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
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.
well, some good news in chi-town, the police force & Rahm get rebuked in court- Merry Christmas!
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13510-in-significant-precedent-federal-jury-finds-city-of-chicago-responsible-for-code-of-silence-in-chicago-police-department
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.
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.
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
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!
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?
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.
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
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
Actually, not enough said.
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!
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!
Question…..
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 ?
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.
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!
“FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE”
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.??????
Bettykath contributed:
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 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.
Yep oro….I went there many times….. It was off of upper Greenville…… Bought 2 or 3 flat, black and rounds……
I cant watch this film at all.
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.