Police Pull Over More Drivers For DNA Tests 562
schwit1 sends this news from the Washington Times:
"Pennsylvania police this week were pulling people to the side of the road, quizzing them on their driving habits, and asking if they'd like to provide a cheek swap or a blood sample — the latest in a federally contracted operation that's touted as making roads safer. The same operation took place last month at a community in Texas. Then, drivers were randomly told to pull off the road into a parking lot, where white-coated researchers asked if they'd like to provide DNA samples for a project that determines what percentage of drivers are operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol at given times. With uniformed police in the background, the researchers also offered the motorists money — up to $50 or so — for the blood or saliva samples."
three responses (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I being detained?
Am I free to go?
No, I do not consent to any search.
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
What the **** does a DNA sample have to do with the percentage of drunk drivers?!?!?!?
that is why the cops are there ... (Score:4, Insightful)
to make sure everyone understands that it is voluntary.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tons of people. People are taught to always listen to cops. Lately I'm more scared of the police than any criminal. Police can ruin your life and easily kill you without repercussions. Cops are trained to always maintain control of the situation no matter how minor or petty. That is why so many people are tazed, beaten, or outright murdered when they tell cops they are wrong or the cops are doing illegal things.
This administration (Score:1, Insightful)
Who the fuck... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much all studies involving human subjects in the U.S. have to be approved by a review board for compliance with ethical and safety standards. This study is an obvious fail in multiple respects, and I can't imagine a reputable review board approving such a thing. And if it wasn't reviewed, the study participants^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H victims of the study probably have standing to sue.
Re:three responses (Score:2, Insightful)
Am I being detained?
Am I free to go?
No, I do not consent to any search.
It should really be:
you're all under arrest for inappropriate police action and fraud.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, the people who have something to hide because they're drunk or stoned behind the wheel are exactly the same people who won't buy into it. So, the statistics gathering will be highly skewed. Researchers probably know this because it's obvious, and it's likely just a cover story.
Re:three responses (Score:4, Insightful)
"Am I being detained?"
yes...we are conducting an investigation.
"Am I free to go?"
no...not until the investigation is complete
"No, I do not consent to any search."
Fine...the dogs will be showing up momentarily.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't the same people. I wouldn't buy into it, and I've never been stoned, and am almost a non-drinker. I would just find getting pulled over and being asked for a cheek swab to be a bizarre and highly intrusive request.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Either the test is voluntary, and suffers from selection bias, or it is involuntary, and is draconian.
Re:Not taking DNA, allegedly (Score:5, Insightful)
We only need to know one thing:
They abused their power and position in the community to forcibly detain motorists under false pretenses .
There is only ONE instance in which an officer can use a marked vehicle (never stop for unmarked ones) with their lights and/or sirens to pull a citizen over. The officer either witnessed a crime or has reasonable cause to suspect that a crime has been committed.
Yes, using the lights and/or sirens is forcible detainment. It's not like you have a choice do you?
It falls under the same bullshit of a fishing expedition. The cop pulls you over just to look inside the windows and fuck with you. Asks a bunch of questions trying to trip you up, to obtain a legal reason for detaining you in the first place when all they had was a hunch .
We don't need any further accuracy into their actions. Absolutely nothing justifies that initial act of forcible detainment.
The state should lose a couple million dollars in nice fat settlements to everyone pulled over. It's the only way they ever learn.
Re:three responses (Score:5, Insightful)
Queue the "stop resisting" while they beat you to a pulp.
Re:Participation not exactly "voluntary"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just having an officer present is coercion enough. Perhaps they think they have plausible deniability since they are calling it "optional".
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's true of individual policemen / women. Whether it applies to the political and financial designs of the 'Police Department' (and associated governmental agencies) is another thing entirely.
$50 (Score:5, Insightful)
Perspective is important.
Definition of voluntary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, no. Good cops cover for bad cops, and that makes them bad cops. No such thing as a good cop.
Sheeple testing (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about DNA or road safety it is a test to see how much shit people will take from their government and what additional compliance can be purchased with money.
Re:three responses (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a shame that such nonsense can't be confined to idiots such as yourself. It would be nice if your stupidity only had consequences for you personally. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Someone else will suffer for your stupidity.
Re:three responses (Score:4, Insightful)
Next you'll say that officer testimony that "I smelled alcohol on his breath" should be inadmissible in court.
I suggest you don't try to predict what I'll say, because most of the time you'll be wrong.
I do think it should be admissible in court. I do NOT, however, think it should be accepted as gospel. It's just one person's word against another, and it matters not one damned bit if that other person is a police officer. They make notoriously bad witnesses.
"Personally, I think that agreeing to this type of "surreptitious search" should be a requirement for renewing your drivers' license."
You are entitled to your opinion. I do not share it, for a number of very good reasons.
Among those reasons is that breathalyzers do not accurately reflect blood alcohol. If you just had one drink and are leaving the bar, it's going to set the thing off. There is VAST potential for abuse here.
Re:three responses (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The overwhelming majority of police are, frankly, pretty good folk who actually enjoy serving the public.
If you really believe this you are either willfully ignorant or a child,
... or a cop.
Re:Remember (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember: It's only being done in red states by state police.
Since when is Pennsylvania a "red state?"
Better zip up, your confirmation bias is showing.
Re:Not taking DNA, allegedly (Score:2, Insightful)
The state should lose a couple million dollars in nice fat settlements to everyone pulled over. It's the only way they ever learn.
No.
The officers doing these illegal fishing expeditions need to GO TO JAIL. Along with the chief of police, mayor, and governor.
You think these guys are going to shed a tear over losing millions of taxpayer dollars? (note: these are the same people burning DHS handouts on tactical armored personnel carriers, drones, license plate scanners, "less than lethal" toys, and machine guns for their SWAT teams)
Re: three responses (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um.... (Score:4, Insightful)
shoots you?
Re:three responses (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:three responses (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But you were also only privy to what they didn't mind you seeing or knowing about. The other 90% were just more careful.
Like you said, the other 90% already displayed that they were criminals by covering up for the 10% that were brazen with their criminal activities.
The appropriate response (Score:4, Insightful)
"You can have my DNA when you suck it out of my dick."
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops are the ones that refer to non-cops as "civilians".
Look, all cops have to do to win back support is to start arresting bad cops on the spot.
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And in most cases, they could tie the DNA sample to your name using your car registration number.
Re:Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Happens all the time.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)