General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTexas women sue over cavity search. "The officer didn't even change gloves!" (Warning:Very Graphic)
Two Texan women have filed a lawsuit for being subjected to embarrassing roadside body cavity searches by state troopers who searched their genital regions.
The women were stopped by a trooper for throwing a cigarette butt out of their car window, which is prohibited under the Texas Health & Safety Code that outlaws littering. Angel Dobbs, 38, and her niece Ashley Dobbs, 24, were stopped by a trooper on State Highway 161 and forced to exit their vehicles. Trooper David Farrell then began to question the women about marijuana, proceeding to search the car and then calling his female colleague Kelley Helleson to the scene to search the womens bodies.
The troopers dash-mounted camera captured the incident on tape, which was published online by the Dallas Morning News. The video shows Helleson using her fingers to search the anuses and vaginas of the women. The trooper used the same latex glove to touch the genitals of both women, while conducting the search on the side of the road in full view of the passing vehicles.
Farrell said she ordered the search because the women were acting weird even though he found no marijuana in the car and had no indication of any illegal activity aside from the littering. He then tried to morph this situation into a DWI investigation, the Dallas Morning News reports. Neither of the women had been drinking.
The troopers, as well as Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety Steven McCraw, will now be forced to attend court to settle the incident. McCraw said he was aware of complaints about unlawful strip searches, cavity searches and the like, but did not do anything to address the issue.
Scott H. Palmer, an attorney for the woman, told the Dallas Morning News that this is a case of public sexual assault and that no ones ever seen the likes of this.
Full story:
http://rt.com/usa/news/texas-women-roadside-cavity-422/
Dallas News.com
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2012/12/irving-women-sue-state-troopers-in-federal-court-alleging-roadside-body-cavity-searches.html/
Video: (Warning: Very Graphic)
News Report:
KansDem
(28,498 posts)I hope they collect...big!
Oh, but if they laundered $880 million in drug-cartel and terrorist money, they'd only receive a fine. Don't want to be putting a finger up a CEO's ass!
When I first heard about the story, I almost couldn't believe it. There are some police officers out there that are completely out of control.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)There is no cavity search. This is a thing about video... it is there to be seen.
If this story was about an intrusive search, an inappropriate search, an illegal search, whatever, it would be fine.
But since the repeated claim of a cavity search is a LIE it makes the story a farce.
Plainly dishonest claims do not buttress an argument -- quite the opposite.
(And now people will say I am saying the search is appropriate, which I am obviously not, but people who groove on dishonesty tend to groove on it 24/7)
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)From the forearm movement, it looks like that wrist with the fingers attached is going somewhere.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)This video was posted last night. I watched it. There is no "cavity search."
There is a very intrusive underwear search involving genital contact of a sort that any of us would find incredibly objectionable.
One can argue that the level of intrusion is tantamount to a cavity search.
One can probably spend a career identifying problems with this search.
It might be the worst search of the year. It is probably outrageous, illegal, disgusting, etc.. It is exactly the sort of thing a loony civil-libertarian like myself would be first in line to condemn.
One cannot, however, credit the women's stories when the story or stories make claims that are readily falsified by the video.
The explicit claim offered with the video is false, which is a problem with the case.
And I am tired of people pushing everything into the territory of falsehood to make claim more sensational.
The fact that I am tired of it will not stop the phenomenon, but I have duly registered my hyperbole fatigue.
With the cavity search claim withdrawn there would be a hell of a lot of merit to the compliants, so it just does not help anyone or anything.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Oh, okay, so touching someone's anus and vagina, and then touching someone else's anus and vagina with the same glove is just a way of saying "Howdy" in Texas.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I did not say it was a good search, an appropriate search, a legal search... if a review of the tape got both officers fired I wouldn't lose any sleep.
It's an appalling search... and particularly for pot.
Shocking. Disgusting.
But plainly not a "cavity search." And yes, these petty little falsehoods do have a bad effect on society.
From a civil liberties perspective I prefer that allegations of police misconduct be rigorously truthful.
I am one of the bigger nut civil liberties types here and would be delighted to see cases like this go somewhere on their actual merits.
The search may well be equally wrong with or without a cavity search, but when a witness leads off with a sensational misrepresentation of fact it takes away credibility.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)You've called these women liars multiple times while offering nothing in terms of an explanation. You're a nut alright, but not in a good way at all. Christ your attitude is sickening.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I assume you are making some reference to my legal background.
If so, I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that if so much as any part of the surface of a finger advanced beyond a spatial boundary defined between the the maximum external protrusion of the labia majoris, then absent some authoritative definition, I'd call that a "cavity search".
Or, as the woman in the video so eloquently puts it "stuck a finger.... in my p**sy"
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)vagina but touching the first woman's anus FIRST and then her vaginal area. Great way to get an infection. Dumb ass witch cop. Any woman knows better than that.
Sivafae
(480 posts)I think that was the most shocking thing to me. That a woman would be starting at the back and then going to the front. Has this women never seen a doctor? It is ingrained in us from a young age, go front to back.
TeamPooka
(24,230 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Then it would seem to be on over-the-top characterization to call someone a "liar" here. As you know, for example, the degree of penetration, however slight, is not an issue in any state's definition of rape.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)The cavity search of the anus, followed by the vagina, on both women, was described explicitly, and presented as their claim of what the video depicts.
My objection is to the specific claims made.
And the legal definition of various sorts of sexual assault does not ber on the question of whether the claims are exaggerated. It bears on whether what really happened is objectionable -- which it is.
It is very objectionable.
But this "overstaing the truth serves a higher truth" racket sucks.
"Parents give six year old gun to take to school."
"The article says nothing to suggest that the parents were aware the kid took a gun to school."
"So it's fine with you if kids take guns to school?" or... "They didn't have the guns secured, which is the same thing..."
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Do you not see how disgusting that is? Will you not at least apologize for that? EVERY indication suggests that the women are telling the truth. Yet you call those women liars. And you call yourself a civil-libertarian? You're nothing but an apologist for the fascists. You anticipated the backlash that you'd get, but provide no reason why the backlash wouldn't be anything but appropriate. You can continue banging your head against the wall. It's better than making another of your idiotic posts.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)The woman clearly says on the video recorded RIGHT THEN, RIGHT THERE, caught by the dashboard cam:
"she had a finger in my ass and then in my pussy" (apologies for the language, but this is a direct quote)
So what are you suggesting?
That the violated, traumatized woman had the foresight to make that up right there on the spot, that the cops could hear that and didn't deny it, for reasons you can't explain, that she knew she would be able to get the dashboard cam video, even though she didn't seem to know anything else about what she could do in the situation - I could keep going, but are you fucking serious?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)but I could have sworn she said "coochie".
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)jsmirman
(4,507 posts)Although she definitely said something I wasn't expecting, but it was her ordeal, not mine...
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)You're NOT a civil-libertarian. You're an apologist for fascists and it's stomach churning. You know NOTHING of this case and you call those women liars. Sick, sick sick.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:33 PM - Edit history (1)
She didn't put her hands under their tops to search their breast area.
The only hyperbolic things are the insane laws that would allow such a thing and the apparent comfort level some people have reached in believing this should be the norm here in the "land of the free and home of the brave."
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Anything less is perfectly acceptable according to some "civil-libertarians" here.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Now you're just being dishonest. You can't possibly tell from the video if the officer probed into their cavities, yet you explicitly said "There is no cavity search" in your first post.
You should probably delete your posts to avoid further embarrassment.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)He says he knows this to be true. And this fascist apologist has the nerve to call those women liars. Rarely am I this upset by what some random asshole on the internet posts, but this guy has done it. I feel sick posting on the same website.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)intheflow
(28,480 posts)Apparently people are all too OK with people calling victims of sexual assault liars around here.
KatyMan
(4,201 posts)but from a healthcare perspective (KatyMan's wife)-- search the vagina first, then the anus. And yes, you should change gloves between searchs. Cardinal rule in healthcare- start at the cleanest and move to dirtiest. Not a difficult concept.
What a disgusting ordeal for these women. Hopefully they will sue.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)These words have meaning: "cavity search"
There was not one performed in the video.
There was also not a unicorn.
There was, however, a grossly intrusive roadside search of a sort that should be illegal.
But if the women actually claim fingers were inserted in their anuses they are confabulating events... exaggerating in a dishonest fashion... telling something other than the truth... phrase it however one wishes.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Tell us why inserting one's finger into another person's anus and vagina during a search is not a cavity search. Explain how that doesn't meat the definition of: "A body cavity search is either a visual search or a manual internal inspection of body cavities such as for prohibited material". Explain that, genius. You've made that jackass claim dozens of times, but you are obviously not bright enough to realize that "words have meaning". Some idiot with a low 2 digit IQ screaming on the internet doesn't make that something true as much as you'd like that to be the case.
Tien1985
(920 posts)I don't see how you can tell either way? She has her hand in her pants, you can't see where she is putting her fingers--granted no one else can either. Except the women and the police officer.
pecwae
(8,021 posts)You're saying they're lying. Were you someone present inside their underwear to attest to your claim that there was no cavity search? No, there wasn't a unicorn and you weren't there either. You really ought to delete the shit you've posted.
FloriTexan
(838 posts)viewed the video and sent it to the DA in Dallas for grand jury determination. Clearly there is something wrong with this procedure. Would you let the officer stick her hand down your pants, front then back? On the side of the road in front of the vehicles headlights?!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Which is a huge no-no. And on the side of the road. Hell no. For a traffic stop, no less? What, are we all open to getting a cavity search if we "act weird" when we exceed the speed limit a little bit? That's what all of this apologizing for the TSA and the war on drugs has gotten us. Police sticking their hands in our pants and feeling us up on the side of the damn road like they have any right whatsoever to do that to innocent people.
And you know, we are innocent until proven guilty, and proving someone guilty does not involve sticking your hands in their privates without a warrant.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)and genitals. No feeling over arms and legs like normally seen. unless they cut something out.
weird - police stop to get her jollies, I guess
Sivafae
(480 posts)That's a pretty long time to just be feeling around. Go on. Go back and count. The first lady, she was like 3 to 5 seconds tops. The second lady, somewhere between 10-12 seconds. Something don't seem right there.
FLyellowdog
(4,276 posts)If they were, then they were cavity searches.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)one needs to control the phenomenon of people seeing or hearing what they are told they will see or hear, and seeing or listening what is actually there.
Remember the Zimmerman "coon" tape? Countless thousands of people were ready to swear to what they heard after being told what they were hearing, but it wasn't there.
In assessing a claim you cannot use the claim itself as evidence for the claim. The only reason a person would see a cavity search here (where there plainly is not) is because they want to, or because they have been primed to.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)We have the video - which is ambiguous, but certainly renders it feasible that penetration was involved.
We have the statements of the women involved.
In order to assert that they are "lying" then you must be able to point to something which renders their statements to be untrue.
On what basis does the video render their statements to be untrue?
You can certainly say, "you can't tell from the video", but I do not see how you are getting to "they are lying."
I don't know where that officer's finger's went, and neither do you.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Granted, we have to make some wild assumptions -- the female officers fingers remain the same length when out of our sight, the female officers hands are of the typical human sort where the fingers bend toward the palm, rather than backward, and that the female officer is acting with intent... that her actions are part of a conscious set of acts with goals.
Could a good sleight of hand magician or mime create an act where his finger was inserted into the anus while giving the impression from body movement that it was not? Maybe so. And of course the video could have been doctored.
But as presented, no, the story is not true on the detail of being a digital examination of the interior of anus or vagina.
As for the word "lying"... I came through election 2012 with the strong sense that words intended to deceive the listener are lies.
Maybe it is too strong a word, and I should substitute confabulation.
As you know, it is tricky to determine what people actually believe, since they often don't know themselves.
The story presented is not true as to the detail of the nature of the search that is depicted in the video. I'll leave it at that.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Fuck, I can't imagine why you continue to defend (yes, you are defending the actions of these criminals) these assholes. You are pretending to be some kind of even more psychopathic Judge Dredd, without any of the intellect. Do you realize how sick it is to accuse these victims of being liars? Do you honestly not have an idea how absolutely sickening and disgusting you sound?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)sticks their fingers in your underwear on the side of the road for a traffic stop, that is insanity no matter how you slice it. And frankly, that looked to me very much like she was probing and penetrating them.
If you are prepared to get yourself fingered over a routine traffic stop, well you have at it. I'm not and sane people won't put up with that shit, either. When ANYONE has the right to pull you over for a routine traffic stop and stick their hands on your privates, they have too much power. What was done to those women, in full view on the side of the road was not right, was not sane, and you can backpedal all day long but you will NEVER be able to justify that, and calling them liars was just icing on the shit cake you served with your comments.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You are married to your initial reaction here, and should really reconsider.
Officer Dirty Sanchez needs to be disciplined.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and the female officer was in her underwear for a long time, and it looked like she was probing around. The woman flinched.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)It's impossible to tell because the officer goes under the clothes.
Tien1985
(920 posts)How can you tell? I don't know a whole lot about cavity searches, but I do know it's easily possible to insert fingers in a body from the front and back of the pants as shown in the video... The thing is, I wouldn't be able to say that's what happened or not from this video. Is there some particular way of doing a cavity search that rules this out, or would the overall wrongness of the search make you wonder if they did a cavity search wrong too?
And another question for anybody: if this is what they say it is, WTF are we doing watching what amounts to video evidence of rape???
aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)Are you serious? You're going to defend this bullshit? You may not be saying this is appropriate, but you're certainly excusing the criminals (pigs) in this case. What the fuck is your issue? You should probably look up the term before making such an incredibly stupid comment. There's only one person here being dishonest, and that's you.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)What would you call it?
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Even though it's fucking obvious by the video? And the fact that the woman recounted what happened right after it happened? And the fucking pig didn't deny anything the woman said because it was obvious that that's exactly what he ordered? Is it just that you're not very bright? Or do you have a hard on for defending people who do indefensible things?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)but I kinda laughed in spite of myself.
obamanut2012
(26,083 posts)Probing into body orifices is a cavity search.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)That hand definitely looked like it was digging way down then up into. In fact, this took some time to do, I'd imagine that lips were pushed out the way and fingers inserted into a place they do not belong. I'd also feel embarrassed and violated.
In addition, she didn't even change her gloves - absolutely disgusting and unhygienic!!
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)This is what is acceptable on DU in this day and age.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)with the mechanics involved in cavity searches.
A woman doesn't have to bend over and be naked from the waist down to be subjected to a cavity search, you know.
pecwae
(8,021 posts)definition of a cavity search and what would someone have to do to you for you to say your cavities had been searched? So a cavity search must be witnessed by a third party or it's a lie?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)For a fucking traffic stop? Felt them up, and stuck her hands in their pants. Do you realize that could be you, your parents, your children or your family members on the side of the road getting violated at the whim of a police officer?
That said, there is no fucking way I'd consent to that. You are going to need a warrant before you do that to me, a lawyer involved and it won't be on the side of the goddamned road.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)The women weren't wearing see-through pants. Therefore, anyone who watches the tape cannot be certain whether or not a cavity search was performed. Where do you get off calling these women liars? We already know cops are liars--lying is built into their job descriptions. We don't know about these women and the veracity of their claims (although I see no reason whatsoever to doubt their word). Yet you feel comfortable licking at feet of abusive authority and calling these women liars. Does the head of the TX Dept of Safety always show up in court to answer the charges of liars?
So it's time to put up or shut up. Several people have asked you why you called these women liars. You can either answer, or you can wear the label you're trying to throw around.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Where you stick your hands in my underwear, that's going way to far right there, regardless of whether you stick a finger in me or not!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)But with that post, I was countering this ridiculous notion that the other poster was able to somehow determine that no cavity search took place. What we do know from seeing with our own eyes is that the cop had her hand down both women's pants for the purpose of conducting a search. It's reasonable to believe, therefore, that a cavity search did take place, even though we cannot see it on the tape because of the nontransparent nature of blue jeans. But by the very same token, stating categorically that these women are lying is itself, a lie. I'll never understand why some people seem to thrive on mewling at the feet of authority. Anyway, I know I'm preaching to the choir, just wanted to clarify my previous post. Thanks.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)These women claim they were subjected to a cavity search. Some guys seem to be inclined not to believe these particular kinds of claims by women, to an almost pathological extent.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)And it is a damn shame that this case of an obviously outrageous search is marred by the fact that the two victims are making a false statement as to what happened on an emotionally powerful detail, but a detail probably not even necessary to making the case that the search is outrageous.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)If the woman says a finger was put inside of her, and frankly, being a woman myself I know what that looks like, I believe her. Why you don't want to believe them is beyond me. Did you not see the second woman flinching, and how LONG she was in her underwear?
They went too far. Period. These weren't some high-powered criminals. Hell, they weren't even frisking them for weapons. No, they went into their private parts, and that's not okay. And insisting that they are lying is silly. It's extremely clear that they were felt up on the side of the damn road in full view of the camera. Why you want to insist they are lying is what puzzles me.
Are you shocked that they didn't enjoy it or something? Do you think that they should have been writhing and moaning on the side of the road to prove they were being penetrated? Because if you do, you don't know much about a woman's body. Just how bad did it have to be, did they have to be screaming in pain to prove it to you?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)you weren't there, and they were. i believe them more than some random internet poster.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)All you've done is dig yourself a bigger hole. Either explain how these women didn't have cavity searches performed on them or apologize for calling them liars. At least that's what someone who is a decent human being would do.
joeunderdog
(2,563 posts)In that case, the search goes from violation of rights and illegal search to sexual assault, IMO.
This situation is unconscionable on so many levels. Sick.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)If a man got pulled over and anally searched on the side of the road in full view, would that be less humiliating for the man involved? Mind you, it would be a man doing it, but I'd wager thoughts about his sexuality would be secondary to the fact that he's handling you and shoving his finger up your butt IN FULL VIEW OF TRAFFIC ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD would be a little more of a concern.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...on this "littering" stop?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)blueamy66
(6,795 posts)inmates on work release......unbelievable!!!!
obamanut2012
(26,083 posts)I guess cops are hassling everyone now.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)You just know all of us shameless hussies drive around with marijuana stuffed in our body cavities.
TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)williesgirl
(4,033 posts)waddirum
(979 posts)... I'm struck by how the cop went from anus to vagina with the same pair of gloves on the same hand. How completely incompetent do you have to be to even risk introducing bacteria of the anus into the vagina.
That's why it is inappropriate for cops to be conducting medical procedures streetside.
I hope they win millions in their lawsuit!
I didn't even think about that. They went there, too? Holy shit. I'd sue the piss out of them.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)I'd like to slap the stupid !*#$@!*&$ (translate to suit yourself.)
My god, it's pounded into our heads from the time we are little that you don't touch the anus area and then the vaginal area. "Front to back".....I can't tell you how many times as a little girl most of us hear that.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)My word. That's a huge invitation to infection, particularly if the gloves weren't changed from woman to woman. I can't tell from the video if the gloves weren't changed or not, but if not? Invitation to STDs and toxic shock. Not to be graphic or gross, but what if one of them was menstruating and wearing a tampon? Would they have just ripped it right out there by the side of the damn road?
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)she's too stupid to be believed.
Makes one wonder, doesn't it?
The whole thing is frightening and indicative of just how out of control much of law enforcement is.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)The cop says the violation can be attributed to a daily smoker in the car? What an asshole. I hope these women sue the hell out of them and win big time. The cops, both cops, should be fired.
pecwae
(8,021 posts)Director of Public Safety (!) needs to go as well. This is more outrageous than TSA. Those women were trying to cooperate and got fingered, literally. This is sickening to the nth degree!
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)with criminal conduct. For one thing, besides the outrageousness of the search to begin with, you don't do it in public. You certainly don't do it with the same gloves and you don't touch the anal area and then the vaginal area. It was wrong on so many levels.
AND the ACLU should get involved.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Not even a warrant before sticking your fingers inside someone. Hell no. That could be anyone. And my God, the Anal and vaginal treatment without changing the gloves? Dear God.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)both at the DPS website.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/PublicInformation/commendEmpl.htm
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)attributed to a daily smoker in the car? So, is this the new law, a cop smells cigarette smell in a car and the driver and all passengers are subjected to a butt and vagina check by the gestapo? Like, was there smoke coming out their butts and vaginae.
Each day Americans are subjected to more and more outrageous behavior and are expected to say think your sir. Freedom and dignity are lost a bit at a time. We've watched this going on now since 9/11. And I wonder if there is an end in sight.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)until we make our voices heard, loud and clear. The ACLU should be all over this and we can contact DPS and let them know how we feel. They were stopped for littering - my god, what would they have done had they been stopped for speeding? Strip them naked and parade them through the town square?
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)feel just to be sure their butts and vaginae weren't smoking or smelled of pot.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)RKP5637
(67,111 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)They can do that in a routine traffic stop? OMG. "Acting weird" (and what does that mean, exactly?) is now cause to have your body completely and totally invaded and violated on the side of the road?
On the damn side of the road?
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)act "weird" when they get pulled over? I've only been pulled over twice in my life - once for an expired tag and once for an inspection sticker from DC when I lived in VA (I had just bought the car). Both times, it freaked me the hell out.
You DO NOT do that kind of search on the side of the road.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)Cops don't need to insert their fingers inside clothing if their are not intent on doing that.....
Jim Warren
(2,736 posts)Procedurally there are two types of body cavity search: visual and manual.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Jim Warren
(2,736 posts)Former LEO here and on my old job I would have had to secure a warrant citing probable cause and then only to enable a qualified medical professional to conduct the search.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)for decades. We have to hold their proverbial hands over the fire. Hopefully these ladies will get them a top notch legal team and return the "favor".
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Get them guilty on that and then use it to aid in the lawsuit.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)the officers here: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/PublicInformation/commendEmpl.htm
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Now we know why they have to ask...they really don't know.
Guess we should relax, it's OK because they called a female...so they just had to watch?
I'm hoping those girls get a free ride, at minimum, to the college of their choice and throw in a house to live in.
Jim Warren
(2,736 posts)Where I live police would need a warrant to do that.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I hope these women get a huge settlement and that these cops (and whoever authorized this) get fired. I would be livid.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)to that willful, prurient and humiliating behavior. And that woman cop...guess she had no choice either...perhaps it was her superior?
TheOther95Percent
(1,035 posts)That level of intrusive search over weed?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)WE MUST FIND TEH WEEEEEED!!!! STOP TEH WEEEED!!!!
Trueblue Texan
(2,430 posts)I don't get why so many people are engaged in arguing over whether or not penetration took place. What if it didn't? Do you not find this kind of search a violation even if penetration did not take place? Why is this legal? It's like rape, for God's sake! And being done right in public! I had no idea this sort of thing is legal. This crap should be STOPPED!
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)We must strip the rights away from those whom... might... POSSES DRUGS!!
This is the direct result of the false war on drugs which many on this site actively support.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Her being a co doesn't give here a right to commit a sexual battery.
Catherine Vincent
(34,490 posts)Fire her arse now! And sue the f out of that police department. That's just ridiculous. I can't believe those women stood there and took that.