North Texas motorists stoped by Feds to take DNA and blood

[sjfcontrol]

“'I agree with our citizens concerns and I apologize for our participation. Any future Federal survey of this nature, which jeopardizes the public’s trust, will not be approved for the use of Fort Worth police.'

Chief Jeffrey Halstead

It appears as if they won't be doing this kind of thing again.

I heard this on the radio today and this was the first link I found about it.
http://m.amarillo.com/blog-post/ricky-t ... bmit-blood" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Too little, too late. IMHO.

[mojo84]

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.

Interesting you make such a comment with all that is going on. Do you not see the assault on our Liberty that is under way?

[Redneck_Buddha]

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.

Interesting you make such a comment with all that is going on. Do you not see the assault on our Liberty that is under way?

Time to "wakey wakey" for sure.

[powerboatr]

From the horsesnhtsa surveys blood testsmouth.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/rese ... Admin.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



You can Google "nhtsa surveys blood tests" to see other articles and more info on where these "surveys" were taken.

i could not find the appendixes, primarily the I REFUSE CONSENT form
sounds like a detailed setup
pretty sure I would said NO

[Cedar Park Dad]

It's not a LEO thing, it was setup by the Feds. LEOs are hired (off duty) to enforce things that private parties want.. Think about it the next time you see enforcement of 30.06 at your City owned facility gun show. They were asked to do a job and they were doing it... Should they know better? Maybe. I don't blame the LEOs..

Private parties (even if they're are using off duty police officers) do not have the right to force drivers off a public highway to conduct a voluntary survey. The officers abused their power and should be dealt with accordingly.

Agreed.

[RoyGBiv]

Each time I read this thread my hands start sweating and I can feel my BP rising.

[Cedar Park Dad]

It's not a LEO thing, it was setup by the Feds. LEOs are hired (off duty) to enforce things that private parties want.. Think about it the next time you see enforcement of 30.06 at your City owned facility gun show. They were asked to do a job and they were doing it... Should they know better? Maybe. I don't blame the LEOs..

I do blamne the LEOs. They knew what they were doing was wrong, if those were the facts.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Something I didn’t know about – the “passive alcohol sensor.” So now instead of relying on the officer’s nose to smell alcohol, the police have a device that looks and operates like a flashlight but also detects trace amounts of alcohol on breath without a subject’s direct participation. A positive reading would be probable cause upon which to detain, question, and perform further tests on a subject.

Learn something new every day. No wonder cops on some YouTube videos get really angry when someone refuses to roll down the window more than just a few inches – not enough “indirect participation” going on.

That screams illegal search.

[Cedar Park Dad]

They make it sound so sweet and innocent. It may be, but the folks stopped at the recent one in FW said it sure didn't seem voluntary. Maybe that part wasn't explained very well or at all. Also, I don't remember hearing about any of the others This one in FW hit the national news.

If the LEO's have lights flashing on me, there's absolutely nothing voluntary about it.

[talltex]

They make it sound so sweet and innocent. It may be, but the folks stopped at the recent one in FW said it sure didn't seem voluntary. Maybe that part wasn't explained very well or at all. Also, I don't remember hearing about any of the others This one in FW hit the national news.

If the LEO's have lights flashing on me, there's absolutely nothing voluntary about it.

Exactly! I read the methodology for how the random drivers were "selected" to participate: once the roadblock was in place, the third vehicle to approach was diverted into the survey area...after that, each time one of the "contractors" finished with a driver they indicated it to the officers and the next vehicle approaching was diverted each time. As the woman in the video stated, "it sure didn't seem voluntary"...and when she wanted to continue down Beech street without being diverted, she was still directed into the parking lot and a parking space, where she was "interviewed" anyway. That would be a different definition of "voluntary" than I'm aware of.

[sjfcontrol]

They make it sound so sweet and innocent. It may be, but the folks stopped at the recent one in FW said it sure didn't seem voluntary. Maybe that part wasn't explained very well or at all. Also, I don't remember hearing about any of the others This one in FW hit the national news.

If the LEO's have lights flashing on me, there's absolutely nothing voluntary about it.

Exactly! I read the methodology for how the random drivers were "selected" to participate: once the roadblock was in place, the third vehicle to approach was diverted into the survey area...after that, each time one of the "contractors" finished with a driver they indicated it to the officers and the next vehicle approaching was diverted each time. As the woman in the video stated, "it sure didn't seem voluntary"...and when she wanted to continue down Beech street without being diverted, she was still directed into the parking lot and a parking space, where she was "interviewed" anyway. That would be a different definition of "voluntary" than I'm aware of.

About as "voluntary" as our tax system.

[E.Marquez]

Exactly! I read the methodology for how the random drivers were "selected" to participate: once the roadblock was in place, the third vehicle to approach was diverted into the survey area...after that, each time one of the "contractors" finished with a driver they indicated it to the officers and the next vehicle approaching was diverted each time. As the woman in the video stated, "it sure didn't seem voluntary"...and when she wanted to continue down Beech street without being diverted, she was still directed into the parking lot and a parking space, where she was "interviewed" anyway. That would be a different definition of "voluntary" than I'm aware of.

Agreed, hence the earlier comment made of "abet poorly conducted"

Use of LEOs to "direct" makes it not voluntary.

If the contractors had walked up to folks as they drove in to the local mall parking lot..and asked if they wanted to participate for compilation.. THAT would be voluntary... I would have still said no, as would many others.. but it would have been an informed choice of free will... not an implied requirement to obey an officers directions.

The fault lays at the operation directors feet for this one.... the local LEOs did them self no favors in participating.. but what we do not know is how the "survey" was presented to them. // For all we know, contractors motivated my money (no surveys taken, no money paid) may have implied or outright stated to the officers the method was approved by the department, or home land Security, or the POTUS.. or......... The officer being approached may not have realized they were being duped.. Or maybe bey they did and did not care.. All I know it the process was wrong, and LEOS helped.. I don't know how they came to be involved or what was told to them to get there involvement.

[talltex]

Exactly! I read the methodology for how the random drivers were "selected" to participate: once the roadblock was in place, the third vehicle to approach was diverted into the survey area...after that, each time one of the "contractors" finished with a driver they indicated it to the officers and the next vehicle approaching was diverted each time. As the woman in the video stated, "it sure didn't seem voluntary"...and when she wanted to continue down Beech street without being diverted, she was still directed into the parking lot and a parking space, where she was "interviewed" anyway. That would be a different definition of "voluntary" than I'm aware of.

Agreed, hence the earlier comment made of "abet poorly conducted"

Use of LEOs to "direct" makes it not voluntary.

If the contractors had walked up to folks as they drove in to the local mall parking lot..and asked if they wanted to participate for compilation.. THAT would be voluntary... I would have still said no, as would many others.. but it would have been an informed choice of free will... not an implied requirement to obey an officers directions.

The fault lays at the operation directors feet for this one.... the local LEOs did them self no favors in participating.. but what we do not know is how the "survey" was presented to them. // For all we know, contractors motivated my money (no surveys taken, no money paid) may have implied or outright stated to the officers the method was approved by the department, or home land Security, or the POTUS.. or......... The officer being approached may not have realized they were being duped.. Or maybe bey they did and did not care.. All I know it the process was wrong, and LEOS helped.. I don't know how they came to be involved or what was told to them to get there involvement.

In the link to the NHTSA site in Mojo's post on page 3, the proposal from the Contractor to the NHSTA for the project, presents exactly how they plan to conduct it, including using off-duty police officers to divert participants to them in an adjacent parking lot to be used for the survey...even has diagrams showing diversion points, parking spaces, etc...and includes the info about the "passive alcohol detection devices" to be used on approach to the participant. In this case, according to the FWPD statement, they apparently just contacted the Traffic Division and requested off-duty officers to assist and divert traffic as well as "protecting the cash on hand". Evidently, someone there just figured it was another way for the off-duty guys to make some extra money, and never considered the effect on the "citizens".

[n5wd]

... In this case, according to the FWPD statement, they apparently just contacted the Traffic Division and requested off-duty officers to assist and divert traffic as well as "protecting the cash on hand". Evidently, someone there just figured it was another way for the off-duty guys to make some extra money, and never considered the effect on the "citizens".

Probably not, or someone's liable to get fired. FWPD's had trouble with off-duty jobs conflicting with public perception and an officer's duty, so several years ago the department set up a policy where an administrator (IIRC it's a Captain or an LT downtown) has to approve all off-duty jobs where the officer will be in uniform except for OT related to federal grants, like the STEP program. If it was approved through that boss, he's probably been to the chief's office to receive his 'counseling' already. If it wasn't approved, then someone in Traffic's probably using one of the inflatable rings to sit on.

[suthdj]

So which business allowed their parking lot to be used for this?