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.
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.
VM this comment has absolutely nothing to do with the thread and is a total and complete attack on the person posting, which I believe is a violation of the rules here.
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.
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.
VM this comment has absolutely nothing to do with the thread and is a total and complete attack on the person posting, which I believe is a violation of the rules here.
Ease up, guys. Rather than belittle each other, let's ponder how it feels to be "stoped". Does it hurt or what, anybody?
Yeah, if I was stopped it would hurt, hurt a lot. I wasn't stopped and it is still hurting.
It feels a lot like when I found out the Gulf of Tonkin didn't happen, or when Pete Rose was caught gambling on baseball, or when I found out Clinton did unspeakable things to a female intern in the Oval Office.
Oldgringo wrote:Ease up, guys. Rather than belittle each other, let's ponder how it feels to be "stoped". Does it hurt or what, anybody?
Once again, the Oldgringo proves to be a master of the obvious...what are we all debating about? I checked in the penal code and "stoping" isn't even a misdemeanor! (and it only took 7 pages)
"I looked out under the sun and saw that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" Ecclesiastes 9:11
"The race may not always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets" Damon Runyon
gigag04 wrote:
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.
Agreed actually. All these items are private compensation for a public power.
Oldgringo wrote:Ease up, guys. Rather than belittle each other, let's ponder how it feels to be "stoped". Does it hurt or what, anybody?
Once again, the Oldgringo proves to be a master of the obvious...what are we all debating about? I checked in the penal code and "stoping" isn't even a misdemeanor! (and it only took 7 pages)
Hmmm... This gives me an idea! I want to hire a few off-duty McKinney cops to redirect traffic into a parking lot where I'll ask the drivers to volunteer to listen to a sales pitch for my CHL classes. Should be OK, right?
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target." Never Forget.
sjfcontrol wrote:Hmmm... This gives me an idea! I want to hire a few off-duty McKinney cops to redirect traffic into a parking lot where I'll ask the drivers to volunteer to listen to a sales pitch for my CHL classes. Should be OK, right?
I thought about that possibilty also...have traffic pulled into my parking lot so the salespeople could interview them about any purchase plans they were considering...probably be alot cheaper than direct mail, billboards and tv/radio spots...and more effective!
"I looked out under the sun and saw that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" Ecclesiastes 9:11
"The race may not always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets" Damon Runyon
So how does one respond when you ask the officer what is you PC for detaining me? And he goes its. Dwi or something type of stop?i would try to excessive my rights but there are so many ways to trample our rights, I'm hesitant to speak with confidence.
Application, Fingerprints & CHL class done by 1-12-13
All documents mailed USPS 1-16-13
All Documents Received, background check under review 2-1-13
Background check complete 2/15
TREKFAN wrote:So how does one respond when you ask the officer what is you PC for detaining me? And he goes its. Dwi or something type of stop?i would try to excessive my rights but there are so many ways to trample our rights, I'm hesitant to speak with confidence.
It's RS for a stop and PC for an arrest and they don't have to tell you either. If they ask you questions you say you don't want to answer and ask if you are free to go. They should either say yes or no. If they say no then consider yourself detained and act accordingly. Here you would of been flagged over and a civiliam, not a cop, would ask questions like "Can we give you $10 for a saliva sample". If you said no then you should just be free to go on your way.
aside from the LEO's, I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on that issue.
isn't there concern though that even if you just speak to them they are using that device to take a "passive" breath test? don't get me wrong, it's never going to test positive on me, I just find it invasive and flat out deceiving.
~Tracy
Gun control is what you talk about when you don't want to talk about the truth ~ Colion Noir
SewTexas wrote:aside from the LEO's, I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on that issue.
isn't there concern though that even if you just speak to them they are using that device to take a "passive" breath test? don't get me wrong, it's never going to test positive on me, I just find it invasive and flat out deceiving.
I thought about that possibilty also...have traffic pulled into my parking lot so the salespeople could interview them about any purchase plans they were considering...probably be alot cheaper than direct mail, billboards and tv/radio spots...and more effective!
