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

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

dime21 said:
That's a good point - and there is supreme court precedent to back this up. The supreme court has ruled that the job of the police is NOT to stop crime, nor to prevent it, and they are not legally obligated to intervene even if they see a crime in progress! They have the right to sit on their ass and do nothing. Fact.
Click to expand...


Very true - but the original story is about senators wanting apple to pull checkpoint notification apps.

Those same senators could enact legislation to hit bars and limit the ability for drunk drivers to even do so.

Those senators don't - bars make a lot of money and it is cheaper and easier to pin the tail on the drunk drivers. (And not texting drivers, sleepy drivers, etc).
 
Cinnabar said:
It just seems reasonable for the police to make surprise checks in areas of a city where they feel that there is a high probability that people are drinking and driving. If I was a cop, and I suspected that every Saturday night there was a particular stretch of road in my neighbourhood that people drove down drunk, then I don't think it would be awful for me to set up a surprise checkpoint there. That would accord with the wording of the 4th amendment anyway, which seems to allow for reasonable 'searches and seizures'. I hadn't read the 4th amendment when I made my original post, so it seems there is more subtlety there than I thought. Which is good no?
Click to expand...
But that's the thing - surprise checks are illegal. So while you think it's reasonable, it is in fact illegal. You must either consent to the search, or they are required to have probable cause to force a search. Period.

The difference between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" searches is probable cause. Probable cause meaning they have witnessed you violating a law, found some physical evidence that you've violated a law, or have received information from another source (a 911 call for example) indicating that you may be violating the law.

Good for you for reading the 4th amendment, and wanting to know your rights.
 
Last edited:
vwcruisn said:
There's an area in my town known for heavy drug use/drug dealers. Why not make surprise checks at the houses in that area? I'm sure the police feel there is a high probability of drug use in that area, and they most likely would make many arrests.
Click to expand...

Nah, drug use is fine. It should be legalised anyway. Alcohol is, and it's much more destructive.

These are totally different examples, and you cannot compare one with another. Your example involves invasion of people's privacy on a much bigger scale, with more odious overtones. Asking people to take a breathaliser test does not constitute a precedent for searching somebody's house at random. Your argument is just inflammatory.
 
So much vitriol -- so little sense

As one early commenter said, if a person is drunk enough to be arrested at a checkpoint, he's probably too drunk to understand the notice. Meanwhile, sober people who need to get from point A to point B really don't want to sit in a traffic back up while the police stop every car and do their thing. Since many cities and states specifically announce the locations of their checkpoints ahead of time, there is nothing illegal or immoral about these apps.

I also noted at least one commenter complaining that police spend more time giving out tickets than doing their job. Well guess what, that's exactly the job of the Traffic Division of any police force, no matter where you are. Yes, patrol officers also give tickets when they witness illegal driving, but they're the ones who respond first to any calls for aid. Small towns may not have such a division of forces, but almost every big city does.

The simple point is that these senators are trying to make a name for themselves and honestly, I hope that they do--so their constituents vote against them next time. Do you want somebody with so little common sense running your country?
 
palebluedot said:
I get a kick out of reading all these posts proclaiming this as big brother, thought police intervention or decrying the Senators for "wasting their time on this" while other larger issues persist.

1) This isn't a law. They are asking Apple to do something. You can write Apple (or Senators) letters too.

2) Most of you decry them for "wasting time on this" while economic issues, wars, etc. persist. Do you really think that someone isn't capable of doing two things at once, esp. when they have a staff that exists to help them research, write laws, etc. Also, I have a feeling most of you would decry them for trying to do anything to "fix" problems as government intervention anyway. :D
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I think the vast majority that have "serves" us recently have proven time and time again to not actually serve us, but their corporate and special interest masters.

And you're right, it isn't a law, it's coercion.. Do it, or we'll make you do it, and maybe open up some anti-trust investigation too.

And if you think these schmucks didn't spend at least 1000 man hours spitballing this before even writing it, taking time away from actually serving the needs of the people that pay their bills, you're delusional.
 
Ca$hflow said:
I seriously doubt that a drunk would be able able to operate the phone a little lone running the app, pinching to zoom, etc.
Click to expand...

If you drank 4 beers could you still operate your phone? Legally drunk isn't a huge amount of alcohol for most people. Most people who are just at or over the legal limit wouldn't feel severely impaired.
 
dime21 said:
But that's the thing - surprise checks are illegal. So while you think it's reasonable, it is in fact illegal. You must either consent to the search, or they are required to have probable cause to force a search. Period.

The difference between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" searches is probable cause. Probable cause meaning they have witnessed you violating a law, found some physical evidence that you've violated a law, or have received information from another source (a 911 call for example) indicating that you may be violating the law.

Good for you for reading the 4th amendment, and wanting to know your rights.
Click to expand...

I understand, but it's just a cultural difference. In the UK, if the police set up a surprise checkpoint, the attitude you'd get from the public over here would be polite grumpiness and a certain perverse pleasure at having to queue for something (it's a sort of British speciality). ;)
 
fine line...

There is a very fine line between these apps and having your buddy come in and say "Hey be careful out there - i just saw a DUI checkpoint down the road." Is that kind of dialog going to be censored as well? Is Chuck Schumacher going to be knocking on my door telling me not to listen to my friend???
 
What's wrong with giving people information? How insulting for these so called "senators" and "lawmakers" to have so little confidence in local law enforcement as to think that they can't compete with an app. I don't drink, but I'd love to know if I was heading into a DUI checkpoint so that I could steer clear of all the other drunks and get home faster. I believe I have a right to know, and it's no different than showing traffic congestion in Google maps or your GPS app - it allows you to re-route.

Get off your soapboxes people. Once you start censoring these types of apps, it's a slippery slope. What's next?
 
johnnyrb said:
MADD needs to come out with an application that makes it easier for citizens to notify the cops of reckless and drunk drivers instead of having congress pull these apps!!!
Click to expand...

I'm against drinking and driving, but alcohol effects each person differently. I have held a driving license for a decade and have never driven after more than one beer.

Apple should decide with their conscience, and hopefully there will not be any more *laws* to enforce such behaviour. In the end it's a storm in a teapot - people that are wont to drive drunk will do so, with or without the app.

Regarding MADD - it's is a badly run charity (AIP Charity rating guide 'D'), with a regressive, neo-prohibitionist agenda.
 
ArcaneDevice said:
Eh, yes.

There is more than one level of being drunk you know?

It's those that are arrogant enough to believe that even though they've been drinking more than the limit they can still drive... They are the people who can also send text messages they regret in the morning and take camera photos of their ass.
Click to expand...

Again Arcane, I'm SORRY! Sheesh! How many times do I have to apologize for sending you that pic...?
 
palebluedot said:
I get a kick out of reading all these posts proclaiming this as big brother, thought police intervention or decrying the Senators for "wasting their time on this" while other larger issues persist.

1) This isn't a law. They are asking Apple to do something. You can write Apple (or Senators) letters too.

2) Most of you decry them for "wasting time on this" while economic issues, wars, etc. persist. Do you really think that someone isn't capable of doing two things at once, esp. when they have a staff that exists to help them research, write laws, etc. Also, I have a feeling most of you would decry them for trying to do anything to "fix" problems as government intervention anyway. :D
Click to expand...

I can't speak for everyone else but to me this seems like a waste of time for someone as powerful as Harry Reid to be wasting his time on?
It also feels a lot like a publicity stunt, as others have said.
No I don't think that they can do two things at once!
I think mostly they do whatever the big money tells them to do.
I think the federal government should keep it's nose out of this kind of thing.
 
Dooger said:
So I an app that shows paedophiles where the nearest school playgrounds are located would be ok. Who cares? Let everyone live their life in peace.
These types of app help you break a law that's designed to protect people, how could Apple ever defend the idea of putting the lives of people at terrible risk just to make a few dollars more?
I guess socialism has its upsides, even though the capitalist pigs at Fox say otherwise.
Click to expand...

You're getting too emotional. Stop and think a moment.

BY LAW, police departments have to announce when and where a checkpoint is going to be. This ensures public protection from "unreasonable search and seizure." So, BY LAW, this kind of app is not only legal, but a protected freedom of speech. But that's really beside the point.

The people who will most benefit from such an app are the ones who need it--the sober ones who simply want to get from point A to point B without getting into a traffic tie-up that may take you a half-hour or more to get through.
 
LarryC said:
I'm really glad to see that there some people here on these forums who aren't mad-dog, rabid socialist, control-freaks. It is amazing. Let me leave you with this quote by Benjamin Franklin. It goes something like this. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither."

If Apple lets government control even a tiny thing, before you know it they will control everything. It is a slippery slope and one best avoided all together. Government is like a deadly and evil cancer. Someone once equated government to fire. It can do some really good things, but if it ever gets out of control it can and will destroy everything.
Click to expand...

Checks and balances, Larry. That's why they exist: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Except in Karl Rove's personal idea of heaven, they're supposed to keep each other in check. Then of course you have elections every 2 and 4 years (your personal chance to keep things in control). The system works just fine.
 
Vulpinemac said:
As one early commenter said, if a person is drunk enough to be arrested at a checkpoint, he's probably too drunk to understand the notice.
Click to expand...

I agree with the rest of your comment, but this part is kind of silly. Drunk enough to be arrested is often not drunk at all. I've measured myself at 0.08 before, and I honestly couldn't feel any influence. It varies from person to person, but 0.08 is getting into pretty low territory.

While I'm willing to accept that a scientific driving test might have revealed that I had in fact been suffering some degree of impairment, I certainly would have no problem understanding the notice, operating my iPhone, etc.

One thing I'd like to mention though, because I think somehow people are afraid to say it - drinking and driving is not illegal. Driving drunk is. The "don't drink and drive" thing and the new "buzzed driving is drunk driving" thing are MADD propaganda, trying to confuse motorists and taint jury pools. You should be able to have a beer or a glass of wine when you go out to dinner and not worry about getting a DUI.

But because breathalyzers are often miscalibrated, and in some states you can still get a DUI even under the BAL if the cop feels like it, I think this app is useful for responsible, non-drunk adult drivers to avoid persecution for responsibly consuming alcohol within the parameters of the law.
 
I've never been a drinker and I haven't smoked pot in a few years but I still think checkpoints are bunk. They hand out more seatbelt tickets and other minor infractions than they catch drunk drivers. It's just a money grab and these greasy politicians know it.
 
idunn said:
Perhaps someone should point out, so I will, that checkpoints on our roads are an illegal abrogation of our 4th Amendment Constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
Click to expand...

That hinges on the meaning of the word "unreasonable." You could also make a case that protecting the rest of the drivers from the carnage of drunk drivers is a perfectly reasonable step to promote the general welfare, which is the legislature's job.

I personally don't think too many wasted people scout for DUI checkpoints on their phones when they leave the bar.

One other thing, a little OT: Have you ever noticed that when you read the newspaper stories about drunk driver crashes, the car they hit is totaled and the victims killed, and the drunk has minor injuries. Almost every time.
 
Law enforcement has posted on Trapster where their speed traps and check points are. In fact the app has a special icon when a trap has been sent by law enforcement. The police would rather have you slow down or not drive drunk.
These senators should find something a little more constructive to do with their time.
 
iDisk said:
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
Click to expand...

Also, this is promoting drunk driving WHILST using the phone.

These need to be pulled. I get in nearly enough accidents because some college student is more worried about texting there buddy and checking the weather than paying attention to driving. Couldn't imagine if they were drunk. :\
 
dime21 said:
A gray area? I think you may be going a bit color blind there. Surprise DUI checkpoints are totally illegal under the 4th amendment. No question about it, no gray area. They are illegal. Period. So to get around that, the government removes the "surprise" part, and announces them all in advance. The dates, times, and locations are all published before hand in the newspaper, and on the radio. The thinking behind that is if the people know about them in advance, then they are "consenting" to the search if they choose to drive that road. Announcing the location of the checkpoints, in advance, is the ONLY thing that keeps them legal! This issue has nothing to do with "censorship" since it is the government themselves who are publishing the locations, as they are legally required to do.

This app is no different from the Weather app or the Craigslist app in that it brings information that is already published and publicly available - to your phone. Once again, notifying the people of the dates, times, and locations of these checkpoints is required by law! The government must provide this information or they cannot set up a checkpoint.

I'm against drunk driving, don't get me wrong, but I'm also against drunk lawmaking, which these four Senators are clearly guilty of.
Click to expand...

I see your point and I agree. I haven't looked at it from that angle.
 
In response to a couple comments.

When you get your license, you're consenting to all stops and searches whilst driving.
 
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