Regardless of the rights and wrongs of these apps: what the heck are Senators doing, mucking about here? This is a matter for State and local governments, not the federal government.

Another example of the ignorance of our politicians. They think they can just wave their scepters and "ban" an app. They may be able to bully Apple into banning these apps (though, I doubt it), but Android is an open system and people can put whatever apps they want on their Android devices. Google can opt to not offer the app in their marketplace, but cannot ban people from getting from other sources.

The local papers always run articles the day or so before the cops are going to set up checkpoints anyway, so if you read the paper, you'll know. I think Reid, et al know that not only do they have too much time on their hands, and their constituents know it, but they're also running out of ways to look effectual, so they know that they have do to something they can point to when they're up for re-election, as in "look, I got this law passed!"

The socialist agenda stinks.

you can't be that drunk if you have the wherewithal to check an iphone app and plan your route accordingly.

let's see, runaway debt, terrible economy, 3 wars, social security going broke, society in moral decay, and this is what they are discussing???

It makes me sad, sometimes, to be from Nevada.
Reid opening his mouth is one of those times.

It makes me sad, sometimes, to be from Nevada.
Reid opening his mouth is one of those times.

So...you're sad a lot, eh?

And Schumer gets his name in the papers again being a nanny stater. He was out there when they banned FourLoko.

OBEY CITIZEN!

In some towns that have notorious speed-traps, the citizens put up signs warning of them on the outskirts. In Texas, a cop was just fired for trying to take one down that was on private property. This is obviously a free speech issue.

Why are these apps any different than the signs?

Link to story
http://jalopnik.com/#!5784932/police-officer-fired-after-attacking-speed+trap-warning-sign

What ronc said. Besides, it won't work. Pretty much any social-media application can be used to distribute the info just as easily. You could do it through Facebook.

And anyway, it's not at all clear to me that those DUI checkpoints have any enforcement value, since most of the people they pull over have not been drinking. It's like random drug testing; most of the people you test are negative, and the low percentage of (true) positives you get come at a high cost, both in dollars and in liberty.

DUI/DWI checkpoints are unconstitutional, whether there is notification or not. No matter how much the Federal/State/Local government believes in the court rulings that state otherwise.
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc., don't sleep as sound as they should because we are constantly letting our rights erode in the name of "safety".

When we have enough police that we are truly "safe" who will protect us from the police?

> DUI/DWI checkpoints are unconstitutional

No, the Supreme Court has held them to be constitutional (provided that they are conducted in accordance with certain standards).

If they are constitutional and effective, I have no problem with them. Drunk driving is a real danger.

I totally agree with you Amy! It is not even constitutional. It is very upsetting to be pulled over for absolutely no cause at all. Random checking of its citizenry is not what this country is supposed to be about. We cannot remain silent as they continue to erode our every personal liberty. I am glad at this time I have no desire or reason to have to fly anywhere. Last time was last year, and for me it went smoothly, however, I did seem some very lame random annoying of other passengers. I am not sure I would be able to remain quiet if I were to see the new lengths they go to to annoy.

@kishke -

The fact that they continue to increase "enforcement efforts" and drunk driving doesn't seem to be on the decline should show that the checkpoints are not effective.

That they constitute a warrantless search makes them unconstitutional, but a judge on SCOTUS decided that fighting drunk driving trumped the 4th and 5th amendments. (yes, really)

So, we're basically boned. As long as some activist can convince a judge that it's "for the children", liberty takes it in the ass.

kishke, where I live asian driving is a real danger, teen driving is a real danger. OMG let's get things in perspective. The idiots getting hammered and driving are genuine scumbags to begin with. All the DUI checkpoints due is make social drinkers the targets of illegal search and seizure, they don't touch the illegal shmuck who has consumed 58 gallons of budweiser and will kill someone in the side streets not subject to this insanity. I hope with all the budget issues, crap like this will be priced out of the option bag

The fact that they continue to increase "enforcement efforts" and drunk driving doesn't seem to be on the decline should show that the checkpoints are not effective.

If that's true, I'm in agreement.

As I understand it -- Ohio interpreted the law that there is a minimum public notice of six (6) hours before they erect a check point.

So that means that if they are going to start one on at 10:00 PM on a Friday night, they have to put the press release out at 4:00 PM. Of course, by then the evening news has generally been put to bed. Over many years of listening for them, especially on three-day weekends, I've heard about five-six announcements on the evening news. If it is a real slow night, you may have a film crew at one for the 10/11 news cycle.

Essentially, the authorities do the best to observe the letter of the law, while violating the spirit. But how many times are people broken on the spirit of the law, when they observed the letter?

Since this thread has evolved from whether it was appropriate/legal for the senators to ask/demand that the alert software be scrapped to the legality of the sobriety checkpoints themselves, I couldn't resist a second comment.

As demonstrated many times throughout our history, the Supreme Court does not always get it right; this being one of those times.

As Brian so succinctly stated, we got "boned" because "As long as some activist can convince a judge that it's "for the children", liberty takes it in the ass."

Apparently, the Justices are of the opinion that Liberty enjoys anal...

So um have they solved the debt crisis. Found some cuts to make. Fine tuned government. Umm are there not some better things to concentrate on.

No such thing as the Bill of Rights in Australia, so unannounced and sort of random breath testing is the norm, and legal constitutionally. I say "sort of" because, as long as you don't attract attention, being drunk at 8am is unlikely to get you in trouble unless you show some signs of it. God help you if you cause an accident though.

All the DUI checkpoints due is make social drinkers the targets of illegal search and seizure, they don't touch the illegal shmuck who has consumed 58 gallons of budweiser and will kill someone in the side streets not subject to this insanity.

Ronc - I'm an alcoholic. I generally don't drive over the limit (I don't drive much at all, ours is 0.05%) but I will admit to having done so. And I'll put my ability to control a car at 0.2% against the social drinkers who've had a glass or two more than normal any day. I'm not saying it's right to do so and yes I've taken some stupid risks, with my life and others, but the fact is my body has a tolerance theirs doesn't. I wouldn't be able to walk otherwise. I do avoid it as much as possible, but I'm sure some mornings I'm over the limit.

Arguably, they're chasing the most dangerous people. Social drinkers are the biggest risk out there.