Posted on 12/21/2012 5:03:49 AM PST by Uncle Chip
TEXAS - Two Irving women are suing two Texas State troopers and the director of the Department of Public Safety after they say they were violated, during what they call an unconstitutional search, when they were subjected to a roadside cavity search in full view of the public and without probable cause.
On July 13, while driving along State Highway 161, Angel Dobbs and her niece Ashley Dobbs were stopped for littering by Trooper David Ferrell. In the dashcam video released by the women and their attorney, Ferrell can be heard telling the women they would both be cited for littering for throwing cigarette butts out of the car.
Farrell then returned to his cruiser and, in the video, can be heard calling female Trooper Kelley Helleson to the scene to search both women whom he said were acting weird.
.................
Bumped. Another Media Report Here - But, let me just clear something up. This was not a search; This was not reasonable; This was recorded forcible sexual assault by police officers under the auspices of their threatening authority. Rape, period.
There were no attempt to search their pockets, empty their purses or put their personal contents on the ground or top of car for inspection. This was not a pat down – the officer never even checked the legs, socks or shoes. The female officer was not conducting a search, she immediately put her fingers in the anus and vagina of both victims.
The officers proceeded to engage in unlawful activity against a victim who expressed no prior unlawful conduct, reason to suspect, refusal to comply with instruction, or noted contraband from visual search, or review, that would warrant such a gross violation.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
We just moved from Texas. My son told me that this was a normal thing for cops to do with minor children. The cops told them that they had the right to search them if they suspected that they may have cigarettes on them.
My son once asked a cop how this was legal. The cop told him that there is a difference between a ‘search’ and a ‘pat-down’ and that a search included inside the clothes.
This is not a matter of two cops ‘gone bad’. This is an extension of Texas’ drug-control policy and it is wide-spread. They are trained to do this.
And this is in the same state where a lawmaker tried to classify the offensive TSA pat-down as sexual assault.
These women should have flat out refused the “search” and let the chips fall where they may. NO way I’d EVER allow something like that to happen. Just tell ‘em “Not a chance in Hell, bud, so do what you gotta do....then I’ll do what I gotta do. See you in court if you press this.”
I hope these women get millions - but they won’t. In the end, Texas will back the cops.
The "common knowledge" most folks don't know about...
Pass it along...
Texas will back the cops.
Wrong. Public opinion is overwhelmingly supporting the women. The Texas Rangers investigated the incident and referred the case to the county prosecutors. The assaulting officer has been put on leave, and all signs are that she will be prosecuted.
That is a completely untrue statement. This is most definitely NOT normal behavior for Texas peace officers. These two should get major prison time. I’m a Texas judge and I don’t know a single peace officer who would do this.
I will bet that the ONLY reason she’s been suspended is that she didn’t change gloves.
When she got there, BOTH officers knew exactly what was going to happen. She behaved in a mechanical way, deliberately put the show on camera to protect herself from prosecution and (other than using the same gloves) did what she was trained to do. The other officer showed NO shock or concern over her actions. This is what he expected to happen.
HE is not suspended.
The female officer will go down, but only for the gloves issue and only because the police dept is looking for a scape-goat because of the public attention and out-cry. The judge MAY give these women a small settlement, but I doubt it. That would set a president and the PD would actually have to change their tactics.
Then they need more training.
I have seen the video. The female officer dons latex gloves and proceeds to do a 'digital' search of the first woman's butt crack and heaven knows to what extent.
She then proceeds...with the same glove, to do a 'digital' search down the front of the woman's pants...to what extent is unknown...but it looked rather thorough. I'm assuming it was because of the woman's objections in the video.
That is just plain disgusting. At the very least a new set of gloves should have been used after the first intrusion.
That's at the very least. At the best, the woman should have refused the search as unreasonable under the 4th amendment.
Exactamundo.
This took place when??? August??? What has taken so long???
Is the only reason that something is getting done because it is becoming public???
I might believe that if they'd searched the vehicle and their purses and pockets first, or at all. If I was on that jury I'd want to see the training manual that says you start with a body cavity search, and quit if you don't find anything there.
It's that easy to set a president? Then can we please set us a new president? This Obama guy is just not working out at all.
Is that Joe Biden? or just coincidence.
The officer did not change gloves when she visited the anus before she visited the vagina - on both women.
I would hope not. Did you see the video? I almost fell out of my chair!
The officer stuck her finger up the first one's a.., then her p....! Then with the same glove did the same thing to the second one! If first woman has a STD, they both do now, not to mention chances of infection from rectums. Just DAMN!!
What about going from anal to vaginal without a glove change? GOOD GRIEF!!
At the end of the video one of the women stated explicitly to what extent.
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.