TexasCHLforum.com

I don't see any information providing the date the suit was filed. I would hope the women filed a complaint with the department before taking it to civil court but it's not a requirement that they do so. I'm sure a discussion with an attorney is why it took that action. If I heard it happening to someone I know I would suggest to speak to a legal beagle because it just didn't sound like a policy the DPS would follow.

E.Marquez wrote:Again, your jumping to conclusions based on a offenders claim months later in a civil litigation.. The VIDEO does not show a cavity search,, that would not be post-able on this forum or TV in general.

It was not months ago when the women made the claim. If you watched the entire video the woman clearly states to the male officer at the scene that she felt violated that the officer put her fingers in those regions. He did not dispute her accusation. He was on a fishing expedition from the moment he walked back to his car to run the plate and IDs.

gigag04 wrote:

handog wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/I ... 72921.html

Two women are suing DPS for performing cavity searches on them on the roadside. Caught on dashcam. Also the women claim the female officer did not change her glove between searches.

Not sure what the fuss is all about. Police can arrest and conduct a cavity search for any reason, on no reason at all according to the SCOTUS. /quote]
Exactly! Now we're getting somewhere...

Yes you are correct but in this case these women were not arrested. The cavity search took place on the side of the road.

gigag04 wrote:

urnoodle wrote:He requested the search on bogus grounds.

You're basing this on what exactly?

The cavity search was bogus on the grounds of a smell of marijuana. These officers should have been arrested immediately as any other citizen would have been with less evidence. There should have been no consideration for suspension with pay. A citizen suffers a harsher punishment when one commits a crime against a LEO. In the reverse the punishment should be equal. Just as it is with a CHL holder, a LEO should be held to a higher standard of conduct. They have taken an oath "to protect and serve". Nothing in the whole recording shows that either one fulfilled that oath.

This is lack of two officer's personal judgement. For the female officer she has made a decision that is going to follow her for the rest of her life. If convicted she will be a registered sex offender. The male officer should face the same outcome. He requested the search on bogus grounds and when it started to go sideways he did nothing to prevent the assault. I realize the majority of LE are good people, however,there are many among them that are not. I have many LEO friends that speak of the bond between officers and that bond at times has prevented them from speaking out about fellow officers due to the perilous and at times horrific nature of their job. Egregious violations of the law by LE have only come to light in recent years due to dashcams. In many of these situations the offending officers are still suspended with pay pending a formal investigation. That should not even be an option when caught on dashcam. Why do so many departments defend these officers? They sight the exemplary service of the officer and deflect officer responsibility to PTSD or the victims words or actions. A civilian accused of a crime that may have no prior criminal history is still treated as criminal regardless of their prior contributions to society. Guilty until proven innocent. In this situation, there is no valid justification for the officer not changing gloves. She put both lives at risk in complete opposition of her oath "to protect and serve". Arrest her as they would any other citizen accused of the same (typically with much less evidence) and let her sit in jail pending a trial.