Enough is enough...
http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=91074&sitesection=breitbartprivate&VID=25375142

And now it's been reported that it was Fort Worth Traffic Division cops, OFF-DUTY, who had the police cars with flashers on directing everyone into that parking lot for testing.

Sounds like two cops need to be prosecuted for mis-using Government Equipment, and sued civilly for rights violations. Because they were NOT allowing people to pass. . .

Three things.

- It's well-beyond time that the oddball policies in some places that allow police officers to 'moonlight' off-duty, in uniform and sometimes using liveried police vehicles and resources like comms, be looked at with a very jaundiced eye.

I've no issue with letting police officers 'moonlight' in this way for genuine public-order and traffic situations, where a police presence is desirable. Examples would be directing traffic at a concert venue or football game. I've done it myself. These are entirely-proper police functions. So long as the entity doing the hiring is kicking back something to the department to pay for resources used. But hiring themselves out into a situation where they give every appearance of being police officers on duty but are actually working for purely private interests - like this - need to be reined in.

If it is as described, then this situation is no different than using uniformed officers to direct traffic into the parking lot of a restaurant and forcing people to sit there as waiters try and sell them meals. The combination of proper citizen compliance with police directions and the implied element of coercion that goes with a police officer in uniform, in a police car, should not be employed to further the sole interests of any private entity. And 1000 times more so when participating in the private event may well cause citizens to incriminate themselves.

- I suspect a failure of command. If officers were hired to moonlight in this way, their command should have reviewed what they were being hired for and made sure that proper guidance was issued - that participation in the program was entirely voluntary and that citizens were not to be pressured in any way to participate. The individual officers may not have been aware of what the situation was, and treated this like other quasi-legal 'checkpoints' in which they may have participated.

- Using police officers for this and approaching it from the aspect of interdicting traffic on a public street was just a bad idea. Set up in a mall parking lot, leaflet and let the people come to you.

I will wager, though, that the officers and their command thought this was a neat idea, and took the opportunity to go fishing among the motorists that had been unlawfully seized in this way. What's the betting that there was a drug-sniffing dog wandering around in the parking lot? I bet there was.

llater,

llamas

Which is real (see below border patrol stops miles from border) and which is Memorex (see above?)?

Would like to know what I have to do versus what I'm asked/threatened to do.

http://www.infowars.com/holding-border-patrol-accountable-terry-bressi-on-recording-his-300-checkpoint-interactions/

My bad Amy!

I am still trying to figure out what a saliva swab has to do with a study allegedly about drunk driving. Sounds like they collecting DNA.

The correct answer is nope.

This is voluntary? well, then, I will voluntarily not participate. Please move so that I may resume my course.

Still doing the hard sell? do I need to call my lawyer? perhaps I should just dial 911 and report a kidnapping in progress?

Fifty bucks? If they want blood from me they are going to have to get a court order or cough up a lot more than 50 bucks!

I can be bought; but it will be a lot more than what they could afford.

Oh, and one more thing - no f&cking gift cards - CASH ONLY coppers!

"Life is hard, but at least it's short." - Soviet joke.

I wonder how much of this is actually a Milgram-style experiment to see how far they can oppress the American people before they start getting pushback?

Gee, and recently in Oregon the Supreme Court ruled that police can't get a Breathalyzer without a warrant, that it's not an undue burden to obtain one relatively quickly with current technology and smart phones.

I have been pulled over by the 59th Street Bridge in Manhattan 3 or 4 times trying to enter the upper level from 2nd Ave and 58th Street entrance. Between 59th and 58th they would have about 10 cops randomly pulling over suspicious characters like me for a "safety check." They ask for your license and registration and then check to see if they can get you on anything. It's unbelievable. They would definitely arrest me if I refused to participate. So I sat for 10 min while they checked my insurance, registration and license

Once I was pulled over twice in one week and I said, but officer, I was declared safe in this very same spot on Tuesday...

Catherine; I'd be willing to bet that what you are experiencing there is our federal tax dollars at work. NYC gets a large share of "anti-terrorist" federal tax dollars; most of it is used to pay for the police and they have to use it to keep it coming in.

I'm late to this thread but since FW is my hometown, I thought I'd point out that Beach is in a heavily ghetto area. LOTS of foot traffic, which is unusual in the Metroplex, and used to be renowned for prostitution although I don't know if that is still true. I adamantly do not approve of such police shenanigans, but am not surprised. The police seem to be like public school teachers: ostensibly they're paid with OUR MONEY to serve us, but really they serve themselves first and their employers--us--a distant second. Off-duty cops using the authority of their uniforms and position to make some extra Christmas cash by stopping citizens not suspected of a crime is beyond offensive.

Still, Beach is one of those streets where if you wanted to find wrongdoing, and conducted a random sweep, you'd have a greater than average chance of finding it.