DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

[carlson1]

They both should be suspended and DPS policies should be under a microscope.

[gemini]

They both should be suspended and DPS policies should be under a microscope.

No Sir, immediate dismissal and charges filed. IF they were following DPS "policy", then I am doubly sick to my stomach. Thinking this could happen to my wife, my sister, my daughter, fills me with a level of anger I'm not comfortable having.
Like others, I am contacting my state rep tomorrow.

[jmra]

I was kinda thinking "an eye for an eye".

[bulletslap]

I was scolded on this board recently for my observation that DPS Troopers are not what the used to be, many need to be not just dismissed, but locked up - after due proceess of course.

He the DPSS Trooper David Farrell in action in another stop, this is the name that has been reported in the case of the two women, probably the same Trooper - can you name the violations ?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[gigag04]

What are we firing the male troop for again?

Not surprised the female got her butt in a sling...trying to find where the male went wrong, but I've only had time to watch it once.

[bulletslap]

He should be fired for multiple violations in the video, if this is the same David Farrell.

[carlson1]

He should be fires for the same reason you arrest the guy who just stayed I. The car durin the robbery.

He called the female Trooper and requested the unlawful search.

Why did not just pat them down and empty pockets? Then if there was no evidence the searches stopped there.

[urnoodle]

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.

[gigag04]

Did he request the cavity search or just a search. It seems like she took it there on her own.

[Dragonfighter]

That's kind of where I ended up, though PC for the search was scant. The assault however was egregious and the male trooper's lack of intervention made him complicit IMO.

That said, out of the few times I have been stopped as an adult, my encounter's with DPS were largely more professional and courteous. Further, a DPS trooper is the only person I know that was totally against anyone but LEO's having guns yet turned a 180 after a 45 minute conversation with me.

I think that often, an LEO gazes too long into the abyss and comes to believe all besides his comrades, are criminal. Most control their resulting prejudice, some do not.

[gigag04]

He requested the search on bogus grounds.

You're basing this on what exactly?

[chasfm11]

I realize that some of the answer may be rooted in policy that none of us have seen but I'm curious about several aspects of this situation.

1. Is it normal for an officer to call for backup on a stop where marijuana is suspected that wasn't part of the original PC for that stop? I do understand that a male officer may not able to search two women for safety purposes during a search for a controlled substance in their vehicle.

2. Why would an officer who felt the evidence was strong enough for a body cavity search not handcuff and transport the suspects to jail where such a search would likely be conducted anyway?

[Bob in Big D]

I am not nor have ever been a LEO. So please pardon me if I sound naive.
Is "policy", that seems to the question here, verbal or written?
Verbal would tend to leave the officers hung out to dry, while written would give them some recourse as long as the written policy was followed.
News reports, how true I have no idea, have indicated that other lawyers have contacted the two women's lawyer and said that the Female officer is "Well known"in the area for this kind of procedure in other cases.
I am guessing here but I would bet this never goes to trial as DPS will want this to go away ASAP. I do think these two women just won the lottery!

[JP171]

He requested the search on bogus grounds.

You're basing this on what exactly?

Gig, I have to agree that the search was on very thin grounds, the vacilitation of the officer seems to indicate either capricious or malicious intent. The chatty nature of the driver does seem to possibly be a catalyst but that may have been just nervousness, the statements about the smell of marajuana in light of the multiple references to smoking almost point to another reason, possible predisposition of an anti-smoking crusading officer. I know that some officers ask you to put out your cigarette, not sure why really other than either a control issue or some nebulous fear that they may be exposed to second hand smoke and get cancer. I really think that the officer was either fishing or being someone who was going to find something no matter what happened or teach the driver a lesson.

[Crossfire]

I was scolded on this board recently for my observation that DPS Troopers are not what the used to be, many need to be not just dismissed, but locked up - after due proceess of course.

He the DPSS Trooper David Farrell in action in another stop, this is the name that has been reported in the case of the two women, probably the same Trooper - can you name the violations ?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems rather coincidental that in both stops he asked if there was marijuana in the car.

There are bad apples in all lines of work. DPS can't be immune from this. But, when abuses are found, they need to be dealt with. This egotistical jerk is giving DPS a bad rep, and needs to go. He is just as guilty as the female officer for ordering the search, then allowing it to go where it did.