TexasCHLforum.com

TxLobo wrote:So now another couple of women come forth, make the same claims... this happened Memorial Day of last year? ?

http://www.kvue.com/home/2-women-sue-ov ... 28831.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.kvue.com/news/2-women-share- ... 74331.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Never heard a word about it until this story.. first one came out yesterday, follow up today..

Weird...

This one has it's own thread
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=108&t=67429" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

carlson1 wrote:

texanjoker wrote: I earned that one ...but I didn't want what I perceive to be a troll causing drama and a further gap between LEO's and CHL holders.

I commend you for coming forward - you sure did not have to.

I also do not want to see any gap between LEO's and U.S. Citizens.

I am also glad you decided to hang around on the Forum!

Plus 1, WB, almost like you never left,, err, well anyway

Texas Sheepdog wrote:

handog wrote:Not sure what the fuss is all about. Police can arrest and conduct a cavity search for any reason, on no reason at all according to the SCOTUS. The TSA reach down my pants when im at the airport. The blue gloves are worn for their protection. Not the suspect.

I don't get all the fuss either. I watched the news video and it didn't look anything like a real cavity search. I also didn't see anything the TSA doesn't do every day in airports, and like the female officer, TSA agents do not change gloves between passengers. As long as suspects keep hiding their drugs and weapons in their pants, it's a legitimate place to search for contraband.

Thank you for your personal opinion.
I think you'll find most here are in disagreement.. And I think in the coming months we will see the department, and with luck a judge/ jury does as well.

One point of correction... Yes, a TSA agent DOES change gloves after doing a hands on skin contact search of a travelers bits and parts that were searched in this reported case.

I have seen that in written policy, and in practice. And someplace around here we have a former TSA agent that might confirm as well.

urnoodle wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:Again, your jumping to conclusions based on a offenders claim months later in a civil litigation.. The VIDEO does not show a cavity search,, that would not be post-able on this forum or TV in general.

It was not months ago when the women made the claim. If you watched the entire video the woman clearly states to the male officer at the scene that she felt violated that the officer put her fingers in those regions. He did not dispute her accusation. He was on a fishing expedition from the moment he walked back to his car to run the plate and IDs.

YES, I understand there was an allegation made to the LEO on the side of the road (which i hope the LEO reported).. But the offenders public claim was made months later in a civil litigation, which is what brought this to public light and is what we are discussing. ..thus,,, MONTHS after the event, a public claim of the incident was made.

Though it brings up a random thought,,,which has not been reported of that I have read... Did the two women make a complaint to the department prior to starting a law suit?

And I AM NOT saying they needed to seek action at the department level...to make this a valid issue for the civil litigation... a mentor, counselor, friend or professional may have helped them come to the decision to take it on a legal course.

mamabearCali wrote: Yeah but if they had a video of me brandishing and pointing my firearm at people I would expect to be toast. We have a video of what happened.

No sir, we have a video of a female LEO searching a person. We DO NOT have a video of what you and the plaintiff claim.. a Body Cavity search.. That IS THE POINT...

Again,,,, the search may be valid based on the officers articulation of PC or RS... Which is not recorded in the video.. but may very well be in the report filed.. Have you seen it? Ya me neither. SO WE DO NOT KNOW..

mamabearCali wrote: It is not "meh who cares" as long as they did not actually penetrate the women. There was no cause whatsoever to go into these women's pants at all.

Im inclined to agree based on the very limited information available to us.

mamabearCali wrote:.I am sorry but a cigarette butt out the window is not cause for that level of a search and while "thinking you smell 'MJ'" might be probable cause for a pat down and a search of the car. It is still not probable cause for a cavity search.

Again, your jumping to conclusions based on a offenders claim months later in a civil litigation.. The VIDEO does not show a cavity search,, that would not be post-able on this forum or TV in general.

mamabearCali wrote: The man for calling for a search on a suspicion of heavy tobacco smell in a car

Now your just being disingenuous... based on what IS IN THE VIDEO and the conversation we can hear, that is not what happened.
Yes in hind sight, after the fact, using revisionism, you can claim that.

Based on what i see and hear in a one sided video and a plaintiffs claim.. I would like to see this go to trial and be run though the investigative function of DPS.. As I don't think it was right.. But making unfounded claims with no evidence and convicting the person in advance of a trial.. Heck,, is that not what many hear complain about loudly when it happens to a Concealed hand gun carrier, , or at TSA screen-er, or....

Bitter_Clinger wrote:

mikedude wrote:From what I saw, sticking a hand down the pants is not a cavity search. As I stated, I await the facts. IF she did this, she will be dealt with.

She did NOT just stick her hands down the victims' pants! There was digital penetration!! Do you just see what you want to see or are you a hopeless apologist for authoritarian, police-state tactics??

In all fairness.. we DO NOT KNOW that.. It has been alleged to have happened that way.

If a MWAG call comes in and you are accused and arrested for " displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;"... I assume you would want the benefit of the doubt at least until all evidence was presented.. You would expect those on this board, the media, and a judge to not jump to conclusions

And no Im not defending the actions of the LEO's in this event, but neither am I taking the accusers verbal complaint at face value.

mikedude wrote:Just commenting on what I saw. That did not look like a "cavity" search... a cavity search is looking up the private parts and/or anus....no officer does that.

Looking is not the only thing done...
And while your statement is partially correct. It should probably say" no officer is supposed to do that.

Are you a LEO? if not, might I suggest you research what is allowed at the officer level by policy and what is done by LEO's running the jails, and what is done by medical personal after a warrant is sworn out.

It may surprise you. .. or not.

Thanks
But no nerve reached no slight taken.

I was just trying to be concise and clear.... Apparently it came across as snarky and angry..... Lol

Sorry about that.

mojo84 wrote:E.M., the more of your posts I read, the more I get the impression you are a LEO or in some related profession.

Not at all..
I just give them the same respect and benefit of the doubt i would afford you if you were accused of doing something that was not obvious and damning in it's own right..

If your caught standing over the body with a bloody knife your innocent until proven guilty.. but my opinion will be biased toward guilt.

If your picked up in a car as a passenger later, and a bloody knife is found in the trunk you claim is not yours, or have no knowledge of.. your innocent until proven guilty and my personal opinion with no other evidence will be just that.

Some here work very hard and finding fault, blame and evidence of guilt where there is none... those same folks would be upset if the same mentality was used by others against them.
It's hypocritical at best.

Oh and how you can claim to read my posts, .. like say this one http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=58991" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and think I have some bias aligning with LEO's against the facts as known.. is beyond me.

Mike1951 wrote:

gigag04 wrote:You may feel that they are already there, but you just stated that there was POSSIBLY evidence that the male troop was privy to the level if search conducted by his partner. I agree with that statement - he might have known. I feel that it is equally as likely that he had no idea what the female was doing to those two in searching. Without more info, you and can't make an accurate determination just from the video.

I am curious about what level of roadside search a male trooper could be expected to perform on female subjects. It seems that the advent of dash cams would eliminate any claims of impropriety for a properly executed search.

Therefore, the summoning of the female trooper indicated he wanted a more invasive search than he was willing to do.

Clearly, he was complicit.

I think you confuse a better option with what ever criminal act your coming up with out of thin air (ie we know NOTHING from the evidence thus far available to us the general public that supports what you imply, or if you have knowledge of something to the contrary, please post up.)

LEO needs to search a female..
Choice A: Do it, in front of the camera, under the policy as trained and hope nothing comes of it, defend actions later when accused....happens a lot from what I am told,, even when several witness LEO and civilian saw different.

Choice B: See if a female officer on duty and in the area can do the search and avoid the possibility of allegations that might stem from a male searching a female.

I think any honest person can see the better of the two choices available.

Now in hind sight,, perhaps that officer would have been better off with choice A.. but that's only revisionism at work.. He had no way to know that at the time of his decision.

I am not defending either officers actions ,, just not enough real information at this point. .. But if we are gong to play the guessing game, it works both directions, condemnation and reasonable doubt.

steveincowtown wrote:

gigag04 wrote:I'm sure that I'm alone in this, but if the troop smelled weed, then a search was reasonable. (Maybe not the manner in searching, but that was the female).

The comments and answers from the driver indicate to me that she knows that weed has been in the car recently.

Is there solid evidence pointing out that the male knew the full scope of the search? I might have missed something glaring.

Possibly. The blonde suspect tells the male trooper "I have never been searched like this...she put her finger in my....." (review the tape for the balance, don't want to violate the 10 year old daughter rule).

If the male trooper had a shred of Honor he would have immediately gone to his superior and reported the female trooper.

Understood on the fact finding, but I think they are already there.

But you have now crossed two different lines of discussion..
STOPPING an inappropriate action of a fellow officer was the discussion point and what others have been responding to.. and from what is available on tape and expert opinion from a LEO... it's conceivable the male LEO did not witness the extent of the intrusive search.

Your last post speaks to what the Male officer should have done AFTER the event... the response to that is... perhaps he did? you, I, we do not know if he reported the incident to his supervisor or not.