I want to know why they thought the man had something up his butt.

 

Logic seems to have been thrown out the window. Generally, I would think people shove things up their butt in a hurried situation. How would he accomplish that while seated and driving?

 

The article said he clinched his buttocks. Once again, my take is that he was a perp they were looking for and they needed a reason to bring him in.

I guess the cop said, "well crap, check again"

The article said he clinched his buttocks. Once again, my take is that he was a perp they were looking for and they needed a reason to bring him in.

 

Even if he was a perp with a lengthy rap sheet, I don't see the need to search him more than once or twice. If you didn't find it then, you probably aren't going to or you cut your losses because you didn't do a good enough job the first two times. Wouldn't you agree that eight times and sedating him for a colonoscopy is a bit ridiculous?

 

Even with all that said, I don't really agree with "looking for a reason" to bring him in either. If the evidence is there that he's doing something wrong, use that to get a warrant instead of finding something bogus like failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

 

The officer in this case could be in a lot of trouble because the warrant at issue here specified one county and the hospital he took him to was in another, so the entire search could end up being thrown out anyway, and might have been regardless of what was found. I'm not familiar with New Mexico law, but I know in Texas, we have the four corners doctrine that applies to warrants, meaning that one cannot be supplemented after the fact.

Sounds like they had the top cop on this one.

Update:

 

Apparently this isn't the first time this has happened in New Mexico, and SURPRISE! one of the same officers was involved in that case as well.

 

4 On Your Side reveals another traffic stop nightmare | KOB.com

Probably make a move of this encounter and call it....Tour of dooty. Or maybe just "UP" butt I think Disney has already used that.

I want to know why they thought the man had something up his butt.

 

Logic seems to have been thrown out the window. Generally, I would think people shove things up their butt in a hurried situation. How would he accomplish that while seated and driving?

 

Now they are saying Leo the dog sniffed his car seat. Leo has been wrong before was well. Time for that dog to retire.

So will the money this guy gets be enough to offset how awful that must have been?

Even if he was a perp with a lengthy rap sheet, I don't see the need to search him more than once or twice. If you didn't find it then, you probably aren't going to or you cut your losses because you didn't do a good enough job the first two times. Wouldn't you agree that eight times and sedating him for a colonoscopy is a bit ridiculous?

 

Even with all that said, I don't really agree with "looking for a reason" to bring him in either. If the evidence is there that he's doing something wrong, use that to get a warrant instead of finding something bogus like failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

 

The officer in this case could be in a lot of trouble because the warrant at issue here specified one county and the hospital he took him to was in another, so the entire search could end up being thrown out anyway, and might have been regardless of what was found. I'm not familiar with New Mexico law, but I know in Texas, we have the four corners doctrine that applies to warrants, meaning that one cannot be supplemented after the fact.

 

After reading last article, it may be the dog that caused the issue. If that is the case, than there is some big time trouble brewing.

As for "looking for a reason" I know of a child rapist/murderer that was going to walk the streets because of how the evidence in his case was handled. The prosecutors found "other" causes to lock him up and he got the max sentences for those lesser crimes. I have no issue with keeping bad people off the street.

After reading last article, it may be the dog that caused the issue. If that is the case, than there is some big time trouble brewing.

As for "looking for a reason" I know of a child rapist/murderer that was going to walk the streets because of how the evidence in his case was handled. The prosecutors found "other" causes to lock him up and he got the max sentences for those lesser crimes. I have no issue with keeping bad people off the street.

 

The dog had know way of knowing it wasn't certified like it needed to be every year. The dog wasn't up to par on it's yearly certification, and I'd think it was on the handler to know that.

 

I have no issue with keeping bad people off the street, but I think there are plenty of legal avenues to do so and our Constitutional safeguards are in place for a reason. If the evidence is there, then go through the proper channels and follow protocol and it will be admissible. If you don't, it's playing a dangerous game and is a very slippery slope.

Completely ridiculous actions by the police officers and the medical staff. I hope the officers lose their jobs, lose a hefty lawsuit and are prosecuted. I hope the medical staff that carried out the procedures lose their licenses to practice medicine and also lose a hefty lawsuit and are prosecuted. ZERO excuse for this.

 

As part of the settlement I hope that the victim gets to probe the ones that carried this out for 11 hours like they did him.

edit

Settlement reached in this one. $1.6 million to the victim.

 

Man to get $1.6M for humiliating 3-enema ordeal after traffic stop

By the way, since it was mentioned in this suit and some people had discussed what would have led to the search, the report mentions that there was a canine sniff. Canine sniffs are really falling out of favor now. They are very inaccurate, and experiments into why seem to indicate that they are influenced by their handler (i.e., subtle clues from their handler that tell the dog "I think I should be finding something").

By the way' date=' since it was mentioned in this suit and some people had discussed what would have led to the search, the report mentions that there was a canine sniff. Canine sniffs are really falling out of favor now. They are very inaccurate, and experiments into why seem to indicate that they are influenced by their handler (i.e., subtle clues from their handler that tell the dog "I think I should be finding something").[/quote']

 

What evidence do you have that they are "very inaccurate"?