backtop


Print 38 comment(s) - last by Belard.. on Nov 27 at 4:57 PM


  (Source: OneTruth4Life/YouTube)
NHTSA said the study is valuable for justifying new laws to put more mildly intoxicated drivers in prison

Police in Fort Worth, Texas (the fifth largest city in the nation's second most populous state) raised the mother of all controversies when they set up a roadblock and began to make bizarre requests of motorists -- most of whom appeared to be entirely law abiding.
 
I. Fort Worth Medical Samples -- Voluntary or Police Seizure?
 
The Fort Worth Police Department (FWPD) installed the roadblock north of the city during daytime traffic.  They flagged down some motorists at random and asked them to give breath, saliva, and blood samples.  The FWPD claims the effort was "100 percent voluntary" and anonymous.
 
It acknowledges that most of the drivers had broken no law, but it said the effort was valuable to federal contractors working to complete a 3 year, $7.9M USD survey on behalf of the The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) aimed a collecting medical data for use in combatting drunk driving.
 
But some of the motorists who submitted samples are outraged saying that the program infringed on their Constitutional rights and that the FWPD's "please" did not make it clear that the seizure of medical samples was "voluntary".
 
Kim Cope -- one of those sampled -- claims to a local NBC affiliate that the police acted like she would not be allowed to continue until she allowed the contractors to seize the samples.  She comments:

It just doesn't seem right that you can be forced off the road when you're not doing anything wrong.  I gestured to the guy in front that I just wanted to go straight, but [the officer] wouldn't let me and forced me into a parking spot.

They were asking for cheek swabs.  They would give $10 for that. Also, if you let them take your blood, they would pay you $50 for that.  I finally did the Breathalyzer test just because I thought that would be the easiest way to leave.

She received no money and only consented to participate because she said she felt trapped.  But it might have not mattered anyways, as you will soon discover.
 
II. Read the Small Print -- Drivers Who Said no Were Tested Anyways
 
FWPD admitted that some drivers might have been inadvertently confused by the program and not realized that any of the samples -- including the breathalyzer sample -- were voluntary.  FWPD spokesperson Sgt. Kelly Peel comments:

We are reviewing the actions of all police personnel involved to ensure that FWPD policies and procedures were followed.  We apologize if any of our drivers and citizens were offended or inconvenienced by the NHTSA National Roadside Survey.
Passive sensor
Passive sensors, such as the one pictured above, secretly tested the breath alcohol content of those who refused to give samples. [Image Source: DUI Justice]

But local attorney Frank Colosi says the search constituted an unconstitutional search and seizure.  He comments:

You can't just be pulled over randomly or for no reason.  [The FWPD] essentially [lied] to [motorists] when they say it's completely voluntary, because they're testing [them] at that moment.

His comment refers to a surprise twist in the case.  Apparently on the consent form that officers gave "voluntary" participants fine print informed the driver that "passive alcohol sensor readings before the consent process has been completed."

It's unclear whether drivers could ask for that data to be deleted if they didn't want it to be collected, but what is clear is that most drivers did not notice the fine print or were unable to read it.  As a result what the FWPD claimed was a "voluntary" scientific study became what appears to be an involuntary search of citizens who were breaking no law.

III. Alabama Attorney General is "Shocked" by Similar Program in His State

Similar searchers were conducted in Alabama's St. Clair and Bibb Counties in June.  At the time Alabama's governor, Robert Bentley (R) expressed shock and outrage at the program, which he said he was unaware of:

I am instructing my Secretary of Law Enforcement, Spencer Collier, to investigate this issue.  Like many people, I have questions about how and why these surveys were carried out along Alabama's roads. We need to find out from the federal government exactly what is being done with the information that was collected. We'll do everything we can to get to the bottom of the issue and make sure that the rights of our citizens are protected.

Alabama's Attorney General Luther Strange remarked:

I learned about this from news reports.  I am shocked. This is very troubling and I intend to get to the bottom of it.

Sobriety checkpoint
The Texas and Alabama tests involved police roadblocks similar to "sobriety checkpoints".
[Image Source: AP]

A NHTSA spokesman, Jose Ucles, revealed that the study was being funded by the Obama administration, via the White House's National Office of Drug Control Policy, and is being carried out by The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) -- a federal research organization with offices across the country.   He states to the blog AL.com:

Participation is voluntary.  All data is anonymous.

If you're doing roadblocks and asking people to stop, you have to have the deputies there to make sure everything is safe.  It's not about detaining anybody, because the survey is voluntary and anonymous. It's about making sure the traffic is safe in that area.

Obama spying
The "study" on American drivers was funded and backed by the Obama administration.  The Bush administration authorized a similar study in 2007, although it did not allow passive scanning of those who refused to be tested. [Image Source: AFP]

While some may disagree with that conclusion he does raise an interesting point, noting that similar surveys were conducted in 1973, 1986, 1996, and 2007 -- although only two of those surveys were used to evaluate drug use.  The 2007 survey obtained 7,700 saliva samples and 3,300 blood samples.  Of those sampled 12.4% had alcohol in their systems, while about 16% were found to have marijuana, cocaine or over-the-counter or prescription drug metabolites.

IV. Latest NHTSA Survey is the First to Involuntarily Seize Samples

However, one key difference between past surveys -- including those who used blood tests to determine drugs -- is the use of automatic collection from passive sensors.  Some privacy advocates say that new tactic takes the past surveys from the realm of being questionable from a privacy perspective into a new era of flagrant abuse.

Susan Watson, executive director of the Alabama chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union called the detention and sampling of drivers an "abuse of power", remarking:

How voluntary is it when you have a police officer in uniform flagging you down?  Are you going to stop? Yes, you're going to stop.

The ACLU and other civil rights agencies are considering suing the federal government to try to shut down or limit the collection program.

Blood sample
The ACLU may sue to stop the supposedly "anonymous" collection of DNA and blood chemistry.
[Image Source: Getty Images]

Meanwhile the feds defiantly charge on.  They say they're well on their way to their goal of collecting samples from 8,000 drivers.  They say the effort follows "a highly scientific protocol and complex statistical design in order to accurately reflect the problem nationwide."

The 2007 survey, they point out, was used as the basis for the NHTSA recommendation that the legal blood alcohol limit be lowered from 0.08 to 0.05 percent.  The NHTSA asserts that by generating statistics to justify arresting more drivers who might be mildly impaired, it can protect Americans from themselves.

Sources: NBC News [1], [2; WGAL affiliate, AL], AL.com [1], [2]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

dna annon?
By HostileEffect on 11/20/2013 7:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
DNA is not annonomous, especially for me since I'm government employed. Stop smoking stolen weed.. cough... confiscated weed.




RE: dna annon?
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/20/2013 7:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
DNA is not annonomous,
That depends on how it's collected.

It's true we leave many objects that could have DNA collected off them -- cigarette butts, bottles, roaches, food wrappers, kleenex. Or even bubblegum ... just ask Aaron Hernandez.

That said, in most cases LEOs (law enforcement officers) need a court order (i.e. a warrant, typically) to collect and process objects that might contain DNA.

Police can force people to take a blood test in some cases where driver intoxication is suspected. But this is a very different scenario as it's effectively a detention of a citizen in a case where there is no suspicious behavior or open/obvious evidence to suggest a crime was committed.
quote:
especially for me since I'm government employed.
I might be inclined to defend the government violating Constitutional rights too, if I worked for them and valued my money above public freedom.
quote:
Stop smoking stolen weed.. cough... confiscated weed.
Are you addressing yourself, Mr. "government employee"?


RE: dna annon?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/20/2013 10:34:30 PM , Rating: 5
100 bucks says that "anonymous" DNA goes into a database they'll use for god knows what. Protect and Serve, my ass.

This is just a big disgusting illegal fishing expedition. I know I shouldn't be at this point, but I'm just shocked they had the balls to pull something like this. And I'm equally shocked that it's being done in TEXAS of all places!


RE: dna annon?
By mike66 on 11/20/2013 11:57:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
shocked that it's being done in TEXAS


The state that executes more prisoners than any other and the state that has the largest jails and biggest prison population per head of any other. The place sounds just perfect.


RE: dna annon?
By spamreader1 on 11/21/2013 9:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
Meh, nobody here ever said it was perfect, everything's just bigger than everywhere else ;)~


RE: dna annon?
By marvdmartian on 11/21/2013 7:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
Not to worry! This is just Obama, collecting DNA from Red states, in hopes of building a bio-weapon that will leave Blue voters alone, but wipe out Red voters. It's all a part of his plan to become world dictator and potentate supreme, in 2016! [/tinfoil hat]


RE: dna annon?
By marvdmartian on 11/22/2013 10:30:08 AM , Rating: 2
Ooops! Must have bruised someone's feelings! Don't worry, little clueless one....it's okay! Uncle Barry will buy you something with taxpayer money, and make it okay!!


RE: dna annon?
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/21/2013 11:00:20 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The "study" on American drivers was funded and backed by the Obama administration. The Bush administration authorized a similar study in 2007, although it did not allow passive scanning of those who refused to be tested.


Really the only real reason Bush didn't allow passive scanning is because he didn't readily have the technology & balls to try it.

Passive collection if DNA is highly illegal since it constitutes search & seizure without a warrant. Warrants can only be issued on specific individuals and not entire populations.

So the question remains, if your government is undertaking illegal activities, why is that government still in power?


RE: dna annon?
By Dr of crap on 11/21/2013 12:23:03 PM , Rating: 3
DAMN GOOD QUESTION!
The problem, we don't care to get involved anymore!
Just give me my xbox and a can of Monster!


RE: dna annon?
By HostileEffect on 11/20/2013 11:22:59 PM , Rating: 3
I think you are misunderstanding my position but I can't blame anyone now that I read my post with a somewhat rested mind. I had finished my last shift of barracks duty and was dirt tired and a phone isn't much to type from. Computer is broken and there isn't enough time to fix it before leaving Okinawa.

I have done just about everything from finger prints to blood samples. I would be surprised; if most biological materials were unable to be linked back to me.

I have no faith in law enforcement after having my face bashed in by two plain clothed (low life clothing) police or people serving the police on my front porch who had the wrong house and grossly outdated information. I have even less faith in due process and a fair trial given the powers that be.

The weed comment is referring to the people who thought setting up this event was a good idea. Police smoking contraband from evidence.

"I might be inclined to defend the government violating Constitutional rights too, if I worked for them and valued my money above public freedom."

I want you to go to a Marine infantry barracks and see how far this comment gets you. I make very little money as an E3 and for you to suggest I like seeing my country raped stupid isnt the brightest assumption. I have a laundry list of reasons why I'm not enlisting and being powerless to stop the perversion of my country is one of them.

I think it would be better to refrain from snide comments to begin with but if you are compelled to make them, at least know who you are making them to.

I'm more outraged than most because Texas is my home state, a place I never expected to see this come from so soon. I'll end on that note since I have nothing further to say.


RE: dna annon?
By HostileEffect on 11/20/2013 11:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
correction, reenlist, my phone has a nasty habit of trying to autocorrect everything I type. Since I have to double post, I might as well add that I have about six months remaining on my contract.


RE: dna annon?
By Samus on 11/21/2013 1:43:25 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The "study" on American drivers was funded and backed by the Obama administration. The Bush administration authorized a similar study in 2007, although it did not allow passive scanning of those who refused to be tested.


Police Departments across the entire country have been using passive sensors at the butt-end of their flashlights for over a decade. They're commonly referred to as "sniffers" in the departments. The relationship on a federal level, to either the Bush or Obama administration, is a ridiculously unrelated point.

Jason, go work for Fox News if you want to push conspiracies. This article isn't 'daily' or 'tech'.


RE: dna annon?
By maugrimtr on 11/21/2013 8:45:48 AM , Rating: 2
Samus, you mean you don't know that Obama is personally responsible for every act committed and every word spoken by a federal employee or the employee of any federally (part or fully) funded entity?

Shame on you.

Now, while I think the wholesale collection of data before consent is given is clearly unconstitutional, most of the rest seems primarily ignorance. If I'm stopped by cops and someone who is not a cop requests I take some sort of test, then I tell them to go jump and release my vehicle before I sue their asses.

The article appears to illuminate citizen ignorance of their own rights against illegal search and seizure. That's a shame - but not a crime for either the person, the researchers, the cops or Obama. Also, you know, when they hand you bits of paper it's generally a good idea to read them. You quoted a person who simply did not say "NO!" so she could leave. Instead she accepted a form, heard out the compensation, blah, blah, blah. Apparently utterly incapable of just saying a two letter word.


RE: dna annon?
By M'n'M on 11/21/2013 1:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The article appears to illuminate citizen ignorance of their own rights against illegal search and seizure. That's a shame - but not a crime for either the person, the researchers, the cops or Obama.

You are correct about people's ignorance but that's to be expected. How long can you be detained, w/o arrest ? I suspect only lawyers know all those answers.

More importantly just having the police stop you , w/o any suspicion of wrongdoing, violates your rights and is probably unlawful, even in TX (it would be in NH). Had they posted billboards "voluntary search and get paid" with arrows to some parking lot. Or had the personel handed out flyers at tollbooths, those would be different situations.


RE: dna annon?
By Samus on 11/21/2013 2:11:00 PM , Rating: 1
I think you've missed my point.

1) Data collected by police is on a state, not Federal level. Our government has nothing to do with it.

2) A sniffer can be used even if you are 100% the technology exists. The second you roll your window down, the data can be collected.


RE: dna annon?
By M'n'M on 11/22/2013 11:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
I think you responded to the wrong person. I don't care who got what data. The method used to collect it was wrong.


RE: dna annon?
By Belard on 11/27/2013 4:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah... I think Jason is trying to get a job at FOX or maybe he already works for newscorps and this is one of their baby-blogs that they can point to about "news".

Almost every post about "tech" its Obama personally doing it.

Yes, there are tech and politics issues that come up, these are needed - the rest, garbage. I remember the constant screaming from idiots blaming Obama for retiring the Space Shuttle Fleet (Bush #2 did that, Obama added a few more missions - nothing more) and cancellation of the F22 program (again, this was done before he was President).


RE: dna annon?
By that_guy on 11/24/2013 11:42:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I want you to go to a Marine infantry barracks and see how far this comment gets you. I make very little money as an E3 and for you to suggest I like seeing my country raped stupid isnt the brightest assumption.


You make at least $1,787.35 per month gross(for those less than 2 years time in service), plus you have room and board, medical, dental, and 30 days paid vacation a year. You also get 36 months of college paid for when you get out, and roughly 800$ or more(depending on where your school is) a month on top of that for living expenses while in college if you have at least one class in seat(not online).
Face it, the job sucks, but the money and benefits ARE GREAT.
This is written as a Marine Sgt who got out regardless of the money.


Please
By fic2 on 11/20/2013 6:25:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But some of the motorists who submitted samples are outraged saying that the program infringed on their Constitutional rights and that the please did not make it clear that the seizure of medical samples was "voluntary".


But they said please....




RE: Please
By dgingerich on 11/20/2013 6:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The 2007 survey, they point out, was used as the basis for the NHTSA recommendation that the legal blood alcohol limit be lowered from 0.08 to 0.05 percent. The NHTSA asserts that by generating statistics to justify arresting more drivers who might be mildly impaired, it can protect Americans from themselves.


Because, of course, everyone does wrong and only the government really has the place to protect us from ourselves.

Don't trust the government, ever. The ones who seek power seek it for their own ends, not to protect us. Only the stupid think the government actually protects us.


RE: Please
By xti on 11/20/2013 10:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
how dark is your bomb shelter?


RE: Please
By swizeus on 11/20/2013 6:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you know you are seeing the person when someone say please though. A police uniform saying please is a no joke and no volunteer


RE: Please
By bill.rookard on 11/20/2013 7:03:20 PM , Rating: 4
Exactly, and there was a pretty long article about conversations between two people where there's a big difference in perceived authority.

When I ask a police officer to 'please give me his name and badge number', it's a request which he can say no to.

When a police officer says 'please step out of the vehicle' he is just being polite, and if I don't agree to step out of the vehicle, I will be [b]removed[/b] from the vehicle. And from what I've seen of police abuse videos, it won't be very politely at all.


RE: Please
By Schrag4 on 11/21/2013 1:21:31 PM , Rating: 4
I can see why many motorists would be "confused" into submitting to whatever they ask for. I would be one of them. There are laws in many states that say that if a driver refuses to submit to a breath or blood test then they're automatically convicted of DUI and their licenses are automatically suspended. When police pull you over and ask you to please submit to some tests, without making it clear that it's completely voluntary and part of a separate, federally funded program, is it really wise to assume that your day (or year or life) won't be ruined if you say no?

I know I need to adjust my tin-foil hat, but here's my take on this. I believe the purpose of this program is not really about the data that's being collected, and it's more about gradually getting citizens used to the idea that they can be stopped and searched for no reason at all. It's conditioning.


I don't see...
By Philippine Mango on 11/20/2013 6:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how pulling over people who aren't violating the law and collecting data showing that people are driving with some alcohol in their system would show that lowering the legal limit from .08 to .05 would increase safety.




RE: I don't see...
By amanojaku on 11/20/2013 6:55:29 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I don't see how pulling over people who aren't violating the law
That's all that needs to be said. If you aren't breaking the law, the government has no business being in your business. Laws can be added or revised, but they should never be broken, especially by law enforcement. These stops were clear violations of the rights to privacy and disclosure, and abuses of authority.

They're also financial burdens (to the tune of $8M USD!), and they divert police from their number one job function of FIGHTING CRIME.

And what can you learn from drivers who are slightly intoxicated, but committed no crimes? Those results seem to be the OPPOSITE of what you'd want to find if you're trying to set a stricter limit.


RE: I don't see...
By ClownPuncher on 11/21/2013 12:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't this unlawful search and seizure? 4th Amendment and all...


RE: I don't see...
By cladari on 11/20/2013 6:59:27 PM , Rating: 3
How many lawyers have to tell us to never ever speak to the police or give them anything other than ID followed immediately by "am I being detained?" If you paid good money to a lawyer to tell you that you would listen, free advice is still advice.


RE: I don't see...
By sorry dog on 11/21/2013 4:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
The proposed change in the standard from .08 to .05 is very clear to me.

Over the past decade, drunk driving awareness and programs to crack down on it have been very effective. Problem is that law enforcement agencies, municipalities, and other stakeholders in the drunk driving correction systems have a smaller and smaller pool of offenders to keep the revenues of system going.

...so what better way than to include a whole new group of potential offenders. Even though the evidence of the difference between say so sober and .05 requires much more interpretation, the ones who benefit from this are not going slow down this train. What you will see is this and that study cherry picked from stats where low levels of BAC are stated as the proximate cause for the conclusions they want even when the BAC level is really just a factor will unknown causality.

I mean how many politicians want to go on record for protecting drunk drivers, but then you end up with situations like when somebody has to register as a sex offender for 10 years because they caught taking a leak in the bushes on a public right of way once when they had to go.


Thanks, but please limit weak accusations
By ptmmac on 11/21/2013 10:06:05 AM , Rating: 2
Jason,
Civil liberties are really important, and this story really shows how far we have come away from our National principles such as freedom, honesty, and rule of law. There have always been both corrupt and honest, but over zealous police officers. The public needs protection from both kinds of invasive governmental overreach. This is not a political party issue. Neither party is exempt from this kind of problem

Whether this data is collected in a red or blue state is not an issue here. These police officers are the people who have to deal with the emotional toil of pulling broken and dead bodies out of cars on a weekly basis. They come to the problem of drunk driving from a different perspective then you or I do. They see civil liberties as a thorn in their side, rather than the fundamental values that the rest of us place on them.

Our civil liberties have been under attack from both political and technological forces for decades. When I was a teen ager it was illegal for an officer to demand access to the trunk of a car during a routine traffic stop. The Supreme Court has changed this limitation. No wonder no one knows they have the right to expect reasonable searches when we no longer have the same basic rights.

Why can't we have the same outrage about corporations using fine print and confusing contracts to over charge, under warranty and over claim control of terms? Why can't a contract require a basic short description ?

Please continue to raise these issues, but drop the political finger pointing. We need every vote and comment we can get or this is never going to get better.




By dgingerich on 11/21/2013 3:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't it amazing how quickly this degraded, partly because of 9/11 but also partly because of a perceived overwhelming power by one party? Currently, the only resistance the Republicans can muster is in the House, now that the filibuster process has changed. This has given the impression to the Democrats that they have become nearly unopposed in their plans.

If the Democrats gain majority in the House next election, the scales will tip completely and this country will go down in flames and debt. If by some weird happenstance the Republicans get full control of the entire legislative branch and the executive branch, the country will go down in flames and corruption. The only way this country has survived for this long has been as a balance between the two parties. When one is unopposed, either party, the balance is thrown off and the country goes downhill fast, like the Spanish American war and the Great Depression. Both those incidents were times when one party had nearly unopposed run of the country. It takes years to get back on track.


Drunk driving advice
By dgingerich on 11/21/2013 11:25:25 AM , Rating: 4
One piece of advice for everyone:

If you are ever stopped by a policeman for suspected drunk driving, do NOT take the roadside sobriety test where they have you touch your nose or walk a line. The conclusions from that are admissible in court and ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON THE LEO's JUDGMENT. After you take that test, no matter if a breathalyzer or blood test show you aren't drunk, they can still charge you. Demand to take a scientifically accurate test first and foremost.

Many innocent people have been convicted of crimes, especially DUIs over the years, based on the "judgment" of a police officer. Most police officers I have dealt with aren't interested in enforcing the law or protecting anyone. They have been more interested in pushing someone around. (A kid rams a car I was in, driven by a friend of mine, and they find three partial bottles of whiskey, a bag of pills, a bag of weed, and a pipe in his car, and yet he isn't charged. Rather, my friend gets a ticket for reckless driving, for getting hit. That's one of many stories I have.)

I advise: never trust a cop. you'll be sorry if you do.




Implied consent
By ssobol on 11/21/2013 12:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
In a lot of states (maybe most) by accepting a drivers license you are agreeing by implied consent to allow the LEO to sample your bodily fluids to check for intoxication. Refusing to take such a test will result in suspension of your driving privileges and may qualify as reasonable suspicion of intoxication resulting in arrest for DUI. In the case cited, the law enforcement organization may have been exploiting this implied consent law.

In some states if there are is a checkpoint and you are seen turning around before you get to it, this also is considered reasonable suspicion and they can go after you. Other states the law says you can turn around before the checkpoint without consequence, but if the LEO sees you do it he may come after you anyway on some other pretense (like making an illegal U-turn).




RE: Implied consent
By hpglow on 11/21/2013 1:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
We banned roadside checkpoints in my state. When I was younger I worked a night job and got stuck in those damn things all the time. It was great to work a 10 hour shift then wait in a 20 min line to get home. I remember getting irate with them more than once. My house was near a busy road and had a blind spot they could hide the trap so it was there almost once a week. I drove through it once and when they came and pulled me over I just gave them a rash of shit about not having any probable cause and refused to answer any questions without an attorney present. They gave up pretty easy after trying to convince me they could charge me with things like "leaving the scene of a crime" or "evading arrest." There were 4 cops they were just trying to bully me. Not something I would attempt now that I'm older, own a home, and have a daughter.


By KOOLTIME on 11/21/2013 3:38:16 AM , Rating: 2
Police are not medical persons, so asking a person for blood, is illegal as its a medical procedure not a test if your under drinking/drugs procedure.

Yes taking blood needs a specialized license for it, not just any regular nurse can draw blood.

Now after they formally arrested and go through a full medical review, which is mandatory before being sent behind bars or being sent to the hospital after the arrest. There is multitude of laws that prohibit doing any unwanted medical procedure on a persons for any reason. Including taking blood, due to they lack full medical history of the person if its even safe to do so.

The breathalyser is non intrusive, so its safe, but intrusive for arrest is illegal, and so unsafe its beyond comprehension this would even remotely be allowed.




Blood
By jimbojimbo on 11/21/2013 10:49:55 AM , Rating: 2
Damn, I guess I'm more hard pressed than any of you guys. When I saw the $50 for blood and $10 for cheek swab I thought hell yeah I'll agree! $60 bucks for stuff the government already has of me. No problem.




By mike8675309 on 11/21/2013 10:51:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
accurately reflect the problem nationwide.


Seems odd that a "scientific study" already has a conclusion before all the data is in.




shame on you mick
By zhivaji on 11/25/2013 10:33:49 AM , Rating: 2
Mick, What does Obama picture got to do with this article ? AFAIK, Texas is a republican govt and the police who did this is not federal but state.

The picture has been cleverly added to make this article more incendiary and turn it against Obama's administration.

One, Don't make the article a political issue. If you do, get your facts straight.




"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki