Pages

▼

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Anal Probe: A New Form of Law Enforcement

I had to read this November 5, 2013 KOB news report really carefully to make sure that this wasn't a satire.  You really don't want to run a stop sign in Deming, New Mexico -- unless you really want a free colonoscopy (along with other procedures that are only considered polite topics of discussion in San Francisco).

I am pretty sure that the Founding Fathers did not have this in mind when they were writing the search and seizure parts of the Bill of Rights.
at

7 comments:

  1. SteveNovember 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM

    I hope there's no settlement. I'd love to see all of this brought out in court. Federal PMITA prison is where these people belong.

    ReplyDelete
  2. FidelNovember 6, 2013 at 5:31 AM

    Stupid, stupid doctors there....

    Absolutely no justification for the repeated enemas and colonoscopy, even assuming they were legally justified (being in another county, Id say not).

    Seems like a flagrant 42USC1983 case. Too bad the US DOJ doesn't care

    ReplyDelete
  3. EricNovember 6, 2013 at 1:03 PM

    Apparently this was not just a one-off either:
    http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3210356.shtml

    Same medical center, and altho the first story didn't mention it, the same out-of-certification drug sniffing dog.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousNovember 6, 2013 at 1:17 PM

    Not exactly a "free" colonoscopy - I understand that the Hospital has billed the poor victim $5000 and has threatened to send it to collection if he doesn't pay up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. UnknownNovember 6, 2013 at 4:39 PM

    I want to see the affidavit that was sufficient to obtain a search warrant for the examination of the suspect's anal cavity. If the clenching was the extent of the evidence that the judge constituted probable cause, then the judge needs to be relieved of his position.

    ReplyDelete
  6. KukulkanNovember 7, 2013 at 5:06 PM

    Here's a link to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, which includes a copy of the affidavit in support of the search warrant. The one relevant additional piece of information is that the affiant was informed by another officer that the plaintiff had previously hidden narcotics in his anus. Inasmuch as this assertion is not contested in the MSJ, I assume it is true. The search still seems to be unjustified.

    ReplyDelete
  7. KukulkanNovember 7, 2013 at 5:06 PM

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/181824808/David-Eckert-lawsuit-documents

    ReplyDelete