USA Today – by Larry CopelandA tactic used by the federal government to gather information for anti-drunken and drugged driving programs is coming under criticism in cities around the country, and some local police agencies say they will no longer take part.
The tactic involves a subcontractor for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that uses off-duty but uniformed police at voluntary roadside checkpoints where motorists are asked on their behavior behind the wheel. In some cases, workers at the checkpoints collect blood and saliva samples, in addition to breath samples. NHTSA has said previously that the surveys do not collect any DNA. Drivers are not charged at the checkpoints.
In an era of rampant distrust of the federal government and in the wake of the Obama administration’s National Security Agency surveillance scandal in which the agency has collected telephone calling records from millions of unsuspecting Americans, the checkpoints have come under intense criticism in several cities this year.
“Five years ago it would have been a different story,” says St. Charles County, Mo., Sheriff Tom Neer, who recently authorized deputies to participate in a checkpoint in his St. Louis suburb and saw a public backlash. “There’re just such strong anti-government feelings among people. Under the circumstances, I would not allow them to do it again. It’s just because of the perception.”
The NHTSA has conducted the surveys for more than 40 years, in cities across the USA and usually at roughly 10-year intervals. In many cases, off-duty, uniformed police officers randomly wave motorists over; they are then asked by workers for subcontractor Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation if they will participate in the voluntary survey. Drivers who decline are allowed to leave.
However, the mere presence of uniformed officers gives the checkpoints an aura of authority, says Mary Catherine Roper, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. She is studying the issue there after motorists complained about a survey checkpoint last month in Reading.
“We have a whole bunch of rules about when police can pull you over,” she says. “It looks like an exercise of official authority when a cop pulls you over. People assume it’s mandatory, and of course you’re going to stop. That’s a constitutional problem right there.
“Normally, police cannot pull you over unless they have a good reason for thinking you’ve done something wrong,” Roper says. “There’s no exemption to the Constitution for conducting a survey. They’re pulling people off the road.”
She suggests “there are lots of other places you can talk to drivers. You could hand out notes at a toll booth asking them to participate. You could do them at highway rest stops. There are a lot of ways to do this that do not involve … the government forcing you off the road.”
This year’s round of surveys is only the second time that data have been obtained on drug use by drivers.
In an e-mailed statement, NHTSA defended the surveys: “Each year, close to 10,000 people die in drunk driving crashes: 27 people a day, or one person every 53 minutes, according to data (from NHTSA),” the statement says.
“To better understand the issue, the agency has regularly conducted its National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drugged Driving in communities across the country for over 40 years,” according to the statement. “The survey provides useful data about alcohol and drug use by drivers, and participation is completely voluntary and anonymous. More than 60 communities across the country will participate this year, many of which participated in the previous survey in 2007. NHTSA always works closely with state and local safety officials and local law enforcement to conduct these surveys as we work to better inform our efforts to reduce drunk and drugged driving.”
Drivers have reportedly been offered $10 for cheek swabs and $50 for blood.
The checkpoints spurred complaints in November from drivers in the Fort Worth area. Fort Worth Police Chief Jeffrey Halstead apologized for his officers’ participation on the department’s Facebook page. He added: “Any future Federal survey of this nature, which jeopardizes the public’s trust, will not be approved for the use of Fort Worth police.”
And in June, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, a Republican, said the stops were “bad timing” after drivers complained about checkpoints in St. Clair County and Bibb County, both near Birmingham. State officials investigated and found that motorists didn’t report “undue pressure” to participate, but suggested to Bentley that state police refrain from helping with future studies.
Neer said six of his off-duty, uniformed officers were “duped” into moonlighting at the checkpoints. “Our department coordinator got information from the subcontractor, and came to me,” Neer says. “I approve all overtime compliance with private entities. They wanted to know if we’d provide a couple of deputies just for security.”
At the Dec. 6 and 7 checkpoints, uniformed deputies in marked cruisers flagged down motorists and showed them to a marked area alongside the road where a NHTSA subcontractor asked if they wanted to participate in the survey. Those who declined were allowed to leave, Neer says.
He says he had not expected the deputies to actively participate, but only to provide security.
Pacific Research could not be reached for comment.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/06/government-checkpoints-driving/4265633/
““Five years ago it would have been a different story,” says St. Charles County, Mo., Sheriff Tom Neer, who recently authorized deputies to participate in a checkpoint in his St. Louis suburb and saw a public backlash. “There’re just such strong anti-government feelings among people. Under the circumstances, I would not allow them to do it again. It’s just because of the perception.””
Wow, sheriff. You just completely and openly admitted to committing an act that clearly violates the constitution that you took an oath to uphold. You, sir will hang for treason!
“She suggests “there are lots of other places you can talk to drivers. You could hand out notes at a toll booth asking them to participate. You could do them at highway rest stops. There are a lot of ways to do this that do not involve … the government forcing you off the road.””
But that’s the idea, girl. They want to force you off the road and they want you to feel that they are in control and have authority over you. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be doing it. That’s the whole idea of a government run police state. DUH!!!
“At the Dec. 6 and 7 checkpoints, uniformed deputies in marked cruisers flagged down motorists and showed them to a marked area alongside the road where a NHTSA subcontractor asked if they wanted to participate in the survey. Those who declined were allowed to leave, Neer says.
He says he had not expected the deputies to actively participate, but only to provide security.”
Yeaaa……..I finally that completely hard to believe in this day in age. More like they were strung in handcuffs, thrown into the back of the squad car, taken to the nearest hospital, strapped to the chair and having their blood forcibly removed from their body. But that’s just me as I stopped believing in fairy tales a long time ago.
I’m trying not to scream, police think the public is anti-govt. so they’re going to stop illegal DNA swab checkpoints! Did I miss where police took an oath to uphold the constitution?
Off-duty, uniformed police officers randomly wave motorists over; they are then asked by workers for subcontractor Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation if they will participate in the voluntary survey. Drivers who decline are allowed to leave. (Total B/S motorists shouldn’t be stopped in the first place and how many people will feel it’s obligatory when uniformed police are present?)
PA – A lawsuit filed by Ricardo Nieves:
“Nieves reasonably believed under the totality of the circumstances that he was being stopped by the Reading Police Department because of the flashing lights of the police car on the street, the fluorescent orange cones on the street and in the parking lot, and the presence of a police car in the parking lot that was occupied by a police officer,” he says in the complaint.
“Under Reading’s Stop-and-Swab Policy, motorists are apparently not even stopped for the purpose of determining whether they are engaged in criminal activity, but rather for the purpose of gleaning information about their long-term driving habits,” Martin wrote in a brief to the court. “If such a purpose can justify a suspicionless stop, one wonders what other survey subjects the city of Reading asserts are sufficiently compelling to justify the random stopping of vehicles. Inquiries into religious preferences? Television viewing habits? Sports team support?”
Senator Dan Coats last month called on NHTSA to pull the plug on the program pending congressional hearings into the matter.
“I am extremely concerned that NHTSA is using federal dollars to both hire local uniformed police and conduct a checkpoint where DNA samples are taken through coercion from drivers stopped without probable cause,” Coats wrote in a letter to NHTSA’s administrator. “Since these checkpoints are being conducted through NHTSA, I urge you to immediately halt this program until it can be fully reviewed by Congress.”