Woman Sues After Cops Strip Her Naked and Throw Her in a Cell Following DUI Arrest

Back in June, an article at Freedom Outpost reported the State of Georgia allows forcible blood draws on individuals who refused a field sobriety test or breathalyzer when suspected of driving under the influence. A little over a month later, it was reported that Texas state troopers performed roadside body cavity searches on four women during traffic stops on suspicion without a warrant. Both articles dealt with the violation of the Fourth and Fifth amendments, but when it came to a possible drunk driving charge, several comments to the forced blood draw article indicated that Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights could be violated with a warrant to obtain blood for alcohol testing.

In an incident, which one could only describe as bizarre, a 33 year old woman, who was arrested in May on charges of drunk driving, was stripped naked after a pat down by a female officer and thrown into a jail cell with blankets to provide coverage of her body. According to The Blaze, Dana Holmes, the woman strip-searched after being charged with DUI, has filed a lawsuit against LaSalle County, Illinois for violation of her civil rights and possible criminal activity.

The video, released by Ms. Holmes can be viewed below. It chronicles her ordeal from the traffic stop through fingerprinting and taking of the mugshot. The film has been edited for time and to remove any nudity. Audio stops when the video begins in the law enforcement office.

Trending: 26-Year-Old Iranian Woman Hanged for Refusing to be Raped

take our poll - story continues below

Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?

  • Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

According to The Blaze

LaSalle County Sheriff Thomas Templeton said he did not know about the video or the incident until he was questioned by the Tribune about it. Officers though filed an incident report, which said Holmes was uncooperative and, as a result, was told she would be placed in a padded cell “until she sobers up and was willing to cooperate and not fight with deputies.”

So, a woman was uncooperative and warranted being placed in a padded cell. Reviewing the video, I am uncertain as to where being uncooperative was demonstrated. The female officer was patting Ms. Holmes down and lifted Ms. Holmes foot. When the officer proceeded to investigate the other leg, it appears Ms. Holmes lifted her foot, possibly in anticipation, and then was grabbed by officers, pushed to the ground and then carried into a cell where they proceeded to remove her clothing. The video then shows Ms. Holmes in the cell wrapped in blankets.

The Blaze reported the Chicago Tribune as saying:

Sheriff’s officers did not note any justification for removing her clothes, nor did they note any suspicion that she was hiding a weapon or drugs. She had already been searched by Marseilles police officers who arrested her, according to their report. She also was monitored by a Marseilles police officer while she used the bathroom at the police station there.

Under Illinois law, a strip-search is permitted only when officers have a “reasonable belief” that the subject is hiding a weapon or a controlled substance on their body. The law also requires that the strip-search be done by an officer of the same sex as the subject and cannot be observed by people not conducting the search.

An expert on criminal procedure said it was hard to see what legal justification sheriff’s officers may have believed they had for a strip-search, regardless of Holmes’ demeanor.

“Nothing in the statute says resisting arrest is justification for a strip-search,” said Len Cavise, who teaches criminal law as the DePaul University College of Law.

Holmes’ lawyer, Terry Ekl, told the Tribune that officers became “riled” when Holmes removed her belly button ring on her own after officers said they would need to remove it with pliers.

Officers did note that Ms. Holmes tried to kick them during the pat down; a charge Ms. Holmes denies saying she might have lost her balance but did not try to kick.

Because of the lawsuit, Sheriff Templeton refused further comment to the Tribune.

Dana Holmes, 33 of Coal City
Dana Holmes, 33 of Coal City
Ms. Holmes admitted she was driving drunk and pleaded guilty in July. She is now on probation. However, Ms. Holmes maintains “it still doesn’t give them a reason to do what they did,” referring to her DUI charge and subsequent arrest.

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed these body cavity searches and strip-searches are happening to women? Does it seem that law enforcement officials have decided to ignore God-given rights based on “reasonable belief?”

I have a “reasonable belief” that Obama and certain members of Congress are traitors. I’m sure other law enforcement officials have that same “reasonable belief” as I do. Based on that premise, why are they not marching on the White House and Capitol Hill on that suspicion and then doing body cavity and strip-searches on them? I’m sure Obama and his cronies would exhibit the epitome of resisting arrest and being uncooperative, as that seems the only justification LaSalle County Sheriff’s officers gave for a strip-search.

As an article by Dean Garrison so eloquently pointed out, “The Constitution is not a Chinese f***ing buffet.” The Fourth and Fifth Amendments prohibit government from coercing or ordering individuals to be a witness against themselves and performing unreasonable searches and seizures, regardless of the reason for arrest. To pick and choose which crimes are “deserving” of having those amendments upheld is acting like a tyrant or dictator who chooses which laws to enforce and which ones to discard.

Drunk driving is stupid, irresponsible and reckless; so is murder, rape and assault. So why are law enforcement officers so keen to violate God-given rights and ignore the law of the land when it comes to drunk driving? Only a law enforcement officer who has violated the law of the land and an individual’s God-given rights could answer that, but I won’t hold my breath for a reasonable answer.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Previous Federal Government: Embarrassing to the Point of Painful
Next 30 Statistics About Americans Under The Age Of 30 That Will Blow Your Mind

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don't see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Sorry. No data so far.