Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps

To those saying they welcome the change, do you really think those who are drunk enough to be above the legal limit could really effectively use the app to avoid a DUI checkpoint? I think the only ones who would even consider using something like this are those who just want to avoid the hassle.

DUI checkpoints seriously infringe on our rights as Americans. The real problem are the establishments that serve alcohol to those who have obviously had way to much. I've known two people who were dear friends of mine killed by drunk drivers who were served alcohol way past the point of sanity. I guess the smart thing would be to start policing establishments, then again said establishments pay the salaries of these police departments.
 
Again, Apple also has a "freedom of speech" as well. We don't require "Family Christian Stores" to sell books on the "Joys of Atheism" either. Why is it that so many think every business should be required to sell every product brought to them for sale? If a product is not keeping with the image you want for your company, you are FREE to NOT sell it. "Hustler" is a legally sold magazine, and the publisher is legally protected in it's right to sell it. But "Barns & Noble" is not legally forced to sell it.
 
nagromme said:
This is a slippery slope!

First, devs are not allowed to help us drive drunk and kill people. (Does anyone here not know someone killed that way?)

What’s next, telling devs who they can and cannot murder? Will they disallow apps that prank 9-1-1 or impersonate police calls? What about an app that helps restaurant owners dodge health inspectors, or helps fruit growers inject poisons? Do we lose those rights too? :mad:

Enjoying a particular beverage--without taxi inconvenience--is worth the price of a human life or maiming. Neither the government nor Apple can tell me otherwise. Staying alive on the road is not a right. Selling an app is!

Some laws are bad. Therefore all laws are bad. Therefore law enforcement is bad. QED :)
Click to expand...

Finally, someone who gets it! It makes me sick that Apple has become so politically correct.
 
fattire357 said:
You know whats kind of funny is that the whole legality of the checkpoint thing is a little moot in real life. A few years back I got pulled over because I had the wrong kind of bumper on my vehicle. This confused me, because although I had an older truck, I'm pretty certain my bumper was stock, but maybe there was something wrong about it.

Anyways, he then said that in pulling over I crossed the white line, which made him suspicious that I was drinking. Wait, what? How am I supposed to pull over? Lol. Anyways, I hadn't been drinking, and I just wanted to go home, so I consented to a sobriety test (I wonder if I should have resisted on principle).

But honestly you put it all together, and realize the police officer did a sobriety test because I had a stock bumper on my truck, and it's just kind of ridiculous. He didn't have a legal right to do a sobriety test without just cause, and somehow he found it. There was no damages to me so its not like I can sue the city for breaking the law, and I'm sure if I was actually drunk and took it to court the police officer could have lied and said he saw me swerve. I dunno. My point is you can sit and debate the legality of the issues for a while but in practice most of these privacy laws get broken because many (not all) police officers don't care and there's not much you can do if your privacy is violated (unless you can sue for damages).
Click to expand...

I've been a victim of being targeted because of my horrid allergies in combination with my stomach disease it gives me bloodshot red eyes. Everytime a cop sees me, I must be a lush!
 
Daveoc64 said:
The officer could merely say that he thought he smelled Alcohol on your breath or the way you spoke to him suggested you were intoxicated.

Such a requirement of "reasonable suspicion" or similar is easily circumvented and offers little protection.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. But i admire the hell out of cops. Not all the laws they enforce. But i know bunches and hang out with a few. I think most of them are honest and don't abuse the powers they are trusted with.

The guys i know would just go about there night if someone refused there request to search and they legitimately didn't preview suspicious behavior.
 
mdatwood said:
I've read the case and the reasoning was laughable, but infringing on rights is what the government does best. BTW, based on the reasoning of the decision the same could be used by the police to search anyone at anytime as long as it's 'random' and contributes to public safety. Not a slippery slope I would prefer to go down, so I'm happy that some states are still fighting it.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about security measures at sporting venues or the airport? I am curious.

If you want more fun look up information on the joke that is the breathalyzer and how it works (+- .02 possible variance for a test where .08 means you fail yikes!). Or how police are not required to save the evidence (your breath) and how you're supposed to take their word that the machine was correct.
Click to expand...

You are not required to take the breathalyzer (in co at least). However, not donig so will give you a quick ride to the hospital for some blood work (I recommend this as results don't come back right away so your car will not be impounded that night and you will not be hauled off to jail if you aren't obviously drunk)
Roadside sobriety tests are another joke. Can anyone walk a straight line at night with lights flashing and cars flying by while in a stressful situation to start with? Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

You are not required to do a roadside test (at least in CO)
As my lawyer friends tell me all the time. If a police officer is talking to you he's gathering evidence even if you think you did nothing wrong. It's best to stay polite, say nothing, and ask for your lawyer.
Click to expand...

I agree 110%
 
First Offender now this!

Well at least "Offender Locator" is still in the App Store! So I won't know where the DUI Check Points are, but I can still find where "Johnny Gropesalot" lives!
 
Mattie Num Nums said:
Again the assumption that only drunks will use it. A lot of Assuming going on in this thread.
Click to expand...

As the say

to Assume makes an ass out of u and me

This entire thread is very simple to read:

1) I don't drink and drive DONE and yes, I will be inconvenienced, just not every day!

2) I do drink and drive I'll be caught sooner or later or die or kill somebody!

The rest is filler
 
fattire357 said:
You know whats kind of funny is that the whole legality of the checkpoint thing is a little moot in real life. A few years back I got pulled over because I had the wrong kind of bumper on my vehicle. This confused me, because although I had an older truck, I'm pretty certain my bumper was stock, but maybe there was something wrong about it.

Anyways, he then said that in pulling over I crossed the white line, which made him suspicious that I was drinking. Wait, what? How am I supposed to pull over? Lol. Anyways, I hadn't been drinking, and I just wanted to go home, so I consented to a sobriety test (I wonder if I should have resisted on principle).

But honestly you put it all together, and realize the police officer did a sobriety test because I had a stock bumper on my truck, and it's just kind of ridiculous. He didn't have a legal right to do a sobriety test without just cause, and somehow he found it. There was no damages to me so its not like I can sue the city for breaking the law, and I'm sure if I was actually drunk and took it to court the police officer could have lied and said he saw me swerve. I dunno. My point is you can sit and debate the legality of the issues for a while but in practice most of these privacy laws get broken because many (not all) police officers don't care and there's not much you can do if your privacy is violated (unless you can sue for damages).

If I go break the law a police officer gets on my case in a heartbeat, if the police officer breaks privacy laws usually nothing happens.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention that. I have been pulled over for not having a license plate light working so my plat was only half lit up and the stop focused on drinking and driving

My brother got a DUI after initially being stopped for not having a plate on his front bumper
 
Mattie Num Nums said:
I agree however, its not any of our decisions nor is it the states or governments to try and be that parent.
Click to expand...

You're right, the state shouldn't be a parent. They should just put kids like him in jail for doing 90+ MPH. Maybe he'd eventually learn the lesson his parents should have taught him.
 
notabadname said:
Illegal? Whatever. More of the Constitutionally uninformed public spouting off their knowledge from friends on facebook.

Read more about the actual law as it was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, decades ago. And ironically, Michigan is at the center.

http://caselaw.duicenter.com/sitz03.html

(hint: This would mean it is not illegal or unlawful)
Click to expand...

That's a good site with a lawyer who used to prosecute DUIs and now defends them because he thinks the laws are so out of whack. If you're going to read that one page linked make sure to read the entire decision and dissent (which I agree with).

Moved by whatever momentary evil has aroused their fears, officials — perhaps even supported by a majority of citizens — may he tempted to conduct searches that sacrifice the liberty of each citizen to assuage the perceived evil. But the Fourth Amendment rests on the principle that a title balance between the individual and society depends on the recognition of “the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. [Cite omitted.]'' [496 U.S. at 458-459.)
Click to expand...
 
ChadJK said:
So it just becomes a web app that you access via Safari in iOS. This policy helps Apple's public image but does little to prevent this type of app from being accessible to smartphone-carrying masses.

As mobile browsers become more and more capable there will be more apps that become web apps to avoid Apple's App Store TOS and costs.
Click to expand...

At that point Apple has done all it really can. I can easily understand why it is in Apple's interest to ban this app instead of having to justify why they don't ban it.
 
Some of you are just wrong

This is not free speech. This has no resemblance of valid use of a programers time or data storage space and speaks lowly of any downloader who intends to circumvent the law. I applaud Apple for keeping high standards and it is GREAT to see any major company finally stand up for what is right. Sure they can go post it somewhere else...so go, get...and as the saying goes "don't let the door hit you on your way out", the store, the users and Apple are that much better for it. Again, Apple, Thank You.
 
Last edited:
JohnDoe98 said:
Time to go get them, and while you are at it make sure you also get the studies that show in other countries where the speed limits are far higher, or non-existent on some roads (think Germany), the same principles apply ya?
Click to expand...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC548724/

http://www.rsconference.com/pdf/RS030116.pdf?check=1

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/4/302.abstract

Assuming you mean Autobahn when you mean German, it does have speed limits for various classes of vehicle, typically around 80 miles per hour. I will not begin to address the, welcome, anomaly that is the Autobahn. Its success has not been replicated to that degree elsewhere so I wouldn't use it as justification in unliminiting speeds on (super) highways. Addiotnaly there is a government recommend speed of 80 miles per hour on that road system. Not enforced, but recommend.

You're the first persons I've run across how's actually said more or less 'okay fine, get the articles'. If you want to go dig yourself you'd be surprised at the various effects that well targeted traffic control system (including cameras) can have on speeds and fatalities. I'll agree that in some cases revenue was a motivation. However when used correctly they have positive impacts (not an intended pun).

Anecdotally I feel considerably less safe on a particular stretch of local freeway now the speed cameras are gone and peole are driving like total morons again. Okay there were always driving like morons just the speed cameras slowed them down a bit.
 
Just an opinion but, if your too drunk to drive I highly doubt you have the mental capacity to open an app and figure out a new route that avoids these check points.
 
farleysmaster said:
If no one was getting harmed, would they keep the checkpoints to give the cops something to do...?
Click to expand...

Probably not. But that's besides the point. There are alternative measures that can be taken to deal with DUIs. Ban those caught from having licenses for life. If they harm someone or drive without a license, send them to jail for a significant amount of time. Those measures do not inconvenience me in the least. It's the leniency given and generally acceptance by the populace at large that is responsible for so many DUIs on the roads today. I also think the police could be doing much more important work with their time than harassing people with checkpoints.
 
DjMac11 said:
Having the app doesn't mean you're going to/wanting to break the law. Some people have more important things to do than being intruded upon by a police checkpoint...which shouldn't even exist in a free society anyway. This just gives them a heads-up.
Click to expand...

You are probably right that some, possibly many, use this app to save time. But the fact still remains that some people use it to avoid getting caught while driving drunk.

Your argument that a DUI checkpoint conflicts with the ideology of a free society is interesting. But I think that there are clear rationals for when and how they are used. Does anyone know if a court system has banned them anywhere in the country?
 
animenick65 said:
To those saying they welcome the change, do you really think those who are drunk enough to be above the legal limit could really effectively use the app to avoid a DUI checkpoint? I think the only ones who would even consider using something like this are those who just want to avoid the hassle.

DUI checkpoints seriously infringe on our rights as Americans. The real problem are the establishments that serve alcohol to those who have obviously had way to much. I've known two people who were dear friends of mine killed by drunk drivers who were served alcohol way past the point of sanity. I guess the smart thing would be to start policing establishments, then again said establishments pay the salaries of these police departments.
Click to expand...

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)
 
Dmac77 said:
Yeah I do call cops pigs, because that is what they are, and my own cousin is a cop, and I have called him a pig to his face. Cops are either the people who were bullied in school and are now taking their revenge out on society, or are the people who did and still do get off on terrorizing innocent people. Cops, especially traffic cops, are the lowest form of life in existence, and deserve to be treated as such. And when did I ever admit that I have a juvenile demeanor or that I'm a scofflaw?

-Don
Click to expand...

OK, thanks for playing.

Juvenile: of or relating to young people.
Scofflaw: a person who flouts the law, especially by failing to comply with a law that is difficult to enforce effectively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back