PDA

View Full Version : Local police refuse to participate in 'voluntary' traffic checkpoints




donnay
01-09-2014, 07:15 AM
Local police refuse to participate in 'voluntary' traffic checkpoints

The US government’s use of traffic checkpoints to gather drunk and drugged driving information from motorists has come under fire recently, so much so that some police agencies are withdrawing their participation.

These checkpoints, established by a subcontractor for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, are co-manned by off-duty, uniformed officers and intended to ask people about their driving habits. Although participation is voluntary, the presence of uniformed officers has pushed many Americans to complain they feel compelled to comply with requests.

Fueled by mistrust of the government due to the burgeoning National Security Agency surveillance scandal, the fact that some checkpoint workers collect blood, saliva, and breath samples has only amplified concerns.

As RT reported in mid-2013, police in Ohio were criticized for setting up fake checkpoints in order to randomly stop cars and search them for drugs. Since it’s illegal for police to stop and search vehicles without probable cause, the sham checkpoint system has been criticized as unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union is investigating the issue and considering taking legal actions.

Meanwhile, police and checkpoint workers in Reading, Pennsylvania raised eyebrows in December when reports began surfacing that they were asking drivers to provide DNA samples as part of the NHTSA survey. One resident said he was never told what the sample would be used for and had to refuse to hand one over multiple times before he was finally allowed to go.

In the past, the NHTSA has said it does not collect DNA samples, but numerous reports have indicated police offer between $10 - $50 for cheek swabs and blood samples.

Already, law enforcement agencies near St. Louis, Missouri and Fort Worth, Texas have stated their intent to limit participation in future surveys of this kind due to backlash and fear of losing the public’s trust. Meanwhile, Alabama residents have also complained about the presence of uniformed officers at checkpoints, though they did not claim they were pressured to participate.

According to Mary Catherine Roper of the Pennsylvania chapter of the ACLU, the simple fact that uniformed police officers are pulling over pedestrians makes Americans think their participation is required.

Continued... (http://rt.com/usa/police-refuse-traffic-checkpoints-328/)


Alex Jones interviewed a Pennsylvania driver who was pulled over for a check-swab and refused:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ybiOarOnpU

osan
01-09-2014, 09:09 AM
According to Mary Catherine Roper of the Pennsylvania chapter of the ACLU, the simple fact that uniformed police officers are pulling over pedestrians makes Americans think their participation is required.

Testament to the disgusting ignorance of the meaner, not to mention the degree to which his training to compliancy has been perfected.

Also note the implied whining of the ACLU representative... "OY... the pain... the suffering... how they fool us..." Note the utter absence of anything to suggest that such Americans are lazy irresponsible donks who largely get what they deserve because they refuse to assume proper responsibility for their own affairs.

Disgusting.

Bern
01-09-2014, 10:06 AM
Is the ACLU taking any legislative action on this issue?

angelatc
01-09-2014, 10:10 AM
When I read the headline I thought it must be from The Onion.


fear of losing the public’s trust - undercover operation.

coastie
01-09-2014, 10:17 AM
Is the ACLU taking any legislative action on this issue?


Will it matter? These checkpoints are already illegal.

Until the people refuse, en mass-it's not going to stop.

Until the people resist, en mass-it's not going to stop.

In other words-it's not gonna stop.

Anti Federalist
01-09-2014, 07:40 PM
Testament to the disgusting ignorance of the meaner, not to mention the degree to which his training to compliancy has been perfected.

Also note the implied whining of the ACLU representative... "OY... the pain... the suffering... how they fool us..." Note the utter absence of anything to suggest that such Americans are lazy irresponsible donks who largely get what they deserve because they refuse to assume proper responsibility for their own affairs.

Disgusting.

Where have we heard that before?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-09-2014, 08:27 PM
This roadblock issue is a perfect example of why you don't compromise with sociopaths.

I remember the arguments in the Sitz roadblock supreme court case over 20 years ago. O'Connor was reassured that roadblocks would not take more than 20 seconds per motorist; however, we see cars backed up for blocks and blocks in California and elsewhere. O'Connor asked about pedestrian roadblocks. She was reassured that it would have nothing to do with pedestrians; however, we are now witnessing en masse stop and frisk in New York. The court nonchalantly said roadblocks would have limited scope, but the internal border guard roadblocks have become de facto roadblocks for checking run-of-the-mill crime. There are also roadblocks for child seats, hunting, seatbelts, fireworks, "safety" checks, crime, etc.

The roadblocks were already a clear violation of principle no matter how the cowardly court tried to spin it. Pushing the envelope just became icing on the cake. You don't compromise on principle. Ever.

Anti Federalist
01-09-2014, 10:52 PM
Could not have said it better myself.

This, this is what "reasonable compromise" with tyrants gets you, every single time.


This roadblock issue is a perfect example of why you don't compromise with sociopaths.

I remember the arguments in the Sitz roadblock supreme court case over 20 years ago. O'Connor was reassured that roadblocks would not take more than 20 seconds per motorist; however, we see cars backed up for blocks and blocks in California and elsewhere. O'Connor asked about pedestrian roadblocks. She was reassured that it would have nothing to do with pedestrians; however, we are now witnessing en masse stop and frisk in New York. The court nonchalantly said roadblocks would have limited scope, but the internal border guard roadblocks have become de facto roadblocks for checking run-of-the-mill crime. There are also roadblocks for child seats, hunting, seatbelts, fireworks, "safety" checks, crime, etc.

The roadblocks were already a clear violation of principle no matter how the cowardly court tried to spin it. Pushing the envelope just became icing on the cake. You don't compromise on principle. Ever.

Spikender
01-10-2014, 10:38 AM
I was going to post and say reasonable compromise is codeword for handing over your natural rights, but really, it is exactly what it sounds right.

You're compromising your liberties, and that's reasonable to the government.