https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...al-bill/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.56223b9cfb5f
By Radley Balko
Opinion writer
December 19 at 4:53 PM
From Syracuse.com:
Syracuse police, a city court judge and St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center worked together last year to conduct a highly unusual drug search.
They collaborated to sedate a suspect and thread an 8-inch flexible tube into his rectum in a search for illegal drugs. The suspect, who police said had taunted them that he’d hidden drugs there, refused consent for the procedure.
At least two doctors resisted the police request. An X-ray already had indicated no drugs. They saw no medical need to perform an invasive procedure on someone against his will.
The notes from police and doctors suggest some tension, a standoff. At one point, eight police officers were at the hospital. A doctor remembers telling officers: “We would not be doing that.”
The hospital’s top lawyer got pulled in. He talked by with the judge who signed the search warrant, which was written by police and signed at the judge’s home.
When they were done, the hospital lawyer overruled the doctors. The lawyer told his doctors that a search warrant required the doctors to use “any means” to retrieve the drugs, records show.
According to the article, the police were searching for a misdemeanor or low-level felony amount of drugs. They didn’t even find that. They found no contraband at all. The hospital then sent the man a bill for just over $4,500.
The paper also reports that no one involved is talking about the case. That includes the judge who signed off on the warrant, Syracuse City Court Judge Rory McMahon, who said he could’t talk because the case is “sealed.” Seems a bit late to start worrying about privacy.
The suspect in this case has a long rap sheet, and police say he taunted them about hiding drugs in his rectum, a charge the suspect denies. But similarly invasive searches have been done on far more sympathetic suspects. Back in 2014, I wrote here about four such cases in Hidalgo County, N.M., and another involving U.S. Customs and Border Protection, also in New Mexico. In researching that post, I found stories about cavity searches in Texas, Illinois, Florida, Georgia, Kansas and Wisconsin. In some cases, the searches were vaginal searches of women. Later the same year, I wrote about two cases in Tennessee. In 2016, I wrote about a case in which Aiken, S.C., police conducted a roadside cavity search of a man based barely any evidence at all. They found no drugs. Not long after, I wrote about another South Carolina man who was beaten, then taken to a hospital, after which doctors took X-rays and a CT scan, and forcibly drew blood, all without his consent and all in search of drugs. They found none.
Even if the police had found drugs in any of these cases, we should then ask . . . at what cost? Even if you believe some drugs ought to be illegal, and that the police should be given broad powers to enforce those laws, you simply can’t fit a very large quantity of drugs into a bodily orifice. So even if the search pays off, it makes only a small dent in the drug supply. Police resort to cavity searches only when they’re particularly motivated to nab the person in their custody. They want a conviction. At that point, it’s far less about public safety than about anger at or disgust with a particular suspect. (That anger tends to cloud sensory perception and rational thought may explain why so many so many of these searches tend to be fruitless.)
Of course, the police could just wait for the suspect to defecate. But that would require patience. And it removes the ability to humiliate and dehumanize the suspect. It also requires enough probable cause to detain the suspect until that happens.
Here’s a thought: The amount of illicit drugs a person could conceivably hide in an anal or vaginal cavity isn’t remotely proportionate to the magnitude of the violation required to retrieve them. That’s true even if everyone searched this way were guilty. But we also know that this isn’t the case. Not to mention that the system is supposed to treat everyone as if they were innocent.
Opinion writer
December 19 at 4:53 PM
From Syracuse.com:
Syracuse police, a city court judge and St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center worked together last year to conduct a highly unusual drug search.
They collaborated to sedate a suspect and thread an 8-inch flexible tube into his rectum in a search for illegal drugs. The suspect, who police said had taunted them that he’d hidden drugs there, refused consent for the procedure.
At least two doctors resisted the police request. An X-ray already had indicated no drugs. They saw no medical need to perform an invasive procedure on someone against his will.
The notes from police and doctors suggest some tension, a standoff. At one point, eight police officers were at the hospital. A doctor remembers telling officers: “We would not be doing that.”
The hospital’s top lawyer got pulled in. He talked by with the judge who signed the search warrant, which was written by police and signed at the judge’s home.
When they were done, the hospital lawyer overruled the doctors. The lawyer told his doctors that a search warrant required the doctors to use “any means” to retrieve the drugs, records show.
According to the article, the police were searching for a misdemeanor or low-level felony amount of drugs. They didn’t even find that. They found no contraband at all. The hospital then sent the man a bill for just over $4,500.
The paper also reports that no one involved is talking about the case. That includes the judge who signed off on the warrant, Syracuse City Court Judge Rory McMahon, who said he could’t talk because the case is “sealed.” Seems a bit late to start worrying about privacy.
The suspect in this case has a long rap sheet, and police say he taunted them about hiding drugs in his rectum, a charge the suspect denies. But similarly invasive searches have been done on far more sympathetic suspects. Back in 2014, I wrote here about four such cases in Hidalgo County, N.M., and another involving U.S. Customs and Border Protection, also in New Mexico. In researching that post, I found stories about cavity searches in Texas, Illinois, Florida, Georgia, Kansas and Wisconsin. In some cases, the searches were vaginal searches of women. Later the same year, I wrote about two cases in Tennessee. In 2016, I wrote about a case in which Aiken, S.C., police conducted a roadside cavity search of a man based barely any evidence at all. They found no drugs. Not long after, I wrote about another South Carolina man who was beaten, then taken to a hospital, after which doctors took X-rays and a CT scan, and forcibly drew blood, all without his consent and all in search of drugs. They found none.
Even if the police had found drugs in any of these cases, we should then ask . . . at what cost? Even if you believe some drugs ought to be illegal, and that the police should be given broad powers to enforce those laws, you simply can’t fit a very large quantity of drugs into a bodily orifice. So even if the search pays off, it makes only a small dent in the drug supply. Police resort to cavity searches only when they’re particularly motivated to nab the person in their custody. They want a conviction. At that point, it’s far less about public safety than about anger at or disgust with a particular suspect. (That anger tends to cloud sensory perception and rational thought may explain why so many so many of these searches tend to be fruitless.)
Of course, the police could just wait for the suspect to defecate. But that would require patience. And it removes the ability to humiliate and dehumanize the suspect. It also requires enough probable cause to detain the suspect until that happens.
Here’s a thought: The amount of illicit drugs a person could conceivably hide in an anal or vaginal cavity isn’t remotely proportionate to the magnitude of the violation required to retrieve them. That’s true even if everyone searched this way were guilty. But we also know that this isn’t the case. Not to mention that the system is supposed to treat everyone as if they were innocent.
