Contrasts in Cop Actions, Christmas 2013

[XLFD]

Police officers have a tough job that is far from predictable.  Unfortunately, the public has to also deal with a police force that is far from predictable.  They can either act in the selfless manner that the first two stories indicate and get praise, or they can act in a totally irresponsible power-hungry manner like in the other stories provided, and get almost universal condemnation. 

For those who only want to read the best actions of police officers, read no further than the Jekyll and Hyde illustration.  Unfortunately, these are becoming more of the exceptions rather than the rules for officer behavior. 

One has to wonder whether the public officers and hospital personnel involved in the latter articles (one linked to) believe that what they did was serving the public in any manner, and whether they would believe that such tactics used against themselves or their own mother or father would be acceptable. 

How can we further encourage the positive behaviors of the DePrimo's and the Blanchard PD, and discourage the negative behaviors of those that would allow such a breakdown of human rights against those who were innocent of any crime?

 

 

Back in November of 2012, NYPD officer Lawrence DePrimo, who was on counterterrorism duty in Times Square, saw an older homeless man without shoes sitting on 42nd Street.  DePrimo, 25, left and then returned with a pair of $100 boots he bought at a nearby Skechers store.

"It was freezing out, and you could see the blisters on the man's feet," DePrimo, a three-year veteran of the department who lives with his parents on Long Island, told the New York Times. "I had two pairs of socks, and I was still cold." 

This year, another amazing act of kindness was performed by the police officers of an Oklahoma city to the victims of a Grinch that tried to steal their Christmas.  Be sure to check out the amazing attitude of the youngest victim in the video at the link provided at the end, who knew that Santa would come through for her.

 

 

 

BLANCHARD, Okla. —Shannon Hollins said she and her two daughters came home on Christmas Eve and found their Blanchard home burglarized.

"All the things that I had worked so hard to get for them," said Hollins. "It's not easy, single mom trying to provide for my kids."

Morgan Williams, 12, said she was mostly upset for her little sister.

"It's not all about the presents and everything, but since she expects everything to be there," said Morgan.

Lilly Williams, 7, said Santa Claus is her favorite person and told her mom not to worry.

"I said he'd still come," she said.

According to Hollins, all the presents under the family's tree were gone. Their TVs, laptops and even presents they bought for others were stolen.

Blanchard officers who investigated the Christmas Eve burglary were heartbroken for the family. Officer Brandon Wheeler said they teamed up with some McClain County deputies and jumped at the opportunity to help.

"I called every place that we could think of and finally got a hold of Target," said Wheeler. "They were only going to be open for about 10 more minutes."

But Wheeler said the manager of the Norman store kept it open for officers to buy gifts.

"It was spur-of-the-moment," he said. "We wanted to make sure the kids had something to open up in the morning."

Check out the heart-warming video at:  KOCO News

 

But there was also a lot of poor police behavior in the news to offset the fine actions of the Blanchard Police Department and the McClain County Sheriff Department who came to save the day for three Oklahoma women.  Just another state to the south, another incident not much unlike another one that was reported here in November entitled real-stories-of-the-hershey-highway-patrol which took place in Deming, New Mexico. 

Police took the man in that story to a hospital to be repeatedly probed invasively by the hospital for illegal drugs without his consent or any stated probable cause within reason.  Not only was there not any drugs to be found, but the man was later sent a bill by the hospital for the procedures the officers put him through.  Think that could only happen once?  Guess again; Federal border guards based in El Paso outdid the Deming PD, and once again, a New Mexico resident (this time a woman) was the victim.

Although the events happened last year on December 12, 2012, the lawsuit it inspired was filed just a few days before this Christmas. 

 

The 54-year-old woman, who is not identified in the suit, is asking for an unspecified amount of money and to end the policy that gives federal agents and officers the authority to stick their fingers and objects up people's cavities when they search for drugs.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union in federal court in El Paso on behalf of the woman who was stopped as she crossed at the Bridge of the Americas a year ago. Despite the six-hour search at the port and then later at UMC, no drugs were found.

The woman is identified as Jane Doe in the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, the woman was first frisked and strip-searched at the port of entry, where officers stuck their fingers inside her rectum and vagina. When that search came up negative, she was taken to University Medical Center.

"These extreme and illegal searches deeply traumatized our client," ACLU of New Mexico Legal Director Laura Schauer Ives said in the news release. "The fact that our government treated an innocent 54-year-old woman with such brutality and inhumanity should outrage all Americans. We must ensure that government agents never put another person through a nightmare like this ever again."

A spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in a prepared statement that the agency could not talk about a specific lawsuit.

"As a practice CBP does not comment on pending litigation," the statement said. "CBP stresses honor and integrity in every aspect of our mission, and the overwhelming majority of CBP employees and officers perform their duties with honor and distinction, working tirelessly every day to keep our country safe. We do not tolerate corruption or abuse within our ranks, and we fully cooperate with any criminal or administrative investigations of alleged misconduct by any of our personnel, on or off-duty."

University Medical Center also declined to get into specifics of the lawsuit.

"Hospital policy is to obtain consent from all patients who receive medical services at UMC," spokeswoman Margaret Altoff-Olivas said in a statement. "Because this case involves litigation, UMC will not be commenting further."

The search took place at about 2 p.m. Dec. 12, 2012, when the woman was coming back from seeing a family friend, whom she calls "uncle" and tries to visit once a month.

As her passport was swiped, a CBP officer told her she was "randomly" picked for a secondary inspection, where Portillo and Herrera frisked her through her clothing.

"One of the agents ran her finger over Ms. Doe's genital area during the frisk," the lawsuit said.

Then the woman was told to squat as one of the officers "inserted her finger in the crevice of Ms. Doe's buttocks." The frisk did not show any evidence of contraband or drugs, the lawsuit said.

Then the woman was told to stand in a line with other people as a drug-sniffing dog walked by.

The officer with the dog "hit the ground by her feet, but did not hit the ground by any of the others in the line," the lawsuit said. "The dog responded by lunging onto Ms. Doe and landing its front paws on her torso."

Ives said she does not believe this was a proper signal to indicate a drugs were present, but officers used it to continue the search.

The woman was taken to another room and asked to take off her pants and crouch as her anus and vagina were examined with a flashlight, the lawsuit said.

The woman, now crying, was taken to University Medical Center after the strip search did not find anything.

"During the car ride to the Medical Center, Ms. Doe asked if the agents had a warrant," the lawsuit said. "One of them responded that they did not need a warrant."

While handcuffed to an examination table, the woman was searched again by both officers and Cabanillas and Parsa. She was given a laxative and had a bowel movement in a portable toilet in front of both officers, the lawsuit said.

Then the woman's abdomen was X-rayed, but there were no signs of drugs or any other contraband in the woman's body. A speculum was used to probe her vagina and Parsa's fingers were used to inspect both her vagina and rectum while the door to the examining room was left open, the lawsuit said.

At this point the lawsuit claims, "Ms. Doe felt that she was being treated less than human, like an animal."

The last test was a CT scan of the woman's abdomen and pelvis, which resulted in no evidence of illegal activity being found.

The lawsuit said after the CT scan one of the officers told the woman she could sign the medical consent form and CBP would pay for the exams, but if she did not sign, she would be charged. The woman refused to sign and eventually she was charged more than $5,000 for the examinations.

According to the lawsuit, she repeatedly refused to consent to any of the searches.

University Medical Center's search of patients policy states, "Associates, members of Medical Staff, Residents or Allied Health Professionals may search a patient only when necessary to comply with a search warrant." Under the subhead procedure, the policy states, "...unless a patient consents, an invasion of the patient's body to obtain evidence requires a search warrant."

A warrant was not obtained, the lawsuit said.

"However, in practice, the Medical Center staff and CBP agents routinely conduct invasive cavity searches without warrant, consent or sufficient suspicion to justify the searches," the lawsuit said. "When Ms. Doe expressed dismay about the unreasonable searches she suffered, a Medical Center employee responded that these procedures were routinely followed when an individual is brought in by CBP agents."

In a phone interview, Ives said searches like the one the 54-year-old woman went through are illegal and becoming common among law enforcement.

"When the less intrusive search didn't find any evidence of drugs, more intrusive searches should have not been used," Ives said. "Any one of those searches should have eliminated any suspicion of drugs. A second search should make it clear and at most a third search should have been the last."

She said: "The fact that this happened to a 54-year-old woman should outrage anyone. She did ask to talk to an attorney and she did ask for a warrant. I don't know what guarantees there are to our rights other than a lawsuit like this one that hold the government agencies responsible."

http://www.elpasotimes.com/latestnews/ci_24750069/woman-sues-over-d...

[XLFD]

Lisa here's a little recap of a recently finished study about CT Scan radiation, it's rather significant when you consider this woman didn't have the option to deny the treatment and a warrant wasn't issued.  Do you believe in warrants, or in personal rights?  Have you read the Bill of Rights?

Also let's not forget the first link to Deming, New Mexico ,where a man was detained and subjected to much of the same treatment this international traveler was treated to.  Do you believe they had the right to anally probe and dehumanize the gentleman (who was innocent of any crime) just because some city police thought he was acting suspicious?  Have this happen to you and you may sing a different tune.

[Lisa Zwerk]

I've been stopped, frisked at the canadian border in Detroit coming back from Canada as a 18 year old. 

You want our Country to be safe, but you don't want the government to have the right to search and detain? 

Funny, You vote for Obama, you cry about him being in office, You want our country to be safe, but you don't want the government to protect our borders. 

What is your suggestion then to keep mules and drugs out of our borders? If a drug sniffing dog marks you, You better be prepared to be searched. And I am thankful for that every day when a drug runner is caught. One less drug entering our country. 

The bill of rights? You make me LAUGH. This country was founded on mass murder, genocide, and stealing of land. The bill of rights has nothing to do with the keeping our country safe. 

[Willy]

Lisa

"The bill of rights? You make me LAUGH. This country was founded on mass murder, genocide, and stealing of land. The bill of rights has nothing to do with the keeping our country safe. "

Can you name a country that doesn't have a violent past?  There is no doubt injustices were perpetrated when the Country was founded but that has nothing to do with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Be careful about linking the past deeds of our Government to the present day Constitution. They are two different ideas. You seem to be all to willing to give up the freedoms we have which are protected by our Constitution. The powers we have giving the Government as of late will be our undoing, such at the Patriot Act and granting the IRS added powers to enforce laws that have no business being under their jurisdiction. Homeland Security can now detain American citizens indefinitely with no bail or trial and no proof of guilt. Collection of data, communications and information on all American citizens is in progress 24 hours a day 7 days a week all year long. Spying on innocent  citizens is being portrayed as security measures. I don't know where your head is at regarding the Constitution but I sure hope there aren't many more like you.

[XLFD]

Good answer, Willy. 

Lisa, Government has no rights, a government has powers.  People have rights.  Powers given to governments arise from our Constitution and its amendments.  When an unreasonable search and seizure is conducted by an agent or agency, the Constitution is violated.  The agent or agency is violating basic natural laws of our republic, a violation of law which I believe is worse than smuggling drugs deemed illegal by our legislators.

There are established protocols for searching people at borders that do not infringe on our basic human rights, searches that will catch the smuggler most of the time without subjecting innocent people to such indignities that were suffered by the New Mexican man and woman in the above. 

You are correct by saying that the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with keeping our country safe.  The Bill of Rights is a document that guarantees liberty to our citizens, if its words are respected by our government and its agents. 

I can sit in a jail cell by myself with three square meals a day and feel safe, or I can interact with the world, respecting others rights and society's laws, and feel free-- but not be as safe. 

[Willy]

Well said X. And of course Ben Franklin's words as most have heard are as true today as they were during our founding.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Ben Franklin

[Willy]

X did not give up liberty. A right was denied him by City officials. He chose not to loose his liberty by refraining from attending a meeting he was banned from. Ben was talking about people freely giving up their liberty in order to feel more secure such as agreeing to let the NSA  tap your internet and cell phone in hopes they catch a terrorist before the terrorist catches you. So I don't think  Ben's statement fit's X's situation. 

[Willy]

Eye

Once again you need to be reminded that this is a "public" forum and if you want your comments to remain private you should email them. Your right, silly you.

[XLFD]

EyE,

You are wrong, I gave up no rights freely.  The Ludington City Council passed a clearly unconstitutional law giving the City Manager and City Attorney never before established powers, but it was a law nonetheless.  I chose to not test the law by entering onto the City Hall/Police Station property to show a point. 

That point, lost on many observers, was that I would follow the law and engage their infraction of it by lawful process, even though the City Council obviously went against the law and the Constitution to keep me from setting foot in the City Hall.  Unfortunately, this had me temporarily forfeit my right to enter City Hall/LPD property to attend meetings and vote. 

Were I to have used the other method, testing the law by violating it (i.e. going to City Hall to vote or for trash stickers or to LPD for reporting a crime, etc.), I would have likely been apprehended on trespassing charges and entered a local courtroom (which are mostly unfair) as a defendant who had broken a trespass letter.  They would likely not even consider the ramifications of whether the LOT was constitutional or not, just that I willfully broke it.

With my method, I entered an out-of-the-area Federal court as a clearly injured plaintiff, with the City Manager defending his unlawful actions, and the facts almost incontrovertibly on my side.  It took longer, and I appear as less a civil rights activist, but I got results.  Now they can't keep me away from City Council meetings-- unless they want to invoke the policy again and make me an even bigger victim with even more money.

[XLFD]

I think our dispute over this is basically because of definitions of what you are calling rights, liberties, and freedoms growing to encompass privileges, obligations, and duties.  Instead of muddying the waters with legal definitions and pointing at what Willy said earlier as a perfectly reasonable refutation in its own right, I will proffer an example or two. 

I do not have a right to drive the way I want to, because a very complicated set of laws is made that governs movement along our public roadways, and is made to make travel more safe and efficient if everyone follows the laws.  Everyone granted the privilege of driving-- through gaining a license-- is understood to have a duty to follow the laws of travel.  Anyone who violates the laws generally make travel more dangerous and less efficient for themselves and others, and so they tend to follow the law and expect everyone else to, even though they have the choice (what you call 'right') to drive against these laws, if they so wish.

The speed limit on my street is understood to be 25 mph although it is unposted and is a mix of residential and commercial.   I always travel less than the understood speed limit on it because I think it's safer for all, but I believe you would say I have the choice to travel 35 or even 45 mph, but I choose to waive the 'right' over concerns for safety of others, and the belief that I should drive slowly on that stretch.

Everyone has the choice to follow or break the law, and look at the consequences of either to make that choice.  I felt there was nothing to prove by violating the lawfully-created LOT before it was declared a bad law, so I forfeited the right to vote (twice) and go to those buildings, while it was in effect, so I wouldn't lose further rights and more credibility when they would enforce the LOT on me.  Because I would have insisted they do so. 

[Willy]

Eye

I really don't like wasting my time but I feel your comments need to be addressed in order to set the record straight. I was not answering for X. I was answering your post in which you commented regarding my Ben Franklin post.

your post

"True words, but only to a limited extent. 

I can say that because, in this day and age, most people give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety. 

For example, people who hate wearing a seat belt but do so for the sole reason that they would get a ticket if caught not wearing one.  

Paying good money for a building permit to put up a fence on your own property.

Even XLFD gave up essential liberty to ensure temporary safety when he refused to attend Council meetings under threat of arrest."

Notice the last paragraph of your comments in which you refer to X as giving up essential liberty. That's what I was commenting on.

[XLFD]

EyE,

Let's get off that topic here, and instead discuss it on a more applicable thread head: 

http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/conclusions-of-the-mi...

[Lisa Zwerk]

"That's a lot more dangerous than anything Mexico can send our way in someone's large intestine. " 

You are ignorant if you think Heroine, Cocaine, Crack are NOT dangerous. 

You are ingorant if you think innocent people do not DIE every day because of the devastation that these drugs being brought into our country has caused. 

You are ignorant if you think that we should be lax about our security systems and searches at the border for drugs.