Texas women sue over cavity search. "The officer didn't even change gloves!" (Warning:Very Graphic)

[aaaaaa5a]

Two Texan women have filed a lawsuit for being subjected to embarrassing ‘roadside body cavity searches’ by state troopers who searched their genital regions.





The women were stopped by a trooper for throwing a cigarette butt out of their car window, which is prohibited under the Texas Health & Safety Code that outlaws littering. Angel Dobbs, 38, and her niece Ashley Dobbs, 24, were stopped by a trooper on State Highway 161 and forced to exit their vehicles. Trooper David Farrell then began to question the women about marijuana, proceeding to search the car and then calling his female colleague Kelley Helleson to the scene to search the women’s bodies.

The trooper’s dash-mounted camera captured the incident on tape, which was published online by the Dallas Morning News. The video shows Helleson using her fingers to search the anuses and vaginas of the women. The trooper used the same latex glove to touch the genitals of both women, while conducting the search on the side of the road in full view of the passing vehicles.

Farrell said she ordered the search because the women were “acting weird” – even though he found no marijuana in the car and had no indication of any illegal activity aside from the littering. He then tried to “morph this situation into a DWI investigation”, the Dallas Morning News reports. Neither of the women had been drinking.

The troopers, as well as Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety Steven McCraw, will now be forced to attend court to settle the incident. McCraw said he was aware of complaints about “unlawful strip searches, cavity searches and the like”, but did not do anything to address the issue.

Scott H. Palmer, an attorney for the woman, told the Dallas Morning News that this is a case of public sexual assault and that “no one’s ever seen the likes of this”.



Full story:
http://rt.com/usa/news/texas-women-roadside-cavity-422/


Dallas News.com
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2012/12/irving-women-sue-state-troopers-in-federal-court-alleging-roadside-body-cavity-searches.html/



Video: (Warning: Very Graphic)

News Report:

[KansDem]

1. They remained remarkably composed...

I hope they collect...big!

Oh, but if they laundered $880 million in drug-cartel and terrorist money, they'd only receive a fine. Don't want to be putting a finger up a CEO's ass!

[aaaaaa5a]

2. Me too!

When I first heard about the story, I almost couldn't believe it. There are some police officers out there that are completely out of control.

[Liberal_in_LA]

7. +100

[deutsey]

3. Outrageous

[cthulu2016]

4. Everyone in the world, please stop the casual lying

There is no cavity search. This is a thing about video... it is there to be seen.

If this story was about an intrusive search, an inappropriate search, an illegal search, whatever, it would be fine.

But since the repeated claim of a cavity search is a LIE it makes the story a farce.

Plainly dishonest claims do not buttress an argument -- quite the opposite.

(And now people will say I am saying the search is appropriate, which I am obviously not, but people who groove on dishonesty tend to groove on it 24/7)

[jberryhill]

6. Uh, "lying"

From the forearm movement, it looks like that wrist with the fingers attached is going somewhere.

[cthulu2016]

12. Yes, the woman or women are lying

This video was posted last night. I watched it. There is no "cavity search."

There is a very intrusive underwear search involving genital contact of a sort that any of us would find incredibly objectionable.

One can argue that the level of intrusion is tantamount to a cavity search.

One can probably spend a career identifying problems with this search.

It might be the worst search of the year. It is probably outrageous, illegal, disgusting, etc.. It is exactly the sort of thing a loony civil-libertarian like myself would be first in line to condemn.

One cannot, however, credit the women's stories when the story or stories make claims that are readily falsified by the video.

The explicit claim offered with the video is false, which is a problem with the case.

And I am tired of people pushing everything into the territory of falsehood to make claim more sensational.

The fact that I am tired of it will not stop the phenomenon, but I have duly registered my hyperbole fatigue.

With the cavity search claim withdrawn there would be a hell of a lot of merit to the compliants, so it just does not help anyone or anything.

[jberryhill]

13. "involving genital contact"

Oh, okay, so touching someone's anus and vagina, and then touching someone else's anus and vagina with the same glove is just a way of saying "Howdy" in Texas.

[cthulu2016]

23. jberryhill, you cannot be going there. You know better.

I did not say it was a good search, an appropriate search, a legal search... if a review of the tape got both officers fired I wouldn't lose any sleep.

It's an appalling search... and particularly for pot.

Shocking. Disgusting.

But plainly not a "cavity search." And yes, these petty little falsehoods do have a bad effect on society.

From a civil liberties perspective I prefer that allegations of police misconduct be rigorously truthful.

I am one of the bigger nut civil liberties types here and would be delighted to see cases like this go somewhere on their actual merits.

The search may well be equally wrong with or without a cavity search, but when a witness leads off with a sensational misrepresentation of fact it takes away credibility.

[EOTE]

35. WHY THE FUCK IS THIS NOT A "Cavity search"? You've said that multiple times with NO explanation.

You've called these women liars multiple times while offering nothing in terms of an explanation. You're a nut alright, but not in a good way at all. Christ your attitude is sickening.

[jberryhill]

101. No, I don't "know better"

I assume you are making some reference to my legal background.

If so, I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that if so much as any part of the surface of a finger advanced beyond a spatial boundary defined between the the maximum external protrusion of the labia majoris, then absent some authoritative definition, I'd call that a "cavity search".

Or, as the woman in the video so eloquently puts it "stuck a finger.... in my p**sy"

[ohheckyeah]

37. Not only touching someone else's anus and

vagina but touching the first woman's anus FIRST and then her vaginal area. Great way to get an infection. Dumb ass witch cop. Any woman knows better than that.

[Sivafae]

82. Exactly.

I think that was the most shocking thing to me. That a woman would be starting at the back and then going to the front. Has this women never seen a doctor? It is ingrained in us from a young age, go front to back.

[TeamPooka]

103. my exact reaction also.

[jberryhill]

19. "One can argue that the level of intrusion is tantamount to a cavity search"

Then it would seem to be on over-the-top characterization to call someone a "liar" here. As you know, for example, the degree of penetration, however slight, is not an issue in any state's definition of rape.

[cthulu2016]

25. I started this story with the first posting last night.

The cavity search of the anus, followed by the vagina, on both women, was described explicitly, and presented as their claim of what the video depicts.

My objection is to the specific claims made.

And the legal definition of various sorts of sexual assault does not ber on the question of whether the claims are exaggerated. It bears on whether what really happened is objectionable -- which it is.

It is very objectionable.

But this "overstaing the truth serves a higher truth" racket sucks.

"Parents give six year old gun to take to school."

"The article says nothing to suggest that the parents were aware the kid took a gun to school."

"So it's fine with you if kids take guns to school?" or... "They didn't have the guns secured, which is the same thing..."

[EOTE]

33. You called those women LIARS.

Do you not see how disgusting that is? Will you not at least apologize for that? EVERY indication suggests that the women are telling the truth. Yet you call those women liars. And you call yourself a civil-libertarian? You're nothing but an apologist for the fascists. You anticipated the backlash that you'd get, but provide no reason why the backlash wouldn't be anything but appropriate. You can continue banging your head against the wall. It's better than making another of your idiotic posts.

[jsmirman]

49. Very confused by your posts here - HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE WOMAN'S ON SCENE COMMENT???

The woman clearly says on the video recorded RIGHT THEN, RIGHT THERE, caught by the dashboard cam:

"she had a finger in my ass and then in my pussy" (apologies for the language, but this is a direct quote)

So what are you suggesting?

That the violated, traumatized woman had the foresight to make that up right there on the spot, that the cops could hear that and didn't deny it, for reasons you can't explain, that she knew she would be able to get the dashboard cam video, even though she didn't seem to know anything else about what she could do in the situation - I could keep going, but are you fucking serious?

[redqueen]

71. Not that it matters

but I could have sworn she said "coochie".

[UnrepentantLiberal]

107. She did.

[jsmirman]

117. I'd have to listen again, but agreed, it doesn't matter

Although she definitely said something I wasn't expecting, but it was her ordeal, not mine...

[jsmirman]

118. Listened again - you're right

[EOTE]

22. Absolutely disgusting.

You're NOT a civil-libertarian. You're an apologist for fascists and it's stomach churning. You know NOTHING of this case and you call those women liars. Sick, sick sick.

[Uncle Joe]

26. If the police officer was only searching externalities, why did she put her hand down their pants?

Last edited Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:33 PM - Edit history (1)

She didn't put her hands under their tops to search their breast area.

The only hyperbolic things are the insane laws that would allow such a thing and the apparent comfort level some people have reached in believing this should be the norm here in the "land of the free and home of the brave."

[EOTE]

41. And remember, it's only a cavity search if the fingers reach the esophagus.

Anything less is perfectly acceptable according to some "civil-libertarians" here.

[Cali_Democrat]

30. In addition to looking foolish....

Now you're just being dishonest. You can't possibly tell from the video if the officer probed into their cavities, yet you explicitly said "There is no cavity search" in your first post.

You should probably delete your posts to avoid further embarrassment.

[EOTE]

38. Not dishonest, he's a LIAR.

He says he knows this to be true. And this fascist apologist has the nerve to call those women liars. Rarely am I this upset by what some random asshole on the internet posts, but this guy has done it. I feel sick posting on the same website.

[jberryhill]

39. Change your gloves before your next random asshole encounter

[EOTE]

45. I'd prefer an asshole removal team, but that might work. NT

[intheflow]

87. MIRT? n/t

[EOTE]

88. If only.

Apparently people are all too OK with people calling victims of sexual assault liars around here.

[KatyMan]

75. Not only that...

but from a healthcare perspective (KatyMan's wife)-- search the vagina first, then the anus. And yes, you should change gloves between searchs. Cardinal rule in healthcare- start at the cleanest and move to dirtiest. Not a difficult concept.

What a disgusting ordeal for these women. Hopefully they will sue.

[cthulu2016]

51. words have meaning

These words have meaning: "cavity search"

There was not one performed in the video.

There was also not a unicorn.

There was, however, a grossly intrusive roadside search of a sort that should be illegal.

But if the women actually claim fingers were inserted in their anuses they are confabulating events... exaggerating in a dishonest fashion... telling something other than the truth... phrase it however one wishes.

[EOTE]

58. EXPLAIN WHY!

Tell us why inserting one's finger into another person's anus and vagina during a search is not a cavity search. Explain how that doesn't meat the definition of: "A body cavity search is either a visual search or a manual internal inspection of body cavities such as for prohibited material". Explain that, genius. You've made that jackass claim dozens of times, but you are obviously not bright enough to realize that "words have meaning". Some idiot with a low 2 digit IQ screaming on the internet doesn't make that something true as much as you'd like that to be the case.

[Tien1985]

60. How can you tell?

I don't see how you can tell either way? She has her hand in her pants, you can't see where she is putting her fingers--granted no one else can either. Except the women and the police officer.

[pecwae]

63. What do your words mean then?

You're saying they're lying. Were you someone present inside their underwear to attest to your claim that there was no cavity search? No, there wasn't a unicorn and you weren't there either. You really ought to delete the shit you've posted.

[FloriTexan]

32. The Texas Rangers (not the Bball team)

viewed the video and sent it to the DA in Dallas for grand jury determination. Clearly there is something wrong with this procedure. Would you let the officer stick her hand down your pants, front then back? On the side of the road in front of the vehicles headlights?!

[Aerows]

70. She said back then front

Which is a huge no-no. And on the side of the road. Hell no. For a traffic stop, no less? What, are we all open to getting a cavity search if we "act weird" when we exceed the speed limit a little bit? That's what all of this apologizing for the TSA and the war on drugs has gotten us. Police sticking their hands in our pants and feeling us up on the side of the damn road like they have any right whatsoever to do that to innocent people.

And you know, we are innocent until proven guilty, and proving someone guilty does not involve sticking your hands in their privates without a warrant.

[Liberal_in_LA]

116. notice - cop didn't search anywhere but private parts - lots of feeling about breast

and genitals. No feeling over arms and legs like normally seen. unless they cut something out.

weird - police stop to get her jollies, I guess

[Sivafae]

86. Then when the second lady was being searched, what was her hand doing down there for 12 seconds?

That's a pretty long time to just be feeling around. Go on. Go back and count. The first lady, she was like 3 to 5 seconds tops. The second lady, somewhere between 10-12 seconds. Something don't seem right there.

[FLyellowdog]

8. Excuse me...but how do you know these were not insertion/invasive searches?

If they were, then they were cavity searches.

[cthulu2016]

16. When reviewing evidence

one needs to control the phenomenon of people seeing or hearing what they are told they will see or hear, and seeing or listening what is actually there.

Remember the Zimmerman "coon" tape? Countless thousands of people were ready to swear to what they heard after being told what they were hearing, but it wasn't there.

In assessing a claim you cannot use the claim itself as evidence for the claim. The only reason a person would see a cavity search here (where there plainly is not) is because they want to, or because they have been primed to.

[jberryhill]

24. You still can't use the label "lying"

We have the video - which is ambiguous, but certainly renders it feasible that penetration was involved.

We have the statements of the women involved.

In order to assert that they are "lying" then you must be able to point to something which renders their statements to be untrue.

On what basis does the video render their statements to be untrue?

You can certainly say, "you can't tell from the video", but I do not see how you are getting to "they are lying."

I don't know where that officer's finger's went, and neither do you.

[cthulu2016]

80. sure we know

Granted, we have to make some wild assumptions -- the female officers fingers remain the same length when out of our sight, the female officers hands are of the typical human sort where the fingers bend toward the palm, rather than backward, and that the female officer is acting with intent... that her actions are part of a conscious set of acts with goals.

Could a good sleight of hand magician or mime create an act where his finger was inserted into the anus while giving the impression from body movement that it was not? Maybe so. And of course the video could have been doctored.

But as presented, no, the story is not true on the detail of being a digital examination of the interior of anus or vagina.

As for the word "lying"... I came through election 2012 with the strong sense that words intended to deceive the listener are lies.

Maybe it is too strong a word, and I should substitute confabulation.

As you know, it is tricky to determine what people actually believe, since they often don't know themselves.

The story presented is not true as to the detail of the nature of the search that is depicted in the video. I'll leave it at that.

[EOTE]

83. You CAN'T SEE THEIR FINGERS when they were inside the pants of those women.

Fuck, I can't imagine why you continue to defend (yes, you are defending the actions of these criminals) these assholes. You are pretending to be some kind of even more psychopathic Judge Dredd, without any of the intellect. Do you realize how sick it is to accuse these victims of being liars? Do you honestly not have an idea how absolutely sickening and disgusting you sound?

[Aerows]

92. If a police officer

sticks their fingers in your underwear on the side of the road for a traffic stop, that is insanity no matter how you slice it. And frankly, that looked to me very much like she was probing and penetrating them.

If you are prepared to get yourself fingered over a routine traffic stop, well you have at it. I'm not and sane people won't put up with that shit, either. When ANYONE has the right to pull you over for a routine traffic stop and stick their hands on your privates, they have too much power. What was done to those women, in full view on the side of the road was not right, was not sane, and you can backpedal all day long but you will NEVER be able to justify that, and calling them liars was just icing on the shit cake you served with your comments.

[jberryhill]

95. You can see the second woman flinch when those fingers get were they are going

You are married to your initial reaction here, and should really reconsider.

Officer Dirty Sanchez needs to be disciplined.

[Aerows]

100. Exactly

and the female officer was in her underwear for a long time, and it looked like she was probing around. The woman flinched.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. You don't know if the officer stuck her fingers up the cavities of the women

It's impossible to tell because the officer goes under the clothes.

[Tien1985]

10. Serious question

How can you tell? I don't know a whole lot about cavity searches, but I do know it's easily possible to insert fingers in a body from the front and back of the pants as shown in the video... The thing is, I wouldn't be able to say that's what happened or not from this video. Is there some particular way of doing a cavity search that rules this out, or would the overall wrongness of the search make you wonder if they did a cavity search wrong too?

And another question for anybody: if this is what they say it is, WTF are we doing watching what amounts to video evidence of rape???

[aaaaaa5a]

11. That's not the point. The fact that at minimum its debatable is enough for me. nt

[EOTE]

17. What the fuck do you call sticking one's finger inside of their asses and vagina?

Are you serious? You're going to defend this bullshit? You may not be saying this is appropriate, but you're certainly excusing the criminals (pigs) in this case. What the fuck is your issue? You should probably look up the term before making such an incredibly stupid comment. There's only one person here being dishonest, and that's you.

[cthulu2016]

81. I would call that a cavity search

What would you call it?

[EOTE]

84. And it's your amazing dark world powers that allows you to determine that didn't happen?

Even though it's fucking obvious by the video? And the fact that the woman recounted what happened right after it happened? And the fucking pig didn't deny anything the woman said because it was obvious that that's exactly what he ordered? Is it just that you're not very bright? Or do you have a hard on for defending people who do indefensible things?

[jberryhill]

89. What's it called? "The Aristocrats!"

[EOTE]

93. Sick...

but I kinda laughed in spite of myself.

[obamanut2012]

20. It's a cavity search

Probing into body orifices is a cavity search.

[nc4bo]

36. Not sure about the back but the front search absolutely had me cringing.

That hand definitely looked like it was digging way down then up into. In fact, this took some time to do, I'd imagine that lips were pushed out the way and fingers inserted into a place they do not belong. I'd also feel embarrassed and violated.

In addition, she didn't even change her gloves - absolutely disgusting and unhygienic!!

[Ash_F]

40. Rape apologia

This is what is acceptable on DU in this day and age.

[redqueen]

43. Apparently you have little or no experience

with the mechanics involved in cavity searches.

A woman doesn't have to bend over and be naked from the waist down to be subjected to a cavity search, you know.

[pecwae]

44. What's your

definition of a cavity search and what would someone have to do to you for you to say your cavities had been searched? So a cavity search must be witnessed by a third party or it's a lie?

[Aerows]

52. She shoved her hands in both women's pants!

For a fucking traffic stop? Felt them up, and stuck her hands in their pants. Do you realize that could be you, your parents, your children or your family members on the side of the road getting violated at the whim of a police officer?

That said, there is no fucking way I'd consent to that. You are going to need a warrant before you do that to me, a lawyer involved and it won't be on the side of the goddamned road.

[Egalitarian Thug]

59. You know that line you shouldn't cross? Look behind you. n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

61. I watched the tape. You have no idea what you're talking about.

The women weren't wearing see-through pants. Therefore, anyone who watches the tape cannot be certain whether or not a cavity search was performed. Where do you get off calling these women liars? We already know cops are liars--lying is built into their job descriptions. We don't know about these women and the veracity of their claims (although I see no reason whatsoever to doubt their word). Yet you feel comfortable licking at feet of abusive authority and calling these women liars. Does the head of the TX Dept of Safety always show up in court to answer the charges of liars?

So it's time to put up or shut up. Several people have asked you why you called these women liars. You can either answer, or you can wear the label you're trying to throw around.

[Aerows]

64. If you are at the point

Where you stick your hands in my underwear, that's going way to far right there, regardless of whether you stick a finger in me or not!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

79. Oh, I definitely agree

But with that post, I was countering this ridiculous notion that the other poster was able to somehow determine that no cavity search took place. What we do know from seeing with our own eyes is that the cop had her hand down both women's pants for the purpose of conducting a search. It's reasonable to believe, therefore, that a cavity search did take place, even though we cannot see it on the tape because of the nontransparent nature of blue jeans. But by the very same token, stating categorically that these women are lying is itself, a lie. I'll never understand why some people seem to thrive on mewling at the feet of authority. Anyway, I know I'm preaching to the choir, just wanted to clarify my previous post. Thanks.

[redqueen]

91. I don't think it has anything to do with authority.

These women claim they were subjected to a cavity search. Some guys seem to be inclined not to believe these particular kinds of claims by women, to an almost pathological extent.

[cthulu2016]

85. I agree. I expect that everyone agrees.

And it is a damn shame that this case of an obviously outrageous search is marred by the fact that the two victims are making a false statement as to what happened on an emotionally powerful detail, but a detail probably not even necessary to making the case that the search is outrageous.

[Aerows]

98. You keep saying they made a false statement

If the woman says a finger was put inside of her, and frankly, being a woman myself I know what that looks like, I believe her. Why you don't want to believe them is beyond me. Did you not see the second woman flinching, and how LONG she was in her underwear?

They went too far. Period. These weren't some high-powered criminals. Hell, they weren't even frisking them for weapons. No, they went into their private parts, and that's not okay. And insisting that they are lying is silly. It's extremely clear that they were felt up on the side of the damn road in full view of the camera. Why you want to insist they are lying is what puzzles me.

Are you shocked that they didn't enjoy it or something? Do you think that they should have been writhing and moaning on the side of the road to prove they were being penetrated? Because if you do, you don't know much about a woman's body. Just how bad did it have to be, did they have to be screaming in pain to prove it to you?

[noiretextatique]

108. you know

you weren't there, and they were. i believe them more than some random internet poster.

[EOTE]

77. We're still waiting for your apology or explanation.

All you've done is dig yourself a bigger hole. Either explain how these women didn't have cavity searches performed on them or apologize for calling them liars. At least that's what someone who is a decent human being would do.

[joeunderdog]

119. Do we know if the cop is a lesbian?

In that case, the search goes from violation of rights and illegal search to sexual assault, IMO.

This situation is unconscionable on so many levels. Sick.

[Aerows]

120. It's sexual assault regardless

If a man got pulled over and anally searched on the side of the road in full view, would that be less humiliating for the man involved? Mind you, it would be a man doing it, but I'd wager thoughts about his sexuality would be secondary to the fact that he's handling you and shoving his finger up your butt IN FULL VIEW OF TRAFFIC ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD would be a little more of a concern.

[jberryhill]

5. I wonder what the officer subsequently did with the gloves...

...on this "littering" stop?

[ZombieHorde]

14. I didn't watch the vidoes, but the story is very disturbing. nt

[blueamy66]

15. sheriff arpaio doesn't even do that shit to

inmates on work release......unbelievable!!!!

[obamanut2012]

18. I was surprised they were white

I guess cops are hassling everyone now.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Another victory in the "War on Drugs"

[ohheckyeah]

78. Another victory in the war on women, as well.

You just know all of us shameless hussies drive around with marijuana stuffed in our body cavities.

[TheBlackAdder]

27. That's Just RANK! nt

[Dawson Leery]

28. The porkess should be forced to pay from her own pocket/bloated pension.

[NCTraveler]

53. Bloated Pension? nt.

[williesgirl]

29. I'd have refused and called my attorney.

[waddirum]

31. besides the horrific nature of this search...

... I'm struck by how the cop went from anus to vagina with the same pair of gloves on the same hand. How completely incompetent do you have to be to even risk introducing bacteria of the anus into the vagina.

That's why it is inappropriate for cops to be conducting medical procedures streetside.

I hope they win millions in their lawsuit!

[Aerows]

47. OMG

I didn't even think about that. They went there, too? Holy shit. I'd sue the piss out of them.

[ohheckyeah]

54. And a woman did it.

I'd like to slap the stupid !*#$@!*&$ (translate to suit yourself.)

My god, it's pounded into our heads from the time we are little that you don't touch the anus area and then the vaginal area. "Front to back".....I can't tell you how many times as a little girl most of us hear that.

[Aerows]

62. How did a woman NOT know that is a no-no?

My word. That's a huge invitation to infection, particularly if the gloves weren't changed from woman to woman. I can't tell from the video if the gloves weren't changed or not, but if not? Invitation to STDs and toxic shock. Not to be graphic or gross, but what if one of them was menstruating and wearing a tampon? Would they have just ripped it right out there by the side of the damn road?

[ohheckyeah]

72. If she doesn't know it's a no-no,

she's too stupid to be believed.

Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

The whole thing is frightening and indicative of just how out of control much of law enforcement is.

[slackmaster]

34. Eeeeeeew!

[ohheckyeah]

42. Seriously?

The cop says the violation can be attributed to a daily smoker in the car? What an asshole. I hope these women sue the hell out of them and win big time. The cops, both cops, should be fired.

[pecwae]

48. And the fuckstick

Director of Public Safety (!) needs to go as well. This is more outrageous than TSA. Those women were trying to cooperate and got fingered, literally. This is sickening to the nth degree!

[ohheckyeah]

50. I think they should be charged

with criminal conduct. For one thing, besides the outrageousness of the search to begin with, you don't do it in public. You certainly don't do it with the same gloves and you don't touch the anal area and then the vaginal area. It was wrong on so many levels.

AND the ACLU should get involved.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Aerows]

55. On the side of the freaking road

Not even a warrant before sticking your fingers inside someone. Hell no. That could be anyone. And my God, the Anal and vaginal treatment without changing the gloves? Dear God.

[ohheckyeah]

68. I "commended"

both at the DPS website.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/PublicInformation/commendEmpl.htm

[RKP5637]

96. Yet another WTF! I think the most outrageous statement made was it can be

attributed to a daily smoker in the car? So, is this the new law, a cop smells cigarette smell in a car and the driver and all passengers are subjected to a butt and vagina check by the gestapo? Like, was there smoke coming out their butts and vaginae.

Each day Americans are subjected to more and more outrageous behavior and are expected to say think your sir. Freedom and dignity are lost a bit at a time. We've watched this going on now since 9/11. And I wonder if there is an end in sight.

[ohheckyeah]

99. There's no end in sight

until we make our voices heard, loud and clear. The ACLU should be all over this and we can contact DPS and let them know how we feel. They were stopped for littering - my god, what would they have done had they been stopped for speeding? Strip them naked and parade them through the town square?

[RKP5637]

104. Probably have put them in stocks in the town square so everyone could have a good

feel just to be sure their butts and vaginae weren't smoking or smelled of pot.

[ohheckyeah]

105. Don't give them any ideas. n/t

[RKP5637]

106. Yeah, good point!!! n/t

[Aerows]

46. Holy Crap!

They can do that in a routine traffic stop? OMG. "Acting weird" (and what does that mean, exactly?) is now cause to have your body completely and totally invaded and violated on the side of the road?

On the damn side of the road?

[ohheckyeah]

74. Don't most people

act "weird" when they get pulled over? I've only been pulled over twice in my life - once for an expired tag and once for an inspection sticker from DC when I lived in VA (I had just bought the car). Both times, it freaked me the hell out.

You DO NOT do that kind of search on the side of the road.

[Harmony Blue]

56. That is a cavity search

Cops don't need to insert their fingers inside clothing if their are not intent on doing that.....

[Jim Warren]

66. Correct

Procedurally there are two types of body cavity search: visual and manual.

[libdem4life]

90. Ugh. Sounds like something one should have a medical license to do..either one.

[Jim Warren]

97. Yes, and a warrant

Former LEO here and on my old job I would have had to secure a warrant citing probable cause and then only to enable a qualified medical professional to conduct the search.

[libdem4life]

113. Thank god for the requirement for dash cameras. Progress. We know this crap has been going on

for decades. We have to hold their proverbial hands over the fire. Hopefully these ladies will get them a top notch legal team and return the "favor".

[NCTraveler]

57. They should start with sexual assault charges.

Get them guilty on that and then use it to aid in the lawsuit.

[ohheckyeah]

65. You can "commend"

the officers here: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/PublicInformation/commendEmpl.htm

[libdem4life]

67. Prove it WASN'T a cavity search. This is 100 times worse than the "so what is rape" drivel.

Now we know why they have to ask...they really don't know.

Guess we should relax, it's OK because they called a female...so they just had to watch?

I'm hoping those girls get a free ride, at minimum, to the college of their choice and throw in a house to live in.

[Jim Warren]

69. Of course it was

Where I live police would need a warrant to do that.

[Blue_In_AK]

73. That's totally unacceptable.

I hope these women get a huge settlement and that these cops (and whoever authorized this) get fired. I would be livid.

[ohheckyeah]

76. And prosecuted. n/t

[libdem4life]

94. Imagine the husbands, or sons, or daughters or family or neighbors...there is no end

to that willful, prurient and humiliating behavior. And that woman cop...guess she had no choice either...perhaps it was her superior?

[TheOther95Percent]

102. Yikes!

That level of intrusive search over weed?

[Warren DeMontague]

109. Because your right to bodily autonomy is second to our right to FIND TEH WEEED

WE MUST FIND TEH WEEEEEED!!!! STOP TEH WEEEED!!!!

[Trueblue Texan]

110. why are you arguing about it?

I don't get why so many people are engaged in arguing over whether or not penetration took place. What if it didn't? Do you not find this kind of search a violation even if penetration did not take place? Why is this legal? It's like rape, for God's sake! And being done right in public! I had no idea this sort of thing is legal. This crap should be STOPPED!

[RedCappedBandit]

111. I don't see the problem.

We must strip the rights away from those whom... might... POSSES DRUGS!!

This is the direct result of the false war on drugs which many on this site actively support.

[Vattel]

112. Fuck the civil charges. That cop should be criminally charged.

Her being a co doesn't give here a right to commit a sexual battery.

[Catherine Vincent]

114. I can't believe that policewoman!

Fire her arse now! And sue the f out of that police department. That's just ridiculous. I can't believe those women stood there and took that.

[Liberal_in_LA]

115. glad they are suing the troopers directly, glad gloved one has been suspended