# Traffic Stop Becomes Colonoscopy Exam.



## arnisador (Nov 5, 2013)

I certainly hope there's another side to this story that we haven't heard about yet:
*4 On Your Side investigates traffic stop nightmare *






> Eckert didn't make a complete stop at a stop  sign coming out of the parking lot and was immediately stopped by law  enforcement[...]after law enforcement asked him to step out of the  vehicle, he appeared to be clenching his  buttocks.  Law enforcement thought that was probable cause to suspect  that Eckert was hiding narcotics in his anal cavity.  While officers  detained Eckert, they secured a search warrant from a judge that allowed  for an anal cavity search.
> [...]
> While there, Eckert was  subjected to repeated and humiliating forced medical procedures.  A  review of Eckert's medical records, which he released to KOB, and  details in the lawsuit show the following happened:
> 
> ...


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 5, 2013)

I've done that but I've never seen it go that far.  Usually an xray and a quick exam is it.  I've never seen nor would I want to see for that matter the enema or the camera


----------



## Takai (Nov 5, 2013)

I hope that they have neglected to mention some details that are pertinent to the situation. If not...I see some really bad repercussions in the future.


----------



## Takai (Nov 5, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I've done that but I've never seen it go that far.  Usually an xray and a quick exam is it.  I've never seen nor would I want to see for that matter the enema or the camera



That approach appears to be within reason to me.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 5, 2013)

If a judge signed a warrant for all of that there has to be more behind this than a random "butt clenching" IMPO ("professional opinion" ). 

I'm guessing the stop was a pretext stop and this guy was a target of a narcotics investigaton. I cant imagine all of that simply because a guy was clenching his ***. There is more behind this...id wager money on it.



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Nov 5, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I'm guessing the stop was a pretext stop and this guy was a target of a narcotics investigaton. I cant imagine all of that simply because a guy was clenching his ***. There is more behind this...id wager money on it.



It does seem too exaggerated to be just a routine stop--I also suspect there's more to the story. Apparently he was stopped within walking distance of his house which also seemed unusual if at random.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 6, 2013)

Survey says:  Bad police work.

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3210356.shtml



> Our investigation reveals another chapter. Another man, another minor  traffic violation, another incident with Leo the K-9 and another example  of the violation of a man's body.
> Police reports state deputies stopped Timothy Young because he turned without putting his blinker on.
> Again, Leo the K-9 alerts on Young's seat.
> Young is taken to the Gila Regional Medical Center in Silver City, and  just like Eckert, he's subjected to medical procedures including x-rays  of his stomach and an anal exam.
> ...



Now the tin hat in me leans towards a bad PD with a 'deal' with the doctors, everyone gets a piece of the cash after they rape the perps.  Yes, I said rape, because when you stick something up someones *** without their consent, it's rape.

It could just be really bad police work, piss poor training, asshats with badges and delusions of power, etc.  Whatever it is, it's a serious violation of citizens rights, and the lawsuits are going to hurt some taxpayers.  It also continues to erode the necessary trust between civilians and law enforcement, which makes everyone less safe.



> The doctors from the Gila Regional Medical Center have been turned over  to the state licensing board.  It's possible they could lose the  ability to practice to medicine.
> And the police officers will be answering to a law enforcement board.



Good.  If only they could be held criminally and personally liable for damages.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 6, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Survey says:  Bad police work.
> 
> http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3210356.shtml
> 
> ...


OR it could be you dont have the entire story.  You dont have the entire investigation that is going on.  You have the very min info put out so that the larger investigation isnt compromised.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 6, 2013)

I'm not beyond believing in there being shoddy PC being rubber stamped by a judge. But on the "rape" thing....what drug mule will "willingly" give up their load? That's what warrants are for in the first place....legally getting to stuff criminals won't willingly give up.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Carol (Nov 6, 2013)

It happened again:

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3210356.shtml?cat=500#.Unpb1eK-1-b


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 6, 2013)

Carol said:


> It happened again:
> 
> http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3210356.shtml?cat=500#.Unpb1eK-1-b


Thats the one Bob posted


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 6, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> OR it could be you dont have the entire story.  You dont have the entire investigation that is going on.  You have the very min info put out so that the larger investigation isnt compromised.





Carol said:


> It happened again:
> 
> http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3210356.shtml?cat=500#.Unpb1eK-1-b



While I suspect the only ill-intent is overzealous investigation -- invasive exams, especially the colonoscopy, are rather extreme.  There'd better be one hell of a lot of investigative information supporting going that far.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 6, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> While I suspect the only ill-intent is overzealous investigation -- invasive exams, especially the colonoscopy, are rather extreme.  There'd better be one hell of a lot of investigative information supporting going that far.



That's my "thing" too.... a judge signing a warrant based only on a K9 hit on a car seat seems out of whack.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 6, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> While I suspect the only ill-intent is overzealous investigation -- invasive exams, especially the colonoscopy, are rather extreme.  There'd better be one hell of a lot of investigative information supporting going that far.


Thats the thing.  Maybe stuffs different in New MExico but here To get a judge to sign a warrant for that Id need alot more info then provided in the story. Then to get a Doc to go that far beyond a normal exam Id need even more then what I told the judge.  I just dont see the point in doing all this just to be an asshat with delusions of power.  Thats so much time and paperwork involved in that Its hardly worth the time to prove Im a tough guy.  Its quicker to just knock a guys teeth in and move on with my day.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2013)

Course I don't have the whole story, that's why I put in the variations.  

Rape is defined, in part when the subject being penetrated vaginally or anally states "no" or is in a drug induced state where they can not resist or give/dent consent.
(condensed from law.com)

I expect there are more cases out there. I found 2. So Far.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 7, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Course I don't have the whole story, that's why I put in the variations.
> 
> Rape is defined, in part when the subject being penetrated vaginally or anally states "no" or is in a drug induced state where they can not resist or give/dent consent.
> (condensed from law.com)
> ...



But Bob..a warrant is all about doing something against a persons consent. What criminal would willingly let me search their home? I get a warrant. What person with baloons of heroin in their gut will willingly crap it out just cause I ask?

I'm not defending this particular case on its face, but what are your base beliefs on what a warrant means? If this guy had a half kilo in his *** and the warrant was entirely valid would it still have been "rape"?

This particular situation aside...are we supposed to let mules with packs of heroin in their colon go if they don't consentually give it up?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2013)

Tgace said:


> But Bob..a warrant is all about doing something against a persons consent. What criminal would willingly let me search their home? I get a warrant. What person with baloons of heroin in their gut will willingly crap it out just cause I ask?



If I had a balloon of drugs up my *** or in my gut, I'd want to get it out before it broke and I croke.  That tells me, time, not repeated violation is the key here.  



> I'm not defending this particular case on its face, but what are your base beliefs on what a warrant means? If this guy had a half kilo in his *** and the warrant was entirely valid would it still have been "rape"?



I didn't see "unless a judge oked it" on any of the legal definitions I read.  Maybe it's ok though if an appointed official signs off on it?  Maybe it's ok if someone in a uniform does it? or if they went to medical school? Not for me to say. 



> This particular situation aside...are we supposed to let mules with packs of heroin in their colon go if they don't consentually give it up?



Last I checked, this morning in fact, I didn't require anything other than time to take a crap.  That said, there is reasonable search and unreasonable search.  How many xrays, laxatives, muppeting and hose rammings do you inflict on someone before it crosses into 'unreasonable'?  When a report reads like a story from one of Sadamns prisons, well....





> 1. Eckert's abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.
> 2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
> 3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
> 4. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema.  Eckert was   forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers.  Eckert   watched as doctors searched his stool.  No narcotics were found.
> ...



Lets turn this around.  At what point would you, an innocent person, be ok with and at what point would you as an innocent person be not ok with?
For those with children, at what point would you like the nice people to stop searching your kid?  

How about when an xray showed nothing, you hold the person for 24 hrs and monitor them closely?

Also, make sure your sniffer dog is reliable and not just signalling because it has fleas.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 7, 2013)

I don't really disagree with you Bob...and that's how it usually handled here as well...the wait and see approach. But taking body substances against a persons consent is accepted law. When a drunk kills 6 people in a wreck I can get a warrant to take blood for testing against their will.

Granted its a time sensitive issue in regards to BAC, but the core concept is that legally taking it "against the persons will" is part and parcel of why we have a warrant process in the first place.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 7, 2013)

Lots of reasons you do wait it out
1st he can hold it for days even over a week.  When I was in cold weather training in the USMC when we were in the field you had to crap in a bag and keep it with you because we were training in a national park.  Nobody wanted to carry that around.  I held it for 9 days once.  
2nd if it busts open inside you won't know it until he dies.  Then you would be complaining about how he died in police custody why didn't they just go get it.
3rd things like this are normally part of a larger operation and you don't want to let too much time pass and tip off other possible targets.


Also in a side note.  In this state you can't Rape a man so your definition of rape varies depending on location.  To commit a rape you Need vag. Penetration.  Anal or oral is not rape here.


----------



## granfire (Nov 7, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I don't really disagree with you Bob...and that's how it usually handled here as well...the wait and see approach. But taking body substances against a persons consent is accepted law. When a drunk kills 6 people in a wreck I can get a warrant to take blood for testing against their will.
> 
> Granted its a time sensitive issue in regards to BAC, but the core concept is that legally taking it "against the persons will" is part and parcel of why we have a warrant process in the first place.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



but drawing blood - even if you take into account that the local butcher does it and has to try both arms and a leg to find a vein - 3 enemas and a colonoscopy - which is as far as I know never done without anesthesia of some sort is far out there!
Unlike a blood sample to prove drunkenness, whatever is in the gut will eventually come out. 
It's just not in the same ballpark.

The only thing I can think off, somebody is getting his rocks off....abuse of power along with some obsession with the nether regions.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 7, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I don't really disagree with you Bob...and that's how it usually handled here as well...the wait and see approach. But taking body substances against a persons consent is accepted law. When a drunk kills 6 people in a wreck I can get a warrant to take blood for testing against their will.


I don't even need a warrant for that.  You kill or seriously injured someone in an accident you cannot refuse to give blood.  I don't need a warrant.  Bybdriving on our roads you have consented to giving a sample.  You can refuse if nobody is hurt but its a 500 fine and 2 months in jail and a suspended license just for the refusal.  But you hurt or kill you have no choice
Just like if your arrested for certain crimes I take your DNA you refuse I can use force to take it.  



> Granted its a time sensitive issue in regards to BAC, but the core concept is that legally taking it "against the persons will" is part and parcel of why we have a warrant process in the first place.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Nov 7, 2013)

True. If I...as a LE supervisor have enough reason to believe that a person in custody is muleing a large quantity of nartocics in their body and I decide to wait instead of having a Dr remove it...what's my liability if the baloon breaks and he dies in my custody? 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2013)

I get that it's accepted.  But my issue is at what point is it extreme, and shouldn't be?

As to rape, yeah I get that definition variation. Even the FBI seems to think so.  I'll withhold my opinion of that lest I get more heat and drift the topic.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 7, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I get that it's accepted.  But my issue is at what point is it extreme, and shouldn't be?


To be honest I've never seen them go that far.  I've never seen them do enemas or scopes.  But I've also never dealt with body packers (where they swallow balloons or condoms full of dope).  I've only dealt with people that shove them up their butts or woman up in their vag.  Both a simple exam is enough to pull it out.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2013)

CNN has the story now
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/justice/new-mexico-search-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

A missing bit of the puzzle.



> "Hildalgo County K-9 officer did inform me that he had dealt with Mr.  Eckert on a previous case and stated that Mr. Eckert was known to insert  drugs into his anal cavity and had been caught in Hidalgo County with  drugs in his anal cavity," the affidavit said.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 8, 2013)

#3.  Different PD though I think.



> [h=1]New Mexico Authorities Sodomize a 3rd Victim, This Time it is a Woman[/h]
> There is now a THIRD victim of sexual molestation at hands of New Mexico authorities.


http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mexico-authorities-sodomize-3rd-victim-time-woman/

Original at local news station
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3212603.shtml#.Un0X_uK-1-a


> The ACLU claims the federal agents never secured a search warrant before probing or touching the woman.
> "And her medical records indicate that she refused consent," Shaur Ives said.





> the woman crossed the border at a Port of Entry from Juarez, Mexico into El Paso.
> A dog alerted to the woman, and Schaur Ives said federal agents  stripped searched her at the facility, asked her to undress, to spread  her genitalia and to cough. Female agents also allegedly pressed their  fingers into her vagina looking for drugs.
> The woman claims they didn't discover anything during the on-site strip  search, so they took her to University Medical Center of El Paso.
> "First, medical staff observed her making a bowl movement and no drugs  were found at that point," Schaur Ives said. "They then took an X-ray,  but it did not reveal any contraband. They then did a cavity search and  they probed her vagina and her anus, they described in the medical  records as bi-manual--two handed. Finally, they did a cat scan. Again,  they found nothing."



Not same PD. Border Patrol.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 8, 2013)

Bob you do realize body cavity searches happen every day right?  Hundreds of times a day.  
Is your objection to the searches in general


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2013)

What surprises me is that the X-ray isn't enough. What would not be visible on an X-ray?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2013)

A little more info.:
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3211354.shtml#.Un1dDOI4EmQ


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 8, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Bob you do realize body cavity searches happen every day right?  Hundreds of times a day.
> Is your objection to the searches in general





> The ACLU claims the federal agents never secured a search warrant before probing or touching the woman.


This


Also, if your warrant expires at noon, it's still ok to be digging around 3 hours later?  

As I said earlier, at what point does it cross the line into "Wrong"?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 8, 2013)

arnisador said:


> What surprises me is that the X-ray isn't enough. What would not be visible on an X-ray?



I actually asked that question once when I was involved with one.  Doc said depending on size of package, material of package, location in body and ummm amount of fecal material in the body xrays can miss things.  So if you see it on xray you know its there if you don't see it doesn't mean its not there.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 8, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> This
> 
> 
> Also, if your warrant expires at noon, it's still ok to be digging around 3 hours later?
> ...


Depends on what they mean by started the search before they got the warrant.  I can strip search you and have you bend over and look with out a warrant if you resist I can use force to look   I can't enter the cavity without a warrant unless I see the baggie up there .  It sounds like boarder patrol got a warrant and went to hospital its possible that he ACLU is considering the initial strip search as the start of touching.  Defense attys versions of events and police version of events often differ.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 8, 2013)

When going into a lock-up/jail/holding center/prison strip searches are always conducted without a warrant.

If I can articulate RS that someone is concealing contraband after a lawful arrest I can have them strip searched in my PD booking center....a cavity search? That would require a warrant or some exigent circumstance like a possible rupture/OD.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 8, 2013)

There are 3 truths here:
1 - Suspects Lie.
2 - Attorneys Lie.
3 - Police Lie.

So I just post the stories, the truth is subjective, IMO.  

#3 came up in an offsite discussion about #1 and #2.  Posted here as tangently related, but ultimately different PD, different situation.  

In the end I keep returning to the question of "excessive".  I have a Constitutional Right against "Unreasonable" searches.  These 3 to me sound unreasonable on initial viewing.  In the case of #1, additional information comes out changing the situation somewhat. I still find issues there though, especially when it reads like a fishing expedition.    I've seen dozens of reports outlining hundreds of complaints against the TSA for violating their own rules for searches. A similar search shows a large number of complaints regarding LEO strip search and cavity searches. Youtube has countless videos on the matter.  I fully understand that in some cases these are necessary because people do go to extremes to hide contraband. I also think that there should be significant safeguards for suspects and significant penalty for violations.  As to those who do shove stuff up there....well.....eww.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 8, 2013)

But your basing everything off of one side of the story.  You forgot rule #4 the news lies


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 8, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> In the end I keep returning to the question of "excessive".  I have a Constitutional Right against "Unreasonable" searches.  These 3 to me sound unreasonable on initial viewing.  In the case of #1, additional information comes out changing the situation somewhat. I still find issues there though, especially when it reads like a fishing expedition.    I've seen dozens of reports outlining hundreds of complaints against the TSA for violating their own rules for searches. A similar search shows a large number of complaints regarding LEO strip search and cavity searches. Youtube has countless videos on the matter.  I fully understand that in some cases these are necessary because people do go to extremes to hide contraband. I also think that there should be significant safeguards for suspects and significant penalty for violations.  As to those who do shove stuff up there....well.....eww.



No -- The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches WITHOUT a warrant:
_The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,  and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be  violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,  supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place  to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized._

Once a warrant has been obtained, the search is presumed to be reasonable, unless there are additional concerns.  These cases certainly raise concern; as I said earlier, there would have to be significant investigative support for the extreme methods employed here -- especially the multiple digital exams and the colonoscopy.  However, there's another factor in the third case you've presented...  Border searches fall under different rules.  Customs & Border Patrol can do a lot of things that I can't without a warrant, without much justification at all.  

I'm not defending the cops in these cases -- but I'm not crucifying them, either.  The courts and especially the press will take care of that without my help...  I simply don't have some important details.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 8, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> There are 3 truths here:
> 1 - Suspects Lie.
> 2 - Attorneys Lie.
> 3 - Police Lie.



Listed in order of frequency...although I'm not convinced that 2 shouldn't be above 1. 

Breaking out my cynic for a moment..almost ALL people I have arrested lied to me at some point about something. I've only seen SOME cops lie...

What would have been the point of lying here? These cops wanted to go through all that just to find nothing? What I see is a POSSIBLE lack of sufficient investigation combined with a judge who was lax in doing his job to assure the cops had enough for a warrant.



Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 8, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> But your basing everything off of one side of the story.  You forgot rule #4 the news lies



You're right. The news does lie.

I'm basing my outrage on the facts as stated.  Even if the person is lying about what happened to them (which is possible), the outrage is against the claimed treatment, which I find excessive and unreasonable, given the facts as I -currently- know them.  I'm not sure what would change my mind to not being outraged against multiple repeated forced enemas, and repeated penetrations, but stranger things have happened.



jks9199 said:


> No -- The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches WITHOUT a warrant:
> _The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,  and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be  violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,  supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place  to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized._
> 
> Once a warrant has been obtained, the search is presumed to be reasonable, unless there are additional concerns.  These cases certainly raise concern; as I said earlier, there would have to be significant investigative support for the extreme methods employed here -- especially the multiple digital exams and the colonoscopy.  However, there's another factor in the third case you've presented...  Border searches fall under different rules.  Customs & Border Patrol can do a lot of things that I can't without a warrant, without much justification at all.
> ...



Given that I am a law abiding citizen, I highly doubt there will ever be a reasonable reason to inflict on me, what was claimed here.  As to the Border, I'm in the "Constitution Free Zone", but if they go near my *** I promise they will suffer.  I eat Daves Insanity Sauce, my farts will scorch paint, the guy searching my colon will have to change his name to Frodo 9 Fingers. :rofl:

  More seriously though, like I said above, given the facts as currently listed I have trouble believing that even with reasonable suspicion and a warrant that these searches were anything but extreme.  I could be wrong. More information may come out, past histories, stuff that the B media overlooked or left out, etc.  I don't believe I've gone on a rant here, not crucifying anyone.  My current armchair opinion is bad police work, or over eagerness.  But it's still early and that could change when/if more information comes out.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 8, 2013)

arnisador said:


> What surprises me is that the X-ray isn't enough. What would not be visible on an X-ray?



Lots of things don't show up on X-Rays. X-Rays show up dense things really well. Like bones. They also show density differences pretty well. But it can be difficult to identify a condom full of drugs in the colon, especially if the density of the drugs are close to that of the stool in the colon. Cocaine, for example, is close to the same density as stool, while heroine is much lower density (which makes it look like gas in the colon). With cocaine, what is usually seen is the packaging, not the cocaine. And if the packaging isn't particularly radiopaque, it can be missed.

X-Ray is pretty good at identifying foreign bodies in the mule, but it's not infallible.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 8, 2013)

Id like to read the warrant. 

Its not like I could tell a doc.."that enema wasn't enough...do a colonoscopy"...at least not here.

I would like to know the story behind the escalation of medical process in this case.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 8, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Id like to read the warrant.
> 
> Its not like I could tell a doc.."that enema wasn't enough...do a colonoscopy"...at least not here.
> 
> ...



That's my thoughts if I told a doc to do XYZ he would look at me and say "with all due respect officer I'm the doc and ABC is medically sufficient


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2013)

In each of these cases they billed the suspect for the medical costs:



> He was never arrested or charged with anything throughout the entire  ordeal. Later, Gila Medical Center sent him a bill for $600.
> [...]
> Like Young, Eckert was also billed for the procedures  this time for $6,000.



That _is _crazy, right?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 8, 2013)

arnisador said:


> In each of these cases they billed the suspect for the medical costs:
> 
> 
> 
> That _is _crazy, right?



Well, that's 1 way to almost meet the new Obamacare deductibles.  :rofl:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 16, 2014)

> A New Mexico man has settled with local authorities for $1.6 million  after claiming police forced him to undergo "multiple digital  penetrations and three enemas" on an invalid warrant and without finding  any of the illicit drugs they were looking for. David Eckert "feels  gratified that the city and county acted quickly, and ... that they  recognize his dignity and humanity," his lawyer, Joe Kennedy, said  Thursday. "He expects that it won't happen to anyone else ever again."


http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/16/justice/new-mexico-search-settlement/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


----------

