U.S. Senators Ask Apple to Remove DUI Checkpoint Apps From App Store

[gnasher729]

Apple should definitely remove it, no need to pretend that you're not drunk! it keeps me an many other innocent family members alive and out of danger!

Clearly, anyone driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs endangers anyone else on the road. But that is not the question here. The question is: Does an application that shows DUI checkpoints endanger people, and does it have other uses?

If I travel to or from work, with not one bit of alcohol in my blood, I might want to avoid being stopped because it just wastes everyone's time, and that checkpoint might cause a traffic jam anyway that I would want to avoid. That's a completely legitimate use of this app.

Now imagine you had a beer or four or five, and think about driving home. Is it better if you drive home, endangering people, and then possibly getting caught, or is it better if you detect that checkpoint and decide to call a taxi?

Here in Los Angeles, the police set up speed traps all over the place, hiding behind bushes, and posting 35mph speed limits in areas with wide lanes and no sidewalks (a.k.a. no pedestrians). They then nail everybody driving 40+. Guess how much that ticket costs now? Over $250. Now why do they do this? Surely it's to keep us safe!

Here in Essex, all speed cameras are in visible places because the intention is to use them to slow traffic down. Actually, only one quarter of all camera boxes actually have a camera inside (the cameras get rotated between boxes) because every speeding ticket is extra work for the police; the others have the radar, plus flash lights so you will get flashed if you drive past them too quickly and you _think_ you have been caught, which probably slows you down for a week

I can easily drive at .1. I don't due to the fact that a DUI would ruin my career, but I can see why someone who isn't really drunk, yet the law says he is drunk, would want to pull this app up and see if there are any checkpoints. Just because the law is outdated and has retarded rules like .08 being the same limit for everyone... I can guarantee you that I can drive better at .1 than many people (girls in particular) can drive at .05. Yet if we were both at a checkpoint, I'd be the one ****ed.

The first thing that goes out of the window when you are under the influence of alcohol is judgement and risk assessment. Chances are that you _could_ drive quite well but you _won't_. And with your post showing that you are overly confident in your driving abilities anyway (90% of all drives believe they are much better than average), you'd be actually quite dangerous when driving under the influence of alcohol.

trapster started out by showing where speed traps are. Why wasn't this app pulled long ago to help "save lives?" I didn't see the families of victims killed because of SPEEDING drivers upset about the app. Just sayin...

One kind of driver that I hate are those who slow down at speed traps, then accelerate, are really impatient with anyone who stays within or close to the speed limit, then hit their brakes at the next speed trap, and repeat. What I _would_ accept and support would be a law that makes it illegal to report the _precise_ location of a speed trap, only allowing an app to say "speed trap somewhere within one mile". Because _that_ would actually slow traffic down and make things safer. And save drivers from speeding tickets at the same time.

 

[vanzantapple]

Keep the app of freedom flying.

If it was about stopping drunk drivers, the senators would have asked to have the app changed. NO, they want it gone. It's about a lot more the drunk drivers, its the same ol' sh't again; these scumbags just want more control over the public.

 

[BJMRamage]

sorry. totally disagree with the Government's takeover here (or desire to control more of our lives).

When there was a DUI checkpoint years ago that I had to drive through...WITHOUT having a single drink, it took a while. Then when i had to go out and decided to take a shortcut back so as not to hit the DUI checkpoint a cop followed me, tailgating me the whole way and pulled me over for me to say "that house is my cousin's and I was just going there for the night."

Keep the apps in there....use another form to pull over the drunkards.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

For those of you in approval of the Sens action:

These apps are for the most part socially driven. That is, actual users input information into them as they see it or as the gov't publishes it. Given that fact...

if you are going to support a ban on apps like this what about other social apps that can also do this? How about a banning the words "speed trap," or "DUI check" point on Twitter? How about forbidding apps like Foursquare from showing such checkpoints? How far would you go to censor information? What happens when the inevitable slippery slope kicks in and other information is forbidden to be transmitted?

The Constitution is imperfect but its chief purpose is to protect individual rights. One of those rights is "free speech", which has a glorious sound but fact is all speech is not desirable, some is painful or potentially dangerous. But that does not mean it should be preempted. The right is to "free speech," not societally or morally accepted speech.

There are a lot of hard-to-swallow court decisions (Pentagon Papers & the Progressive Magazine "how to make a bomb" article case comes to mind) but that is part and parcel of "free speech." Free speech isn't pure like making bread. We can't separate the wheat from the shaft. We have to take it as we get it or it ceases to be free and ideas stop. When a diversity of ideas cease from being published either by law or intimidation so does civilization.

 

[mikejfrd]

The state and local government has us under such a sickening amount of surveillance that it seems ridiculous to me that a few people are worried about a handful of "citizens" having the power to avoid a few "traps". (REALLY...this is a problem? Drunks with iPhones and enough dexterity to peruse their apps?)

No, i don't think drinking and driving is right, but i also don't think that surrendering ALL technology and power to the police while censoring our own powers makes for a level playing field.

AGAIN, DRUNK DRIVING IS NOT OKAY. But surrendering all control and technological advance to "Those that control us" and bending to their whims is just another way that we give up what little bit of sanity we have.

Instead of banning software let's take some responsibility and raise our children in a way where they learn responsibility and self control (i say this as a current parent).

Please explain the sickening amount of surveillance that the state and local government has "us" under!!

 

[trssho]

Bull S%#$!!!!!!!!!

Anyone heard of first amendment. And if it is a unconstitutional to post what you see at an intersection in a public forum, then it's the courts job to deal with it, not some self righteous blowhard senator.

Do not support US Senators censoring smart phone apps. This would be just the beginning.


PS. I am not a fan of drunk drivers, but I am less a fan of censorship!!!

 

[Luis Ortega]

That's all we need.
A bunch of drunks driving around and also trying to use their phone's tiny screens to evade police detection.
This app should help increase the number of road deaths.

 

[jc1350]

Agreed. But Trapster is primarily for speed traps, DUI traps is just a secondary function.

Maybe THAT (speed trap alerts) is their real target (lost revenue in their states), but in PR-land, that wouldn't fly, so they say it's about drunk drivers and...I'm sure it's in there somewhere, saving the children.

 

[k1121j]

I Agree

I am not sure about other states, but in CA, Law Enforcement is specifically required to announce DUI checkpoints and provide an alternative route. Asking to have these applications removed from app stores contradicts the law regarding DUI checkpoints. Gotta love Politicians. Write a law then contradict it. Awesome.

Same in NH and they have to give you an opertunity to turn off the street before the checkpoint they should allow the app we don't need the government preventing people from receiving public information.

 

[Peruna]

What's the idea of DUI checkpoints anyway? Can't police officers just pull over drivers they suspect of DUI if they catch them while on regular patrol? That's how it works here at least. Much less predictable and it negates the utility of the apps in question..

As a 14 year former prosecutor who worked with hundreds of cops, they told me "task forces" where they patrol in increased numbers with the specific purpose of catching drunk drivers work better than checkpoints. It is less predictable for the drunk and you benefit from the cop's years of experience of knowing where the drunks drive. Near a collection of bars is a good starting point.

 

[mikejfrd]

Anyone heard of first amendment. And if it is a unconstitutional to post what you see at an intersection in a public forum, then it's the courts job to deal with it, not some self righteous blowhard senator.

Do not support US Senators censoring smart phone apps. This would be just the beginning.


PS. I am not a fan of drunk drivers, but I am less a fan of censorship!!!

No one is trying to write this into law, at this point they are simply ASKING Apple to remove the app. Them asking to remove it is in no way a violation of any amendment.

I don't think it's really a big deal, but at the same point I don't see anything wrong with the app. I'd be much more comcerned with the govt asking to tap into our phones GPS without a warrant.

 

[Popeye206]

The real issue...

The issue here is not drunk driving or promoting drunk driving. I don't think any reasonable human would promote someone getting behind the wheel even a little buzzed.

The issue here is the government trying to start controlling what information we have access to and the Apps available to us. What seems to happen (at least here in the US) is once one thing is regulated, it leads to more. Do we really want the government or special interest groups controlling what we have access to or what Apps are allowed or not allowed? This is not what America is all about.

Let the government have it's say here and we'll be sorry. All it will take is some terrorist group using something silly like Google Maps to pull off an attack and then congress will be calling for a shut down of Google Maps (as an example). Let them have an inch and they will take a mile, all under the umbrella of our "best interest".

This App is not going to promote or stop some idiot from driving drunk. Jerks that do that, will do it if they have the App or not.

 

[mikejfrd]

As a 14 year former prosecutor who worked with hundreds of cops, they told me "task forces" where they patrol in increased numbers with the specific purpose of catching drunk drivers work better than checkpoints. It is less predictable for the drunk and you benefit from the cop's years of experience of knowing where the drunks drive. Near a collection of bars is a good starting point.

Yeah but they still would need some sort of traffic or equipment violation to stop the vehicle in the first place whereas a checkpoint allows every driver to be checked for sobriety. It also allows the Officers to choose a specific area or intersection to target. These areas are usually picked due to accidents, complaints, etc...

I agree that saturating a specific area with patrol is also a good method, but a good ole fashion checkpoint usually always yields the best results in the shortest amount of time.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

No one is trying to write this into law, at this point they are simply ASKING Apple to remove the app. Them asking to remove it is in no way a violation of any amendment.

I don't think it's really a big deal, but at the same point I don't see anything wrong with the app. I'd be much more comcerned with the govt asking to tap into our phones GPS without a warrant.

You don't seem to grasp that U.S. Senators "asking" in their official position, on official letterhead, is a subtle form of goverment bullying as a way to "run around" the Constitution. Gov't requested self-censorship is no more tenable than gov't imposed censorship.

 

[jc1350]

Heyooo! Besides, murder is premeditated. It's called homicide otherwise.

All murders are homicides; not all homicides are murders. Homicide means nothing more than the death of a human caused by another human - intentional or not.

 

[unlinked]

+1. It's hilarious the way Yanks react to these things with their constant squawking about constitutional rights. What about the rights of the people these drink drivers kill every year? Here in Europe you're scum if you drink drive, and there's no way our governments or any company should go out of their way to help you avoid detection.

The American constitutional fetish does seem very strange to me as a non American. Americans (or a significant subset there of) seem to think each and every right is distinct and absolute and ignore how they interact. People are way too boxed in by the existing constitution and unwilling to consider the possibility it should be changed. That is why every argument about gun regulation hangs on parsing the second amendment instead of an open discussion of what would be best for the people/country. It is almost like the constitution is some sort of unchanging secular bible instead of a living document crafted by and for the people.

Anyhow,different countries are different. To each his own.

 

[BC2009]

I see lots of posts on here arguing the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints. According to Wikipedia:

The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.
Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.
Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that an exception was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. On the other hand, dissenting Justice Stevens countered that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."

So according to the US Constitution the common-law of the land set by the majority of the Supreme Court makes these checkpoints 100% legal even though some supreme court justices disagreed. That said, the report goes on to say.....

In approving "properly conducted" checkpoints, Chief Justice Rehnquist implicitly acknowledged that there must be guidelines in order to avoid becoming overly intrusive. In other words, checkpoints cannot simply be set up when, where and how police officers choose. As often happens in Supreme Court decisions, however, the Chief Justice left it to the states to determine what those minimal safeguards must be, presumably to be reviewed by the courts on a case-by-case basis.
In an effort to provide standards for use by the states, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration subsequently issued a report that reviewed recommended checkpoint procedures in keeping with federal and state legal decisions. ("The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement", DOT HS-807-656, Nov. 1990) An additional source of guidelines can be found in an earlier decision by the California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)) wherein the Court set forth what it felt to be necessary standards in planning and administering a sobriety checkpoint:


A checkpoint in the United States

• Decision making must be at a supervisory level, rather than by officers in the field.
• A neutral formula must be used to select vehicles to be stopped, such as every vehicle or every third vehicle, rather than leaving it up the officer in the field.
• Primary consideration must be given to public and officer safety.
• The site should be selected by policy-making officials, based upon areas having a high incidence of drunk driving.
• Limitations on when the checkpoint is to be conducted and for how long, bearing in mind both effectiveness and intrusiveness.
• Warning lights and signs should be clearly visible.
• Length of detention of motorists should be minimized.
• Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.

My emphasis above. Advance publicity seems to be a requirement for these checkpoints in order to allow them even though they violate your 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. Therefore, I think these 4 senators should check the constitution and the supreme court findings before asking private corporations to do something that the states are not even allowed to do.

I believe that the belief on the part of these Senators is that if the states meet the minimum requirement and provide advance notice in the newspaper which nobody reads then we will catch more drunk drivers and these apps actually make it convenient. However, this goes against the spirit of the law which says that the advance publicity is about increasing the deterrent effect and to reduce intrusiveness. I suppose the Senators think that since they cannot ask the states to stop publicizing the location of checkpoints, that they should circumvent the supreme court by asking private corporations to do it for them (kinda like asking a newspaper not to print the announcement that the states are legally required to make).

So while I hate drunk drivers and I wish they would all get their licenses pulled for life, it seems to me that these apps are going to help the non-drunk driver avoid having their 4th amendment rights intruded upon more than it will help somebody who is drunk avoid the checkpoints. When drunk you are far more likely to lack the reasoning ability to pull out your iPhone and check because your degree of carelessness increases. But more importantly, as somebody said, that government requesting censorship publicly in order to attempt to provide bad PR for a corporation otherwise, is even worse than government censorship -- it is nothing short of bullying.

If these Senators REALLY wanted to fix the problem they would propose a constitutional amendment that specifically outlines rules for DUI checkpoints. That IS within the scope of their jobs as Senators.

 

[nwcs]

Wow, never knew we had so many US Constitution law professors on MacRumors! Having been through law classes I can tell you that a lot of people make their cases based on what they see on TV and movies. If you go to some basic US law classes you'll find things aren't so cut and dried.

The senators are within their right to use their influence to try to make change. No different than any other situation where people use their connections, titles, friends, etc. to effect change in any other situation.

 

[mikejfrd]

You don't seem to grasp that U.S. Senators "asking" in their official position, on official letterhead, is a subtle form of goverment bullying as a way to "run around" the Constitution. Gov't requested self-censorship is no more tenable than gov't imposed censorship.

No I grasp it just fine, but in this situation I don't see how it could ever be passed into law so really it doesn’t matter what capacity the request came in. Requesting the removal of an app is just that; a request not a demand or a form of bullying. I'm sure the request stemmed from numerous letters from the public exercising their right of free speech by writing their senators so really I'm sure it’s just a political strategy for politicians. Do you really think a Senator really gives two ***** about DWI arrests or if Joe blow has an app to tell him if a checkpoint may or may not exist in his city?

 

[BC2009]

The American constitutional fetish does seem very strange to me as a non American.

The constitution is the only thing that has protected us from ourselves or brought us back from the brink several times over our history. I hope Americans continue to always ask "does this violate Constitutional rights" -- those rights are there for a reason. The Constitution is a living document that can be amended, but amendment is not taken lightly and requires a 2/3 majority in congress and state ratification.

These Senators are trying to circumvent that process by trying to bully corporations by threatening them with bad PR.

What if the Senators were publicly asking these corporations to dismiss employees who are suspected communists because it is in the best interests of our country? Oh wait.... that happened back in the 1950's -- I guess that is not that far fetched.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

The senators are within their right to use their influence to try to make change. No different than any other situation where people use their connections, titles, friends, etc. to effect change in any other situation.

The difference here is that, and I'm sure you understand this as a law student, most people are not the majority leader and 3rd highest ranking member of the U.S. Senate. So yes, it is very different b/c if you don't play ball with these guys they can very easily sneak in amendments in legislation adverse to your company without being specific to it. And then you either have to spend money fighting it or live w/ the consequences. It seems Blackberry has already caved. It's Constitutional run around and it makes me sad that someone coming into the legal profession doesn't want to ignore what is happening here.

 

[Darien Red Sox]

I am not sure about other states, but in CA, Law Enforcement is specifically required to announce DUI checkpoints and provide an alternative route. Asking to have these applications removed from app stores contradicts the law regarding DUI checkpoints. Gotta love Politicians. Write a law then contradict it. Awesome.

My state has the same law as CA, I don't see how these apps would even be useful to people who were drunk, If some one too drunk to read the signs or newspaper telling them about the check point then they would be too drunk to use there phone to find out about it.

 

[mikejfrd]

I see lots of posts on here arguing the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints. According to Wikipedia:



So according to the US Constitution the common-law of the land set by the majority of the Supreme Court makes these checkpoints 100% legal even though some supreme court justices disagreed. That said, the report goes on to say.....




My emphasis above. Advance publicity seems to be a requirement for these checkpoints in order to allow them even though they violate your 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. Therefore, I think these 4 senators should check the constitution and the supreme court findings before asking private corporations to do something that the states are not even allowed to do.

I believe that the belief on the part of these Senators is that if the states meet the minimum requirement and provide advance notice in the newspaper which nobody reads then we will catch more drunk drivers and these apps actually make it convenient. However, this goes against the spirit of the law which says that the advance publicity is about increasing the deterrent effect and to reduce intrusiveness. I suppose the Senators think that since they cannot ask the states to stop publicizing the location of checkpoints, that they should circumvent the supreme court by asking private corporations to do it for them (kinda like asking a newspaper not to print the announcement that the states are legally required to make).

So while I hate drunk drivers and I wish they would all get their licenses pulled for life, it seems to me that these apps are going to help the non-drunk driver avoid having their 4th amendment rights intruded upon more than it will help somebody who is drunk avoid the checkpoints. When drunk you are far more likely to lack the reasoning ability to pull out your iPhone and check because your degree of carelessness increases. But more importantly, as somebody said, that government requesting censorship publicly in order to attempt to provide bad PR for a corporation otherwise, is even worse than government censorship -- it is nothing short of bullying.

If these Senators REALLY wanted to fix the problem they would propose a constitutional amendment that specifically outlines rules for DUI checkpoints. That IS within the scope of their jobs as Senators.

I don't think anyone with any knowledge of the law or with the ability to use Google is arguing what the Supreme Court already ruled on. This is why the Senators REQUESTED Apple to remove the Apps instead of trying to write it into law. Agencies are required to give notice, people can legally distribute that information however they wish. It's already on paper in black and white! I don't see why everyone is getting their panties in a bunch over this.

 

[Thunderhawks]

No one is trying to write this into law, at this point they are simply ASKING Apple to remove the app. Them asking to remove it is in no way a violation of any amendment.

I don't think it's really a big deal, but at the same point I don't see anything wrong with the app. I'd be much more comcerned with the govt asking to tap into our phones GPS without a warrant.

I think it is a big deal.

Either we have freedom or not!

I don't think the gay app should have been removed either and nobody has any business to tell Apple what to do.

Apple has already decided that apps have to follow certain rules. (Albeit (their rules)

The government needs to find another way to enforce its DUI laws.

Clearly all communities have the expected fines they level from traffic stops built into their budgets and many times towards the end of a budget cycle they increase revenues by putting up more stops, patrols etc.

They already use these stops to find anything "ticketible". as some other posters wrote.

The government should concentrate on the real problems, They pick side battles that look good in the press.

Gays in the military, abortion who cares? Let everybody live their life in peace the way they decide to live it!

 

[Chupa Chupa]

No I grasp it just fine, but in this situation I don't see how it could ever be passed into law so really it doesn’t matter what capacity the request came in.

You have just proven my point that you don't grasp it at all. There is no need for it to be passed into (a likely unconstitutional) law b/c what the Sens are doing is attempting to bully the companies to self-censor. That is the key point here. They don't have to pass a law to censor the speech. But the effect is the same, the speech is stopped. And the next time the Sens see speech they don't like they'll do it again, and again. It's the old slippery slope, just on a different road.