What the hell is going on?

[Marc.Knight]

Pa. town latest to force drivers over and ask for cheek swabs for federal study

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/18/pa-town-latest-to-force-drivers-over-and-ask-for-cheek-swabs-for-federal-study/

[FightTheFuture]

Pa. town latest to force drivers over and ask for cheek swabs for federal study

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/18/pa-town-latest-to-force-drivers-over-and-ask-for-cheek-swabs-for-federal-study/

The X Files covered this 15 years ago. try to keep up :

[Yorkshire pud]

Well on the face of it, a survey is being conducted, and the police (I'm guessing) point and indicate random vehicles to pull over and then the ones doing the survey ask the occupants if they would like to participate. Reading the link it says it isn't compulsory. But as it's Fox, it will have the usual  slant anyway. (Pesky liberal media). Don't they employ a woman who said Jesus was white? Hmmm.  :


Here; At this time of year, especially in the rush hour in the morning, the police in some cities block off entire lanes of a dual carriageway and one copper watches the cars filtering in quarter of a mile away. The ones who look a bit shaky or unsure get pulled into the coned off lane and breathalised. The hit rate apparently is pretty high, which is pretty awful considering it's the morning after the night before. I don't have a problem with that, because it means one less drunk driver on the road.

[Marc.Knight]

The X Files covered this 15 years ago. try to keep up :

I knew it.  Cancer man's tobacco stained finger prints are all over this.

[b_dubb]

The beginning of a police state

wait?! the BEGINNING?!!! we've had 40 years of War on Drugs and you say this is a BEGINNING? the US has the highest percentage of population stuffed into prisons.  we've been a police state for a long fucking time. 

[Little Hater]

I don't have a problem with that, because it means one less drunk driver on the road.

I apologise for not knowing if the UK has something similar to our Fourth Amendment. If so, I'm surprised you don't fear its violation more than some random drunk driver.

Thankfully, random police check lanes for any reason were declared unconstitutional by the Michigan Supreme Court 20+ years ago. It's a mystery to me why the courts of other states haven't done the same.

[aldousburbank]

wait?! the BEGINNING?!!! we've had 40 years of War on Drugs and you say this is a BEGINNING? the US has the highest percentage of population stuffed into prisons.  we've been a police state for a long fucking time.

I wants to have coffee witch you.

[b_dubb]

I wants to have coffee witch you.

bring the kind bud. i'll bring the french press and the fair trade guatemalan

[bateman]

Well on the face of it, a survey is being conducted, and the police (I'm guessing) point and indicate random vehicles to pull over and then the ones doing the survey ask the occupants if they would like to participate. Reading the link it says it isn't compulsory. But as it's Fox, it will have the usual  slant anyway. (Pesky liberal media). Don't they employ a woman who said Jesus was white? Hmmm.  :


Here; At this time of year, especially in the rush hour in the morning, the police in some cities block off entire lanes of a dual carriageway and one copper watches the cars filtering in quarter of a mile away. The ones who look a bit shaky or unsure get pulled into the coned off lane and breathalised. The hit rate apparently is pretty high, which is pretty awful considering it's the morning after the night before. I don't have a problem with that, because it means one less drunk driver on the road.

Here's the problem with that:

http://readingeagle.com/article/20131217/NEWS/312179910&template=mobileart

The checkpoint was supposed to be voluntary, but Nieves said he had to refuse several times over a five-minute period before the woman taking the survey let him go.

What irked Nieves was the presence of city police. He said they were there - including a police car with flashing lights - to intimidate motorists, and gave the checkpoint an air of authority it would not otherwise have had.

[Marc.Knight]

Here's the problem with that:

http://readingeagle.com/article/20131217/NEWS/312179910&template=mobileart

Obviously the government can do a million things with the DNA collected on those "swabs" as well as the connected IDs.  The reason given to motorists may have even been a lie to cover some other purpose.  Why is simply driving a car giving free license to the government to detain people indiscriminately and intimidate them with police?

[Yorkshire pud]

I apologise for not knowing if the UK has something similar to our Fourth Amendment. If so, I'm surprised you don't fear its violation more than some random drunk driver.

Thankfully, random police check lanes for any reason were declared unconstitutional by the Michigan Supreme Court 20+ years ago. It's a mystery to me why the courts of other states haven't done the same.

I look at it like this: A very dear friend of mine who lives in GA had her husband killed in 94 by a drunk driver outside their home. She'd asked him to go get some milk and he drove out of the drive onto the road, and the drunk came the opposite direction head on, and swerved into her husbands car. She heard the collision from the house and ran out and down the drive. She got to the wreck and tried to get her husband out, but he bled to death in her arms, before the ambulance could get there.

So where was her husbands constitutional right to live? Where was hers to not be a premature widow? I frankly don't give a toss if a 100 drivers get pulled over and they find 10 or 20 drunks amongst them, if it stops one killing people like my friends husband it's worth it.

Over here the police can only pull if they have reason to do so; which is why I said they have a copper watching cars filter into a single lane..if he/she sees any being shaky or any other tell tales they get pulled. They do it that way because they're not allowed random breath testing. There are many people who would like the Swedish model, and that's zero alcohol for driving. The problem with any limit is no two people metabolise alcohol the same, so any units drunk may be over the limit for one, won't be for someone else.

[Gd5150]

I got stuck in one of these checkpoints and it was a huge inconveniance. I refused to swab which made me so late I had to reschedule my appointment for my flu shot. Fortunately I was still able to take care of getting 37 vaccinations and having my rf tracking chip inserted up my genetically modified Optimus Prime.

[bateman]

Wow, missed this earlier:

Checkpoints to collect samples have been set up in 30 cities nationwide

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

what would an attorney tell you to do in this event?
from the willing to the uncomfortable i think most people would submit. in similar positions i found taking a second to think about the request then respectfully decline works just fine. always keep them at ease. don't react to any intimidation. gobs more things the police can do if you get animated. i know, i talk a lot with my hands. 
anywho... with the DNA issue i would refuse to play. unless of course they are going to create my cross-sex clone. 

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

..... and having my rf tracking chip inserted up my genetically modified Optimus Prime.

you know location is optional? right? hmmmm

[Juan]

I always carry one of my old reporter notebooks.  If I'm pulled over, I plan to pull out the notebook, start asking questions, and mention that this sounds like a good news story.  Then ask if I can take some photographs for the story.  I suspect that I will be moved along quickly.

[Little Hater]

So where was her husbands constitutional right to live? Where was hers to not be a premature widow? I frankly don't give a toss if a 100 drivers get pulled over and they find 10 or 20 drunks amongst them, if it stops one killing people like my friends husband it's worth it.

Dunno. Here in the US, those 'rights' aren't mentioned in the Constitution. We also have folks here who don't mind the authorities trampling the constitutional rights of all of us if it 'saves the life of one of my friends'. I pity them for their selfishness and stupidity.

I also apologize for helping drag this thread into the vast wasteland of politics. Mea culpa.

[Yorkshire pud]

Dunno. Here in the US, those 'rights' aren't mentioned in the Constitution. We also have folks here who don't mind the authorities trampling the constitutional rights of all of us if it 'saves the life of one of my friends'. I pity them for their selfishness and stupidity.

That the government might be trampling on your blessed constitution shouldn't be confused with it's shortcomings in not specifically protecting the innocent. It isn't an either/or. Seriously do the rights of someone to kill an innocent person outweigh that innocent persons right to stay alive? And that isn't a problem?

[PB the Deplorable]

That the government might be trampling on your blessed constitution shouldn't be confused with it's shortcomings...

The only shortcomings our founding documents have are that shyster politicians have found ways to undermine them and evade their stated limits. 

I realize you have a certain distain for them, but I hope it's only because you have not read them.  You really should read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they are fairly short and it might clear up some of your questions.



Just for clarity, the following well know phrase appears near the beginning of the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"


The Constitution itself has 2 purposes - the first is to form the Federal government and list it's duties, the second (also know as the Bill of Rights, or the First 10 Amendments) is to state what the limits are to Federal power.   The rest of the Amendments actually amend the original document.   

Laws regarding peoples behavior in society are outside the scope of the document and are supposed to be written by legislatures - which are to represent the will of the people.

[Yorkshire pud]

Laws regarding peoples behavior in society are outside the scope of the document and are supposed to be written by legislatures - which are to represent the will of the people.

So the will of the people would be to not prevent a drunk driver potentially killing someone before they do because it's unconstitutional to stop him or her being randomly stopped; and that's okay with you? I really hope sincerely you don't have to go and identify your nearest and dearest because the shit who killed them wasn't pulled because it was unconstitutional to have random lanes to pull them over. You mention amendments, I think it's one to consider.

[PB the Deplorable]

So the will of the people would be to not prevent a drunk driver potentially killing someone before they do because it's unconstitutional to stop him or her being randomly stopped; and that's okay with you? I really hope sincerely you don't have to go and identify your nearest and dearest because the shit who killed them wasn't pulled because it was unconstitutional to have random lanes to pull them over. You mention amendments, I think it's one to consider.

Well, the police do set up random road blocks in order to catch drunk drivers, and the US Supreme Court has deemed them to be constitutional.   

Now that that's settled, it's up to the various cities and counties to conduct them or not, unless their state prohibits it.

Here in California they have them randomly.  They tell the media when and where ahead of time - not sure why, maybe it's required, or maybe to let potential drunk drivers hearing that decide not to do it in the first place. 

We don't have nearly as many drunk driving deaths as we used to have, in large part because MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) have been highly successful in making driving while intoxicated a shameful thing.  I'm not aware of commute hour drunks here, statistically there must be a few though.  The majority of drunk driving is late Fri and Sat nights, and the roads are heavily patrolled.


The current problem here is these morons yapping on their cell phones, texting and reading texts, Facebooking, etc while driving.  Even if their eyes are up and on the road, their attention is elsewhere and they are not paying attention.  It's very dangerous.  Every single day at some point I find myself behind a car drifting along going much slower than traffic only to catch up to them and see they are staring into the lap.  At intersections 4 or 5 cars back I know I'm going to have to honk when the light turns green because at least one will just sit there texting until someone does honk.

In Calif we have laws against all that too. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Well, the police do set up random road blocks in order to catch drunk drivers, and the US Supreme Court has deemed them to be constitutional.

Oh fair enough.   

The current problem here is these morons yapping on their cell phones, texting and reading texts, Facebooking, etc while driving.  Even if their eyes are up and on the road, their attention is elsewhere and they are not paying attention.  It's very dangerous.  Every single day at some point I find myself behind a car drifting along going much slower than traffic only to catch up to them and see they are staring into the lap.  At intersections 4 or 5 cars back I know I'm going to have to honk when the light turns green because at least one will just sit there texting until someone does honk.

We have them too! Worst culprits seem to be young females and mothers on the school run; You'd think they'd be the last to do it. I think the 'baby/young person on board' sticker is supposed to put the responsibility on other drivers.

[Unquenchable Angst]

They are looking for cataloging certain gene strains for reference when the state moves to separate the sheep from the shepherds .