Screen shot 2013-11-21 at 4.20.14 AM

Imagine being pulled over for doing nothing wrong — and then being asked for a blood sample.

That’s what happened to many drivers in Fort Worth, Texas on Friday.

Officials stopped drivers at a roadblock (even though they did nothing wrong), directed each of them to a parking spot, and then asked for breath, saliva, and blood samples.

This was all done in the name of “government research,” to figure out how many people were driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, this project cost a whopping $7.9 million over the span of three years.

NHTSA claimed the study was “voluntary,” but many of the individuals who were pulled over told NBC News that they felt forced to give over samples.

Kim Cope was one of the individuals pulled over. She claims that although officials did not explicitly force her to park and give a Breathalyzer, she felt as though she had no choice.

She said, “I gestured to the guy in front that I just wanted to go straight, but he wouldn’t let me and forced me into a parking spot.”

Cope claims the officials then offered her money for various samples. “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.”

At this time, it is unclear if actual police officers pulled over civilians or not. Fort Worth police initially denied involvement in conducting the “survey,” but later admitted that they did, in fact, coordinate with NHTSA to carry it out.

The Forth Worth police station is currently “reviewing” officer involvement and ensuring that “FWPD policies and procedures were followed.”

Many found the traffic stops distasteful, and some have questioned if they are even constitutional.

Civil liberty attorney Frank Colosi said, “You can’t just be pulled over randomly or for no reason. They’re essentially lying to you when they say it’s completely voluntary, because they’re testing you at that moment.”

Even if these roadside “surveys” are not technically unconstitutional, it is worrisome if this is becoming an acceptable norm in our society.

What do you think?

Tell us in the comments section below.


Follow Kristin on Facebook and Twitter.

The following two tabs change content below.
Profile photo of Kristin Tate
Kristin Tate is a multi-media reporter for Breitbart News and to fearless journalism, she regularly works on undercover stings with James O'Keefe to reveal government waste, abuse, and fraud.Tate was a Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) Chapter President and Founder. She will continue to fight tirelessly for individual liberty and free markets through new media. Visit Kristin's website at

Reality Check: Donald Trump May Be RIGHT on Birthright Citizenship!

Enter to win $500 of Gold or Silver from Anthem Vault!

Enter below or CLICK HERE for more details.

"Like" Ben Swann on Facebook
  • jwhitehawke

    At every opportunity the police state, under the Patriot Act, our inalienable and constitutional rights and liberties will be challenged and documented….if we let them. The longer they do this and succeed in treating us like slaves, the stronger the elite will become. Along with illegal NSA, Agenda 21 and loss of our freedoms, America is but a few years away from total ruin.

  • Scott Sourile

    If people could have said no, they should have. So, if it was voluntary and they did it, even if feeling pressured, that’s their own doing.

  • Scott Sourile

    On the same note, if it wasn’t than its pretty shitty.

  • wri7913

    If people were told they had ability to opt-out, then its voluntary. If they were not given the option, ACLU and any other rights organization should be suing the crap out of the police department.

  • rogerfgay

    Gov’t research grants require ethical treatment of research subjects; subject to penalties. The people running this project should lose funds and be denied any future funding for at least five years.

  • Ronnie Weightman

    The fact that we have people willing to debate this shows just how far away from freedom we have gone. This is never an acceptable practice. It’s an attempt to test the public and see just how much they are willing to accept. We live in a country that is rapidly increasing the authoritative role of government and this is just one more example of them finding out how much progress they have made in their quest for total dominance.

  • Richard

    The drivers would not pull over unless they thought they were being pulled over by police on duty. If the police were off duty, then they were impersonating an on duty officer. If they were allowed to use official uniforms and vehicles, then the police department shares the guilt. Pulling them over was unlawful detainment or false arrest of forward progress. Learning after someone is pulled over that it is a survey and that it is optional is the equivalent of doing the dirty deed and saying, “Just kidding”. Childish and irresponsible and worthy of being fired at a minimum, or criminal actions with the knowledge that it was criminal by offering these qualifying responses – “optional”, “survey” – AFTER the persons forward progress was arrested.

    If this behavior is excused, then it becomes a precedent for other laypersons to pull you over off the freeway and do their own version of a survey, wink wink, which might include their own versions of gaining information or worse.

    The Fort Worth PD needs to act swift and not only arrest the officers but also the federal employees involved in this egregious violation of 4th amendment rights. Anything less is an accessory to the crime and them siding against “we the people”.

  • Steve Rogers

    How come the government is not being sued for violation of human rights? Even though people “voluntarily” agreed to the test, the government appears to be trampling on individual privacy and taking advantage of peoples ignorance of the human rights law.

    Because people believe that human rights are important, countries make laws to protect them. These laws say that governments cannot take away people’s basic rights. They make sure people who take away other people’s rights are punished.

    Some major political organizations have made statements that promote human rights. These are not laws, but they affect us anyway. If groups or countries do not follow these statements, others will condemn them (say that they are very bad); and then people may not talk with them, do business with them, or help them.

    Some of the important places that human rights laws are written is in constitutions. The United States Constitution and Constitution of France are two of the oldest set of laws based on human rights.

    In 1948 the United Nations made the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is a widely respected document that says what the United Nations believes are human rights. It is not a law, but is the basis on which two important agreements are written:

    The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

    The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

    These are United Nations human rights Covenants: agreements between people or countries. The countries who sign these two covenants agree to follow them.

    In addition to those Declaration and Covenants, there are many treaties and documents made by United Nations and other international organizations. Those treaties and documents are called “International human rights law”.

    Not everyone agrees on what the basic human rights are. Here is a list of some of the most recognized ones:

    Right to privacy

    Right to live

    Right to marriage and family

    To own property

    Free Speech

    Safety from violence

    Equality of both males and females; women’s rights

    Fair trial

    To be considered innocent until proven guilty

    To be a citizen of a country

    To be recognized as a person

    The right to express his or her sexual orientation

    To vote

    To seek asylum if a country treats you badly

    To think freely

    To believe and practice the religion a person wants

    To peacefully protest (speak against) a government or group

    Health care (medical care)

    To communicate through a language

    Not be forced into marriage

    The right to love and to be loved

    The right to work

    The right to express oneself

  • jac


    A NBC affiliate station in Ft. Worth reported that the an NHTSA spokesman says there are 30 cities participating in this traffic stop survey… can you find out which cities are on that list, other than Ft. Worth, and let us know?

  • likeitsmylast

    If a person was under the influence, what are the chances they would voluntarily take part in this study. For being “researchers”, these really are some stupid people. WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY. Can we just start using common sense, people?

  • Brandon Richards

    over my dead body will they force anything out of me against my will.

    • BeVoluntaryist

      No, they won’t kill you. They will get a doctor to sedate you or just hold you down. You can scream the doctor is violating his hippocratic oath but he is a statist drone and won’t pay attention. The police brought you here, that means you are a criminal.

  • chthompson

    This regime is going off the rails and must be neutered in 2014 if we hope to retain any of our liberties. If our congresslime won’t rein in this insanity, then we need to vote them out. All of them.

    • DrKeteDC

      I agree with you about this regime, but don’t you agree that Republicans do the same thing?

      • chthompson

        Most definitely. That is why I said we need to vote “all of them” out of office. With a few exceptions, most of the RINOs are worse than the demoncrats because they pretend to support liberty and then stab it in the back every chance they get.

  • Wayne D.

    Abuse of power, cohersion, intimidation in the name of science?
    This is a police state any way you define it.
    The people’s will and the constitution mean nothing.
    Any decent will be “neutralized” one way or another,
    including military style intelligence, tactics and equipment when too many people get into the streets,
    (which may encourage others, that’s why no coverage on main stream media).

  • Gregory Alan of Johnson

    I’d re-offer the contract of being “forced” their direction until they shot me dead. Most likely, like many who have challenged Agents at check-points, I’d be allowed to continue unencumbered.
    Folk need to do legal research into the extremely limited authority of municipal agents.

  • chip griffin

    all this could be fixed in no time if the lawyer would jump on it now, instead they sweat getting rich while the country goes down the tube. being rich in a prison is worthless. braindead lawyer letting the prison state happen on their watch…

  • Natasha Hedlund

    This is unconstitutional. Look at the fourth amendment.

  • Libertygirl

    That’s why now more than ever individuals need to know their rights. I was stopped at a road check the Deputy asked for my license I asked why she said to check if it was expired and I replied “doesn’t the DMV know when it expires after all they issued it to me?” The Deputy then asked if there was a problem with my license and I replied ” no , no problem at all” I then went ahead and let her see it because I could tell it had caught the attention of another Deputy and figured they’d then give me a hard time for questioning them about why if I hadn’t done anything illegal. This asking for Blood breath and saliva samples is WRONG on so many levels and I would have most definitely declined and I would have asked them if they had a warrant / court order for one from me.

  • Slim_Strontem

    I bet the prime research was to see how many sheep were among the cats, or vice-versa. Any other data would be a bonus, and was likely not limited to drug/alcohol analysis.

  • charlesbigtruck

    Cops have forgotten about there oath and the definition of Liberty. Violating there oath no-longer makes them a LEO.