55 posts in this topic

ALBUQUERQUE, NM -- A southern New Mexico man who was pulled over for not making a complete stop was taken to two hospitals and forced to have anal probes, three enemas,  :|  two body X-rays and a colonoscopy because police thought he was hiding drugs, according a federal lawsuit. In El Paso, a woman crossing the border was stripped searched, vaginally probed then taken to the hospital for more invasive tests, a forced bowel movement, X-rays and scans, the American Civil Liberties Union says.

No drugs were found in either of the cases, and both people are now being billed for thousands of dollars by the hospitals, according to attorneys, who say the cases raise serious question about law enforcement practices along the border.

"It's terrifying," said Laura Schauer Ives, an attorney with the ACLU in Albuquerque.

"I think law enforcement has been emboldened, particularly when it comes to drug interdiction. It's kind of anything goes. You couple that with drug interdiction at the border and you have a recipe for serious civil liberties violations."

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of David Eckert against police and sheriff's officials in Deming and Hidalgo County, which borders Mexico, alleges Deming police sought a search warrant for Eckert because they thought he appeared to be clenching his buttocks when he got out of his car Jan. 2. According to the lawsuit, Hildalgo County sheriff's deputies officers told the Deming police officers Eckert was known in the area for carrying drugs inside his body. Police also brought in a drug-sniffing dog, which detected something in the driver's seat.

more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New York has stop and frisk.  New Mexico has pull over and probe.

 

 

Sickening.

 

There is actually two people who have come forward that this has happened to now:

 

from: http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3210356.shtml?cat=500#.Unr1IOLNl8G

 

 

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the beginning of a new trend unfortunately.

 

Farewell the Fourth Amendment. Say hello to the Police State.

 

The idea is to dehumanize the citizens.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like I found a new travel destination.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the New world,

No more Humanism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they put condoms on them first, or do these probes just go from rectum to rectum as is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Endoscopes are sterilized before use and it's done under a light anesthesia, similar to what dentists use. Rectal exams are done with lubricated gloved fingers.

The man who was under scrutiny I can understand if the report of him previously having been caught hiding drugs in his rectum is true. It's very possible he was still on probation, in which case he had no expectation or right to privacy and can be searched for a parole violation at any time. This is nothing new - a very old practice.

The woman we haven't enough information about, but at border crossing & TSA terminals for international passage the rules are VERY different than for usual police interactions. You are now dealing with the Feds: Border Patrol, DHS, FBI, DEA, whatever - not the locals. They CAN search someone, especially if instruments or dogs register a "hit."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is absolutely an insane invasion of privacy.

 

Not worth the time and effort to seize a little bit of drugs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty digusting abuse of power.

 

Also, why should they have to pay the bill when the searches were demanded by the police?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being billed by the hospitals for the things the police made them do is wrong. How can they even do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the beginning of a new trend unfortunately.

 

Farewell the Fourth Amendment. Say hello to the Police State.

 

The idea is to dehumanize the citizens.

if they want to anally probe me, chance exists that i'll resist on every front, even if it means fighting with an officer. i will not be degraded by anyone, to hell with gov. brutality!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were prolly fronting as decoys ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The man who was under scrutiny I can understand if the report of him previously having been caught hiding drugs in his rectum is true. It's very possible he was still on probation, in which case he had no expectation or right to privacy and can be searched for a parole violation at any time. This is nothing new - a very old practice.

The woman we haven't enough information about, but at border crossing & TSA terminals for international passage the rules are VERY different than for usual police interactions. You are now dealing with the Feds: Border Patrol, DHS, FBI, DEA, whatever - not the locals. They CAN search someone, especially if instruments or dogs register a "hit."

I can't say I'm surprised to see you defending such a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment. Your respect for the US Constitution seems rather inconsistent, especially given your vigorous defence of the 2nd Amendment.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh, talk about taking it in the ass!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they own the towns.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say I'm surprised to see you defending such a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment. Your respect for the US Constitution seems rather inconsistent, especially given your vigorous defence of the 2nd Amendment.

I'm just reporting how it is vs. how you think it should be while not even living here.

Fact: parolees (guessing he is one based on the article) have very few privacy rights. They can he searched at any time, and no probable cause is required. Period.

Fact: borders & international terminals are different than normal police interactions. The agencies are different. The probable cause standard is different.

Fact: the Appellate & Supreme Courts, the real judges of what's Constitutional vs. you, say these pass muster.

Deal with it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just reporting how it is vs. how you think it should be while not even living here.

Fact: parolees (guessing he is one based on the article) have very few privacy rights. They can he searched at any time, and no probable cause is required. Period.

Fact: borders & international terminals are different than normal police interactions. The agencies are different. The probable cause standard is different.

Fact: the Appellate & Supreme Courts, the real judges of what's Constitutional vs. you, say these pass muster.

Deal with it.

Excuse me sit. I live and love my southwest. You have no idea what you are talking about. How dare you say that my rights should be scooted to the side because of where I live. I'm still a citizen of the USA. What kind of person are you to suggest otherwise. Wow. Absolutely dispicable.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I'm just reporting how it is vs. how you think it should be while not even living here.

Fact: parolees (guessing he is one based on the article) have very few privacy rights. They can he searched at any time, and no probable cause is required. Period.

Fact: borders & international terminals are different than normal police interactions. The agencies are different. The probable cause standard is different.

So being taken to two hospitals (one of which refused to carry out the procedures), having an anal probe, three enemas, two body X-rays and a colonoscopy doesn't qualify as unreasonable search and seizure to you?  :| That's strange when you consider the slightest call for gun restrictions a violation of the Second Amendment. The reality is you only care for the US Constitution when it suits you.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Endoscopes are sterilized before use and it's done under a light anesthesia, similar to what dentists use. Rectal exams are done with lubricated gloved fingers.

The man who was under scrutiny I can understand if the report of him previously having been caught hiding drugs in his rectum is true. It's very possible he was still on probation, in which case he had no expectation or right to privacy and can be searched for a parole violation at any time. This is nothing new - a very old practice.

The woman we haven't enough information about, but at border crossing & TSA terminals for international passage the rules are VERY different than for usual police interactions. You are now dealing with the Feds: Border Patrol, DHS, FBI, DEA, whatever - not the locals. They CAN search someone, especially if instruments or dogs register a "hit."

This is one of my biggest frustrations with this forum, most people here never think "past" the story to see WHY it was done and the history of the individual and the circumstances around it, they just jump to the conclusion of what ever the story is swinging.  Nice to see someone thinking outside the box.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, it actually sounds like they had PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only concern is even if they had suspicion of holding drugs, abd a history. How can they be made to pay for all the procedures that were forced upon them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No drugs were found in either of the cases, and both people are now being billed for thousands of dollars by the hospitals, according to attorneys, who say the cases raise serious question about law enforcement practices along the border.

 

Dude, WTF???

so if they didn't complied they get arrested; if they did they get billed?

this is very wrong.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard this on the radio yesterday... Almost thought it was a second story :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disturbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really ######ed up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.