Posted on 11/06/2013 5:03:10 PM PST by mandaladon
A man in New Mexico was pulled over by police for a minor traffic violation. When officers said a K-9 unit sniffed drugs on the driver’s seat, the officers forced the man to undergo invasive medical procedures, including an anal exam.
It may sound nearly identical to David Eckert’s nightmarish story as reported by TheBlaze Tuesday, but this is an entirely different incident.
It does, however, involve the same uncertified drug-sniffing dog in New Mexico. The dog’s name is Leo.
Police in Lordsburg, N.M., pulled over Timothy Young for allegedly turning without using his blinker, according to police reports. Though it is unclear why, the officers with the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Department suspected the driver of possessing drugs, KOB-TV reported.
The incident occurred Oct. 13, 2012, according to the timestamp on the police car’s dashcam video. Just like in Eckert’s case, Leo the K-9 alerted officers to possible drugs on Young’s seat, the report said.
Armed with what police said was probable cause and a search warrant, officers took Young to the Gila Medical Center in Silver City, N.M. The name of the hospital may sound familiar because it’s the exact same hospital Eckert was taken for the invasive hunt for drugs in his body that lasted more than 12 hours.
Young was then reportedly subjected to X-rays and an anal exam. They found no drugs.
Young, just like Eckert, says he did not consent to any of the procedures, which were performed in a county not covered by the search warrant obtained by police.
The similarities between the two cases go on and on. Now, KOB-TV is reporting that Leo the K-9 “seems to get it wrong pretty often.” As it turns out, the K-9 is not even currently certified in the state of New Mexico.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Fair enough, but here’s the thing: the real issue here isn’t so much the Whren stop, it’s really more a matter of the nature of the search itself.
On the face of it, as presented by the plaintiff, it’s outlandish. Yeah, sure, people keester all sorts of things, and they also swallow dope, but dragging the guy all over the county and the extraordinary thoroughness of the search just seems excessive.
That said, the people of Luna county don’t have to wait for the federales to swoop in and protect their civil rights. There are only 14,000 people in the whole county for crying out loud: if they’re bent out of shape by this stuff, they can remove the sheriff, elect a new one and even pass local ordinances that prohibit the sheriff or his deputies from even requesting similar warrants if they think that they’re out of bounds.
I’d think that there would be a local outcry against the sheriff if all of the plaintiff’s claims were true, and are part of a pattern and practice in Luna county. On the other hand, the good people of Luna county may well be heartily sick and tired of tweakers and other druggies running amok, and may consider themselves more of the old-school “law and order” types. Curious to see how this pans out.
Me too!
FReepers knew right away of government malfeasance against innocent citizens in both the Duke lacrosse and Zimmerman cases. FReepers are reasonably concluding that there is government malfeasance involved here, as well.
Well, with all due respect, it seems to me that the FReepertarians pretty much drew their conclusions from the headline.
But if the Demming police chief should be flapping his gums at the media, what about the doctors and the hospital? They were named in the suit as well. Shouldn’t they be spilling their guts in advance of the trial too? And the Deputy DA who obtained the search warrant for the officers? He’s named too. Shouldn’t he be singing like a bird so that the FRepertarians won’t think bad things about him, too?
That’s just dumb. People, if they have competent counsel, clam up when their sued. Simple as that.
Nifong and the rest clammed up big time, once they saw how hosed their case was.
Excellent job on that video!
The medical reports and the judge’s warrant are all publicly available to view, as is the lawsuit in a pdf file. They’ve all been viewed by the local news channel that reported this. None of it is made up.
The documents are all available to view at this website.
Don’t see anything on there but court records with claims and counter claims. If everything he claims is true, he was raped and hopefully the town will be bankrupted and cops imprisoned.
But still just claims from a convicted drug user. I would want to hear doctor testimony, see medical records, and hear the context of the arrest from the detective, before I string up the cops.
If this guy just drove away from an observed drug buy and he truly has a history of keeping drugs in his anus, then an initial search might be justified. But even with all that, the forced enemas and colonoscopy is criminal if true.
14. As to the allegations of fact set forth in paragraph 106 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dr. Odocha admits only that, according to available medical records, on January 2-3, 2013, the Plaintiff underwent two rectal examinations, two radiologic studies, and a colonoscopy, and two saline enemas and anesthesia were administered to the Plaintiff. Dr. Odocha is presently without sufficient specific factual knowledge to form a belief as to the precise accuracy of the remaining allegations of fact set forth in paragraph 106 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof thereof.
So, yeah, the doc admits most of the claims. However he claims the enemas and x-rays were to prepare for the colonoscopy.
Wow.
The records are all in the federal lawsuit, I saw them online somewhere. I doubt the lawyer would make up the claims if she didn’t have the evidence to back it up. The hospital is being sued as well, for performing an invasive medical procedure without patients consent.
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.