North Texas motorists stoped by Feds to take DNA and blood

[Cedar Park Dad]

Earlier you said they should be "fired immediately" (emphasis mine). I disagree... The TX AG and FWPD IA dept should conduct investigations to determine who started making balls for the sole purpose of dropping them, and based on the outcome of said investigations file any necessary criminal charges and/or fire people for bad judgement (respectively).

Kudos for being able to disagree without resorting to name-calling...
Some re-training might be necessary, but starting over and taking new LEOs out of the raffle - might not solve the issue.

You need retraining on "hey dude you can't just pull people over for no reason and shut down a road." What the heck is their hiring standards then?

[cb1000rider]

You need retraining on "hey dude you can't just pull people over for no reason and shut down a road." What the heck is their hiring standards then?

Let me know how that works out for you... Seriously. I hope you've got a recording device.

The hiring standards for LEOs are public in most communities. Ever had a look at 'em? Ballpark - graduated high school, may or may not require some college, not a criminal. Not exactly high bar. Like you, I wish that they'd consider constitutionality before engaging in behavior, but clearly that isn't always the case. I don't know which would be worse - relatively low entry criteria and letting them think for themselves or having a strict "follow departmental policy" with no room on either side.

[Cedar Park Dad]

You need retraining on "hey dude you can't just pull people over for no reason and shut down a road." What the heck is their hiring standards then?

Let me know how that works out for you... Seriously. I hope you've got a recording device.

The hiring standards for LEOs are public in most communities. Ever had a look at 'em? Ballpark - graduated high school, may or may not require some college, not a criminal. Not exactly high bar. Like you, I wish that they'd consider constitutionality before engaging in behavior, but clearly that isn't always the case. I don't know which would be worse - relatively low entry criteria and letting them think for themselves or having a strict "follow departmental policy" with no room on either side.

I refuse to accept that a hiring standard exists in the Texas LEO community where hiring someone not intelligent or educated enough to know that pulling people over for no reason related to their jobs is not considered a bad thing.

Again, on what basis are these people still employed? Why are their bosses still employed? Its not been denied.

[talltex]

Well...all they did as far as I can tell was close down a road and direct people into a parking lot.


The office building next to ours hires "off duty" LEOs to close down a lane and allow their parking garage to empty every evening. Many churches hire "off duty" LEOs to direct traffic in and out of their parking lots...are these detentions?

First, I don't think that everyone involved should be fired...immediately or otherwise...but I do think that the FWPD, and every other LE agency needs to take a long look at their policies regarding what an "off-duty" officer may or may not do. I am truly perplexed that you and Joker don't see anything wrong with the idea of off-duty officers using official vehicles, in an official manner, impeding traffic on a public roadway, inconveniencing and delaying people without cause, to further a private contractor's agenda in exchange for compensation. As for your other examples: Why should an off duty officer have the authority to close down a lane on a public road for the convenience of a private company's employees to exit a parking garage in exchange for money? That's granting a special privilege to one group over the rest of the public using that road for a "price". If a church wants to hire off-duty officers to direct traffic in and out of THEIR parking lots, that's fine... but the officer's authority should end where the public road begins. Otherwise, what you have is off duty officers selling their official authority to private groups that don't otherwise have such authority...and I just can't see how that is a good thing.

[gigag04]

Well...all they did as far as I can tell was close down a road and direct people into a parking lot.


The office building next to ours hires "off duty" LEOs to close down a lane and allow their parking garage to empty every evening. Many churches hire "off duty" LEOs to direct traffic in and out of their parking lots...are these detentions?

First, I don't think that everyone involved should be fired...immediately or otherwise...but I do think that the FWPD, and every other LE agency needs to take a long look at their policies regarding what an "off-duty" officer may or may not do. I am truly perplexed that you and Joker don't see anything wrong with the idea of off-duty officers using official vehicles, in an official manner, impeding traffic on a public roadway, inconveniencing and delaying people without cause, to further a private contractor's agenda in exchange for compensation. As for your other examples: Why should an off duty officer have the authority to close down a lane on a public road for the convenience of a private company's employees to exit a parking garage in exchange for money? That's granting a special privilege to one group over the rest of the public using that road for a "price". If a church wants to hire off-duty officers to direct traffic in and out of THEIR parking lots, that's fine... but the officer's authority should end where the public road begins. Otherwise, what you have is off duty officers selling their official authority to private groups that don't otherwise have such authority...and I just can't see how that is a good thing.

Valid points from the outside looking in, but in my experience, "off duty" (notice the quotes I put) is signed up for through the department. I was never free to "sell" my services or otherwise seek out secondary employment.

Also - like it or not, "off duty" LEOs direct traffic on and even close or restrict public streets for private enterprise all time time...garages, churches, sporting events, parades, marathons.

Joker and I are familiar with how these things worksand have a context within which to frame a situation instead of reading hyped up over limited coverage stories and getting all in huff calling for firings, training, and other knee-jerk reactions to actually non-existent problems.

Plenty of poor LEO behavior out there to discuss, but for, this is not part of it.

[Cedar Park Dad]

When are police allowed to route traffic into a location against the traffic's will and intent to take a test?

What if the public refused to do so?

I don't really care if cops get a part time gig stopping traffic for churches or buildings during rush hour. They are not hindering anyone and affecting coercion to do a test.

Again if the Teamsters did it instead would it be ok? Why not?

[Jaguar]

Are random DUI checkpoints legal in Texas? I have never been through one and I thought they were only used during "no refusal weekends" such as July 4th or St. Patrick's Day. I could be wrong here - that is why I'm asking.

This is as close as you can get to a DUI checkpoint without calling it that. Since they used passive sensors on motorist without their concent and who knows what would happen if they detected alcohol, it makes me curious if this is a backdoor DUI checkpoint or just a harmless "you have to pull over, but you don't have to roll down your window" type of event.

[VMI77]

Any other articles on this?


I'm late to the party as all the "govt is out to get me" threads kind of run together so I passed over this one. The original link isn't working, and I haven't seen much else on the story.

I have to give you credit for being a smart guy and absolute master of diversion. You're wasting your talents in the private sector. Your disingenuous "out to get me" phrase is a masterpiece of prestidigitation. You should be writing speeches for The One; I think you could singlehandedly rescue him from the Obamacare debacle.

[talltex]

Valid points from the outside looking in, but in my experience, "off duty" (notice the quotes I put) is signed up for through the department. I was never free to "sell" my services or otherwise seek out secondary employment.

Also - like it or not, "off duty" LEOs direct traffic on and even close or restrict public streets for private enterprise all time time...garages, churches, sporting events, parades, marathons.

Joker and I are familiar with how these things worksand have a context within which to frame a situation instead of reading hyped up over limited coverage stories and getting all in huff calling for firings, training, and other knee-jerk reactions to actually non-existent problems.

I don't disagree with your first statement about how you had to apply to the department to do those types of "off duty" jobs...I think that's the way most departments operate...which brings it right back to what my objection is: off duty officers, using official equipment, exerting official authority over the public, and being personally compensated for doing so by private groups, for those group's own benefit. I'm not talking about police escorting a funeral procession onto a highway, or directing traffic and closing down a street for a planned civic activity such as a parade, or managing the traffic snarl following a NASCAR race or Cowboys game. We all understand the need for those special situations. Those services benefit a large population group. I'm referring to examples that you put forth...a private corporation paying to have a lane shut down on a public roadway to give their employees a special privilege not available to the general public. The same goes for the Churches...they are a also a private business (albeit one with many special privileges already). Should all churches be able to access off duty officers...or just those big enough and rich enough to pay for it? You can sugarcoat it, but it still boils down to paying money to obtain the use of official authority, to benefit someone who doesn't have that authority otherwise. In this particular case, it's a private company, that was awarded an $8,000,000.00 contract by the NHTSA to obtain breath/tissue/blood samples, and they are using some of that money, to hire the FWPD to divert traffic off Beech Street to them...something THEY don't have any authority to do on their own.

[gigag04]

Are random DUI checkpoints legal in Texas? I have never been through one and I thought they were only used during "no refusal weekends" such as July 4th or St. Patrick's Day. I could be wrong here - that is why I'm asking.

This is as close as you can get to a DUI checkpoint without calling it that. Since they used passive sensors on motorist without their concent and who knows what would happen if they detected alcohol, it makes me curious if this is a backdoor DUI checkpoint or just a harmless "you have to pull over, but you don't have to roll down your window" type of event.

I don't see anything saying folks were being investigated for DWI...just that an organization was conducting research. It would be a very different situation if arrests came of it.

Since there was no investigation by LEOs...it is neither a DWI checkpoint, nor a detention, nor a search, or any other violations.

I would say it was probably inconvenient, ill advised, and poorly executed, if you have to label it something to sleep through the night.

[cb1000rider]

Are random DUI checkpoints legal in Texas?

Not currently.

I believe that APD uses some other sort of "checkpoint" to get drivers leaving downtown to speak to them at some high traffic times, but I can't find references to them.. Or I can't come up with the right name. DUI checkpoints are not legal, although there is constant legislation around their status in Texas. It may be some sort of "roll down your window" to pass traffic control, but again, I can't find the right name or policy, whatever that is worth.

[gigag04]

You can sugarcoat it, but it still boils down to paying money to obtain the use of official authority, to benefit someone who doesn't have that authority otherwise. In this particular case, it's a private company, that was awarded an $8,000,000.00 contract by the NHTSA to obtain breath/tissue/blood samples, and they are using some of that money, to hire the FWPD to divert traffic off Beech Street to them...something THEY don't have any authority to do on their own.

I see no difference between my family hiring a funeral home which in turn hires police escorts (done off duty, with official vehicles) or a business hiring the same folks to clear a garage. Not sure where the sugarcoating was spotted...so...meh...

But please understand...you are making a mountain of a mole hill here. Stomping around the keyboard, dissecting my comments, and typing in all caps, may serve to make you feel better but it doesn't change the situation that this is not a big deal in scheme of things.

[Jaguar]

Are random DUI checkpoints legal in Texas? I have never been through one and I thought they were only used during "no refusal weekends" such as July 4th or St. Patrick's Day. I could be wrong here - that is why I'm asking.

This is as close as you can get to a DUI checkpoint without calling it that. Since they used passive sensors on motorist without their concent and who knows what would happen if they detected alcohol, it makes me curious if this is a backdoor DUI checkpoint or just a harmless "you have to pull over, but you don't have to roll down your window" type of event.

I don't see anything saying folks were being investigated for DWI...just that an organization was conducting research. It would be a very different situation if arrests came of it.

Since there was no investigation by LEOs...it is neither a DWI checkpoint, nor a detention, nor a search, or any other violations.

I would say it was probably inconvenient, ill advised, and poorly executed, if you have to label it something to sleep through the night.

Thank you for the answer CB1000.

The other question would be, what would have happened had they detected alcohol with their passive sensor, or convinced someone who had been drinking to blow?

All in all, I have other things that keep me up at night, this isn't one.

[cb1000rider]

The other question would be, what would have happened had they detected alcohol with their passive sensor, or convinced someone who had been drinking to blow?

That's my question too.. As soon as a "voluntary" stop leads to an arrest, you've taken me from being suspicious to being sure that they are doing the wrong thing. I'm with you guys - on the grand scale of getting bent out of shape for an action of law enforcement, this one is pretty low on my list...

[mojo84]

This would bother me much less if they weren't doing the testing and taking samples of body fluids.