Video shows white cops performing roadside cavity search of black man

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The dog hit on the car. They found no drugs in the car, so they searched the occupants.

Cars are considered open fields under the constitution. Rectums are not, regardless of what any worthless fascist bootlickers say.

They did not check his rectum, so try reading for once and watch the video.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

That's the reading that some of us need to be doing before approving the behavior of worthless traitors.

So exactly where were these rights violated since he was suspected of being in possession of illegal drugs?

Man, I swear some of you people need some serious psychological help!

I missed the part where the pigs went to get a warrant. Did they cut that part out?

Why would they need a warrant? Flunked high school civics?

 

[Agit8r]

Cars are considered open fields under the constitution. Rectums are not, regardless of what any worthless fascist bootlickers say.

They did not check his rectum, so try reading for once and watch the video.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

That's the reading that some of us need to be doing before approving the behavior of worthless traitors.

So exactly where were these rights violated since he was suspected of being in possession of illegal drugs?

Man, I swear some of you people need some serious psychological help!

I missed the part where the pigs went to get a warrant. Did they cut that part out?

Why would they need a warrant? Flunked high school civics?

Police are only allowed to examine one's outer clothing without a warrant, and then only if they suspect their lives are in danger.

 

[bucs90]

They did not check his rectum, so try reading for once and watch the video.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

That's the reading that some of us need to be doing before approving the behavior of worthless traitors.

So exactly where were these rights violated since he was suspected of being in possession of illegal drugs?

Man, I swear some of you people need some serious psychological help!

I missed the part where the pigs went to get a warrant. Did they cut that part out?

Why would they need a warrant? Flunked high school civics?

Police are only allowed to examine one's outer clothing without a warrant, and then only if they suspect their lives are in danger.

Absolutely wrong. If there is probable cause you have something illegal in your pockets they don't need a warrant. God damn you libs are stupid!!

Read SCOTUS laws:
Terry vs Ohio
Terry Frisk
Carroll Doctrine
Maryland vs Wilson

I can list so many more.

You libs are the dumbest smart kids I know.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They did not check his rectum, so try reading for once and watch the video.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

That's the reading that some of us need to be doing before approving the behavior of worthless traitors.

So exactly where were these rights violated since he was suspected of being in possession of illegal drugs?

Man, I swear some of you people need some serious psychological help!

I missed the part where the pigs went to get a warrant. Did they cut that part out?

Why would they need a warrant? Flunked high school civics?

Police are only allowed to examine one's outer clothing without a warrant, and then only if they suspect their lives are in danger.

I happen to know different, and so should you.

I have witnessed so many of these searches that it is not funny.

 

[Agit8r]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

That's the reading that some of us need to be doing before approving the behavior of worthless traitors.

So exactly where were these rights violated since he was suspected of being in possession of illegal drugs?

Man, I swear some of you people need some serious psychological help!

I missed the part where the pigs went to get a warrant. Did they cut that part out?

Why would they need a warrant? Flunked high school civics?

Police are only allowed to examine one's outer clothing without a warrant, and then only if they suspect their lives are in danger.

Absolutely wrong. If there is probable cause you have something illegal in your pockets they don't need a warrant. God damn you libs are stupid!!

Read SCOTUS laws:
Terry vs Ohio
Terry Frisk
Carroll Doctrine
Maryland vs Wilson

I can list so many more.

You libs are the dumbest smart kids I know.

Do tell, which of those allows the search of a person's inner clothing without a warrant?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I missed the part where the pigs went to get a warrant. Did they cut that part out?

Why would they need a warrant? Flunked high school civics?

Police are only allowed to examine one's outer clothing without a warrant, and then only if they suspect their lives are in danger.

Absolutely wrong. If there is probable cause you have something illegal in your pockets they don't need a warrant. God damn you libs are stupid!!

Read SCOTUS laws:
Terry vs Ohio
Terry Frisk
Carroll Doctrine
Maryland vs Wilson

I can list so many more.

You libs are the dumbest smart kids I know.

Do tell, which of those allows the search of a person's inner clothing without a warrant?

.

Oh please! I am all stocked up on stupid. Go peddle your wares someplace where it is needed.

Oh please! I am all stocked up on stupid. Go peddle your wares someplace where it is needed.

I tell you what you need to do! Get some drugs, hide them in your ass crack, do something stupid to attract a cops attention that you might have drugs on you and then argue with the cops that they cannot search you! We' ll be seeing you in about 5 to 10 years.

 

[Rustic]

Video shows white cops performing roadside cavity search of black man

Here’s what happened: Lakeya Hicks and Elijah Pontoon were in Hicks’s car just a couple of blocks from downtown Aiken when they were pulled over by Officer Chris Medlin of the Aiken Department of Public Safety. Hicks was driving. She had recently purchased the car, so it still had temporary tags.

In the video, Medlin asks Hicks to get out, then tells her that he stopped her because of the “paper tag” on her car. This already is a problem. There’s no law against temporary tags in South Carolina, so long as they haven’t expired.

Medlin then asks Pontoon for identification. Since he was in the passenger seat, Pontoon wouldn’t have been required to provide ID even if the stop had been legitimate. Still, he provides his driver’s license to Medlin. A couple of minutes later, Medlin tells Hicks that her license and tags check out. (You can see the time stamp in the lower left corner of the video.) This should be the end of the stop — which, again, should never have happened in the first place.

Instead, Medlin orders Pontoon out of the vehicle and handcuffs him. He also orders Hicks out of the car. Pontoon then asks Medlin what’s happening. Medlin ignores him. Pontoon asks again. Medlin responds that he’ll “explain it all in a minute.” Several minutes later, a female officers appears. Medlin then tells Pontoon, “Because of your history, I’ve got a dog coming in here. Gonna walk a dog around the car.” About 30 seconds later, he adds, “You gonna pay for this one, boy.”

Moments later, an officer named Clark Smith arrives with a police dog. He walks around the car with his dog. A fourth police officer then shows up. The four officers then spend the next 15 minutes conducting a thorough search of the car. Early into the search, Medlin exclaims, “Uh-huh!” as if he has found something incriminating. But nothing comes of it.

After the search of the car comes up empty, Medlin tells the female officer to “search her real good,” referring to Hicks. The personal search of Hicks is conducted off camera, but according to the complaint filed by Phillips, it allegedly involved exposing Hicks’s breasts on the side of the road in a populated area. The complaint also alleges that this was all done in direct view of the three male officers. That search, too, produced no contraband.

The officers then turn their attention to Pontoon. Medlin asks Pontoon to get out of the car. He cuffs him and begins to pat him down. Toward the end of the first video, at about the 12:46:30 mark, he tells Pontoon: “You’ve got something here right between your legs. There’s something hard right there between your legs.” Medlin says that he’s going to “put some gloves on.”

The anal probe happens out of direct view of the camera, but the audio leaves little doubt about what’s happening. Pontoon at one point says that one of the officers is grabbing his hemorrhoids. Medlin appears to reply, “I’ve had hemorrhoids, and they ain’t that hard.” At about 1215 in the video, the audio actually suggests that two officers may have inserted fingers into Pontoon’s rectum, as one asks, “What are you talking about, right here?” The other replies, “Right straight up in there.”

Pontoon then again tells the officers that they’re pushing on a hemorrhoid. One officer responds, “If that’s a hemorrhoid, that’s a hemorrhoid, all right? But that don’t feel like no hemorrhoid to me.”

The officers apparently continue to search Pontoon’s rectum for another three minutes. They found no contraband. At 1225, Medlin tells Pontoon to turn around and explains that he suspects him because he recognized him from when he worked narcotics. “Now I know you from before, from when I worked dope. I seen you. That’s why I put a dog on the car.”




Again, I ask the bootlickers. What is an unlawful request from Police? I hope this guy gets paid and they get fired for their made up laws and reasoning

Tissue?

 

[MikeK]

Did you watch the video? Apparently not!

Based on what the video shows, if this cop were on trial in a criminal court there is no evidence of guilt. But if I were a juror in the civil trial I would vote an award to the plaintiff. Because all of the peripheral circumstances support the plaintiff's claim and the cop's statements strongly suggest he did what is claimed. And even if he didn't go so far as to penetratge the plaintiff's rectum with a finger, in my mind what he did do is every bit as outrageously invasive.

The fact that proponents of the War On Drugs have managed to influence legislation sufficiently to legitimize what today's police are empowered to do is a shameful. I have no problem with police leaning heavily on offenders who have harmed someone, but I have nothing but contempt for cops who behave in the manner shown in this example.

 

[MikeK]

[...]
I tell you what you need to do! Get some drugs, hide them in your ass crack, do something stupid to attract a cops attention that you might have drugs on you and then argue with the cops that they cannot search you! We' ll be seeing you in about 5 to 10 years.

And you think this is okay.

 

[Agit8r]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

That's the reading that some of us need to be doing before approving the behavior of worthless traitors.

So exactly where were these rights violated since he was suspected of being in possession of illegal drugs?

Man, I swear some of you people need some serious psychological help!

I missed the part where the pigs went to get a warrant. Did they cut that part out?

Why would they need a warrant? Flunked high school civics?

Police are only allowed to examine one's outer clothing without a warrant, and then only if they suspect their lives are in danger.

I happen to know different, and so should you.

I have witnessed so many of these searches that it is not funny.

The Terry stop only applies to weapons:

"A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest, however, must, like any other search, be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring). Thus, it must be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby, and may realistically be characterized as something less than a "full" search, even though it remains a serious intrusion...
"The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer."

Terry v. Ohio

If any cop goes beyond that without a warrant, he has broken his oath to uphold the constitution, and is thus a traitor to his country. And obviously, such a traitor deserves nothing less than the punishment for treason.

 

[MikeK]

First...do you know what a pat down is?

Who doesn't know what that is? What's your point?

Oh...I bet many people dont. Tell me exactly what it is. I'm going somewhere with it.

The pre-drug war definition of a "pat-down" is exactly that -- externally patting a subject's clothing for the purpose of detecting a weapon. Then came the War On Drugs and the subsequent perversion of the Fourth Amendment by which the superficial "pat-down" is made passè and the more invasive internal searching became the new standard.

For all intents and purposes, the term "pat-down" is archaic, deceptive and not relevant in the new America.

 

[Agit8r]

First...do you know what a pat down is?

Who doesn't know what that is? What's your point?

Oh...I bet many people dont. Tell me exactly what it is. I'm going somewhere with it.

The pre-drug war definition of a "pat-down" was exactly that -- externally patting a subject's clothing for the purpose of detecting a weapon. Then came the War On Drugs and the subsequent perversion of the Fourth Amendment by which the superficial "pat-down" is made passè and the more invasive internal searching became the new standard.

For all intents and purposes, the term "pat-down" is archaic, deceptive and not relevant in the new America.

There is no jurisprudence to back up an internal search. It is plainly unconstitutional, and will surely be brought to the Supreme Court once there is a fifth sane Justice.

 

[MikeK]

Why would they need a warrant? Flunked high school civics?

While you are correct about the police presently not needing a warrant for expanded search in examples of this kind, I'd like to know how you, an American citizen, feel about that.

Can I presume you are aware it wasn't long ago that a warrant would be required in such situations?

 

[MikeK]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

That's the reading that some of us need to be doing before approving the behavior of worthless traitors.

The problem here is the way a predominately authoritarian Supreme Court chooses to interpret the word, unreasonable. According to them, almost anything a police officer does is reasonable.

 

[Agit8r]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

That's the reading that some of us need to be doing before approving the behavior of worthless traitors.

The problem here is the way a predominately authoritarian Supreme Court chooses to interpret the word, unreasonable. According to them, almost anything a police officer does is reasonable.

There doesn't appear to be a recent ruling on the subject.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Did you watch the video? Apparently not!

Based on what the video shows, if this cop were on trial in a criminal court there is no evidence of guilt. But if I were a juror in the civil trial I would vote an award to the plaintiff. Because all of the peripheral circumstances support the plaintiff's claim and the cop's statements strongly suggest he did what is claimed. And even if he didn't go so far as to penetratge the plaintiff's rectum with a finger, in my mind what he did do is every bit as outrageously invasive.

The fact that proponents of the War On Drugs have managed to influence legislation sufficiently to legitimize what today's police are empowered to do is a shameful. I have no problem with police leaning heavily on offenders who have harmed someone, but I have nothing but contempt for cops who behave in the manner shown in this example.

You are just being a pansy. Grow a pair!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

First...do you know what a pat down is?

Who doesn't know what that is? What's your point?

Oh...I bet many people dont. Tell me exactly what it is. I'm going somewhere with it.

The pre-drug war definition of a "pat-down" was exactly that -- externally patting a subject's clothing for the purpose of detecting a weapon. Then came the War On Drugs and the subsequent perversion of the Fourth Amendment by which the superficial "pat-down" is made passè and the more invasive internal searching became the new standard.

For all intents and purposes, the term "pat-down" is archaic, deceptive and not relevant in the new America.

There is no jurisprudence to back up an internal search. It is plainly unconstitutional, and will surely be brought to the Supreme Court once there is a fifth sane Justice.

Once again, for possible penetration of your thick skull, what internal search? The one you have no absolutely no proof of happening?

 

[MikeK]

You are just being a pansy. Grow a pair!

Keepers at NYC's Bronx Zoo have installed plexiglas barriers beyond the bars of some cages in the primate exhibit because the monkeys there are known to defecate into their hands and throw it when something upsets them. The monkeys do this when they are frustrated because all that a monkey in a cage can do when he doesn't like something is throw shit.

Ignorance and stupidity are metaphorical cages. Personal insults and empty ad hominem comments are analogous to handfuls of shit to be tossed out in place of intelligent, reasoned, logical arguments.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You are just being a pansy. Grow a pair!

Keepers at NYC's Bronx Zoo have installed plexiglas barriers beyond the bars of some cages in the primate exhibit because the monkeys there are known to defecate into their hands and throw it when something upsets them. The monkeys do this when they are frustrated because all that a monkey in a cage can do when he doesn't like something is throw shit.

Ignorance and stupidity are metaphorical cages. Personal insults and empty ad hominem comments are analogous to handfuls of shit to be tossed out in place of intelligent, reasoned, logical arguments.

So why do you keep doing it?

 

[reconmark]

The cops were talking about Hemorrhoids. Where are hemorrhoids located? And if the cop was no where near the location of hemorrhoids then is that a common topic to discuss amongst cops?

You do realize that hemorrhoids are on the OUTSIDE, right?

And as I previously corrected you, even external hemorrhoids seldom extend past the buttocks in order to be felt beneath clothing...