North Texas Drivers Stopped at Roadblock Asked for Saliva, Blood

How much are your civil liberties and constitutional rights worth?

$10?

$50?

For many Americans these days - probably a lot less...

======================================

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

Some drivers in North Fort Worth 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.
The request was part of a government research study aimed at determining
the number of drunken or drug-impaired drivers.

"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."

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.

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:44:35 AM UTC-5, MoPar Man wrote:
> How much are your civil liberties and constitutional rights worth?
>
>
>
> $10?
>
>
>
> $50?
>
>
>
> For many Americans these days - probably a lot less...
>
>
>
> ======================================
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Some drivers in North Fort Worth 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.
>
> The request was part of a government research study aimed at determining
>
> the number of drunken or drug-impaired drivers.
>
>
>
> "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."
>
>
>
> 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.

As long as it was truly voluntary, and they weren't getting the results on the spot I don't see the big deal.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 07:48:11 -0800 (PST), m6onz5a
> wrote:

>As long as it was truly voluntary, and they weren't getting the results on the spot I don't see the big deal.

People felt pressured, and there was supposedly an LEO presence. Do
you think if someone voluntarily blew a .20, they would let him drive
away? We both know the answer to that, and we both know that someone
that drunk might believe he would just drive away.

The most damning thing about the whole issue is that the study could
hardly be valid, mainly because most people who had had anything at
all to drink, or were on any recreational drugs would be very
reluctant to cooperate. Self-selecting groups aren't useful in this
sort of study. So what was the point?

On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 07:48:11 -0800 (PST), m6onz5a
> wrote:

>>
>> "They need to make sure this doesn't happen again," she said.
>
>As long as it was truly voluntary, and they weren't getting the results on the spot I don't see the big deal.


How can it be voluntary when the FORCE you to stop so they can ask you
"DO you volunteer"?? They only way this could be voluntary is if they
put up signboards along the shoulder that said '

Anyone wishing to volunteer for an impaired driver study can go into
the next Rest Area. If you are not interested in participating you DO
NOT NEED TO STOP.

Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 07:48:11 -0800 (PST), m6onz5a
> > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> "They need to make sure this doesn't happen again," she said.
>>
>> As long as it was truly voluntary, and they weren't getting the results on the spot I don't see the big deal.
>
> How can it be voluntary when the FORCE you to stop so they can ask you
> "DO you volunteer"?? They only way this could be voluntary is if they
> put up signboards along the shoulder that said '
>
> Anyone wishing to volunteer for an impaired driver study can go into
> the next Rest Area. If you are not interested in participating you DO
> NOT NEED TO STOP.

Not sure about other countries, but in the USA, driving is a privilege,
not a right, and you volunteered to stop, when asked/told to do so, when
you accepted your LICENSE to drive.

GW

GW wrote "- show quoted text -
Not sure about other countries, but in the USA, driving is a privilege,
not a right, and you volunteered to stop, when asked/told to do so, when
you accepted your LICENSE to drive.

GW "

That depends on whether you are being ordered to pull over by a cop or by a corporation.

On Sunday, November 24, 2013 4:20:03 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> GW wrote "- show quoted text -
>
> Not sure about other countries, but in the USA, driving is a privilege,
>
> not a right, and you volunteered to stop, when asked/told to do so, when
>
> you accepted your LICENSE to drive.
>
>
>
> GW "
>
>
>
> That depends on whether you are being ordered to pull over by a cop or by a corporation.

And if you turn around, go the other way. They come gitcha.

On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:30:33 -1000, Geoff Welsh >
wrote:

>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 07:48:11 -0800 (PST), m6onz5a
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> "They need to make sure this doesn't happen again," she said.
>>>
>>> As long as it was truly voluntary, and they weren't getting the results on the spot I don't see the big deal.
>>
>> How can it be voluntary when the FORCE you to stop so they can ask you
>> "DO you volunteer"?? They only way this could be voluntary is if they
>> put up signboards along the shoulder that said '
>>
>> Anyone wishing to volunteer for an impaired driver study can go into
>> the next Rest Area. If you are not interested in participating you DO
>> NOT NEED TO STOP.
>
>Not sure about other countries, but in the USA, driving is a privilege,
>not a right, and you volunteered to stop, when asked/told to do so, when
>you accepted your LICENSE to drive.
>
>GW


For non-commercial driving it is a right. For commercial driving it's
a privilege.

On 11/24/13, 8:11 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:30:33 -1000, Geoff Welsh >
> wrote:
>
>> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 07:48:11 -0800 (PST), m6onz5a
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "They need to make sure this doesn't happen again," she said.
>>>>
>>>> As long as it was truly voluntary, and they weren't getting the results on the spot I don't see the big deal.
>>>
>>> How can it be voluntary when the FORCE you to stop so they can ask you
>>> "DO you volunteer"?? They only way this could be voluntary is if they
>>> put up signboards along the shoulder that said '
>>>
>>> Anyone wishing to volunteer for an impaired driver study can go into
>>> the next Rest Area. If you are not interested in participating you DO
>>> NOT NEED TO STOP.
>>
>> Not sure about other countries, but in the USA, driving is a privilege,
>> not a right, and you volunteered to stop, when asked/told to do so, when
>> you accepted your LICENSE to drive.
>>
>> GW
>
>
> For non-commercial driving it is a right. For commercial driving it's
> a privilege.
>

Not in Connecticut.
This quote from the Governor in the CT Driver's Manual.

"We want to remind all license holders that driving is a privilege and
not a right."

Page 2 of http://www.ct.gov/dmv/lib/dmv/20/29/r12eng.pdf

On 2013-11-24, Geoff Welsh > wrote:
> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 07:48:11 -0800 (PST), m6onz5a
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> "They need to make sure this doesn't happen again," she said.
>>>
>>> As long as it was truly voluntary, and they weren't getting the results on the spot I don't see the big deal.
>>
>> How can it be voluntary when the FORCE you to stop so they can ask you
>> "DO you volunteer"?? They only way this could be voluntary is if they
>> put up signboards along the shoulder that said '
>>
>> Anyone wishing to volunteer for an impaired driver study can go into
>> the next Rest Area. If you are not interested in participating you DO
>> NOT NEED TO STOP.
>
> Not sure about other countries, but in the USA, driving is a privilege,
> not a right, and you volunteered to stop, when asked/told to do so, when
> you accepted your LICENSE to drive.

Driving is not a privilege. Government has been telling people that for
decades because the perception that it is gives government power. There
is nothing about driving or usage of roads that is a privilege. It was a
progression that started shortly after there were two automobiles on the
road using the new technology as an excuse to grab power.

How do I know driving is not a privilege? A privilege is granted,
granted by someone. This is incompatible with the concept of individual
rights and a society of equals under the law. Simply put there's nobody
then who could grant a privilege. Furthermore the grantor of a privilege
can attach any requirements he wants to that grant. How would you like
to give government's employees the right to search your home any time
they want in exchange for the privilege to drive? How about road side
blood draws? A privilege is just that, something granted under terms and
those terms are decided by the grantor without limit to what they may
demand in exchange for the privilege. Your only option is to not obtain
the privilege. This is why government tells us driving is a privilege,
so we accept their terms to drive. It's just another scam.