Senators Want DUI Checkpoint Apps Removed

Weenis

I said WEENIS, not...
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
4,807
Dangit there is no edit. Anyway I forgot to mention, I've lived in a state with checkpoints.. those who have not dealt with this don't understand how UNGODLY annoying it is to spend 20-30+ minutes to be accused of being an asshole.

I drink, but I don't get drunk and go driving. Checkpoints are in my book not constitutional and are an infringement upon our freedom. This is no different than cops stopping you randomly on the street and searching your person for drugs/guns/stolen shit.

There are limitations to what they can do for a reason. Just wait until you're late for work, miss dates or activities you paid for because of it. You'll think twice about how reasonable this is for state/counties to do to generate revenue.

I'd garner a guess that putting up more patrols to find drunk drivers would be more efficient than checkpoints. Checkpoints probably have nailed people with DUI who have had 2-3 beers or the like that are completely capable of driving safely many many times.

This is about money, period. If it was about safety they would limit how much people could drink in bars, or make people do breath tests before leaving bars and have to hand in their keys on the way in and not let them get them back until they're sober or procure a ride. THAT would be more reasonable than what checkpoints do, even though it would be super annoying and feel like you're being oppressed it would make a difference. Checkpoints I can't imagine do that much more.


Checkpoints cheat honest people of their time and thus money more so than is reasonable than to procure other methods of catching the NON law abiding citizens.
 

Mr34727

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
3,989
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

+1 to this.

I would like to see much more stringent control over who gets a license. The only problem then is what it would do to our economy, being much larger (geographically) than places like Europe. Mass transportation isn't as feasible here.

IDK, food for thought
 

vengence

Level capped
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
18,471
As usual the slippery slope contingent completely misses the point. For all of their bluster it's the people on here trying to make that argument who can't seem to draw the line between what is reasonable and what is not. Driving drunk is not a right.

No, but being able to share information about the location of police activities is.

Frankly, if I know where DUI checkpoints are I'm going to avoid them while SOBER. The check points exist because there is a high likely hood of drunk people on that street. Knowing what streets to avoid gives law abiding citizens the ability to make safter choices.
 

triarii3

Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
777
how is it any different from people sending out mass texts to everyone at parties telling them not to go down particular street cause of road blocks. Happens all the time at college parties. :D

this app allows you to get intelligence from strangers and functions as a business - sold on app store.

getting a heads up from a friend is different from getting commercial apps with the sole intention on avoiding law enforcement officers.
 

BigGreenMat

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
128
I have never seen a DUI checkpoint in my life. If I did I would not take it well even if I was sober. I don't want police hassling and wasting my time for unfounded suspicion. There is a reason we have unreasonable search and seizure as part of our Bill of Rights.

With that said I would say any driver sober enough to think to check ahead of time and navigate around where a checkpoint is going to be is sober enough to drive. That doesn't sound like massive impairment to me.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
Sure people could use it to break the law.

People could also use it to avoid traffic delays. Durrr
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
Most funny line in a movie ever:
"We're with the government. We're here to help you!"
-Dawn of the dead
 

dandragonrage

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
8,298
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.

Absolutely not. They are a complete invasion of privacy, offering big brother a way to search you without any probable cause, let alone a warrant. How police departments are able to continue with this UNCONSTITUTIONAL practice boggles the mind!
 

RangerXML

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 16, 2006
Messages
6,394
Honestly, props to anyone that can use a DUI Checkpoint App when drunk, I can't even unlock my phone. Which brings up another interesting issue, calling for a ride if your drunk and you have a smart phone. Luckily I always go out with a group that has a DD.

On a side note, in my town cops need to post in the paper where they are going to have their check points ahead of time so what is the point to banning Apps that do the same thing?
 

vengence

Level capped
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
18,471
Absolutely not. They are a complete invasion of privacy, offering big brother a way to search you without any probable cause, let alone a warrant. How police departments are able to continue with this UNCONSTITUTIONAL practice boggles the mind!

Because some how driving is a privilage and not a right. Why the hell the courts allow this I don't know.
 

eastmen

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
333
I remember the halloween that Zack and miri came out , my buddy and I went to see it and left at like 11pm and sat in line for almost 3 hours to get to the check point. At the check point the guy asked me what i did . I told him and cause i coulnd't remember the girls name was miri (cause thats a common name ) I had to pull over and they spend another 40 minute asking me questions and checking my car over and all my info.

I was a horrible experiance and in the end I vowed to do whatever I could to not get traped in one of them ever again.

I will vote against whoever votes against these apps and feel good about it .
 

bear jesus

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
166
I honestly thought there was some kind of rule in America for the police relative to searches, i guess not and that all Americans happily get searched whenever a cop asked to do so for no other reason than its possible that you could be breaking a law even if you have never broken one in your life.

And don't give me any of this "it's not a search" they will be looking in to cars, looking for anything to gain some more cash on but what if you have had a bad day and you are talking in a rather pissed tone, if a cop feels its towards them they can always bring out a couple of instant wins "the car smelt of weed" or "they were acting suspicious" then search your car, maybe delay you a good hour or more or fuck around with you and then either lock you up or send you on your way...

I guess Americans don't deserve any kind of freedom as obviously anyone who is free is a criminal waiting to be fined or locked up.

The ability to avoid that bullshit should not be ban, unless of course you like no freedoms and would love to live in a jail like nanny state, if you like that then come on over to England, we are getting this nanny thing done well, next up no spoons in public as you could scoop an eye out with one....
 

Arcygenical

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,068
Yeah, next up: apps that help any form of piracy. You can be sure the media companies are already whispering in the politicians ears that those apps only hurt people, have no positive benefits, and that they should demand those apps removal as well. Once politicians have say over what can and can't be in the appstores why stop at just this kind of app?

Red Herring. Piracy doesn't contain the potential to kill or hurt...

Well, digital piracy I suppose :).
 

BobSutan

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 5, 2000
Messages
11,307
As usual the slippery slope contingent completely misses the point. For all of their bluster it's the people on here trying to make that argument who can't seem to draw the line between what is reasonable and what is not. Driving drunk is not a right.

What's reasonable is the govt following the US Constitution. This is a good example of rights erosion people put up with in the name of safety. DUI stops are completely inappropriate. TSA's shenanigans is another example of this freedom vs security debacle.

In a truly free society there is a requirement for people to suffer some nasty things from time to time. Such is life. THAT is the price of freedom. If you're not willing to deal with that and want the govt to coddle you, well, that that's just a damn shame.
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,906
Red Herring. Piracy doesn't contain the potential to kill or hurt...

Well, digital piracy I suppose :).



I am not admitting that this app has caused even one death but, if we outlawed any speech that may offer the slightest possibility of maybe leading to a death, we would have to sew the mouths of all of our politicians shut. I do not want to even consider counting the number of deaths or HoRs', Senators', and various Presidents' exercise of free speech are responsible for causing. Shall we next discuss the number of deaths journalists are responsible for causing US soldiers and government agents over the years? If these people can have free speech, I can certainly warn my fellow man of a speed trap/cam or dui check point so they do not have to have their time wasted by local treasury agents.
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,906
Come to think of it, if they could pin even one death on this app they would have. They would have been standing in front of a giant poster of some pretty, young woman, or kid, or a father of four spouting the evils of this app calling for the destruction of the company that made it. There would be news making lawsuits involving this and similar apps.

I can lay unnecessary deaths directly at the feet of journalists, hate mongers like the KKK and Black Panthers, and politicians. Can we limit their free speech now?
 

TheWeazmeister

<a href=http://www.blogcdn.com/www.parentdish.com/
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
3,346
I certainly hope Apple and Google stand up and tell the senators to pound sand.

Hope, so but wishful thinking imo.

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

^^ +1. Legal issues aside, this is honestly nothing more than grandstanding by the Senators.

The idea that RIM, without so much as a "let me think about it," folded makes me sick. I
 

vengence

Level capped
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
18,471
The idea that RIM, without so much as a "let me think about it," folded makes me sick
I'm not sure why you're surprised. RIM has folded on everything to everyone.
 

TheWeazmeister

<a href=http://www.blogcdn.com/www.parentdish.com/
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
3,346
I can lay unnecessary deaths directly at the feet of journalists, hate mongers like the KKK and Black Panthers, and politicians. Can we limit their free speech now?


"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is something we are starting to forget in this country. It really is such a simple message but the depth of it is something we need to remember again. We have a right to free speech, not the right to not be offended. In a society with free speech, we WILL be offended, we WILL have opinions contrary to our own, and we sure has hell WILL run into groups that we would like to muzzle. This trend of our society giving up rights, because they are someone else's, because they somehow will protect me, because ....whatever...is scary.

I hear too much, "well that is used by pirates, lets eliminate it..." here it's "well only drunks would try to use this to avoid being caught" what is it going to be next? At what point will some of the people in this thread be directly affected and say, "HOLY SHIT!?!"
 

TheWeazmeister

<a href=http://www.blogcdn.com/www.parentdish.com/
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
3,346
I'm not sure why you're surprised. RIM has folded on everything to everyone.

Yeah, not surprised. Just disappointed. Google at least is smart enough to know that when they open pandora's box that they wouldn't be able to close it. This was a "request" from a few Senators to have the apps removed. This wasn't "law enforcement," this was some people not liking something (probably more likely being told that they shouldn't like something by their handlers) and being able to remove something from an app store. This idea in itself is so dumbfounding that it blows me away that anyone on here is ok with this.
 

Bohica69

Gawd
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
676
Washington state handles this FAR more effectively.... Since DUI checkpoints are illegal here, the simply say ok, we are going to do an "Emphasis" patrol in this area and then flood the area with cops, specifically looking for drunk drivers. The also tell the people the area they are going to be patrolling in.

No check points to bother those who are doing nothing wrong, and the drunks can't avoid the check points because there aren't any. Win/Win. Cops catch a bunch of other crap too. And go figure the cops are out DOING their jobs - IE patrolling looking for trouble.
 

Bohica69

Gawd
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
676
Dangit there is no edit. Anyway I forgot to mention, I've lived in a state with checkpoints.. those who have not dealt with this don't understand how UNGODLY annoying it is to spend 20-30+ minutes to be accused of being an asshole.

I drink, but I don't get drunk and go driving. Checkpoints are in my book not constitutional and are an infringement upon our freedom. This is no different than cops stopping you randomly on the street and searching your person for drugs/guns/stolen shit.

There are limitations to what they can do for a reason. Just wait until you're late for work, miss dates or activities you paid for because of it. You'll think twice about how reasonable this is for state/counties to do to generate revenue.

I'd garner a guess that putting up more patrols to find drunk drivers would be more efficient than checkpoints. Checkpoints probably have nailed people with DUI who have had 2-3 beers or the like that are completely capable of driving safely many many times.

This is about money, period. If it was about safety they would limit how much people could drink in bars, or make people do breath tests before leaving bars and have to hand in their keys on the way in and not let them get them back until they're sober or procure a ride. THAT would be more reasonable than what checkpoints do, even though it would be super annoying and feel like you're being oppressed it would make a difference. Checkpoints I can't imagine do that much more.


Checkpoints cheat honest people of their time and thus money more so than is reasonable than to procure other methods of catching the NON law abiding citizens.

For those of you that live in states with checkpoints, what do you have to do? Stop, show your license? Answer questions? Roll down the window?

I think I'd just hold my license to the window, let them see it and if they asked me anything, respond: "Not your business"
 

TheWeazmeister

<a href=http://www.blogcdn.com/www.parentdish.com/
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
3,346
Washington state handles this FAR more effectively.... Since DUI checkpoints are illegal here, the simply say ok, we are going to do an "Emphasis" patrol in this area and then flood the area with cops, specifically looking for drunk drivers. The also tell the people the area they are going to be patrolling in.

No check points to bother those who are doing nothing wrong, and the drunks can't avoid the check points because there aren't any. Win/Win. Cops catch a bunch of other crap too. And go figure the cops are out DOING their jobs - IE patrolling looking for trouble.

I like that a lot. Certainly seems like a tour de force like this would accomplish much more than a stationary checkpoint.
 

Crosshairs

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
25,067
For those of you that live in states with checkpoints, what do you have to do? Stop, show your license? Answer questions? Roll down the window?

I think I'd just hold my license to the window, let them see it and if they asked me anything, respond: "Not your business"

Pretty much just pull in and show your paperwork ....they ask the usual questions...where you coming from, where you headed... have you been drinking...

if the cop thinks you have been drinking, or sees anything in the car they don't like, they will ask you (tell you) to get out of the car and then they will administer a few tests.....if your not drunk, your on your way in about 15 minutes total....if you are drunk, shit just got real...:D

Ive been stopped in a few of them.....actually had one cop make me do some tests.....naturally I passed, but it was funny all the same.....Its amazing how hard some of those are even sober....
 

nobody_here

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
8,878
For those of you that live in states with checkpoints, what do you have to do? Stop, show your license? Answer questions? Roll down the window?

I think I'd just hold my license to the window, let them see it and if they asked me anything, respond: "Not your business"


Muhahahahaha. No, not even.close. you get to the front of the line and there's usually one cop with his hand out for your licence and insurance/registration. The other is looking into your car from behind in your blind spot. If they decide for any reason they want they simply point for you to pull over to the side where a couple other units are and proceed to do any searching or questioning, checking you for warrants, etc.......

At the good ones they have a van sitting there where each DUI candidate gets to go sit until the van is full. Back when I used to live in rural south georgia these were rampant like no other. You heard of someone getting popped in a roadblock almost every weekend. If you stopped and turned into a driveway or did a u turn they have a guy in a unit sitting waiting for that buddy, its on then, you're going down.
 

dandragonrage

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
8,298
If you stopped and turned into a driveway or did a u turn they have a guy in a unit sitting waiting for that buddy, its on then, you're going down.

Down for what? Legally avoiding an illegal (Unconstitutional, no less) warrant-less search with not even so much as circumstantial evidence?
 

nobody_here

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
8,878
Down for what? Legally avoiding an illegal (Unconstitutional, no less) warrant-less search with not even so much as circumstantial evidence?

They are far from illegal in GA. These stops and specifically the ability to treat you like a guilty party by avoiding a stop are perfectly legal in some states.
 

dandragonrage

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
8,298
They are far from illegal in GA. These stops and specifically the ability to treat you like a guilty party by avoiding a stop are perfectly legal in some states.

No - the states may CLAIM they are legal, but they are literally Unconstitutional. But our government doesn't give a crap about that - they will do anything they think that they can get away with, which is a LOT, considering most people don't even care these days!

WHY DO WE VOTE IN POLITICIANS THAT ALLOW THIS?!?
 

nobody_here

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
8,878
No - the states may CLAIM they are legal, but they are literally Unconstitutional. But our government doesn't give a crap about that - they will do anything they think that they can get away with, which is a LOT, considering most people don't even care these days!

WHY DO WE VOTE IN POLITICIANS THAT ALLOW THIS?!?


Rage on, meanwhile I jave to deal with reality.
 

dandragonrage

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
8,298
Rage on, meanwhile I jave to deal with reality.

I'll continue not having to deal with this crap. I've only come across one once and there was a side street just before that I took and nobody came after me. I hadn't been drinking but I'm not willingly going through one of those things.

The whole problem is apathy in the general public. Nobody cares enough to realize that they CAN do something!
 

nobody_here

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
8,878
I'll continue not having to deal with this crap. I've only come across one once and there was a side street just before that I took and nobody came after me. I hadn't been drinking but I'm not willingly going through one of those things.

The whole problem is apathy in the general public. Nobody cares enough to realize that they CAN do something!

yeah where i dealt with them they typically set it up on a two lane state road ditches on either side, at night, around a curve, where there were no driveways or other roads.....you were literally trapped

color me apathetic, i have nothing to hide, i know i have the right to refuse unreasonable search, but i don't find anything unreasonable if i have nothing to hide......i guess....it's just not worth worrying about. i dont get all enraged and activist....
 

vengence

Level capped
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
18,471
color me apathetic, i have nothing to hide, i know i have the right to refuse unreasonable search, but i don't find anything unreasonable if i have nothing to hide......i guess....it's just not worth worrying about. i dont get all enraged and activist....

Thanks for rolling over and spitting on the graves of the men that fought in wars past and still fight today to give you freedoms. Your apathy is what's killing america.
 

dandragonrage

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
8,298
Thanks for rolling over and spitting on the graves of the men that fought in wars past and still fight today to give you freedoms. Your apathy is what's killing america.

Exactly.

We have to fight for EVERY piece of freedom/liberty that we can! We can't pick and choose. If you pick and choose, then it turns out so that one thing is not important to you, but is important to someone else... and another thing is important to you, but not to them. And because of that, we end up losing both battles! Just because you don't fly doesn't mean you should accept what the TSA does, for example!

This country could be truly great again if everybody would just CARE!
 

vengence

Level capped
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
18,471
I think this about sums it up:
Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892&#8211;1984) said:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
 
Top