Thanks, Bricker. How can that lawyer make that claim, then? Doesn’t that put him afoul of some bar ethics rule or something? Just curious and trying to resolve the dichotomy; I have no dog in any fight here.
I forwarded it to my sister-in-law as well, as she is a detective for the Norfolk PD (different division). She and my bro talked about it at lunch, and here is what she said:
I sense the blowing of smoke from said co-worker’s direction… 
Well, he says:
He’s not wrong. He says “such as” every 4th vehicle as an example of the kind of thing they might do. But another mathematical forumal would be “every single vehicle.” The key is not whether all cars are checked or not, but that the rule is determined ahead of time and cannot be altered by the officers at the checkpoint. “Every fourth car” is a fine rule. “Every single car” is a fine rule, too. “Hey, traffic’s light; let’s start checking every car even though we started out to check every fourth car,” is not.
I grant you he could be clearer, but he’s not said anything so outrageously wrong as to subject him to any sort of sanctions.
What? Traffic cops aren’t trained to find a vein and take a sample while ensuring compliance with proper phlebotomy and infection control practices?
Fuuuuck. I’ve been saying ‘flebotomist’ for ages. It’s one of those words I use often, too, just because I liked how it rolled off my lips and it seemed a cool word to know. I feel so stupid.
Me, too! Nobody’s swabbing my cheek without a court order. I’m pretty easy going about most things, but not about biological samples.
To more directly answer the OP, no, I have never heard of such a thing.
Ok. When Yarster posted the word spelled ‘plebotomist’, I panicked and thought I had been pronouncing it wrong all my life. Now I see it was simply a typo, and I haven’t been pronouncing it wrong at all. Whew.
I’m sure I’ve been spelling it wrong, though.
I would have refused. The cop made it clear that it was voluntary–in other words, there was no probable cause. Presuming she was sober or not, all she had to say was: “I am not consenting to a search, officer” Which would be followed by the following question: “Am I being detained officer, or am I free to go?” And that would have been the end of it. What happen here was the cops took advantage of her ignorance of her 4th (search) and 5th amendment (self-incrimination) rights.
That DNA swap can come back to haunt her should it ever she pop up in a database; mistakes happen even with DNA.
Remember: “EVERYTHING CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW.”
The closest thing I’ve heard of is women being pulled over and made to perform oral sex on (corrupt) officers under fear of arrest.
“Swabbing your cheeks”, indeed.
AKA Supporting the policeman’s ball(s).
I have to call bullshit on the situation. I’m an EMT, and I have taken blood samples at traffic stops for drunk driving evidence. Caveats before the explanation: my jurisdiction is North Carolina, not VA, although I am in the general area as the reported incident.
-
Blood samples have to get to a hospital or lab within the hour of draw or they are unusable.
-
There is a mound of paperwork involved to establish a chain of evidence for blood sample; I presume the same is true for cheek swabs.
-
I cannot draw blood on anyone the cop directs me to. The person in question has to be already in custody.
Checkpoints are common in the area, on both sides of the state line. This one is happening today, and no doubt will get people fleeing the Outer Banks ahead of the hurricane.
This pings my BS meter too… although. The Hampton Roads/Norfolk area is a huge military area with dozens of bases. Military police could probably conduct a more through “survey” than the city police.
:smack:
I’ve been spelling it right but pronouncing it wrong. I’ve pronounced it “pluh-botomist”, like the H was silent. Never noticed anyone else saying “fluh-”.