Crossing a line? Unreasonable search?

[gcmj45acp]

Trooper who conducted cavity search reinstated - Houston Chronicle

I don't know enough about this case. It's in the Houston Comical so I am sure there's a huge part of the story that's missing. Can anyone fill in the blanks? Was it reasonable to conduct a road-side cavity search in this case? Is a road-side cavity search ever reasonable? And please don't tell me that if I'm not a cop I don't have a right to ask. I am simply asking what am I missing?

 

[M. Sage]

Considering the fact that she searched two cavities/woman and never changed gloves for the entire encounter, I'd say they screwed up reinstating her.

 

[subseashooter]

I followed this story when it was going down. From what I read - and it's been too long to pull up the details - the trooper that did this was WAY THE EFF out of line.

I don't know when a roadside cavity search is ever appropriate unless you fear for your or the public's immediate safety, and if I recall correctly, all they were looking for was pot. Absolutely against the law, but not an immenant safety concern.

I'm shocked that the trooper is getting reinstated.

This is wrong, IMHO.

 

[subseashooter]

My bad....I read the full article, and realized that I'd read about the OTHER time this happened, last year. I hadn't heard about this one.

Wouldn't it be common sense to at least change gloves between different people's cavities?!?!?

Still unacceptable. And that supervisor with the jacked up attitude....UGH!

 

[Heinz Bar]

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.[SUP][1][/SUP]

You be the judge....


​

 

[zenfly]

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.[SUP][1][/SUP]

You be the judge....


​

Tell this to the folks in Boston where they had a good test run to see that they can remove you from your home and do whatever they want and post it on the news to show everyone they have total control..

 

[caleb7]

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.[SUP][1][/SUP]

You be the judge....


​

This!

Tell this to the folks in Boston where they had a good test run to see that they can remove you from your home and do whatever they want and post it on the news to show everyone they have total control..

And this!

"Speak softly and carry a big stick!" ~ Theodore Roosevelt

 

[txinvestigator]

I have not read the article, but there are exceptions to the search warrant requirement.

Perhaps this was one.

And what does Boston have to do with anything?

 

[rushthezeppelin]

Tell this to the folks in Boston where they had a good test run to see that they can remove you from your home and do whatever they want and post it on the news to show everyone they have total control..

... and then chanted USA over and over to celebrate martial law over one person in their 20s.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[caleb7]

I have not read the article, but there are exceptions to the search warrant requirement.

Perhaps this was one.

And what does Boston have to do with anything?

He's referring to when law enforcement ripped people from their homes without warrant or consent after the bombing.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick!" ~ Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Heinz Bar]

The exceptions to the 4th Amendment are listed in the 4th Amendment. What the courts have found as exceptions to our Constitution are increasingly tyrannical. Boston was just a glimpse of what this country will look like if a few years if the Ruling Class is not stopped.

 

[gcmj45acp]

I have not read the article, but there are exceptions to the search warrant requirement.

Perhaps this was one.

And what does Boston have to do with anything?

Could you please give an example of reasonable exception that would justify/allow a road-side cavity search?

 

[gcmj45acp]

For the sake of discussion, here's the unedited video of one of the traffic stops that lead to this discussion. According to the Dallas Morning News, Kelly Helleson is the trooper accused of performing the searches with the same latex glove. She was indicted on two counts of sexual assault and two counts of official oppression. The trooper who called Helleson to conduct the search, David Farrell, was indicted on a charge of theft by a public servant. When Angel Dobbs told Farrell she felt violated by the search, which had happened on a public roadway in full view of passersby, he told her it was justified by the odor of marijuana, which made it clear that "someone is a daily smoker in that car," according to the suit filed by Dobbs. No marijuana was found in Farrell's search.

 

[gcmj45acp]

I'm still looking for an unedited version of the second road-side cavity search incident but, all I can currently find is a local news affiliate's version below. According to KHOU's article, Nathaniel Turner initially pulled over Brandy Hamilton and Alexandria Randle for speeding. The trooper asks if there is anything illegal in the car after claiming to smell marijuana. Turner reportedly did find a "small amount" of marijuana in the vehicle.

The female trooper in this case, Jennie Bui, was initially fired but, has since been reinstated after a grand jury declined to indict her for any criminal wrong doing. Interestingly enough, Nathaniel Turner was only suspended, pending an internal investigation. One of the women is still dealing with a marijuana charge stemming from this traffic stop but, both have filed federal lawsuits.

 

[Dredge]

I would think that if they were going to do a "cavity" search that they (DPS) would have some type of unit (van/ambulance) in order to maintain some sort of privacy. It appears in the video that this was not a "cavity" search as I had originally thought with there being penetration of sorts. When the Trooper did her search, I do think that was a bad idea in checking the rear and then the front as there is some chance of causing infection should there be any fecal matter (if they were nasty girls) or whatever else may be hidden. I've seen some pretty nasty stuff in hospitals especially when a patient is obese and there's maggots deep in the folds.
Not changing gloves is a whole other issue. It's irresponsible as hell and asking for a lawsuit.
In a medical/hospital setting, if you were to do such a thing you would consider yourself lucky if you were to remain employed for risking cross contamination.
I would think that if girl #1 had some type of disease and girl#2 ended up with the same disease after that search, DPS would have to pay up big time.
According to the article, DPS settled for $185K for the Dallas incident.
No telling why it appears the one in Brazoria County didn't favor the ladies except for possibly the charge for paraphernalia. Maybe a video of that one will surface so we can get a better idea of what actually happened.

 

[Kennydale]

The Officers DashCam

 

[subseashooter]

I really try to support the police in general....they are in a customer service job where nearly all customers are scumbags and not at all friendly, and I feel bad for the cops 98% of the time. I've got a lot of friends that wear the badge every day, and they really do try to live up to the 'protect and serve' motto.

But this really REALLY pisses me off, and folks like that are what give law enforcement in general a bad name.

They ought to be fired, fined, stripped of all their certifications, and barred from working in any official capacity beyond head burger flipper, IMO.

 

[Hoji]

I think the punishment for those who commit aggravated sexual assault should be decided by their victims, and in the case of the victims being minors, their parents or guardians get to decide on the punishment.

 

[gcmj45acp]

I would think that if they were going to do a "cavity" search that they (DPS) would have some type of unit (van/ambulance) in order to maintain some sort of privacy. It appears in the video that this was not a "cavity" search as I had originally thought with there being penetration of sorts. When the Trooper did her search, I do think that was a bad idea in checking the rear and then the front as there is some chance of causing infection should there be any fecal matter (if they were nasty girls) or whatever else may be hidden. I've seen some pretty nasty stuff in hospitals especially when a patient is obese and there's maggots deep in the folds.
Not changing gloves is a whole other issue. It's irresponsible as hell and asking for a lawsuit.
In a medical/hospital setting, if you were to do such a thing you would consider yourself lucky if you were to remain employed for risking cross contamination.
I would think that if girl #1 had some type of disease and girl#2 ended up with the same disease after that search, DPS would have to pay up big time.
According to the article, DPS settled for $185K for the Dallas incident.
No telling why it appears the one in Brazoria County didn't favor the ladies except for possibly the charge for paraphernalia. Maybe a video of that one will surface so we can get a better idea of what actually happened.

Check the video again...The ladies in the first incident specifically complain about the penetration after it occurs. The ladies in the second video are told that is exactly what will happen. Is it as deep as what a gynecologist or proctologist might go? No but, that doesn't make it any less invasive to the individual. And I agree, it's quite gross to start at the rear and then move to the front, let alone use the same gloves from one suspect to another. All that said, TXINVESTIGATOR said there are exceptions that would make this reasonable. So, I'd like to hear him further explain that based on his experience as a cop.

I know full cavity searches have and do occur with people who were already under arrest. I guess it might be reasonable if you caught someone in the act of inserting evidence into their own body cavity before an arrest. However, when I posed that question to officers I know working in narcotics, their answer was to arrest the suspect, THEN have a medical professional retrieve said evidence for you. As one put it, most cops aren't trained to safely retrieve anything from inside another person's body so there is little reason to expose the officer or suspect to unnecessary health risks of what appears to be a blind cavity search. IIRC, the suit filed by one of the ladies in the first video mentioned some sort of injury induced by the cavity search itself.

 

[Texan2]

All that said, TXINVESTIGATOR said there are exceptions that would make this reasonable.

Re-read. Thats not what he said.