DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

[steveincowtown]

What are we firing the male troop for again?

Not surprised the female got her butt in a sling...trying to find where the male went wrong, but I've only had time to watch it once.

Lack of honor.


Depending on where you (I mean this as the collective you, not gigag) went to school or what jobs you have worked at there is usually a "Honor Code" or similar. Having knowledge of a crime or inappropriate behavior and doing nothing is just as bad as participating.


Texas A&M for example:

An Aggie does not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do.

The male cop tolerated what was going on, which in my mind is just as bad as what the female did.

The tone you (not collective but directly at gigag) are taking almost seems to defend at least the male cop, if not both. Is this your intention?

[gigag04]

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.

I'm not sure I would've caught it had I been on that scene, with all the other sensory inputs on a stop. Stops look different from the other side of a dash cam.

I'm good with dropping the hammer on the female. Not convinced the male blew it yet, though I could be.

My opinions on troopers as a whole are probably different than many on this board. I've seen too many kill cases on the stand and do goofy things on scene.

SIC - I'm still fact finding. Not defending anybody.

[Diesel42]

I've been silent because this forum is too good for friends to bicker.

As a graduate of A&M ('79), I hold myself to the standard not to lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those that do. I have been "punished" because of this standard in my job as a Federal enforcement officer (civil law, not criminal law). I deal with colleagues that insist everyone use a "us versus them" mentality. I see a similar thread in some of the comments on this forum.

Folks, I have witnessed enforcement officers (both civil and criminal) openly state they will not question their brothers. This is wrong. We are all responsible to the community and failing to correct bad professional behavior makes the institution appear corrupt. I am not criticizing anyone on this forum. I am stating my opinion regarding the attitude that we must defend each other whether right or wrong. If I see something wrong, it's my responsibility to say, "Hey, that's wrong."

I hope due process clarifies what happened and corrective action occurs. I can not find any justification for what I viewed on that dashcam. Thanks for the bandwidth.
Nick

[steveincowtown]

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.

[E.Marquez]

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.

[urnoodle]

He requested the search on bogus grounds.

You're basing this on what exactly?

The cavity search was bogus on the grounds of a smell of marijuana. These officers should have been arrested immediately as any other citizen would have been with less evidence. There should have been no consideration for suspension with pay. A citizen suffers a harsher punishment when one commits a crime against a LEO. In the reverse the punishment should be equal. Just as it is with a CHL holder, a LEO should be held to a higher standard of conduct. They have taken an oath "to protect and serve". Nothing in the whole recording shows that either one fulfilled that oath.

[JALLEN]

IRVING (CBSDFW.COM) - A Texas State Trooper who was thrust into the spotlight Tuesday after dash camera video showing her giving body cavity searches to two women became public has been suspended.

Trooper Kelly Helleson was suspended Wednesday, the day after the two women she searched as part of a traffic stop earlier this year sued her and another trooper for what they called a violation of their privacy.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/12/19/troo ... suspended/

[Jaguar]

IRVING (CBSDFW.COM) - A Texas State Trooper who was thrust into the spotlight Tuesday after dash camera video showing her giving body cavity searches to two women became public has been suspended.

Trooper Kelly Helleson was suspended Wednesday, the day after the two women she searched as part of a traffic stop earlier this year sued her and another trooper for what they called a violation of their privacy.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/12/19/troo ... suspended/

Also from the link,

The Texas Department of Public Safety, the state organization who State Troopers work for, say Helleson was put on paid suspension pending the outcome of an investigation into the incident and the lawsuit.

Commit sexual assault, get a paid vacation. I'm sure it's kinda a bummer for her that she may get fired, but at least she's getting paid.

[Abraham]

Since when are roadside body CAVITY searches justified methods for detecting weed?

We're talking marijuana, not some kind of weapons grade biological awful or some other deeply criminal thing...

Suffering succotash - weed is now legal (to grow, smoke, buy, sell) in some states. So, does this particular substance rate that high on the scale of law in Texas that body cavity searches make sense? Wouldn't searching the vehicle and clothing be adequate...?

If not, then perhaps far more severe investigative efforts need be made when really serious law breaking suspects come into the picture. You know, like in a dark room, a low wattage bare bulb is the only illumination hanging over the suspects head and rubber hoses make an appearance...harkening back to the good ole days of law enforcement when punks got what they deserved and couldn't do a darn thing about it. Roadside or jail side, you Joe Citizen better keep in line - or else!

Yes, I'm being a bit facetious, but not that much considering how the SUSPECTS were treated...

[i8godzilla]

To me, it appears that this TX DPS "occifer" (purposely typed this way) is setting herself up in a very bad way...if this not a case of sexual assault/aggravated sexual assault, I do not know what is.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

To me it seems like the officers involved are not doing something out of the ordinary but following established policy. The female officer obviously believes she is acting in accordance with policy because she deliberately conducts the search on camera. I don't know what the policy is or what their orders are, so it's difficult to know for sure whether the officers even used bad personal judgement. If these officers were following policy, it is the policy makers who need to be held to account, not the officers. Whether in the military or law enforcement, I'm sick and tired of the people in the front-line being held accountable for actions they'd never have taken without the consent, orders, or approval from those in charge. Punishment needs to flow upwards when those at the bottom are following policies and orders from those above them. The most severe punishment should be for those who gave the orders or created the policy --and many times those implementing these policies should get a pass.

If it is wrong it is wrong. I don't care if it is policy or not. Following illegal orders does not give the the officer a pass. The Nuremberg Defense did not fly in 1945 and does not now. Those that committed this sexual assault and those that created the policy share the same guilt.

[gigag04]

He requested the search on bogus grounds.

You're basing this on what exactly?

The cavity search was bogus on the grounds of a smell of marijuana. These officers should have been arrested immediately as any other citizen would have been with less evidence

I don't recall him requesting a cavity search. She took it there. He just requested a female troop swing by if she wasn't busy to search two females. I'm still not sure what the first sentence of your post is implying - are you saying that the odor of narcotics alone is not PC for a search?

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.

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 also fully agree that there should have been follow up after those comments were made. People accuse LEOs of all sorts of things all the times, but the seriousness of those comments warranted a conversation with the partner and then up the chain from there. Do we know for a fact he didn't do this? I haven't seen anything speaking to one action or the other regarding post stop follow up.



Lastly, due to the high volume of citizen complaints, people are almost never suspended w/o pay until a thorough investigation is completed. No doubt she will spend hours in front of rangers and probably some polygraph machines.

(edited to clean up iPhone posting)

[VMI77]

To me, it appears that this TX DPS "occifer" (purposely typed this way) is setting herself up in a very bad way...if this not a case of sexual assault/aggravated sexual assault, I do not know what is.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

To me it seems like the officers involved are not doing something out of the ordinary but following established policy. The female officer obviously believes she is acting in accordance with policy because she deliberately conducts the search on camera. I don't know what the policy is or what their orders are, so it's difficult to know for sure whether the officers even used bad personal judgement. If these officers were following policy, it is the policy makers who need to be held to account, not the officers. Whether in the military or law enforcement, I'm sick and tired of the people in the front-line being held accountable for actions they'd never have taken without the consent, orders, or approval from those in charge. Punishment needs to flow upwards when those at the bottom are following policies and orders from those above them. The most severe punishment should be for those who gave the orders or created the policy --and many times those implementing these policies should get a pass.

If it is wrong it is wrong. I don't care if it is policy or not. Following illegal orders does not give the the officer a pass. The Nuremberg Defense did not fly in 1945 and does not now. Those that committed this sexual assault and those that created the policy share the same guilt.

If you read my later comment to mamabear I clarified my remarks saying that I'm not arguing that the implementers get a pass (depending on the particular circumstances), but that if the implementer gets five years in prison, then the guy who created the policy should get twenty. Following orders may not be an excuse, but the greater evil is perpetrated by those who give the orders, not those who carry them out. You mentioned Nuremberg.....the same evil was not shared. The ones who gave the orders that resulted in 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 or 8,000,000 Jews killed perpetrated a greater evil that the soldier who killed 1, 10, or 100 following orders from a totalitarian regime. They all did their part, but some had bigger roles than others.

[JP171]

the female trooper was suspended with pay, the case is being refered to a grand jury in january. no illegal drugs were found and prescrition meds were removed illegally, hmmm

[JP171]

He requested the search on bogus grounds.

You're basing this on what exactly?

The cavity search was bogus on the grounds of a smell of marijuana. These officers should have been arrested immediately as any other citizen would have been with less evidence

I don't recall him requesting a cavity search. She took it there. He just requested a female troop swing by if she wasn't busy to search two females. I'm still not sure what the first sentence of your post is implying - are you saying that the odor of narcotics alone is not PC for a search?

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.

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 also fully agree that there should have been follow up after those comments were made. People accuse LEOs of all sorts of things all the times, but the seriousness of those comments warranted a conversation with the partner and then up the chain from there. Do we know for a fact he didn't do this? I haven't seen anything speaking to one action or the other regarding post stop follow up.



Lastly, due to the high volume of citizen complaints, people are almost never suspended w/o pay until a thorough investigation is completed. No doubt she will spend hours in front of rangers and probably some polygraph machines.

(edited to clean up iPhone posting)

Marajuana isn't a narcotic

[talltex]

Before any/everyone accuses me of being a pothead, I never have used any non-prescription drugs including marijuana. I'm just a old, sarcastic, innuendoing, moral relativist who thinks the so-called 'War on Drugs' in an expensive waste of time, resources and money.

The police state actions depicted herein are despicable and have absolutely no place in a free country. File charges and sue big time!

From one non-pot smoking, "moral relativist" to another.
As for the body search...the whole stop appears to be a fishing expedition, and probable cause for ANY search looks pretty weak (unless tossing a butt is now a known indicator of illicit drug use), much less a hands on (and IN) search. After his search of the car and the body search come up empty, Officer Ferrell's response to the woman when she complains about what was just done to her, is to imply that it's her fault because she's driving a car that's smoked in daily...wow.