DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

Reports of actual crimes and investigations, not hypothetical situations.

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B


philip964
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 18243
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

#211

Post by philip964 »

Has made the British newspapers of the second incident.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... olicy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

philip964
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 18243
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

#212

Post by philip964 »

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... cmpid=hpbn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Female officer reinstated after grand jury fails to indite.
User avatar

carlson1
Moderator
Posts in topic: 14
Posts: 11783
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:11 am

Re: DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

#213

Post by carlson1 »

ETA: They settled for $185K. Criminal prosecution under way for the female officer.
Well they paid the victims and put them back on the road.
Image
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

#214

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

philip964 wrote:http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... cmpid=hpbn

Female officer reinstated after grand jury fails to indite.
The grand jury refused to indict the female trooper and she was just rehired by DPS. The rationale is that she was a rookie following the orders of a senior Trooper. The Trooper who ordered her to conduct the search was just fired.

Chas.

Dave2
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 3166
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:39 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

#215

Post by Dave2 »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
philip964 wrote:http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... cmpid=hpbn

Female officer reinstated after grand jury fails to indite.
The grand jury refused to indict the female trooper and she was just rehired by DPS. The rationale is that she was a rookie following the orders of a senior Trooper. The Trooper who ordered her to conduct the search was just fired.

Chas.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but I can understand their reason for not indicting her. But why was she rehired? IIRC, she didn't even question the order and that makes me question whether or not she has the good judgment required* to be a state trooper.

*Well, "good judgment" should be required, anyway... It is in my book, regardless of if it's in the DPS's.
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.

mamabearCali
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 2214
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:14 pm
Location: Chesterfield, VA

Re: DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

#216

Post by mamabearCali »

Nice....so they can digitally rape citizens and no one goes to jail? Gives me great confidence. :banghead:
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.

"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers

Abraham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 8400
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:43 am

Re: DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

#217

Post by Abraham »

"The Trooper who ordered her to conduct the search was just fired."

Not prosecuted - just fired?

They should BOTH be serving time.

When I was in the Army they taught us that we could refuse to follow an unlawful order per the UCMJ.

I was only following orders excuse is no defense...she could of refused to follow such an obvious unlawful order, but she didn't.

texanjoker

Re: DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

#218

Post by texanjoker »

philip964 wrote:http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... cmpid=hpbn

Female officer reinstated after grand jury fails to indite.


:rules: I am thinking of all the negative posts I have read on the net about this and negative comments in general about leo's because of this incident. If the jury declines to indict her that is their choice. They did not feel it warranted the charges the state tried to file. As in other cases, people have to accept that just like some had to accept GZ's verdict because that is our system. She received a 60 day fine which is pretty steep.
McCraw said Friday that Bui will be suspended for 60 days and undergo additional training. He added that he was requiring all state police officers to re-familiarize themselves with the department policy on strip searches and body cavity searches.

mamabearCali
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 2214
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:14 pm
Location: Chesterfield, VA

Re: DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

#219

Post by mamabearCali »

texanjoker wrote:
philip964 wrote:http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... cmpid=hpbn

Female officer reinstated after grand jury fails to indite.


:rules: I am thinking of all the negative posts I have read on the net about this and negative comments in general about leo's because of this incident. If the jury declines to indict her that is their choice. They did not feel it warranted the charges the state tried to file. As in other cases, people have to accept that just like some had to accept GZ's verdict because that is our system. She received a 60 day fine which is pretty steep.
McCraw said Friday that Bui will be suspended for 60 days and undergo additional training. He added that he was requiring all state police officers to re-familiarize themselves with the department policy on strip searches and body cavity searches.

That may be a steep fine, but that is nothing compared to what those two girls got at her hands. She is very fortunate.
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.

"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 9043
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

#220

Post by mojo84 »

Should the penalty be sixty days wages for anyone that commits sexual molestation?
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
User avatar

nightmare
Deactivated until real name is provided
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:09 pm

Re: DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

#221

Post by nightmare »

mojo84 wrote:Should the penalty be sixty days wages for anyone that commits sexual molestation?
At a minimum, we should garnish 50% of their wages until they pay back the settlement their victims got from the taxpayers.
Equo ne credite, Teucri. Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

paperchunker
Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:48 pm
Location: Justin. TX

Re: DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

#222

Post by paperchunker »

I fully expected an outcome like this and I would bet a box of 9mm that the fired trooper will get his job back after his union/civil service arbitration hearing. :banghead:
NRA/LTC Instructor
NRA Patriot Life- Endowment Member
User avatar

rbwhatever1
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1434
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Paradise Texas

Re: DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

#223

Post by rbwhatever1 »

Like others have said, all LEO's need to think about the Constitutionality of their actions and refuse to commit unlawful acts, if in fact this was standard procedure of the State to Rape female citizens. Being a rookie is no excuse for raping a Citizen.

Acts like this foster an "us" versus "them" mentality. I wonder if the fired LEO would have a problem with someone doing this to his wife or daughter. I wonder if the rookie would mind someone doing this to her...
III

texanjoker

Re: DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

#224

Post by texanjoker »

mojo84 wrote:Should the penalty be sixty days wages for anyone that commits sexual molestation?

According to the grand jury she did not meet the elements of committing sexual molestation
.... that is our system. Personally I have issue with the fact that she did that type of search regardless if she was told to or not. If it is illegal or violates policy you say no. Now I can see if she was a rookie she might have been scared too, but then she could have gone to a supervisor. For all we know she might have as we are not privy to the internal investigation. There is no policy that states you have to refuse an unlawful order. Had they used some common sense and wanted her prosecuted there would have been more applicable charges. Instead, like the GZ case, they went on public emotion and they tried to file charges they could not prove. I am sure the other fired trooper will state he did not tell her to do the cavity search. He might have he might not have. Again we are not privy to the full internal investigation.
Last edited by texanjoker on Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “The Crime Blotter”