We have previously addressed the issue of a challenge brought by four U.S. Senators to pressure Apple, RIM and Google to pull DUI checkpoint apps from the companies’ app stores. The senators portrayed the apps as a way for those who wanted to violate DUI law to frustrate the intent of DUI checkpoints. What these senators failed to acknowledge was that the Supreme Court has imposed strict limits and procedures that must be followed for a sobriety checkpoint to be legal.
A sobriety checkpoint basically represents an exception to the Fourth Amendment constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizures. The U.S. Supreme Court in MICHIGAN DEP’T OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) essentially ruled that despite the affront to the Fourth Amendment of searches and seizures based on a complete absence of individualized suspicion the danger of alcohol related car accidents justified allowing sobriety checkpoints under certain conditions.
One of the key requirements of a sobriety checkpoint is that it cannot be a secret hidden from the public, and the time and location of a field sobriety checkpoint must be publicized so that it reduces the burden on the public. The reason for this requirement is that the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the infringement on the Fourth Amendment of search and seizures that were conducted without any factual basis for believing the person detained had violated any law. To justify the intrusion, the U.S. Supreme Court had to minimize the scope of the intrusion as much as possible as compared to the harm to be addressed (i.e. driving under the influence DUI).
One part of minimizing this intrusion on the Fourth Amendment rights of drivers was to limit the duration of such detentions, discretion of officers in selecting vehicles to be detained and providing the public with notice of the potential inconvenience. In other words, drivers are supposed to have the opportunity to elect not to drive through a sobriety checkpoint. This limitation on the Fourth Amendment intrusion was a requirement imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court to permit the state intrusion into the search and seizure rights of motorists.
Unfortunately, Apple and RIM have caved to the pressure from strong lobby groups like MADD who claim that the app which identified and publicized the location of sobriety checkpoints was designed to help drunk drivers avoid detection. Apple, Google and RIM all have checkpoint apps, but Apple and RIM have chosen to pull them from their apps markets under pressure from these lobby efforts.
These apps provide a free way for government entities to comply with the constitutional requirements for the lawful operation of a sobriety checkpoint. The opposition apparently based on the offensive notion that the publicity might actually be effective at informing the public. If you are arrested for DUI in Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh DUI lawyer Michael V. Worgul is dedicated to protecting the Constitutional rights, driving privileges and freedom of those throughout Allegheny County charged with DUI so call us at (412) 475-9217.
