DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

[powerboatr]

I can say its not just the Dallas area DPS officer that have or have not an issue
we were in line last night at the tobacco store and a trooper was in there as we were discussing the incident with our cashier.
He piped up saying it was ok and he didnt see any problems...
quick witted wife asked him if even went to the doctor? (my wife used to be an emergency room nurse.)
he said sure
she asked if the doc used gloves when examining him?
he replies OF course sort of in a tone.
so she asks him if the gloves are clean and unused or does his doc recycle them and use them on more than one patient?
so he got a bit irritable and said no he uses a clean pair right out of the box.
wife says....so shouldn't the officer have changed gloves between persons since she reached down in her private parts?
trooper had an AH HA moment and grinned and said you know i see your point , I almost spit dr, pepper from my nose.
then he was calm and my wife asked...what happens if lady number one had a yeast infection or an STD? isn't it reasonable that lady two could get infected?
he had a look of OMG, and told us to have a safe evening as he left the store

we didnt even get into the odd behavior and the search. or probable sexual assault.

being raised to respect the law officers, it sure is getting harder each day to do that. I know most are hardwired to suspect us all of being bad persons, just because the numbers say an awful lot are, and they put their lives on the line at each stop. But somewhere they need to recalibrate the mindset
not sure how we can help, but it does need to be done

[Redneck_Buddha]

From what I saw, sticking a hand down the pants is not a cavity search. As I stated, I await the facts. IF she did this, she will be dealt with.

She did NOT just stick her hands down the victims' pants! There was digital penetration!! Do you just see what you want to see or are you a hopeless apologist for authoritarian, police-state tactics??

[gigag04]

TAM - which LEOs in the thread are defending the practice?

[The Annoyed Man]

TAM - which LEOs in the thread are defending the practice?

mikedude.

[gigag04]

TAM - which LEOs in the thread are defending the practice?

mikedude.

I see it now, I skipped to end. Just got back from 21 hr 3day round trip to Tuscaloosa. Brain. Fried.

[The Annoyed Man]

TAM - which LEOs in the thread are defending the practice?

mikedude.

I see it now, I skipped to end. Just got back from 21 hr 3day round trip to Tuscaloosa. Brain. Fried.

No problem, gigag. Tuscaloosa might well fry what little brain I have left too.

[E.Marquez]

From what I saw, sticking a hand down the pants is not a cavity search. As I stated, I await the facts. IF she did this, she will be dealt with.

She did NOT just stick her hands down the victims' pants! There was digital penetration!! Do you just see what you want to see or are you a hopeless apologist for authoritarian, police-state tactics??

In all fairness.. we DO NOT KNOW that.. It has been alleged to have happened that way.

If a MWAG call comes in and you are accused and arrested for " displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;"... I assume you would want the benefit of the doubt at least until all evidence was presented.. You would expect those on this board, the media, and a judge to not jump to conclusions

And no Im not defending the actions of the LEO's in this event, but neither am I taking the accusers verbal complaint at face value.

[mamabearCali]

From what I saw, sticking a hand down the pants is not a cavity search. As I stated, I await the facts. IF she did this, she will be dealt with.

She did NOT just stick her hands down the victims' pants! There was digital penetration!! Do you just see what you want to see or are you a hopeless apologist for authoritarian, police-state tactics??

In all fairness.. we DO NOT KNOW that.. It has been alleged to have happened that way.

If a MWAG call comes in and you are accused and arrested for " displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;"... I assume you would want the benefit of the doubt at least until all evidence was presented.. You would expect those on this board, the media, and a judge to not jump to conclusions

And no Im not defending the actions of the LEO's in this event, but neither am I taking the accusers verbal complaint at face value.

Yeah but if they had a video of me brandishing and pointing my firearm at people I would expect to be toast. We have a video of what happened.

It is not "meh who cares" as long as they did not actually penetrate the women. There was no cause whatsoever to go into these women's pants at all. I am sorry but a cigarette butt out the window is not cause for that level of a search and while "thinking you smell 'MJ'" might be probable cause for a pat down and a search of the car. It is still not probable cause for a cavity search. Then, If you then tell the woman that the heavy tobacco smell you mistook for MJ then you need to go back to the academy, because you the heavy smell of tobacco is not illegal nor is it cause for any level of search at all. I have never smoked a cigarette nor a joint in my life and I can tell the difference between the two. I am sorry these two need to go. The man for calling for a search on a suspicion of heavy tobacco smell in a car, and the woman for sexual assault of citizens.

[E.Marquez]

Yeah but if they had a video of me brandishing and pointing my firearm at people I would expect to be toast. We have a video of what happened.

No sir, we have a video of a female LEO searching a person. We DO NOT have a video of what you and the plaintiff claim.. a Body Cavity search.. That IS THE POINT...

Again,,,, the search may be valid based on the officers articulation of PC or RS... Which is not recorded in the video.. but may very well be in the report filed.. Have you seen it? Ya me neither. SO WE DO NOT KNOW..

It is not "meh who cares" as long as they did not actually penetrate the women. There was no cause whatsoever to go into these women's pants at all.

Im inclined to agree based on the very limited information available to us.

.I am sorry but a cigarette butt out the window is not cause for that level of a search and while "thinking you smell 'MJ'" might be probable cause for a pat down and a search of the car. It is still not probable cause for a cavity search.

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.

The man for calling for a search on a suspicion of heavy tobacco smell in a car

Now your just being disingenuous... based on what IS IN THE VIDEO and the conversation we can hear, that is not what happened.
Yes in hind sight, after the fact, using revisionism, you can claim that.

Based on what i see and hear in a one sided video and a plaintiffs claim.. I would like to see this go to trial and be run though the investigative function of DPS.. As I don't think it was right.. But making unfounded claims with no evidence and convicting the person in advance of a trial.. Heck,, is that not what many hear complain about loudly when it happens to a Concealed hand gun carrier, , or at TSA screen-er, or....

[urnoodle]

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.

[E.Marquez]

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.

YES, I understand there was an allegation made to the LEO on the side of the road (which i hope the LEO reported).. But the offenders public claim was made months later in a civil litigation, which is what brought this to public light and is what we are discussing. ..thus,,, MONTHS after the event, a public claim of the incident was made.

Though it brings up a random thought,,,which has not been reported of that I have read... Did the two women make a complaint to the department prior to starting a law suit?

And I AM NOT saying they needed to seek action at the department level...to make this a valid issue for the civil litigation... a mentor, counselor, friend or professional may have helped them come to the decision to take it on a legal course.

[urnoodle]

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.

[mikedude]

I can say I didn't watch the whole video as it didn't show much, nor do I know specific DPS policy.

Perhaps if you could spare the 5 minutes, you could watch the video in it's entirety, and then give us your more enlightened opinion.

Actually I watched it again since I posted and saw what I saw the first time, so I didn't miss anything. The video shows a females officers hands down the pants front and back side, and reaching around the bra area on the outside. It does not visually show any digital penetration. This is a pretty aggressive search for some marijuana, it still doesn't prove the allegation. In addition I have NEVER seen an aggressive search like this nor been part of one. I would also speak up if I saw that as there was no need for that over a joint. IF this goes to a jury trial, I would expect one argument will be that you do not see the females bend over or gasp as one would expect from a person who had a finger stuck up their privates. I like the numerous postings that I am defending this practice. I just didn't jump on the bandwagon and take sides w/o clear evidence of the facts. I never said I am for road side digital searches, confirmed one needs a warrant and medical providers do the search and await the facts. The facts will include an interview of the trooper by IA. This is one we may never see, depending on where this case goes. There are confidentiality laws, and believe it or not, in law suits against LEO's, the "victims" sometimes want the records sealed when the truth comes out. Who knows, if she really did the digital penetration, she might write it up that way and we are done with it. In addition, when the case gets further along, and there are dispositions, the alleged (media word) victims in this case might also state they were not digitally penetrated.

Wouldn't each of you want a thorough investigation if you were involved in an incident with your CHL to collect the FACTS vs. jumping to conclusions based on a statement and inconclusive video?

Merry Christmas. Done with this post.

[mamabearCali]

No sir, we have a video of a female LEO searching a person. We DO NOT have a video of what you and the plaintiff claim.. a Body Cavity search.. That IS THE POINT...

Again,,,, the search may be valid based on the officers articulation of PC or RS... Which is not recorded in the video.. but may very well be in the report filed.. Have you seen it? Ya me neither. .

Let's say you are right and that they are lying through thier teeth about being raped. The police officers still performed a very invasive search that put both of these women at risk of infection and STD's. With what appears to be precious little cause. What will happen next week I wonder, strip searches for jay walking conducted on sidewalks? If they had enough probable cause for this kind of search they should have cuffed them and stuffed them. So I still say they both have to go. Just on the grounds of how they endangered these women by their method should be enough for serious concern.

Based on what i see and hear in a one sided video and a plaintiffs claim.. I would like to see this go to trial and be run though the investigative function of DPS.. As I don't think it was right.. But making unfounded claims with no evidence and convicting the person in advance of a trial.. Heck,, is that not what many hear complain about loudly when it happens to a Concealed hand gun carrier, , or at TSA screen-er, or....

Sir I see enough evidence on the screen to convict them of several crimes absent very extreme extenuating circumstances. They did not take these girls downtown which tells me a whole lot about the amount of probable cause they had. They did an extremely invasive search on the side of the road. They endangered both of these girls lives by doing so. This is unacceptable on so many levels.


If I had the amount of evidence stacked against me that these two do I would expect to be batter dipped and fried by the public.

[Texas Sheepdog]

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. The TSA reach down my pants when im at the airport. The blue gloves are worn for their protection. Not the suspect.

I don't get all the fuss either. I watched the news video and it didn't look anything like a real cavity search. I also didn't see anything the TSA doesn't do every day in airports, and like the female officer, TSA agents do not change gloves between passengers. As long as suspects keep hiding their drugs and weapons in their pants, it's a legitimate place to search for contraband.