Skip to comments.Police forced man to have anal surgery during crazy drug search, now settling for $1.6 million
Posted on 01/17/2014 7:41:35 AM PST by Rusty0604
David Eckertthe man who was stopped by police, suspected of drug possession, driven to a hospital, driven to a second hospital, forced to undergo multiple invasive surgeries, and billed for the abuse after no drugs were foundhas obtained a $1.6 million settlement with New Mexico local authorities.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
That was a quick settlement.
He still hasn’t settled his suit against the hospital.
I wonder if the cops involved are still on the job.
Wouldn’t it be better to image the guy first?
The main thread from yesterday
indicates his suits against the doctors and the hospital that did that illegal search are still pending.
The copz need to have their asses literally handed to them.
I think they got off cheap. His lawyer should have pushed for at least double. Well what does he care he pocketed 40% for a no lose case.
$1.6 million is quite reasonable given the circumstances which, I suppose, is why the PD was so quick to settle. The nitwits involved ought to chip in on the liability insurance premium increase which will be one certain result.
That’s what I wonder. Those cops should do jail time.
Meanwhile, the police absolved themselves on any wrongdoing.
This case is an outrageous outrage, however, I don’t think the word “surgery” is precisely correct.
Why can’t I get pulled over, suspected of hiding drugs in my a$$, arrested, “screwed” repeatedly, and awarded a settlement for millions of dollars?
Some people are just lucky I guess.
(This is satirical of course)
I think the guy had to be anesthetized to get the tools up inside him? They may not have cut and sutured, but it was pretty invasive.
It was quick because the lawyers told them that if it went to court, they would be on the hook for probably 10 times the amount.
How about a few more zeros on the right side and jail for the po-po
I absolutely would not accept 60% of $1.6 million for what this guy was put through.
If the police officers and their supervisors haven’t all been fired and imprisoned then justice has not been done in this case and we should all quite literally watch our asses in the future.
Hosptials and Doctors still to come. On the other hand, an Employee Of The Year parking spot for the doc at the first hospital who refused to perform the procedures.
Law enforcement had a search warrant to search the guy's body (I'd like to see the probable cause affidavit for that), but it was good only in Luna County.
A hospital physician in Luna County refused to perform the anal search on ethical grounds, so the police took the victim to a hospital in a different county.
Their search warrant was not valid there - not for the Hidalgo County sheriff's department, the Deming County police, the hospital where the probes were conducted, nor the physicians who performed the probes.
If the anal probes had been performed in Luna County, this may have been considered perfectly legal. That's distressing.
They did. A couple of digital exams, enemas, x-rays, and the colonoscopy. 8 medical procedures in all. The last of which were performed after the warrant had expired. IIRC, the hospital where this was done was also OUTSIDE of the warrant’s jurisdiction.
“New Mexico local authorities” means the citizens of Deming are going to the cleaners. On one hand I don’t like that, but on the other hand, the citizens of Deming have apparently been tolerating this behavior. They are ultimately the ones who are going to have to rectify the situation.
And I certainly hope the Hospital that did the procedures without legal warrants isn’t off the hook (The warrants they accepted were from out of jurisdiction, and out of date). They need to pay up as well.
Well, it is a Drug WAR, after all.
Kudos to the first hospital for refusing to aid the Stasi. They sound like a great place to go if you actually want a colonoscopy.
Remember the magic words "I'm allergic to that". Hospitals are scared of allergic reactions and you will put them in the position of not doing the procedure or doing it anyway after they have been fully informed of an allergy.
(I'm kinda joking .... but kinda not)(:)
IIRC he had both X-rays and a ct scan.
Before they insisted on the invasive procedures.
There’s probably a long line of queers waiting...
They did, found nothing, and insisted on further procedures.
Does anyone else find it appropriate that the town paid. . . out the @ss ???? (evil grin)
He settled cheap.
The insurance provider should drop the policy unless the cops involved are removed from the force.
Yes, but they all went home safely that night.
And that's all that really matters.
Now there is a source of corrective pressure I hadn’t considered.Insurance companies routinely dictate conditions to clients.
It's not their money, so they don't care. The taxpayers got screwed also.
If you follow this back, the hospital actually sent him a bill for their “services.”
The Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.vs. Justice Alito in Kentucky v. King:
The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity.IOW,
The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, to dispense with the warrant requirement.
while the court acknowledges the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, the superior understanding of the Supreme Court repudiates the implicit requirement of a warrant to be required to effect the search or seizure of person or property.
|IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE THERE IS ONLY GOVERNMENT.
|The Tao of Republican Orthodoxy
|The Modern Democratic Party & You
The case has a twist or two. Both the county and city were dragged in....so they split this up roughly 60/40. I think each had a liability insurance policy and dipped into it...meaning that they both both probably put up a quarter-million each. The insurance company will likely pay the rest, and then sock it to the county and city next year for a new higher rate.
As for the hospital and staff? They have an insurance policy, which I’d guess it goes up into the ten million range. There will be some discussions and likely work this out probably close to the maximum of the policy.
No one in the city or county government is happy about this, and it’s become a joke locally. Anybody could run in the next election and have a four-star advertisement to their advantage.
As for this guy? If I were him...I’d quietly leave the US and settle somewhere in Canada. This guy needs to put a fair distance between him and this community, and US cops.
The quacks deserve to be sued and have their licenses revoked.
It’s be good to have some names of the quacks involved then.
What also very much disturbs me about this (and other) cases, and I don’t understand it, is, it seems, the guy was not under arrest.
Please anybody correct me if I’m wrong, because I’ve been wondering about this for quite some time.
Had he been under arrest he’d have been entitled to (immediately, no?) get counsel from an attorney, correct?
And if he wasn’t under arrest, what right did they have to detain him or transport him in any way, to any where, for any purpose?
Now, I can understand doing a pat-down, turn out your pockets, that kind of thing even without placing someone under arrest, but this stuff?
Maybe I’m dumb to rely on what I’ve seen on TV, but I’ve seen a lot of “suspects” on TV say: either arrest me or I’m leaving. And then they leave and the cop or whoever says: OK, but don’t leave town.
I’m just not getting this stuff at all.
Who's winning? What are they winning? Is it worth fighting the war?
Who's losing? What's being lost? Is it worth the cost? Can it be recovered? Should it be?
What's really happening here?
If you anally raped the cops in similarly dehumanising fashion, I wonder what they would settle for.
Don’t worry. As the rise of the police state continues, everyone will have a opportunity to be ‘lucky’ like this poor fellow.
All of this was based on a "hit" from a non-certified K9.
Do you suppose the taxpayers of that jurisdiction are actually picking up the tab? I’ll bet the cops aren’t personally shelling out.
Certified...non-certified. It's a damn dog dying to 'please' his master. Outlaw sniffer dogs.
I’ve had a number of drug war supporters tell me that we are not a moral people, so the Constitution no longer applies.
What I find amusing is the answers given when you ask the question
by what authority does the federal government regulate drugs? Especially given that in order to regulate a particular substance [alcohol] a constitutional amendment was required, which has since been repealed, and no similar amendment exists for drugs.
If I'm feeling particularly clever I'll also show how the War on Drugs is Treason as defined by the Constitution... which, oddly, they never seem to have any counterargument to either.
The cop seemed to want to do multiple 'hands on" exams first.
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.