Apple Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps

[Gorilla72]

What about those that just don't want to deal with a CheckPoint?

You know, I have been through checkpoints, or shall we say Harrassed at checkpoints, so maybe some people like this app just to avoid dealing with Officer hardass? If someone is bombed out of there mind, they last thing they are going to be able to do, is view an app to tell them where a check point is. Just another example of the minority deciding what is best for the majority. You know what, better get ride of the GPS app, because I can find where you live! O wait, you posted it on Facebook for me, so very easy for me to come get you, drunk or sober! If this becomes the status, then should we close Gun shop because someone they sold too killed someone? If I kill someone with a Knife, should we stop selling Knifes? Lets stop blaming everyone but the PERSON themselves who causes the problems! So no the Drunk Driver will just kill someone on the way to the DUI checkpoint, instead of down another street. This really resolves NOTHING!

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

Give me a break. And yes, I have been drunk before. But a person at the legal limit of .08 BAC is still very functional, and can easily use a phone, text friends, and even operate a modern automobile (just not safely).

I guess I would ask you, have you ever had too much to drink?

Of course. Which is why I made the comment...speaking from experience. A person who is drunk does not have the reasoning ability to even think about using an app. Probably couldn't even find it in their phone really. (I mean how many people drunk dial and drunk text the wrong person cause they can't even get THAT right?) In all likely hood, a person who thinks they are okay enough to drive would also think they were okay enough to not need a checkpoint app either. That's the whole point. You aren't dealing with a reasonable person when you are talking about people whom are drunk. The mindset that you and I or anyone sober reading this right now, is NOT the same mindset or ability that we would have while intoxicated. It just isn't.

 

[notabadname]

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).

Actually I have, among other decisions, all of which can be found at www.justice.gov. But it is lengthy, and the summation on the site I listed does not distort the findings. The defense of a DUI of course needs to work on merits of the law, and procedural errors of law enforcement in executing them. The original link brings those procedures (and defense tactics) to light.

 

[supmango]

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.

Problems with your alternative measures:

Ban those caught from having licenses for life - They will drive anyway.

If they harm someone or drive without a license, send them to jail for a significant amount of time - They will get out on parol because the prison system is too crowded for "non-violent" offenders.

The police do not enjoy the checkpoints anymore than we do. But they will take it over responding to a call where a drunk driver has killed a car full of people.

Again, as many have said before, until you experience the effects of drunk driving first hand, you have difficulty understanding these issues. For those of us who have, it is not that we feel responsible to stop DUI's on the road because it is better for society (though it is), it is because we feel responsible for protecting loved ones who are out there driving among them.

It is a complex issue, and there needs to be more solutions available. For now, DUI checkpoints are the best one we have.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Dorje Sylas, thanks for the data to backup your point. The studies show at particular locations, crash prone locations, the cameras are a good means of helping to reduce accidents and harm on the road. I agree, at those places, the cameras have a valid purpose. But from the data you provided, it hardly follows that a ubiquitous use is reasonable, as it seemed your initial post was suggesting, but perhaps I misread.

 

[halhiker]

Weak

Apple is weak to do this. Drunk driving checkpoints are an incredible intrusion upon personal liberty and do NOTHING to deter drunk drivers that a normal patrol could not. In fact, stationing the cops in the parking lot of bars would do far more to curtail drunk driving than any checkpoint. People would take cabs home instead. I read every report on these checkpoints in our local paper and most arrest no more than one or two suspects but make tons of money impounding people's cars over minor violations. Cops are also collecting lots of overtime pay which we can no longer afford. I have never driven drunk and never will so cops have NO reason to stop me. That's what I resent.

 

[econgeek]

Apple has the right to control Apps in the appstore.

The violation of free speech is these political scum writing a letter to apple and applying pressure to get these apps squelched. That is actually a felony.

Also, worth noting, these checkpoints are themselves illegal. Every cop who participates and consequently stops someone without probable cause is also a felon and belongs in jail.

Anyone who supports squelching these apps, by definition rejects the constitution, rejects the law of the land, and loses the right to call themselves american.

It is this creeping fascism that is destroying america... and all of you who support it are scum.

 

[Porco]

First point: It's not as if Apple doesn't ban other things it deems unsavoury even when legal. There are loads of guidelines that when broken will get an app rejected.

Second point: If you have a right to know where checkpoints are, no-one is stopping you doing that via a computer before you drive, or via your mobile device via websites. Apple just doesn't want to be involved in that.

Third point: Whatever you think about this, someone could easily be over the limit and still access such info and apps. There isn't just a binary 'drunk' and 'not drunk' there is 'jolly', 'tipsy' 'bladdered' 'sozzled'... etc etc. - the point being that people can think they are perfectly able to drive yet still be impacted by a few drinks, without being so drunk they can barely make it to the car.

Fourth point: IF (see point three) someone is very very drunk, then it could be argued that a tap-once app is going to make it much easier for the worst offenders to find out if they will get caught, which is bad. Those who are entirely sober can bookmark the relevant website and browse to it in Safari or find out ahead of their car journey. Of course this ban does not make the information impossible to obtain, but it makes it less simple, and makes it far less to do with Apple.

Fifth point: If you think this an affront to freedom you should perhaps consider Apple's freedom to ban whatever they want to on their store. Other phones are available.

 

[dukebound85]

Apple has the right to control Apps in the appstore.

The violation of free speech is these political scum writing a letter to apple and applying pressure to get these apps squelched. That is actually a felony.

Also, worth noting, these checkpoints are themselves illegal. Every cop who participates and consequently stops someone without probable cause is also a felon and belongs in jail.

Anyone who supports squelching these apps, by definition rejects the constitution, rejects the law of the land, and loses the right to call themselves american.

It is this creeping fascism that is destroying america... and all of you who support it are scum.

Not according to the US Supreme Court and their interpretation

 

[mosx]

If Trapster is removed, this seals the deal on iPhone 4 being my last iPhone.

For the record, I have never drank, nor have I ever done any sort of drugs.

Trapster is an awesome app for those of us who like to avoid traffic delays, cop on power trip harassment, and just like to protect our fourth amendment rights in general.

With that said, when the ruling was made that "legalized" checkpoints, even the SCOTUS judges said that checkpoints are a violation of the fourth amendment, but felt that the violation wasn't as important as protecting against drunk drivers.

FBI data has shown that roving patrols are 90% more effective. DUI checkpoints also require 10x more man power than roving patrols and only focus on one area.

Case in point? Over Memorial Day weekend, a local city here had a checkpoint. Out of the 1,300 cars screened, only two were suspected of DUI. Two cars that had gone unnoticed by police up until that point. Across town, thanks to the checkpoint taking man power away from actual patrols, a true drunk driver crashed head on into oncoming traffic and killed people. Roving patrols on that busy "main" street would have got the guy long before he could do any damage. But they were more concerned with checking for driver licenses and registration and for profitable fix it tickets for 1,300 other cars.

Lets not forget that DUI checkpoints ARE announced prior to being conducted and apps like Trapster are community driven. If someone sees something then they report it. It's no different than Twitter, Facebook, or any other social networking app.

Fourth point: IF (see point three) someone is very very drunk, then it could be argued that a tap-once app is going to make it much easier for the worst offenders to find out if they will get caught, which is bad

And if police did what is 90% more effective than checkpoints, roving patrols, then those that are ACTUALLY drunk and driving will get caught and will have no way of avoiding it.

Fifth point: If you think this an affront to freedom you should perhaps consider Apple's freedom to ban whatever they want to on their store. Other phones are available.

Which is why those other devices have overtaken Apple's market share.

 

[econgeek]

How about instead of blaming the cops and the States, blame the DUIs for the inconvenience...?

Because DUIs are not the cause of this situation. They are merely the excuse that the states and the cops use in order to pretend like they are justified with these illegal checkpoints.

Of course the real purpose is to harass people, and to make sure they know that they better not step out of line.

This is, by the way, what a police state is like.

 

[econgeek]

If Trapster is removed, this seals the deal on iPhone 4 being my last iPhone.

I don't blame Apple for caving to criminal intimidation coming from government agents. I blame the government.

Rather than supporting Android, or some other platform, support the Libertarian party, or some other pro-liberty organization.

Apple is not the problem, criminal government (and the ignorant sheep who support them) are.

 

[JohnDoe98]

They will get out on parol because the prison system is too crowded for "non-violent" offenders.

We don't need to let them out. Build bigger jails. Cost money? Fine with me. I value my time.

 

[econgeek]

Not according to the US Supreme Court and their interpretation

The supreme court does not have a say. The constitution is not subject to reversal from the bench. The supreme court can declare that obama poops skittles and rides to work on a unicorn, for all the relevance it has under the law.

Though I do find it hilarious that we're talking about cops-- aka "Law Enforcement Officers" breaking the law, and getting the "ok" from another agency of government... and somehow you think it is legitimate.

Every evil action in every tyrannical regime in history has been "legal" under the perspective of the people doing it.

So, for you to say that the supreme court made it legal-- which, they didn't, by the way, they didn't even rule the way you imply-- is to say you reject the rule of law, and choose the rule of men.

 

[spazzcat]

Most states this info has to be published in the newspaper anyways...

 

[SpinThis!]

It is a complex issue, and there needs to be more solutions available. For now, DUI checkpoints are the best one we have.

The problem is the checkpoints don't really keep the drunks off the road. And people aren't going to stop indulging in alcohol.

That doesn't leave a whole lot of solutions. Maybe we need better mass transit in this country. Maybe that means someone should start a nationwide taxi company dedicated to driving drunk drivers home (and possibly scheduling to pick up their car later) with a taxi-pickup app for drunks that's ran with government funds. The drinking is not going to stop but it's possible to curb the driving part by providing more lucrative options than driving in the first place.

 

[phpmaven]

Everyone has to be politically correct nowadays. At the end of the day though, this app will simply appear through Cydia. Does this really promote drunk driving? :/

You can't be serious. This isn't about being "politically correct", it's about being a responsible human being. Innocent people are killed every day because some idiot gets behind the wheel when he/she is hammered. Giving these people a way to avoid getting caught is just wrong in every way. It's hard to believe that there is even a debate about this.

 

[LarryC]

The supreme court does not have a say. The constitution is not subject to reversal from the bench. The supreme court can declare that obama poops skittles and rides to work on a unicorn, for all the relevance it has under the law.

Though I do find it hilarious that we're talking about cops-- aka "Law Enforcement Officers" breaking the law, and getting the "ok" from another agency of government... and somehow you think it is legitimate.

Every evil action in every tyrannical regime in history has been "legal" under the perspective of the people doing it.

So, for you to say that the supreme court made it legal-- which, they didn't, by the way, they didn't even rule the way you imply-- is to say you reject the rule of law, and choose the rule of men.

This has to be one of, if not the best post I have ever read here. Very well written. It is good to see that there are some freedom minded people on this board. I was really getting worried

 

[DocNYz]

You know, I have been through checkpoints, or shall we say Harrassed at checkpoints, so maybe some people like this app just to avoid dealing with Officer hardass? If someone is bombed out of there mind, they last thing they are going to be able to do, is view an app to tell them where a check point is. Just another example of the minority deciding what is best for the majority. You know what, better get ride of the GPS app, because I can find where you live! O wait, you posted it on Facebook for me, so very easy for me to come get you, drunk or sober! If this becomes the status, then should we close Gun shop because someone they sold too killed someone? If I kill someone with a Knife, should we stop selling Knifes? Lets stop blaming everyone but the PERSON themselves who causes the problems! So no the Drunk Driver will just kill someone on the way to the DUI checkpoint, instead of down another street. This really resolves NOTHING!

****ing seriously. This is ****ing ********. The whole ****ing point of this ability in these apps that do so many other things is to AVOID dealing with harassing cops. If there is a DUI checkpoint, then people STAY OFF THE ROAD, not get on it more and drink more. This logic is completely flawed, apple bowed down to a few ****ing uneducated morons in senate and set a horrific precedent for the future of iOS. Not to mention most of the goddamn checkpoints get ****ing posted BY THE OFFICERS online in many states in the first place, if they're too retarded to add them to trapster and someone else is already taking public information and reposting it, there is NOTHING wrong or illegal or dangerous about that.

We need some good constitutional lawyers here to kill this where it lies before it gets way out of hand.

 

[Gamoe]

In the perfect world nobody would drive drunk. In a perfect world police officers in a free state would not harass citizens and treat them like criminals without prior evidence. In a perfect world they wouldn't set up hidden speed zones, not to keep the people safe, but to squeeze as much income in fines from the public as possible. In a perfect world these apps wouldn't be necessary. Bad call on Apple's part.

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

Again, as many have said before, until you experience the effects of drunk driving first hand, you have difficulty understanding these issues. For those of us who have, it is not that we feel responsible to stop DUI's on the road because it is better for society (though it is), it is because we feel responsible for protecting loved ones who are out there driving among them.

It is a complex issue, and there needs to be more solutions available. For now, DUI checkpoints are the best one we have.

No they aren't. If they were, then you would see checkpoints set up all over town on a daily basis in order to protect your loved ones. The fact that you don't proves that in fact, that is not the motivation. The real motivation is to A) Make it look like they are making a token effort and B) income generation when there are budget shortfalls to be made up. Nothing more. Again, if this was really about protecting people from drunks and if that really worked, you would see these used daily in your town.

Someone else had it right....if you really want to stop drunk driving, put police in the parking lots of bars. That will make people think twice. A DUI checkpoint, will not. Nor will it catch all the drunks leaving all the bars. There ARE plenty of other roads after all. Checkpoints are too limited in scope to be very effective at dealing with the real problem.

 

[econgeek]

I think most of them are honest and don't abuse the powers they are trusted with.

Participating in these checkpoints is proof positive that one is not honest and that one is, in fact, abusing the power they have. These checkpoints are illegal, and every person stopped is an individual felony. 10 years, I believe if the cops are armed when they stop them. United States Code 18-242 makes this a crime.

You think these cops are good guys because they think they are good guys, but they are all criminals... they think they are good guys because they are ignorant of the law. If they've ever pulled someone over, they have done so without a warrant, they are criminals. If they ever busted someone for possession of drugs, they are criminals. (Mabury vs. Madison makes enforcing drug laws a crime, because they are unconstitutional.)

These criminals will continue to get more and more corrupt, more and more abusive, until people start killing them.

 

[econgeek]

You can't be serious. This isn't about being "politically correct", it's about being a responsible human being. Innocent people are killed every day because some idiot gets behind the wheel when he/she is hammered. Giving these people a way to avoid getting caught is just wrong in every way. It's hard to believe that there is even a debate about this.

Innocent people are killed every day because perfectly sober blonds get behind the wheel and have a brain fart and kill someone. Also, because dads are disturbed by a fight they had with mom. Or mon is disturbed by something her kid said.

Clearly the "innocent people are killed every day" excuse can be used to try and support any abuse you want.

The reality is: Just because some innocent people are victims of accidents, does NOT give you the right to perpetrate crimes against other INNOCENT people.

Every sober person stopped by one of these checkpoints is an innocent person and the victim of a crime.

You don't decrease crimes by committing more crimes.

 

[farleysmaster]

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.

Without checkpoints, what percentage of people who are caught for DUI are caught without injury to property or person...?

They could be doing more important work, yes. And it's the people getting drunk, driving and risking the lives of others that are making them waste their time...

 

[econgeek]

it's the people getting drunk, driving and risking the lives of others that are making them waste their time...

There are people who rob banks out in the world. We could put cops at every streetcorner stopping people and searching for ski masks.

Then you could say "its the people robbing the banks that are responsible for our police state."

Reality would still be that it is people like you who think that fear of some rare crime justifies massive crimes like these checkpoints that are really responsible for our living in a police state.