Cops setting up road blocks for voluntary DNA samples

So they pay ten bucks for what the scientific research team behind the collection gives twenty, pocketing a percentage. Those might not be the real numbers, but you see, it's actually likely a fund raising activity for the police. They are selling out the participants. Then the DNA goes to a lab which may have questionable management. Like that lab tech in Massachusetts who faked thousands of drug tests. (Lab tech story)

What would your lawyer want? Supervised collection under probable cause, not something on the street. Ten bucks is a rip off for your participation, which may be used against you one day, by potentially corrupt individuals who may pocket the DNA and plant it whenever they feel Ike it, worst case scenario at the moment.

Does anybody believe any of their obvious lies?'

How long can it be now before they go door to door?

"Oh. Excuse us. We're cops, obviously. We're sorry to trouble you but would you mind if we came inside to have a look through your closets and drawers? Tell ya what. We'll even pay you. For that matter, we'll pay you triple if we can take you back to the station and let our nice doctor experiment on you. Why are you looking at me like that? I mean, you're not hiding anything, are you?"

Josef Mengele couldn't have come up with a better "experiment" if he tried, just a little test to look for race markers in the blood back then it was "papers please" Now it's "DNA please"

I wonder if it's voluntary like when you get stopped and the LEO wants to search your car? You don't have to say yes, but then you will sit on the side of the road for hours while they bring out a dog to sniff around your car, or they make up some bogus "probable cause" This has been a fact of life since the start of the bogus "war on drugs" It is used to chip away at out freedoms, same as the "war on terror"

They say this is voluntary, but if you refuse what are the repercussions? Is it probable cause to further probe you if you refuse? I wonder how many of those that refused had their car searched because refusal is suspicion?

A Sign of the Times. Offering money for DNA tests, isnt new, but to setup a random road block, asking drivers to cooperate, now that is strange. It sounds like they could have done this anywhere there was foot traffic, why take to the streets unless there were other motives. What if they were trying to catch a murderer or someone who fit a certain DNA match, I guess it would be OK then. And its not like they could tell the public, without messing up there chances. Maybe its not that weird after all

reply to post by Glassbender777

Maybe its not that weird after all

Not in the least.........ohmyGod

reply to post by stopbeingnaive


I am not sure if it is true or not but I was watching a video recently that said the government has cameras in almost every public square that can do iris scans and target individuals simply by their gait and the speed they are walking. They are using the same technology they use in the drones to target individuals which is scary as heck to me. I think they already have a data base up and running and it is only a matter of time before we are all registered there. They said in this video the final changes will be put in place when the Immigration Bill is passed. Apparently there will be some requirement of a government issue ID to distinguish those who are citizens from those who are not. In an effort to keep the boarders protected they will take away peoples anonymity completely. I don't think that is a very good trade off but I am sure the small towns along the Mexican boarder think differently.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by StoutBroux

 

this is a violation of one's rights to travel unmolested in public.

This is a right? I believe you have the right of free speech, to congregate and a few others, but I can't find this right in the Bill of Rights....

I get your point though. I find it disturbing that Police would use their authority to set up road blocks, hindering traffic, to gather "voluntary" dna samples. When asked I would reply "are you out of your mind?" even though I have nothing to hide. I do, however, have a right to privacy and I value my privacy immensely.

And then you wonder why the gun grab is in the works. They are being brazen now, and they feel that they cannot be stopped.

So strange. I had not read or heard about this until another post on the same subject but it is eerily similar to a dream I had last night that I wrote about when I got into work and on the PC. www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by stopbeingnaive


They can kiss my ass.

We were slowly becoming a police state. Now it has been kicked into overdrive.

I am not naive in thinking that this is solely the Tyrant 0bama's fault, as it has been in planning for some time now.

But.............................0bama is in charge, promised to change things and it has yet to happen. He is/was a liar, and anyone still promoting his crap, or bigger Govt is a hypocrite that is just continuing the Bush crap. It is just gone from steam engine to star cruise with warp speed.

Why would anyone in the right mind give up a DNA test voluntarity?

Crazy stuff and soon to be done even if you dont it to... how do these people get away with it..

They are looking for certain markers that can only be determined genetically.


thread reply

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by StoutBroux

 

this is a violation of one's rights to travel unmolested in public.

This is a right? I believe you have the right of free speech, to congregate and a few others, but I can't find this right in the Bill of Rights....

I get your point though. I find it disturbing that Police would use their authority to set up road blocks, hindering traffic, to gather "voluntary" dna samples. When asked I would reply "are you out of your mind?" even though I have nothing to hide. I do, however, have a right to privacy and I value my privacy immensely.

It's called the "Privileges and Immunities Clause" of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." People should understand that by the limits set forth within the Constitution you have many immunities that are actually rights, though not declared rights, that the government cannot infringe upon because their power to do so is limited by the constraints of the Constitution.

Even though your right to free travel is not specifically stated, nor because it is enveloped within the "Privileges and Immunities Clause" does not mean that this right is non existent, nor does it mean that your right to free travel is a privilege.

Just because a right is not a constitutionally declared right within the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it is not a right, it is instead a fundamental right which is still protected under the limitations set forth in the Constitution. In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right.

In Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1948) at 499 -500, the United States Surpeme Court stated that: "Although the Court has not assumed to define `liberty' with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."

The USSC ruled in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) at 125-126:

"The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."

Justice William Douglas wrote in the 5-4 decision that:

The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law, that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta. Chafee, Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. See Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44; Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160. "Our nation," wrote Chafee, has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases." Id. at 197.
Freedom to travel is, indeed, an important aspect of the citizen's "liberty." We need not decide the extent to which it can be curtailed. We are first concerned with the extent, if any, to which Congress has authorized its curtailment.

Just because a citizens rights are not specifically stated within the Constitution does not mean they are non existent. You must realize that the Constitution was written by citizens to limit the power vested in government, and therefore if the power to limit something is not stated within the Constitution then the government does not have the power to limit that activity and it is therefore a fundamental right which is every bit as protected under the Constitution as a declared right.

reply to post by Nucleardiver


I bow to your knowledge. I am a bit of a constitutionalist, not without some learning on the subject, and I was wondering if anyone would respond with knowledge and reasoning.

It is quite refreshing to find someone here who can respond well and to the point, as opposed to just crying "conspiracy!!".

Thanks, Nuke!

reply to post by bbracken677

This is a right? I believe you have the right of free speech, to congregate and a few others, but I can't find this right in the Bill of Rights.... I get your point though. I find it disturbing that Police would use their authority to set up road blocks, hindering traffic, to gather "voluntary" dna samples. When asked I would reply "are you out of your mind?" even though I have nothing to hide. I do, however, have a right to privacy and I value my privacy immensely.

it is indeed a right. people forget that the constitution does not specify all the individual rights one has. the "right to travel" could be called a subsection of "liberty". the supreme court has held this up.

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 S.E. 579 at 583.

"No State may convert a Right into a Privilege and require a License of Fee for the exercise of the Right" Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 373 U.S. 262

To add...
Road Blocks in St Clair Co Alabama 6/8&9/2013 DNA and Blood Samples Taken

because you live in nazi germany?

I was stopped by one of these DNA stops back in 2007. It was late, about 130-2am, I was coming home from going to a haunted trail with my friends in the next state over. I just figured it was a DUI checkpoint but they pulled me over into a grocery store parking lot, gave me a big long speech about what they were doing, I politely declined. I wasn't more than a mile down the road before I was pulled over by one of the State Police cars that was sitting there with him telling me some crap about how the woman talking to me smelled alcohol on my breath and had I been drinking, so I ended up having to do a field sobriety test and a breath test (i got all zeros) before he would let me go or he would take me in. So they got all of my information and a DNA sample from me only because I declined to take part in their little sample collecting.
In the town that I was in, the college has a pretty big forensics school that is monitored and helped out by the FBI. This forensics program sends out mailers to alumni to see if they would like to come in and help out with their facial recognition programs they are working on. They bring you in and pay you with gift cards to restaurants, to take pictures of your face, measurements and a few other things.