The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
A Thread About Policing
Dibbit
Registered User, Transition Team regular
Registered User, Transition Team regular
TRIGGER WARNING: Graphic descriptions of rape and/or rape-like actions
I was kind of waiting for Thanatos to brief us on this one, but apparently he's gone soft on the men in blue, or maybe he's just on vacation or something.
And for some more fun: This doesn't seem to be an isolated incident:
Now you might be wondering,What if you happen to be a lady? What then?
Obviously, police departments look down on this kind of behavior and won't tolerate it in their ranks.
Cue Jon Steward like contrary news story!
mcdermott:
I was kind of waiting for Thanatos to brief us on this one, but apparently he's gone soft on the men in blue, or maybe he's just on vacation or something.
Anyway: if you're stopped in New Mexico, you might end up in a hospital where doctors do unpleasant things to your behind.
Here's a quick rundown of what happened (approximately, please see legitimate news sources for unbiased real news):
1. New Mexico resident, mr. Eckert, fails to completely stop at a STOP sign, is pulled over.
2. Cop thinks he acts funny and gets a search warrant to search the car for drugs
3. Not finding anything, a drug dog is called in.
4. The dog sniffs the car seat and barks.
5. The dog handler says "He looks like a guy who would smuggle drugs in his ass"
6. They transport the man to a hospital where....
7. They X-ray his butt : no drugs are found.
8. Insert a finger in his butt to manually search for drugs: no drugs are found.
9. They X-ray his butt again: still no drugs.
10. Second Butt fingering but this time: ... no drugs.
11. Force an enema and go through his stool: no drugs
12. Second enema because why the hell not: still no drugs
13. Third enema in case he had the drugs stashed all the way up his esophagus and it just needed some extra flushing.
14. Hey, let's try the X-ray thing again
15. Ooh well, let's just sedate this mastermind drug smuggler and do a forced colonoscopy, those drugs are probably hiding next to some WMD.
16. Nothing? Really? after everything we inserted into his butt without consent? Well, we'll just charge him for the procedure, because his wallet almost escaped unravaged.
And for some more fun: This doesn't seem to be an isolated incident:
Same Dog, different minor traffic violation
1. Mr Young --also from New Mexico-- fails to use his turn signal, this obviously, is a sign of drugs!
2. Our favorite drug dog Leo, known for his love of warm car seats, is called in to search the car for drugs
3. Despite not being certified as a drug dog, Leo takes a sniff and alerts the officer of potential drugs
4. Time to take our suspect to a different county where they are somewhat easier on the whole butt thing, never mind that this oversteps the search warrent
5. Time for the X-rays!
6. And of course, some good ol' anal probing.
7. Guess what? No drugs.
8. This time, though, the hospital staff might be in trouble: The state licensing board is going to investigate.
9. And the Police face the fearsome "Law Enforcement board"
10. I'm sure these boards will come down harshly on this practice, and we have nothing to worry about, the officers in question will probably face up to 2 WEEKS of paid leave.
Now you might be wondering,What if you happen to be a lady? What then?
Don't worry, special procedures are in place just to make it a bit more horrific for you.
We wouldn't want women to feel safe and unmolested now, do we? Time for some fun with customs:
1. New Mexico local arrives at a port of entry to cross the border from Juarez, Mexico into El Paso.
2. Obviously, this is something you only do when you're smuggling condoms of cocaine, let's get real here.
3. Also, there's this drug dog, see, and he's totally barking.
4. Federal (customs) agents ask her to strip,
5. Spread her genitalia,
6. Now cough please. (Could a Penny Arcadian clarify for me, do things fall out of vaginae if you cough? I can't say that I have given this situation any thought)
7. Hhmm... As a custom and border control agent, I do need to check out that vagina some more.
8. Time to insert some fingers in there, but don't worry, female agents will do this, and they'll say "no homo" before the actual insertion.
9. Well, we found nothing, But don't worry, there's a nearby medical facility where we can...examine you.
10. Time to poop in front of strangers! Not specified is if she was allowed to be dressed, but I doubt it.
11. No drugs yet, let's fire up the X-ray machine.
12. I don't know why we bother with this machine, we were going to probe you anyway.
13. Time for a Vaginal search.
14. Let's not forget about Anal now.
16. Don't worry, girl, "bi-manual" might sound scary to you, but it just means "two-handed"
17. Yep, bracing yourself is a good idea.
18. No drugs? Quelle surprise!
19. Well, guess we can do a cat scan after this, I mean, we have the machine anyway and the director wants us to use it more.
20. no drugs, you're clean, welcome back to the U.S. of A. Here are your panties, also, eat more fiber.
21. Finally, have this pamphlet of the CBP where we "[stress] honor and integrity in every aspect of our mission, and the overwhelming majority of CBP employees and officers perform their duties with honor and distinction, working tirelessly every day to keep our country safe."
Obviously, police departments look down on this kind of behavior and won't tolerate it in their ranks.
Cue Jon Steward like contrary news story!
What do cops call it when you publicly finger 2 women? The Motion to Promotion! Hey-Hooo!
(Ok, I didn't know how to title this one without sounding depressing)
1. Two Texan women return home from a short break at the beach
2. They are pulled over for speeding
3. Trooper Turner smells marijuana coming from the car and orders the ladies out
4. Our brave trooper then radios for female backup, Trooper Bui responds and arrives
5. Turner then channels a b-flick villain and announces:
6. "[Bui] is about to get up-close and personal with some womanly parts[...] she is going to put some gloves on"
7. Trooper Bui then performs a full cavity search while some male troopers and a couple of bystanders enjoy the show.
8. As clarification, the "show" is 2 upset women being vaginally probed, all the while being very upset.
9. the dash-cam (because, of course this is recorded, haven't you ever been on the Internet?) contains such nice phrases as "Do you know how violated I feel?" and flinching
10. No drugs were found within, a statement normally reserved for houses, cars and abandoned shipping containers, not humans.
11. Following a lawsuit by the victims, Trooper Turner was suspended and Trooper Bui was fired.
12. Well, for a whole 60 days, then she was rehired, because in the end, "Befehl ist befehl."
13. but don't worry,
14. "[The Texas Department of Public Safety] holds its employees to the highest standards, and we will continue to take immediate action in any instance of misconduct to ensure our employees are held accountable."
15. That's why we rehired her, see, Trooper Bui demonstrated the highest standard the police department is looking for: Loyalty, especially in the face of obvious and brutal abuse of the law. NEVER BREAK RANK!
mcdermott:
My car is one thing. I'm more concerned about my ass now.
Jacobkosh on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
These doctors should lose their medical licenses.
The struck out part is just hooey.
Don't go overboard, "any other" country has abusive crap cops as well.
Privacy is kind of derived from "Unreasonable Search and Seizure" which get's it's own amendment. That pushes the bar to "Probable Cause" and how much PC you need is directly related to how invasive the search is.
Ken White makes a good point that under a valid warrant the initial doctor search was reasonable and the doctors assuming the warrant was valid on it's face is also a reasonable course of action.
I think the repeated and eventual sedation were all over the line but I'd be in favor of that going before a review board and let them hash it out. I wouldn't be unhappy if they were merely censured but I would want more information before pulling their licenses.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/11/07/2907661/mexico-man-reports-police-forced-anal-probe-traffic-stop/
Searches can extend to inside your body/bodily fluids, but those situations have to be based on very specific circumstances and not "because you look like you have drugs in your ass." I know that search laws are much more lax on the borders than they are inside the country. You can be detained while trying to enter the country because of a reasonable suspicion that you are smuggling drugs and they can do cavity searches to find said drugs. The nonsense that happened in New Mexico was not a special/specific circumstance and clearly shouldn't have happened.
I see where you're coming from and totally understand that doctors aren't experts in warrants and police procedure. Further, I'll grant that if the cops show up with a prisoner, I'm going to initially give them the benefit of the doubt, so I'm totally willing to give them a pass on that first enema.
After that they really should have called the legal department and brought in people that should have known better and they failed in this duty. I won't lose any sleep if they have to pay off their student loans while working at Arby's for the next 40 years, but I won't light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks if they get a "Yo. You done fucked up. Stop being dumbshits" from the applicable ethics committee either.
Hhmm.. Maybe I didn't clearly make my point.
My point was that "any other country" has abusive crap cops, but I hold the US to a higher standard. As In, I would expect this everywhere else EXCEPT the US.
The USA is on the top of the totem pole of freedom and democracy, so I'm surprised when weird stuff like this happens and apparently, has a good chance to be legal.
He wasn't a prisoner, though, was he?
I mean, he wasn't convicted of a crime or even under arrest as I understand it. And although I don't think it was mentioned in the link, other Hospitals refused to do any procedure on the victim, they had to drive around to find a doctor willing to do this, so other doctors certainly didn't think this was just a routine ethically neutral thing.
I aint no fancy big city attorney, but I thought a prisoner was anyone being held against their will. A crazy dude can hold you prisoner in his basement and shit.
I could be wrong though I ANAL
I think prisoner and detained are being used synonymously here. Any time the police hold you against your will (i.e. you don't feel like you can leave) you are being detained. So Terry Stops and being pulled over for traffic violations count as being detained. In this case, he was definitely being detained and I think that word was switched out with prisoner.
MORE THAN ONE
LONG PROCEDURES
past the time window for the warrant.
No competent doctor should ever do that. If you read closely, the first ER refused on ethical grounds (as they should have).
At that point, the cop should have let the suspect go, since their suspicions turned up nothing. Being suspicious does not give cops the right to use questionable methods of obtaining probable cause (drug dogs) in order to violate people's right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable search and seizure.
Learn from the people who fell before you: know your rights, people.
Do you really think that cops who would subject someone to repeated and increasingly invasive procedures because they are confident of their guilt are going to be deterred by a simple refusal to allow them access for a search?
They are going to get the dog, who is going to signal there are drugs, and then things are going to get even worse. Granted, this is about as bad as the situation could get, but I really don't think there was anything the victim in this case could do or any rights he could assert that would have prevented his rights from being violated.
A minority person who asserts their Constitutional Rights to cops like this when they are alone and no cameras are nearby is as likely to get 'arrested for assaulting a police officer' as they are let go.
Since there was literally nothing linking drugs to the suspect's anus, the warrant to perform a cavity search was premised on faulty information and was invalid. The search absolutely should have ended after finding nothing post-permission.
Sorry, but this is victim blaming. It's also the reason that the Supreme Court gave us Miranda - the police should not be allowed to use their greater knowledge of the law as a tool against citizens.
That's almost as absurd as a policeman abusing his access to the police database to find a woman to cook and eat!
Oh, wait..
The last time a thread came up about cops and I mentioned drug dogs, that for some reason was contentious. The facts of the matter are that drug dogs can, deliberately or not, give false signals in order to obtain probable cause because of their odd status as "officers". The latter part I have minor quibbles with, but the big issue for me is how there are dogs which give false signals repeatedly and are still considered a good source of probable cause.
There needs to be a federal standard for this shit. Dogs should be required to maintain a high rate of success or else they are useless except as a tool for the police to get to search whatever the fuck they want to because Fido woofed.
We can go back and forth on this all day but the bottom line is that you're going to have to believe me when I tell you that I'm not blaming the victim. The cops were 100% in the wrong in this situation and they violated the public trust, among other things, by doing what they did. His not asserting his rights in no way relieves the cops of the illegality of their actions.
I am simply pointing out that this is a textbook example of why it's important to know your rights... in fact, this will probably be a textbook example in some criminal procedure book down the road.
As a minority person, no, I don't think these cops would have been deterred by his refusal to allow them access for a search.
I do think knowing your rights is still important, though.
That'd be preferable yeah, but if the cops are required to document their dogs' success/failure rate it accomplishes virtually the same thing. It removes the incentive for false alerts because if you get enough failures you can't use the dogs anymore. I would go so far as to say that the entire K-9 unit should be kept above a certain ratio of success as well, simply because I wouldn't want the cops to keep introducing brand new dogs to make up for the failed ones and keep getting to do bullshit searches because the new dog hadn't flunked just yet.
I want cops to have to be really fucking careful and maybe have evidence other than their hunch and a dog barking to justify a search of this scale.
Because cops are so trustworthy with policing themselves.
This is untrue.
Oh this is not what I am saying at all.
There definitely needs to be oversight on this.
But I mean, getting somebody besides police officers to handle drug dogs is sort of never going to fucking happen.
Only because the last time police were threatened with oversight they went on strike and rioted.
I guess they took the term "riot police" a little too literally
They're a good tool for finding drugs, assuming you already have the authority to search.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
You're blaming the victim because you're placing the onus on them to protect themselves, rather than on the perpetrator. Again, when the Supreme Court dealt with this in Miranda, they did not say "people should know their rights", but instead ruled that the police are obligated to make sure that a suspect is aware of their constitutional rights.
This is a great idea.
I'd be happy with this outcome, personally.
I've never seen a study that showed drug dogs as capable as the cops say they actually are. It seems like they're better suited to takedowns of fleeing suspects than anything.
Man, if "he was walking stiffly so I thought he was clenching his ass which clearly means he probably has drugs up there," led this Sheriff's department to act this way, then not consenting to a search wouldn't have stopped these guys. In fact they'd have probably called that their PC right there.
Not arguing the victim-blaming point, but SCOTUS can't keep their shit straight. I mean, they just ruled that you can't just shut up to invoke your 5th Amendment protections, you have to go out of your way to do so and specifically state that you're going to not answer because you're invoking blah-dee-blah-blah-blah. You know? Which, honestly, really is SCOTUS kind of saying "you should know your rights, because we're certainly not just going to give 'em to ya!"
I mean, I imagine the dogs could get pretty effective if they were consistently rewarded for finding drugs, instead of validating their officers' suspicions.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Is a refusal to allow a voluntary search a probably cause for a search warrant? That seems like a catch-22 to me.
The cops can't claim they have probable cause to search because you don't consent to a voluntary search. So, no.