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
Anyone remember Bowley & Wilson at Up You Alley in Dallas? Remember their song, “Stinky Finger”?
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.
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.
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.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/12/activist_artist.php
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!
This is the America that Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and many times Kennedy think is just wonderful.
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.
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.
Trooper David Farrell in another video.
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].
. . . 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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Thanks Don S.
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.
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.
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.