Public outraged over illegal DNA checkpoints
A 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." (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?)
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."
The 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.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/06/government-checkpoints-driving/4265633/
Ricardo Nieves DNA checkpoint lawsuit:
The lawsuit filed by Ricardo Nieves seeks a permanent injunction against the Pacific Institute and the city of Reading to prevent the stops on the ground that they violate the Fourth Amendment. Aaron D. Martin, attorney for Nieves, argues that the program fails to meet any of the constitutional exceptions that the US Supreme Court says allows drunk driving roadblocks.
"A cruiser owned and operated by the City of Reading Police Department was parked by the side of the street with its lights flashing," the lawsuit states.
"Bright orange security cones lined the lane where plaintiff was driving. Plaintiff was in the right hand lane and the lane to plaintiff's left was full of traffic such that he could not pull over to change lanes.
"Defendant John Doe stepped out into plaintiff's lane of traffic, blocked his further advance, and flagged him to pull off the public road into a parking lot on Laurel Street."
Nieves had no choice but to drive into the parking lot, where five to seven improvised parking spaces had been created by orange security cones. He pulled into one.
"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."
http://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2013/12/dna-police-checkpoint-lawsuit.html
The DUI phrase “based upon the totality of the circumstances” is B/S: One of the most often used phrases in an American courtroom uttered by police officers nationwide hundreds of times a day is that “under the totality of the circumstances” they came to some sort of opinion. This type of logic is most often seen in DUI and DUID cases. In fact, in a case where someone declines to take a chemical test, the opinion of impairment that is “based upon the totality of the circumstances” can be the lynchpin of the entire case. Let’s think about a typical DUI case:
The Police Officer sees some swerving. Assumption made by the officer is that the motorist must be drunk.
The Police Officer smells an “odor of alcohol emanating from or about the motorist’s person.” Assumption made by the officer is that the motorist must be drunk.
The Police Officer says that the motorist had 2 drinks. Assumption made by the officer is that the motorist must be drunk.
The motorist cannot perform the Walk and Turn or the One Leg Stand test to the officer’s satisfaction. Assumption made by the officer is that the motorist must be drunk.
The Police Officer sees bloodshot, glassy eyes. The clothes of the motorist were noted as disheveled. Assumption made by the officer is that the motorist must be drunk.
All of the assumption made by the officer is that the motorist must be drunk.
But here is the full context of what is known and unknown to the officer about the same observations.
The Police Officer has no idea what is going on in the car (e.g., distracted driving) or how well the car operates (e.g., alignment issues). Therefore, the assumption made by the officer that the weaving is a manifestation of impairment is unproven and non-validated.
The motorist has a valid driver’s license that shows that the motorist is over 21. The motorist is allowed to literally drink and then to drive so long as the motorist is not impaired. Therefore, the assumption made by the officer that the appearance of the eyes is a manifestation of impairment is unproven and non-validated.
Again, being over 21, a motorist is allowed to literally drink and then to drive so long as the motorist is not impaired. The information about having 2 drinks is useful information but without a context it has no meaningful value. In order to determine whether or not the 2 drinks will impair this driver or put this driver over the limit. We would need to the gender, the height, the weight, the tolerance of the person, the size of the drink in terms of volume, the pace of drinking, the proof of the drinks, carbonation, and stomach contents. Therefore, the assumption made by the officer that this admission of drinking is a manifestation of impairment is unproven and non-validated.
Without knowing the person’s “normal” dexterity, the person’s psychological reaction to doing the tests, and the suitability of the environment, then there is an unproven assumption that the motorist can preform these tests to the officer’s satisfaction on his or her most gymnastic day. Therefore, the assumption made by the officer that the dexterity issues are a manifestation of impairment is unproven and non-validated.
Beginning in 1997, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in a publication by the Southern California Research Institute found that bloodshot and/or glassy eyes were not a reliable indicator of intoxication. Therefore, the assumption made by the officer that the bloodshot, glassy eyes and is a manifestation of impairment is unproven and non-validated.
Some clues of impairment were eliminated because they might be indicators more of social class than of alcohol impairment. For example, the interview and archival research indicated that a flushed or red face might be an indication of alcohol-impairment in some people. However, a flushed or red face or bloodshot eyes are open to subjective interpretation and could be due to allergies or caused by outdoor work.
A disheveled appearance similarly is open to subjective interpretation. We attempted to limit the recommendations to clear and objective post-stop behaviors.
So in other words, according to the “totality of the circumstances” logic, a whole bunch of either non-validated or invalid truths can come to a valid truth.
http://www.thetruthaboutforensicscience.com/phase-based-upon-totality-circumstances-science-science-fiction/