Traffic Stop Becomes Colonoscopy Exam.

[ballen0351]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

#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]

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]

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

 

[arnisador]

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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"?

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[jks9199]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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