Pa. town latest to force drivers over and ask for cheek swabs (dna) for federal 'study'
-
Pa. town latest to force drivers over and ask for cheek swabs for federal study
Published December 18, 2013
FoxNews.com-
Police in at least two cities have been accused of coercing drivers to pull over so a federal contractor could ask them questions and for a swab of their saliva. (AP)
Drivers in a southeastern Pennsylvania town were forced off a local street and into a parking lot, so a federal contractor – aided by local police --could quiz them about their road habits and ask for a cheek swab, in a replay of an incident last month in Texas.
The checkpoint, in downtown Reading, was one of several conducted by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, which was hired by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Although the questioning and cheek swab were voluntary, local residents said they were directed by police to pull over, and that the questioning was persistent, according to the Reading Eagle
."I feel this incident is a gross abuse of power on many levels."- Ricardo Nieves, Reading, Pa.
"I feel this incident is a gross abuse of power on many levels," Reading resident Ricardo Nieves told City Council Monday, three days after being stopped.
Last month, the police chief in Fort Worth, Texas, apologized after allowing his officers to take part in a similar federal survey in which random drivers were pulled over and asked to submit breath, saliva and even blood samples. The drivers were also asked to pull into a parking lot, where they could give a cheek swab and volunteer for a blood or breath test, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Those who agreed were paid $10 to $50. Those who declined were briefly interviewed and allowed to leave.
"We realize this survey caused many of our citizens frustration and we apologize for our participation," Fort Worth Police Chief Jeffrey Halstead said.
Reading Police Chief William Heim told the Reading Eagle the federal agencies are trying to see what can be done about crashes and injuries, and the swabs were not to get DNA samples but to test for the presence of prescription drugs. He said police were there for site security only and did not pull drivers over or ask questions.
"In the grand scheme of things, I think it's a pretty innocuous and minor issue," Heim said.
An attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania said such checkpoints are legal only if designed to protect public safety.
"A car driver or passenger cannot be required or pressured into providing a DNA sample and, in fact, can't be stopped at all except on suspicion of a crime or for a properly conducted sobriety checkpoint," Mary Catherine Roper, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, told the Reading Eagle.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducts similar surveys every 10 years or so to determine the prevalence of alcohol and drug use by drivers. Checkpoints to collect samples have been set up in 30 cities nationwide, and samples remain anonymous, according to federal officials.
But law enforcement agencies in other jurisdictions have taken measures to ensure that motorists know it is a "paid volunteer survey," and that they do not have to pull over.
-
-
I would give a stool sample if I could smear it all over their uniforms...
Just moved out of Southeasten Pa not too long ago. Glad to be gone. They were stopping "foreign" looking people on the road for no reason to see if they were illegals, then taking the vehicles if they were and letting the illegals walk away (literally). Pretty much just a car grab. Couple of coworkers got stopped repeatedly and one (of Puerto Rican descent) got into a little trouble for voicing his concerns. He was lucky that his dad is a police chief in Jersey, or he may have had some serious problems.
Have to say though, with all of the apple orchards and what-not in the area, they were likely to find quite a few illegal pickers, and they did. Wonder if they swabbed them too?
-
Voluntary....
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Voluntary....
This. No one is forcing anyone to take the test. I would tell them to fuck off and be on my way.
-
Although 'voluntary', they were forced to pull over and questioned rather forcefully to get them to 'volunteer'.
-
Although 'voluntary', they were forced to pull over and questioned rather forcefully to get them to 'volunteer'.
Although 'voluntary', they were forced to pull over and questioned rather forcefully to get them to 'volunteer'.
It will just take a few people asking if they are being detained for them to quit doing that horse shit.
-
This story is insane. Where I work all research must get past an internal review board that makes sure the study meets ethical and legal standards. It was my understanding that all institutional research performed in America had to go through this. How on Earth something like this was allowed to go forward is beyond me. I could see putting a sign on the highway that says "pull over here to earn $50" and then asking people to volunteer for the study, but forcing people to pull over by abusing police authority is disgusting. I hope someone files a class action.
-
New felony soon:
"Resisting volunteering"
A federal study to determine what?
How easily the American people will be intimidated
and put up with abusing authority in violation of our Constitution?
Sick.
-
Voluntary....
Woody. Just the fact they are using resources to do this shit vs. protecting the public is fucked up. When are you going to grow up?
-
They weren't voluntarily pulled over. They were forcibly made to stop their journey indiscriminately. It's an abuse of power. There's nothing stopping them from going window to window in a traffic jam to do this, they don't need to disrupt people's day.
-
You 'voluntarily' let a federal contractor swab your cheek, do you really think they aren't going to do a DNA test? And do you really think they aren't going to hold it in a database somewhere? I would never voluntarily give a DNA test to anyone under any pretense.
-
You 'voluntarily' let a federal contractor swab your cheek, do you really think they aren't going to do a DNA test? And do you really think they aren't going to hold it in a database somewhere? I would never voluntarily give a DNA test to anyone under any pretense.
You 'voluntarily' let a federal contractor swab your cheek, do you really think they aren't going to do a DNA test? And do you really think they aren't going to hold it in a database somewhere? I would never voluntarily give a DNA test to anyone under any pretense.
Why? What do you suppose they're going to do with your DNA?
-
Voluntary....
This. No one is forcing anyone to take the test. I would tell them to fuck off and be on my way.
personally I'm not freaked out by the story. I assume if I have a problem with it I tell them No thank you sir may I please be on my way? If they say thank you sir have a good day then no harm no foul. But, as opposed to many of you guys, I think there should be DNA on file for every United States citizen. I think it's a much more scientific and intelligent way of identification then A 9 digit number that anyone can swipe. Plus I can't see what anybody would use my DNA for that would be so terribly egregiousThis. No one is forcing anyone to take the test. I would tell them to fuck off and be on my way.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
I'd rather they didn't have my DNA. Fortunately, I retired from the Military before they started taking DNA from everyone. Call me paranoid.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
I'd rather they didn't have my DNA. Fortunately, I retired from the Military before they started taking DNA from everyone. Call me paranoid.
I'd rather they didn't have my DNA. Fortunately, I retired from the Military before they started taking DNA from everyone. Call me paranoid.
Extremely! Unless you think they're going to clone you, or you plan to commit some serious crimes and leave DNA evidence, not too much to be worried about.
-
Once I was told that a friend of mine was against the idea of having DNA on file because it might to lead to people falsifying evidence. It occurred to me you can always fake evidence. This shouldn't make that any easier especially considering the fact that we still use eye witness evidence in court cases today.
In theory it should let more innocent people off the hook. And if its nails down a conviction for a real violent criminal? Great.
WSS
-
You guys put too much trust in the good old Federal Government. That's all I have to say.
-
You 'voluntarily' let a federal contractor swab your cheek, do you really think they aren't going to do a DNA test? And do you really think they aren't going to hold it in a database somewhere? I would never voluntarily give a DNA test to anyone under any pretense.
Why? What do you suppose they're going to do with your DNA?
Why? What do you suppose they're going to do with your DNA?
Chris, you don't really have to worry about it because your country has socialized healthcare. You're sick, you get treated. Here, you need insurance. Big pharma is so closely knit with big government and big insurance that I wouldn't be comfortable giving anyone a sample of my DNA. Once we can get cheap genomics, that's going to open pandora's box, and we could potentially know what you might be susceptible to by looking at your sequence. If the insurance companies were to get a hold of that privileged information, they could deny a slew of people based off of pre-existing conditions. I could talk all day about how I think employment-based access to healthcare is horseshit. The scientist in me really, really wants us to be able to develop that technology, but the cynic in me knows that it's going to be abused.
-
Why? What do you suppose they're going to do with your DNA?
Chris, you don't really have to worry about it because your country has socialized healthcare. You're sick, you get treated. Here, you need insurance. Big pharma is so closely knit with big government and big insurance that I wouldn't be comfortable giving anyone a sample of my DNA. Once we can get cheap genomics, that's going to open pandora's box, and we could potentially know what you might be susceptible to by looking at your sequence. If the insurance companies were to get a hold of that privileged information, they could deny a slew of people based off of pre-existing conditions. I could talk all day about how I think employment-based access to healthcare is horseshit. The scientist in me really, really wants us to be able to develop that technology, but the cynic in me knows that it's going to be abused.
Chris, you don't really have to worry about it because your country has socialized healthcare. You're sick, you get treated. Here, you need insurance. Big pharma is so closely knit with big government and big insurance that I wouldn't be comfortable giving anyone a sample of my DNA. Once we can get cheap genomics, that's going to open pandora's box, and we could potentially know what you might be susceptible to by looking at your sequence. If the insurance companies were to get a hold of that privileged information, they could deny a slew of people based off of pre-existing conditions. I could talk all day about how I think employment-based access to healthcare is horseshit. The scientist in me really, really wants us to be able to develop that technology, but the cynic in me knows that it's going to be abused.
See, now there's a sensible looking reason not to give your DNA I can get behind. But when people start refusing, insurers are just going to ask for a DNA sample before starting to insure you.
I'm a scientist and an optimist, so I really can't wait for this kind of mapping to become available. In fact, a friend of mine sent off to have his mapped, for about £200 or something. Kinda pointless, but still kinda neat!
While I think about it, insurers at the moment generally make more money than they give out. As such, there's no need for them to raise their overall prices - it might just be skewed somewhat so that people with dodgy genes pay more, when others pay less (see, optimist). But when all that is said and done, when you see your genes give you a 50% higher chance of, say, heart disease, that still only means going from 8% to 12%, for example. so there shouldn't be any big spike.
-
Let's say, your dna gets in a database, and you have a gene that says you are in a 10 percent
chance category of getting some cancer in your 60's.
Wouldn't that lend itself to abuse of the information? You'd pay more for insurance, to cover the ..
possible costs one day, from the beginning? In principle, information can be used for bad as well
as good.
OTH, if I ever inadvertently were a suspect in some criminal case? You couldn't
drive me to the lab fast enough for me, to let me hurriedly give them my dna to clear my name.
It's a double-edged sword. I prefer the privacy of information, unless there is a current requirement
for information to be brought forth. It can cut both ways. Good and very bad.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login