TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote: One of my former jobs required me to travel to Reading several times a year. I can't imagine for the life of me any reason I would possibly return. One of the most depressing places I've ever been.
Evidently it's turning into a police state to boot.

I suspect that Reading is no more of a police state than the other 60+ sites where this "survey" was conducted. We have relatives very near Reading and agree with your assessment of the town. Lancaster, also nearby, is equally depressing.

It is the pattern of police cooperation in this matter that scares the pants off of me. "It is no big deal" makes it even worse, suggesting the chief has no idea about what the Constitution was designed to protect. What is a little unjustified search among friends? I can only hope that the PA citizens raise as much of a fuss about this as many in Texas did with Ft. Worth. I'm afraid, however, that they just rolled over and played dead.

texanjoker wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Where is the ACLU when you need 'em? Where is the free press? Where are the attorneys looking for somebody to sue? Where are the people running for public office? When is it going to stop raining and warm up?

That is a good point. The ACLU comes out where there is a civil rights violation. Maybe their lack of action says something. I would hope that the ACLU looks into an incident vs. jumping on the bandwagon based on one news story to see if there is any actual violation vs media hype. .

The current study is 60 locations, 7,500 "volunteers" at something like 125 per event. Hardly a singular media hyped event. Here was a similar event in Alabama with a similar reaction - and another news source.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/us/drug-s ... index.html

For me the ACLU has a political agenda, not a mission to protect peoples rights. Sometimes those two coincide but not always. I agree with the causes that they take up less than 50% of the time. I don't expect them to take up this one.

I really have no issue if people want to participate in a Federal survey. More power to them Put up a sign and ask for volunteers. But to insure that the study is random, that won't work. People who might volunteer also might fall into a particular group, invalidating the survey sampling. So targets are selected based on the numbers and the power of the police is used to help "persuade" them.

I am a conspiracy theorist. I admit it. Then again, this year's information releases suggests that there is substance behind at least some of the concerns. I belong to one of the groups that was targeted by the IRS - that is real to me. I felt vindicated when the news was leaked that the nudie scanners COULD record results after vehement denials by the TSA. I won't belabor Fast and Furious. In short, there are very few of the Federal agencies that haven't been found to be cooking the books, manipulating data or outright violating the Constitution. Pick one and I'll send the information about . An people are willing to give up their DNA "anonymously" to a Federal agency? Again, more power to them but I'm not doing it and I'm not going to stand for a process that could use at least implied police force to try to make me. The time to fight over it is now, not when I'm along side the ride, surrounded officers who believe that I'm not complying with their commands fast enough. I've seen how that can turn out.

The job of the police is to deal with people who are exhibiting criminal behavior. The more that the police are called to act upon law abiding citizens, the more likely it is for a regrettable incident to occur.

jmra wrote:

mojo84 wrote:It appears we only have to obey the commands of a uniformed officer sometimes. Others, we don't since they are off-duty. We just have to be able to guess when. Why did they need a cop. Why not just put one of their government contractor stooges out there with a safety orange vest and let him/her flag people over? Oh, people probably wouldn't obey that person would they?

Interesting how the cops don't see the problem with this while the mere citizens do. Oh yeah, when you are the one with the "authority and power" you usually don't see a problem with it.

I wish we could add a poll to this to see how many believe there is no problem with this. The water is warming up and we are starting to boil alive.

This is just the latest installment of "death by a 1,000 cuts."

My research found another article this afternoon but I didn't get a chance to post its information. It described the procedures for the survey and specifically said that if a "volunteer" was determined to be intoxicated, they were turned over to the LEOs.

If I turn it up again, I'll edit this post to include it. Anyway, with that possibility, the survey takes on a whole different dimension. I want drunk drivers off the road as much as anyone. But it seems legally questionable to lure people at random off of a roadway under the pretense of a survey and then prosecute them. In the prostitution stings, there has to be an illegal activity observed and unprompted. I don't see why this would be different.

Here is an interesting article about the studies

http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=25318
By Greg Grisolano 6/12/2013
Landline is a business magazine for professional truckers

Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) is conducting the 2013 field survey, which will take place in 60 sites across the country with a sample size of 125 participants per location, for a total of 7,500. Participation is completely voluntary and all of the data remains anonymous.

Vehicles are randomly selected from the traffic stream and drivers are asked to participate. The protocol for this survey is well-established and consists of collection of voluntary breath, oral fluid, and/or blood samples. Participants also answer survey questions related to alcohol and drugs. Data will be collected this summer and again in early fall.”

Emphasis mine.

“Deputies would randomly select vehicles, about every other car, and ask drivers if they would be interested in participating in a national survey,” Lawrence said.
(snip)
They were never detained; they were free to leave and do whatever they needed to

Spencer said he believes the data could be collected in a more suitable venue than a public road.

AMEN!

Diesel42 wrote:IMO, Fort Worth needs a new police chief.

This is a great situation for "what did he know and when did he know it." The Federal government is completely out of control and oblivious to the protections under the Constitution. Until we understand specifically how the Ft. Worth PD was involved in the Federal mess, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. If the Feds said "we are setting up this sting on your street and you can either be there or we'll do it without you", that is far different than the Feds seeking and obtaining advanced agreement with the full knowledge of the PD's chain of command. I'm guessing that there is PD liaison with Federal departments and that this one could have been slipped in without PD commanders knowing the complete intent. A "traffic survey" is far different that the illegal and coerced (voluntary my foot) obtaining of citizen information.

The most chilling part of this for me was the idea that it was Federal "contractors", a word that I could easily substitute with "mercenaries", and not even Federal law enforcement officials who were involved.

According to NBC5 tonight, the Fort Worth PD has apologized for participating in this travesty. It will be interesting to see what fallout happens from it tomorrow.

I'm not done with them. I just knew that the PD was not going to allow the Feds to block a road in Ft. Worth without their knowledge. I'm angry about the stop and I'm even madder that they initially denied being part of it.

Texas got a little bluer today.

I'm confused. In the story, the woman says "two police cars with lights flashing". Question: whose police cars? A marked cruiser with lights on does not equal "off duty" in my book. If I don't see armed, uniformed officers and cars with logos that I recognize, I'm not stopping and I'm dialing 911 immediately. They can hunt me down.

The fine print in the paperwork says that a breath alcohol test was done without consent. How can that be legal? I do understand that in the "no refusal" periods, mandatory blood draws are part of the deal but I thought there was PC for intoxicated driving involved first. In this case there was nothing but driving on Beech street.

We all need to track the source of this down. This has to stop.... now. Federal stops without cause in the middle of Ft. Worth in the middle of the day are not going anywhere good.