Skip to comments.TV strip search brings reversal of man's drug conviction [Indiana]
Posted on 04/08/2005 10:32:58 AM PDT by george wythe
An appeals court threw out a man's cocaine conviction because his strip search was filmed by a camera crew for a television program.
The Indiana Court of Appeals said in a ruling issued Thursday that filming Andra Thompson's strip-search was "unprofessional and unreasonable."
During a 2003 sting operation at a motel, officers strip searched Thompson and found cocaine stuffed between his buttocks.
At one point, the camera focused for several seconds on Thompson's naked posterior while he was bent over in handcuffs.
"Where should the media line be drawn?" Judge Edward Najam wrote. "We will not sanction such conduct, which demeans the suspect and degrades the entire legal process."
(Excerpt) Read more at fox41.com ...
Bad boys, bad boys, what ya gonna do?
I dont understand this... fault the police or the media who filmed him, and discipline them if they must... but the guy STILL HAD COCAINE IN HIS BUTT
LIke the butt map from "3 kings".
Cut the guy some slack, it's not like he was a cokehead. :)
Where should the 'line' be drawn.....on the mirror hehehe.
He wouldn't have if the cameras hadn't been there!!! The cameras made the coke appear in his butt.
"We will not sanction such conduct, which demeans the suspect and degrades the entire legal process."
I'm sorry, but the Judges in this country have already degraded the entire Legal Process. The Camera Crews are about 100 years too late.
IMHO, the news crew was not unreasonable. According to my brother (a city police officer) the two common places for prople to carry 'rocks' of crack cocaine are in their mouths and between their butt cheeks. Grossed him out the first time he saw a dealer pull a rock out of his pants and the buyer stash it in his mouth.
Has anyone researched this case more or heard more about it? I'm curious as to the legal grounds--the search (and a conviction resting on it) could be rendered illegal if the police didn't have probable cause or consent to search, but how would the presence of a camera affect that? I'm just wondering what this judge did to try to link this decision to some legal theory. As judges usually don't want to get reversed on appeal, it would be odd for this judge to not even attempt to couch this decision in terms of an illegal search.
I used to work for an episodic law enforcement show. (Im sure the theme song is in your head) You would be surprised how many of those fools, not only sign releases, but when we were called as witnesses, we were told that what was shot, was not actually what was seen. This show that I worked on has been around for a bizzilion years, but trust me, what is seen on tv, isnt necc, what was shot on location (it has been edited to what the City Atty and Cheif of Police want seen)I know of quite a few drug convictions thrown out for tampering with evidence.
See post 11, I don't want near that line.
"prople" => "people"
Spell check is your friend, dum-dum.
I guess the judge meant he didn't want anyone ELSE to demean to legal system, just judges.
I know it sounds ridiculous, but that's the rule of law. A cop who breaks into a drug dealer's house without a warrant may find drugs, but he may not use those drugs against the drug dealer, unless the cop finds a sympathetic judge.
Are you saying that the 'reality' cop shows have some scenes that are staged?
Hey thanks for the ping to this, I now have the most delightful lunchtime visual.
I started working in Amateur Photography in the 50's. I learned early, that if you want to ever sell an image, or use it in any way, you must have the person's permission.
If you watch Cops" on TV, you will see many of the faces obscured.
Butt cheeks aren't game. That is an invasion of his rights. They are his cheeks. It is cheaper to set him free, and wait to catch him again. He'd have a good case against the city and photog. He's gonna be there again. I'd bet a thousand bucks on it!
(Did you know that it has been reported, "more than 97% of hundred dollar bills have cocaine traces on them"?)
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.