Your Peepee Please...
JBT Ping list
Posted on 05/27/2014 10:54:59 AM PDT by Ken H
Cops use catheter in invasive procedure against Indiana motorist whose blood alcohol level was below the legal limit.
A motorist whose blood alcohol level was below the legal limit earlier this month filed a $11 million federal lawsuit against Schererville, Indiana for allowing its police force to use a catheter to forcibly obtain a urine sample from him two years ago. On May 20, 2012, William D. Clark and Alyssa Madson were driving through Schererville on US 30. At around 11pm, Officer Matthew Djukic hit the lights on his squad car and pulled Clark for allegedly speeding.
Smelling alcohol, Officer Djukic put Clark through field sobriety tests and had him blow into a portable breathalyzer device. A drug sniffing dog was called in to search inside the vehicle, though Clark gave no consent. Officer Djukic claimed Clark blew a 0.11 on the preliminary breath screener, but no evidence was provided when Clark's attorney, Patrick B. McEuen, filed a discovery request for records last year. Clark insists the claim was fabricated.
"Plaintiff asserts that no proof exists that his portable breathalyzer test was .11, and that such proof, if in fact it did ever exist, would preclude any need for further searches and seizures of plaintiff's person and bodily fluids, including his urine and blood," McEuen wrote in papers filed with the US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
After being detained for about 45 minutes, Clark was taken to St. Margaret Mercy Hospital where he voluntarily provided a blood sample that produced a 0.07 blood alcohol content reading, just under the 0.08 legal limit. Officer Djukic was unsatisfied with this result and demanded Clark provide a "voluntary" urine sample.
After drinking a cup of water, Clark was unable to perform on demand while being watched. He asked for a second glass of water, but Officer Djukic refused to wait and ordered Clark to be physically restrained in a bed while a nurse stripped Clark and used a catheter to forcibly extract fluid from his bladder.
"These actions were painful, degrading and humiliating, done against plaintiff's will, and without a proper warrant, irrespective of any alleged probable cause," McEuen wrote.
Clark was then taken in handcuffs and booked for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Clark argues the warrantless searches were violations of his constitutional rights, and he wants a jury of his peers to decide whether the painful fluid extraction was unreasonable.
"The acts of the above captioned defendants... were intentional, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thus entitling plaintiff to punitive damages," McEuen wrote.
Yes. It’s a legal fiction, of course. 75 years of big statist judges has taken its toll.
It sounds like physical force - shoving the catheter in against his will and perhaps holding him down to do it. I'd like to hear if the thugs really did that.
JBT Ping list
But...but...but...that and the “no refusal” initiative in Texas means keeping us SAFE.
From our own DNA.
</sarc>
APD: 58 No-Refusal Arrests So Far
http://austin.twcnews.com/content/ne...arrests-so-far
Austin police arrested 30 people for drunken driving Saturday as part of their no-refusal initiative for Memorial Day weekend, bringing the total number of no-refusal arrests so far to 58.
No-refusal means police can instantly get a warrant for a blood draw for any drivers or boaters who refuse a breathalyzer test. Of the 30 people arrested Saturday, 10 provided breath tests and 20 had their blood drawn.
The no-refusal initiative kicked off Friday night and runs through 5 a.m. Tuesday in Central Texas.
Local law enforcement officials are reminding people to plan ahead and set up a safe ride home before they start drinking.
Killing the economy softly, with their song, killing it softly...
I refuse to drink at restaurants or bars now.
Why pay the Stupid! tax?
I should start writing letters to local restaurant owners, telling them of my fortitude in this, and wondering when their other less bright patrons are going to wise up.
Don't worry - the profit margin on a plate of fries will keep your food emporium open, business schmuck!
As long as the cop made it home safely...right?!
Isn’t that what we hear from the LEO bootlickers even here on FR?
Along withe jack booted thug cop and his town, I’d be suing that hospital along all of the involved staff there into oblivion!! I would go after all of the above individuals PERSONALLY, not stopping with the entities they work for.
You say that in jest (and I also like the part about the "sacrificial dog") but therein lies the problem. I am convinced that these LEOs are selected for their jobs because they have a high degree of aggression in their personalities. That would explain why their actions are as they are. I loath all of them. They are not the LEOs that I grew up with.
Could not have said it better.
I too think the LEO problem originates with local gubmit that encourages and looks the other way to LEO aggressively push ticketing, for the easy revenue, along with all the Mil toys the WhiteyHut gives them, which together sets the tone.
Some day Law Enforcement is going to need the citizens support whom they have sorely abused, against the real bad guys, and find deaf ears and little sympathy.
Problem is LEO We are all hung up thinking Law Enforcement is what we need? That is not the in fact the case. We need Peace Officers not Law Enforcement Officers. What is the Difference? Watch the Andy Griffith show! Barney Fife is a LEO and Andy is a Peace officer! We need a total overhaul of our “Justice” system! From the bottom to the top!
We need both. Even Andy would have a time dealing with the scum that inhabits our cities and which the liberals have empowered.
One trouble is the LEO bullies seem to be afraid to kick some butt with the scum, which might not be a one sided fight and prefer to take the safer route of jumping regular citizens, who likely won’t fight back.
I think the movie Escape from New York was visionary in that eventually large cities will only have the scum and anyone with half a brain will not live there (works now for me!).
This looks like it could be an important Fourth Amendment civil liberties case, and hopefully the power of police to administer urine tests under these circumstances will be curtailed by some decent judicial ruling.
There have been some far out happenings lately according to some of these sources. If true, as you say, they win in a walk. UNBELIEVABLE license.
From the article:
Clark was taken to St. Margaret Mercy Hospital where he voluntarily provided a blood sample that produced a 0.07 blood alcohol content reading, just under the 0.08 legal limit.
Officer Djukic was unsatisfied with this result and demanded Clark provide a "voluntary" urine sample.
What part of trained, experienced professionals did I miss ?
...or did I miss your sarcasm tag?
Not sure if sarcasm.
Officer Djukic was unsatisfied with this result and demanded Clark provide a "voluntary" urine sample. Clark was taken to St. Margaret Mercy Hospital.
Since there is no quantitative urine test for alcohol, this seems to indicate that, at that point, the police were switching their attention from getting the motorist on DWI to getting him on illegal drug usage or driving under the influence of an illegal drug.
A blood sample is more definitive, IMHO. This LEO was frustrated because he lost one..
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.
