Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TV strip search brings reversal of man's drug conviction [Indiana]
AP ^ | Apr 8 2005

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.

[snip]

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: donutwatch; leo; privacy; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: george wythe

For the record, when I was first hired, this show was already in production. I had no say in what was produced, but yet my name was on everything. After being called to testify a few times, and traveling 30 cities in 52 weeks, it got old. Real OLD.


41 posted on 04/08/2005 11:12:29 AM PDT by duck duck goose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: VRWCisme
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.

You make a very interesting point. I'd be interested in reading the opinion. Can anyone find it? Ruth Bader Ginsburg has written countless opinions where her "test" is simply that something "shocks the conscience." She is a moron and so are her tests but they stand. She typically applies them to Gender discrimination and police conduct cases, I could pull a few of her cases for you but I'd hate to have you lose your lunch. (She truly is awful.)

My guess however is that they used this standard to justify throwing out the conviction (e.g. a violation of one of the crackheads- no pun intended- constitutional rights.)

But, still, I would like to read this judge's opinion.

42 posted on 04/08/2005 11:13:17 AM PDT by N. Beaujon (Carter sucks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: george wythe

Sounds like he needs some instruction in proper snorting technique. Sounds like he's doing it way too hard.


43 posted on 04/08/2005 11:15:03 AM PDT by ItsForTheChildren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCisme
"As judges usually don't want to get reversed on appeal,..."

You've obviously never heard of the U.S. Ninth Circus Court of Appeals!
LOL!

44 posted on 04/08/2005 11:20:54 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo

There is a difference between editorial usage and commercial use of images. If they used the images on "Cops" which is considered a commerical entertainment program, a release is needed. If the image was used on a news program, a release generally will not be needed.

However, if the image is used to defame or degrade the subject, a release is usually needed to protect from libel or defamation lawsuits. In this case, you can assume that this would have defamed and/or degraded the subject as they pulled the cocaine from his buttocks on TV.

The real issue is the way the police department allowed the camera crew to accompany them during the search. Courts have ruled that the Police have no authority to allow camera crews to accompany them into private property without the owner or resident's permission.
---

To answer another post, this does not affect in any way photos taken for court records like mugshots which are considered part of a court record and subject to open records laws. If your mugshot has been taken, it is open season. However, it can't be used with inaccurate information that will defame. i.e. using the mug with "John Smith arrested for disorderly conduct on April,8 2005" is OK if that is accurate. Running the mug with the headline, "John Smith: Drunk, Peeping Pervert," is going to get a newspaper in a boatload of trouble.


45 posted on 04/08/2005 11:27:21 AM PDT by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
The cameras made the coke appear in his butt.

Wow! That FX is great!

46 posted on 04/08/2005 11:32:07 AM PDT by Navy Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: N. Beaujon
I would like to read this judge's opinion.

From the opinion:

The strip search of Thompson differed from the strip searches in Williams and Cofield. Thompson was required to bend over with his bare buttocks exposed and raised in the air, while the officers allowed the camerawoman to observe and film him in that position, for a program to be aired on national television. As we have stated, the camerawoman stood at the threshold of the motel bathroom door and filmed Thompson’s exposed buttocks as Officer Gard stood over him while Officer Lee walked outside to retrieve rubber gloves. During that time, the camerawoman zoomed in on Thompson’s bare buttocks for several seconds.

Where should the media line be drawn? We think the line should be drawn here. Otherwise, the next case might well involve a civilian filming or photographing a strip search incident to arrest where the contraband is found and removed from an anal or vaginal cavity. Where, as here, the search occurs in a private place and the police are in complete control of the circumstances surrounding the search, we can find no justification for law enforcement to allow a civilian to film or photograph the strip search of a suspect naked below the waist. We conclude that, under these circumstances, the strip search was not only unprofessional but was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.


47 posted on 04/08/2005 11:34:09 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
What a sickening case. The undercover cop talks to the guy on the phone, and the guy says he'll come to the motel to sell her some drugs. So he gets to the motel, and as soon as he arrives they arrest him--before any drugs are even witnessed. *Then* they take him into the bathroom for the butt-check. Doesn't sound to me like they even had cause to arrest him before the search. And even if they *did* have cause to arrest him before any drugs were visible, wouldn't the police station be the proper location for searching his ass? Seems pretty obvious that they just wanted to get the butt search on tape, otherwise they would've done what normal cops do, i.e., wait for the guy to pull out the drugs and *then* arrest him.
48 posted on 04/08/2005 11:54:01 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: devolve

"Say "cheese"!"

http://www.pechin.com/images/DeliPhoto3copy.jpg


49 posted on 04/08/2005 11:55:02 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: devolve
Image hosted by Photobucket.com

50 posted on 04/08/2005 5:50:25 PM PDT by potlatch (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Otherwise, the next case might well involve a civilian filming or photographing a strip search incident to arrest where the contraband is found and removed from an anal or vaginal cavity. Where, as here, the search occurs in a private place and the police are in complete control of the circumstances surrounding the search, we can find no justification for law enforcement to allow a civilian to film or photograph the strip search of a suspect naked below the waist. We conclude that, under these circumstances, the strip search was not only unprofessional but was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

This makes no sense. I agree that the filming was egregious but I do not see the constitutional underpinnings being found in the 4th amendment. The film crew was not acting as government agents. Period. This judge’s “slippery slope” argument is completely irrelevant. The camera crew is not bound by the exclusionary rule.

They should be sued in a civil court and the municipality that allowed this should be equally liable but the judge has the wrong grounds. Not that any higher court will bother to overturn it, the act in itself is so beyond dumb and irresponsible the crack head almost deserves to be cut loose.

What is even more galling is that this is a “woman’s” network and this was a female camera crew. If anyone is still under the delusion that women are morally superior they really have “issues.”

Anne

51 posted on 04/08/2005 7:01:16 PM PDT by N. Beaujon (Carter sucks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: duck duck goose
I couldnt agree with you more. But you would be so surprised at how many cities want this show in their town.

Seriously?? I would want something this disgusting buried so deep below the earth that it wouldnt resurface, ever. Can you imagine a demographic that gets its rocks off (pardon the expression) over filming a strip search?? We are far sicker as a society than I ever imagined, (and that says a lot).

52 posted on 04/08/2005 7:05:16 PM PDT by N. Beaujon (Carter sucks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RebelBanker
IMHO, the news crew was not unreasonable

The news crew is not subject to a "reasonableness" standard, they aren't law enforcement. They are subject to a decency standard but then again this is a cable network isn't it? So, in fact, they are really held to no standards, are they?

53 posted on 04/08/2005 7:11:10 PM PDT by N. Beaujon (Carter sucks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo
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!

His butt cheeks aren't game only b/c this took place in a hotel room where he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Now if he was on a public street, his butt cheeks would be fair game. (smirk.)

54 posted on 04/08/2005 7:16:44 PM PDT by N. Beaujon (Carter sucks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: lightingguy
I guess the judge meant he didn't want anyone ELSE to demean to legal system, just judges.

lol. You got it.

55 posted on 04/08/2005 7:19:57 PM PDT by N. Beaujon (Carter sucks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: VRWCisme
Ok, that explains a lot. Usually when there will be review by a higher court, the court issuing the decision must fit it into the legal framework to avoid sending up a red flag. But if this court knows there is little chance of getting reversed, they can extend the illegality of a search to cover the presence of a camera that had nothing to do with the legality in the first place. It doesn't fit the 4th Amendment caselaw framework, but I guess for them that doesn't matter.

You hit the nail on the head. This explains a lot because the decision absolutely doesn't within a 4th amendment context. (I should have read your post before I wrote my analysis, it would have saved me a lot of time.) This thread is emblematic of what's so good about freerepublic. The amount of posters who "got" the legal problems with this case, and had so many intelligent comments to add, was really high. What a pleasure to deal with a "demographic" that does not have its crack up its... ;)

56 posted on 04/08/2005 7:28:31 PM PDT by N. Beaujon (Carter sucks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

If his face was not pixilated, then the COPS production team had him sign a release. If he signed the release, then how can he complain? They only show those who sign, otherwise they pixilate their face. Most people are vain and will sign.


57 posted on 04/08/2005 7:32:40 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: N. Beaujon
Now if he was on a public street, his butt cheeks would be fair game. (smirk.)

Hey, I didn't realize it was San Francisco...

58 posted on 04/09/2005 2:26:56 AM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Are you saying that the 'reality' cop shows have some scenes that are staged?

Heaven forbid! In the name of entertainment?
I’ve often wondered how many months the film crew has to ride around to get the one or two minute segments.
59 posted on 04/09/2005 2:38:31 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
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.

A cop who breaks into a person’s home without a warrant – unless in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon – should be fired and prosecuted.
60 posted on 04/09/2005 2:41:37 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson