Texas Police Set Up Checkpoints To Collect Blood And Saliva From 'Volunteers'
from the all-completely-voluntary,-if-you-don't-mind-playing-20-questions-with-a-cop dept
Remember that American ideal of being able to travel freely within the country without being detained or questioned by government officials? Well, the inland creep of CBP (a.k.a. border patrol) checkpoints has made traveling within certain US states without being asked about your citizenship a thing of the past. The installation of TSA agents in every airport means producing identification repeatedly and possibly enduring an awkward conversation with a Behavioral Detection Officer as he or she performs a mental coin flip.
Now, thanks to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, citizens can't even travel across a single city without being routed off the road and asked (nicely) to cough up a little DNA.
The Fort Worth Police Department (FWPD) installed the roadblock north of the city during daytime traffic. They flagged down some motorists at random and asked them to give breath, saliva, and blood samples. The FWPD claims the effort was "100 percent voluntary" and anonymous.The problem is, some drivers didn't get the impression this DNA sampling was voluntary.
It acknowledges that most of the drivers had broken no law, but it said the effort was valuable to federal contractors working to complete a 3 year, $7.9M USD survey on behalf of the The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) aimed at collecting medical data for use in combating drunk driving.
Kim Cope contacted KXAS after she was pulled over because she said it “just doesn’t seem right that you can be forced off the road when you’re not doing anything wrong.”When cops flag you down and route you toward a detainment area (like a parking spot), while using smiles and using words like "please," it still often seems to citizens like they have no choice but to comply. They do have a choice, but the cops aren't going to let them know that.
But Cope questioned how it could be voluntary if uniformed officers forced her off the road.
“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 recalled. “They were asking for cheek swabs… They would give $10 for that. Also, if you let them take your blood, they would pay you $50 for that.”
The contractors also wanted to test her breath for the presence of alcohol, but weren’t willing to pay anything for it.
“I finally did the Breathalyzer test just because I thought that would be the easiest way to leave,” she explained.
Obviously, if officers are going to pay you for a blood sample or cheek swab, then the "detainment" is obviously voluntary. Cops normally don't pay citizens for DNA they collect. But Cope's experience shows that even voluntary "surveys" seem mandatory when officers make every effort to conceal the voluntary aspects of the stop until after the citizen has already complied. These officers could have placed a sign up front stating it was a NHTSA survey and that volunteers would be paid, but that probably would have resulted in a whole lot of citizens deciding $10 or $50 just wasn't worth the hassle.
Worse yet is the fact that even if you opted out of everything including the unpaid breathalyzer test, the Ft. Worth police department was still performing one check without securing permission from any drivers.
Apparently on the consent form that officers gave "voluntary" participants, fine print informed the driver that [the police had taken] "passive alcohol sensor readings before the consent process has been completed."The NHTSA defended these non-stops by stating everything was "voluntary" and that law enforcement officers were only on hand for "safety" reasons. But the passive alcohol test wasn't voluntary. And the officers never bothered to point out stopping was voluntary until after the test subjects had actually stopped.
It's unclear whether drivers could ask for that data to be deleted if they didn't want it to be collected, but what is clear is that most drivers did not notice the fine print or were unable to read it. As a result what the FWPD claimed was a "voluntary" scientific study became what appears to be an involuntary search of citizens who were breaking no law.
DailyTech points out the NHTSA has done this sort of testing four other times since 1973, with the last one being in 2007. But none of those utilized passive alcohol sensors to gather additional "data" without the volunteers' approval.
The Ft. Worth Police Department issued this non-apology to irritated Texans.
We apologize if any of our drivers and citizens were offended or inconvenienced by the NHTSA National Roadside Survey.Sorry, but that's all wrong. The correct phrasing is:
We apologize for the offensive and inconvenient "survey" we participated in.Something addressing the passive alcohol testing would have been nice to see as well.
Beyond the problematic tactics deployed and the intrusiveness of the "survey" (which is in no way mitigated by the NHTSA's offer to pay people for their bodily fluids) is the fact that voluntary stops are frequently portrayed by law enforcement officers as obligatory.
Even if you ignore all the cop talk that's deployed ("please," "could you do me a favor?" "would you mind…") to steer people towards compliance while still giving LEOs an out when it comes to accusations of wrongful detainment ("they were always free to go"), you still have a power imbalance that instantly creates a deferential attitude in most citizens. Even if one believes they are well within their rights to drive through a "voluntary" checkpoint, they often realize compliance is the path of least resistance. Why put yourself on a cop's "radar" when you can simply blow into a tube and be on your way?
This is how rights disappear. It doesn't take audacious actions to destroy civil liberties. All it takes is a small amount of force, applied frequently and repeatedly.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And I wouldn't trust the police to keep samples of my DNA anonymous, seeing as you know, they have other obvious purposes for DNA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No I don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It sounds like they should have got a proper survey team in to do this and not the police
That is the extent of the police involvement. To flag down motorists, as they have the authority to do so. The surveyors would not.
The surveyors identify themselves and what they are doing and state that the survey is voluntary and confidential. Mostly it's just questions but occasionally alcohol/breath analysis.
It sounds like they should have got a proper survey team in to do and not the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It sounds like they should have got a proper survey team in to do this and not the police
No - It sounds like they should not be doing this at all.
Overlooking for a moment the obvious intrusions by and arrogant behavior of the "authorities", one might consider that with all the ridiculous austerity measures being forced upon us and their detrimental consequences, how does one justify these expenditures? This is simply a slap in the face - why? - because they can.
The obvious intrusions by and arrogant behavior of the "authorities" should be dealt with immediately in court. I hope some of these victims seek legal council.
The people behind this are a disgrace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It sounds like they should have got a proper survey team in to do this and not the police
Anybody can flag down motorists. What wrong with having someone hold a sign saying "$$$ for participating in our survey, this way"?
The only reason to have the cops there is to force people to pull over for their "voluntary" survey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It sounds like they should have got a proper survey team in to do this and not the police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing of course.
It's just another of the "I hate cops" stories Tim Cushing searches for all day long on the web instead of getting a real job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lets see - DNA sample ahhhh yeah - not highly technical at all. In fact, it has been common practice for centuries.
Sheeesh - amirite?
Seems your post is just another I hate the "I hate the cops posts" post.
And after all the stories one reads (I assume you are aware of current events) how can one not be at least a bit concerned about the behavior of the cops in these numerous stories? Just an anomaly you say? Nothing to worry about you say? Uh-huh, and I'll bet you have a bridge to sell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I've never seen an "I hate the cops" post here. I have seen several "I hate it when the cops abuse their authority" posts (like this one) here, though. Two different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tim picks up one that shows a trend in encroaching on our freedoms. But, if you would bother to search, you would know that there are hundreds of other mainstream articles about individual cops raping, killing, assaulting, lying under oath, destroying evidence, killing dogs, bullying and assorted other crimes against civilians. Tim misses all of those, contrary to your asinine assertion.
You may not be using your freedoms, but I like being able to drive my car wherever I want and not have to stop and provide DNA to random people.
In case you've never read the techdirt blog before, it's about more than 'tech'. It also has opinions and trends related to privacy, intellectual property, politics and various other themes.
So if your one track focus is 'tech', you really should not open this site again. Go find a blog or site that tells you the latest about 'tech', or better yet, go find a blog that tells you exactly what you already believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shocking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shocking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shocking
"federal contractors working to complete a 3 year, $7.9M USD survey on behalf of the The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)"
and the woman who complained to the press stated
"The contractors also wanted to test her breath for the presence of alcohol, but weren�t willing to pay anything for it."
So, it seems the cops just forced you off the road into a parking lot of some sort where they would hand off to the "contractors".
Which begs to ask the question of over-site on these "contractors".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shocking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$50?!? I'm in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
U.S.
There's a problem with the rule of law as those who use the law to rule consistently and constantly better their hands and methodically apply those hands to "improve" their rule.
"Your DNA and a breathalyzer, please." ...? And that's not a police state how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everything is bigger in Texas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People are conditioned for "Implied Consent"
So when the police pull you over and insist you have to take a breathalyzer test, does a reasonable person feel free to refuse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People are conditioned for "Implied Consent"
Police should not be able to pull over cars without a better reason than "someone wants to conduct a survey". To make matters worse, the officers were off duty, yet still in uniform. There's only one reason to wear the uniform - it's because drivers will obey a uniformed officer, because ordinarily they HAVE to. This action is borderline "impersonating an officer" territory - they're impersonating an on-duty officer to get people to comply.
I would also question the validity of any such survey. They're likely to get enough refusals that the data they collect won't have reasonable accuracy. They won't know how many people saw the checkpoint in advance or knew about it, and avoided it. Furthermore, the NTSB is conducting this survey because they want evidence to justify stricter drunk driving laws. Everyone knows that you should not trust a survey given by an organization that wants a specific outcome.
And what on EARTH are they collecting DNA for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'This is how rights disappear.'
is this only just dawning on people? wake up and smell the coffee, people! bit by bit, there is more being taken from us on a daily basis! but remember, it's all in the name of catching those naughty terrorists, so no problem! i am wondering though, after everything that took centuries to put in place and all our rights have been removed, and think back that this started via Hollywood and the USA entertainment industries abject disapproval of joining the 21st century and desire to be able to track everyones on-line website movements and the governments pathetic excuses of stopping terrorism, what is going to be achieved for society in general and what will be used as the excuse to take anything left? surely, all that will be are our lives? with us gone, even the ones left, the ones that are forcing all this on to us, the megalomaniacs, will have no one to rule!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
are wait there is more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How did this happen? Who's to blame?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
are wait there is more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Substitute 'people' with 'prisoner' and you've got a prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that's how you get the Grand Canyon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the bigger point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless you know your rights with 100% certainty -- and are willing to fight for them -- the best choice is always to do whatever the cop asks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Don't ever expect a yes or no answer - you simply won't get one. There are videos on YouTube showing cops exploding in anger whenever either of those questions is asked (which must be done repeatedly if they expect to get a response)
You might as well wear a sign that says, "yes, I'm one of those cop-hating anarchists (or worse)" because that's how it will be interpreted.
Since the police risk their lives every day to keep all of us safe, the very least you can to is show some appreciation and cooperate with them. Refuse? Then what crimes are you hiding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then you state that since you haven't been detained, you're leaving now, and good day to you, sir. The cop will then make your status clear.
Most of the YouTube videos I've seen of cops exploding in anger over this sort of thing involves the citizen acting like an asshole while asserting his rights. That doesn't mean I think it's OK for the cop to lose his cool, however it's unnecessarily provoking to act like a jerk in the first place. Often, cops will respond just fine to people asserting their rights in a polite, friendly fashion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But assholery in itself is not against the law, and if cops can't restrain themselves from responding to bull-baiting tactics (something most of us learned in elementary school, i.e., "sticks and stones ...") then they're in the wrong line of work. They're supposed to conduct themselves like professionals, not act like street thugs. I'd be surprised if it's not part of standard police training.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Odle is a corrupt thieving pig bastard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Did you really just write that? Is this just flame bait, or do you actually believe anyone not interested in doing whatever a cop asks of them for any or no reason is a criminal? It's exactly that attitude on the part of police (anyone who doesn't roll over for me must be guilty of something) that causes a lot of the bad feeling toward police in this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the main reason why radio call-in and magazine mail-in "surveys" are essentially meaningless, since the people who respond typically represent only a small subset of the population: those who yearn to express their opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact, my state (CT) has basically criminalized non-compliance. Connecticut Statute 53a-167a says that a person is guilty of obstruction when they "resist" a police officer. Elsewhere on the net, in a published set of jury instructions, it specifically says that such resistance does not need to include any kind of physical force for a person to be guilty of obstruction. Simply refusing to show your ID to a cop, even when not suspected of a crime, is now considered a crime under the obstruction law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Texas DNA traffic stop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a test to see how far they can push civil liberties
"We're sorry everyone is irritated, but every few years we need to push the boundaries of reasonable search and seizure and people's civil liberties to see who would push back against this policy. The test was a success: we found that people don't like to be passively searched. We'll adjust our technique and try again in a few more years. Again, thank you for your voluntary, but coerced, participation."
And as is always the case in situations like this, people are well within their rights to leave, but who's going to argue with someone with a gun and power of arrest? As soon as you leave, the cop could decide to charge you with speeding away, reckless driving, endangering people, or anything else.
Or he might be having a bad day (or resent that he's been assigned to this duty) and he's going to liven up his day by handing out tickets to anyone who doesn't listen to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
corrections and clarifications
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811237.pdf
There are a couple of errors in the articles linked to here.
The study is not analyzing DNA. I think there was an assumption when people heard there was a cheek swab used that they were collecting cells for DNA analysis. This is incorrect. The swab was used for collecting saliva and had to be in your mouth for 3-5 minutes which is not the same procedure, used for collecting DNA, wherein a swab is used to scrape cells from the inside of your cheek. The saliva undergoes testing in a lab for presence of a bunch of different classes of drugs.
The DailyTech article claims that the use of a Passive Alcohol Sensor (PAS) before getting consent was a new tactic not used in previous studies. This is incorrect as this was done, at least, in the 2007 study as well. I have participated in numerous studies in my life and have read many study protocols and signed many consent forms. I am bothered by this involuntary collection of data. It may be this violates some government mandated protocol for human research subjects. I am not sure about that though. One place to look is here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/11.116
which discusses the general requirements for informed consent.
The purpose for collecting PAS data at this stage is to try to characterize the population of those refusing to participate to gain insight as to how this skew to random sampling affects the overall statistics.
The PAS device, at least in 2007, was a small device that was velcro'd to the PDA which was held a few inches away as the interviewers asked initial questions. It collected your breath as you answered. You could simply talk away from their PDA to avoid being sampled.
If your breath test showed that your BAC was in excess of .08 then they made sure you got "home safely", apparently, without having you reported to the police and arrested unless you refused their help.
Interesting note for gamblers: They offered a subset of those who refused the study an additional $100 if they would reconsider. I think this subset was around 15% of refusals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Texas, for all it's right wing sloganeering, is a hot bed of fascistic impulses where the govt. effectively runs roughshod ("'cause we're Texans!") over the citizens. This is well documented in books like "The death of democracy in Texas" (title approximate, can't recall).
This is something Texas would do and Texans would blindly support, cause' hey, Freedom and "we're number 1", plus, guns!
"Cogntive dissonance? We don't permit any of them thar fancy pants Eastern Establishment idears 'round here, boy"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"While the interviewer conducted the verbal informed consent process (see below) for the interview, a PAS reading was taken on all subjects, prior to their consent or refusal of the survey. Because this measure was taken passively prior to informed consent, it was deemed to be acceptable under human subjects guidelines (analogous to observing or smelling)."
I disagree with this rational. The collection of data may be passive, but use of a PAS is much more than just smelling alcohol on someone's breath. you could argue that an Xray was also passive if the device was portable and aimed through the car. After all it is just a different frequency from visible light used to make "observations". A machine that can quantify your physiological state should require consent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When people with guns "ask", you aren't free to go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]