Apple Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps

[HKZ/MST3K]

Wow! So you think checkpoints infringe on our rights - wrong - as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990, but that a bar should have to determine whom it can sell alcohol to, and therefore deny a citizen service, based on its own best guess? And what if that person isn't driving? Should the bar allow (and test him/her) to exceed .08 BAC but stop at some other limit determined by the bar? Should the bar require the relinquishing of all motor vehicle keys for entry, then provide breathalyzers prior to leaving the establishment for those who would like to return home. Should there be a law requiring alcohol be sold at a bar to only each individual, to better determine drunkenness? (no round buying or being a gentleman for your date - all patrons tested for sobriety for every drink when they purchase their own)

I guess you believe in some personal rights (even though freedom from the reasonable search and seizure at a checkpoint is NOT a right in accordance with the U.S. Constitution as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court), but not personal responsibility. And Apple should be required to sell an App it doesn't want to, but a bar should be prohibited from selling a drink it does want to sell (after it determines if you are too drunk, umm. . . to drive . . . even if you aren't driving)

They also ruled recently that a police officer could kick in your door in the middle of the night and serve a warrant. With or without knocking. Your only recourse was to sue them in civil court for any wrongdoing. Now say you live in a bad neighborhood. Someone kicks in your door at 3AM and you jump out of bed pistol in hand to find out just what the hell is going on. Cops see gun, cops shoot you and kill you. Maybe they shoot so many times and so wildly that they accidently shoot your husband/wife or maybe one of your children. How exactly are you supposed to file suit in civil court for illegal entry to your home by a police agency if you exercise your right to defend your home and they shoot you dead? Hmm? Just because the Supreme Court makes a ruling does not mean it's logical or correct. Rulings like that, and the legality of DUI checkpoints should be challenged and should be challenged violently if need be. You can believe that randomly searching cars isn't a violation of your 4th Amendment rights, you are obviously free to do so, but I will not. I care about my freedom and some stupid sob story about someones parents failing to teach their children morals and responsibility is not worth losing my rights. Shame more people don't fight for their rights as vociferously as they fight for a space in line to buy a damn iPhone on launch day (obviously not literally, but they compete with others to be first in line).

I will continue to plan on filling any unwanted intruder into my home with as many .45 caliber holes as possible, police officer or not. The lives of my family members and my life is worth more than some ******** sob story on the news delivered by some stupid mother than can't control her offspring and the ensuing violations of my rights. I have no reason to believe that a DUI checkpoint is any more or less effective than the measures and punishments currently in place for people who drive drunk. This is a fix it ticket, minor violation, illegal search mechanism that's begging for corrupt meatheaded pigs to take advantage of. I'd bet my next months pay that minor infractions found at these checkpoints' that directly fills the local towns coffers vastly outnumber the number of DUIs.

The 4th Amendment clearly states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Driving down the street scratching my nuts on the way to Burger King or wherever is the epitome of being secure in my person. No cop can stop me randomly and demand that I identify myself, where I'm going and for what reason just because he set up some road cones and the police department issued him a 5 cell MagLight to shine in someones face to make him feel superior. There's no warrant, there's no probable cause, and there's no Oath or affirmation in a random search at a DUI checkpoint. The Supreme Court has ruled it's okay, but it's every US Citizens duty to challenge this ruling every single chance that presents itself. Same with cases like this. We should meet that threat with as much deadly force as humanly possible, because the cops would sooner kill you than find out the truth.

 

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

doesnt that only apply to under 12?? you wouldnt be driving anyways, i hope.

No it is now illegal in Michigan to drive after 10pm or with more than one passenger (unless accompanied by an adult over 21), if you are under 18 and have less than six months of driving experience.

-Don

That is perfectly reasonable. Your outrage comes from your immaturity and youthful ignorance. I know it is impossible to convince a teenager they have a lot to learn, but you have a lot to learn. Also shame on your parents.

 

[HKZ/MST3K]

And you need to get a grip, and up,your meds.

You can insult me all you want, shows you have no intelligent rebuttal and choose childish behavior instead. You need to get a grip sir, this threat is real.

 

[HKZ/MST3K]

But, on the other hand, it's completely wrong on some points.

To say that the US Supreme Court isn't "relevant" to the law is almost the exact opposite of the truth. If there's a question about a law, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter - the Supremes define the law.

Their decisions might not always be popular - but the US doesn't place the rights and liberties of its citizens at the whim of a popular vote or legislative fiat.

You see, that's the thing. Ultimately the US Supreme Court is beholden to us, because the US Government is beholden to us. If a ruling is unpopular, then there is probably a damn good reason it is. See Kentucky vs King for a good example of a completely unjust and illogical ruling that has somehow been completely ignored by the entire news media in the US.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

You know, a bit off topic, but - drunk driving is bad, but it suffers from a serious moral outrage problem. If you're a big guy and you've ever blown 0.08 or 0.10, chances are you feel fine and drive fine. But we've pumped the whole thing full of so much outrage that we can no longer use our brains and separate the social drinker that may have quite literally had exactly one too many from the criminal, dangerous drunk.

A 0.10 BAL is maybe worth a ticket. Maybe even a really *bad* ticket, like speeding 30 MPH over the limit. But it shouldn't rise to the level of requiring someone to have an ignition interlock or affecting their career choices.

Texting and driving is getting the same outrage treatment. But it's funny - there's some things that are just as dangerous but have no moral stigma so they'll never be treated as seriously as a DUI.

The other day I was eating a DQ Blizzard while driving a stick shift car. It was totally delicious but it was also dripping on me. I wasn't driving the best. I swerved a little and I got honked at by the guy in the other lane. I really did catch myself saying "What did you expect? Can't you see I'm trying to eat ice cream here?"

I was being totally irresponsible. But I may have gotten a minor ticket for that.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I have read DUI check points are not so much for catching drunks but more to educated the public and make their presents known that they are out looking. Plus it is a good chance to get things like fix it tickets taken care of. In most juristions a Fix it ticket does not cost you anything providing you get it fixed (what a concept you need to fix the thing any ways)

Also do not say they are pulling cops from elsewhere normally it cops on over time and not pulling from their normal patrols.

Now I do know that they will often times have cops hidden on side stretch or in more unmarked cars looking for people trying to go around the check points since those people are more likely people who are trying to hide or avoid the cops.

 

[HKZ/MST3K]

Now I do know that they will often times have cops hidden on side stretch or in more unmarked cars looking for people trying to go around the check points since those people are more likely people who are trying to hide or avoid the cops.

Or maybe people who have no time for ******** like DUI checkpoints, and maybe the cops are only setting up checkpoints to catch minor infractions to drum up funds for the local constabulary instead of actually going out and catching the criminals they are paid to catch? Those same guys? Yeah, that's not a waste of local taxpayer money now is it? Fishing instead of catching is real productive.

 

[Ivabign]

I don't believe in no warrant searches. I do believe that our liberties are being eroded. I believe the party of little government would like to expand gov't when it suits their cultural worldview. But I do believe driving is a privilege, not a right and therefore comes with more restrictions than your typical life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't believe the guy who shoots his gun into a crowd should get a break because that day he didn't kill anyone. I is the same thing, driving drunk or "impaired" is a serious issue. Any mechanism that curtails that behavior is welcome in my book. That Apple chooses not to have an app that eases the way for such behavior has no place in civilized society. This is not about your personal freedom, it is about how your behavior has a definite effect on my life, liberty and the per suit of happiness.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Or maybe people who have no time for ******** like DUI checkpoints, and maybe the cops are only setting up checkpoints to catch minor infractions to drum up funds for the local constabulary instead of actually going out and catching the criminals they are paid to catch? Those same guys? Yeah, that's not a waste of local taxpayer money now is it? Fishing instead of catching is real productive.

You should know they generally do not make enough to cover the over time for the cops. It is best break even.

Fix it tickets = 0 gain for the cops as they are dropped when things are fixed.
Since you are not going to get moving volations chances are best you can hope for is getting some drunk. Grabbing a few warrants, and people with out insurance. But the biggest thing they gain from all that is making more drunks willing to call a cab or a friend to get them home so they are off the road. The fear gets them off the road and if 1 life is saved then it is all worth it.

 

[W1MRK]

Sorry Steve but you just lost a few points with me.

All DUI stops are published in the paper ahead of time ( at least here in IL )

Drunk people will most likely forget to use this app.

DUI checkpoints are not primarily for stopping DUI drivers, they are primarily for quotas. (Not many warnings are issued)

How do I know this info?? I have worked them before ( and honestly I am ashamed I did )

This app really helps law abiding citizens get home without being bothered or harassed.

And the strangest and scariest fact is that Apple is taking media hungry politicians concerns seriously.

 

[HKZ/MST3K]

You should know they generally do not make enough to cover the over time for the cops. It is best break even.

Fix it tickets = 0 gain for the cops as they are dropped when things are fixed.
Since you are not going to get moving volations chances are best you can hope for is getting some drunk. Grabbing a few warrants, and people with out insurance. But the biggest thing they gain from all that is making more drunks willing to call a cab or a friend to get them home so they are off the road. The fear gets them off the road and if 1 life is saved then it is all worth it.

Proof, undeniable proof, that checkpoints result in exactly what you say. Nationwide trends with verifiable links please. Infringing on one persons right to get a few tickets through illegal searches isn't worth it in any way/shape/form when our Judicial system won't sufficiently punish those that drive drunk. This feel good crap with checkpoints is precisely that, feel good crap. If one illegal/botched home raid by cops killed one family but found 5,000 pounds of marijuana in the right home instead of the wrong one, would it be worth it? Fantasy doesn't equal reality.

 

[JohnDoe98]

It's in bold.

There isn't a "other possible scenario" as you put it.

Pulling an App because you fear it might compete with you is potentially illegal.

Pulling an App because you don't think that it's good for your ecosystem is not illegal.

Apple is not required by law to accept any and every App to its store.

So why was it forced to accept Google Voice app? They didn't think it was good for their ecosystem and they weren't legally required to do so, so you would claim.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Anti-competitive behavior and freedom of speech are two different things. There are specific laws regarding anti-competitive behavior, while freedom of speech is not a required gift from a private corporation.

If Apple were to pull DUI checkpoint apps, then sell a service for DUI checkpoints, that might be more of an argument.

the problem with your reasoning is Apple initially pulled Google voice and never offered to sell an equivalent service. They simply pulled the service. Why wasn't that allowed? Why were they pressured to putting it back in? Apple wasn't competing with Google Voice. Just like they are not competing with DUI checkpoints. But they want to prevent apps that use that feature, just like they wanted to prevent apps from using Google Voice. Your argument doesn't hold. Also, notice I never said anything about freedom of speech in my argument. I simply said Apple needs good reasons to pull apps or lock things out from the ecosystem. Things like: it clashes with the UI, it is buggy, it presents an OS security risk, etc.

 

[Daveoc64]

So why was it forced to accept Google Voice app? They didn't think it was good for their ecosystem and they weren't legally required to do so, so you would claim.

They weren't forced to accept it - they chose to.

At the same time as GV was allowed, Apple opened the store up to a few more types of content that were previously banned. They also published the App Store Guidelines.

If Apple decided tomorrow that all games should be removed from the App Store because they're a bad influence on Children, then they'd obviously:

a) Lose a huge amount of money
b) Face a backlash from consumers

 

[corywoolf]

FYI, it's not breaking the law unless you get caught. At least that's how my family sees it. I'm sorry but I work until 10:00pm multiple times per week, if I followed this damn law I wouldn't ever get to go to a movie with friends, go to people's houses, etc. I don't know a single family that requires their children to follow this law, and there is a considerable movement to overturn it. This is a law that was made to get broken.

-Don

Understandable, I grew up in the Ann Arbor area and also worked til late on weekends. A stupid law indeed, just like how bars close at 2 AM here... what's up with that? Should be 4 AM at earliest (like Illinois).

 

[JohnDoe98]

We should meet that threat with as much deadly force as humanly possible, because the cops would sooner kill you than find out the truth.

Bravo good sir!

(I meant that for all your posts, not just those lines.)

 

[eye]

You know, a bit off topic, but - drunk driving is bad, but it suffers from a serious moral outrage problem. If you're a big guy and you've ever blown 0.08 or 0.10, chances are you feel fine and drive fine. But we've pumped the whole thing full of so much outrage that we can no longer use our brains and separate the social drinker that may have quite literally had exactly one too many from the criminal, dangerous drunk.

A 0.10 BAL is maybe worth a ticket. Maybe even a really *bad* ticket, like speeding 30 MPH over the limit. But it shouldn't rise to the level of requiring someone to have an ignition interlock or affecting their career choices.

Texting and driving is getting the same outrage treatment. But it's funny - there's some things that are just as dangerous but have no moral stigma so they'll never be treated as seriously as a DUI.

The other day I was eating a DQ Blizzard while driving a stick shift car. It was totally delicious but it was also dripping on me. I wasn't driving the best. I swerved a little and I got honked at by the guy in the other lane. I really did catch myself saying "What did you expect? Can't you see I'm trying to eat ice cream here?"

I was being totally irresponsible. But I may have gotten a minor ticket for that.

Well posted. I can't even take Anti drunk driving warriors seriously any more. People who argue using emotion instead of making sense are too ridiculous to even bother with. Shame on Apple for folding to such a ridiculous request.

 

[JohnDoe98]

They weren't forced to accept it - they chose to.

At the same time as GV was allowed, Apple opened the store up to a few more types of content that were previously banned. They also published the App Store Guidelines.

Convenient coincidence wasn't it? As soon as the FTC got involved and actually started asking questions on behalf of Google and the other plaintiffs, magically Apple also happened to change the App store guidelines. You can form whatever opinions you want, for my part I think Apple was clearly worried about the FTC ruling against them and the bad press that would result should such a ruling become a reality. Apple changed their rules and allowed the plaintiff apps, preempting any FTC ruling.

Do you really think Apple could say tomorrow, all of a sudden: no more racing games. We don't like it. They promote speeding. They could do it without qualms? And I'm not talking about public backlash. I'm talking about legal backlash.

 

[partyBoy]

.

 

[Mercury]

The 4th Amendment clearly states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Driving down the street scratching my nuts on the way to Burger King or wherever is the epitome of being secure in my person. No cop can stop me randomly and demand that I identify myself, where I'm going and for what reason just because he set up some road cones and the police department issued him a 5 cell MagLight to shine in someones face to make him feel superior. There's no warrant, there's no probable cause, and there's no Oath or affirmation in a random search at a DUI checkpoint. The Supreme Court has ruled it's okay, but it's every US Citizens duty to challenge this ruling every single chance that presents itself. Same with cases like this. We should meet that threat with as much deadly force as humanly possible, because the cops would sooner kill you than find out the truth.

And that's why they're required to be published first—in newspapers. Unfortunately, newspapers have largely been replaced by internet devices like the iPhone. I wonder what the practical and constitutional effects will be.

 

[435713]

Does google pull apps? Not speaking of the malware ones recently, just general ones?

I dont think Apple should have done anything personally. Most checkpoints I have seen just check for license and registration and county stickers etc... Cydia is always there anyways I guess.

 

[notabadname]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

Exactly, and the Supreme Court ruled the traffic stops in question were not illegal because they were NOT unreasonable. As I said, you are wrong in saying the stops are illegal and unlawful in your earlier post. disliking something, and it being illegal are very different positions.

Anyone can conceive of countless scenarios where a search, such as smashing in your door at home that you mention, needs to be exercised with caution, and with consideration of what resistance is expected at the other side of the door. That doesn't change the legality of such properly warranted searches. And I am betting that you have never had your home's door smashed in, where countless criminals have. There is a great burden of proof of reasonable cause to be issued such a warrant. And the point that you make is really irrelevant to the issue of traffic stops. Very different than smashing in the door to your home as you sleep.

 

[Brother Esau]

Yes of course, the police and elected officials are outraged that these apps exist and insist that they be removed. These are the exact same people that spy on all of us on a daily basis but its OK that they can use these technologies against us but how dare we try to take advantage of things such as trapster and try to have a level playing field.

I find it ironic that these people, all of them, claim to be the saviors of society but they all speed they all drink and drive and they all get a free pass and operate with complete impunity when they do these exact same things that they arrest us for.

I get so sick of this B.S that our elected officials spew in regards to Drinking and driving and how they want to eradicate it completely by enforcing stronger and stricter laws every year against D.U.I offenders. The actual truth of the matter is that they deliberately perpetuate anarchy for profit and are all full of **** because if they really were interested in stopping D.U.I they would make it mandatory for every car sold in this country new or used to be outfitted with a ignition interlock device. There problem solved!
I guarantee that would curb about 85% of drinking and driving on the roads in America with the other 15% representing the hard core offenders that would try to circumvent the situation and have someone straight blow into it for them.

But see these so called saviors of society have absolutely no intention of stopping it nor do they want to stop it, because in the end they don't give a flying **** about little Jimmy that got his head split open by a drunk driver they only care about the countless Tens of Millions of Dollars in Revenue Annually that it creates, nothing more!

 

[phpmaven]

Exactly. It's quite difficult to quantify such things. Especially since this at least one of these apps does more than just DUI checkpoint stuff. For instance, I am extra careful in unfamiliar school zone areas thanks to this app. Not that I wouldn't have been anyway, but that's me. Others might not be so careful. Traveling to unfamiliar areas, I think this kind of app is important and helpful. And the speed traps are another good example. They remind me to slow down and pay more attention to the speed limits. Not just at the speed trap itself, but in general. An app like this increases awareness of safety overall in my opinion. I think that is a good thing.

The convulted logic of many of the posts in this thread is hilarious.

 

[emaja]

You're correct. It does nothing to stop people from driving drunk. If anything, it contributes to it.

I don't think that there is a single person anywhere that says, "Hey, I've got this app. Now let's go drive drunk."

Contributes to drunk driving? Silly. Drunks will drive. If the threat of checkpoints, loss of drivers licenses, losing jobs, and possibly killing someone don't work, then a stupid app is not going to do anything to make that worse.