Should DUI checkpoint and red light cam apps be banned?

I voted for both should be banned, big brother leviathan needs to be put back in the box. Are we so willing to sacrifice our freedoms and privacy all in the name of security, or do we live free and the risk associated with it.

My answer might surprise some folks on here...... ban neither.

I have one of these applications on my cell phone as well. Its called "Trapster" I believe. (I put it on there so I can see when people are reporting me running stationary radar as a "Speed Trap" )

The information is obtained from OTHER USERS reporting the activity. I find absolutely no reason why the government should ban communication between individuals on the internet.

If anything, these programs, more specifically the ones that report "speed traps", are doing our job for us. The job of law enforcement enforcing traffic speed laws is to keep people driving at a reasonable speed so the harm done during a crash isn't unnecessarily higher than it should be. If people see the "speed trap" warning on their application, they will be wary about going fast. That is going to make them drive at a reasonable speed, thus doing our job for us. This same can apply to the red light camera systems. If people see it, they are going to make sure they do not run that red light. Which is going to increase traffic safety at that intersection, and other intersections where the same thing is occurring.

As far as the DWI checkpoint aspect is concerned. The person may decide to call a cab instead. The person may decide to try to take an alternate route, however, I highly doubt the person who would do so carefully planned this out a head of time based upon the information they received, they may have received a warning as they were approaching the area, which means they are screwing around with their phone and are probably a prime candidate to get pulled over for swerving on the roadway anyways not to mention when they get within eyesight of the checkpoint and then decide to turn around, many jurisdictions are authorized to stop a vehicle that turns around at a checkpoint. And, lastly on the DWI checkpoint issue....... DWI checkpoints do not occur so often that this would be an often enough used feature of the application, and DEFINATELY not worth banning the application.

Because in the end... the people are allowed to have free exchange of ideas...

Ikari said:

Yeah, well neither do I, for if I had my way DUI penalties would be similar to cell phone penalties. At least if you didn't cause an accident or damage property.

Click to expand...

So you're okay with giving drunk drivers nothing but slaps on the wrist until they finally kill someone? No, that's unacceptable.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

I was being sarcastic. I was just taking the arguments for the ban to their logical conclusion. If we are going to ban some things because they could be used to commit a crime as well as legal things, why not ban everything?

Click to expand...

The ONLY aspect of these applications that "help" someone commit a crime is the DWI checkpoint aspect.
The others only make sure that the individual doesn't commit a crime.

Viktyr Korimir said:

So you're okay with giving drunk drivers nothing but slaps on the wrist until they finally kill someone? No, that's unacceptable.

Click to expand...

A big fine wouldn't be a slap on the wrist. But I certainly wouldn't charge them nearly 10,000 bucks, mandate classes and therapy, make them go to MADD talks, give them 40+ hours of community service, take away their license, and threaten them with jail time for an offense which had not actually infringed upon the rights of others.

Ikari said:

A big fine wouldn't be a slap on the wrist. But I certainly wouldn't charge them nearly 10,000 bucks, mandate classes and therapy, make them go to MADD talks, give them 40+ hours of community service, take away their license, and threaten them with jail time for an offense which had not actually infringed upon the rights of others.

Click to expand...

Fining them ten thousand dollars is ridiculous, but I wouldn't hesitate to throw them in prison, where they can get all of the classes and therapy they need. Repeat offenders absolutely should lose their licenses, because they have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to operate a motor vehicle.

Viktyr Korimir said:

Fining them ten thousand dollars is ridiculous, but I wouldn't hesitate to throw them in prison, where they can get all of the classes and therapy they need. Repeat offenders absolutely should lose their licenses, because they have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to operate a motor vehicle.

Click to expand...

Repeat offenders can have their license revoked. First time too maybe, but 3-6 months max. We shouldn't ruin these people's lives because they made a mistake which hurt no one. But jail I would only reserve if you injured another person, not someone who was a block from their home. Several hundred dollar fine, which is huge, but flat for first time. No classes, no therapy (that's for repeat offenders), no jail time, no "alcohol evaluation", none of the BS crap that comes with DUI fueled through emotional propaganda. Rational laws and reasonable punishment is what I say.

I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand I agree that people have the right to share the information in the case of DUI check points, on the other hand DUI check points serve a much needed function of getting dangerous people off the road. I don't have a problem with red light cams. I don't see how they violate anyone's rights. I do have a problem with not being able to contest their finding, especially if the cam doesn't photo graph the driver though.

Ikari said:

But jail I would only reserve if you injured another person, not someone who was a block from their home. Several hundred dollar fine, which is huge, but flat for first time. No classes, no therapy (that's for repeat offenders), no jail time, no "alcohol evaluation", none of the BS crap that comes with DUI fueled through emotional propaganda.

Click to expand...

People who break the law once need to be reminded of the seriousness of breaking it again. Some States require you to take DUI classes before you can obtain your license; that I find ridiculous.

Ikari said:

Rational laws and reasonable punishment is what I say.

Click to expand...

I find your permissiveness neither rational nor reasonable. The current laws are unreasonable, but you would err in the opposite direction.

Official Website Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

Those are DUI Laws for Florida. To me, it seems too lenient. I do not want drunk drivers around me. People drive like idiots enough as it is! I live in a college town and know plenty of people who drive after drinking. I won't drive around 2 am on a Friday or a Saturday. Any day that is a drinking holiday, such as cinco de mayo and st patricks day, I won't drive at any time. I think we should do anything we can to keep drunks off the road. I also agree that people shouldn't text while driving but that is harder to control. Someone could be looking at their GPS or ignoring a call or heck even just looking down at your lap momentarily.

Ikari said:

I think that's bull****. First off fines and penalties from using the public roads should be administered by government only. No private business has right to issue tickets on public property like that. Secondly, there should always be the ability to redress the government; particularly for these things. Otherwise it's nothing more than government sanctioned theft. Which is most likely what they want. To be honest, I can see more call for red light cameras than I can DUI checkpoints. I think the checkpoints are clearly an unreasonable search.

Click to expand...

I disagree. You are on a public street. You have no expectation of privacy. I don't know how the work in the States, but I have been pulled over twice at DWI checkpoints in Taiwan and in both cases, the officer asked me a couple of questions (in Mandarin of course) and was surely checking to see if there were any signs I had been drinking. Of course, with a wife and kids in the car, I certainly could not have been regarded as a suspect, and I was allowed to proceed on my way. Total time? Less than one minute in both cases...

xpiher said:

I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand I agree that people have the right to share the information in the case of DUI check points, on the other hand DUI check points serve a much needed function of getting dangerous people off the road.

Click to expand...

Well if thats the basis.......maybe we should have Drivers Ed Checkpoints........and Drug Checkpoints.....Rectal Exam Checkpoints.......24/7 DUI Checkpoints......every 5 blocks.....

I don't have a problem with red light cams. I don't see how they violate anyone's rights.

Click to expand...

So whats wrong with government just putting the camera in your car?

I do have a problem with not being able to contest their finding, especially if the cam doesn't photo graph the driver though.

Click to expand...

Do you have a problem with red light cameras causing an increase in Rear end Collisions and creating a more dangerous intersection?

.........but government told you it was all about "getting those dangerous people off the road".
..
.
.

Badmutha said:

Well if thats the basis.......maybe we should have Drivers Ed Checkpoints........and Drug Checkpoints.....Rectal Exam Checkpoints.......24/7 DUI Checkpoints......every 5 blocks.....

Click to expand...

So you are against DUI check points?

And you don't have an expectation of privacy while in public.

xpiher said:

So you are against DUI check points?

And you don't have an expectation of privacy while in public.

Click to expand...

Really? So an officer of the law should be able to ask you to disrobe for a strip search right there on the side of the road? in plain sight? REALLY?

Phoenix said:

Really? So an officer of the law should be able to ask you to disrobe for a strip search right there on the side of the road? in plain sight? REALLY?

Click to expand...

Not the type of privacy we are talking about. FFS

Ikari said:

I think that's bull****. First off fines and penalties from using the public roads should be administered by government only. No private business has right to issue tickets on public property like that. Secondly, there should always be the ability to redress the government; particularly for these things. Otherwise it's nothing more than government sanctioned theft. Which is most likely what they want. To be honest, I can see more call for red light cameras than I can DUI checkpoints. I think the checkpoints are clearly an unreasonable search.

Click to expand...

What he described is basically the way it works. NC has them but are in the process of banning them. One of the main complaints is that no witness to the crime exists. No person can testify regarding the infraction.

xpiher said:

Not the type of privacy we are talking about. FFS

Click to expand...

Sure it is. You want to go in my car and look at my private effects with no permission. Depending on what's in a person's car it could be quite embarrassing. How is that different than the strip search scenario? A person walking out of a pawn shop could have weapon hiding in his pants as easily a person leaving a bar is drinking and driving.

Phoenix said:

Sure it is. You want to go in my car and look at my private effects with no permission. Depending on what's in a person's car it could be quite embarrassing. How is that different than the strip search scenario? A person walking out of a pawn shop could have weapon hiding in his pants as easily a person leaving a bar is drinking and driving.

Click to expand...

I didn't say people should go into your car and look through it, but plain view doctrine holds for privacy laws. If its in plain sight, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Viktyr Korimir said:

People who break the law once need to be reminded of the seriousness of breaking it again. Some States require you to take DUI classes before you can obtain your license; that I find ridiculous.

Click to expand...

That indeed is ridiculous. But we jail enough of our population as is, don't need to do so unless that person at the very least caused harm to another. All other things can be handled with fines, probation, and community service.

Viktyr Korimir said:

I find your permissiveness neither rational nor reasonable. The current laws are unreasonable, but you would err in the opposite direction.

Click to expand...

That's only because you're thinking about this emotionally. I err on the side of freedom and liberty, always have and always will. I understand the consequences and repercussions of demanding a free society and will accept all burdens and duties gladly. It's much better than the alternative. Drinking and driving does indeed need to be illegal, but the punishments are far too excessive now. Driven by thoughtless argument and appeal to emotion; the things which make for the worst laws. If someone infringes upon the rights and liberties of another, government force may be called into action. A person buzzed driving being pulled over has not hurt anyone or anything, and thus you cannot properly punish them as if they did. You may properly punish someone as if they have caused physical harm to someone if they have caused physical harm to someone. Not some made up notion that all dunks are evil and will kill someone.

ludahai said:

I disagree. You are on a public street. You have no expectation of privacy. I don't know how the work in the States, but I have been pulled over twice at DWI checkpoints in Taiwan and in both cases, the officer asked me a couple of questions (in Mandarin of course) and was surely checking to see if there were any signs I had been drinking. Of course, with a wife and kids in the car, I certainly could not have been regarded as a suspect, and I was allowed to proceed on my way. Total time? Less than one minute in both cases...

Click to expand...

I do in fact have expectation of privacy. Not the full privacy I have in my home, but I am still very much entitled to secure myself, my papers, my property, etc. against unreasonable search and seizure.

xpiher said:

I didn't say people should go into your car and look through it, but plain view doctrine holds for privacy laws. If its in plain sight, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Click to expand...

The issue with check points is the police stop you for no apparent reason to get that peek in the car. If we were talking about a cops walks by a stopped car with the window down and sees a bag of pot and arrests a guy, sure, I'm in agreement. If he stops you first (for no apparent reason) then it's a whole different story.

xpiher said:

So you are against DUI check points?

And you don't have an expectation of privacy while in public.

Click to expand...

The fourth amendment still exists even in public. I don't understand you people saying stuff essentially saying that if you're outside the government can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to do it. It is in all seriousness, insane.

Ikari said:

The fourth amendment still exists even in public. I don't understand you people saying stuff essentially saying that if you're outside the government can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to do it. It is in all seriousness, insane.

Click to expand...

Ahhh nooo. Read the context please. Plain view doctrine

Phoenix said:

The issue with check points is the police stop you for no apparent reason to get that peek in the car. If we were talking about a cops walks by a stopped car with the window down and sees a bag of pot and arrests a guy, sure, I'm in agreement. If he stops you first (for no apparent reason) then it's a whole different story.

Click to expand...

And there we have it, the crux of the problem. I'm not here to sing and dance for the government, show them my papers every time they ask. They must have evidence, they must have reason; and without it they MAY NOT interfere.

xpiher said:

Ahhh nooo. Read the context please. Plain view doctrine

Click to expand...

People may be able to see me, but I still retain the right to secure myself, my papers and property against unlawful, unreasonable search and seizure.