Back in June, it was reported that Georgia police departments were forcibly drawing blood from DUI suspects after obtaining a warrant due to more individuals exercising their Fifth Amendment rights by refusing field sobriety and breathalyzer tests. This created quite a controversy as some individuals believe as long as a warrant was issued, it was acceptable for law enforcement to invade someone's body for evidence. In that article, it was questioned, indirectly, whether a person's body would be their own or the government's if this practice continued amidst the Supreme Court's decision that DNA could be taken from an individual on suspicion without a warrant. The question of body cavity searches on the suspicion of possessing illegal substances arose in regards to these violations of God-given rights.
Well, the question of body cavity searches was answered when it was reported in the New York Daily News that Texas state troopers searched the body cavities of four women during traffic stops on suspicion without warrants; the incidents were caught on the troopers' own dash cam. One of them, Freedom Outpost told you about in December 2012. The videos are seen below:
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aB3nPWMQ9SU?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9ob7BDGx3Zo?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The New York Daily News reported:
Two women, as shown in a Texas state trooper's dash cam recording, are probed in their vaginas and rectums by a glove-wearing female officer after a routine traffic stop near Dallas.
A few days later, a second video surfaced. It was an eerily similar scenario, but this time the traffic stop was just outside Houston, and with different troopers. Two women, pulled over for allegedly speeding, are subjected to body cavity searches by a female officer summoned to the scene by a male trooper.
Unlike the earlier tape, this one had clear audio. Yells can be heard as the female trooper shoves her gloved finger inside one woman.
In both invasive incidents, the female troopers don't change gloves between probes, according to the horrified victims.
Texas officials say the searches are unconstitutional. So do attorneys for the shaken women, who have filed federal lawsuits.
But lawyers and civil rights advocates tell the Daily News these cavity searches are really standard policy among the Texas Department of Public Safety's state troopers, despite their illegality – not to mention that they were conducted on the side of the road in full view of passing motorists.
"It's ridiculous," said Dallas attorney Peter Schulte, who is a former Texas cop and prosecutor. "We would never put our hands anywhere near someone's private parts," he said of his time as a police officer in the city of McKinney. "When I saw that video, I was shocked. I was a law enforcement officer for 16 years and I've never seen anything like it."
Department of Public Safety Director Steven McGraw, who oversees state troopers, said his department "does not and will not tolerate any conduct that violate the U.S. And Texas constitutions, or DPS training or policy."
So how were two Texas troopers, hundreds of miles apart, conducting body cavity searches and caught on dash cams performing them if that is the case?
"The fact that they both happened means there is some sort of (department) policy" advocating their use at traffic stops, Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project said. "It's such a prohibitive practice. I don't know why they think they can do this. It's mind-boggling."
Schulte doesn't believe the policy is written, and has probably spread from region to region, instead of the top down.
The troopers' attorney defends their actions saying the women consented to the search and there was no penetration.
Believe it or not, the states of Florida and Wisconsin have had similar body cavities search controversies. In Florida, a woman, who had recently been charged with DUI, was pulled over by sheriff's deputies while driving with her children and claimed she was subjected to a body cavity search. "In Milwaukee, police were disciplined after 2012 reports surfaced that eight cops had conducted genital searches on arrested suspects without the legal authority to do so."
In July Freedom Outpost also reported on Catrina Engle, who was dealt with completely inappropriately by police after one of her toddlers put small pebbles in a Post Office box. A body cavity search was conducted on her in the parking lot while her two toddlers looked on.
So, this begs the question: If a warrant was obtained, would this then become a legal search?
Let's break it down here. The officer suspected each individual of possession of some illegal substance. The individual operating the vehicle was issued a license for the privilege of driving in the state. According to some opinions, the attainment of a driver's license is giving implied consent to submit to testing for DUI via either field sobriety or breathalyzer; if the driver refuses, a warrant to forcibly obtain evidence is within the law. So with this logic on DUI held by some, the body cavity searches would have been implied consent when obtaining a driver's license and been legal, as long as a warrant was obtained.
What would really be happening is a violation of the Fourth Amendment where the government intrudes on the individual's God-given right to be secure in their person. With the flawed logic some use with DUI applied to the body cavity search situation, this means that a person has no control over their body if law enforcement suspects one of breaking the law, whether possession of an illegal substance or DUI; and, there is no God-given right to not incriminate oneself upheld by the Fifth Amendment. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court trampled the God-given right of individuals to be secure in their person and exercise control over their own body by ruling that law enforcement could obtain DNA from individuals without a warrant. Trampling of the Fourth Amendment by government has basically informed American citizens that you have no control with what is done to your body upon being suspected of traffic violations or illegal activity or if the government deems otherwise.
To get even more in-depth, the age to obtain a driver's license in most states has been set at 16 years of age. Apply this logic to the traffic stop of a 16 year old girl that a law enforcement officer suspects of illegal possession. Don't think for one minute an officer would call a parent because the suspect is under 18 years of age before engaging in a body cavity search. And here is another question for those who support violations of the Fourth Amendment depending on the situation: what would you tell your 16 year old daughter or son who was subjected to this violation because of a "suspicion?" How would you react?
The driver was not the only individual searched; the passenger was also searched. Common sense would dictate that if passengers were young children, they would not be searched. But, common sense has been tossed out the window and one can only guess if there is an age limit on who cannot be subjected to a body cavity search. The more thinking done about these atrocious incidents leads to horrific potential unthinkable scenarios. After all, very young children have been subjected to security searches bordering on pedophilia by the TSA before being cleared for air travel.
In these reported incidences, a warrant was not obtained and even if it was, it still constitutes "unreasonable searches and seizures." For any individual to support any violation of the Fourth Amendment regarding the right of the individual to be secure in their person is to support legal physical assault or legal sexual assault and rape and erasure of freedom and liberty. It's one thing to search someone to check for dangerous paraphernalia upon arrest; but, it is unreasonable to search vaginas and rectums.
Problems arise when the Constitution is picked apart, interpreted incorrectly outside its original intent, and applied or discarded on a case by case basis. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments are either going to be upheld in their original intent or they are not. Either those amendments apply to all cases or they don't apply to any. It is evident the federal government could care less about the Fourth Amendment as NSA spying on innocent Americans has been exposed and even continues. More alarming have been some of the public's acceptance of this intrusion. Is anyone surprised that law enforcement would get the idea body cavity searches are acceptable in light of current government practices and citizens' responses to those practices?
The fact that the women who were violated consented does not justify or in any way offer a defense for the officers. And let's be honest here, no officer would admit to penetration after being named in a lawsuit. Law enforcement are viewed as figures of authority with the authorization to enact punishment for obstruction or refusal to follow instructions. Some individuals would follow an officer's instructions, cooperating when they should refuse, out of fear of retaliation.
It was reported one Texas woman involved has settled her case; two of the Texas officers have criminal trials pending; one of the female officers has been fired and one of the male officers involved is on administrative leave.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.