Motorist checkpoint in Reading draws questions

A private firm with a federal contract - and backed up by city police - forced motorists off Laurel Street and into a private parking lot Friday to question them about their driving habits and ask for a swab of their mouth.

"I feel this incident is a gross abuse of power on many levels," Reading resident Ricardo Nieves, one of those stopped, told City Council Monday.

He said federal and local tax dollars were being used to stop innocent people without probable cause, and allow a private company to hire uniformed police to force citizens to listen to their questions.

He said he wasn't told what the swab was for, but added, "Clearly it was for DNA."

The checkpoint was among several being carried out in Pennsylvania by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, hired by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

City Police Chief William M. Heim said the two federal agencies are trying to see what can be done about crashes and injuries, and the swabs were not to get DNA samples but to test for the presence of prescription drugs.

The checkpoint was supposed to be voluntary, but Nieves said he had to refuse several times over a five-minute period before the woman taking the survey let him go.

What irked Nieves was the presence of city police. He said they were there - including a police car with flashing lights - to intimidate motorists, and gave the checkpoint an air of authority it would not otherwise have had.

Heim said city police were hired for site security only, since the survey takers were paying money for answers and for the swabs.

But he said city police did not pull motorists over, nor ask any questions, and in fact were asked to stay away from the cars.

Asked about Nieves' statement that the private firm wanted police there for intimidation, Heim responded: "People are not pressured by police presence to do something they don't want to.

"In the grand scheme of things, I think it's a pretty innocuous and minor issue."

Heim said checkpoints are fairly common - for seat belt use, drunken driving, truck safety regulations - and all result in minor inconvenience.

However, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania said those checkpoints are legal only to protect public safety.

"A car driver or passenger cannot be required or pressured into providing a DNA sample and, in fact, can't be stopped at all except on suspicion of a crime or for a properly conducted sobriety checkpoint," Mary Catherine Roper, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, told the Reading Eagle Monday.

The checkpoint was part of a $7.9 million, three-year survey by the agencies, which has been conducted several times since the 1970s.

The surveys have gained more scrutiny this year because the Obama administration has been heavily criticized over revelations that U.S. spy agencies are tracking phone and Internet traffic, CNN reported in June.

Susan Watson, executive director of the Alabama chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, told CNN that Alabama's use of deputies to conduct the survey was an abuse of power.

Mayor Vaughn D. Spencer said neither he nor Managing Director Carole B. Snyder were aware of it, and he needs to understand what role police played before making any comment on it.

Council members also were upset, and said if local police are there, it appears they are operating the checkpoint.

Councilman Dennis M. Sterner was livid that government can't pick up local drug dealers without a two-year investigation, but can stop motorists at random.

"Our rights are being violated more and more every day," he said. "It's another way of government intrusion into our lives."

My State Reps FACEBOOK post:

My latest Capitol Report:

On Friday, December 6, 2013, Nina Dean (my assistant) was informed that there was a checkpoint on Highway 79 requesting DNA samples from Missouri citizens. She drove out to the site but did not see a checkpoint. Later, Nina was told that the checkpoint had been completed before she got to the location. My assistant called me and apprised me of the situation. On Saturday, I talked to the O’Fallon Police Chief and he knew nothing about it. After more investigation by Nina, it was determined that the St. Charles County Sheriff was who set up the roadblock.

My assistant talked to the Sheriff’s office and they explained to her that it was just a checkpoint for the 2013 National Roadside Survey (NRS) of Alcohol and Drugged Driving. The 2013 NRS is the fifth in a series of national roadside surveys of alcohol-, and now drug-involved driving that have been conducted about every 10 years since the 1970s. The overall objective of the 2013 NRS is to estimate the prevalence of alcohol and drugs (illicit, prescription, and over-the-counter) in drivers on our Nation’s roadways. The data collected will provide information critical to problem identification and program development efforts in coming years. She continued the discussion with them and they promised to investigate it further.

After more investigation, the St. Charles County Sheriff’s office came to the conclusion that they had been duped. They realized that more was going on than just checking alcohol and drug levels in drivers. In fact, swabs of cheek cells and blood draws had been made. The sheriff’s department sent my office the paperwork that was sent to them and nowhere in the paperwork does it state that they will do this. In fact, it states, “They have passive alcohol sensor devices that they activate for every potential subject to help make an assessment of impairment. A Data Collector will signal a Survey Manager if they suspect a driver is impaired. The Survey Manager will make his/her own assessment and decide if the survey should continue and if the Impaired Driver Protocol should be implemented. This protocol calls for the Survey Manager to request a breath test (if needed) with a PBT that displays the BAC and then offer these choices: 1) Let a sober, licensed passenger drive after breath testing with a PBT that displays the BAC; 2) Call for two friends to come to the site; one to drive the subjects vehicle; 3) Offer to pay for a taxi or tow ride home, and making arrangements for the safe parking of subject’s vehicle if needed; 4) Let subject wait and re-test if BAC is relatively low; 5) Allow subject to walk if the distance is short and BAC is below .08 or below (lone females must be accompanied by a team member); 6) Pay for a hotel if the subject lives far from the survey site.” Therefore, the organization who contracted with the Sheriff’s department was giving the impression that they were just using breath analyzers and not collecting DNA samples. But now we know that is not true.

Once again, we are witnessing Federal overreach in our state. To end this, I will be proposing legislation to make sure this never happens in the state of Missouri again. Never should our trusted law enforcement agents be put in the situation where they violate the rights of Missourians. If you have any questions, please call my office at

Thank you,

Kurt Bahr

A DNA sample?

Sure, the instant you show me a warrant signed by a judge that names me specifically, details the crime you are investigating, and why you think you have probable cause to remove parts of my body in the course of investigating that crime.

I’ll wait.

I have plenty of spare time.

I have so much spare time, I could easily spend years in court pursuing a civil rights violation under color of authority case.

What was your name and badge number again?

Who is your supervisor?

Who ordered your department to engage in a mass illegal warrant-less search and seizure operations?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.