The videos depict two vehicle stops, one for speeding and another for littering. In both videos, a male officer asks the women if they have any marijuana in the vehicle, suggesting that the purpose of their search is to find evidence of this drug. At one point, immediately before conducting her search of a woman’s genitals, a female officer warns the woman that if she "hid something in there, we’re going to find it."
Bikini Cavity Search By Texas Troopers Along The Roadside
FULL CAVITY SEARCH: Driver accuses Texas DPS Trooper of extreme humiliation
These searches almost certainly violate the Constitution. Although police do have broad latitude to search a vehicle when they have probable cause to believe that they will uncover contraband within, it is quite a stretch to extend these precedents to this most intimate of searches. As the Supreme Court explained in a 2009 decision regarding a student who was strip searched by school administrators, "both subjective and reasonable societal expectations of personal privacy support the treatment of such a search as categorically distinct, requiring distinct elements of justification on the part of school authorities for going beyond a search of outer clothing and belongings."
Admittedly, that decision rested in part upon factors specific to that case, such as the youth of the person subject to the search. Nevertheless, the Court placed a great deal of weight on the fact that authorities had no "reason to suppose that [the student] was carrying pills in her underwear." In other words, if officials want to conduct an unusually intrusive search into a suspect’s most private areas, this strip search case suggests that they must have particular reason to believe that contraband will be found in those private areas. It is doubtful that Texas police had any reason to specifically believe that the three women searched in these videos were carrying marijuana in their vaginas or their rectums.
The New York Daily News identifies one of the officers involved in these incidents as Trooper Jennie Bui, and reports that she was fired on June 29. Another officer, Trooper Kelley Helleson was also fired and charged with two counts of sexual assault. Two other officers are suspended.
Like our NEW page on Facebook.Click here > EducateInspireChange.org
Why inthe world would you go along with any of this? People needto learn to tell the cops it's none of their damned business where they are going and refuse to comply with their unlawful pursuit. Cops are not allowed to search without your consent without probable cause that a crime is being committed. Your car smelling like something is open to interpretation and is not a crime. They never should have left the vehicle on either infraction. Assert your rights people! I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH. AM I UNDER ARREST? WHAT ARE THE CHARGES? AM I FREE TO GO? These are the only things you should ever say to a cop.
ReplyDeleteagreed
DeleteABSOLUTELY! My teenage children haven't even started driving yet, but I made them all memorize, "I do not consent to searches and I can not talk to you without my parents present!"
DeleteThis is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!
WOW! This does not really seem to constitutional or morally just or within parameters of civil rights. Inclusively, I did Not see the officer change glove(s), nor proceed this cavity search in a hygienic fashion. IE..Front to back,,, could have very well infected the urinary track and vagina with fecal matter!...very unclean. Hope neither woman ended up with infections..sorry
ReplyDeleteIt should be known that the female officer that did the search got her job back.
ReplyDeleteThis is not funny, or to be taken lightly. This is sexual assault disguised as a search. It is a total abuse of power. The State and these officers should be sued.
ReplyDeleteDid the officer even change the gloves before the second search?
For an officer to do this to me I would have to be knocked unconscious from several baton blows from more than one officer.
Nasty, disgusting people.