Victim Of Dog-Authorized Anal Assault Receives $1.6 Million Settlement

The Associated Press reports that the city of Deming, New Mexico, where
David Eckert was pulled over for a rolling stop last January, and nearby
Hidalgo County have agreed to settle a civil rights lawsuit he filed
after cops from those two jurisdictions forced him to undergo a
humiliating exploration of his digestive tract. The city and county will
pay Eckert $1.6 million, which amounts to $200,000 for each of the
increasingly intrusive searches performed on Eckert at Gila Regional
Medical Center in Silver City: two X-rays, two digital probes of his
anus, three enemas, and a colonoscopy, none of which discovered the
slightest trace of the drugs that police claim to have thought he was
hiding inside himself. Eckert also sued various Deming and Hidalgo
County police officers; the hospital, which billed him more than $6,000
for these indignities; and two physicians, Robert Wilcox and Okay
Odocha, who executed the elaborate assault under the cover of medicine.

“It was medically unethical and unconstitutional,” Shannon Kennedy,
Eckert’s attorney, told A.P. “He feels relieved that this part is over
and believes this litigation might make sure this doesn’t happen to
anyone else.” Eckert added:

I feel that I got some justice as I think the settlement shows they were
wrong to do what they did to me. I truly hope that no one will be
treated like this ever again. I felt very helpless and alone on that night.

Although this measure of justice is welcome, it is too bad we may never
get a definitive ruling on the legality of Eckert’s dehumanizing ordeal,
which was inflicted based on a search warrant that police obtained by
claiming a drug-detecting dog “alerted” to the driver’s seat of Eckert’s
pickup truck. They also said he seemed nervous and was standing with his
legs together, which suggested to them that he was concealing contraband
up his butt. That last detail received a lot of attention, but it seems
clear that the warrant would not have been issued without the alleged
dog alert. The Supreme Court has said such evidence by itself provides
probable cause for a search unless the suspect can show the dog is
unreliable—an opportunity that does not arise until long after the
search is carried out.


From Forbes:

http://tinyurl.com/mshgq8n

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:57:51 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Victim Of Dog-Authorized Anal Assault Receives $1.6 Million Settlement

http://tinyurl.com/mshgq8n

See above. That's how the story could have been posted.

Why would anyone dislike the outcome? Seems like you should get the SCOTUS to revise its ruling:

"The Supreme Court has said such evidence by itself provides probable cause for a search unless the
suspect can show the dog is unreliable-an opportunity that does not arise until long after the
search is carried out.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:48:58 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:57:51 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Victim Of Dog-Authorized Anal Assault Receives $1.6 Million Settlement

http://tinyurl.com/mshgq8n

See above. That's how the story could have been posted.

Why would anyone dislike the outcome? Seems like you should get the SCOTUS to revise its ruling:

"The Supreme Court has said such evidence by itself provides probable cause for a search unless the
suspect can show the dog is unreliable-an opportunity that does not arise until long after the
search is carried out.

The point wasn't that the search was unconstitutional, the point was
that they went crazy with two X-rays, two digital probes of his anus,
three enemas, and a colonoscopy.

Any one of which would have been sufficient.

Plus, a dog alerted by sniffing a seat.... really?

Maintain too wide a stance and you are guilty of lewd conduct; too
narrow a stance and you are a drug mule. Maybe the SCOTUS needs to
visit "stance profiling" ?!?!

It's cold, the weather sucks, so I'm staying in.... they'll never get
me here.....

On 1/21/14, 5:31 PM, Gene Kearns wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:48:58 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:57:51 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Victim Of Dog-Authorized Anal Assault Receives $1.6 Million Settlement

http://tinyurl.com/mshgq8n

See above. That's how the story could have been posted.

Why would anyone dislike the outcome? Seems like you should get the SCOTUS to revise its ruling:

"The Supreme Court has said such evidence by itself provides probable cause for a search unless the
suspect can show the dog is unreliable-an opportunity that does not arise until long after the
search is carried out.

The point wasn't that the search was unconstitutional, the point was
that they went crazy with two X-rays, two digital probes of his anus,
three enemas, and a colonoscopy.

Any one of which would have been sufficient.

Plus, a dog alerted by sniffing a seat.... really?

Maintain too wide a stance and you are guilty of lewd conduct; too
narrow a stance and you are a drug mule. Maybe the SCOTUS needs to
visit "stance profiling" ?!?!

It's cold, the weather sucks, so I'm staying in.... they'll never get
me here.....


Are you on travel leave, Gene, or did the cold seek you out where you live?

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:34:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/21/14, 5:31 PM, Gene Kearns wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:48:58 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:57:51 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Victim Of Dog-Authorized Anal Assault Receives $1.6 Million Settlement

http://tinyurl.com/mshgq8n

See above. That's how the story could have been posted.

Why would anyone dislike the outcome? Seems like you should get the SCOTUS to revise its ruling:

"The Supreme Court has said such evidence by itself provides probable cause for a search unless the
suspect can show the dog is unreliable-an opportunity that does not arise until long after the
search is carried out.

The point wasn't that the search was unconstitutional, the point was
that they went crazy with two X-rays, two digital probes of his anus,
three enemas, and a colonoscopy.

Any one of which would have been sufficient.

Plus, a dog alerted by sniffing a seat.... really?

Maintain too wide a stance and you are guilty of lewd conduct; too
narrow a stance and you are a drug mule. Maybe the SCOTUS needs to
visit "stance profiling" ?!?!

It's cold, the weather sucks, so I'm staying in.... they'll never get
me here.....


Are you on travel leave, Gene, or did the cold seek you out where you live?

It got me where I live......

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
Victim Of Dog-Authorized Anal Assault Receives $1.6 Million Settlement

The Associated Press reports that the city of Deming, New Mexico, where
David Eckert was pulled over for a rolling stop last January, and nearby
Hidalgo County have agreed to settle a civil rights lawsuit he filed
after cops from those two jurisdictions forced him to undergo a
humiliating exploration of his digestive tract. The city and county will
pay Eckert $1.6 million, which amounts to $200,000 for each of the
increasingly intrusive searches performed on Eckert at Gila Regional
Medical Center in Silver City: two X-rays, two digital probes of his
anus, three enemas, and a colonoscopy, none of which discovered the
slightest trace of the drugs that police claim to have thought he was
hiding inside himself. Eckert also sued various Deming and Hidalgo County
police officers; the hospital, which billed him more than $6,000 for
these indignities; and two physicians, Robert Wilcox and Okay Odocha, who
executed the elaborate assault under the cover of medicine.

“It was medically unethical and unconstitutional,� Shannon Kennedy,
Eckert’s attorney, told A.P. “He feels relieved that this part is over
and believes this litigation might make sure this doesn’t happen to
anyone else.� Eckert added:

I feel that I got some justice as I think the settlement shows they were
wrong to do what they did to me. I truly hope that no one will be treated
like this ever again. I felt very helpless and alone on that night.

Although this measure of justice is welcome, it is too bad we may never
get a definitive ruling on the legality of Eckert’s dehumanizing ordeal,
which was inflicted based on a search warrant that police obtained by
claiming a drug-detecting dog “alerted� to the driver’s seat of Eckert’s
pickup truck. They also said he seemed nervous and was standing with his
legs together, which suggested to them that he was concealing contraband
up his butt. That last detail received a lot of attention, but it seems
clear that the warrant would not have been issued without the alleged dog
alert. The Supreme Court has said such evidence by itself provides
probable cause for a search unless the suspect can show the dog is
unreliable—an opportunity that does not arise until long after the search is carried out.


From Forbes:

http://tinyurl.com/mshgq8n

Another example of a war we lost. The drug war should be done away with
lust like prohibition!