Posted on 05/16/2005 10:39:05 PM PDT by Still Thinking
MILWAUKEE, May 11 (UPI) -- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled a man forced by police to drink liquid laxative to expel a swallowed bag of heroin was unreasonably searched.
The decision reverses a trial-court ruling that found police and medical personnel at Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital in Wauwatosa acted solely out of concern for the health of Tomas R. Payano-Roman, 35, when they forced him to drink six cups of liquid laxative while handcuffed to a bed and made him defecate into a portable toilet as they looked on, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.
The appeals court found police did not consider the risk of breaking the plastic bag holding the heroin, triggering an overdose. Payano-Roman's Fourth Amendement rights were violated and the evidence will not be admissible at trial.
but in the end, it all worked out OK. whew!
Perp swallows horse
Cops fudge the Miranda
Smooth move, Boys!
If the balloon breaks, the tox profile from the autopsy will confirm their suspicions...
yep, everything came out ok.
he-ro-in
he-ro-out
:-}
Fiber One cereal.
[The Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled a man forced by police to drink liquid laxative to expel a swallowed bag of heroin was unreasonably searched. The appeals court found police did not consider the risk of breaking the plastic bag holding the heroin, triggering an overdose.]
How does drinking liquid laxative increase the risk of breaking the swallowed plastic bag?
Just the opposite should be true. The longer the bag is inside the body, the greater the risk of deterioration from stomach acid and eventual breakage.
Docs?
Poor, poor beby, forced to go poo-poo when he wasn't ready, it's a definate violation of his civil rights-Is the ACLU here yet? Where is the ACLU when you really need them?
This is all so stoopid.
Booze and cigaretts are just as dangerous as any illegal drug.
Let's just end the war on drugs and let the idiots take whatever drugs they want to take...let them dig their own graves if that is what they want.
I'm for legalization of drugs...but I'd support increases in penalties for selling/giving them to minors...that is just sooo wrong! :-(
Would you have any problems with the police if for some erroneous motive you or someone in your family were suspected and required to drink 6 cups of laxative and perform as indicated here? Another new item I have read about is police tasering a suspect (twice) for refusing to give a urine (I think, maybe blood) sample.
The problem with allowing this kind of stuff is that once precedent is set for them to forcibly extract bodily fluids from someone for a crime there isn't too much sympathy for, the door is open to expand this to all kinds of stuff.
Every person that had anything to do with this should be charged with assault.
Medications of any type should not be used as evidence-gathering tools by law enforcement.
The law may allow it.
The courts may uphold it.
but there is something MORALLY and CIVILLY wrong with police inspecting the contents of your intestines, warrant, laxative or not.
The war on whatever it is this year, is wrong.
The police state tactics are as disgusting as anything I have heard.
Agreed.
They would have had to hold me down and force-feed me that laxative. Several officers would have been bitten. Afterward, all involved would be sued.
If I had gotten no satisfaction in court, I'd have spent the rest of my life hunting down these "public servants" so I could put a bullet in their fascist brains.
I am G-ddamned tired of governmental bullies pulling this kind of crap!
If I was seen or suspected of swallowing a bag of dope, I don't believe that I would have a legitimate complaint. Especially, since that act does present a life threatening condition, which the cops are now responsible for.
Your comment about the Taser is totally irrelevant to this thread.
I certainly would. The police aren't qualified in and of themselves to administer any kind of medical treatment, much less against a person's will. Perhaps with a court order, under the proper medical supervision, but not as described here.
I once read about a similar case (I think it was in a George Will editorial) about a woman apprehended at an airport who was suspected (rightly) of having swallowed a number of receptacles of cocaine. In that case, the authorities simply waited for nature to take its course.
Question is, is this another crappy ruling by a judge full of......?
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.