Posted on 10/01/2013 10:53:47 AM PDT by Morgana
FULL TITLE: Woman arrested for drunk driving sues after video shows her being strip searched by four officers and tossed naked into a cell
A Chicago-area woman arrested in May for drunk driving is now suing county police for what she says was an illegal, humiliating strip search by four officers that was all caught on video.
Dana Holmes was nearly three times over the legal blood alcohol limit when she was pulled over and taken to county jail, where surveillance footage shows her being pulled to the ground by a female officer and three male officers.
The 33-year-old was stripped completely of her clothes and left naked in a cell alone, where she cried on the floor for several minutes before police tossed her a ‘padded suit.’
Holmes was transported to the county jail by local authorities who made no note of any combativeness. Footage of her DUI arrest released to the media shows her cooperating and the local authorities made no note of her resisting behavior.
However, Lasalle County police say local cops informed them she was ‘being mouthy and causing problems’ according to the Chicago Tribune.
It is at the county jail where things take a turn. Holmes is shown being searched against a wall by a female officer as male officers watch.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
She’s lucky they didn’t take her to some dilapidated building in the ghetto, and shove her out a window.
Of note, of course, is that this info has to come from a news source outside our country.
ummmm, from what I’ve seen....really.
NOT GUILTY!
Of noted this on several occasions. Why is a British paper running stories of local silliness happening in the U.S.?
She is OBVIOUSLY not guilty.
In fact, I think she was 3 times more sober than legally stone-cold sober - like a -0.24% or even a -0.30 even
quite obvious: Not Guilty..
Oh yeah, she’ll sue, and maybe win... But the rapist creepazoid bastards will get “Suspended with Pay.”
Reminiscient of THE ACCUSED.
Of course if they had deigned to ruffle the Hijab of a Muslimette, they’d all be crucified.
I speculate it was simple as this... the officers said to their pals: “We arrested an attractive babe for DUI, she’s pretty drunk... so anybody wanna see her naked”?
That’s what I’m guessing. Maybe not saying, but certainly thinking.
She’ll win this suit hands down. There was no reason other than she “mouthed off”. Apparently it’s against the constitution to say anything but “Yes, sir” and “No, sir” to cops.
She’s very pretty but she could be butt ugly and the cops were still wrong.
“and left naked in a cell alone”
You can see in the video that she has her black top on.
I don’t think she should get any money from this lawsuit. Why should she? She’s not out any money. Go ahead and fire the cops if they acted inappropriately. Their actions did not cost her anything monetarily. The lawsuit lottery system needs to end. Why should the taxpayers have to pay off a drunk driver?
. . . or Jesus might come back. Which do you think would occur first?
It’s not her black top.
” left naked in a cell alone, where she cried on the floor for several minutes before police tossed her a ‘padded suit.”
I agree with you only as far as the officers being fired and not making the taxpayer pay. This was a serious breach of the woman’s rights by these officer and they should not only pay for it with their jobs but monetarily as well. You are kind of like one of the people on the site that basically said she was driving drunk so whatever happened to her is OK. What she did was wrong, but since when does that give the police the right to trample her rights. I wonder if it was your daughter, would you still feel the same?
“Why should the taxpayers have to pay off a drunk driver?”
Because the taxpayers’ employees violated her rights. Don’t want to pay? Get some better employees.
Yep.
Watched the video at the link above. She was cooperating, when the female officer lifts her right foot, she loses her balance and that’s when the officer on the right puts her in an arm lock and takes her down.
She’ll win the lawsuit.
I didn't say that at all. I'm just saying that what happened to her didn't cost her any money, so why should she get paid? And I don't have a daughter, unless you know something I don't....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.