In the blog entry below this one, I touched on an incident that occurred in New Mexico which has set a fire in the blogosphere.  That entry drew a lot of criticism from folks who want the involved officers, and their little dog too, to be hung out to dry because they took a guy to the hospital for a rectal exam because they thought he had hidden drugs up his butt.  The examination found no drugs. The examination went to an extraordinary degree: multiple digital anal probes, multiple enemas, and finally, a colonoscopy, all without the suspect’s consent.

A disproportionate number of the critics were first time posters here, generally an indication that they read somewhere else that I disagreed with them, and just had to fight.  No comments on that last blog entry here have been deleted at this writing; I encourage debate here, unlike the anti-gun blogs.  I do, however, appreciate it if those with opposing views at least know what they’re talking about.

Let me address some of the issues.

“They didn’t find drugs, so they were wrong. Punish them.” Sorry, folks, that’s not how it works. To make a long story short, “You don’t have to be right, you have to be REASONABLE.” Do a Google search for Graham v. Connor. The suspect, with a long record of drug arrests, was known to one officer to have stuffed drugs up his butt before; the drug-sniffing dog alerted to the driver’s seat where he had been sitting; and, what first alerted the officers to that area of his body, he was visibly clenching his buttocks tight.”

“They based it on an anonymous tip! Punish them!” No. ONE basis of multiple bases was that another officer said the suspect was known to put drugs up his butt. The fact that the officer giving that information was not named in the warrant does not make it an “anonymous tip,” and only someone with a child-like grasp of the criminal justice system would think so. It’s more like “transferred probable cause.”

“He was anally raped by the authorities! Punish them!” Uh, no.  Any cop with experience and good training, like any experienced medical professional who works the emergency room, knows of cases where drug suspects have hidden the dope in their body cavities and died from that act.  It normally comes from swallowing a baggie of heroin or a balloon full of cocaine, but anally-inserted drugs can act even faster than those taken orally. If these officers AND medicos had failed to investigate this and the man died, the same anti-authoritarians would be calling for all their heads for letting him die untreated and unexamined. The cops followed the protocol: when there’s a medical issue, turn it over to the medical people.  No cop held a gun to the head of the physician who ordered the more extensive and invasive testing.  When digital examination and X-ray were done, don’t you think there was SOMETHING that made the medical professionals involved continue the testing?  Some considerable time elapsed between the arrest and the colonoscopy: by that time, any physician would have to consider the possibility that the drugs had already been absorbed, and might reasonably do the colonoscopy to detect other signs of that having happened.

I have to note that, to my knowledge, none of the bloggers who fueled the flames for outraging the public even considered any of this when they made their initial inflammatory posts.

But one other hospital refused to do it! That’s the way it looks. However, I also know of one hospital whose policy is that if they have reason to believe that the conscious adult patient has swallowed poison and he refuses to be examined and treated, personnel are under orders not to examine or treat. Was that policy in place at the first hospital? I don’t know.  I do think that in any hospital with that policy, Risk Management needs to cross-pollinate with the Ethics Committee.

But the warrant was from another jurisdiction, and had timed out. If there is good reason to believe there may be life-threatening substances inside the patient’s body, exigent circumstances (look it up) have kicked in. That triggers the doctrine of competing harms/doctrine of necessity/doctrine of two evils. (Look those up, too.) The importance of the warrant now pales.

We all need to apply common sense. One commentator in the last blog entry noted the striking comparisons of this case to Florida v. Zimmerman.  In many respects, I have to concur. Each trope came first from plaintiff’s counsel, unanswered by the defense (and the involved authorities) until much later. In this case, the defense (the police and the medicos) have not yet put their defense forward. We’ve seen their warrant from before the fact of the examination, but not their reasoning for what they did next. Doctors are constantly under siege from bogus malpractice complaints, cops likewise with false excessive force allegations, and lawyers tell their defendant clients “We won’t try the case in the press.”  Thus, only one side gets heard.

It’s laughable that the cops did that for the suspect’s safety, according to one critic. And, cops have no responsibility for our safety. BS and more BS.  A “special relationship” existed between the officers and the suspect the moment the investigative detention began. Once they came to believe he may have stuffed enough drugs up his butt to kill him, they had both legal and ethical duties to seek further examination.  And if, when the docs caught the ball and did the examinations, they didn’t see some reason to continue looking, why on earth would they have done so?  Cui bono? What would the docs who did the exams have possibly had to gain at that point, if those medical professionals DIDN’T have reason to think it was necessary?

The medical records and testimony will come out at trial, if not before. Don’t judge based on one side, get outraged at what that one side told you, and then feel a need to defend it so you won’t be embarrassed by being on the wrong side when the truth comes out.

Let’s wait to hear from both sides.

1 COMMENT

  1. I’m sorry, but your first response is weak, at best.

    Essentially, it boils down to “he had a history of drug arrests, so he might have swallowed some drugs”. There are numerous problems with that.

    First, we still have the principle of innocent until proven guilty. The mere fact that someone was previously arrested (but not convicted) should not later be used to single him out for greater scrutiny. I could understand if you can point to a history of drug convictions (particularly if any of the convictions included hiding drugs in his body), but that was not the case this time. Of his 4 previous arrests listed at https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app, 3 were “dismissed by prosecutor”, and one guilty plea for possession, with probation given (completed in 2012).

    Second, we have to question what was the basis for the belief that Eckert’s life was in danger. What specific facts did the police have to believe that his life was in danger at that time? Especially once they had performed the x-rays and initial digital examination, and even the first enema, what was the factual basis to believe that he still had drugs inside his body that posed a threat to him?

    Exigent circumstances require more than simply “we thought he might be in danger”. They require specific facts supporting the belief to make that belief reasonable. Even if you could argue that the initial examination(s) were reasonable, the continued escalation in the absence of additional evidence was not.

  3. Mas,

    I try to avoid a rush to judgment, and am quite skeptical of media reports, especially earlier ones. However, it seems that the only time we’re asked to wait to hear both sides is when a LEO is accused of misconduct.

    I’ve never personally had a bad encounter with a LEO. I think most police officers are honest and trying to do a difficult job. But if I were to get onto the bad side of an officer and I was unlawfully assaulted or killed, I have zero confidence there would be any justice, barring crystal clear video evidence.

    Seeing someone I respect defend what seems to be clearly inexcusable behavior just reinforces those beliefs.

    If exculpatory evidence comes out, I’ll be happy to revisit my conclusions. However, in this case, based upon the facts in evidence (including the search warrant) it looks like the cops were abusive.

  4. “Clenching his butt cheeks” sounds suspiciously like “acting suspiciously” or “furtive movements” to me, which is the standard cop version of “I need to manufacture probable cause in a way that cannot be disproven conclusively in a courtroom”. Plus, they are acutely aware that in a he-said/she-said situation, courts will always believe someone in a uniform over a common serf.

    And police dogs at this point are basically a dowsing rod for drugs that magically invalidates the constitution.

    “The dog alerted to your seat.”
    “Uh, all he did was lick his balls.”
    “Yeah, that’s how he’s been alerting me today. Weird huh?”

    (Also, the term “anti-authoritarians” amuses me. I guess anyone who’s on the other side is for authoritarian government?)

  5. It’s hard to claim an ethical “responsibility” to do something that was refused by the first set of medical professionals on ETHICAL grounds.

    They conspired to commit sexual battery. The end. The warrant was defective, it was based on defective probable cause (the dog was not a certified drug detection dog) and they were on notice that it was unethical battery as soon as the first doctor refused.

    Your right to be secure in your person, especially your own RECTUM is Well Established. Strip them of their qualified immunity and give it to a jury.

  6. “transferred probable cause”

    Is that a term of art?

    By the way, note that if Eckert had done the wise thing, and decline to submit to a search of his vehicle, the dog wouldn’t have been allowed to roam, give its false alert, and help enable this injustice. So, when police asks you to consent to a search, SAY NO.

  7. It is, Mr. Eigler. Feel free to look it up.

    observ, please re-read what has gone before. PC existed to check out that part of his body. The invasive procedures escalated once he was in medical hands. We do not yet know why the docs concluded they needed to look deeper, and until they’re heard from, we’re speculating.

    Good to see more calmness and reason this time around.

  8. Mas—

    Me doubts you’re going to change any of these good folks minds with facts , logic, and knowledge of the law and criminal procedures.

    If your thoughts on this case prove correct, it will soon fade from the media, as it always does, if the courts concur with the officers actions.

    If and when this occurs, especially if facts come out that these officers acted correctly and professionally, I doubt you will hear a peep of apology or contrition from any of these experts and defenders of the innocent.

    No, they will return to the “Zombie Apocalypse/End of the World” sites from whence they ventured, mumbling to themselves as to the total unfairness of it all.

  9. The medical personel that administered the tests have had plenty of time to publically explain their conduct. If they really believe they did nothing wrong then they would have done so by now. But, most likely their lawyers told them not to do so, because they may lose in court.

    What is wrong with speculating? Those medical personel had more than 6,000 reason$ to conduct those test$. The first hospital charged the man $0.00.

  10. ““He was anally raped by the authorities! Punish them!” Uh, no.”

    It is interesting you are so sure that the Deming police officers and the medical personel did not rape that man.

  11. “A “special relationship” existed between the officers and the suspect the moment the investigative detention began. Once they came to believe he may have stuffed enough drugs up his butt to kill him, they had both legal and ethical duties to seek further examination. And if, when the docs caught the ball and did the examinations, they didn’t see some reason to continue looking, why on earth would they have done so? Cui bono? What would the docs who did the exams have possibly had to gain at that point, if those medical professionals DIDN’T have reason to think it was necessary?”

    That is the big question. Given that 2 X-rays, 3 enemas, and 2 probes didn’t yield results, I’m hard pressed to think of a compelling reason for what followed. We’ll have to see.

    “The medical records and testimony will come out at trial, if not before.”

    I was under the impression that the plaintiff had already released his medical records to the public. Is that not the case?

  12. I generally agree with Mas, but I’m curious why it took so many tests to prove the guy didn’t have drugs in his butt. One initial test and a follow up test to be sure, after that it seems excessive and over the top. Whose decision was it to be so “thorough?” If it was the doctors, I can see justification. If it was the cops, I think it needs to be looked at closely. So to speak.

  14. Mas – I am one of those 1st time commenters. I don’t have much free time, thereby I comment rarely, however I do so for particular blogs that I consider valuable (yours in this case).

    I still don’t agree with some of the points you make.
    1. “They didn’t find drugs, so they were wrong. Punish them.”
    That’s definitely not what I mean. Whether they did or did not find drugs is entirely irrelevant. Even if they had found drugs so the cops could show that the hunch was right the logical (?) path or the reasoning they followed was very flawed at best.

    2. “They based it on an anonymous tip! Punish them!”. Again, it’s not about punishment. It’s about what constitutes valid information to get a warrant. I’m sorry you don’t agree but a vague recollection of a cop does not make it grounds to extend the search.

    3. “He was anally raped by the authorities! Punish them!”. I’m sorry but the whole idea that he could have died from the drugs (insert the very tortured logic that made people reach to this point) does not fly. First, remember: the reason for the search were the clenched buttocks. It all went downhill from there. BTW – if someone wanted to save his life, the anal exam or the colonoscopy are not the way to do it.

    My main point is not about the cops (even though I really shudder to think I might end up meeting someone like them one day). The main question is how can a magistrate and further upstream a judge give a warrant for such a flimsy case.
    That said, that’s my opinion which I’m entitled to have just as you do. As you say, we’ll wait for the case to play out in court. I certainly there is enough information that comes out of the court case where people find out the complete story.

  16. Just based on the limited (and always subject to change) information available at this point, I can offer some speculation (guesses) on how this might turn out. Not necessarily how I think it should (or shouldn’t) turn out, just how I think it might.

    Acknowledging that any trial is a bit of a crap shoot (pun not intended), I would still not be surprised to see the Physician and Hospital end up on the wrong end of a civil judgment – assuming they don’t settle out-of-court. Not saying this will happen, just that it wouldn’t surprise me

    Somewhat less likely would be actions against the medical licenses of those that performed the procedures. If it were in my state, I’d call it a 50/50 chance. Since it’s not my state, I have no way to even guess the odds.

    The law enforcement agency may also have some exposure, if for no other reason than the lack of current certification for the K-9. But I’d call that something of a long shot, or at least less than 50/50 – although they might still settle, rather than go to court.

    I would be very surprised to see the individual officers face and personal civil penalties. I think there’s virtually no chance they’d face any criminal penalties.

    Dennis,

    I think you’re right that few (or none) will apologize or show contrition, if the officers are exonerated.

    But what if you (and I) are wrong, and the officers do end up facing civil and/or criminal sanctions?

    Will you be back to apologize to, “these experts and defenders of the innocent?”

  17. Mas, I have read a number of your well-written books and am a regular reader of your online presence. Usually your reasoning / judgment is spot-on. However, your initial post on the New Mexico roadside search completely missed the “other” side of the issue. Just want to note that you want critics to reserve judgment, but you need to do the same. At least until all the facts are known.

  18. If Mas was really “waiting to see both sides” then he would have, you know, waited. He starts with the assumption that the cops MUST have been justified, and goes from there. That’s why the first post was a light hearted mockery of what are (in the best possible light) invasive and unecessary medical procedures and (more realistically) sexual assault.

    There is an exact analog to the Zimmerman case here, but with Mas taking the role of the race hustlers who assumed the innocence of the side that looks like him. Shameful.

  19. MD Matt—-

    Just read your post on the previous thread. It brought back memories of an incident years ago in my department.

    A trainee, not long out of the academy, refused to come to the aid of his training officer during a traffic stop. The trainer was attacked, overpowered and subsequently murdered with his own weapon. The trainee retreated to the squad car, ducking down in the seat and hiding until the suspect drove away.

    The trainee, after being brought up on internal charges of cowardice and facing dismissal from the force, changed his initial story of the events leading up to the death of his training officer. After hiring counsel, his new version was that the training officer was a vulgar, verbally abusive person who he could just not bring himself to help or come to the aid of.

    This flew in the face of everyone who knew the training officer.The veteran officer was well known for his even temper, being everyone’s friend on and off duty. People from all walks of life lined up to come to the defense of this fine man’s reputation, whose memory was being sullied by a self serving ex-M.P. from Kansas who had failed his evaluations from his previous field training officers, and placed with the murdered officer as a last attempt to save the city’s investment in him.

    But the damage was already done. With the only surviving witnesses being the murderer, his friends, and the coward who watched his partner be murdered, the murderer was found not guilty and the coward became the darling of the media, as the murderer was African-American and the murdered officer and the coward were white. Without any living witnesses to contradict the murderer’s and the cowards story, the department dropped the internal charges against him.

    When nobody would work with the coward or cover him, he went to the press bemoaning how badly he was being treated, got one more story about his being shunned for refusing to lie in court about what had happened that day, then resigned and returned to Kansas.

    As I recall, he filed suit against the city, blaming them for his inability to find work in law enforcement, but the report in the papers mentioned he had found part time employment as a municipal court judge in his home town.

    You haven’t run across this guy have you?

  20. I’m with Nick42 in terms of my background on this.

    I have however been wanting to raise a question or two for Mr. Ayoob for some time and even considered sending a private email on THR to do so, but this thread is a good one for introducing the questions.

    Some years ago I had a cordial social relationship with my doctor. We were out to dinner with our wives. He started a sentence with “I don’t want to say that there is a lot of bad medicine being practiced…. …. No, to be honest there IS a lot of bad medicine being practiced out there.”

    I was first attracted to Mr. Ayoob’s writings because of his tempered approach. I seem to recall that he took a lot of flak for his ‘wrap a 10 dollar bill around a book of matches’ comments when I thought he was showing great sense. I also liked it when he said that he would wait for police to arrive if possible in the event of a home burglarly because he would not want his daughters to see him as a dealer of death unless absolutely necessary for their protection.

    That said, I think this case is a pretty strong example of ‘bad policing’ to say the least. I think it is going to be very hard for information to appear that would justify what was done – simply I can’t imagine what kind of information would actually provide that justification. I also don’t think that the docs are going to end up being the drivers of the actions involved – why in heavens name would they?

    So, Mr. A:

    Is there a lot of ‘bad policing’ going on out there?
    If so, can you give us some examples of public cases that constitute ‘bad policing’?

    Do you think this case constitutes ‘bad policing’ with the information now available?

    (n.b. ‘bad policing’ can be anything from incompetence to malice and combinations of both.)

    I will say that in recent years there do seem to be outrages on almost a weekly basis – perhaps made more visible by the internet. I am also disturbed that there seems to be a group of people who dismiss critics as ‘cop haters’.

    I have never had a bad encounter with a cop, but there appears to be way too many stories like this case floating around.

    (Does anybody else ever wonder what George Washington would say about the drug war in this country and how it is carried out? I would be ashamed to have to explain to the general the current state of the country.)

  21. No matter how you look at it, a colonoscopy is way out of line. The warrant specified “the anal cavity”, not the entirety of the colon (colons being roughly five feet long), as the place to be searched. Someone who stuffs drugs up his butt will not be able to push them far; it is silly to drag out the colonoscope, since that tool will only make it possible to search areas he couldn’t have pushed them to. For that matter, their evidence, “clenched buttocks”, only applies if the thing is right at the end and about to pop out; that’s when people clench. And lastly, if we’re talking safety concerns, a colonoscopy comes with a serious risk of perforation of the colon (figures vary, but on the order of one perforation per thousand colonoscopies), which can be life threatening. For that matter, if the drugs are in a condom or other fragile container, the colonoscope has a serious chance of puncturing it, making things worse rather than better.

    Oh, and there are plenty of us who object to this search whose response to a drug mule killing himself by trying to conceal drugs in his rectum would be “Think of it as evolution in action”.

  22. Dennis,

    You might want to recheck the comments in the previous thread. I don’t think you meant to direct your post to MD Matt.

  23. Carlos, new posters such as yourself are welcome here, even if they come bearing preposterous theories. You say the doctors were motivated by greed to do the tests. I think well-paid medical professionals throwing their careers away performing unnecessary invasive procedure so as to get six thousand dollars for the hospital where they work, is about as likely as a theory that space aliens did it because the hospital gave them good cover for their well-known propensity for anal probes. But, since some others are theorizing that cops and doctors suddenly turned into torturing monsters for no reason, I suppose your theory is “as good as some” …

    MDMatt, the records I’m wanting to see are the detailed “what and why” of each procedure, explaining why the doctor(s) thought it was necessary.

    Stand Watie, if you’re who I think you are, welcome. I’ve enjoyed your posts in other venues. The roadside cavity searches in Texas aren’t on point to this discussion, since they were not conducted by medical personnel and I saw no evidence that the subjects there could be in any medical danger.

    Steve, you asked why so many tests. Medical specialists could answer that better than me. However, we don’t know whether or not a soft container of drugs would be visible on xray, and if drugs therein were being absorbed through the lining of the intestines, I suspect the docs were looking for signs of that via the colonoscope. We don’t know what symptoms they observed in the patient at this time.

    SelimT, the totality of the circumstances cited by the officers went far beyond a hunch.

    SteveF and John Balog, if you think I’m only looking at one side, you haven’t really read what I wrote. The one side’s meme of evil JBTs perpetrating needless anal torture was already all over the blogosphere, unanswered; I merely presented a logical, plausible explanation for “the other side” which would explain the actions of the cops and the docs.

    Old Crusader, of course there’s bad performance out there in every occupation. It’s just that none of it can determine it for sure until all the facts come out.

  24. If the primary concern is the patient’s health, the police would have allowed the first hospital to treat a patient under HIPAA and confidentiality rules, and would not have waited for a warrant.

    Apparently something else was more important than human life–since they took the time to find a hospital that would allow them to maintain chain of custody of any evidence recovered.

  25. Paul,

    When all the facts are in and if the officers and medicos are found to be culpable in any form of unjustified/ illegal acts, you bet. Been wrong before, imagine I will again before I’m gone. Difference between me and some folks, I don’t mind being found wrong, just don’t like being called names and verbally denigrated during the debate. Don’t mind apologizing when I’m wrong, in fact that’s always been my policy. All the accusations I’ve seen so far seem to be based on a surmised evil intent on the part of law enforcement. Without ever having met those involved I can’t count state of mind as evidence, especially if I have a bias against those involved.

  26. Dennis,
    I believe you may have me confused with JeremyR. That or your sarcasm has me over matched. Either way, I’ve not met the person you describe here—thankfully. If you have something to say, say it.

    Mas,
    Apologies for not saying this sooner. This is the post I was looking for. Thanks for reconsidering the issue. and if my initial instincts are wrong, I’ll be happy to eat crow here.

  28. Mas,

    I’m suspect that your explication of this case probably does more to convince most of us not to trust LEO and be wary of any interaction with them. I won’t argue the law with you as I have no doubt that you know what you’re talking about. Having the law on your side in 2013 doesn’t cut much ice with me as the Supreme Court already ruled that merely by fleeing the scene of crime can make you suspect of one. As if anyone wants to hang around when LEO is showing up with flashing lights. Now clenching your buttocks can result in a bunch of medical intrusions ” for your safety.” We’re so far down the road that these cases shouldn’t surprise us anymore.

  29. Mas, I don’t care if the multiple anal rapes were legally justified or not. If anybody sticks a finger or a medical probe up my butt without my permission, I have been raped, and I don’t care what the politicians and justices in Washington or anywhere else say about it.

    Our Solons on the Potomac have decreed that multiple offenses against the 2nd Amendment are no such thing. Having Supreme Court Justices who agree with them does not change the offenses to good, kind, or justified, it just means some justices have as little respect for the 2nd Amendment as do the politicians.

    The same thing goes for anal rape: Just because the same Solons have decreed a war on people who use the Politically Incorrect drugs does not make anal rape any the less anal rape. Please note: I do not rely upon or respect the opinions of our government when they do not deserve respect. They may have the power to disarm us, and the power to rape us, but they do not have the right to do so, no matter what the law and the courts say. They only have the power.

    Frankly, I am disappointed with your legalistic view. Generally I agree with you, or at least respect your opinion when I disagree.

    That you would take such a position is to me more evidence for what a catastrophe the so-called war on drugs is: The government can anally rape anyone at any time, if the officers claim, honestly or not, that we clenched our buttocks.

    That you seem to think that is just fine just shows how far America has decayed in our lifetime. When the law is an abomination, so is defending actions because they were legal.

  30. Mas,
    for a post entitled “understanding both sides”, it seems you forgot one. There better be very very unusual circumstances to justify the behavior of the officers and the medical personnel. I can’t imagine any possible reason why this guys lower intestines had to be so thoroughly explored. I mean REALLY good reasons. Otherwise, I don’t see how the officers and the community will not be paying millions to this guy.

    I will give you that the doctor may have seen something on the x-ray that warranted some of the further tests. But being put under anesthesia, and given a colonoscopy — there is just no possible reason I can imagine. I don’t even know if there is a precedent for it. Has a warrant ever been issued for that? Again, I ask, has there ever been a case where the prior measures all failed *BUT* a colonoscopy hit paydirt?

    And let me explore this point further:

    “They didn’t find drugs, so they were wrong. Punish them.” Sorry, folks, that’s not how it works. To make a long story short, “You don’t have to be right, you have to be REASONABLE.”

    There are two goals here. The first is that they want to find drugs. The second, that you have posited, is that they want to “save his life.” If they want to find drugs, I don’t think anyone would consider a colonoscopy with sedation reasonable without court approval. If, however, they wanted to “save his life”, I don’t think a *forced* colonoscopy is reasonable, even for a medical professional.

    Consider that he may be alergic to the forced anesthesia. Consider that people sometimes die from anesthesia, or due to a medically invasive procedure (people die or have complications from colonoscopy at a surprisingly high rate, but that is for cancer screenings, which this is not).

    One thing to consider — if this “life saving” procedure had to be done WITHOUT a warrant or court approval, it must have been extremely urgent. But the other possible explanation is it was known that it wouldn’t be approved, so they did it anyway. Remember, if drugs are found, things are much easier to explain. Even if you have to “invent” some facts, like seeing something on x-ray (not saying they did, but it’s plausible). But if you are going to put someone under AGAINST HIS WILL, you better be 99.9% certain you are right. Given that they did NOT find drugs, it makes it look either like the doctor was incompetent, or like something else is an explanation. What is the likelihood that the something else is that they think there is some reason to fear for this guy’s life? I think it’s going to be very difficult to explain.

    Still not buying it, Mas.

  31. The guy got a GI series at tax payers expense. And I guess there are bleeding heart liberals that read gun blogs. Never would have guessed. Oh well we see you can’t please everyone. Take a poll and see who disagreed with you voted for OBUMMER.

  32. Mas

    I don’t know that I am who you recognize. I only have used this internet moniker for about 10 years, and only to my recollection on a couple of gun/self defense rights message boards.

    The reason I asked the question specifically about the Texas searches is that you used the ‘exigent circumstances’ rule as a defense for the LE/Medical improper warrant/warrantless search and I saw that as being as defensible (based upon reported facts) as this case, perhaps even more so as those searches were perhaps timely enough to be effective in preventing loss of life due to drug ingestion.

    As a genuine fan of your authorship regarding self defense and your engaging commentary in general, I respectfully submit to you that the humorous tone of your first blog post on the topic was ill-conceived and offensive to those of your readers who value the Bill of Rights and liberty. I honestly think a genuine “Mea Culpa…I should have written my second blog post on the topic first and left the humor and puns for a lighter topic” would go a long way towards an increase of fire and a decrease of smoke.

  33. Old Crusader, of course Massad has not told you of any public cases of bad policing, because it would would reveal what moral standards he has police and those standards perhaps would be considered by most people to be too lax.

    If Officer Kirk Babic of the Superior Police Department was willing to risk being thrown into prison for stealing thousands of $ from his fellow officers, then speculating that the medical staff being motivated by money to conduct those tests for several thousands of $ ought be considered a ridiculous theory by those who think cops are morally superior being to all other human beings.

  34. Mr. Ayoob, you say “circumstances cited by the officers went far beyond a hunch.” Why are you sure of that?

    If it turns out that, as Eckert alleges in his suit, he has never been found to have hidden drugs in his anal cavity, and that therefore the intelligence-supplying “brother officer” was mistaken or perfidious, would this change your assessment?

    If it turns out that the dog was not reliable, would this change your assessment?

  35. Agreed. I only wish I’d read your whole series on the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman fiasco before I’d written about it. (And I’m a skeptic!) Wise words from a wise man…

  36. To paraphrase your own words, an officer doesn’t have to solve the crime, he just has to conduct a reasonable investigation. It looks to me like these officers’ belief in their prisoner’s guilt overrode their good judgment about when to quit.

    Drug residue on the driver’s seat only proves that there were drugs in the vehicle at some time. If it came from a leaking package inside the driver’s alimentary canal, he would have absorbed the drugs and shown symptoms.

    Prisoners die in custody from time to time. It’s the officer’s fault only if he rejects a prisoner’s request for treatment without good reason to believe the prisoner is faking. At least where I live, a prisoner who ignored a warning about the dangers of hiding drugs inside his alimentary canal and died as a result would get no sympathy in or out of court.

  37. This case is a prime example of what makes law enforcement probably the most difficult, dangerous, low paying job in the world…not to mention the public criticisms they must endure from a generally ignorant public concerning legal matters. The media sensationalizes these cases because they sell! Facts just get in the way of logic. My hats off to law enforcement officers everywhere for doing a job that few people have to courage to do and no, it isn’t the courage of facing an armed assailant I am talking about. It is facing the verbal assaults brought on by the media and others who are influenced by that media. Facing the armed assailant is the easy part.

  38. I edited my original post as I don’t suspect the “drug dealer” will be charged rather he will be potentially filing a civil suit. Threfore, don’t want to refer to “drug dealer” as defendant. Edited version follows. Hope I am in time, if not I can go and edit after official posting.

    If this goes to trial, I believe, it could become a case of “let us send the police department a message.” And that is something difficult to do when the “victim” has a record of being a drug dealer.

    If the “drug dealer” brings suit (I don’t suspect the State has a case since no drugs were found) I can see the plaintiff’s lawyer saying something like the following.

    Yes, there is a difference between duty and motivation in regard to saving the arrested person from potentially being killed by supposed drugs in his rectum. However, it is a stretch of logic to claim the officers were suddenly motivated by a desire to save the my client, who they themselves claim is a known drug dealer. I suspect more than a few police officers have had a good laugh when a drug dealer died from just such a practice.

    Do you members of the jury believe the motivation of the officers who ordered the tests were based on their concerns about the well being of my client? Or perhaps were the officers motivated by a desire to punish my client by subjecting him to these “tests.”

    And if you let the officers get away with this action, then we can expect it to by used more extensively, as a extra legal punishment or means of extracting information. And remember, if you believe police officers would only engage in this practice, if they were sure there were drugs present, that no drugs were found in this case.

    And it could be you or yours being subject to this sadist practice by an out of control police officer. Please consider this, as you render your verdict.

  40. There are an awful lot of kids thanks to broken rubbers. There’s a lot of dead drug mules for the same reason.
    Once the rubber breaks and the drugs are absorbed I welcome you to have a look, see if you can find the faulty rubber or balloon inside the fat, ugly, smelly guys ass. His last meal may have been ‘possum and pinto beans with jalapeno corn bread. ER doctors don’t always have the prettiest patients in the world, tough job. Ya think?
    As for the legal side of it, I’ll wait for the jury’s final word.

  41. mr. ayoob,

    you stated not too long ago that you were going to take a break after your extensive coverage of the zimmerman/martin case, which was quite informative. however, having read your comments on the new mexico debacle/quasi sexual assault, which you seem to be defending, my advice is to extend your rest a bit more. you sir, are off the mark. the only way these two government “officials” should be employed is within the obamacare medical system, god help us, because now everyone, everything, looks like an asshole, recipients and perpetrators alike. you wont need a badge anymore to stop someone, just a pair of rubber gloves. it will stop everyone in their tracks. the end doesn’t justify the means. everyone sorry soul involved in this horrid affair is going to pay out the wazoo. pun intended.

  42. Stand Watie, IIRC I first saw your screen name on Dean Speir’s Gun Zone forum a while back.

    I hear you on my humorous tone sounding inappropriate to some. However, I think a re-reading of that blog segment will show that I was “dumping on” the folks who condemn without getting both sides of the story, and not the individual who underwent the rectal probe procedures.

  43. Mas, I just read the trash posted by Dennis. That you allow such conduct from America’s supposed finest shows us what you and they are. If you care to offer an apology, you know how to find me.
    I served 21 years in the United States Army and ended my career as a commissioned officer. That you let Dennis put up such trash is beyond contemptible.
    BTW Dennis, I’m not from Kansas. This is where I was last stationed, this is where I retired. Maybe you were one of the shit bags from the 977th who got reassigned but were not court martialed? You sound like one them.
    Thank you for confirming that those who comment here and have little trust for the police are not wrong in their assessment. I’ve fired better men than you.

  44. Don’t hold your breath on the apology, JeremyR. If you fired men for looking at both sides of an issue, it says more negative about you than it does about them, or about anyone posting here.

  45. Dennis, this is just my opinion, I think you are too stupid to see how your slander aimed at me here reflects on you, your department, and officers in general.
    Instead of a thought out defense of the conduct of those officers in Deming, you chose to post a fabrication worthy of Saul Alinsky. Are you proud? In the morning, will you go to work and show your chief how you belittled me? Would he be proud?
    Is this how you conduct yourself on the job? Do you go into court and act the same way? Dogs don’t meow when they are off leash. A man (that’s a compliment here) who would lie in a semi anonymous forum would also lie in court if he thought he could get away with it. Do you conduct yourself at work the same way? Are you proud of it?
    At the first Kansas Municipal judges conference I attended, several of the judges were sitting at a table behind me discussing an occurrence that happened at the previous judicial conference. Two of them had engaged in a drag race in the early hours through a residential neighborhood. The local judge had pulled strings with the PD there to cover over what happened. They were proud of what the did. It sure lowered my esteem for them especially since one of the men sitting there laughing it up was the man who administered the Municipal judges exam to me the month before.
    I can tell you, I was not proud of them, and I don’t think the citizens of their respective cities would have been proud either.
    “We enforce the law, we don’t uphold it” Nice motto… If you reign in Russia.

  46. So Mas, explain to me how his tall tail, the 19th comment down is looking at both sides of this issue? His comment five above my reply confirms he was aiming his trash at me. Yup, fabricating a story and calling me a coward is looking at both sides of the issue. Great call. I am humbled. Lots of facts there. Tons of em.

  47. JeremyR, I’m not sure I understand what you’re talking about. Please quote where you feel you were slandered here.

  48. Is the freedom from arbitrary invasive “examinations” a civil right? Perhaps it should be, if it is not presently considered a civil right.

    It is all part of the “war on drugs” and the idea extreme measures are justified. And in this the officers are not guilty or at least guilty alone. They certainly have their enablers.

    Perhaps it is time to rethink the “war on drugs” and what enforcement measures are appropriate. While I am not in favor of complete legalization, I do at least entertain the idea that we may be better off with more minimal enforcement efforts.

  49. Comment 19 by Dennis. ” Dennis Says:
    November 11th, 2013

    MD Matt—-

    Just read your post on the previous thread. It brought back memories of an incident years ago in my department.

    A trainee, not long out of the academy, refused to come to the aid of his training officer during a traffic stop. The trainer was attacked, overpowered and subsequently murdered with his own weapon. The trainee retreated to the squad car, ducking down in the seat and hiding until the suspect drove away.

    The trainee, after being brought up on internal charges of cowardice and facing dismissal from the force, changed his initial story of the events leading up to the death of his training officer. After hiring counsel, his new version was that the training officer was a vulgar, verbally abusive person who he could just not bring himself to help or come to the aid of.

    This flew in the face of everyone who knew the training officer.The veteran officer was well known for his even temper, being everyone’s friend on and off duty. People from all walks of life lined up to come to the defense of this fine man’s reputation, whose memory was being sullied by a self serving ex-M.P. from Kansas who had failed his evaluations from his previous field training officers, and placed with the murdered officer as a last attempt to save the city’s investment in him.

    But the damage was already done. With the only surviving witnesses being the murderer, his friends, and the coward who watched his partner be murdered, the murderer was found not guilty and the coward became the darling of the media, as the murderer was African-American and the murdered officer and the coward were white. Without any living witnesses to contradict the murderer’s and the cowards story, the department dropped the internal charges against him.

    When nobody would work with the coward or cover him, he went to the press bemoaning how badly he was being treated, got one more story about his being shunned for refusing to lie in court about what had happened that day, then resigned and returned to Kansas.

    As I recall, he filed suit against the city, blaming them for his inability to find work in law enforcement, but the report in the papers mentioned he had found part time employment as a municipal court judge in his home town.

    You haven’t run across this guy have you?

    and this one.
    Dennis Says:
    November 11th, 2013

    M.D. Matt,

    My apologies. My post was actually intended for JeremyR.

  50. JeremyR,

    My post was not a fantasy, it was the an accurate description of actual events. As I stated at the beginning of the entry, your previous posts brought back memories of the event I described. You were the one that jumped to a conclusion, thinking I was attacking you.

    With little evidence and without investigating further, you jumped to a conclusion, went on the attack, attacking me personally for sharing a true depiction of actual events that are archived in history and I have personal knowledge of.

    JeremyR, it is obvious you have a very, very,very, high opinion of yourself. Nothing wrong with that.

    It’s also very obvious you have a very low opinion of everyone else, and convey a sense of superiority outwardly. I sense an inward insecurity that prompts you to lash out at others when you feel your superiority is threatened.

    Do I sense a little paranoia?

    Mas,— now I feel violated by what appears to be an unstable respondent who is unable to control his emotions. I would suggest professional help, but I’m sure he is smarter, better educated, more knowledgeable and probably better looking than any counselor available. It does appear that the events I described touched a nerve doesn’t it. I bet he was a hell of a cop.

Newer Comments »