New NHTSA Attacks on 4th Amendment

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/No...adblock-Asked-for-Saliva-Blood-232438621.html

This report is out of Ft. Worth, where local police were cooperating with NHTSA in setting up roadblocks, where law-abiding drivers were forced into detainment areas for the purposes of obtaining DNA, blood and breathalyzer values.

FUQ:


Once detained, the drivers were asked to voluntarily submit to DNA swabbing, blood sampling and breathalyzer testing in order to collect data for the NHTSA study. Payment was offered for participation. While categorized as voluntary, the drivers were given no option to detainment, however temporarily, while the request for participation was explained to them. Apparently, during the discussion, the drivers breath was being passively analyzed for alcohol content. What's really bothersome is the participation by local law enforcement who are interfering with the driving public's right of unhindered travel in order to facilitate a government data collection program.

Although this report came from Ft. Worth, NHTSA sources indicate that this program is being executed in 30 U.S. cities.

I read that story and recall that the top cop said none of his on-duty cops worked that. He said he would investigate.

OC for ME said:

I read that story and recall that the top cop said none of his on-duty cops worked that. He said he would investigate.

Click to expand...

The article has been updated to show that off-duty officers were used to detain drivers.

JamesCanby said:

The article has been updated to show that off-duty officers were used to detain drivers.

Click to expand...

I would use the term "kidnap" but people are such sheep ... baa baaa

Of course, OT or a 2nd paycheck for dem der cops ...

JamesCanby said:

The article has been updated to show that off-duty officers were used to detain drivers.

Click to expand...

Misstated. Officers directed cars. There was no detaining.

Nightmare said:

And some SS directed people into the cattle-cars, not the ovens, just following orders.

Click to expand...

Really? You're pathetic to invoke the wartime actions of the SS to this. There was no detaining of people. They didn't have to stop AT ALL. 1 in 6 cars refused the survey or didn't stop.

mikeyb said:

Misstated. Officers directed cars. There was no detaining.

Click to expand...

Legally, you may be correct but in actuality the driver had no recourse but to interrupt her planned route and be shunted into an area where she was given the "opportunity" to participate in the survey. She had indicated to the officer that she desired to proceed straight ahead but he denied her right to proceed. In my book, he was preventing her from her right of free travel in order to meet the needs of NHTSA. While it may not be a legal detainment, their actions certainly detained her from her original route.

Had she been knowledgeable about how to resist such stops, i.e., "Am I being detained? If not, am I free to go?" she might not have been forced into a "holding" area where she was passively tested for indications of alcohol on her breath.

mikeyb said:

Really? You're pathetic to invoke the wartime actions of the SS to this. There was no detaining of people. They didn't have to stop AT ALL. 1 in 6 cars refused the survey or didn't stop.

Click to expand...

According to the article, the driver indicated that she wanted to proceed on her way, but the officer demanded that she alter her course to the inspection area.

JamesCanby said:

Legally, you may be correct but in actuality the driver had no recourse but to interrupt her planned route and be shunted into an area where she was given the "opportunity" to participate in the survey. She had indicated to the officer that she desired to proceed straight ahead but he denied her right to proceed. In my book, he was preventing her from her right of free travel in order to meet the needs of NHTSA. While it may not be a legal detainment, their actions certainly detained her from her original route.

Had she been knowledgeable about how to resist such stops, i.e., "Am I being detained? If not, am I free to go?" she might not have been forced into a "holding" area where she was passively tested for indications of alcohol on her breath.

Click to expand...

Nope, I'd say that you are describing a detention. I believe Terry refers to such a seizure as the person reasonably believing they were not free to go. That would be true no matter how short the stop.

If I had standing, I'd be threatening to sue, hoping for change without the suit, but still willing to bring it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Interesting report, but specifically related to OC or RKBA.