Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Government Transportation

Police Pull Over More Drivers For DNA Tests 562

Posted by Soulskill
from the get-away-from-me-with-that-crap dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Police Pull Over More Drivers For DNA Tests

Comments Filter:
  • Um.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Traze (1167415) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @03:59PM (#45729107)
    What?

    Who'd really buy into that?

    "Here, take my biological information. You want to use it to create an army of biologically superior clones? That's nice. Oh, $50? Even better!"
    • Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:06PM (#45729197)

      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.

      • Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:09PM (#45729241)

        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:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SecurityGuy (217807) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:21PM (#45729353)

          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.

          • by Derec01 (1668942)

            That's not what he said. He said people with something to hide will be in that category, not that everyone in that category has something to hide. And he's right; this can't be considered an unbiased sample set.

          • Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@NOspaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @07:59PM (#45731767) Journal

            If you actually believe its about driving drunk, where they already can do a Breathalyzer or blood sample? i have a bridge you might be interested in. Its about getting as many citizens in as they can into their DB, specifically the poor. they know the person driving that Lexus is gonna tell them to get bent while the mother of 3 in that 94 Dodge? Not so much.

            I never thought I'd say this but I'm glad my beloved grandfather and great uncles are gone, they fought against fascism in WWII and this kind of gestapo shit would disgust the hell out of them. I could probably wrap his body in some copper wire and run my entire neighborhood from all the revolutions he's turning in his grave.

            I urge everybody who hasn't seen it to watch Naomi Wolf's lecture [youtube.com] which shows how shit like this and the TSA intimidation fits into the bigger picture, because its fucking SCARY folks. This is the same plays that have been run since the time of Lenin and El Duce, get the population used to being confronted, cowed down and intimidated, makes things easier when they inevitably clamp down. Never forget that in 1930 Germany was a democracy and the NSDAP was a fringe bunch of kooks. Countries don't go from free to non free slowly, the shift is VERY fast but there is warning signs that a shift is occurring. I'd say shit like this and the NSA watching everything you do would be good indicators.

            For those that think this kind of shit doesn't have a chilling effect? remember that when the wall fell it was found that the STASI had less than 7% of the population on their lists yet the entire population lived like they were always under the boot because everyone thought that they were one of the 7%. It really doesn't take much to break the will of a populace, just intimidation and fear used in the right places.

        • Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Khashishi (775369) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:23PM (#45729379) Journal

          Right. Either the test is voluntary, and suffers from selection bias, or it is involuntary, and is draconian.

      • Re:Um.... (Score:5, Funny)

        by mythosaz (572040) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:22PM (#45729365)

        Yes, there's a few bad cops out there, and a fair number of them have been caught, exposed, and turned into headlines.

        ...but I'm still way, way, more scared of actual bad guys.

        The overwhelming majority of police are, frankly, pretty good folk who actually enjoy serving the public.

        • Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ColdWetDog (752185) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:30PM (#45729487) Homepage

          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.

          • Two Kinds Of Cops... (Score:5, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @05:31PM (#45730185)

            There are only two kinds of cops: 1.) Bad cops and 2.) Accessories after the fact.

            • by kaatochacha (651922) on Thursday December 19, 2013 @01:24PM (#45737691)

              In college I worked with a lot of police, I was associated with on-campus security.
              I noticed there were essentially two types of cops, and they seemed to inhabit both ends of the spectrum.
              The first type was the actual caring, honest, hard working, do anything to protect others type. He became a cop to actually help and serve. I saw one climb out on a ten story ledge to bring in a jumper, and that cop had a documented fear of heights.
              The second type was the exact opposite: He loves the power, and got into the police so he could push people around. He's the guy who really enjoys giving jawalking tickets.

              It's almost like the job description pulls the best and worst of society, with not a lot of middle ground in there.

        • Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by pegr (46683) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:34PM (#45729527) Homepage Journal

          "The overwhelming majority of police are, frankly, pretty good folk who actually enjoy serving the public."

          Ah, no. Good cops cover for bad cops, and that makes them bad cops. No such thing as a good cop.

          • Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by JudgeFurious (455868) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @06:03PM (#45730633)
            As a one time police officer who has been out of that line of work for almost 20 years I have to disagree with you. There are good cops. They are few and far between but they exist. You're on to one thing though and it's something that a lot of people just don't seem to understand. The police (speaking of the whole group and still maintaining that some do not fall into this group) are by and large exceptionally racist, which many people realize but what they don't get is that the police only really see two races. "Blue" and "You". Ok, it's not technically a racial issue but the reason I put it like that is because it's approached the same way by the police. I know because I was surrounded by people like that. If you're blue you're a fellow officer and most of them will tolerate a great deal in another officer. Crossing a line or two is nothing. A police officer has to almost be cornered before he'll hold another police officer to the same standard he'll hold you or I to. Even then it doesn't always end as it should because another officer further up the food chain will head that off if possible once the situation has moved beyond the public eye. I never really thought about it at the time but when I was in law enforcement I rarely kept my registration up to date. I drove one car for over two years without having to get it inspected or paying the registration fee. When I got pulled over I just whipped out "Badge Americard" and was given a pass. I drove as fast as I wanted without a care in the world. That's little stuff but it scales up. I didn't leave the profession out of outrage either. I left because I hurt my back (at home, not work related in any way) and had to move to a less physical career but when I did leave and stepped back I realized that I was part of a system that is almost entirely made up of bad cops. It's just that most of them are bad with a little "b".
        • Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:35PM (#45729545)
          But you can defend yourself from a "bad guy" with violence. If you use violence to defend yourself from a "bad cop" who is illegally applying force, you get a body bag and some drugs planted on your corpse. I saw a recent show on police training, and it looked more psychologically damaging than military basic training. Drill sergeants screaming opposing commands and berating the trainees for everything. The training camp in Conquest of the Planet of the Apes is tame by comparison. "NO!"
        • Re:Um.... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @05:35PM (#45730249) Journal

          If they want to serve the public, they can start by opposing our government. Being hired muscle for the aristocracy doesn't help anyone but the aristocracy. All the property crime in the country doesn't add up to even a percent of the fraud committed by banks. All the violent crime in the country doesn't add up to the lives that could be saved by throwing a wrench in the military industrial complex, or the agriculture industry, or the insurance industry.

          No "good person" can support this government in any respect. The "actual bad guys" are the ones in Congress and corporate board rooms throughout the country. Find me a cop who is willing to arrest James Clapper, and I'll show you a good cop. The rest of them are "good Germans" at best.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:37PM (#45729565)

        I sure don't teach Them to do that. Every defense Lawyer, Prosecutor, and police Officer I have ever spoken with has consistently told Me the same thing: if the Police say They want to talk with You, You give one answer, "Not without My Attorney's approval."

      • Re:Um.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Areyoukiddingme (1289470) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @06:03PM (#45730635)

        It's long past time that Americans followed in the footsteps of Russians. Everybody should have a dash cam. Everybody. Seriously folks. Put it on your Christmas lists. It's way past time.

    • Re:Um.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:07PM (#45729217)

      "Who'd really buy into that? "

      According to the news story I read, a lot of people in Texas "bought" that, because they were under the impression they had no choice. One woman, in an interview, said she was intimidated by the police questions and thought she had to comply.

      That news story (apologies, I don't have a link) also claimed that their breath was being sampled by an experimental "non contact" breathalyzer device without being notified in advance and without their consent.

    • by gandhi_2 (1108023)

      Your average person, that's who, For the safeties and For the childrens.
      The best part? That was YOUR $50 they gave away. Suckit, taxpayer!

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      Most everyone:

      1 - Fear of saying no to a cop that just pulled you over..
      2 - Trust in the authorities to do what they say they will do. "its just for this research project"
      3 - Most people are stupid sheep.

  • three responses (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Speare (84249) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:00PM (#45729119) Homepage Journal

    Am I being detained?

    Am I free to go?

    No, I do not consent to any search.

    • Re:three responses (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:12PM (#45729273)

      "No, I do not consent to any search."

      Insufficient.

      According to news reports of the stops in Texas, peoples' breath was being sampled by officer-worn "non contact" breathalyzers before they were notified and without consent.

      A surreptitious search is still a search. There SHOULD BE lawsuits over this.

      • Re:three responses (Score:4, Interesting)

        by pegr (46683) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:36PM (#45729557) Homepage Journal

        Interesting. Warrant requirements generally do not apply to evidence in "plain sight", but if you need a breathalyzer, it's not exactly plain sight, now, is it?

        Best I can compare it to would be the use of an infrared camera in search of "grow lights" for basement cannabis farms. A federal judge said, no-baby-no, so I'd have to side with you on this one.

      • by wbr1 (2538558)
        While I agree in theory to refusing, in my state (and others, perhaps all), you have to sign consent to give police samples for the purpose of alcohol/drug testing prior to getting you license. Refusing such a search is grounds for revocation of your license and worse. It does not matter if it is a traffic stop or some sort of checkpoint (papers please), probable cause and 4th amendment rights are gone because you agreed when you signed your drivers licence.
    • Re:three responses (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Connie_Lingus (317691) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:14PM (#45729289) Homepage

      "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:three responses (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:24PM (#45729397)

        Let the dogs come. Search without probable cause is illegal, and simply denying consent does not constitute probable cause.

        ACLU is likely warming up the cannons over this one already. Still, it comes back to knowing your rights and standing up for them. Cops will intimidate, that's what they do. They are held to standards of legality, not decency. Just because they're scary doesn't mean you have to consent to shit, but once you do they can legally do many things they'd otherwise be prevented from.

        Know. Your. Rights.

        • Re:three responses (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SirGarlon (845873) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:50PM (#45729703)
          Refusing an illegal search can still get you pepper sprayed or tased. Cops are only held to standards of legality in exceptional cases. When was the last time you heard of a police officer sent to prison for brutality? You can push your luck if you want to.
        • [IANAL:] Unfortunately you're wrong about this. In Caballes v. Illinois the Supreme Court found that a dog can be run around any vehicle during a traffic stop. If the dog signals, the officer then has probably cause to search a vehicle. The only limitation on this is that if the dog is not on the scene at the time of the stop, that the stop cannot be prolonged to wait for the dog to arrive. They can only hold you for as long as it would reasonably take to conduct the business of a traffic stop.

      • Mod parent up. This actually happened to me, and a dog did show up and ran circles around my car. Didn't signal though, maybe he had a cold that day. :) Another trick they use is telling you that your car will be impounded and searched anyway (first part could be true, latter part is a lie), so you might as well let them search it now. They also like to get REALLY pissed off to intimidate you into giving in. He yelled, "Why? Do you have something to hide?" I told him I was exercising my rights and he laugh
    • by AGMW (594303) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @05:10PM (#45729921) Homepage
      Of course in the US asking ANY question when you've been told to do something by an officer is "Resisting Arrest" and can get you in a LOT of trouble! So if you think it may be an official stop (for whatever) reason you just do what you're told for risk of getting into serious trouble!
  • WTF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:00PM (#45729125)

    What the **** does a DNA sample have to do with the percentage of drunk drivers?!?!?!?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      About as much as Freedom & Peace had to do with the Iraq War.

    • If you have the gene for alcoholism? Think of the children this will save!
    • WTF indeed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hey! (33014) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:46PM (#45729663) Homepage Journal

      Twenty or thirty years ago there used to be people called "journalists" whose job it was to (a) collect enough data so you could figure out what happened, and (b) write it up in an intelligible story.

      Look at the linked story *critically*. How does the "reporter" know DNA was being taken? What is his source for this, or is he just guessing?

      This story is basically rumor -- passing along what's on the grapevine. There's no actual reporting here. If there were, that would answer the questions a reasonable person might have. For example: are the researchers collecting DNA or not? And who *are* these researchers? Can we get a name please? Or an institution?

      Back in the day a reporter would have identified the researchers and called them up for an interview, or at least a statement from the research institution's public affairs office. He'd look up the grant in the federal records and find out whether or not the researchers had been granted money to collect DNA and what they are being paid to do with it (yes, you can do that!). He'd may even have interviewed people on the institutional review board (required by US law) that approved the project.

      But the "reporter" in this case did none of this. She appears not to have done *any* verification or independent research. A story like this would take a real reporter two or three days to nail down, not two or three phone calls.

      I'm not saying some horrendous violation of civil liberties could not have taken place, I'm saying the writer of the article didn't do enough work for anyone to decide what did or did not happen. This is not reporting, it's *blogging* under a byline.

      • Re:WTF indeed (Score:4, Informative)

        by rahvin112 (446269) on Thursday December 19, 2013 @12:05AM (#45733113)

        I don't disagree on the quality of reporting. But this NHSTA funded study is real and has been covered several times in the national press. The author of the article assumes the reader is already aware of said study. It's basically a redo of this 2007 study.

        http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/811175.pdf [nhtsa.gov]

        It's covered on Ron Paul's website. I wouldn't call this a "rumor". It's a reality and a poorly written article that makes assumptions about it's readership knowledge about current events. Just because you don't know about these research projects doesn't mean it's rumor. It's good research and helps policy makers understand the real danger of impaired driving. I don't like how it's being done or that cops are used but it's still valid research that's needed in the continuous drive to make our roadways safer.

  • by cold fjord (826450) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:01PM (#45729133)

    I don't think pulling people over for research is a reasonable use of police power. Actual enforcement, maybe, but not for research.

    Why don't they just put a spit cup at toll booths?

  • by Cryacin (657549) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:01PM (#45729143)
    Come on, of course it's just for study. Why else would the National Science Academy form the Pacific Research Institute for Chemical Knowledge? What, to get DNA linked to drivers licenses? Of course not! The National Science Academy already has all of that information.

    This is just a benign, voluntary research campaign. So please, listen to the Pacific Research Institute for Chemical Knowledge and just hand over your DNA. We would also appreciate a few ovums from a selection of healthy, attractive ladies aged 18-25. For research purposes of course!
    • by Dr. Manhattan (29720) <sorceror171@gmaiSTRAWl.com minus berry> on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:07PM (#45729223) Homepage
      The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been doing these "studies" for a while. Here's some details on the 'pilot study': http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/HS810704/pages/ExecSummary.html [nhtsa.gov]

      http://www.pire.org/topiclist2.asp?cms=63 [pire.org]

      They don't stop everybody, they stop, say, every third car. And they use high-pressure sales techniques to try to get "biological samples". But they actually don't arrest people they find impaired; they try to arrange transportation for them. And they don't claim to actually collect or register DNA, just the presence of drugs. I don't think that makes it right, but let's at least be accurate about what they're doing.

      More information and links to past examples of these "studies":

      http://www.politechbot.com/2007/09/21/colorado-sheriff-creates/ [politechbot.com]

      • And they don't claim to actually collect or register DNA, just the presence of drugs.

        Sounds like the claims of another government agency whose acronym also contains an N, S, and A.

        Of course, those guys are liars, but surely we can trust these guys. Right?

      • by EdIII (1114411) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:23PM (#45729385)

        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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:06PM (#45729193)

    to make sure everyone understands that it is voluntary.

  • by Rone (46994) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:06PM (#45729209)

    If uniformed police officers are pulling you off the road in marked cars with flashing lights, your participation is hardly voluntary.

    What happens if you decline to answer the questions of the men in white coats a little too firmly? Well, an officer with badge and gun is right there to show you the error of your ways!

    I'm amazed the local chapter of the ACLU is merely "watching the operation closely" (per the article).

  • Who the fuck... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PvtVoid (1252388) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:06PM (#45729211)
    ... approved this study?

    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.
    • US Government has a history of simply ignoring the rules it enforces for everyone else. I mean in the last century the have infected people with diseases, exposed them to radiation, dosed them with illegal drugs and exposed them to chemical weapons. Very frequently without the participants knowledge or consent. Sad truth is no matter what they say you really have no idea what is being tested. The scary thing about their past tests is that in more than one case they have actually caused people serious illnes

  • by WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:16PM (#45729311)

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/20/texas-cops-force-drivers-off-the-road-to-give-dna-to-federal-contractors/ [rawstory.com]

    This is one of those things where LE thinks how easy their job would be and how much more effective they could be if they had everyone's DNA on file and people of course worry about anyone having that kind of power.

    We're not Norway (unfortunately by my lights) people. If we dont' trust each other with this level of information,maybe that's because we know each other and we therefore ought to listen to ourselves.

    Sure all knowledge and power and everything could *could* be used just totally for good and never for evil. And? And? And your argument is?

    Pretending that a corrosive kind of corruption isn't being enabled with these kinds of god-level knowledge of what everyone does, is, thinks, where they go and who they talk to- pretending that this doesn't enable evil (as well as good) or that the evil is just SO unlikely, is just stupid and quite frankly anyone trying to pass themselves off as incensed that I should worry about this , or to paint me as WAAAAY out there, is not even naive in my view, but most likely a manipulative liar.

    We know ourselves. We grew up here , went to elementary school here, got our first jobs here and we've seen what we've seen and know what we know about ourselves. Thus the popular resistance to such measures. .

  • I'm mad (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:16PM (#45729319)

    They offered $50 for my DNA and arrested me when I whipped it out and started masturbating. I want my $50, dammit.

  • by BringsApples (3418089) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:33PM (#45729517)
    Maybe they're just trying to find where "stupid" is in DNA. Anyone that blindly and for no reason provides "the authorities" with their DNA are the sheep that "the authorities" are looking for. And then they spice that gene into an army of zombie-people that they're making in a lab somewhere, to replace the population that stands in their way.

    Seriously though, what we need to know is: Who started this idea/concept, and how do we get them out of their position of authority? Hell India is all up in arms over the recent treatment of an Indian woman by US authorities. [thehindu.com] Why can't we do something similar here?
  • $50 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Iamthecheese (1264298) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:33PM (#45729521)
    $50 is a lot more to a lot of people than you think. If you have a secure job or a lot of money it may seem like surrendering your privacy for nothing important. But for some people that means a chance to eat more than beans and rice this month, a phone card that could land them a job, or a 5 month overdue oil change.

    Perspective is important.
  • by tatman (1076111) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:34PM (#45729525) Homepage
    Voluntary is having a sign "$50 for a cheek swab, next right". Involuntary is police directing you to testing area. Period.
  • Sheeple testing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WaffleMonster (969671) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:34PM (#45729535)

    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.

  • by SpaceLifeForm (228190) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:42PM (#45729629)
    Earlier this month. Link [stltoday.com]

    Checkpoints were conducted Friday morning, Friday night and Saturday night at three different locations in St. Charles County, said sheriff’s Lt. Dave Tiefenbrunn.

    ...

    Tiefenbrunn said even though the survey was voluntary he acknowledged that the public might not have thought they had any choice but to obey the officers. Because of that, he said, his department would not participate in such surveys in the future.

    “It doesn’t give the public the impression that it’s voluntary if there’s a uniformed officer out there, so we would avoid that circumstance in the future,” he said.

    ...

    In its statement, NHTSA said that it had been conducting such surveys for more than 40 years in roughly 10-year cycles.

    The agency said more than 60 communities nationwide were participating this year, including St. Louis County, where checkpoints were conducted in September.

    In 2007, more than 9,000 drivers were interviewed in 60 jurisdictions.

    In all of these cases, there is no mention of how much money the jurisdictions involved received from the feds for allowing these actions to occur.

  • by pesho (843750) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @05:20PM (#45730045)
    Can somebody point to a website with information regarding the study? If it is federally funded it must be publicly posted somewhere. Such studies typically require "informed consent" from the subjects. I would really like to see how do they obtain consent from the people being pulled over and how they justify instructing the police to pull over random drivers without probable cause. It would have been a different story if they sit in a parking lot and ask for samples drivers already stopped at the parking. The whole thing with the police pulling people over seems a bit too coercive for my taste.
  • by John Allsup (987) <s DOT chalisque AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @05:51PM (#45730443) Homepage Journal
    Maybe a human biology expert can tell me, but how exactly does one infer drug consumption from DNA?
  • by jimhill (7277) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @05:52PM (#45730469) Homepage

    "You can have my DNA when you suck it out of my dick."

  • by inode_buddha (576844) on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @05:59PM (#45730563) Journal

    Notice how they're only doing this in a few states? I have a feeling this sample collection has nothing to do with DUI or any research..... I have a feeling they're looking for someone specific via DNA from already-collected evidence in some ongoing case.

COBOL is for morons. -- E.W. Dijkstra

Working...