Senators Want DUI Checkpoint Apps Removed

GORANKAR said:
No one is supporting drunk driving. We do support the First Amendment right to tell others where DUI checkpoints are.
Click to expand...

Yes but if we do tell these drunk drivers where these checkpoints are, it doesn't help to cut down on this terrible habit does it? What would those opposed to government intervention on removing these apps do instead then? There are limits to the 1st amendment.
 
On the one hand I do not care to defend drunk drivers. But, they tell us when we are on public roads we have no expectation of privacy. Why do they?
 
drako said:
While checkpoints are inconvenient for sober drivers it's worth it to catch drunk drivers. I have no sympathy for folks who want to endanger others on the road by driving intoxicated. Seems like a reasonable request to me to have the apps removed.
Click to expand...

I agree this is ok in my book.
 
Don't have them in Texas but I would feel a little ticked at the thought that if I lived some place that did allowed them. That at any time while driving down a road. I may have to stop a check point and have someone demand to see my papers. Also, even if you do not like them the apps are a form of free speech. Demanding a company remove them is a form of censorship.
 
Until it becomes a crime to intentionally avoid a police sobriety checkpoint by prior knowledge, I will not support this type of federal intervention.
 
nerdydesi said:
Yes but if we do tell these drunk drivers where these checkpoints are, it doesn't help to cut down on this terrible habit does it? What would those opposed to government intervention on removing these apps do instead then? There are limits to the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

I honestly hope that was a bad attempt at sarcasm or a joke. There should never be a limit to my 1st amendment rights. EVER.
 
nerdydesi said:
Yes but if we do tell these drunk drivers where these checkpoints are, it doesn't help to cut down on this terrible habit does it? What would those opposed to government intervention on removing these apps do instead then? There are limits to the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

Police can park down the street from a bar, wait for someone to drive by swerving to give them probable cause to pull them over. Road blocks and blanket searches for DUI cases are just BS, and to be honest at this point, are as much about revenue generation as public safety.

The limits on the first amendment are pretty clear. A clear and present danger, libel, slander. Telling others that there is a road block at a certain place so they can avoid the inconvenience of being stopped, harassed, and illegally searched does not fit those criteria. It is why the politicians are asking for the app to be pulled instead of legislating something that they know will not pass constitutional muster.
 
What authority does any law enforcement officer have to "check" to see if you are drunk? Don't roll down your window and don't talk to the police. If they order you to do such tell them you are exercising your 5th amendment rights, and do this regardless of the level of your sobriety. Oh...THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

DUI checkpoints should be unconstitutional.

As for the apps...freedom of speech buddy. End of story.
 
all 4 are democrats...I am all for catching drunk drivers...but more regulation on those that do the right things is the liberal way...most "drunk" drivers couldn't read their i-phone much less operate an app properly...I thought only republicans were trying to "take your rights away"...interesting
 
nerdydesi said:
Yes but if we do tell these drunk drivers where these checkpoints are, it doesn't help to cut down on this terrible habit does it? What would those opposed to government intervention on removing these apps do instead then? There are limits to the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...
there are no limits to 1st amendment if you are a liberal (democrat) when it suits them
 
ninjaturtle said:
^ this. In a world with too much irresponsibility, to much freedom is a bad very bad thing. Until we all can use better judgement, we have to do things like this.
Click to expand...



Please kill yourself now insterad of subjecting us free men to your tyranny. Checkpoints are point blank unconstitutional.

Step up more patrols, camp outside of bars, but dont setup a checkpoint and accuse every single citizen that passes of being drunk. Thats not how things are supposed to be in this country.
 
skinnydaddy said:
I honestly hope that was a bad attempt at sarcasm or a joke. There should never be a limit to my 1st amendment rights. EVER.
Click to expand...

Except when it infringes on others' rights, which this aiding and abetting of a criminal act does. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness end when dying to a drunk driver.
 
Killroy said:
That has to be the worst idea I've heard for stopping drunk driving. All it will do is add cost to the vehicle and have a negligible effect on accidents. That's just what I need to do is try to blow into some stupid device mounted to the steering wheel while I am driving so that my car doesn't get shut down, that won't cause any accidents. As far as other people blowing into it, people already have sex, and not just of the oral variety, while driving so taking a break from blowing the driver to blow the steering wheel shouldn't be a problem.

That being said, I don't drink very often, I have never driven drunk and I don't think they should remove the apps from the app stores.
Click to expand...

The way the device would theoretically work is the sensors would detect the alcohol through the skin via the steering wheel and not having to breath into a interlock like the devices out there now.

I just posted this link because I see this happening one day. I don't necessarily agree with it but it will happen.
 
jnmunsey said:
What authority does any law enforcement officer have to "check" to see if you are drunk? Don't roll down your window and don't talk to the police. If they order you to do such tell them you are exercising your 5th amendment rights, and do this regardless of the level of your sobriety. Oh...THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

DUI checkpoints should be unconstitutional.

As for the apps...freedom of speech buddy. End of story.
Click to expand...

As much as I am against this as I have posted earlier when you get a drivers license in FL or TX you agree in advance to sobriety checks. It's in all that shitastic paper work you fill out for the license.
 
Killahurtz said:
all 4 are democrats...I am all for catching drunk drivers...but more regulation on those that do the right things is the liberal way...most "drunk" drivers couldn't read their i-phone much less operate an app properly...I thought only republicans were trying to "take your rights away"...interesting
Click to expand...

Don't fool yourself, both parties want to take your rights away. The only difference seems to be the order they want to do it in.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Except when it infringes on others' rights, which this aiding and abetting of a criminal act does. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness end when dying to a drunk driver.
Click to expand...

Stopping and searching 1000 honest citizens to catch one drunk driver that could have been apprehended just as easily through other means is hardly a good example of clear and present danger. Alerting 1000 honest citizens and 1 drunk that there is a checkpoint ahead is hardly considered aiding and abetting. You can shelve the " dying to a drunk driver" drama. It is the same type of knee jerk inspiring, save the children style, BS that politicians always fall back on as an excuse to take away more of our rights.
 
This app can help legal, sober drivers to avoid being inconvenienced and questioned for no good reason. The app isn't going to sway someone's decision to drive drunk, only their drunk ass can make the right decision, an app can't do it for you.

Mr Drunkie sitting at the bar isn't thinking:
"Hey, it's time to go home, now where'd I park my car....OH WAIT there might be a checkpoint somewhere I don't know about, better take a cab."
And this definitely doesn't turn into:
"Hey, it's time to go home, now where'd I park my car....OH WAIT I better make sure there are no checkpoints on my route home, where's my phone..."

Mr Drunkie either makes the smart decision to take the cab, because he's too drunk to drive (and he knows it) OR Mr Drunkie takes the dumb route and drives his car home because he has work the next morning and needs it (or some other crap excuse).

The purpose of the DUI checkpoint app is to allow Mr Sober Driver, who doesn't want to be inconvenienced by being stopped unnecessarily and questioned, to plan ahead and avoid that route.
This is a very legitimate use, and banning the app because a drunk might use it to avoid getting arrested will be akin to banning guns because criminals use them to kill people, or banning radar detectors because some people might use them to avoid getting caught speeding. The people that you should be worried about are still going to break the law regardless of what the law says.

Next time you're on the way home from work late on a friday night, or driving your family home from thanksgiving or whatever, and you get stuck at a checkpoint, you'll wish the government didn't CENSOR and BAN an app that was made to avoid the situation you're stuck in.

I don't have a use for it, since I've never seen a checkpoint here, but there are valid uses. This also affects apps such as Trapster, which allow people to report and share locations of speed traps, red light cameras, typical hiding spots, etc. Banning an app like that is taking away and making illegal, an electronic method of saying to my friend "hey, cops hide there a lot so watch out," which is censorship, and a violation of our first amendment rights.

They're basically saying citizens can't share information with each other about what the police are doing, because that might cause someone to avoid getting caught. Hi 1984.
 
randomhero58 said:
Can we remove worthless politicians instead?
Click to expand...

Mark Udall would be my first choice to go. I'm embarassed for Colorado because of him and a couple others.

However, with that said, I do find the apps a little silly though. If you're too trashed to drive your probably too trashed to be scouting out dui checkpoints.
 
how about we sponsor an [H] member to get crazy drunk and see if he can operate his iphone to avoid DUI checkpoints. Steve, you in? :D
 
Climber said:
Mark Udall would be my first choice to go. I'm embarassed for Colorado because of him and a couple others.

However, with that said, I do find the apps a little silly though. If you're too trashed to drive your probably too trashed to be scouting out dui checkpoints.
Click to expand...

The whole situation is silly because the people that are going to cause accidents are most likely not those that are going to be using these apps.

My friends and I have used these apps before when coming home just to avoid the hassle. Unfortunately these checkpoints are just a waste of time and are generally in poor taste. The cops hassle you and ask you all kinds of questions. If you tell them you had a beer that day you better watch out. I by no means approve of a DUI but we all know how law enforcement handles itself.
 
Absentee said:
This is a very legitimate use, and banning the app because a drunk might use it to avoid getting arrested will be akin to banning guns because criminals use them to kill people, or banning radar detectors because some people might use them to avoid getting caught speeding.
Click to expand...

Or cutting out salt in food because we might eat too much. You can't legislate good behavior, but that certainly doesn't stop these overweening politicians from trying.

And they get away with it year after year because their constituents believe that tongues of fire descend upon the elite in Washington, giving them the wisdom to solve all the nation's problems in the best possible ways.
 
Climber said:
Mark Udall would be my first choice to go. I'm embarassed for Colorado because of him and a couple others.

However, with that said, I do find the apps a little silly though. If you're too trashed to drive your probably too trashed to be scouting out dui checkpoints.
Click to expand...

That's just it. The apps are for sober people that live in an area that has these checkpoints that do not wish to be hassled, not drunks.
 
MajorDomo said:
Four US Senators have made it clear to Google and Apple that they want both companies to remove the DUI Checkpoint App from their stores. A similar request was made to RIM, which complied. The Apps locate and warn drivers of the location of DUI checkpoints and even offer alternate routes to avoid the police. Both Google and Apple are still reviewing the request.
Click to expand...

What faggotry.
 
Maybe I just missed them all but here in Indiana I get the impression these checkpoints may not be legal because I have never seen one here.
 
I'm 32 myself and I also have never seen a check point or whatever the hell they are called. Probably because I'm not the type to go out late at night socializing and do whatever it is people that go out late at night socializing do.
 
Synful Serenity said:
Until it becomes a crime to intentionally avoid a police sobriety checkpoint by prior knowledge, I will not support this type of federal intervention.
Click to expand...

Many police checkpoints will ticket anyone who attempts to avoid them. If they see you turn off before you reach them, they will chase you down.
 
Naieve said:
Many police checkpoints will ticket anyone who attempts to avoid them. If they see you turn off before you reach them, they will chase you down.
Click to expand...

its still not an crime to avoid them (unless you are drunk) he did say "by prior knowledge" so he would of not been anywhere near the checkpoint anyway
 
Part of me wants to agree that they should remove these apps because I would really like to see irresponsible drivers taken off the road....and not just the substance users. But these roadblocks are only going to catch people they have tests for.....they can't test for "stupid" or see that you were yakkin on your cell phone while driving without actually witnessing you doing it.

On the other hand, if they leave the apps available to all. I don't see how someone who is obviously inhibited by a substance is going to be able to operate the phone, follow the re-routing directions, and still drive a straight line. So......it might help the people who are past the legal limit but not impaired.

I never have drank or used so I can't speak from experience as to what point impairment seems to begin, but a lot of articles have said in the past that the legal limits really don't seem to jive with impairment when it comes to alcohol.

So......what would be accomplished by doing away with the apps? I can't see how the apps are preventing truly and obviously impaired drivers from avoiding roadblocks with the extra few steps and constantly following directions and make decisions while they re-route. Seems like if they were impaired, that would make them even more obvious....
 
before they put too much effort into entrapment techniques perhaps they should focus on properly qualifying people to drive in the first place

I am willing to bet there are far more traffic incidents resulting in deaths because of people driving who are too distracted, old, young, etc....

the largest group of accidents based on the latest NHTSA reports shows an overall decline in fatalities in 2009 but there are still far more incidents that have nothing to do with alcohol......

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Trends/TrendsAlcohol.aspx

as a whole we need to man up and start telling people "no, you do not get to drive". if you are over a certain age, you need annual checks, real checks. start enforcing the issues that are making a bigger difference. im not saying this isn't important, but it just gets the most attention because its the easiest to enforce
 
drako said:
While checkpoints are inconvenient for sober drivers it's worth it to catch drunk drivers.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I would use the app so that, as a sober driver, I don't have to be inconvenienced by the checkpoint.
 
nobody_here said:
Maybe I just missed them all but here in Indiana I get the impression these checkpoints may not be legal because I have never seen one here.
Click to expand...
The checkpoints are unconstitutional in some states (state constitution, not federal).
 
LoneWolf said:
The checkpoints are unconstitutional in some states (state constitution, not federal).
Click to expand...


And while some states allow for it, the local government fears for their reelection chances if they use them. In some parts of the country citizens are less forgiving of this sort of thing than in others.

Did we not all have this very same discussion when the Speedtrap apps were discussed?

We did. Here:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1034348983#post1034348983

here over the same thing on twitter:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1035132836#post1035132836

and yet again here:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1037011510#post1037011510
 
LoneWolf said:
The checkpoints are unconstitutional in some states (state constitution, not federal).
Click to expand...

well it looks like it is legal here, they just dont do it, nobody that lives locally has ever heard of one either...not in a local sense anyways, as in nobody has been in one around here from casual conversations
 
GoldenTiger said:
Except when it infringes on others' rights, which this aiding and abetting of a criminal act does. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness end when dying to a drunk driver.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you don't understand how the law works at all.

Providing easy access to ALREADY PUBLIC INFORMATION is not aiding and abetting of a crime.

You clearly do not know how this shit works.

Providing public information in a more accessible manner does not necessarily aid people in driving drunk. Just the same as providing information how to create explosives does not necessarily aid people in creating bombs to blow up schools. Your logic is completely flawed.

There is all sorts of information readily accessible that can facilitate the harm or facilitate someone in creating a crime. Ridiculous amounts.

Maybe we should ban any apps that teach people ju-jitsu so they can't learn to kick the asses of ignorant people. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top