DPS performing roadside cavity searches!

[SwimFan85]

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.

I heard the official story was she had bad judgement but she followed policy. If that's true, everyone up the chain of command who allowed the policy to exist should get suspended for having even less honor than the male on the scene.

[sjfcontrol]

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.

I heard the official story was she had bad judgement but she followed policy. If that's true, everyone up the chain of command who allowed the policy to exist should get suspended for having even less honor than the male on the scene.

Soooo... Then following policy is bad judgement.

[The Annoyed Man]

Both females checked with the same pair of gloves! Say it isn't so!

It's on video. The dashcam was running the whole time. The two victims are suing.

[Mike1951]

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.

[Abraham]

Have roadside body cavity searches been a daily DPS investigative method and is only now coming to light?

If the female DPS officer is found innocent of wrong doing can we ALL expect that any and all LEO's have the authority to perform roadside cavity searches if they so choose as part of their investigation?

If so, they better have plenty o'lawyers!

[E.Marquez]

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.

[mojo84]

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

[E.Marquez]

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.

[mojo84]

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.

Apparently, I struck nerve. The comment was only that I got the impression from the way you appear to analyze situations and communicate that you may be a cop or in a related profession. The coment was in no way intended to insult, accuse or indicate you have a "bias aligning with LEO's".

I apologize for offending you with my comment.

By the way, I said, "the more I read your posts", I never said I read ALL your posts. I had not seen the comment you referenced until you linked to it in this post.

edited to add: I just looked at your profile and saw that you list your occupation as US Army. That brings to light some why I thought you may be a cop or in a related profession. I've worked with quite a few retired military guys and have some in the family and they too had a logical analytical way of sizing up situations. Somewhat similar to how you come across.

Thank you for your service!

[E.Marquez]

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.

[handog]

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/I ... 72921.html

Two women are suing DPS for performing cavity searches on them on the roadside. Caught on dashcam. Also the women claim the female officer did not change her glove between searches.

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.


Is it that they weren't arrested first? If that's the case, they should feel lucky Comrade Helleson didn't toss em in a paddy wagon.

[gigag04]

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/I ... 72921.html

Two women are suing DPS for performing cavity searches on them on the roadside. Caught on dashcam. Also the women claim the female officer did not change her glove between searches.

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.

Exactly! Now we're getting somewhere...

[urnoodle]

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/I ... 72921.html

Two women are suing DPS for performing cavity searches on them on the roadside. Caught on dashcam. Also the women claim the female officer did not change her glove between searches.

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. /quote]
Exactly! Now we're getting somewhere...

Yes you are correct but in this case these women were not arrested. The cavity search took place on the side of the road.

[sjfcontrol]

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/I ... 72921.html

Two women are suing DPS for performing cavity searches on them on the roadside. Caught on dashcam. Also the women claim the female officer did not change her glove between searches.

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. /quote]
Exactly! Now we're getting somewhere...

Yes you are correct but in this case these women were not arrested. The cavity search took place on the side of the road.

And then, like OJ, there's the issue of the glove. (Not to mention the "order" of the exam. )

[handog]

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/I ... 72921.html

Two women are suing DPS for performing cavity searches on them on the roadside. Caught on dashcam. Also the women claim the female officer did not change her glove between searches.

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. /quote]
Exactly! Now we're getting somewhere...

It depends on where you would like to go. If its a Police state and social control you're after there is progress. For those of us who believe in civil liberties well....not so much.