Video shows white cops performing roadside cavity search of black man

[MisterBeale]

What was the reasonable suspicion in the OP's link?

WIN!

They got pulled over on a DWB. Let's just have Bucs admit it though.

 

[ZackB]

First off, I cannot read more than the first 2-3 sentences of a CC post because I know that it is dripping with bullshit and most likely factually incorrect. Second, they deserved to be cavity searched due to their ridiculous names if for no other reason. Finally, CC should be subjected to a body cavity search in an attempt to locate a brain.

 

[ClosedCaption]

First off, I cannot read more than the first 2-3 sentences of a CC post

Great then you shouldve read it all since I dont work for the Washington Post

 

[bucs90]

Ok. So we've gone in circles. We've determined they searched his butt region because they felt an object. We've determined some animals hide weapons there. And that the object ended up not being a weapon (gross).

So....now what's the point?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Ok. So we've gone in circles. We've determined they searched his butt region because they felt an object. We've determined some animals hide weapons there. And that the object ended up not being a weapon (gross).

So....now what's the point?

What was the reasonable suspicion in the OP's link?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Ok. So we've gone in circles. We've determined they searched his butt region because they felt an object. We've determined some animals hide weapons there. And that the object ended up not being a weapon (gross).

So....now what's the point?

They only felt an object after sticking their finger up there.

What was the reasonable suspicion?

 

[bucs90]

Ok. So we've gone in circles. We've determined they searched his butt region because they felt an object. We've determined some animals hide weapons there. And that the object ended up not being a weapon (gross).

So....now what's the point?

They only felt an object after sticking their finger up there.

What was the reasonable suspicion?

Well....the plot thickens. Article 2 days ago out of the SC news. The stop was stated as being for a paper tag....but...the true reason was information provided to cops from an informant. That's a snitch for you street folks. Cops were investigating info an informant provided that lead them to the vehicle and suspicion of drugs being inside. Also...the "you're gonna pay for this boy" wasn't said by a cop...but by one of the vehicle occupants.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Ok. So we've gone in circles. We've determined they searched his butt region because they felt an object. We've determined some animals hide weapons there. And that the object ended up not being a weapon (gross).

So....now what's the point?

They only felt an object after sticking their finger up there.

What was the reasonable suspicion?

Well....the plot thickens. Article 2 days ago out of the SC news. The stop was stated as being for a paper tag....but...the true reason was information provided to cops from an informant. That's a snitch for you street folks. Cops were investigating info an informant provided that lead them to the vehicle and suspicion of drugs being inside. Also...the "you're gonna pay for this boy" wasn't said by a cop...but by one of the vehicle occupants.

Link to that?

Also, I'm curious why they had to do a cavity search even after a dog smelled nothing.

 

[bucs90]

WISTV

 

[bucs90]

Ok. So we've gone in circles. We've determined they searched his butt region because they felt an object. We've determined some animals hide weapons there. And that the object ended up not being a weapon (gross).

So....now what's the point?

They only felt an object after sticking their finger up there.

What was the reasonable suspicion?

Well....the plot thickens. Article 2 days ago out of the SC news. The stop was stated as being for a paper tag....but...the true reason was information provided to cops from an informant. That's a snitch for you street folks. Cops were investigating info an informant provided that lead them to the vehicle and suspicion of drugs being inside. Also...the "you're gonna pay for this boy" wasn't said by a cop...but by one of the vehicle occupants.

Link to that?

Also, I'm curious why they had to do a cavity search even after a dog smelled nothing.

Aiken police deny conducting cavity search in broad daylight

WISTV

 

[ClosedCaption]

Ok. So we've gone in circles. We've determined they searched his butt region because they felt an object. We've determined some animals hide weapons there. And that the object ended up not being a weapon (gross).

So....now what's the point?

They only felt an object after sticking their finger up there.

What was the reasonable suspicion?

Well....the plot thickens. Article 2 days ago out of the SC news. The stop was stated as being for a paper tag....but...the true reason was information provided to cops from an informant. That's a snitch for you street folks. Cops were investigating info an informant provided that lead them to the vehicle and suspicion of drugs being inside. Also...the "you're gonna pay for this boy" wasn't said by a cop...but by one of the vehicle occupants.

Suuuuuuuure

No bother in asking for a link because Bux didnt include the news he found. Do you know why? I do

 

[ClosedCaption]

Bux NOW is saying all that talk about cavity searches on the tape that he's been discussing the whole time NEVER HAPPENED because....wait for it....THE COPS SAY SO!

So now Bux has a problem. Does he believe his eyes and ears? Or does he automatically believe a cop saying they never did a cavity search after asking the guy "Whats that?" and he replies "A Hemorrhoid"?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Ok. So we've gone in circles. We've determined they searched his butt region because they felt an object. We've determined some animals hide weapons there. And that the object ended up not being a weapon (gross).

So....now what's the point?

They only felt an object after sticking their finger up there.

What was the reasonable suspicion?

Well....the plot thickens. Article 2 days ago out of the SC news. The stop was stated as being for a paper tag....but...the true reason was information provided to cops from an informant. That's a snitch for you street folks. Cops were investigating info an informant provided that lead them to the vehicle and suspicion of drugs being inside. Also...the "you're gonna pay for this boy" wasn't said by a cop...but by one of the vehicle occupants.

Link to that?

Also, I'm curious why they had to do a cavity search even after a dog smelled nothing.

Aiken police deny conducting cavity search in broad daylight

WISTV

Well we'll have to see how the lawsuit turns out.

That doesn't change the fact that you advocated for on-demand cavity searches with or without reasonable suspicion.

 

[Camp]

No wonder there are pissed off nut-jobs who want to kill cops.

 

[bucs90]

Ok. So we've gone in circles. We've determined they searched his butt region because they felt an object. We've determined some animals hide weapons there. And that the object ended up not being a weapon (gross).

So....now what's the point?

They only felt an object after sticking their finger up there.

What was the reasonable suspicion?

Well....the plot thickens. Article 2 days ago out of the SC news. The stop was stated as being for a paper tag....but...the true reason was information provided to cops from an informant. That's a snitch for you street folks. Cops were investigating info an informant provided that lead them to the vehicle and suspicion of drugs being inside. Also...the "you're gonna pay for this boy" wasn't said by a cop...but by one of the vehicle occupants.

Suuuuuuuure

No bother in asking for a link because Bux didnt include the news he found. Do you know why? I do

Here ya go......

Aiken police deny conducting cavity search in broad daylight

WISTV

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Police pull over and rape 2 cooperative innocents; they're just too motivated!

I can't believe it!

What rape? They searched a suspect and obviously an unusual object was found. I for one never would have gone that far because it's fucking gross.

Taken as a whole....considering the guys past is as a drug dealer...I bet most people would've thought he was hiding drugs.

Still....the story makes me want to vomit.

Wow so your fascist little brain supports on demand cavity searches on innocent citizens. Unbelievable.

Do I "support" it? No. It's gross. I'd never do it. But is it legal? Yes...if you have reason to believe something illegal is hidden there. They do it to almost everyone who goes to jail who has drug charges or has drug charges in the past. Which is why I'd never work in a jail.

Support it? No. Understand why it happens? Yeah. People hide drugs and weapons there.

It is most certainly not legal. I wish there was a follow up article to see how much money these 2 won in a lawsuit.

Past criminal record is not enough for "reasonable suspicion." Especially when the officer has to ask for the ID of the person in the passenger's seat of the car to confirm their identify. Those bastard officers should all be out of jobs and paying their victims restitution.

You're only saying that because the subjects are black.

 

[bucs90]

Bux NOW is saying all that talk about cavity searches on the tape that he's been discussing the whole time NEVER HAPPENED because....wait for it....THE COPS SAY SO!

So now Bux has a problem. Does he believe his eyes and ears? Or does he automatically believe a cop saying they never did a cavity search after asking the guy "Whats that?" and he replies "A Hemorrhoid"?

No....understand the difference between an outside the clothing pat/search vs a full blown cavity search which penitrates the cavity. I'm sure they did an outside the clothing feel. Did they stick fingers under the clothing and into the rectum?? I'm saying I highly doubt it.

 

[bucs90]

Ok. So we've gone in circles. We've determined they searched his butt region because they felt an object. We've determined some animals hide weapons there. And that the object ended up not being a weapon (gross).

So....now what's the point?

They only felt an object after sticking their finger up there.

What was the reasonable suspicion?

Well....the plot thickens. Article 2 days ago out of the SC news. The stop was stated as being for a paper tag....but...the true reason was information provided to cops from an informant. That's a snitch for you street folks. Cops were investigating info an informant provided that lead them to the vehicle and suspicion of drugs being inside. Also...the "you're gonna pay for this boy" wasn't said by a cop...but by one of the vehicle occupants.

Link to that?

Also, I'm curious why they had to do a cavity search even after a dog smelled nothing.

Aiken police deny conducting cavity search in broad daylight

WISTV

Well we'll have to see how the lawsuit turns out.

That doesn't change the fact that you advocated for on-demand cavity searches with or without reasonable suspicion.

You're being dishonest. I didn't advocate for it. I said they are legal WITH CAUSE. And MOST police agencies forbid them anywhere outside of the jail done by jail officers. If I was a chief I'd have the same policy.

But they are legal.

And the more I read on this....the more it sounds like it was a crotch search outside the clothing...and the guy filed a lawsuit claiming it was a full under the clothes penitration search.

 

[reconmark]

Former Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Kelly Helleson was sentenced to a year in jail, which was suspended. She is serving two years of supervised probation and must pay $1,000 for each of the two convictions for illegal body searches.

Since the incident, Angel and her niece received a settlement of $185,000 in a federal civil rights case. Three years later, Angel is working with legislators on House Bill 4071, which will require that a peace officer obtain a search warrant before conducting a body cavity search.

I managed to learn through the course of the investigation there were at least 30 other women she had done this to. I knew it was too routine for the officers, it was like they had been roadside raping citizens for years.


Late last month, the Texas House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill that requires police to obtain search warrants before searching the genital cavities of drivers or passengers during roadside stops. How can others help such legislation succeed in Texas and elsewhere?

ANGEL DOBBS: People need to contact their Representatives and Senators, inform them about the issue, and explain to them that it needs to be legislative priority. House Bill 4071 is currently at the Calendars Committee we need support with people calling to ask it be sent for a floor vote by May 14th 2015.


Maybe that stupid ass will vacate the board for awhile until he picks his jaw off the ground.

You just proved yourself wrong. Why the need to pass a bill banning roadside cavity searches?? Because they're LEGAL...IF there is reasonable cause that weapons MIGHT BE hidden there.

Now...to add....MANY police departments have internal policies banning cavity searches unless "emergency safety concerns" are present so they don't happen most places.

But they are legal if there's reason to believe a weapon may be hidden.

And yes....people hide guns in their assholes. Usually animals and savages like you.
New Jersey man hides stolen .25-caliber gun in anus: cops

Earlier you advocated for cavity searches without reasonable cause or anything.

It's called not knowing what the fuck one's talking about...

 

[reconmark]

This thread basically boils down to this, listen to the ignorant bullshit bucs is trying to pass off as knowledge and training or me along with numerous other Judges, lawyers and real Police Officers...

1. Police can conduct a body cavity search with a search warrant.
When a court considers whether to issue a warrant that authorizes a body cavity search, the judge typically weighs:

• The reasonableness of invading a suspect’s body to search for evidence of a crime, and
• The state’s interest in obtaining evidence of the crime.

2. Police can conduct a body cavity search at the border or at an airport.
There is another exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement known as the border search exception. This exception allows law enforcement officers to conduct searches (even body cavity searches) at international borders and airports without probable cause.
3. Police can conduct a body cavity search of a suspect after he or she is incarcerated.

In Florence v. County of Burlington, the Supreme Court stated that even though these searches are invasive, they are justified by the need to prevent weapons and contraband from entering correctional facilities.


As I stated in an earlier post, even if the individual is under arrest at the side of the road, it's professional and legally prudent to obtain a search warrant prior to performing a body cavity search and makes it much more difficult for any evidence to be dismissed under the poisonous tree doctrine.
I further stated that the officers in the op's thread had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion for a body cavity searc.

Bucs only makes himself look stupid attempting to argue contrary to these points.



Hospital Pays $1.1M to Settle Body Cavity Search Lawsuit
Border patrol agents requested the search by the University Medical Center of El Paso after a previous search turned up nothing



$1.6 million settlement for man forced by cops to have enemas, colonoscopy

Stupid untrained assholes like bucs cost institutions this kind of money....