Traffic Stops & Cavity Searches

[s_stabeler]

What specific conditions allow for body cavity searches? I understand in a jail or prison environment, where you are looking out for the safety of the prisoner and staff, but these were just random guys going about their day, who were pulled over for a minor traffic violation.

actually, there is one condition: probable cause to believe something is concealed inside a body cavity. (with the obvious exception of an IUD, tampon, or other device which is designed to be there) any other reason for a cavity search is unfair, since they are invasive procedures

[Andara Bledin]

I'm not sure the 2nd hospital could reasonably be expected to know what. If they acted in good faith, then they're not liable.

They have a duty to at least read the warrant, which would have given them both the fact that the county was the wrong jurisdiction and that they'd run out of time to do any searches three hours prior to the colonoscopy.

[AccountingDrone]

That would allow any drug dealer to plug their drugs and prevent them coming to justice so I thing that's not a wise course of action to take.

It's not unreasonable to think that criminals store their drugs internally (they do) so there should be some due process involved with safeguards in place to prevent this kind of abuse of process.

3 enemas, 2 internal exams, imaging and then a colonoscopy.

I would hazard a guess that after the first internal, first enema and the imaging that it would have been quite safe to say there was nothing hidden inside the poor guy. The next 2 enemas, the second internal exam and the colonoscopy were seriously excessive.

[Panacea]

What specific conditions allow for body cavity searches? I understand in a jail or prison environment, where you are looking out for the safety of the prisoner and staff, but these were just random guys going about their day, who were pulled over for a minor traffic violation.

A drug dog alerted that there were drugs present, but none were found. So, the cops figured he was a mule and carrying them internally. At least, that's what they'll claim.

They have a duty to at least read the warrant, which would have given them both the fact that the county was the wrong jurisdiction and that they'd run out of time to do any searches three hours prior to the colonoscopy.

Maybe they did, and didn't understand that they had to be in the same county that it was issued. I've seen legal documents of this sort; the legalese can be very confusing for someone who doesn't work with it every day.

Again, we only have one side of the story. I'd love to see the actual warrant to see how the cops justified their actions, and see the medical record to understand what the doctor was thinking.

[crazylegs]

I would hazard a guess that after the first internal, first enema and the imaging that it would have been quite safe to say there was nothing hidden inside the poor guy. The next 2 enemas, the second internal exam and the colonoscopy were seriously excessive.

Absolutely, you'll get no argument from me on that.

[RedRoseSpiral]

A drug dog alerted that there were drugs present, but none were found. So, the cops figured he was a mule and carrying them internally. At least, that's what they'll claim.

That claim won't hold water. The dog was not certified to be used to sniff out drugs and had previously gave false-positives of drugs being present.

[Panacea]

That claim won't hold water. The dog was not certified to be used to sniff out drugs and had previously gave false-positives of drugs being present.

Oh, I agree. That was the justification the cops used. I doubt the judge who signed the warrant knew this; he's probably in a rage about this.

However, it does mean that the civil suit will probably succeed.