Cops Subject Man To Rectal Searches, Enemas And A Colonoscopy In Futile Effort To Find Drugs

techdirt ^ | Wed, Nov 6th 2013 5:34am | Tim Cushing

[Kegger]

...
David Eckert, a resident of Deming, NM, was pulled over by police officers after failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. For whatever reason, the officers decided Eckert was hiding something, or perhaps they were unsatisfied that a routine stop hadn't blown up into something bigger. ...

1. Eckert's abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.
2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
4. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
5. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
6. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.
8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert's anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.

At no time did Eckert give his consent to these searches. The police did obtain a warrant to rectally search Eckert but that warrant itself was problematic.

[Alaska Wolf]

You are so smart

There may be hope for you yet.

only attack the messenger

That is a very bad habit of yours that you should change.

[DariusBane]

That is the biggest cliche response. If I only had a dollar for every time some Statist idiot said that...

You can do better.

[Alaska Wolf]

If I only had a dollar

You appear to be desperate. I could help you out.

[DariusBane]

Nice... Snarky is your specialty.

[Alaska Wolf]

Snarky is your specialty.

Isn't this your post? If I only had a dollar for every time some Statist idiot said that...

Actually I'm just reciprocating.

[DariusBane]

After years of posting on FR, the fall back position of the Pro-Police State is very often accusing the “other guy” of having a record. That’s not being snarky, that is me being informative.

I have seen your post, or posts like it so often it just makes me laugh when I see somebody try to use this device:

The fact that a person who opposes overarching tyrannical police powers is evidence of a police record.

It is a tiresome non sequitur.

[Alaska Wolf]

the fall back position of the Pro-Police State

Who is the "Pro-Police State"?

that is me being informative

No, it is you being a snarky drama queen.

The fact that a person who opposes overarching tyrannical police powers is evidence of a police record.

Is your name David W. Eckert? http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/07/new-details-emerge-about-new-mexico-man-at-center-of-police-departments-anal-probing-controversy/

You are uninformed.

[DariusBane]

You don’t understand my post at all.

[Alaska Wolf]

You don’t understand my post at all.

Then it behooves you to explain it. You're the poster making the accusations and snarky comments.

[DariusBane]

Last attempt with you:

You wrote:

“How many years were you incarcerated? Did you enjoy it?”

In response to another contributors comment:

“I’ll laugh when the cops do something like this to you or someone you care about.”

It’s not hard to understand except you are not understanding to be provocative. You accused the other poster of having been in jail or incarcerated or in some way legally entangled because the poster has a problem with unfettered police power.

It’s not difficult to follow unless you just don’t want to follow the thread.

[Alaska Wolf]

Is this your post? Is it provocative and snarky?

You really are a piece of work. I could and have written essays about the perils of the Law and Order Conservative. But I know you would only respond with snarky, arrogant, and dismissive post that don’t address the issue.

So I won’t bother with you.

Your interminable search for guarantees of safety will end up with you hung on Hamons Gallows with the cry of “mercy for me but justice for you!”

24 posted on Thursday, November 07, 2013 12:41:33 AM by DariusBane

Is this provocative? “I’ll laugh when the cops do something like this to you or someone you care about.”

It deserved an even more harsh response than I gave.

Now tell me what an altar boy Eckert is! IMO he's as big a POS as the cops.

[DariusBane]

““I’ll laugh when the cops do something like this to you or someone you care about.”

I didn’t say that. That is a previous poster. I would not laugh I would do everything in my power to bring the cleansing sunlight of public inspection on the Cops who did such a thing to you or to anybody else.

[Alaska Wolf]

I didn’t say that.

I didn't state that you did. I know Orangedog made the post. I stated that "It deserved an even more harsh response than I gave." You weren't critical of ODs post, just my rejoinder. Which tells me more than I want to know about you.

[DariusBane]

Ok so now who is the drama queen?

[Alaska Wolf]

You are. You could apologize or you can keep on making a fool of yourself.

[Orangedog]

How long have you been wearing your LEO pig knee pads? Don’t worry, you and yours will get your turn. I’ll laugh as I see the likes of you realize you spent your whole life carrying water for people who have beaten, raped and/or killed someone you care about. You’ll get no pitty from the rest of us.

[goat granny]

Since you mentioned hospitals, One of the funniest movies I saw was THE HOSPITAL staring George C Scott. It was black humor but you couldn’t help but laugh at what went on inside the hospital.

[ican'tbelieveit]

I love when this poster puts something up to "bolster" their case. In this case, this article by the Blaze is hilariously pro-plaintiff. They try to suck you in the with the headline, but actually reading the article produces some amazing finds.

First, is the "evidence" for the search warrant:

Notice here (underlined) that the "suspect" is known to carry drugs in his anal cavity, even having been caught with drugs in his anal cavity, according to the K-9 handler. The same K-9 handler that did not get his dog certified to work in NM... hmmm.

But, the Blaze goes on to explain:

"Eckert’s history with drugs had been revealed by his attorneys, Joseph and Shannon Kennedy, but there was no mention of any previous attempts to transport drugs in his anal cavity. Still, though court records confirm Eckert’s history of drug-related offenses, we found no information confirming police’s claim that he once was caught with drugs in his anal cavity."

So, the warrant was obtained, in part, based on the K9 officer's statement that this man was "known to insert drugs in his anal cavity." Yet there is no police record of that.

[DariusBane]

I know. Very flimsy stuff to cling to.

[Alaska Wolf]

I want no pity or contact with the likes of you and your ilk, lunatic. How long were you incarcerated?