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

Skip to comments.

Police drug search intrudes on husband's final moments with deceased wife
Deseret News ^ | Jan. 3 2013 | Dennis Romboy

Posted on 01/07/2013 1:48:37 AM PST by Slings and Arrows

VERNAL — A man says Vernal police disrupted an intimate moment of mourning with his deceased wife of 58 years when they searched his house for her prescription medication without a warrant within minutes of her death.

-snip-

Ben D. Mahaffey, 80, said he was distraught and trying to make sure his wife's body would be taken to the funeral home with dignity, when he says officers insisted he help them look for the drugs.

"I was holding her hand saying goodbye when all the intrusion happened," he told the Deseret News.

-snip-

Mahaffey said he was treated as if he were going to sell the painkillers, which included OxyContin, oxycodone and morphine, on the street.

"I had no interest in the drugs," he said. "I'm no addict."

Mahaffey filed a federal lawsuit Thursday, alleging police violated his Fourth and 14th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure and for equal protection under the law, respectively.

The officers' actions "at the deeply intimate setting, and during a highly distressing time, added a great amount of pain and distress to any already difficult situation," the lawsuit states.

-snip-

Following the incident, Mahaffey asked Vernal city officials and police administrators why officers would search his home without a warrant. He said he was told the Utah Controlled Substances Act provides authority for the search.

According to the lawsuit, Mahaffey also said city manager Ken Bassett dismissed his concerns, saying he was "overly sensitive" and that police were just trying to protect the public from illegal use of prescription drugs.

-snip-

Fackrell said there's nothing in the controlled substances act that allows police to enter a home and search for prescription drugs without a warrant.

He said it's apparently common practice for Vernal police when someone dies, but that it's selectively applied.

(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: drugs; drugwar; policestate; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Words fail me.
1 posted on 01/07/2013 1:48:52 AM PST by Slings and Arrows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

Just wannabe cops...nothing more than that. They don’t know much better because they are really trained or qualified.


2 posted on 01/07/2013 1:51:26 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

Something smells here. How did the police come to be at the home anyway? Does hospice in the state of Utah contact them in all death notice cases? My experience is that the Hospice nurse will collect all unused medications after the death and destroy them with witnesses. This is very bizarre.


3 posted on 01/07/2013 2:10:43 AM PST by Artie (We are surrounded by MORONS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Artie

As a police officer, we are called to almost all deaths as a matter of course. My guess here is they were attempting to establish a medical histroy on her in order to sign off and get out of there. It is an uncomfortable and intrusive time, and needs tact and empathey. And if they asked for his help and he gave it...no warrant is needed...its called consent.


4 posted on 01/07/2013 2:37:40 AM PST by bike800
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
Just wannabe cops...nothing more than thatThat's the kind of man that wants to be a cop. It's getting worse in our town.
5 posted on 01/07/2013 2:40:47 AM PST by tommix2 (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Artie
  Something smells here.

  The police might be selling the confiscated drugs.
6 posted on 01/07/2013 2:40:54 AM PST by Maurice Tift (You can't stop the signal, Mal. You can never stop the signal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

I hope that guy wins the lawsuit in spades.


7 posted on 01/07/2013 2:54:16 AM PST by wastedyears (My life mostly completely turned around in a few weeks. Now to leave NY...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

How dare subjects of the state attempt to treat or medicate themselves! It’s not like you have the right to treat your own body as you see fit. You will do as told, or you will be enslaved and sold.


8 posted on 01/07/2013 2:55:15 AM PST by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

Amen.


9 posted on 01/07/2013 2:55:35 AM PST by Slings and Arrows (You can't have IngSoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

“the Utah Controlled Substances Act provides authority for the search”

If true, would that law not be unconstitutional?


10 posted on 01/07/2013 2:57:04 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dsc

The Constitution isn’t much in fashion in policy-making circles.


11 posted on 01/07/2013 2:58:25 AM PST by Slings and Arrows (You can't have IngSoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dsc

No. The constitution is the rules for the Federal Government. Not the states.

Or at least that was the founders intent.


12 posted on 01/07/2013 3:38:17 AM PST by cableguymn (The founding fathers would be shooting by now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn
"No. The constitution is the rules for the Federal Government. Not the states."

Close but not quite. The Constitution is the law of the land but whatever is doesn't cover is left to the States to decide. But no State can write a law the supersedes the Constitution.

"THAT" is what the Founders intended.

13 posted on 01/07/2013 3:44:28 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

“But no State can write a law the supersedes the Constitution.”

Precisely the idea stated by the Virginia Supreme Court when striking down a city ordinance prevent open carry in the city of Norfolk. Virginia law allows open carry and the city cannot supercede the law of the state.


14 posted on 01/07/2013 3:58:10 AM PST by fredhead (It's my Herbie year...check out the number on the side of the famous VW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

Same here


15 posted on 01/07/2013 4:01:16 AM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fredhead

16 posted on 01/07/2013 4:01:46 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Maurice Tift
"The police might be selling the confiscated drugs."

I know of several incidents locally wherein that happened. In fact it had become routine.

17 posted on 01/07/2013 4:05:22 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows
How disgusting these officers were. Where has our compassion gone? And for this man's concerns to be dismissed as ‘overly sensitive’ tells me the breadth of that lack of compassion is overwhelming. I hope he takes them all to the cleaners.
18 posted on 01/07/2013 4:15:18 AM PST by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maurice Tift

Or using them.


19 posted on 01/07/2013 4:20:53 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dsc
The War on Drugs spawned numerous unconstitutional laws.

Turned the Po-Po into an armed militia with supra-constitutional authority.

20 posted on 01/07/2013 4:26:15 AM PST by Aevery_Freeman (The trouble with the "masses" is that they never achieve the "m")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bike800

There really is nothing here to “guess” about’
1. The Police wilfully and knowingly entered and searched this Man’s home without a Warrant. We call this BURGLARY or ARMED ROBBERY. The very instant they took control of the Prescription Drugs to which the Police Officers had no Prescription for and no “warrant” to seize or even search for, they were COMMITTING A FELONY by Being in Possession Of Said “DRUGS”. Just Like EVERYBODY ELSE, and They Belong in JAIL for a Minimum of 10 years. Unless they can show a Valid Warrant issued beforehand or a Valid Prescription they are nothing more than Jack Booted Gang Bangers.


21 posted on 01/07/2013 4:52:22 AM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

Can you imagine? In the worst moments of this man’s life, he is harassed by the cops. Do they not have Mothers or Fathers? Don’t they have a heart of the least little bit of compassion? When Mom passed, I had a ton of drugs. I called the pharmacy thinking I could let them have it. Nope, once they give out drugs, they can’t be returned. I called her family doctor and offered them so perhaps someone on limited income could receive them for free. Nope.. same story. So, I flushed them down the toilet. I didn’t know what else to do with them. Took about five flushes but they were gone. What this man needed at the time was a kind word, a “I’m sorry for your loss”, a “can I call someone to come and be with you”. However, he was treated like a criminal and this is infuriating.


22 posted on 01/07/2013 4:55:52 AM PST by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn
No. The constitution is the rules for the Federal Government. Not the states. Or at least that was the founders intent.

True. And very few people realize how routinely what we now consider "constitutional rights" were violated by the states in pre-civil war days.

However, the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that most if not all of the Bill of Rights now applies to state and local governments.

It's doubtful those who wrote 14A intended that application, but that's how SCOTUS has interpreted it.

23 posted on 01/07/2013 4:56:44 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows
Sounds like a journalism major wants to help the taxpayers hand out a few more millions to a highly sympathetic story (if it's true) via a jury.

Note that the ones who may have acted wrongly are in absolutely no danger of being punished or paying for their own bad acts.

24 posted on 01/07/2013 5:00:41 AM PST by Teacher317 ('Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bike800

No police are called to in the home hospice deaths where ever I have lived. Just the funeral home.


25 posted on 01/07/2013 5:03:11 AM PST by Chickensoup (Leftist Totalitarian Fascism coming to a country like yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

surprised they didn’t try to confiscate his guns too


26 posted on 01/07/2013 5:19:26 AM PST by Ouderkirk (Obama has turned America into an aristocracy of the unaccomplished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

I hope he wins 100 million.


27 posted on 01/07/2013 6:05:57 AM PST by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist
How dare subjects of the state attempt to treat or medicate themselves! It’s not like you have the right to treat your own body as you see fit. You will do as told, or you will be enslaved and sold.

Unless you want an abortion or contraceptives.....then nobody can stand in your way!

28 posted on 01/07/2013 6:13:44 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

The drug warriors will be by soon to defend this.


29 posted on 01/07/2013 6:22:46 AM PST by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

Jeez, this stuff was so much fun when it was just happening to those “undesiriable” types. Who could have guessed that these popular “Get Tough On Drugs”-style laws would be used against everybody?


30 posted on 01/07/2013 7:06:58 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

The clearest explanation of the 14th Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause is Clarence Thomas’s dissent in Saenz v Roe (1999). Short answer - the 14th was intended to apply the BOR to the states. See - http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-97.ZD1.html


31 posted on 01/07/2013 7:39:47 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

See my previous post (#31).


32 posted on 01/07/2013 7:44:27 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn; dsc

Even the 4th Amendment wasn’t incorporated, it’s still unconstitutional under the Utah state constitution:

” Article I, Section 14. [Unreasonable searches forbidden — Issuance of warrant.]
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 warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.”


33 posted on 01/07/2013 8:08:45 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

So who notified the police? Or maybe they just have a death meter that tells them when people are about to die so they can just invade their home. Police investigate deaths all the time. They have to be signed off by the ME. i have done numerous death investigations over 21 years. I have never once taken drugs from a scene to just get them off the street. They always go with the body to the morgue. Of course the rescue personnel names are not on the medication either, so maybe we should he prosecuting them for posessing them on the ride to the morgue.


34 posted on 01/07/2013 9:08:03 AM PST by bike800
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bike800

Since Hospice was involved, her death was not unexpected. The medical history was already established and the Hospice nurse should have been able to provide the information to the police.

Admittedly, my first response was one of indignation (sorry). Thinking it through to the end, I may have jumped the gun.

Doesn’t Hospice provide the narcotics for pain relief? In a clinical setting, used and unused narcotics must be accounted for by law. Unused dosages are either wasted (in the presence of a witness) or sent back to the pharmacy. This may be the case with Hospice, but I am just guessing.

Based on the dosages prescribed I would have a good idea of what should be remaining even if a patient had taken the maximum prescribed dosage. If I expected to find X amount and instead found none, you had better believe I would be looking for them. I would be asking if she got enough, too much or was this a case of someone helping themselves to the “leftovers.”

If the window for locating the narcotics was fast closing, I would mention it to the officers. I would document my concerns and also that I brought it to the attention of the officers. I am not sure if they had any choice but to ask the husband about at that point.

That may or may not have been the case. I can think of a dozen more variables which might put a different light on the story. This is just my long winded way of saying there are many unanswered questions before we can take the story at face value, especially since the author neglected to mention if the narcotics were found.


35 posted on 01/07/2013 9:23:36 AM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bike800

Unless they have a Warrant to Seize said items then YES we should Prosecute them, for they are willfully and knowingly in Felony Possession of Controlled Substances with the intent to Distribute. unless of course they maintain it was for personal use, I don’t believe they did, in fact they DID DISTRIBUTE THESE ILLEGALLY POSSESSED CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES. Which is exactly where I stand with the Jack Booted Gang Bangers that committed this ARMED ROBBERY in the First Place. And let’s not forget the Use of a Firearm during the commission of a violent felony, should be good for another 10 years.


36 posted on 01/07/2013 9:26:57 AM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Well, since the wife had passed on, then hubby no longer has standing to posess the drugs either. Hence, per your thinking...exactly who can take posession of the drugs?


37 posted on 01/07/2013 9:44:21 AM PST by bike800
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bike800

Uhh...did you actually read the story?


38 posted on 01/07/2013 9:59:16 AM PST by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bike800

cute, but that doesn’t change the facts in this case
1. The Police had NO reasonable suspicion a crime was committed or about to be committed.
2. they had no probable cause to get a warrant
3 They Had No Warrant, nada
4 Everything they did from the time they stepped in the door was “Outside the boundaries” of Law Enforcement, in other words they were acting in a “lawless manner”
5 They Robbed this Mans house While Armed
6 they Stole Dangerous Narcotics
7 They the Distributed Those Dangerous Narcotics to there Associates.

My world is pretty black and white, I would give them 20 years,no parole, general population.


39 posted on 01/07/2013 6:06:06 PM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: momtothree
Actually, a simple Internet search will tell you that flushing the drugs was the best option, absent a pharmacy/local buy back program.
So you did the right thing.

On topic, I know of elderly couples with serious health issues, combined with a family history of physical and mental abuse of each other.
(It happens in the best of families)
If any local adult children are lucky enough to have had the abuse “documented” by police calls, they don't have to take extraordinary measures at or near the end of life of their parents, to determine if the death was natural,suicide or murder.If the police were never called,sometimes the hospice people are warned of the potential problem, if they are lucky.

I won't go into details, but as an outsider looking on, I am aware of a future similar situation where the police are going to need to recover the drugs remaining, and by autopsy levels measure the amount of drugs in the body, to finally determine if a death was due to natural causes, murder or suicide.
Yes, it sometimes does get exactly that ugly.

40 posted on 01/07/2013 6:11:22 PM PST by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok
Please see my post #40.

Just because someone is 80 years old, doesn't mean they are automatically above suspicion at any death scene, family or not.Probably especially not family.

Your #1-#7 is immediately invalidated because it is just your own ignorant opinion of a single “report”, unrelated to any actual factual knowledge regarding this particular case.
In a real black and white world, you would be instantly indicted for falsely attempting to portray your opinions as facts.

Please tell me you are a registered Democrat voter!

41 posted on 01/07/2013 6:30:44 PM PST by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: momtothree

Every year, there is a drug take-back day in October. We gathered up all of our narcotics and some expired drugs and took them to the local police department. The officer on duty assured us they would all be destroyed.

I don’t like throwing drugs into the toilet, because there is a pollution problem with pharmaceuticals (even with water treatment). They can be detected in waterways at levels that may be hazardous to fish health, and with bioaccumulation, to the health of anything that consumes those fish. As much as possible, I want the drugs destroyed so they don’t harm wildlife. Also, so addicts don’t get them.


42 posted on 01/07/2013 9:39:52 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

“No. The constitution is the rules for the Federal Government. Not the states.”

Amendment XIV (1868) Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


43 posted on 01/08/2013 12:14:57 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dsc

I see that my reply was far from timely.

Sorry. I been sick.


44 posted on 01/08/2013 12:25:42 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom

Just because someone is 80 years old, doesn’t mean they are automatically above suspicion at any death scene, family or not.Probably especially not family.

You might consider actually reading the article in question before making assumptions, she DIED OF NATURAL CAUSES, with Nurses at her side, there is NO SUSPICION INVOLVED. Now please tell us all what “right” the thugs had in forcing their way into this mans home at gunpoint?? We also learned in the OJ trial in Vegas that by definition they are also Guilty of FELONY KIDNAPPING. Unless the thugs can demonstrate “Reasonable Suspicion” or a “warrant” issued beforehand with “sworn statements” demonstrating “probable cause” they are as guilty as SIN. You also might want to check the inside label on floorsheim shoe polish, it states rather clearly that LICKING SHOE POLISH CAUSES MORAL BANKRUPTCY AND BRAIN DAMAGE.


45 posted on 01/08/2013 8:13:48 AM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows
Fackrell said there's nothing in the controlled substances act that allows police to enter a home and search for prescription drugs without a warrant.

He's right:

Utah Controlled Substances Act - http://www.dopl.utah.gov/laws/58-37.pdf

46 posted on 01/08/2013 9:32:49 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Ignorance of the law is no excuse...unless you’re a cop.


47 posted on 01/08/2013 10:46:32 AM PST by Slings and Arrows (You can't have IngSoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok
YOU might consider attempting to increase your reading comprehension.
According to the linked report:
“Barbara Mahaffey died at 12:35 a.m. with Mahaffey, a Navy medic in the Korean War, and his friend, an EMT, at her side”

No “nurses” were present. The Hospice nurse arrived later, along with the cops.
Nowhere in the article does it say the cops forced “their way into this man’s home at gunpoint”.
That’s just one example of your hyperbolic twisting of the supposed known facts reported to date.

Stop doing that.

48 posted on 01/08/2013 4:23:40 PM PST by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom

It’s pretty simple, I don’t try to rationalize or make excuses for CRIMINAL ACTS it just is, but why do you insist on defending the morally bankrupt, ethically corrupt, Criminal Acts of the Police?? We know they ILLEGALLY searched his home, they admitted it, we Know they STOLE DRUGS from the House, they admitted it, we Know they DID NOT HAVE A WARRANT, they admitted it. there was No mention of Reasonable suspicion which even if there was, it is not enough to SEARCH A PRIVATE RESIDENCE in Every State of the Union, that requires a Judges Signature on a REAL SEARCH WARRANT. So I ask again Why do you blindly defend these criminal acts??


49 posted on 01/08/2013 7:02:40 PM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok
Keep ranting, eyeamok! /Sarcasm

We are all really very impressed by your persuasive ...stawman/stupid troll/useless idiot additions to this thread.

Really!

50 posted on 01/09/2013 6:18:33 PM PST by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

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