Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Police Pull Over More Drivers For DNA Tests

Posted by Soulskill on from the get-away-from-me-with-that-crap dept.

schwit1 sends this news from the Washington Times: "Pennsylvania police this week were pulling people to the side of the road, quizzing them on their driving habits, and asking if they'd like to provide a cheek swap or a blood sample — the latest in a federally contracted operation that's touted as making roads safer. The same operation took place last month at a community in Texas. Then, drivers were randomly told to pull off the road into a parking lot, where white-coated researchers asked if they'd like to provide DNA samples for a project that determines what percentage of drivers are operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol at given times. With uniformed police in the background, the researchers also offered the motorists money — up to $50 or so — for the blood or saliva samples."

23 of 562 comments (clear)

  1. Um.... by Traze · · Score: 5, Funny

    What?

    Who'd really buy into that?

    "Here, take my biological information. You want to use it to create an army of biologically superior clones? That's nice. Oh, $50? Even better!"

    1. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tons of people. People are taught to always listen to cops. Lately I'm more scared of the police than any criminal. Police can ruin your life and easily kill you without repercussions. Cops are trained to always maintain control of the situation no matter how minor or petty. That is why so many people are tazed, beaten, or outright murdered when they tell cops they are wrong or the cops are doing illegal things.

    2. Re:Um.... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Who'd really buy into that? "

      According to the news story I read, a lot of people in Texas "bought" that, because they were under the impression they had no choice. One woman, in an interview, said she was intimidated by the police questions and thought she had to comply.

      That news story (apologies, I don't have a link) also claimed that their breath was being sampled by an experimental "non contact" breathalyzer device without being notified in advance and without their consent.

    3. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing is, the people who have something to hide because they're drunk or stoned behind the wheel are exactly the same people who won't buy into it. So, the statistics gathering will be highly skewed. Researchers probably know this because it's obvious, and it's likely just a cover story.

    4. Re:Um.... by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, there's a few bad cops out there, and a fair number of them have been caught, exposed, and turned into headlines.

      ...but I'm still way, way, more scared of actual bad guys.

      The overwhelming majority of police are, frankly, pretty good folk who actually enjoy serving the public.

    5. Re:Um.... by Khashishi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right. Either the test is voluntary, and suffers from selection bias, or it is involuntary, and is draconian.

    6. Re:Um.... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's true of individual policemen / women. Whether it applies to the political and financial designs of the 'Police Department' (and associated governmental agencies) is another thing entirely.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Um.... by pegr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The overwhelming majority of police are, frankly, pretty good folk who actually enjoy serving the public."

      Ah, no. Good cops cover for bad cops, and that makes them bad cops. No such thing as a good cop.

    8. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But you can defend yourself from a "bad guy" with violence. If you use violence to defend yourself from a "bad cop" who is illegally applying force, you get a body bag and some drugs planted on your corpse. I saw a recent show on police training, and it looked more psychologically damaging than military basic training. Drill sergeants screaming opposing commands and berating the trainees for everything. The training camp in Conquest of the Planet of the Apes is tame by comparison. "NO!"

    9. Re:Um.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I know lots of LEOs as well. There is a distinct and poisonous "us vs them" mentality. He is right. You are wrong.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    10. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh, right, you stupid motherfucker, this Wikipedia article was written just for kicks, right?

      I've got multiple relatives in law enfrocement, and they are shitheads. They think tazing people is actually downright hilarious, and no, they never ever report on each other's fuckups. I just had ate Thanksgiving dinner with a couple of them, and you are beyond clueless. They range from podunk local cops to big city cops (and one county deputy thrown in; no state folks). Most of them are prior military (as am I), but the problem is they think they're still in the USMC and the US Army. Everybody else are little people.

      They're all bad, and in my mind they're all potential danger to the average law abiding citizen. This is why the Five Seven should be your best friend, along with just about any decent long gun that'll punch the ticket on a punk wearing level II or IIIA body armor.

      Oh yes, and this is the norm. One dog was caged (and shot in the cage) and the other was a fucking Corgi.

      These are your 'good cops'.

    11. Re:Um.... by Tuidjy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bad compared to what? To the ideal Officer of the Law? The one that hangs out with the ideal Communist Citizen and the ideal Hereditary Autocrat?

      Or bad compared to a gang member, a warlord's soldier, or even security consultant?

      I have never lived in a neighborhood where law enforcement dares not thread, or a country where warlords are the only authority. They do exist on this planet, though. On the other hand, I've lived in post-Communist Bulgaria, and saw what happened when the police becomes, for one reason or another, unwilling or unable to enforce the law.

      One month, you could spend the night in the park, with your girlfriend, on a blanket.

      The next, thugs were dismantling public property and infrastructure (from park benches to power transformers) and crooks were running gambling operations everywhere, beating up everyone who dared explaining their tricks to their marks.

      One month later, no house, store, or vehicle was safe unless you were willing to defend it yourself. A lot of people learned that being in right does not make you invulnerable.

      A few months later, those who had been successful at defending theirs, started defending other people... for a price. So your property was safe, if it bore a sticker saying "This X is insured by Y until Z." Well it was safe until Y was on the top of the heap, and of course, only until Z. And Y's members were raping, beating up and extorting as much as they conscience allowed them. Some had pretty enabling consciences.

      I do not know what had happened since. I left. I know that I will take the worst policeman I've ever encountered in the US, before I trust the best 'security consultant' I've heard of.

      We need law enforcement. What we have is less than perfect. We should strive to make it better. It is still in a whole different category than not having law enforcement. And anyway, 'Not having law enforcement' is unsustainable. There's enough people who would pray on others that it becomes inefficient for society's member to defend themselves individually. Soon enough, someone steps up to provide the service, and chances are it's not the one you wish would.

      And yeah, it is true that those some of those people end up in law enforcement. At least, many of them have incentives to at least pretend to play by the rules.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    12. Re:Um.... by JudgeFurious · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As a one time police officer who has been out of that line of work for almost 20 years I have to disagree with you. There are good cops. They are few and far between but they exist. You're on to one thing though and it's something that a lot of people just don't seem to understand. The police (speaking of the whole group and still maintaining that some do not fall into this group) are by and large exceptionally racist, which many people realize but what they don't get is that the police only really see two races. "Blue" and "You". Ok, it's not technically a racial issue but the reason I put it like that is because it's approached the same way by the police. I know because I was surrounded by people like that. If you're blue you're a fellow officer and most of them will tolerate a great deal in another officer. Crossing a line or two is nothing. A police officer has to almost be cornered before he'll hold another police officer to the same standard he'll hold you or I to. Even then it doesn't always end as it should because another officer further up the food chain will head that off if possible once the situation has moved beyond the public eye. I never really thought about it at the time but when I was in law enforcement I rarely kept my registration up to date. I drove one car for over two years without having to get it inspected or paying the registration fee. When I got pulled over I just whipped out "Badge Americard" and was given a pass. I drove as fast as I wanted without a care in the world. That's little stuff but it scales up. I didn't leave the profession out of outrage either. I left because I hurt my back (at home, not work related in any way) and had to move to a less physical career but when I did leave and stepped back I realized that I was part of a system that is almost entirely made up of bad cops. It's just that most of them are bad with a little "b".

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    13. Re:Um.... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you actually believe its about driving drunk, where they already can do a Breathalyzer or blood sample? i have a bridge you might be interested in. Its about getting as many citizens in as they can into their DB, specifically the poor. they know the person driving that Lexus is gonna tell them to get bent while the mother of 3 in that 94 Dodge? Not so much.

      I never thought I'd say this but I'm glad my beloved grandfather and great uncles are gone, they fought against fascism in WWII and this kind of gestapo shit would disgust the hell out of them. I could probably wrap his body in some copper wire and run my entire neighborhood from all the revolutions he's turning in his grave.

      I urge everybody who hasn't seen it to watch Naomi Wolf's lecture which shows how shit like this and the TSA intimidation fits into the bigger picture, because its fucking SCARY folks. This is the same plays that have been run since the time of Lenin and El Duce, get the population used to being confronted, cowed down and intimidated, makes things easier when they inevitably clamp down. Never forget that in 1930 Germany was a democracy and the NSDAP was a fringe bunch of kooks. Countries don't go from free to non free slowly, the shift is VERY fast but there is warning signs that a shift is occurring. I'd say shit like this and the NSA watching everything you do would be good indicators.

      For those that think this kind of shit doesn't have a chilling effect? remember that when the wall fell it was found that the STASI had less than 7% of the population on their lists yet the entire population lived like they were always under the boot because everyone thought that they were one of the 7%. It really doesn't take much to break the will of a populace, just intimidation and fear used in the right places.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. three responses by Speare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I being detained?

    Am I free to go?

    No, I do not consent to any search.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:three responses by Khashishi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Queue the "stop resisting" while they beat you to a pulp.

  3. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What the **** does a DNA sample have to do with the percentage of drunk drivers?!?!?!?

  4. This really has to stop by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't think pulling people over for research is a reasonable use of police power. Actual enforcement, maybe, but not for research.

    Why don't they just put a spit cup at toll booths?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  5. I'm mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They offered $50 for my DNA and arrested me when I whipped it out and started masturbating. I want my $50, dammit.

  6. Definition of voluntary by tatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Voluntary is having a sign "$50 for a cheek swab, next right". Involuntary is police directing you to testing area. Period.

    --
    I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
  7. Sheeple testing by WaffleMonster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't about DNA or road safety it is a test to see how much shit people will take from their government and what additional compliance can be purchased with money.

  8. WTF indeed by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Twenty or thirty years ago there used to be people called "journalists" whose job it was to (a) collect enough data so you could figure out what happened, and (b) write it up in an intelligible story.

    Look at the linked story *critically*. How does the "reporter" know DNA was being taken? What is his source for this, or is he just guessing?

    This story is basically rumor -- passing along what's on the grapevine. There's no actual reporting here. If there were, that would answer the questions a reasonable person might have. For example: are the researchers collecting DNA or not? And who *are* these researchers? Can we get a name please? Or an institution?

    Back in the day a reporter would have identified the researchers and called them up for an interview, or at least a statement from the research institution's public affairs office. He'd look up the grant in the federal records and find out whether or not the researchers had been granted money to collect DNA and what they are being paid to do with it (yes, you can do that!). He'd may even have interviewed people on the institutional review board (required by US law) that approved the project.

    But the "reporter" in this case did none of this. She appears not to have done *any* verification or independent research. A story like this would take a real reporter two or three days to nail down, not two or three phone calls.

    I'm not saying some horrendous violation of civil liberties could not have taken place, I'm saying the writer of the article didn't do enough work for anyone to decide what did or did not happen. This is not reporting, it's *blogging* under a byline.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  9. Two Kinds Of Cops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are only two kinds of cops: 1.) Bad cops and 2.) Accessories after the fact.