Out Of Control!!

[Juicepuddles]

I hope the guy gets millions, but I also hope that the doctors and police involved are made an example of.

I am not kidding, put these people in jail and search their assholes without consent.

 

[sdd420]

Dumbass rednecks they prey on the weak sorry for that person no matter who he is hope he gets retribution legally

 

[ThePizzaMan]

He will be rich soon

 

[igrowone]

i have heard stories like this
but they usually involved aliens and rectal probes, maybe it wasn't aliens after all

 

[supermanlives]

aliens ,gay guys and now cops . ok got my list. that's fucked up. on the upside his colon is clean . peeps pay cash for enemas. weren't coffee ones the rage a bit back? thought I heard something lol. I bet he gets paid $$$ or goes postal a year from now

 

[Tudo]

You can't hope to do these types and worse things around the world and hope it doesn't happen here. See the one about people giving up there 1st class seats, a mini parade for military returning from Afghanistan?

We get what we deserve not what we want.

 

[Stoner4Life]

Not to make a joke or pun but what a "shitty" thing and sometimes you just have to laugh because of all the absolutely crazy shit the pigs and quacks are getting away with these days.

The "shit" is going to hit the fan on this one too and the stupid pigs and quacks knew that. That's why they did the 3rd enema and shit search, then a colonoscopy too. They knew they had to find something by then, they had already gone too far and their ass was grass without finding something.

The first doc was right, totally unethical. The stupid pigs should have stopped right there. That will work in this guys favor too. He will get millions from them fuckers.

 

[bentom187]

DEMING, N.M. (CBS Las Vegas) — A New Mexico man claims he was anally probed several times by police and medical officials following a traffic stop.
The victim, David Eckert, claims in a federal lawsuit that officers from the Deming Police Department pulled him over after he failed to make a complete stop at a stop sign outside a Walmart this past January.
When Eckert got out of his car, officers indicated that they believed he was in possession of drugs – in his anal cavity.
“They say when he stepped out of his car he was standing in a manner that looked as if he was clinching his buttocks,” Shannon Kennedy, Eckert’s attorney, told KOB-TV.
A judge granted a search warrant to perform an anal cavity search on Eckert shortly after he was taken into custody. KOB reports that a doctor refused to perform the anal cavity search at a Deming emergency room, saying it was “unethical.” Eckert was then transported to Gila Regional Medical Center, where his alleged trauma began.
According to the lawsuit and medical records, Eckert’s abdominal area was x-rayed twice, doctors stuck fingers in his anus twice, he had three enemas inserted anally and had a colonoscopy performed. No drugs were ever found during the search.
“This is like something out of a science fiction film,” Kennedy told KOB. “Anal probing by government officials and public employees?”
Eckert did not consent to any of the searches.
Kennedy said her client has been “absolutely terrified” since the January incident.
“I mean it’s absolutely unimaginable that this could happen in America,” Kennedy told KOB.
Deming Police Chief Brandan Gigante told KOB that his department follows the law.
“We follow the law in every aspect and follow procedures and protocols we have in place,” Gigante said.
Eckert is suing the City of Deming, the Deming Police Department, the Gila Regional Medical Center and deputies from the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Department.



I heard this guy's lawyers on the radio this morning. They had a dog "hit" on the driver's seat in his car and that's how they got a warrant for a cavity search. After all that the hospital sent the poor guy a $6000 bill!!!!!

he wont see a dime , and if for some reason he does it will come out of the tax payers pocket. the state win's again.

Qualified immunity
Qualified immunity: an overview

“Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan (07-751). Specifically, it protects government officials from lawsuits alleging that they violated plaintiffs’ rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case.

Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages, but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. Accordingly, courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible, preferably before discovery.

Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials’ actions. Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials. While judges, prosecutors, legislators, and some other government officials do not receive qualified immunity, most are protected by other immunity doctrines.

Recently, in Pearson v. Callahan (07-751), the Supreme Court held that courts considering officials’ qualified immunity claims do not need to consider whether or not the officials actually violated a plaintiff’s right if it is clear that the right was not clearly established.

Sovereign immunity

Generally, the idea that the sovereign or government is immune from lawsuits or other legal actions except when it consents to them. Historically, this was an absolute doctrinal position that held Federal, state, and local governments immune from tort liability arising from the activities of government. These days, the application of sovereign immunity is much less clear-cut, as different governments have waived liability in differing degrees under differing circumstances.

Sovereign immunity is treated in two places in the US Constitution. Article III, Section 2 is applicable to questions involving the immunity of Federal officials from lawsuits, suits against the Federal government by a state and vice versa, and suits against the Federal government generally. The division of power between various possible sovereigns -- the state and Federal governments -- is dealt with by the Eleventh Amendment, which discusses suits between states, between states and the Federal government, and so-called diversity cases between citizens in different states. The issues are complex, and the line of Supreme Court decisions in this area is confusing and contradictory.

The Federal Tort Claims Act is the principal means by which the Federal government has waived its own liability from sovereign immunity.

 

[Juicepuddles]

Change the laws right meow.

 

[dddaver]

he wont see a dime , and if for some reason he does it will come out of the tax payers pocket. the state win's again.

BULLSHIT!

All it will take is for ONE other judge to say that original warrant was wrongly approved and have it thrown out, and that won't be hard to find at all. There has to be good probable cause in granting those, for instance this citizen was had an outstanding federal warrant. From what I have read there was NO extenuating probable cause other than that one drug dog alerting on the seat. This bullshit of one stupid fucking judge signing one stupid search warrant that was unconstitutional will quickly be shot down.

There is right and there is wrong, this was wrong. No matter what some asshole judge allowed, and besides that anyway, they took the search way beyond the scope of the original warrant. Whatever. Say what you want. Watch what happens. Fucking lawyers.

 

[Lapides]

was the guy dwb ?

I lol'ed.

 

[diggdugg]

The guy's lawyer said that the warrant was immidiatly void when the first doctor refused to do the procedure they took him across the county line to a doc in the box who did the anal rape.

 

[Lapides]

Additionally if I'm not mistaken, the warrant for all of the cavity searches had been expired for 3 hours by the time they had been administered.

 

[Tudo]

At some point some younger person who knows computers and who has chutzpah will post the names and whereabouts of all these cckuckers and their families and all information across the internet.

That'll givem something to think about next time and keep em busy

 

[Tudo]

It happened again: Police forced a second man to have invasive procedure

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/06/police-forced-a-second-man-to-have-invasive-surgery/#ixzz2jysZDru9

 

[blastfrompast]

The Dog wasn't certified either since 2009 apparently and has a habbit of false "hits"

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

They actually scoped his large intestine.

Why not just do a vivisection?

 

[bentom187]

BULLSHIT!

All it will take is for ONE other judge to say that original warrant was wrongly approved and have it thrown out, and that won't be hard to find at all. There has to be good probable cause in granting those, for instance this citizen was had an outstanding federal warrant. From what I have read there was NO extenuating probable cause other than that one drug dog alerting on the seat. This bullshit of one stupid fucking judge signing one stupid search warrant that was unconstitutional will quickly be shot down.

There is right and there is wrong, this was wrong. No matter what some asshole judge allowed, and besides that anyway, they took the search way beyond the scope of the original warrant. Whatever. Say what you want. Watch what happens. Fucking lawyers.

this citizen was had an outstanding federal warrant

Well dave I agree it is bullshit and yes it was wrong.I hate lawyer judges as well, the system is ripe with judicial fraud.The granting of that search warrant is evidence of that fact.

There has to be good probable cause in granting those

well here I think that there just has to be probable cause,and that's usually going to take officer discretion while performing his duties which was arresting a man for a warrant which you stated he had one.

one drug dog alerting on the seat.

theres a thread on here somewhere about how cops can train their dogs to give false positives.

Here is a officer training guide in revinue generation expiditions, from new mexico highlighting that there might not be probable cause ,so they are instructed on how to possibly construct it and the help they get from the court in doing so.

here is some enlightening quotes
http://www.nmlea.dps.state.nm.us/legal/documents/Search_Warrants-Part_1.pdf

GOALS
• Students will learn how to establish probable cause in a search warrant affidavit
• Students will be able to review a search warrant affidavit to determine if probable cause exists.
• Students will learn to anticipate legal problems that may arise in the execution of a search warrant and how to overcome them.

What are the advantages for police officers in having a search warrant?
ANS. 1) If there is a motion to suppress evidence, a search warrant shifts the
burden from the prosecution to the defense.
2) A search warrant protects a police officer in civil lawsuits.
It is a court order issued by an independent Judge (who has judicial immunity and cannot be sued) which commands an officer to search a person or place.

Can we use hearsay (information from a third party) in a search warrant?
ANSWER: Yes

FIRST PRONG: RELIABILITY Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964).
• In Aguilar, the court held an affidavit insufficient when it stated that “Affiants have received information from a credible person and do believe” that illegal drugs and paraphernalia were being kept at a particular residence.
• Why is this affidavit insufficient?
Answer:
It doesn’t tell us why the affiant believes that this person is credible. Instead, it simply gives us a conclusion: “Affiants have received information from a credible person.”
SECOND PRONG: BASIS OF KNOWLEDGE Spinelli v. U.S., 393 U.S. 410 (1969).
• In Spinelli, the court held an affidavit insufficient where it stated that Spinelli “was a known gambler and associate of gamblers . . . “
• Why is this affidavit insufficient?
Answer:
It doesn’t tell us how the affiant knew that Spinelli was a known gambler. Where did the affiant get this information? Why does he believe Spinelli is a gambler

this is the only definition I could find in the new mexico statutes of what probable cause is considered there.

definition probable cause
14-8006. Grand jury proceedings; definition of probable cause .


"Probable cause" means the evidence presented would cause a reasonable person to believe that an offense has been committed and that the accused committed the offense. Probable cause does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


USE NOTE


This instruction shall be given with the essential elements instruction(s). If the prosecutor gives essential elements instructions for more than one offense, the prosecutor is not required to give the probable cause instruction more than once.


[Approved by Supreme Court Order 08-8300-08, effective March 21, 2008.]

There is a lot more fraud than just that search warrant that generally takes place but ill save it for a different thread.

 

[ydijadoit]

unfortunately

abusers know when to pick on someone

and even if he does retaliate, it will give them a "valid" reason to beat his ass

that said

what a crazy story

was the guy dwb ?

Agreed, in "The moment", he couldn't do anything. Nothing says a man cannot hunt the hunters, later on though
Regards

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

Well for the time being, reasonable people should boycott the Gila Regional Medical Center. Who in their right mind would want to pay $6,000 to be anally raped?