Laxative-induced search violated rights

Interest! Alert ^ | May 11, 2005 | UPI

[TKDietz]

Why is it irrelevant. I remember that article. The police believed the suspect had swallowed some cocaine, although they didn't actually see him do it. They wanted a urine sample. When he wouldn't comply they wanted to take the sample with a catheter. They were zapping the guy with a taser because he wouldn't cooperate in the catheterization process. In both cases police suspected someone had swallowed drugs and in both cases extreme measures were taken to confirm their suspicions. In neither case were these measures necessary.

[WoofDog123]

How can another example showing the right of the state to test your fluids, examine your bowels, etc., on demand be totally irrelevant to this thread?

[WoofDog123]

WOD threads are good for showcasing differences in how people view the right to privacy, freedom from overt search and control by the state, etc. As you see, some on this thread see nothing objectionable about the methods employed here or the taser incident, much less question the RIGHT of the state to do any of the above. What? Merely SUSPECTED of injection of drugs? Its fine to forcibly empty his stomach, catheterize him, etc. It is quite mind-boggling to me.

I think that by the time the WOD pro-State crowd begins to feel that things have gone to far it will be way too late.

[WoofDog123]

"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."

Yeah, I don't understand why there are folks here hot to trot for forcibly extraction of fluids when that is always an option. They clearly don't consider the impact on INNOCENT suspects treated in such a fashion to be an obstacle (or are we all guilty until proven innocent?)

[wildbill]

Why the rush? The cops must have had a hot date on tap and couldn't wait to take any crap from the suspect?

[Old Professer]

I'll bet that's a load off the junkie's mind.

[Old Professer]

Surely you've had diarrhea cramps, what do you think causes the pain - it's the colon wrestling with its contents trying to expel the offending mass along with its attendant gas.

[TKDietz]

"I think that by the time the WOD pro-State crowd begins to feel that things have gone to far it will be way too late."

I think you are right about that. I remember as a kid hearing all of there horror stories about places like the Soviet Union and China. We were a free country and these countries had their secret police and they were always taking people away for some reason or another. They could do whatever they wanted to their people and there was nothing people there could do about it. Our country though I think is slowly but surely turning into one of those countries where the government can do whatever it wants to us and will attempt to rule just about every aspect of our lives. Not many are complaining about it now because it's not affecting them yet. Government keeps getting bigger and more powerful though so by the time everyone wakes up there isn't going to be a whole heck of a lot they can do to stop what we've become.

[de Buillion]

"Why is it irrelevant. I remember that article. The police believed the suspect had swallowed some cocaine,"

I believe, and my belief is not confirmed by any legal decisions that I am aware of, that the administration of a Laxative to a person in police custody who is suspected of swallowing Cocaine or whatever, is a sensible thing to do. the suspect might die, and the police might be liable if they had not given the laxitive. But to Taze non-compliant prisoners is wrong, and wasn't even mentioned in the lead-in to this thread, which is why I said Darkwolf's mention of the taser was irrelevant. I still believe that it is. And I do not approve of any use of a taser in this type situation.

[TKDietz]

How would you like it if they erroneously suspected you had swallowed a bag of heroin and they forced laxatives down you and then stared at your naked bottom half as you had your explosive bowel movements? My God, that's just not necessary. What if they had made a mistake and the guy was innocent? Even if guilty there is no need to do what they did. They could put him in a room where he couldn't flush the toilet and let nature take its course. The heroin package probably wouldn't open up in the guy and even if it did it would be his fault if he died. Hell, they could just offer the guy laxatives if he wanted and if not let nature take its course. Either way they didn't have to watch him crap all over the place. That's just wrong. The guy didn't have some super dangerous weapons of mass destruction. He had a bag of heroin. There was no need to force him take laxatives and then watch him doing something every human should be allowed to do in private. The cops were out of line on this one and we shouldn't stand for it. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

[spinestein]

The "Old Amendment IV"

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The "New Amendment IV"

The right to privacy, particularly abortion, shall not be violated, except where in the judgment of any police officer, it's for the common good.

[de Buillion]

"The heroin package probably wouldn't open up in the guy and even if it did it would be his fault if he died. Hell, they could just offer the guy laxatives if he wanted and if not let nature take its course."

This is precisely where I disagree with you. You can't be sure that it wont open up, happens all the time, could be a decent condom, or a dimestore baloon. Who knows- But, since the cops now have custody, they also have responsibility. And it could be construed to be their fault, and not the suspect's. Legally.

[TKDietz]

Well, I'm just grateful the court disagreed the type of arguments you are making.

[TKDietz]

Well, I'm just grateful the court disagreed _with_ the type of arguments you are making.