Roadblock stops drivers to collect saliva and blood samples

boing
21

Woops! Kim Cope just made the “suspicion of clenching but cheeks” list.

22

I think you might be right, since DUI checkpoints aren’t legal in Texas. Someone’s trying to find a loophole.

1 Like
23

I had this happen to me (not in Texas, however). Was directed over to a road stop in a fast food restaurant parking lot by the police, though they said ‘we’re not detaining you, you can keep going if you want’. At first I had thought it was a DUI checkpoint.

IIRC, they offered me money to give a sample, and stressed that it was supposed to be anonymous. Needless to say I told them that I wasn’t giving out any bodily fluids that night (I think I said ‘That’s super weird and creepy, no thank you’) and just left.

1 Like
24

It’s a regular feature on Stony Island (south side of Chicago), especially on Saturday nights. I think it’s as much an excuse to look for weapons as drugs. Thanks for pointing out that our dog could be a liability…so far she hasn’t been, but you’re right that all it takes is one particularly fired-up officer to cause a very different result.

25

This article is misleading and inflammatory. The study followed all established federal research guidelines, including IRB review and protection of PII. Informed consent was obtained before specimens were collected. This is a valid and valuable area of research in traffic safety.

26

Blood and saliva are also DNA sources, if they choose to spend the money on that. Were the “voluntary participants” provided with HIPAA notification about the use of their private medical information (which anything containing DNA is, even if it’s ostensibly “anonymous”)?

1 Like
27

Inappropriate responses to “May we have a sample of your blood and saliva?”:

  1. “Are you hitting on me?”

  2. “Can I give you a stool sample instead?”

  3. “Do you want it to be my blood?”

2 Likes
28

You make some firm assertions but offer no evidence, no citation. You lack any sort of credibility though because as I pointed out, if they are using passive sensors to detect alcohol, (as stated in the piece), they are doing so without informed consent, despite your statement to the contrary. If you are certain that the sturdy followed all guidelines, then you shouldn’t have any qualms about offering me a link with which to verify the claim. Who sat on the IRB? What were the study goals? How was it funded? Was HIPAA notification complied with? It’s your claim, it’s your responsibility to either offer up your evidence for the claim or to withdraw it. Which will it be, officer? I really don’t think you have the smallest clue of what human subject research protocols are.

29

4: “Would you accept any other bodily fluids?”

2 Likes
30

5: Can I have some of your stool/saliva/blood, too?

2 Likes
31

@Brainspore @wrecksdart
6: “Gonna have to catch me first!”

1 Like
32

I guess I’ll do the google search that you couldn’t be bothered to do before making wild assertions about violating people’s rights.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving%2BSafety/Research%2B&%2BEvaluation/2007%2BNational%2BRoadside%2BSurvey%2Bof%2BAlcohol%2Band%2BDrug%2BUse%2Bby%2BDrivers

The current study is a replication of the one linked above, you can click on ‘Methodology’ to learn about participant protocols.

You say you don’t think I know anything about research protocols. As a public health researcher I think it’s funny that someone who does claim to know about them would even think that it would be possible for a federally funded research study like this to be conducted without IRB approval or PII and HIPAA reviews.

How do you think government research works? You, a lot of the other commenters here, and the author of the BB article kind of sound like conspiracy nuts to me. Without knowing if there were any violations of protocols that led to complaints in this instance, I hate to think that Federal public health research should only be conducted if it won’t offend the orneriest tea party members in Texas. That’s a tough bar to clear.

33

Thanks for the link. For everyone else, page 10 of this PDF: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811237.pdf goes over what’s done, and in which order.

A few points of interest:

  • The above is the order that the “Methodology” PDF gives. So the first PAS screening is taken before consent was given, and even if the drivers refused to participate in the survey, they were asked to give breaths samples before departing. I wonder if the breath sample was optional. I’d like some more explicit wording.

  • I’m skeptical of an “anonymous” study which requires a “Driver Information Card.”

  • It’s vague about “If the driver had a BAC above .05, we insured he/she got safely home.” How did they get the driver home? Was it at his own expense? Did it involve a night in protective custody first? Just curious.

Edit:

  • Also, the license plate number is very easily observable information about the vehicle, and nothing states that this information is not collected.
1 Like
34

No, Belarus is an artifact, Putin has absolutely no intention of going back.

His goals are actually very simple - maintaining the status quo and line his pockets. In fact, he would give away a fortune to NOT be in this position, but he’s fallen in the dictator’s vicious cycle. The moment he’s out of power, there’s only one place he’s heading, and it’s not an Italian villa. The only way out is further in.

35

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.