Skip to comments.Woman sues Milwaukee police, alleges body cavity search in public
Posted on 05/03/2014 6:09:21 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A Milwaukee woman filed a federal civil rights lawsuit Friday, contending that Milwaukee police officers illegally subjected her to a public vaginal and rectal search.
Verleshia Ellis, 31, joins about three dozen other plaintiffs who say officers were acting according to an unwritten policy of the department in conducting illegal body cavity searches. Some officers have been convicted of crimes and fired.
The latest lawsuit also contends that the practice deliberately targeted minorities for the illegal searches, and "has never been applied, upon information and belief, to any white female resident of the City of Milwaukee with respect to any asserted vehicle parking violation."
Milwaukee police Lt. Mark Stanmeyer said the department never comments on pending litigation.
According to the suit, filed in U.S. District Court:
Ellis was in a car parked in the 3100 block of N. 11th St. on Sept. 21, 2011, when several officers converged and ordered her out of the car because it was parked more than 12 inches from the curb. She was patted down, and then detained while a warrant check was run. No contraband or warrants were found.
She was then handcuffed and made to sit on the curb while officers questioned her about drugs. She denied having any. Sgt. Michael Karwoski then radioed for a "female search."
Ellis sat for more than an hour before a female officer arrived to conduct a strip-search.
"No warrant was ever requested by any defendant and no legal basis existed for plaintiff's continued detention and de facto arrest in handcuffs on a public curb," the complaint states.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
If those are the facts, fire and jail them all.
Is a cavity search ever legal without an arrest and charges?
Sad state of affairs.
That’ll teach her to park more than 12” from the curb. /s
So, could it be that maybe the officers were simply responding to a person with a unique name?
That may be the case, but does it matter? If the the acts did occur as stated in the complaint, then the only issue should be how many zeros go behind the first digit in the award to the complainant.
That the officers chose to search her in public, though, that's just wrong.
The short answer is yes, under certain circumstances.
“Some officers have been convicted of crimes and fired.”
Did you read that part?
I find that the answer depends on if you have exercised 2A rights or not.
Where I used to work, we were always told, only a doctor could do a body cavity search, no one else.
Yeah, you don't have to worry about cavity searches if you parallel park correctly.
Just be sure to remember to turn the wheels in when you park on a hill!
Yes, I did read that part.
I was answering a question that pertained to the legality of handcuffing someone being detained as opposed to being arrested.
"That part" refers to officers being convicted and fired for illegally strip-searching people, not for simply placing them in handcuffs prior to an arrest.
So she wasn't in jail? 42 months from Sept 2009 means she couldn't be in her car in 2011. Must be new math.
Who writes this stuff?
If convicted of a crime, they should be in jail!
The firing will then happen automatically.
The Police: Join for the dog shooting, stay for the sexual assault.
Funny. The words ‘arrested’ and ‘jail’ did not appear in the report.
For a change, the word ‘fired’ did. Some progress, but still a long way to go. These people should lose their property and freedom - but of course the taxpayers will be punished instead.