We 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
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.
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.
Thanks. Always interesting.
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.
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…
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Is there any justifiable reason that she has been suspened
“WITH” pay as opposed to without pay???
What is the legal reason???
Contract requirement??
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is a case of sexual assault. If a civilian did it there would be charges.
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!
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!!!
The LEO community has its procedure…… I wish FFLEO was here to answer this….
Oh, goody — more paid holiday time off. Thank you , Santa!