Traffic Stop Becomes Colonoscopy Exam.

[arnisador]

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:

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.
5. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
6. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.
8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert's anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.

 

[ballen0351]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
Again, police found nothing, and again the procedures were done without consent, and in a county not covered by the search warrant.
We've learned more about that drug dog, Leo, that seems to get it wrong pretty often. He might be getting it wrong because he's not even certified in New Mexico.

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]

Survey says: Bad police work.

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



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.



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

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]

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]

It happened again:

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

 

[ballen0351]

It happened again:

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

Thats the one Bob posted

 

[jks9199]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.
5. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
6. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.
8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert's anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. 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]

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]

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]

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.