Posted on 11/06/2013 11:30:33 PM PST by Kegger
Doesn't matter. Eckert could have had a hundred convictions for transporting drugs in his anus. I still would want the cops fired and the docs' medical licenses suspended for what they did.
I have very little compassion for repeat offenders.
So your position is that someone who is convicted of anything, forever thereafter forfeits all civil rights and is subject to harassment (up to and including torture) at the whim of any police officer he encounters?
Anything? Not just anything and not just once. I have very little compassion for criminal repeat offenders. I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.
These people in government are professionals at attempting to discredit people to rationalize their behavior...
They lie as a matter of routine and use the corrupt MSM as a vehicle to discredit their targets.
They do this on a daily basis.
In that world, pray you never encounter a cop with a chip on his shoulder towards you, whether it's from his deciding you were insufficiently respectful, or he just doesn't like your race, or you owe his brother money.
I believe the cops were required to get a warrant from a county judge, weren't they?
Read the documents at the linked article. Although the judge authorized an "anal cavity search", a jury will likely find that the scope of what the cops did went far beyond what was authorized.
I have. That's why I posed the question to you. It seemed like you had not.
a jury will likely find that the scope of what the cops did went far beyond what was authorized
I wouldn't be so sure.
From the story you cite:
“Eckert’s attorney, Shannon Kennedy, told TheBlaze allegations that her client has previously been caught with drugs in his anal cavity are “completely baseless” and “false.”
“There’s no record, there’s no evidence,” she added. “We did a public records request and investigated that claim thoroughly and found nothing.””
So either public records exist or they don’t. I don’t care one way or the other. Citizens protected by the 4th Amendment cannot be treated the way he was. Police lacked probable cause. If they MANUFACTURED probable cause (counter indicated by the 4th Amendment) because of previous suspiciouns the Police should go to jail.
Would you expect the attorney to state differently? She could be in for a big payday.
Man Seeks Millions After N.M. Police Force Colonoscopy in Drug Search U.S. News & World Report - by Steven Nelson - 2 days ago
Albuquerque civil rights attorney Shannon Kennedy is representing Eckert and says she is seeking "in excess of $1 million in punitive damages ...
It might just be that "probable cause" is at the center of this. The reason they secured a warrant to search the guy's car and person was that the police dog had indicated there were drugs. If the dog is wrong too often (like, wrong more than half the time), then the cops can no longer declare "probable" (ie, more likely than not) cause for searches using that dog any more.
It's possible the cops could not afford to be wrong one more time.
Oh don’t worry, you won’t get pitty from me and a lot of others. You’ll get a lot of laughter when it’s your turn to be on the business end of your beloved police state. It’s only fitting for a horrible person like you.
It is either a fact, or not a fact. It cannot be both.
K-9 Teams are called in to manufacture probable cause all the time. They do this under the thin veneer of certification.
This dog was not current.
I'm not. How long were you incarcerated?
You know what the attorney is stating is factual? How?
“You know what the attorney is stating is factual? How?”
That’s not what I said.
It’s really simple. A fact is a fact. The assertion is either true or it is not true.
It is immaterial in any case. The 4th Amendment does not get thrown away either way. It is instructive that the probable cause narrative just falls apart once it sees the light of day outside of the usual venue of cops, court rooms and officialdom. It is instructive in that these flimsy narratives are routinely constructed and used by cops and courts and we don’t often get to see them. In this case we did get to see the flimsy probable cause narrative and it just doesn’t stand the smell test. However the very flimsy nature of the presented probable cause narrative tells us that courts cops and officialdom has become lazy, arrogant in the application of probable cause. In this case we get to see it for what it is.
But to reiterate, whether or not a history of “anal bundling” exist, it in no way strengthens the very fragile probable cause narrative presented by these officers.
Of course. So tell me, Carnac, how do you already know what is a fact and what is true when there hasn't been a trial.
Gee, if you had bothered to read my post I said it is immaterial whether or not the P.D.’s assertion of him using an anal purse is true or not.
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.