home

8th Cir. Permits Genital Feel to Grab Cocaine in Pocket

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 02:17:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via How Appealing:

From an opinion that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued today, "The police could not have removed the drugs that Williams stashed near his genitals without making some 'intimate contact,' and we reject Williams's claim that such contact is per se unreasonable." According to the factual background section of the opinion, "The officer, who was wearing a latex glove, opened Williams's pants, reached inside Williams's underwear, and retrieved a large amount of crack and powder cocaine near Williams's genitals."

< Jose Padilla: Shrink Says He Has Stockholm Syndrome | Jury Sends out Two Notes in Libby Trial >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    8th Cir. Permits Genital Feel to Grab Cocaine in Pocket | 12 comments (12 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Sounds like common sense (none / 0) (#1)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 02:30:47 PM EST
    It probably doesn't hurt that they had a warrant, that the alternative means of discovering the cocaine (strip search) was more intrusive, and that the search took place in a "partially secluded" place.

    The police possessed a warrant authorizing them to search his person for drugs and firearms, and an initial pat-down produced specific probable cause that Williams was hiding something inside his pants.

    ...

    "It has
    been observed that strip searches requiring a person to disrobe completely have a
    uniquely invasive and upsetting nature."

    ...

    We believe that the officers took sufficient precautions to protect Williams's
    privacy before fulfilling their legitimate need to seize contraband that Williams had
    chosen to carry in his underwear.

    This is plain common sense. The guy put the bag of cocaine in his underwear. How else were the police supposed to get it, ask the guy to take off his pants and jump up and down?

    C'mon Mr. Williams.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 02:45:13 PM EST
    the fuzz have a right to feel your junk.  To protect the children and all.  What country are you from?  When the war on drugs was declared, freedom and privacy became collateral damage.

    At least he got a "partially secluded" place to get molested...the cops grabbed my junk one time on the side of the road looking for contraband, and no latex glove!

    Well....... (none / 0) (#3)
    by peacrevol on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 03:22:26 PM EST
    Can we ask for a female cop when it's time for someone to grab up on my twig and berries? Cuz dudes giving my boys a squeeze is not really my bag. (pun intended)

    Well.... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 03:48:58 PM EST
    since Mr. Williams sexual organs being violated doesn't give you pause....what if it was your grandmother or daughter or wife?

    I do see your point, the fuzz had a warrant in this case and they have the right to grope you wherever they want if they have that piece of paper.  That just doesn't impress me or make it right.  

    If keeping the sanctity of our knickers intact means more cocaine on the streets, so be it, it's not like there is a shortage of cocaine on the streets or anything as it is.

    Well if my grandmother ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 04:14:56 PM EST
      ...is presented a valid warrant to search her person for drugs and she does not want to be touched, I'd advise her to  hand over the dope.

     If she isn't inclined to do that, I'd suggest she request that she be transported to a secure and private location and allowed to strip her clothing herself. Of course, Granny might consider that even more intrusive than having a cop take her stash out of her underwear.

     

    Parent

    If granny had dope to hand over, that is..... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 06:00:55 PM EST
    I guess it boils down to one man's legal search is another man's sexual assault...the court said legal search.  I'm not so sure and like to err on the side of freedom.  

    I can't help but wonder if we'd even be discussing this if not for the war on drugs.  The search for a weapon on a free person can be accomplished by an over the pants pat down...we can draw the line at our drawers while preserving social order, imo.  

    Parent

    No, sir, that's not dope jutting up in my pants... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:04:34 PM EST
    ...I just can't wait to get searched!

    How appropriate (none / 0) (#9)
    by landjjames on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:40:40 AM EST
    That this was initially posted on How Appealing was quite appropriate.

    This is my question (none / 0) (#10)
    by plumberboy on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:39:39 AM EST
    I understand they had a warrant and probable cause but what if they would've found no dope than would it be alright.I mean they still have the warrant and probable cause,but they reach in grab his sack and no dope would you consider that o.k.

    It appears (none / 0) (#11)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 06:59:18 AM EST
     that what hapened is that the after obtaining the SW (the validity of which apparently was not contested), the police first did a "pat down" and the cop felt something in the groin area (Police freequently do pat downs without search warrants in arrests as a search incident to arrest  and Terry stops based upon just "reasonably articulable suspicion" which is less than "probable cause")

     That would mean that in addition to the SW authorizing the search the officer would objectively have PC to believe that something for which he had judicial permission to search was located in a particular location  on the person(the underwear).

       I'll give the defense lawyer credit because he actually persuaded the district cvourt to suppress the dope on the basis that the search was unduly invasive under the circumstances because that seems to be a huge stretch given the fact reported in the opinion. That it was reversed on appeal hardly seems surprising because to do otherwise would essentially mean that all anyone would need do is hide contraband or evidence or fruits of a crime in their underpants and the evidence would be literally and figuratively beyond the reach of law enforcement. That simply does not make sense.

       I'd also suggest that even if the search was  ruled illegal as unduly invasive that the drugs would likely be found admissible by most courts under the "inevitable discovery" doctrine since the cops had a warrant.
       

    Parent

    Latex gloves make it OK (none / 0) (#12)
    by jackl2400 on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:36:45 AM EST
    No, really.  Why do you think the court mentioned it, if it's not important to the knife-sharp legal reasoning of said esteemed appellate court?

    I think the only reason the 4th Amendment doesn't mention latex is that it hadn't been invented when the Founding Fathers were "framing" constitutions rather than other federalists or  whigs.  The gloved hand of authority prevents disease from spreading during the mandated genital checks and monitoring of body fluids against the plague of disease and unauthorized drug abuse.

    I have started carrying a latex glove in my pocket, so when I'm patted down (usually trying to get into a concert, say, since being white I'm not often street searched by the po po), I can pull out my own glove and snap it on with a resounding snap and shake the hand of the pat-down yellowshirt d00d when he's done, offering some Borat-like explanation of disesase prevention and what's good for the goose, etc.  It definitely gets their eyes to bug out.

    Over and out, you liberal crime fighters.  Good to see some real crime news here and not just scooter, dog the publicity hound, duke lax and anna nicole 24/7.

    Talk about copping a feel (none / 0) (#13)
    by aahpat on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:15:40 AM EST
    Mmmm! Warm latex.

    8th Cir. Permits Genital Feel to Grab Cocaine in Pocket | 12 comments (12 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment