• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cops cavity-search women stopped for littering

sgtbaker said:
That is way too much authority. Search the car, if there is no evidence, let them go. There is no way an officer should be allowed to perform a search like that unless the suspect is under arrests.
Click to expand...

You would know better than I, I thought a pat down was reasonable search, but obviously not a down the pants search.
 
Hellbound said:
Yeah, I missed that there was dash cam footage before.

While this most likely was not a cavity search, still definately inappropriate and an abuse of position.

The ONLY way I could think this would be even remotely tolerable is if the women had made specific comments about having drugs in their pants (or if there was strong evidence they were, at the time, carrying drugs...and no, "I thought I smelled pot" isn't strong evidence). Even then, on the side of the road is not the right place for this kind of search.
Click to expand...

While not a full cavity search, the hand down the pants was way out of line, and if fingers went into anus or vagina (and why the glove if not?) it was even farther out of line. I certainly didn't see anything in the video that would indicate that the women were disrespectful in any way to the officers (not that that would excuse their behavior). Since apparently no pot was actually found, most likely the claim to smell marijuana was bogus.
 
Neither of the women were wearing exceptionally baggy clothes, so I am curious what the officer thought she'd find.
 
CORed said:
... and if fingers went into anus or vagina (and why the glove if not?) ....
Click to expand...
Because things like herpes are not always inside the vagina or anus. Seriously, wouldn't you want gloves on reaching into someone's underwear?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Because things like herpes are not always inside the vagina or anus. Seriously, wouldn't you want gloves on reaching into someone's underwear?
Click to expand...

Which still leaves us with "Why are we reaching into someone's underwear with a glove we already used to reach into someone else's underwear with?" and "Why in fact are we reaching into anyone's underwear?"
 
Checkmite said:
Which still leaves us with "Why are we reaching into someone's underwear with a glove we already used to reach into someone else's underwear with?" and "Why in fact are we reaching into anyone's underwear?"
Click to expand...

It looks as though the video has been edited to cut out the time between the officer walking the second victim in front of the camera, and the search actually being conducted. Why was this part trimmed out? Does it show the officer discarding the original gloves and replacing them with new ones? Maybe it doesn't show anything relevant at all, and was cut purely for time reasons.

She's reaching into their underwear because the officer that pulled them over believes they had(have) marijuana and are attempting to hide it on their person. I'm going to guess that the search was conducted on the spot instead of in private because, even handcuffed, it is possible for the women to access anything hidden in their lower nether regions.
 
BlackLyon said:
It looks as though the video has been edited to cut out the time between the officer walking the second victim in front of the camera, and the search actually being conducted. Why was this part trimmed out? Does it show the officer discarding the original gloves and replacing them with new ones? Maybe it doesn't show anything relevant at all, and was cut purely for time reasons.

She's reaching into their underwear because the officer that pulled them over believes they had(have) marijuana and are attempting to hide it on their person. I'm going to guess that the search was conducted on the spot instead of in private because, even handcuffed, it is possible for the women to access anything hidden in their lower nether regions.
Click to expand...

And hide it where from there?
 
fuelair said:
And hide it where from there?
Click to expand...

At that point it would be less about hiding it again, and more about just getting rid of it. The two most common methods would be to try and outright ditch it on the ground/in a bush/under the patrol car when the officers weren't looking, and the tried and true "swallow it" method. Which, depending on what the substance was, could be lethal.
 
BlackLyon said:
She's reaching into their underwear because the officer that pulled them over believes they had(have) marijuana and are attempting to hide it on their person. I'm going to guess that the search was conducted on the spot instead of in private because, even handcuffed, it is possible for the women to access anything hidden in their lower nether regions.
Click to expand...
Good try, but men can hide things in their "nether regions" too, yet officers are not routinely shoving their hands down pants on the side of the road to see what's in anuses or behind scrotums. Neither of these women were wearing skirts so once cuffed their access to "anything hidden in their lower nether regions" would be incredibly limited, and any attempt at such access would be obvious long before any danger could present itself.

I know what I'd tell any officer who tried that on me, and what I would encourage anyone else to say in the same situation: "Arrest me if you want but keep your *********** pig* hands out of my pants." If they've got enough probable cause to fondle someone's genitalia, they've got enough probable cause to arrest. If not, they're just playing power games.

*I would not call every police officer a "pig" but in that situation the sentiment seems appropriate to me.
 
joesixpack said:
So really, in every city I've ever lived in for any length of time I saw examples of police behaving in the most unprofessional, thuggish and violent manner, more worthy of a criminal gang than a law enforcement organization.
Click to expand...
Maybe you're a carrier.
 
BlackLyon said:
It looks as though the video has been edited to cut out the time between the officer walking the second victim in front of the camera, and the search actually being conducted. Why was this part trimmed out? Does it show the officer discarding the original gloves and replacing them with new ones? Maybe it doesn't show anything relevant at all, and was cut purely for time reasons.

She's reaching into their underwear because the officer that pulled them over believes they had(have) marijuana and are attempting to hide it on their person. I'm going to guess that the search was conducted on the spot instead of in private because, even handcuffed, it is possible for the women to access anything hidden in their lower nether regions.
Click to expand...

When officers believe people are hiding illegal things, they place them under arrest and then frisk them. I've never, ever seen or heard described the procedure depicted in that video being performed by police who suspect a person who isn't under arrest is hiding something.
 
BlackLyon said:
At that point it would be less about hiding it again, and more about just getting rid of it. The two most common methods would be to try and outright ditch it on the ground/in a bush/under the patrol car when the officers weren't looking, and the tried and true "swallow it" method. Which, depending on what the substance was, could be lethal.
Click to expand...

But, if handcuffed, the handcuffs (and hands) should be behind the back and not too moveable without it being pretty obvious.
 
Babbylonian said:
Good try, but men can hide things in their "nether regions" too, yet officers are not routinely shoving their hands down pants on the side of the road to see what's in anuses or behind scrotums.
Click to expand...

There is a huge distinction between an officer going down your pants to search areas in which contraband may be hidden, and an officer penetrating a person's orifice to search for contraband.

I don't know how you would define "routine" when it comes to searching a suspect, but men do have these kinds of searches performed on them. In fact, I would argue it is likely these searches are conducted more often on men based purely on the ratio of convicted male offenders to female offenders.

What these two women are claiming is that the female officer penetrated them with her fingers. We can't see that on the tape. All we can see is that the officer in question stuck her hand down the front and back of each woman's pants.


Babbylonian said:
Neither of these women were wearing skirts so once cuffed their access to "anything hidden in their lower nether regions" would be incredibly limited, and any attempt at such access would be obvious long before any danger could present itself.
Click to expand...

Chavis Carter managed to shoot himself while handcuffed in the back of a police car with a gun that he had managed to keep concealed even after a police search.

Handcuffed high school student shoots self in back of police car. That one just happened a little over two weeks ago.

Two young men, both able to conceal a gun well enough that the police missed it on their initial search of their person(s). Both were able to retrieve the weapon and shoot themselves, while handcuffed, in the back of the police car. Without the cops being alerted that something was up.

You were saying... :)
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
When officers believe people are hiding illegal things, they place them under arrest and then frisk them. I've never, ever seen or heard described the procedure depicted in that video being performed by police who suspect a person who isn't under arrest is hiding something.
Click to expand...

Wait...what?

No. You don't arrest first and look for evidence to support the arrest later. Did you possibly use the word "arrest" when you meant "handcuffed?" That does happen quite often. For the safety of all involved the suspected offender may be handcuffed before being searched. Just because he's handcuffed though doesn't mean he is necessarily under arrest.
 
fuelair said:
But, if handcuffed, the handcuffs (and hands) should be behind the back and not too moveable without it being pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

One would think that. Please see my post above regarding the two men this year that were able to hide guns on themselves, avoid having the guns detected during the police search of their person, and shoot themselves while sitting with their hands cuffed behind their back in the squad car.

Needless to say, when it comes to dealing with possible offenders, presumptions can end up costing lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom