Texas Police Officer Suspended With Pay In Roadside “Cavity Search” Case

youtube-user-urbanwarfarechannel-screenshot.nWe previously discussed the lawsuit over what was described as a roadside cavity search conducted on two women by a Texas police officer in search of marijuana possession. The Texas Department of Public Safety trooper Kelly Helleson has now been suspended with pay as the police investigate the matter, which was caught on videotape. What I fail to understand is why, once again, nothing happened until the public rose up in anger over the absurd actions of the police. Moreover, there is no mention of the first officer who used the fact that Angel Hobbs, 38, had thrown a cigarette butt out of her window to interrogate the two women on possible pot use and then searched their car.

Hobbs and her 24-year-old niece, Ashley Hobbs, were the subject of the intrusive search by Helleson while the other officer was present. However, it took a lawsuit and national media to get the police to respond. Why? Clearly, the women had complained earlier and there was a videotape available. Moreover, it is only the strip searches not the pretext stop and overreaction by both officers that appear the focus of the investigation. Take the strip searches out of the equation for a second. Is it appropriate for a Texas officer to use a pretext to trigger this type of roadside interrogation and search. Both women were told to get out of the car and then the officer simply declared that he smelled pot to justify a search of the vehicle. How is that different in substance from the types of searches that we read about in abusive countries or police states? Police can look for anything that might result in an arrest after declaring that they smell pot. None was found in the car. I also doubt that this was the first time that such a search occurred given the statement of the officers that it is routine.

Source: CBS

72 thoughts on “Texas Police Officer Suspended With Pay In Roadside “Cavity Search” Case

  1. quote “How is that different in substance from the types of searches that we read about in abusive countries or police states?”

    Answered your own question, we ARE a police state….thanks to our Supreme Court, they think anyone can be strip searched for ANYTHING!!!

  2. Assuming they did smell cannabis, haven’t these idiot cops ever heard about eating the roach? They are out of control and stupid, a pair that beats a full house!

  3. The 4th Amendment is now just a historical artifact from a bygone time.

    The law says that we can sue – yes we can if we have a spare $50,000, have the persistence to wade through the mass of fee padding lawyers, and the savvy to navigate the system.

    Few people do, providing an effective barrier to obtaining justice.

  4. You are right AY. It would be nice to hear from FFLEO.
    This officer should be looking for a new job and should be behind bars awaiting arraignment on a sexual assault charge.

  5. Although it is painful, if you focus on the body language of the niece when she is “searched,” you will see her turn her head away and stiffen. It is, unfortunately, a very telling small clip of the tape; it tells a story of a serious, and perhaps permanent, injury in progress. The victim of this crime is turning off her responses by the use of “emotional force” so she does not show any reaction, because her fear has exceeded her natural defenses. She is so afraid of punishment for showing her human reaction to what is being done to her that she is “stifling” and she will probably have life-long negative consequences from this experience.

    This, I believe, is the essential characteristic that makes incest against a young child by an older family member one of the most disabling injuries that can possibly be inflicted. The child has no idea how to react and is afraid to react naturally, so the child stifles all reactions and responses and imposes on herself or himself an immediate, serious, forcible, irreversible and almost undetectable “clamp” that can choke off natural emotional life for years, decades, or for life. Most survivors of incest do not even recognize this horrible phenomenon; hardly any psychological or psychiatric professionals even identify it or consider it; I have never seen it defined in the literature and only once heard it spoken of at a conference by a presenter who was a psychiatrist. HE said, “It changes the victim’s map of the world; indeed, it changes the victim’s map of her own mind.”

    I never saw a clip that put it out there in its reality. Even in the movie “Lolita” they did not try to show this.

    This clip is going to take some getting over, for me at least. I never saw it depicted before. This is an immeasurable outrage.

  6. Professor is right:” . . . the officer simply declared that he smelled pot to justify a search of the vehicle. How is that different in substance from the types of searches that we read about in abusive countries or police states?”

    The conversion of police forces into paramilitary instruments of a police state mentality and practice should be a leading indicator of the trouble this country is in. Instead, this surveillance state continues to insidiously envelope us and we seem to delegate serious questions about these trends to the very authoritarian structures that threaten us in significant ways.

  7. Is there any justifiable reason that she has been suspened
    “WITH” pay as opposed to without pay???

    What is the legal reason???
    Contract requirement??

  8. Bud, wondered that too. Expect it’s department policy for internal investigations. There are probably exceptions to the policy, too, and in this respect it may send a certain message.

  9. Bud & Don,
    Suspension with pay is the typical policy of civil service organizations. That is, until the final determination of an internal investigation. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that entails.

    As soon as the IA investigations are turned in, then it is treated as if it is a Grand Jury indictment, and the officer is either terminated or reinstated to duty, depending on the recommendation of the IA investigators.

  10. Why are people surprised by what the police do nowadays, makes ya think about those who say. If you didn’t do anything wrong whats with them searching….or stopping you. I say just throw oit the constitution now who meeds it anyways

  11. Don and OS,

    Thanks, pretty much what I believed…
    But, why suspend INNOCENT employees??

    I guess you can see where my arguement is going.

    If she is terminated does the state collect try to
    collect the wages that were paid that she was not entitled to??

    What if this goes on for 5 years?

  12. Bud asks “why suspend INNOCENT employees??”

    In some situations it’s a way to give a measure of consistency to treating ‘consumer’ complaints hence supposedly giving credibility to the agency and the procedure.

    I was suspended once with pay from my job after an ethics complaint against me; not a terrifically unusual occurrence in the field i was in. I was on vacation anyway, and the internal investigation, which included the regional client’s rights rep, found the complaint unfounded. But thast just the way things go. For the innocent it seems totally unfair as, often, the charges leveled and the complainant are not even known to the employee, so there is no advocate or room for advocacy.. Certain remedial suggestions are sometimes imposed as part of the process even with a finding that the charges were unfounded.

  13. Don S,

    Sorry to hear you were suspended.

    My issue is, if there is enough evidence to suspend then there is enough evidence to stop wages. (not to be nasty)

    Could the investigation in your case not have been handled in a professional way with you at work? (had you not been on vacation?)

    Could this woman not have been investigated while she was at work, and then terminated with cause or, allowed to continue on?

    Sounds like they are saying she is guilty as hell and we have to cover her back and ours (cops) or she will blow a whistle…

  14. Given the prime facie issues here involved at multiple levels and, probably the department having some awareness of their vulnerability, AND the video, suspension was a no-brainer.

  15. this is the second roadside strip search or cavity search I have read about. Why is this even legal at all? they should have to take people to a facility with a bathroom if they want to do this. Are they just lazy? Or do they know if they have others in a building checking on the actions taken that they will be stopped.

  16. Bud, it’s just SOP where there is a complaint. Sometimes it’s a multistage process; complaint reaching executive leve; appointment of investigators, etc.. I was also an investigator for ethics complaints within the agency for years, before and after; always took a big chunk out of my schedule, had to reschedule clients, and the initial investigation had to be done within a day or two, with internal procedures determining the course.

    I worked in a public agency, and maybe there is the assumption of more responsiveness and transparency to consumer complaints. I don’t know; thus the notion of suspension. But you are right about the ambiguity of the situation; it’s not a presumption of innocence model so much as a ‘hold harmless’ model in which the public interest clearly takes precedence over the determination of culpability.

  17. Unless this has been superceded by newer common law, I believe the issue of stopping a person for the throwing a lit cigarette even if pretext is not relevant under Whren v. United States Some states have restricted pretext stops but others have not.

    Essentially under Whren, officers do not need to turn a blind eye to traffic law violations just because they have previously suspected other previous violations of criminal statutes.

    I believe the violation happens due to at least in Arizona v. Gant where the courts have held that warrantless searches of vehicles area unreasonable unless, as in this case, an arrest was actually made AND the police can articulate there was probable cause to belive the vehicle contained evidence of the crime alleged AND the search was contemporaneous to the arrest.

    I did not see any evidence in what I have read here the officer suspected marijuana possession by the occupants of the vehicle before the cigarette was thrown out. So pre-text might not even apply and would not be relevant if it was. But after stopped for this violation in a light most favorable to the state, assuming for sake of argument there was a marijuana aroma, the police could order the occupants out fearing a possible destruction of evidence and giving the officers time to secure a search warrant (though in some states, WA being one of them the aroma of marijuana might not be enough by itself to secure a search warrant)

    Now even in considering it in the most favorable light to the state, the actions thereafter are clearly in violation of the womens’ rights as I will state below.

    1) There was no probable cause to arrest and no arrest was made, therefore there was no right to even search for evidence on the persons of the women or the vehicle.

    2) A body cavity search even if lawfully arrested is not justified at all in public view. There clearly was not even to most exigent circumstances to search for weapons. Marijuana is certainly not one of thse.

    3) Even if the womens’ purses were searched it would be an illegal search not to mention the insides of their bodies.

    I believe the current case law is sufficient to prohibit the types of searches in this case. It is a matter of policing the police to prevent issues like this from happening.

    But our Professor is absolutely correct in that the issue would never have come to an investigation unless there was an outrage and fear in the minds of those in charge they might be drug into the controversy. So, they suspended the officer who did this. They were justified in doing so but I am certain they wanted to have a fall guy (the officer) to take the blame and not themselves once the cat was out of the bag.

    The threat to the women made to the women by police officials (report this and we will arrest you for something else) as mentioned in the news article should be criminally investigated as well.

  18. I speculate that the suspension of the officer is not a punitive act at all but merely a Texas Dept. of Public Safety move to keep her hidden from the public and the media until they have a chance to formulate their next strategic move.

  19. Don’t expect any (phony) tears from Presnent Benedict. He’s too busy
    shilling for a winner — the KIDS in Conneticut, and furthering the cause of
    disarming the 54 million SS recipients and those that care about them.

    Why NPRers still support him, is beyond me. If you are as serious about
    slowing down the destruction of the Middle Class, as many imply, whenever
    they ridiculed the Mormon, then you simply must dump the donkey kong,, and vote for people like Jill stein or RALPH every chance you get.

    Even the other Ralph, for that matter. Ralph Williams, that is.

  20. shano, I believe the other alleged body cavity search was involving Leila Tarantino in Florida. It was reported here last August when Tarantino filed a lawsuit in Federal Court. I’ve been following the case on Pacer but there’s not much activity. There was a pending motion to dismiss last I checked but it will probably not be granted and the case will proceed.

  21. DonS,

    “The conversion of police forces into paramilitary instruments of a police state mentality and practice should be a leading indicator of the trouble this country is in”

    You are so right. There are many places to which we can assign responsibility for this trend. First and foremost I lay responsibility at the feet of our judges. That’s right, our cowardly authoritarian judges that would sooner eat glass than rule in a way that might engender some political backlash from the police department. A judge can be confronted and they frequently are, with testimony from a cop about a traffic stop based search of a citizen, which testimony is outrageously unbelievable, internally inconsistent,, at odds with earlier officer statements or physical evidence, not to mention contrary to the testimony of the citizen and or his/her witness and the lapdog for the police will lap up the cop perjury with a spoon, and rule in favor of the cop.

    There is however one limitation to the above scenario. The cop is recorded and somehow the citizen is able to discover, preserve and produce the smoking gun recording that puts the lie to the police. Suddenly its no longer business as usual. The fact that this little impediment to police doing whatever they please is of great concern to the police is demonstrated by their attempts to make it unlawful to record them. All of a sudden, it is much more difficult to get away with wanton abuse of citizens and perjured testimony. The added benefit of a large segment of society getting an actual view behind the blue curtain and insight into the way things really are is a bonus. Seemingly not a day goes by without another Internet broadcast of an example of a cop crapping on the constitutional liberty interest of a citizen, many times–just because they can. The tired old mantra of, in any large organization there are going to be a few bad actors, but the vast majority of law enforcement officers are still heroes out there doing wonderful work keeping us safe from the bad guys, is now more and more being recognized for the myth and cop shop propaganda that it is.

    Cops have been allowed to evolve into the belief that they are the law, rather than a government civil servant hired to do a job that starts with their swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the respective States of their commission. This evolution that the cops are the law is the foreseeable product of the courts at all levels abdicating responsibility to hold them in check and limit them to their role. Atwater v Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001), involved an arrest and booking of a mom for a seat belt violation punishable by a fine only. The three and five year old children in the car were going to go to the precinct with mom but for the assumed custody of the kids by a neighbor. b The cops contact with Atwater was extremely aggressive. A 5/4 decision, majority by the conservative, (authoritarian) block decided that this was just fine.

    Doubling down on the declaration that the court has no meaningful role in protecting citizens against police/law enforcement abuse of power the court next determined, (again 5/4) that being booked and repeatedly strip searched and detained on a traffic warrant erroneously issued was again, no problem at all. See Florence v. Booard of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S.____.

    The qualifications in many jurisdictions to become a police officer generally are:

  22. Sorry about that. Hit the wrong key.

    Qalifications generally are: Twenty-one years of age, High school diploma or G.E.D., able to read and write, drivers license, no prior felony convictions or misdemeanor convictions within the last five years.

    Then we send them through academy, where indoctrination starts. Give them a badge and gun, maybe a few months of in service training with a field training officer to continue the indoctrination and then turn them loose on the public with a come line bet by society that they will not abuse that power. It has been a bad bet And it will remain a bad bet until judges find a little courage to start finding fault with cops operating as if they are the law.

  23. Darren,

    Can we add

    4. Intimate contact with non-sterile gloves.
    5. Intimate contact from one person to another with the same gloves
    6. Intimate contact from anus to vagina.

    I don’t know what statute/s would cover 4-6 but there has to be something along the lines of blatant disregard for health and well-being.

    I think there are higher ups who just want this to go away b/c they were aware of it and sanctioned it, either overtly or tacitly. Those who carried out the acts aren’t the only ones who should be criminally charged.

  24. BettyKath, I think all those offenses are included in rape, sodomy, battery, and the federal charge under 18 USC 242 of violation of constitutional rights under color of state law. I’d throw the book against these two officers so hard it would make their empty heads spin.

  25. . . . the system tolerates, and covers up as needed, until forced to defend it or throw the lowest level it can under the bus. This merits a special investigation maybe by FBI, as to it’s systemic possibility, but I doubt it happens. Not enough FBI agents to investigate all the similar ‘incident’ around the country. of questionable Constitutional import. And, as JT noted, this is a very narrowly focused confrontation of what could probably have been cast wider, even in this specific case. But maybe it will open up the nasty can of worms if the defendant decides to open up. Wonder who is paying for her defense counsel?

  26. I will bet the police department (i.e. the taxpayers) will pay defense counsel. This probably is not so unusual as it is sign of a progression toward the greater and more noticeable violations of rights. Perhaps people treated this way in the past were those who could be easily disregarded because they were charged with crimes, beaten up, forced into a plea deal, couldn’t find lawyers. This represents crossing a certain line from [abusing those who cannot complain about it] to [abusing anybody at all because it has become so commonplace and the possibility of punishment is so remote].

  27. Did the trooper violate departmental policy? There should be enough information already available for the department to determine this.

    If it’s winked at, the department maybe be more motivated to stick up for her rather than risk her revealing more than helpful.

    If it’s a ‘poorly trained’ officer, the department may still stick up for her. Reassign her to a desk job.

    If it’s a total violation of department policy, strictly monitored, she’s gone. I doubt this is the case. she’s not in the position of some CEO” to get a golden parachute.

  28. It seems to me that Helleson is in big trouble now because the two women have gotten a high-power lawyer on the case; that means the police department is a deep-pocket defendant in a case with attractive, obviously injured plaintiffs and an iron-clad case. Taxpayers will be shelling out some serious cash to pay for the damage done by this officer and her buddy, David “the procurer” Farrell. I can see a new episode of Law & Order SVU coming up: Raped by the Roadside.

  29. I was the victim of a similar incident by a male state trooper 27 months ago who actually bragged about the fact that my privacy was now recorded for posterity on his dash cam. The consensus of opinions from lawyers I spoke to was ” the trooper was dead wrong, but do you really want the entire state police force to put a target on your back by taking this public?” Disgusting!

  30. Weird news of the day:

    Hip-Hop Artists Arrested in East Harlem Claiming Surveillance by NYPD
    By Brian Chidester

    Just after 4pm on December 15th, two members of the activist hip-hop group the Welfare Poets, along with four additional males, were arrested at the Wagner-Johnson housing project in East Harlem and charged with trespassing, a misdemeanor.

    Welfare Poets members Michael Pacheco (a/k/a Legendary M.I.C.) and Keith Hughes (a/k/a Dahu Ala), along with filmmakers Rickey Turner and Wander Acosta and local artists Iz the Truth and Boom Box, were filming a music video on the building’s roof when a pair of NYPD officers doing rounds in service area #5 asked them for a permit to film on the premises. Things quickly got out of hand.

    According to Pacheco, the officers knew immediately who they were and told them that they’ve been under surveillance for some time. By this time, four additional NYPD officers had been called to the scene. When Pacheco opened his jacket to pull out a cigarette, the officers noticed the Welfare Poets logo (a seal featuring interconnecting Puerto Rican independence and African freedom symbols) and began searching the hip-hop artist’s jacket without permission.

    “He said, ‘Oh you guys are Macheteros,'” remembers Turner. “As soon as they arrested us, the same officer then came back and said, ‘I was going to let you guys go but the sergeant said no.'”

    “The first cops entered with guns drawn to [Pacheco’s] chest,” remembers IZ. “We all stood there in peace and told them they didn’t have to go that far, as were only shooting a video.”

    “The cops laughed,” he continued.


  31. Police unions are a wonderful thing. They are the main reason for ” suspended with pay”, or ” reinstated by mediation”, or “lying on police reports or perjury is not sufficient for firing, Brady without standing”, or the all-time cop favorite of horrors that they shouldn’t suffer “what, he can’t lose his pension, no matter the guy on life support, he earned that pension.”

    I write jaundiced. No other employment can commit such crimes and so claim justification for, as well protection from, those crimes. Only government, with the boost of Union.

  32. Cops accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty but the public needs to be protected. So suspended with pay or administrative work depending on the allegation is appropriate. There are times, however, when being fired pending criminal charges is also appropriate. This case is one where at least two officers should be fired after a quick review of the evidence (the complaints and the video) and their superiors suspended pending investigation.

    But who will file the criminal complaints? Apparently this isn’t the first time this has happened with this police force. Maybe it’s time to have independent review boards watch the cops’ videos looking for abuses. The information can then be used to improve training or press charges, as appropriate.

  33. Malisha, “….all those offenses are included in rape, sodomy, battery, and the federal charge under 18 USC 242 of violation of constitutional rights under color of state law.”

    I missed this earlier. Yes, the statutes are there. It certainly was rape and sodomy and battery. I guess I was disgustedly focused on the dirty glove.

  34. Yep oro….I went there many times….. It was off of upper Greenville…… Bought 2 or 3 flat, black and rounds……

  35. Bettykath contributed:

    Can we add

    4. Intimate contact with non-sterile gloves.
    5. Intimate contact from one person to another with the same gloves
    6. Intimate contact from anus to vagina.

    I don’t know what statute/s would cover 4-6 but there has to be something along the lines of blatant disregard for health and well-being.
    I had debated this for some time and could not come up whether 5 and 6 would constitute recklessness or negligence. It is certainly at least negligent but recklessness would be harder to prove.

    Using our state’s law as a template, I am not familiar with Texas law and sorry I don’t really have the time right now to research it, but our state has a crime named Reckless Endangerment which essentially is A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct not amounting to drive-by shooting but that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person.

    It might be hard to articulate whether this was a reckless act or a negligent one. But, our state does not have a negligent endangerment statute. In other words a person cannot be criminally liable for certain types of negligent acts or omissions. Civilly liable is certainly possible in both cases.

    Your concerns as to the cross-contamination is certainly one for consideration, but I don’t think that if say a nurse did this in a medical capacity I don’t think that those acts would go to the level of a criminal charge. A sanction against the nurse’s license could be imposed or a civil penalty or job sanction but not for a criminal violation. In that light I don’t see for the most part a criminal charge for the examples I have quoted.

    That said, based on what I have read, in my opinion I could see the woman trooper being charged with rape. Oddly, I think that would be a more winable case than the issue with the gloves.

  36. This was the most diegusting in a long while. Seeing and hearing Officer Farrel is action put my testicles up around my neck—–and that was not meant to be funny.
    We’ve had psychic lifetime trauma. Malisha, follow that guy and get more. We need a new statute for it on criminal grounds.

    We’ve discussed hygiene with potential danger to both kidneys.
    ( A nurse would change gloves between orifices, not the same one for both, much less two women).

    We’ve discussed reckless negligence, etc statute possibilities.

    We’ve found a deep pocket defendant and open and shut evidence giving full lawyer support in a civil matter.

    But if I understood right NO criminal charges yet.

    Now how does this go as RAPE in spite of the Sct decision as to strip searching as determined necessary by LEO needs for security.

    What makes it rape? Of course it is rape, BUT!!!!!!

    Can someone quote me a statute to read.??????

  37. John 1
    You Wrote:

    quote “How is that different in substance from the types of searches that we read about in abusive countries or police states?”

    Answered your own question, we ARE a police state…thanks to our Supreme Court, they think anyone can be strip searched for ANYTHING!!!

    BRAVO!…. Yes we are, and have been a “POLICE STATE” for many Years Now…
    I have Police in my Family, of which some have resigned, because of All of the CORRUPTION in the”BROTHERS OF BLUE”

    As far as the Female (Dyke) Officer… Strip Searching of Women; is the Highlight of their Job!
    Many of you Male Police Offers are too Afraid to Admit to this Fact, in Fear of Losing your Jobs!

    And the Answer to Solve All of this Police Corruption, is to….. ABOLISH the Police in All of it’s entirety…
    As our Founding Fathers came to America, and established the Constitution “For the People by the People” to get Away from All the Corruption (including Police, a Big Part of the Corruption)

    In Fact ABOLISH Not Only the Police but the Government, in All of it’s Entirety!


  38. Retired in the know,

    Join me on the barricade for the retired.

    Declaration for all here. I am weakening on the gun control issue.
    These mass shooting effects could be part of a long term shock treatment to getting gun control through, And then they won’t even need weapons to shoot us with.
    Dogs and tear gas will suffice for the herd. And if some compound or village revolts, there is always Sarin gas, aka the Saddam solution.

  39. idealist707
    BRAVO!…. The Truth is the Truth!
    Just Show me the way!

    The Only thing that comes to Mind, is…..
    “TEXAS”….All of their Citizens (To my Knowledge) Have the Right to Bare Arms (Side Shooters) and…
    to my Knowledge, the Crime/Death Rate is of Little, if Any…

    Therefore, the KOOKS in Texas Think Twice (Several Times) before Committing such Hannis Acts!
    If you Pulled out a Gun, and Everyone Also Pulled a Gun on You…. Would you even Attempt to Shoot Someone ????
    And if Someone did… they would be Shot dead at the Pull of (or Before) the Trigger !
    Nuff Said ?

  40. To Everyone…..
    Have any of you Noticed that since Yesterday the “SPAMERS” have come to a Halt!
    I Guess they are All on their Christmas Holiday!

  41. Malisha…..
    No Disrespect… But

    I for one do Not Watch Youtube Bullshit or any other Social sites, excluding “JONATHAN TURLEY”, and “The daily reckoning”
    These Two are on the Money!
    * In All Fairness to you I will Look (Against my Judgment) at the youtube segment that you are Recommending.
    Thank You, for your Reply and Insight

  42. Malisha….
    I Commend You, on Showing me what I Believe to be the Truth, and the way to Go !
    I suppose there is some Benefit to Observe “youtube” on certain Issues.
    Again, Thank You for Reply and Insight

  43. Retired in the Know,

    Just a note from one retiree to another in all friendliness.
    Did you notice that you write capitalizing letters like they did here in 1700s
    or perhaps now in Chermany. Purpose?

    Caught my eye.

  44. Has anybody noticed the lack of commentary on the fact that when the female assailant arrives on the scene, she tells the male officer that she is going to need his video. What does that reveal about the attitude of the police. I submit it is an expression of contempt for the notion that there could ever be any consequences for their action. Or, in the alternative, they were just preserving the contact for their later private viewing, when they could replay their abuse of power and criminality. For all we know these two have cooperated before on similar citizen contacts. They sure made it look routine. If routine then the likelihood that those higher up the chain of command were unaware of these abuses is somewhere North of highly likely. The notion that an officer arrives on scene and is getting ready to rape someone, and insists that the camera be rolling to record the deed, tells us just how far gone and out of control the police are. They truly do operate from a perspective that they are invincible. How did we let them get to such a condition?

  45. idealist707,
    Yes, I thank you for your observation, I am well aware of my capitalizing letters… it seems that it’s a hard habit for me to stop, maybe I am still in the 1700s…
    but, I thank you for your pointing this out to me.
    *chermany… naa… nothing to do with reference to China and Germany….just me, sorta getting somewhat loud!

  46. lexmanifesta,
    I don’t know your age, but years ago… a police officer being at whatever the situation may have been, was a Big brother (so to speak) they spoke to you with respect.
    *example : If you were (while driving) drunk, they would take your keys and say to you “ok buddy”, stay in your car and sleep it off, we’ll be back around, and if your still drunk, we’ll drive you home! …and they did!

    Nowadays, they are corrupt and vengeful, they would arrest their own mother (of course, only if seen by witnesses) and throw away the keys.
    * As to your question….How did we let them get to such a condition?
    Fear (of jail) and ignorance of personal freedom is the culprit, not to mention that in todays world… people are sheeple!… so sad

  47. Idealist wrote:
    Can someone quote me a statute to read.?????? referring to rape.
    Rape occurs under the ordinary meaning of rape but also includes objects (either fingers or other objects). The necessary element is lack of consent and the penetration. These were present. Any state rape statute would require at least these two items.

    Lack of consent is demonstrated in this case due to the obvious objection of the victims, but also due to the nature of being detained by the police where a person may fear consequences by not allowing it.

    Next, this was not a standard strip search. In 1984 when I was a cadet with the sheriff’s office everyone booked into the jail was strip searched. The technique that was approved then did not allow deputies or jailers to touch the person. It was done by observation only. If a contact body cavity search was indicated a medical professional was required to perform any invasive search. Even today, while strips searches are heavily regulated and only allowed by court order or some form of exigent circumstance (weapons)LEOs do not perform body cavity searches by contact.

    Also the search by this Texas Trooper was absolutely prohibited by all measures. The trooper had no legal authority to put her fingers into the genitals of these women and in my view it is no different than a stranger detaining a person and doing the same thing. And this is coming from a person that would give leeway to LEOs who are otherwise performing their duties but make a mistake. There was no simple error in interpreting case law on when a vehicle or person could be searched. This was in my view an assault.

  48. Thanks, Darren,for the full descriptiion. Now I know the law, the approved practice, where it should occur, under what legal motive, and how this case is assault.

    Hope other “NAL”s got helped too.
    NAL=not a lawyer.

  49. Code of silence? What can that be? Is it ubiquitous in the nations’ police establishment and justice system. Or is it just EVERYWHERE?

    A very slow process of correctiing if federal juries are our only remedies.

  50. Malisha,

    Of course, it is a ubiquitous through out our whole society.
    From all three branchs on down to the the kindergarten among teachers who overlook “small* misdemeanors themselves between.

    Closing ranks is a universal pheinonema.
    But whare justice is to be done, it is PARTICULARLY unfortunate.

    And is the proof of success by your prospective lawyer, that he can use this corruption?

  51. Darren,

    “no different than a stranger”, Though I agree with your post, I rate the trooper’s rape as significantly more offensive as it is perpetrated by those who have the sworn obligation and are paid to protect the citizen from the very type(s) of criminality that is being perpetrated in the video. This makes the conduct a much more aggravated crime. Accordingly it deserves harsher punishment. Much harsher to adequately serve as a deterrent.

    I’m not holding my breath that there will ever be a criminal prosecution of these two. At best I can see a civil settlement and the female trooper allowed to resign without further consequence. The male trooper, the set up guy will suffer no meaningful consequence for his action. The female trooper will go to work in some Texas backwater town and continue to abuse constitutional rights of citizens.

  52. I do not know why this did not occur to me last year, but now it does. I am stunned by the fact that this just occurred to me and that it is so significant I can hardly get it out: The search that the female officer performed on these two women was NOT a search at all; there was no “search” motivation and no way to determine what, if anything, was found or COULD be found. Think about it.

    If the officer’s finger, in its glove, came in contact with anything, how would the officer determine what her finger had come in contact with? Could she figure out that it was in fact marijuana? If she encountered something she felt was solid within the anus of either victim, could she identify it? If she came in contact with something solid within the vagina of either victim, could she identify it?

    She did not check to see if their bras were perhaps padded with marijuana pouches, did she? She did not check to see if their shoes had compartments in which rocks of crack cocaine were snuggled, did she?

    She did not even perform a search; she ONLY performed rapes.

  53. You know, I saw a comment made on one of the news stories about this event, by a Brazilian. I think it is interesting:

    Only in a country full of bullshit laws like America u watch such stupidity.. Come to Brazil and try to do this search ..rip police.

    Not that I think those two women could have done anything to protect themselves, but that in general, we DO respect law enforcement officers here and we DO tolerate violations of our freedom much more than we should.

    By the side of the road after it happened, as one of the Dobbs women tells the male cop that she was violated, he calmly said, “That’s because your car smelled of marijuana, OK?” He actually believed that was “OK” because he thought the car smelled like Marijuana.

    What you have here is two phenomena that have grown so healthy and so oversized in our country that they are almost unassailable:

    1. Those in power, such as the police, give as “reasons” for anything they choose to do, whatever THEY think was “wrong” with the victims to whom they are doing it (or have done it). I have seen this with cops, judges, agency employees, lawyers, even laypersons. They simply slander their victims and then believe that they showed “good cause” for what they did. Obviously, this has no place in a democracy.

    2. Those who are not in power do not ordinarily protest until things become so outrageous and so public that there is some back-up for them to do so. This is because they generally believe the useless phrase “they can’t do that to you” and while they are being victimized, they are paralyzed in disbelief. They also think the problem will be corrected almost immediately, as soon as they make a protest about it. This keeps them from reacting normally to what is done to them.

  54. 2 Texas cops indicted over roadside cavity searches

    Two Department of Public Safety troopers were indicted Monday by a Dallas County grand jury after two women alleged roadside searches during a traffic stop included the penetration of their vaginas and anuses.

    Kelly Helleson is the trooper accused of performing the searches with the same latex glove. She was indicted on two counts of sexual assault and two counts of official oppression.

    The trooper who called Helleson to conduct the search, David Farrell, was indicted on a charge of theft by a public servant.

  55. I can’t believe a warrant isn’t required to perform a cavity search! One is required to search my home. To think a police officer could perform a cavity search on me is horrifying. I don’t think I would allow it. I would refuse. ( and probably get tazed or beaten) It is assault, sexual assault and the officers should be registered sex offenders.

Comments are closed.