bad, but the way to counter it is NOT to stifle more liberty. This is free speech; cop check points arnt some sacred holy thing that must not be talked be about lest the gods be offended and shower their wrath upon those who dare blaspheme.

reply to post by CALGARIAN


The argument is entirely moot anyway in certain areas. My state requires local municipal police offices to post in the local paper where their check points are. So someone re-tweeting where the check points are just re-sharing news that is already known by those who read the local newspaper.

Originally posted by HellstormRising
reply to post by CALGARIAN

 

The argument is entirely moot anyway in certain areas. My state requires local municipal police offices to post in the local paper where their check points are.

Really?... Wow.

How are they even effective?

reply to post by CALGARIAN


It's because most people don't read the newspaper and usually when you're drunk you don't have that good of judgement anyhow. It's also in small print in the Announcement sections usually.

My brother is a police officer so this is the only reason I know this.