Cops cavity-search women stopped for littering

[Babbylonian]

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.

They were not under arrest at any point during the traffic stop. Thus, any search was looking for potential grounds for arrest and was not a "search incident to arrest." There's a very important distinction there and it should be obvious to you.

1. They were pulled over for throwing cigarette butts out of their car. No one is getting arrested for that. Getting a ticket wouldn't be out of line.
2. They were "acting weird." I'm pretty sure that's not grounds for arrest either.
3. The officer claims to have smelled marijuana. True or not, you cannot be arrested for smelling of the kind bud or even the gnarliest weed.
4. They passed a field sobriety test and were released with "warnings." The officers thus acknowledge by their actions that there was no grounds to arrest either woman, either prior to or following the invasive search.

Now, having lived in the United States for a while and learning at least a little about my civil rights, I can see no grounds in any of the above for an invasive body search, let alone an arrest which could indeed involve a cavity search before jailing the suspect(s). There are barely grounds for a "pat down" search (though some municipalities have managed to stretch civil rights in this regard for the supposed purpose of fighting terrorism).

Honestly, if you think that you would deserve to be searched in and around your swimsuit areas based on the above, I pity both your grasp of the law and your lack of self respect.

As for the handcuff issue, fine, sometimes weird things can happen. But it's irrelevant given that these people were not at any time under arrest. Police officers can't just slap cuffs on whomever they want because, you know, maybe there might be trouble at an entirely routine traffic stop.

 

[Checkmite]

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.

No; what I meant to imply is that, I've never heard of police searching people they've pulled out of a car that they haven't arrested. Obviously if they need to search for evidence that means they don't have any, and if they don't have any evidence, there's no reason to search.

I could be wrong - maybe police are allowed to frisk anyone on a whim. But, what I'm not wrong about is that they frisk them; they don't stick their hands down peoples' pants. It may be anecdotal; but at least one police officer I'm personally acquainted with has told me he doesn't recognize the procedure in that video.

 

[BlackLyon]

They were not under arrest at any point during the traffic stop. Thus, any search was looking for potential grounds for arrest and was not a "search incident to arrest." There's a very important distinction there and it should be obvious to you.

Right. That distinction would be that the officer asked both women if he could search their person and the vehicle, and both consented. Thus, the "search incident to arrest" exception is irrelevant. Both parties agreed to the search.

Honestly, if you think that you would deserve to be searched in and around your swimsuit areas based on the above, I pity both your grasp of the law and your lack of self respect.

My grasp of the law is based on one brother being a cop, both parents being former cops, and one grandparent being a cop. Oh, and I went through the police academy and have been on (rough estimate) thirty odd ride-alongs with officers.

What is your grasp of the law based on?

As for the handcuff issue, fine, sometimes weird things can happen. But it's irrelevant given that these people were not at any time under arrest. Police officers can't just slap cuffs on whomever they want because, you know, maybe there might be trouble at an entirely routine traffic stop.

Agreed, but again irrelevant. I never discussed slapping handcuffs on people. We were discussing the women possibly stashing their marijuana in their pants, and retrieving it later. You pointed out that it would be difficult and obvious. I simply refuted that by providing my two examples.

 

[Babbylonian]

My grasp of the law is based on one brother being a cop, both parents being former cops, and one grandparent being a cop. Oh, and I went through the police academy and have been on (rough estimate) thirty odd ride-alongs with officers.

Excellent! Then you must have innumerable examples of police officers - right in your own family! - who pulled people over for minor traffic infractions, jammed their hands down citizens' underpants in public, and then let them go with a warning. Or maybe they only fondled drivers when they thought they smelled marijuana? Or thought the people were a little weird?

 

[BlackLyon]

No; what I meant to imply is that, I've never heard of police searching people they've pulled out of a car that they haven't arrested. Obviously if they need to search for evidence that means they don't have any, and if they don't have any evidence, there's no reason to search.

This is actually quite common. The officer asked both women for permission to search them and the vehicle. Both women consented. He doesn't need to arrest them now in order to conduct a search.

I could be wrong - maybe police are allowed to frisk anyone on a whim. But, what I'm not wrong about is that they frisk them; they don't stick their hands down peoples' pants. It may be anecdotal; but at least one police officer I'm personally acquainted with has told me he doesn't recognize the procedure in that video.

The procedure is a little odd, especially the edited video in linked in the original post. I've copied and pasted below the unedited footage found on YouTube (it runs almost an hour)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fXkn_0UEzg

The unedited footage shows a more thorough search being conducted by the female officer. You can also see that the female officer uses the back of her hand when she checks the women's backsides. It also appears that she uses the back of her hand to check the women's front, and only turns it inward when she goes to check the crotch area.

I have to ask this though - does nobody wonder why, if this officer planned on conducting an illegal cavity search, she would make it a point to pull them in front of the camera first? It is complete darkness ten feet to the left. She pulls both women in front of the camera because it is proper procedure, to both protect the women and the officers.

 

[BlackLyon]

Excellent! Then you must have innumerable examples of police officers - right in your own family! - who pulled people over for minor traffic infractions, jammed their hands down citizens' underpants in public, and then let them go with a warning. Or maybe they only fondled drivers when they thought they smelled marijuana? Or thought the people were a little weird?

You didn't answer the question. In fact, you've dodged every relevant point of our discussion, and instead attempted to deflect and/or reduce everything down to the absurd. For the sake of avoiding the name calling, which given how fast this conversation has gone downhill I would expect to happen shortly, let's just leave things at a polite agree to disagree. Good day.

 

[Babbylonian]

You didn't answer the question. In fact, you've dodged every relevant point of our discussion, and instead attempted to deflect and/or reduce everything down to the absurd. For the sake of avoiding the name calling, which given how fast this conversation has gone downhill I would expect to happen shortly, let's just leave things at a polite agree to disagree. Good day.

You're citing your extensive knowledge, so I assumed that you'd have evidence to back up the idea that public cavity searches of those who commit minor traffic infractions is somehow a perfectly legal and appropriate part of the police toolset.

Frankly, whether these women consented to a search of their person or not is irrelevant to me once the hand went down the underwear. You seem incapable of understanding that this is entirely inappropriate police behavior. If they did consent, they did so out of ignorance and/or fear; it's one thing for police to take advantage of those emotions when dealing with real criminals but I find it unacceptable to do so when dealing with citizens at traffic stops.

Also, I didn't call you any names and your assumption that I'm on a slippery slope to incivility is unwarranted.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Speaking as a motorcyclist who once found himself doing 70mph completely blind on a busy motorway (M25) because some moron threw a smouldering fag butt out the window of a van, and who has also had one hit him in the throat and go down the neck of his jacket on two occassions I can't help wonder if this would be a great way to prevent such behaviour...

 

[commandlinegamer]

Speaking as a motorcyclist who once found himself doing 70mph completely blind on a busy motorway (M25) because some moron threw a smouldering fag butt out the window of a van, and who has also had one hit him in the throat and go down the neck of his jacket on two occassions I can't help wonder if this would be a great way to prevent such behaviour...

Not condoning anyone who throws stuff from moving vehicles, but if you're travelling at speed, is it not pretty risky not having your visor down to avoid hazards such as flying insects, dust, gravel, never mind lit butts?

 

[Cainkane1]

According to the Dallas Morning News, these women (a driver and her passenger) were stopped when an officer spotted them throwing some trash out of their car - which is perfectly okay in my book. However,



OK; now, we're talking about on the side of the open road - while cars go by - illuminated by the police car's spotlights - a state trooper gave the two women a cavity search, evidently using the same glove to search all the orifices.

Frankly it sounds more like the beginning of a cheesy porn flick and it's difficult to believe anything like this really happened. But, sure enough there's dashcam footage of the entire incident.

Those ladies are going to win the lawsuit. There was no reason to search them like that. If they were going to search them they should have done it at the police station. Even in that situation they didn't have just cause.

My friend was driving my car when we were teenagers and when he was stopped and ticketed for scratching off they searched my car including the trunk for alcohol and they found nothing. I felt like a criminal when I was innocent of any wrong doing.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Not condoning anyone who throws stuff from moving vehicles, but if you're travelling at speed, is it not pretty risky not having your visor down to avoid hazards such as flying insects, dust, gravel, never mind lit butts?

Yes, but the full sequence of events was that the car in front of me decided to wash it's windscreen and didn't have properly adjusted nozzels, the spray hit my visor in sufficient quantity to smear but not remove the dead bug remains that had accumulated since I'd left home that morning and obscuring my view, at which point I raised the visor intending to slow pull back into the next lane and try and clear it up a bit. It was at this exact moment that white van man decided to ditch his fag....... A bit of a 'perfect storm' situation but that's how it played out. If the car in front had looked in his mirror and thought 'Hmmm maybe that biker behind me doesn't want a faceful of soapy water right now' the butt would have just bounced of my visor but drivers don't often seem to think like that.

The two occasions I've got them down jacket fronts have been pretty distracting too. Not to mention the forest and roadside fires they start and the times when they get caught in car radiators at just the same places that dry leaves and scraps of paper also get stuck and start car fires.

 

[carlitos]

Whether it was a technically-correct "cavity search" in the definite procedural sense of the word, it was an invasive assault and out of line.

The best way to get the moderators to edit your thread title is to report the OP, with some description like "please change my incorrect thread title."