Pennsylvania street checkpoint asks drivers for mouth swabs

[Newsjock]

Source: Reading Eagle

A private firm with a federal contract - and backed up by city police - forced motorists off Laurel Street and into a private parking lot Friday to question them about their driving habits and ask for a swab of their mouth.

"I feel this incident is a gross abuse of power on many levels," Reading resident Ricardo Nieves, one of those stopped, told City Council Monday.

... The checkpoint was among several being carried out in Pennsylvania by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, hired by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

... 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.

Read more: http://readingeagle.com/article/20131217/NEWS/312179910

[postulater]

1. I can think of another place I would let them wipe.

[Logical]

8. LOL! +1 nt

[frylock]

2. standard response: i'd like to have my attorney present before i submit to your request

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. I think a simple ...

"No" would serve you better ... as a request to confer with or have counsel present is grounds to extend the stop until you actually confer with or have counsel present.

[hobbit709]

5. HELL no would be more direct.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. It's best NOT to use profanity ...

when addressing police officers ... not that they sometimes don't deserve it; but it's a lesson some folks learn/are taught early in life.

[hobbit709]

11. Were the police making the request or the survey people?

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Either case ...

Think it; don't say it ... One's life can depend on it.

[diabeticman]

3. And they continue to destroy our privacy.

[bvar22]

6. Detaining anyone without probable cause is WRONG.

Forcing someone into a parking lot,
and forcing them to answer questions,
or hassling then in ANY way is WRONG.

We are living in a creeping Police State that assumes more and more power every day.
It WILL continue to assume more power until WE stop it.

We should have stopped it at the very first First Amendment Zone.

Many here will argue that they have witnessed far worse transgressions in other countries in an attempt to discount and marginalize those who recognize this for what it is.

We may not be as bad as East Germany (yet),
but we are closer to that today than we were a few years ago,
and moving closer every day.
Everyone should[/]i be able to see exactly WHERE this is heading.

[markpkessinger]

15. Bingo! The very fact that drivers . . .

. . . were forced off the road for the purposes of this "checkpoint," which served no legitimate law enforcement or public safety objective, merely for the benefit of a private company conducting a study, is reason enough to be outraged, before one even gets to the issue of being asked questions or asked for a swab of their cheek.

[Logical]

7. Here is my answer....."Fuck Off"

[derby378]

10. Get. A. Fucking. Warrant.

Once you get one, have at it, but it's my mouth, dammit.

[kentuck]

12. Saliva or blood??

Take your choice.

[derby378]

13. They'll need a warrant for either one

Or they can simply tell me "Move along and drive careful," and I'll thank them and be on my merry little way.

[bobclark86]

21. Paid. Participation. Voluntary. Test. n/t

[Brigid]

22. Forced. Off. The. Road. By. Cops.

Without. Probable. Cause.

I think the danger here is pretty obvious.

[bobclark86]

27. Yup, so dangerous...

You sound like my teabagging uncle throwing a fit over a paid study which has been going on since the 1970s.

[Brigid]

29. Maybe, just maybe, your teabagging uncle has this one right.

Our civil liberties are being destroyed day by day. This is just one example. You can't even make a simple purchase at a store nowadays without them demanding your phone number for some sort of "loyalty program." "Data mining program" is more like it. I'm old -- I still value my privacy. And if you think I'm a stickler about it, you should meet my sister -- and she's considerably younger than I am.

Why are you so fond of this "survey," anyway?

[bobclark86]

45. WTF does a store asking for marketing information have to do with civil liberties?

You don't HAVE to give up shit in a store. It's your choice. A quality "no" or even a "fuck off and die" works.

Why are you so against having decent information about drug and alcohol use by drivers? I like that kind of data for the same reasons I want decent data on gun ownership.

[WinkyDink]

33. Do you SERIOUSLY condone this state action??

[Squinch]

41. YOu seem to be missing something here.

[bobclark86]

46. Which? A checkpoint in the middle of the road

with 15 seconds of explanation and $50 for 5 minutes of your time IF YOU WANT IT?

Did anybody actually read the story?

1) No personal data kept -- No, uncle Sammy, it ain't the commie Kenyan Nazi Muslim Oblama trackin' yur DNA.
2) The cops aren't running it, but a contractor for the NHTSA.
3) It's voluntary.
4) There's money.

[dickthegrouch]

14. Every single person thus detained should sue individually

Refuse to make it a class action - cost of defending hundreds of suits should make them think twice about this in future.

Sue the company for illegal detention and the cops for illegal actions under color of authority.

[okaawhatever]

16. Give me a break. It was a study that has been going on since the 70's. This article is

slanted and your excerpts just make it worse.


Heim said city police were hired for site security only, since the survey takers were paying money for answers and for the swabs.

But he said city police did not pull motorists over, nor ask any questions, and in fact were asked to stay away from the cars.

The checkpoint was part of a $7.9 million, three-year survey by the agencies, which has been conducted several times since the 1970s.

The surveys have gained more scrutiny this year because the Obama administration has been heavily criticized over revelations that U.S. spy agencies are tracking phone and Internet traffic, CNN reported in June.


While I do believe there shouldn't be an actual traffic stop, more like a flashing sign that says there will be a paid survey done for the Highway Safety office pull over if you want to participate, this article is just more bashing.

[Curmudgeoness]

23. You fail to mention

that the DNA tests were not part of this survey in the 1970's. It started as just questions.

[Dawson Leery]

26. Everyone stopped should sue.

[WinkyDink]

34. Oh, well,then! It's from the SEVENTIES, people! Rejoice! Obey! Open wide! (Who ARE these half-wits?)

[Matariki]

17. WTF? Checkpoints? God forbid anyone has to get somewhere on time.

Where are we living again?

[bobclark86]

19. VOLUNTARY STUDY! PAID PARTICIPATION! ANONYMOUS TESTS!

1) The study is voluntary.

2) YOU GET PAID.

3) Results are confidential and part of a study. NOT FOR PROSECUTION!

So, NOT A FORCED, WARRANTLESS SEARCH!!!!!!!!

If I could find a crayon font, I'd write it in that.

[Iggo]

30. No one was required to stop?

[Jerry442]

31. If it's openly voluntary, why not just post a big sign...

..."If you want to be paid to take part in a study, turn right here"?

There's nothing voluntary about a checkpoint.

[hughee99]

32. Really? I don't think a crayon or letter blocks can polish up this turd.

So someone that's NOT a cop stops all traffic for a purpose other than safety? I can see why people have an issue with that.

The police are there, though not doing anything, which may give some people the idea that "voluntary" isn't really voluntary. I can see why people might have a problem with that, too

You are told by someone who DOESN'T work for the government (a private contractor) that the results are confidential and anonymous, but they do want a cheek swab, (and I'll bet they ask for your name and address, even though it's anonymous and confidential. "Don't worry, this is just for OUR records&quot . And you don't see where people might think that these people can't be trusted? Perhaps they're just giving you the "least untruthful information possible".

If it's a voluntary study of motorists, go to a rest stop and ask people who ALREADY stopped if they'd like to participate in a voluntary, anonymous survey rather than backing up traffic just to offer people this wonderful chance to get paid to anonymously advance the cause of science.

[bobclark86]

44. Did the police actually pull anyone over? NO.

&quot and I'll bet they ask for your name and address, even though it's anonymous and confidential. "Don't worry, this is just for OUR records&quot ."

Proof or STFU.

[hughee99]

48. No, the police let SOMEONE ELSE pull people over and just watch.

What the fuck right does a private company have to set up a roadblock on PUBLIC roads and pull people over? A VOLUNTARY roadblock? There's NO such thing. A rest stop is a Voluntary roadblock. People can choose to stop or choose to drive by at 65 mph. If you're stopping all the cars to ask if they'd like to participate in a survey, then MAYBE you can call the survey "voluntary", not the roadblock.

As far as asking for the people's names, you got me. I can't prove that they asked... and thankfully there's no number on one's car that's in a database somewhere tied to the owner's name, so I guess it really is anonymous. They just want that breathalyzer, cheek swab, and blood sample for a traffic study... just like back in the 70's when they started doing these "studies". Thankfully, there's a smart fella like you to set me straight.

[WinkyDink]

35. The "forcing over of one's car" part you tidily gloss over.

[bobclark86]

43. Read the article...

"Heim said city police were hired for site security only, since the survey takers were paying money for answers and for the swabs.

But he said city police did not pull motorists over, nor ask any questions, and in fact were asked to stay away from the cars."

NOBODY GOT PULLED OVER.

[Squinch]

42. Cars forced off the road to a checkpoint by police for the benefit of a private company.

See how that's not voluntary, and not an appropriate use of tax dollars?

Exclamation point, exclamation point, exclamation point.

[PM Martin]

20. Coppers are being good little overpaid whores.

"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.

"A federal survey with local police help violates my rights," Nieves said."

The cops were there to intimidate.

[Kaleva]

25. Nieves sounds like one of those Ted Nugent Don't Tread on Me Teabagger types.

[WinkyDink]

36. Are you JOKING?? He sounds like an American who knows his civil rights. DO YOU?

[Kaleva]

38. Were his civil rights violated? No. Thus a teabagger, don't tread on me type.

[Liberal_in_LA]

24. I hope 100% of the motorists said "no"

[Incitatus]

39. Unfortunately, the number will be much lower.

The presence of police invokes obedience to authority. The government allowing/paying a private company to collect DNA from citizens while having law enforcement present is pretty disturbing.

[SCVDem]

28. To quote a dingbat...

Second ammendment remedies!

Still want to stick it to me?

[Incitatus]

40. If you read this while W was President, would you have the same opinion? nt

[WinkyDink]

37. Got some nice Fascism goin' on here.

[greyl]

47. Quotes are from Ricardo Nieves, an Alex Jones guest coincidentally.

I'd have see evidence that corroborates his story and the slant of the OP article.

[Kaleva]

49. Yes, Alex Jones says Pennsylvanians were "coerced" into giving giving cheek swabs.

[WinkyDink]

50. Have you ever been confronted in this manner? Cops (and their allies) don't joke.