View Full Version : North Texas Drivers Stopped at Roadblock Asked for Saliva, Blood
Team Sergeant
11-20-2013, 11:25
Someone's going to get shot...... I cannot believe this happened in Texas! This would be fine, in a communist country.....
This shit is getting out of hand.
North Texas Drivers Stopped at Roadblock Asked for Saliva, Blood
Fort Worth police apologize for its role in federal survey
By Scott Gordon
Wednesday, Nov 20, 2013 | Updated 7:18 AM CST
Some drivers along a busy Fort Worth street on Friday were stopped at a police roadblock and directed into a parking lot, where they were asked by federal contractors for samples of their breath, saliva and even blood.
It was part of a government research study aimed at determining the number of drunken or drug-impaired drivers.
"It just doesn't seem right that you can be forced off the road when you're not doing anything wrong," said Kim Cope, who said she was on her lunch break when she was forced to pull over at the roadblock on Beach Street in North Fort Worth.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is spending $7.9 million on the survey over three years, said participation was "100 percent voluntary" and anonymous.
But Cope said it didn't feel voluntary to her -- despite signs saying it was.
"I gestured to the guy in front that I just wanted to go straight, but he wouldn't let me and forced me into a parking spot," she said.
Once parked, she couldn't believe what she was asked next.
"They were asking for cheek swabs," she said. "They would give $10 for that. Also, if you let them take your blood, they would pay you $50 for that."
At the very least, she said, they wanted to test her breath for alcohol.
She said she felt trapped.
"I finally did the Breathalyzer test just because I thought that would be the easiest way to leave," she said, adding she received no money.
Fort Worth police earlier said they could not immediately find any record of officer involvement but police spokesman Sgt. Kelly Peel said Tuesday that the department's Traffic Division coordinated with the NHTSA on the use of off-duty officers after the agency asked for help with the survey.
"We are reviewing the actions of all police personnel involved to ensure that FWPD policies and procedures were followed," he said. "We apologize if any of our drivers and citizens were offended or inconvenienced by the NHTSA National Roadside Survey."
NBC DFW confirmed that the survey was done by a government contractor, the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, which is based in Calverton, Md.
A company spokeswoman referred questions to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
An agency spokeswoman sent an email confirming the government is conducting the surveys in 30 cities across the country in an effort to reduce impaired-driving accidents.
She did not respond to another email from NBC DFW asking specific questions about the program..
But a Fort Worth attorney who is an expert in civil liberties law questioned whether such stops are constitutional.
"You can't just be pulled over randomly or for no reason," said attorney Frank Colosi.
He also noted the fine print on a form given to drivers informs them their breath was tested by "passive alcohol sensor readings before the consent process has been completed."
"They're essentially lying to you when they say it's completely voluntary, because they're testing you at that moment," Colosi said.
He also questioned the results of the "voluntary" survey -- speculating that drivers who had been drinking or using drugs would be more inclined to simply decline to participate.
Cope said she is troubled by what happened.
"It just doesn't seem right that they should be able to do any of it," she said. "If it's voluntary, it's voluntary, and none of it felt voluntary."
Asked Tuesday if she accepted the police department's apology, Cope said she would wait to see what the review showed.
"They need to make sure this doesn't happen again," she said.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/North-Texas-Drivers-Stopped-at-Roadblock-Asked-for-Saliva-Blood-232438621.html
Next someone will require that you pick up the phone when the caller-id says survey.
mojaveman
11-20-2013, 12:03
If it was supposed to be voluntary then why did the police set up a check-point?
I hope there are some lawsuits over this.
How else is Dear Leader going to incrementally program the sheeple to just get into those railroad cars. :eek:
The camel's nose is well under the tent.
The camel's nose is well under the tent.
It's a Bactrian camel and the first hump is under the tent. :mad:
Pat
So now the first question you have to ask a cop when you're pulled over is "Are you on duty or moonlighting?"
Then the next question "Am I being detained?"
Badger52
11-20-2013, 16:31
Cope said she is troubled by what happened.
"It just doesn't seem right that they should be able to do any of it," she said. "If it's voluntary, it's voluntary, and none of it felt voluntary."
There's the question that I hope will get asked in court before some municipality has to pony up some really egregious, bank-breaking, credit-rate sinking sum of money.
Further, part of the problem is that many folks simply don't know their own rights enough to ask Pete's (now second) question. Apparently the long train of abuses hasn't had enough cars hooked up yet...
:rolleyes:
The Reaper
11-20-2013, 18:52
"Why am I being stopped officer?"
"Do you have some probable cause to believe I have committed a crime?"
"Am I being detaineed or am I free to leave?"
"No, I do not consent to a search of my car."
"Am I being detaineed or am I free to leave?"
"No, I do not consent to providing a DNA swab or a blood sample."
"Am I being detaineed or am I free to leave?"
"No, I do not wish to provide a breath test."
"Am I being detaineed or am I free to leave?
"If I am not free to leave, may I call my attorney?
The cheek swab is not for alcohol testing, it is a DNA sample.
I suspect that is what the blood sample is for as well, though it is capable of providing data for many different tests.
The real question is who really was behind the collection of this data and for what purpose?
When some with arrest powers is telling you to do something, it is not really voluntary.
Conspiracies are looking more plausible every day.
TR
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain... the great Oz has spoken"
...nothing to see here move along
The WH carney, "Baghdad" Jay Carney, has reportedly suggested that the police roadblock and requests by federal contractors for samples of citizen's breath, saliva and even blood were most likely a spontaneous reaction to an offensive YouTube video...
The WH carney, "Baghdad" Jay Carney, has reportedly suggested that the police roadblock and requests by federal contractors for samples of citizen's breath, saliva and even blood were most likely a spontaneous reaction to an offensive YouTube video...
What! You got to be kidding, no one would fall for a stupid story like that...
ddoering
11-20-2013, 20:00
The WH carney, "Baghdad" Jay Carney, has reportedly suggested that the police roadblock and requests by federal contractors for samples of citizen's breath, saliva and even blood were most likely a spontaneous reaction to an offensive YouTube video...
Shit!!! I just spit vodka and coke all over my computer screen.....
TacOfficer
11-20-2013, 20:10
I've done road side checks, for things like seat belts, others I work with have done DUI check points. But you have to have some kind of "reasonable suspicion" (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) for the stop.
Contractors conducting traffic stops/road blocks/check points.....were they wearing brown shirts with arm bands? Somebody say "PAPERS?!",
I hope the off duty coppers had nothing to do with conducting the stop.
Hate have to defend those actions in federal court. :munchin
Come on we're going to o out next week and do some of these here in the Island. Now what is the problem:p
Nothing to see here move along:confused:
.....I hope the off duty coppers had nothing to do with conducting the stop......
It appears they did.
From the story...
"...Fort Worth police earlier said they could not immediately find any record of officer involvement but police spokesman Sgt. Kelly Peel said Tuesday that the department's Traffic Division coordinated with the NHTSA on the use of off-duty officers after the agency asked for help with the survey......"
TacOfficer
11-20-2013, 22:12
It appears they did.
From the story...
"...Fort Worth police earlier said they could not immediately find any record of officer involvement but police spokesman Sgt. Kelly Peel said Tuesday that the department's Traffic Division coordinated with the NHTSA on the use of off-duty officers after the agency asked for help with the survey......"
My questions is what role did they play. Were the coppers there for safety, that is to say stand by and observe, or were they actively engaged in the the stop.
Either way, that's not a gig I would suggest.
Now I'm not looking at the DNA part, but across the SW ICE has there know point checkpoints for "Are you a citizen of the U.S.A." Hoe are these going to play into the changing America? I have no issues with these, blood and any Kind of DNA. HELLZ YES IT IS AN ISSUES.
I grow up in El Paso and up into CIRC 2000s you would always see border patrol stopping in the puke green/ white suburban ask talking to people. Not now and not in many years.
There is a line and whom ever set this "problem" needs there saliva and blood taken then fired.
Now I'm not looking at the DNA part, but across the SW ICE has there know point checkpoints for "Are you a citizen of the U.S.A." Hoe are these going to play into the changing America? I have no issues with these, blood and any Kind of DNA. HELLZ YES IT IS AN ISSUES.
I grow up in El Paso and up into CIRC 2000s you would always see border patrol stopping in the puke green/ white suburban ask talking to people. Not now and not in many years.
There is a line and whom ever set this "problem" needs there saliva and blood taken then fired.
Brother, have you been drinking?;)
Badger52
11-21-2013, 07:51
My questions is what role did they play. Were the coppers there for safety, that is to say stand by and observe, or were they actively engaged in the the stop. Either way, I think a reasonable person would infer that their person was being detained; "uniformed officers" as stated in report. Certainly without them no one is going to pull off the road while going about their daily lives after reading a sign that says "Hey folks! Volunteer now to get DNA-swabbed & donate your blood." They'd be more likely to pull off to get their car washed by bikini-clad girls raising money to send their show choir to the Nationals.
FlagDayNCO
11-21-2013, 12:21
The idea that they are "Off Duty" only applies to being in uniform for the agency they work for. Many LEAs allow their personnel to work "Off Duty" jobs; many in uniform of their agency. Most large city LEAs have an office of Outside Employment, that coordinates all of this work. The City gets a percentage, plus charges for the use of vehicles, radios, etc.
Hiring an "Off Duty" Cop has become big business for many agencies.
Remember, the Po-Po has law enforcement authority 24-7, not just when they are "working" for their real employer.
Now, is there a part of the DOT regulations that requires a CDL holder to submit to a fit-for-duty or drug-alcohol test upon request? If so, declining to submit may be surrender of CDL privelages.
Badger52
11-21-2013, 13:22
Now, is there a part of the DOT regulations that requires a CDL holder to submit to a fit-for-duty or drug-alcohol test upon request? If so, declining to submit may be surrender of CDL privelages.I would imagine most states have implied consent (upon accepting the DL) for any of their licensed drivers, CDL or not. Failure to submit, when legally detained by a law enforcement officer performing their duties, can get the license jerked. One of the questions here is upon request of who?
TacOfficer
11-21-2013, 17:19
I would imagine most states have implied consent (upon accepting the DL) for any of their licensed drivers, CDL or not. Failure to submit, when legally detained by a law enforcement officer performing their duties, can get the license jerked. One of the questions here is upon request of who?
Upon request of sworn Police Officer.
In Illinois, you are license to drive, not a right. Part of the deal of implied consent is that you must submit to sobriety test given by a police officer or have your license suspended for 6 months.
The big issue with this stop IMHO, is that it is not for law enforcement purposes, but a "survey" conducted by an independent contractor under the guise of law.
Upon request of sworn Police Officer.
In Illinois, you are license to drive, not a right. Part of the deal of implied consent is that you must submit to sobriety test given by a police officer or have your license suspended for 6 months.
The big issue with this stop IMHO, is that it is not for law enforcement purposes, but a "survey" conducted by an independent contractor under the guise of law.
If it is true they have no legal leg to stand on.
Every one of those officers involved should be ashamed of themselves. There's no excuse, even if it was pitched as something else at the start someone should've called bullshit and stopped it.
Embarrassing.
Derek
It was part of a government research study aimed at determining the number of drunken or drug-impaired drivers.
It was an exercise to determine how complaint the public is to official action, which violates basic civil rights. Reactions are compared against internal study models to determine frequency, how often is necessary to produce the required result, and models that reflect a conforming response.
Once it become a normal, your civil rights will no longer exist.
A friend who "protects" us in the air recently related a story, wherein his supervisor directed him to ask travelers, American citizens, for their identification; without cause. The incident disturbed him, and he believes' it will continue and expand.
...civil liberties?
So what would have happened if someone said no and meant no?
Team Sergeant
11-22-2013, 10:47
...civil liberties?
So what would have happened if someone said no and meant no?
I haven't been stopped, yet....:munchin
I wonder if the real purpose behind the "survey" wasn't to find out how much "pushback" the authorities would face if they decided to institute random stops of citizens? It would be smart to test it in Texas as Texans are, probably, the most likely to rebel against such an intrusion. Doesn't sound like they did, though.
Pat
I wonder if the real purpose behind the "survey" wasn't to find out how much "pushback" the authorities would face if they decided to institute random stops of citizens? It would be smart to test it in Texas as Texans are, probably, the most likely to rebel against such an intrusion. Doesn't sound like they did, though.
Pat
That's what I was thinking too. But what I'd really like to see is, this "survey" being conducted in a very Dem control area. Watch as all the "TV" lawyers start coming out and complaining about their civil liberties being violated. :rolleyes:
...clearly it's now ok to mess with Texas.
I have not seen or heard of any lawsuits being brought nor have I heard any national outrage.
...pull to the side of the road sir. We need a DNA swab.
The Reaper
11-25-2013, 21:15
...clearly it's now ok to mess with Texas.
I have not seen or heard of any lawsuits being brought nor have I heard any national outrage.
...pull to the side of the road sir. We need a DNA swab.
80% would comply without asking questions.
TR
doctom54
11-26-2013, 08:43
...clearly it's now ok to mess with Texas.
I have not seen or heard of any lawsuits being brought nor have I heard any national outrage.
...pull to the side of the road sir. We need a DNA swab.
Well, maybe no outrage by the news media. However, on another board I'm on that is just regular people less than half with any military experience this was brought up. 100% did not agree with it. The question was how to react if it happens to you.
I believe most Americans, if they know about it, are outraged.
ddoering
11-26-2013, 17:12
Grazing fire.
The Reaper
12-17-2013, 12:57
Looks like it is happening elsewhere. PA now.
http://www.infowars.com/pennsylvanians-coerced-into-giving-cheek-swab-at-voluntary-checkpoint/
Just say no, folks.
TR
"...“People are not pressured by police presence to do something they don’t want to.”..."
So why the flashing lights?
What would have happened if a citizen said "screw you" and started to drive off? Would they then have been arrested for failure to follow "police" instructions?
Badger52
12-17-2013, 14:55
"...“People are not pressured by police presence to do something they don’t want to.”..."Yep, if he believes the words that spewed from his mouth he's a compleat fool. As with the other occurrences, and the most basic behavior by licensed drivers regarding pretty blue/red lights, most folks sadly do not have the presence of mind to ask, "Am I being detained?" or "Am I free to go?"
"Please proceed to the platform over there..."
Tolerance probes to assess state of the sheeple?
Stiletto11
12-17-2013, 16:24
When did the right to travel become a privilege? If it is common usage( Planes, train automobiles) wouldn't it apply like the common usage of the AR15 in the Heller case?
atticus finch
12-20-2013, 04:39
Most of those folks complied probably because they didn't know the law and/or didn't know they had the right to refuse.
Along with that, knowing how to excercise that right properly is something most folks don't know either.
The "am I free to go or am I being detained? I do not consent to any searches" set of questions, what to do based on the answers, & so forth.
that lack of knowledge does seem to be changing ever so slowly and if/when it becomes common place, odds are these sort've things will get a different treatment by the public.
I did notice a fair amount of the people in the comments made here locally did not like what was done, they just didnt know how to handle it.
Well, therein lays the rub between the 'free-stuffers" and a free man. The free-stuffers care for nothing other than themselves; whether or not they get to go see Lady-Gaga on the weekend and the latest shenanigans of Snookie.
The free man educates himself and is well aware of his rights and obligations as a CITIZEN. Until we get back our educated electorate in this country, we will continue to decline. it won't be long before certain segments of "undesireables" are herded into rail cars for the "good of the republic"..... :mad:
TacOfficer
12-21-2013, 09:14
When did the right to travel become a privilege? If it is common usage( Planes, train automobiles) wouldn't it apply like the common usage of the AR15 in the Heller case?
I concur with the argument that police should not be involved in a survey conducted by a private company and the methods currently used would lead the operator of a vehicle to believe the check point had a valid law enforcement purpose.
However, to operate a vehicle upon the public way has always be a "privilege". Operators must have a valid license, insurance and some states require registration documents be kept in the car. Vehicles must be registered and plated. Driving is not enshrined in the US Constitution.
Just because its "common", doesn't make it a Right. :)
Edited: Just reread your line. My mistake. We don't need travel papers, but I don't believe passengers are being included in the survey, just driver's.