Cops cavity-search women stopped for littering

Checkmite · 19th December 2012, 11:20 AM

According to the Dallas Morning News, these women (a driver and her passenger) were stopped when an officer spotted them throwing some trash out of their car - which is perfectly okay in my book. However,

Quote:

They claim that a female trooper, Kelley Helleson, used her fingers to search their anuses and vaginas — using the same latex glove — while on the side of the road in full view of passing vehicles.

They said David Farrell, a state trooper, had called Helleson to the scene after stopping the women’s vehicle and questioning them about marijuana. Farrell told them he stopped them after seeing them throw cigarette butts out of the window, according to the lawsuit.

He asked for the search because he said the women were “acting weird,” the suit said.

Farrell searched their vehicle for marijuana but didn’t find any, they said. He then tried to “morph this situation into a DWI investigation,” the lawsuit said. Angel Dobbs passed a roadside sobriety test and the women were given warnings for littering, the suit said.

OK; now, we're talking about on the side of the open road - while cars go by - illuminated by the police car's spotlights - a state trooper gave the two women a cavity search, evidently using the same glove to search all the orifices.

Frankly it sounds more like the beginning of a cheesy porn flick and it's difficult to believe anything like this really happened. But, sure enough there's dashcam footage of the entire incident.

lionking · 19th December 2012, 11:25 AM

Are police in Dallas actually trained? I can't see any sort of spin which will excuse this.

Mister Earl · 19th December 2012, 11:28 AM

Ok... what... the... frack? I can't wait to hear the trooper's rationale behind this one.

Hellbound · 19th December 2012, 11:32 AM

Assuming it happened as claimed. I myself find it hard to believe this would be done by any trooper with functional brain cells, which leads me to suspect there may be more to the story. I have no idea what more there could be, but I am curious to see all the evidence. As I understand it, right now we have what the women stopped claim happened, and nothing else.

That being said, if this is an accurate (or even mostly accurate) account of what happened, I hope the troopers involved are fired, and possibly charged. I can't see how those actions wouldn't be consdiered criminal.

Dr. Keith · 19th December 2012, 11:35 AM

I saw a bit of this on the morning news and there is dashcam video of the searches. I only saw a bit of it and I'm not positive that it will show what is claimed, but at least we know there is some evidence.

Obviously, the dashcam will do little to clear up where the cops hand goes once it is down the persons pants, but isn't that reason to not search in this manner?

joesixpack · 19th December 2012, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Are police in Dallas actually trained? I can't see any sort of spin which will excuse this.

Police in the US have some difficulty with boundaries. I can tell you that, growing up in Dallas, there were some pretty horrific examples of police brutality that made the news. I imagine there was a lot more examples that never saw the light of day, were buried by the press, or buried by the coroner. Living in LA county later, I saw lots of examples of police misconduct in the news there (you may recall a guy by the name of Rodney King). Portland Oregon has a pretty ****** up police force as well.

So really, in every city I've ever lived in for any length of time I saw examples of police behaving in the most unprofessional, thuggish and violent manner, more worthy of a criminal gang than a law enforcement organization.

Beerina · 19th December 2012, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

According to the Dallas Morning News, these women (a driver and her passenger) were stopped when an officer spotted them throwing some trash out of their car - which is perfectly okay in my book. However,

OK; now, we're talking about on the side of the open road - while cars go by - illuminated by the police car's spotlights - a state trooper gave the two women a cavity search, evidently using the same glove to search all the orifices.

Frankly it sounds more like the beginning of a cheesy porn flick and it's difficult to believe anything like this really happened. But, sure enough there's dashcam footage of the entire incident.

Joking aside, is his even the kind of thing they'd do outside a private room in a station?

Checkmite · 19th December 2012, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Joking aside, is his even the kind of thing they'd do outside a private room in a station?

I suspect not, which is part of the reason it has me so confused.

The dashcam video (you can watch the entire thing at the link) clearly shows the officer working her hand down the back of each woman's pants, then turning the subjects around and working her hand down the front of each woman's pants, while wearing a rubber glove. I'm familiar with frisk searches through the outside of one's clothing; but I can't imagine a non-invasive procedural reason for an officer to be sticking his/her hand down someone's pants. I realize that some are saying "we just have the womens' word" that the officer searches their orifices - but someone, please explain to me what the legitimate, non-cavity-search alternative is - tell me what this officer was doing if not what these women described?

Polaris · 19th December 2012, 12:07 PM

This turns me on.

Dancing David · 19th December 2012, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I suspect not, which is part of the reason it has me so confused.

The dashcam video (you can watch the entire thing at the link) clearly shows the officer working her hand down the back of each woman's pants, then turning the subjects around and working her hand down the front of each woman's pants, while wearing a rubber glove. I'm familiar with frisk searches through the outside of one's clothing; but I can't imagine a non-invasive procedural reason for an officer to be sticking his/her hand down someone's pants. I realize that some are saying "we just have the womens' word" that the officer searches their orifices - but someone, please explain to me what the legitimate, non-cavity-search alternative is - tell me what this officer was doing if not what these women described?

That is not a cavity search in the usual sense of the word. No, remove your pants, drop, squat and cough.

Now putting her hands in the britches of the suspects in not SOP at all, and quite invasive. If she handled the anus and genitals of the suspects, I would assume that is a major law suit about to be won and the termination of some careers.

Denver · 19th December 2012, 12:43 PM

Sure looks suspicious, but we also don't have all the audio and video. I suppose if the women said something (even sarcastically) like "Oh right, sure, I'm hiding a gun in my underwear" or something, it might warrant that kind of action though.

carlitos · 19th December 2012, 12:58 PM

I watched the video. That wasn't a cavity search.

shuttlt · 19th December 2012, 01:32 PM

If that was a cavity search, then I wonder if that cop has a sideline in closeup magic, or something. Those are some fast fingers.

Beerina · 19th December 2012, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If that was a cavity search, then I wonder if that cop has a sideline in closeup magic, or something. Those are some fast fingers.

It's just as well. When a female cop cavity searches another woman, it's better to have two cameras, with one in front to catch the perp's facial expressions.

That's the way every video I've ever seen does it.

Stankeye · 19th December 2012, 01:56 PM

Is this considered second or third base?

shuttlt · 19th December 2012, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

It's just as well. When a female cop cavity searches another woman, it's better to have two cameras, with one in front to catch the perp's facial expressions.

That's the way every video I've ever seen does it.

If that cop is as good as she looks you'd need a camera down below as well. One of those double frame rate ones Peter Jackson uses, otherwise she could have given her a bikini wax between frames.

commandlinegamer · 19th December 2012, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

That is not a cavity search in the usual sense of the word. No, remove your pants, drop, squat and cough.

Obligatory:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

CORed · 19th December 2012, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Hellbound

Assuming it happened as claimed. I myself find it hard to believe this would be done by any trooper with functional brain cells, which leads me to suspect there may be more to the story. I have no idea what more there could be, but I am curious to see all the evidence. As I understand it, right now we have what the women stopped claim happened, and nothing else.

That being said, if this is an accurate (or even mostly accurate) account of what happened, I hope the troopers involved are fired, and possibly charged. I can't see how those actions wouldn't be consdiered criminal.

The video form the dash-cam is pretty damning. While I can't rule out the possibility that there is more here than meets the eye, if I take that video at face value, the only reason for the invasive search was the first trooper's observation that he smelled marijuana in the car. Even if this is "probable cause" for an invasive body search (a mind-boggling idea in and of itself), to do this on the side of the road is simply inexcusable. Maybe there's more to the story, but I have a hard time imagining what there could be that would justify that. I hate to see the taxpayers of Dallas get stuck with the bill, but I think these women are in line for some serious money.

Babbylonian · 19th December 2012, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by CORed

The video form the dash-cam is pretty damning. While I can't rule out the possibility that there is more here than meets the eye, if I take that video at face value, the only reason for the invasive search was the first trooper's observation that he smelled marijuana in the car. Even if this is "probable cause" for an invasive body search (a mind-boggling idea in and of itself), to do this on the side of the road is simply inexcusable. Maybe there's more to the story, but I have a hard time imagining what there could be that would justify that. I hate to see the taxpayers of Dallas get stuck with the bill, but I think these women are in line for some serious money.

Yup. There's a reason the "pat down" exists and it's because society tends to frown upon both undressing in public and police officers shoving their hands down citizens' pants, unless there's something dangerous reasonably believed to be in there. While I acknowledge the power of the vagina, I don't consider it per se dangerous.

No, it's not truly a cavity search but it's gross, demeaning, and potentially traumatizing. I don't think the words "sexual assault" are out of line.

CORed · 19th December 2012, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Yup. There's a reason the "pat down" exists and it's because society tends to frown upon both undressing in public and police officers shoving their hands down citizens' pants, unless there's something dangerous reasonably believed to be in there. While I acknowledge the power of the vagina, I don't consider it per se dangerous.

No, it's not truly a cavity search but it's gross, demeaning, and potentially traumatizing. I don't think the words "sexual assault" are out of line.

It appears to be a case of the "War on Drugs" gone wild. Seriously, do we really need to allow police officers to violate people this way, just so they can't get away with hiding a few grams of marijuana?

lionking · 19th December 2012, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by CORed

It appears to be a case of the "War on Drugs" gone wild. Seriously, do we really need to allow police officers to violate people this way, just so they can't get away with hiding a few grams of marijuana?

If the police acted in the way alleged in Australia I believe they would be charged with sexual assault.

Beanbag · 19th December 2012, 03:04 PM

The phrase used in Dallas (and Houston) by the police in the 70's was "You might beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

Beanbag

Skeptic Ginger · 19th December 2012, 04:56 PM

Kind of hard to tell if the cop was merely searching the crotch or the body cavity. The second search seemed to take longer.

It doesn't show the cop changing gloves between women. That alone is an infectious disease hazard. You could spread herpes from one person to the other. And definitely searching the anal area then the vaginal area could easily cause a bladder infection hazard.

I didn't see any oral cavity search.

I think the cop claiming the women were acting weird and he smelled pot to be very specious. And having not found any pot suggests it's doubtful he actually really smelled any.

I think the cop was unprofessional. He should have ticketed them for littering and left it at that. Seemed like he wanted to find something and wasted everyone's time looking.

Skeptic Ginger · 19th December 2012, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

If the police acted in the way alleged in Australia I believe they would be charged with sexual assault.

Why? Can't a female cop search a female suspect?

I did think snapping the bra was a little tacky.

Skeptic Ginger · 19th December 2012, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by CORed

It appears to be a case of the "War on Drugs" gone wild. Seriously, do we really need to allow police officers to violate people this way, just so they can't get away with hiding a few grams of marijuana?

I agree with you here. I thought the cops could pat people down at the scene to find weapons and really needed more to go on than they're acting funny or I think I smell something to do an on scene cavity search. I wonder what the dept policy is on that?

Babbylonian · 19th December 2012, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I think the cop was unprofessional. He should have ticketed them for littering and left it at that. Seemed like he wanted to find something and wasted everyone's time looking.

Probably having a bad day or one/both of the women got smart mouthed with him/them, so, boom, let's show them the power of being a cop. Exactly the sort of officer who should be flushed with no pension or benefits; better to do it now before someone ends up in a hospital or grave.

Skeptic Ginger · 19th December 2012, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

I watched the video. That wasn't a cavity search.

Didn't seem like it with the first woman especially. The second woman it was harder to say where the cop actually stuck her fingers.

Checkmite · 19th December 2012, 05:14 PM

Whether it was a technically-correct "cavity search" in the definite procedural sense of the word, it was an invasive assault and out of line.

RedRatSnake · 19th December 2012, 05:28 PM

I do not think any cop should have the authority to do that . . . . . keep giving them the ok and our rights keep going away.

Ferguson · 19th December 2012, 05:58 PM

The officers involved need harsh disciplining. This is absolutely not ok.
And the only actual "crime" being investigated was a cigarette butt being thrown out the window?
Except for the unprovable but frequently levied claim of a "smell of marijuana."

lionking · 19th December 2012, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Why? Can't a female cop search a female suspect?

Not in those circumstances they can't, and certainly not over such a trivial offence as possessing grass.

Skeptic Ginger · 19th December 2012, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

Not in those circumstances they can't, and certainly not over such a trivial offence as possessing grass.

Well on that point, I totally agree with you.

sgtbaker · 19th December 2012, 06:10 PM

That is way too much authority. Search the car, if there is no evidence, let them go. There is no way an officer should be allowed to perform a search like that unless the suspect is under arrests.

joesixpack · 19th December 2012, 07:42 PM

According to the updated link, the female trooper has now been suspended.

triforcharity · 19th December 2012, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

If the police acted in the way alleged in Australia I believe they would be charged with sexual assault.

If the DA finds credible evidence of the claim by the women, the officer will most certainly be brought up on charges.

This whole situation is ****** up. To do that, especially on the side of the road, is absurd.

Morrigan · 19th December 2012, 08:16 PM

Wow...

Hellbound · 20th December 2012, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by CORed

The video form the dash-cam is pretty damning. While I can't rule out the possibility that there is more here than meets the eye, if I take that video at face value, the only reason for the invasive search was the first trooper's observation that he smelled marijuana in the car. Even if this is "probable cause" for an invasive body search (a mind-boggling idea in and of itself), to do this on the side of the road is simply inexcusable. Maybe there's more to the story, but I have a hard time imagining what there could be that would justify that. I hate to see the taxpayers of Dallas get stuck with the bill, but I think these women are in line for some serious money.

Yeah, I missed that there was dash cam footage before.

While this most likely was not a cavity search, still definately inappropriate and an abuse of position.

The ONLY way I could think this would be even remotely tolerable is if the women had made specific comments about having drugs in their pants (or if there was strong evidence they were, at the time, carrying drugs...and no, "I thought I smelled pot" isn't strong evidence). Even then, on the side of the road is not the right place for this kind of search.

Halfcentaur · 20th December 2012, 06:57 AM

This is what it takes apparently, can't have a people just choosing to use a gate way drug. Don't mess with Texas.

mikeyx · 20th December 2012, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Polaris

This turns me on.

Your state really does suck.

Sledge · 20th December 2012, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Ferguson

The officers involved need harsh disciplining.

Yes, especially the female trooper. Very harsh disciplining. In public.

19th December 2012, 11:20 AM	#1
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,879	Cops cavity-search women stopped for littering According to the Dallas Morning News, these women (a driver and her passenger) were stopped when an officer spotted them throwing some trash out of their car - which is perfectly okay in my book. However, Quote: They claim that a female trooper, Kelley Helleson, used her fingers to search their anuses and vaginas — using the same latex glove — while on the side of the road in full view of passing vehicles. They said David Farrell, a state trooper, had called Helleson to the scene after stopping the women’s vehicle and questioning them about marijuana. Farrell told them he stopped them after seeing them throw cigarette butts out of the window, according to the lawsuit. He asked for the search because he said the women were “acting weird,” the suit said. Farrell searched their vehicle for marijuana but didn’t find any, they said. He then tried to “morph this situation into a DWI investigation,” the lawsuit said. Angel Dobbs passed a roadside sobriety test and the women were given warnings for littering, the suit said. OK; now, we're talking about on the side of the open road - while cars go by - illuminated by the police car's spotlights - a state trooper gave the two women a cavity search, evidently using the same glove to search all the orifices. Frankly it sounds more like the beginning of a cheesy porn flick and it's difficult to believe anything like this really happened. But, sure enough there's dashcam footage of the entire incident.

19th December 2012, 11:25 AM	#2
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,650	Are police in Dallas actually trained? I can't see any sort of spin which will excuse this.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

19th December 2012, 11:35 AM	#5
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 3,224	I saw a bit of this on the morning news and there is dashcam video of the searches. I only saw a bit of it and I'm not positive that it will show what is claimed, but at least we know there is some evidence. Obviously, the dashcam will do little to clear up where the cops hand goes once it is down the persons pants, but isn't that reason to not search in this manner?
	__________________ shift key currently inoperative. sorry for the inconvenience. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Jonah Baldwin: Talk to her, dad. She's a doctor. Sam Baldwin: Of what? Her first name could be Doctor. - Sleepless in Seattle

19th December 2012, 11:39 AM	#6
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,388	Originally Posted by lionking Are police in Dallas actually trained? I can't see any sort of spin which will excuse this. Police in the US have some difficulty with boundaries. I can tell you that, growing up in Dallas, there were some pretty horrific examples of police brutality that made the news. I imagine there was a lot more examples that never saw the light of day, were buried by the press, or buried by the coroner. Living in LA county later, I saw lots of examples of police misconduct in the news there (you may recall a guy by the name of Rodney King). Portland Oregon has a pretty ****** up police force as well. So really, in every city I've ever lived in for any length of time I saw examples of police behaving in the most unprofessional, thuggish and violent manner, more worthy of a criminal gang than a law enforcement organization.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

19th December 2012, 11:45 AM	#7
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by Checkmite According to the Dallas Morning News, these women (a driver and her passenger) were stopped when an officer spotted them throwing some trash out of their car - which is perfectly okay in my book. However, OK; now, we're talking about on the side of the open road - while cars go by - illuminated by the police car's spotlights - a state trooper gave the two women a cavity search, evidently using the same glove to search all the orifices. Frankly it sounds more like the beginning of a cheesy porn flick and it's difficult to believe anything like this really happened. But, sure enough there's dashcam footage of the entire incident. Joking aside, is his even the kind of thing they'd do outside a private room in a station?
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

19th December 2012, 11:28 AM	#3
Mister Earl Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,118	Ok... what... the... frack? I can't wait to hear the trooper's rationale behind this one.

19th December 2012, 11:32 AM	#4
Hellbound Abiogenic Spongiform Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In a handbasket Posts: 8,911	Assuming it happened as claimed. I myself find it hard to believe this would be done by any trooper with functional brain cells, which leads me to suspect there may be more to the story. I have no idea what more there could be, but I am curious to see all the evidence. As I understand it, right now we have what the women stopped claim happened, and nothing else. That being said, if this is an accurate (or even mostly accurate) account of what happened, I hope the troopers involved are fired, and possibly charged. I can't see how those actions wouldn't be consdiered criminal.

19th December 2012, 12:03 PM	#8
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,879	Originally Posted by Beerina Joking aside, is his even the kind of thing they'd do outside a private room in a station? I suspect not, which is part of the reason it has me so confused. The dashcam video (you can watch the entire thing at the link) clearly shows the officer working her hand down the back of each woman's pants, then turning the subjects around and working her hand down the front of each woman's pants, while wearing a rubber glove. I'm familiar with frisk searches through the outside of one's clothing; but I can't imagine a non-invasive procedural reason for an officer to be sticking his/her hand down someone's pants. I realize that some are saying "we just have the womens' word" that the officer searches their orifices - but someone, please explain to me what the legitimate, non-cavity-search alternative is - tell me what this officer was doing if not what these women described?

19th December 2012, 12:07 PM	#9
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,167	This turns me on.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,167	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro

19th December 2012, 12:38 PM	#10
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,702	Originally Posted by Checkmite I suspect not, which is part of the reason it has me so confused. The dashcam video (you can watch the entire thing at the link) clearly shows the officer working her hand down the back of each woman's pants, then turning the subjects around and working her hand down the front of each woman's pants, while wearing a rubber glove. I'm familiar with frisk searches through the outside of one's clothing; but I can't imagine a non-invasive procedural reason for an officer to be sticking his/her hand down someone's pants. I realize that some are saying "we just have the womens' word" that the officer searches their orifices - but someone, please explain to me what the legitimate, non-cavity-search alternative is - tell me what this officer was doing if not what these women described? That is not a cavity search in the usual sense of the word. No, remove your pants, drop, squat and cough. Now putting her hands in the britches of the suspects in not SOP at all, and quite invasive. If she handled the anus and genitals of the suspects, I would assume that is a major law suit about to be won and the termination of some careers.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Last edited by Dancing David; 19th December 2012 at 12:41 PM.

19th December 2012, 12:43 PM	#11
Denver Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 6,597	Sure looks suspicious, but we also don't have all the audio and video. I suppose if the women said something (even sarcastically) like "Oh right, sure, I'm hiding a gun in my underwear" or something, it might warrant that kind of action though.
	__________________ Dreams inevitably lead to hideous implosions -- Invader Zim

19th December 2012, 12:58 PM	#12
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,465	I watched the video. That wasn't a cavity search.

19th December 2012, 01:32 PM	#13
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927	If that was a cavity search, then I wonder if that cop has a sideline in closeup magic, or something. Those are some fast fingers.
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927

19th December 2012, 01:53 PM	#14
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by shuttlt If that was a cavity search, then I wonder if that cop has a sideline in closeup magic, or something. Those are some fast fingers. It's just as well. When a female cop cavity searches another woman, it's better to have two cameras, with one in front to catch the perp's facial expressions. That's the way every video I've ever seen does it.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? Last edited by Beerina; 19th December 2012 at 01:57 PM.

19th December 2012, 01:56 PM	#15
Stankeye Thinker Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: CA, USA Posts: 149	Is this considered second or third base?

19th December 2012, 02:02 PM	#16
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927	Originally Posted by Beerina It's just as well. When a female cop cavity searches another woman, it's better to have two cameras, with one in front to catch the perp's facial expressions. That's the way every video I've ever seen does it. If that cop is as good as she looks you'd need a camera down below as well. One of those double frame rate ones Peter Jackson uses, otherwise she could have given her a bikini wax between frames.
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927

19th December 2012, 02:15 PM	#18
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,281	Originally Posted by Hellbound Assuming it happened as claimed. I myself find it hard to believe this would be done by any trooper with functional brain cells, which leads me to suspect there may be more to the story. I have no idea what more there could be, but I am curious to see all the evidence. As I understand it, right now we have what the women stopped claim happened, and nothing else. That being said, if this is an accurate (or even mostly accurate) account of what happened, I hope the troopers involved are fired, and possibly charged. I can't see how those actions wouldn't be consdiered criminal. The video form the dash-cam is pretty damning. While I can't rule out the possibility that there is more here than meets the eye, if I take that video at face value, the only reason for the invasive search was the first trooper's observation that he smelled marijuana in the car. Even if this is "probable cause" for an invasive body search (a mind-boggling idea in and of itself), to do this on the side of the road is simply inexcusable. Maybe there's more to the story, but I have a hard time imagining what there could be that would justify that. I hate to see the taxpayers of Dallas get stuck with the bill, but I think these women are in line for some serious money.
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,281

19th December 2012, 02:44 PM	#19
Babbylonian Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Lake Oswego, OR Posts: 4,467	Originally Posted by CORed The video form the dash-cam is pretty damning. While I can't rule out the possibility that there is more here than meets the eye, if I take that video at face value, the only reason for the invasive search was the first trooper's observation that he smelled marijuana in the car. Even if this is "probable cause" for an invasive body search (a mind-boggling idea in and of itself), to do this on the side of the road is simply inexcusable. Maybe there's more to the story, but I have a hard time imagining what there could be that would justify that. I hate to see the taxpayers of Dallas get stuck with the bill, but I think these women are in line for some serious money. Yup. There's a reason the "pat down" exists and it's because society tends to frown upon both undressing in public and police officers shoving their hands down citizens' pants, unless there's something dangerous reasonably believed to be in there. While I acknowledge the power of the vagina, I don't consider it per se dangerous. No, it's not truly a cavity search but it's gross, demeaning, and potentially traumatizing. I don't think the words "sexual assault" are out of line.
	__________________ Where am I going to find a piece of metal? Here...in space...at this hour?

19th December 2012, 02:50 PM	#20
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,281	Originally Posted by Babbylonian Yup. There's a reason the "pat down" exists and it's because society tends to frown upon both undressing in public and police officers shoving their hands down citizens' pants, unless there's something dangerous reasonably believed to be in there. While I acknowledge the power of the vagina, I don't consider it per se dangerous. No, it's not truly a cavity search but it's gross, demeaning, and potentially traumatizing. I don't think the words "sexual assault" are out of line. It appears to be a case of the "War on Drugs" gone wild. Seriously, do we really need to allow police officers to violate people this way, just so they can't get away with hiding a few grams of marijuana?
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,281

19th December 2012, 03:00 PM	#21
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,650	Originally Posted by CORed It appears to be a case of the "War on Drugs" gone wild. Seriously, do we really need to allow police officers to violate people this way, just so they can't get away with hiding a few grams of marijuana? If the police acted in the way alleged in Australia I believe they would be charged with sexual assault.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

19th December 2012, 03:04 PM	#22
Beanbag Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Dallas/Fort Worth Posts: 2,709	The phrase used in Dallas (and Houston) by the police in the 70's was "You might beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." Beanbag
	__________________ Nothing divides an indivisible nation quite as well as religion. Know god, no peace. No god, know peace. If Jesus is the answer, it must be a real dumb question.

19th December 2012, 04:56 PM	#23
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,515	Kind of hard to tell if the cop was merely searching the crotch or the body cavity. The second search seemed to take longer. It doesn't show the cop changing gloves between women. That alone is an infectious disease hazard. You could spread herpes from one person to the other. And definitely searching the anal area then the vaginal area could easily cause a bladder infection hazard. I didn't see any oral cavity search. I think the cop claiming the women were acting weird and he smelled pot to be very specious. And having not found any pot suggests it's doubtful he actually really smelled any. I think the cop was unprofessional. He should have ticketed them for littering and left it at that. Seemed like he wanted to find something and wasted everyone's time looking.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

19th December 2012, 04:58 PM	#24
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,515	Originally Posted by lionking If the police acted in the way alleged in Australia I believe they would be charged with sexual assault. Why? Can't a female cop search a female suspect? I did think snapping the bra was a little tacky.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

19th December 2012, 05:00 PM	#25
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,515	Originally Posted by CORed It appears to be a case of the "War on Drugs" gone wild. Seriously, do we really need to allow police officers to violate people this way, just so they can't get away with hiding a few grams of marijuana? I agree with you here. I thought the cops could pat people down at the scene to find weapons and really needed more to go on than they're acting funny or I think I smell something to do an on scene cavity search. I wonder what the dept policy is on that?
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

19th December 2012, 05:01 PM	#26
Babbylonian Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Lake Oswego, OR Posts: 4,467	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I think the cop was unprofessional. He should have ticketed them for littering and left it at that. Seemed like he wanted to find something and wasted everyone's time looking. Probably having a bad day or one/both of the women got smart mouthed with him/them, so, boom, let's show them the power of being a cop. Exactly the sort of officer who should be flushed with no pension or benefits; better to do it now before someone ends up in a hospital or grave.
	__________________ Where am I going to find a piece of metal? Here...in space...at this hour?

19th December 2012, 05:02 PM	#27
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,515	Originally Posted by carlitos I watched the video. That wasn't a cavity search. Didn't seem like it with the first woman especially. The second woman it was harder to say where the cop actually stuck her fingers.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

19th December 2012, 05:14 PM	#28
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,879	Whether it was a technically-correct "cavity search" in the definite procedural sense of the word, it was an invasive assault and out of line.

19th December 2012, 05:28 PM	#29
RedRatSnake Slithering Through life Join Date: May 2008 Location: Southie, Massachusetts. Posts: 1,625	I do not think any cop should have the authority to do that . . . . . keep giving them the ok and our rights keep going away.

19th December 2012, 05:58 PM	#30
Ferguson Muse Join Date: May 2009 Location: Lansing, MI Posts: 830	The officers involved need harsh disciplining. This is absolutely not ok. And the only actual "crime" being investigated was a cigarette butt being thrown out the window? Except for the unprovable but frequently levied claim of a "smell of marijuana."

19th December 2012, 06:02 PM	#31
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,650	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Why? Can't a female cop search a female suspect? Not in those circumstances they can't, and certainly not over such a trivial offence as possessing grass.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

19th December 2012, 06:08 PM	#32
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,515	Originally Posted by lionking Not in those circumstances they can't, and certainly not over such a trivial offence as possessing grass. Well on that point, I totally agree with you.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

19th December 2012, 06:10 PM	#33
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,546	That is way too much authority. Search the car, if there is no evidence, let them go. There is no way an officer should be allowed to perform a search like that unless the suspect is under arrests.
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,546

19th December 2012, 07:42 PM	#34
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,388	According to the updated link, the female trooper has now been suspended.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

19th December 2012, 08:13 PM	#35
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,119	Originally Posted by lionking If the police acted in the way alleged in Australia I believe they would be charged with sexual assault. If the DA finds credible evidence of the claim by the women, the officer will most certainly be brought up on charges. This whole situation is ****** up. To do that, especially on the side of the road, is absurd.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

19th December 2012, 08:16 PM	#36
Morrigan Crone of War Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,868	Wow...
Morrigan Crone of War Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,868	__________________ curi0us: "Many kids grow up in environments where if the worse thing they had to deal with was a pervy gym teacher wanting to **** them they would considere themselves to be privileged and living the good life."