It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

When the Cops Take Your Urine by Force.

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879




But he took two tests, the Breathalyzer and a blood test, but that still wouldn't satisfy the Cop he needed more, and in the end the number dropped to .05 as for the Judge hey there is a lot of incompetence and corruption there too.


Nothing pesonal my good member, I just find the story a little over the top.




posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

If this does not get found be unlawful assault and the victim get adequate compensation then it simply means that police, and presumably other authority figures, are allowed to treat people like they were cattle.

Hang on, did I just mention cattle? That's what people are labeled as in the book Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, well that this incident tells us that's exactly how they do see us.


(post by hopenotfeariswhatweneed removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

I live about 15 minutes from Lawrenceburg.

This story seems nearly unbelievable. Do we have confirmation from the hospital that this incident took place? It just seems a tad far-fetched for me to believe that:

- A judge would grant such a warrant for a .07 (considering that a field sobriety test, if failed, would give officers probable cause to arrest him for, at the least, reckless driving [from what I understand[) (but apparently the judge did grant it)

- That the breathalyzer, FST (if administered), and the blood sample wouldn't be enough evidence

- That this went so far as to have a forced catheterization be directed by the doctor (not the police)

But, apparently, all of this went down.

Here's where I don't have a major problem with this, even though it seems like WAY overkill (especially considering that I blew OVER the legal limit when I was 17 and was allowed to drive home, escorted by the police)--the police went through the proper channels in obtaining a search warrant in order to get samples of both blood and urine, so there was no illegal shenanigans on behalf of the police.

That said, where has the patience gone with law enforcement? Why not give the guy a Coke and wait it out? Eventually he's going to have to pee. He could have been left in the room with a security guard, and then police could have been notified when he had finally peed, collected their sample, and let Mr. Lockard go on his merry way.

Instead, they slam down the heavy hand of government, jam a tube up his junk, and force him to go through what I can only imagine feels exactly as he described.

But in this case, it seems as though we should be yelling against the law that allows this to happen, or against the procedure being allowed to be so painful (although I can't imagine a way to make it much more comfortable). If this is the best way to access the necessary evidence, so be it--they went through the proper channels--but I can't help but think that a little bit of patience would have gone a long way in an instance like this.

Of course, time is of the essence when dealing with something that metabolizes through your system quickly, so who the hell knows--maybe in the end, the moral should be not to drive when you've drank that much. And if you're a cop, and someone blows below the legal limit but is showing borderline signs of impairment, maybe take a different route than going with forced catheterization.

Just my two cents--but remember, this is in the PC forum, but it was the DOCTOR, not the officers, who authorized the forced urine extraction.


His blood was drawn at Dearborn County Hospital, but Lockard was unable to provide the urine sample, according to the suit. As a result, Dr. Ronald C. Cheek authorized a forced catheterization. The blood sample showed Lockard was under the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle. He was charged with obstruction of justice as a Class D felony for refusing to consent or cooperate with the catheterization.


source

With a charge of obstruction of justice, I'd sure like to see the report about his demeanor during the stop--something tells me that he was acting like an ass.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

I heard about this happening in Texas/New Mexico a few years ago, but I thought it had been stopped by the courts. Actually, if I remember correctly, a judge stopped it in Texas, but the officers were so close to the New Mexico border that they started taking patients across the border for the procedure. I tried to find some links, but couldn't find anything from Texas or New Mexico, though I did find current stories from South Dakota and Utah.

This is barbaric. If someone refuses to give a blood/urine sample, take his license away and send him home.

But it has to be remembered, the officers on the street are just "following orders" from their superiors. This isn't about the LEO on the street; it's about the top brass the orders come from.

Comply... comply... comply...

ETA: ‘There’s A Lot Of Screaming’: American Police Officers Forcefully Inserting Catheters Into Suspects To Collect Urine Samples
edit on 5-10-2016 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)


ETA(2): This gives some great information on court rulings regarding invasive procedures by law enforcement, including rectal searches and forced colonoscopies (searching for drugs): [B1882715] 1 Trauma in the ER: The Intersection of Law Enforcement and Medical Providers and the Exigency of Circumstances.
edit on 5-10-2016 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Spider879

I'm not buy'n this story, not for a minute.
No judge from what I know about the law would grant
such a warrant. And I don't even see any cop being so
ignorant of the law. The only thing that causes a citizen
to submit to any test? Is if they want to keep their DL.
You don't have to give any test. But you do lose your
license for non complience. Simple as that.


All it takes is a quick search of "police + forced urine samples" and you'll find plenty of stories about this happening. And not just in Indiana.

It is happening.

ETA: And I agree: If someone doesn't want to cooperate, take their license and send them home.
edit on 5-10-2016 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
a reply to: Spider879
Expect to lose more right's if Trump is elected. The next supreme court judges are vital to liberty, a right wing court is detrimental outright hostel to freedom.



Dude.... Is EVERYTHING you're going to post have an anti-Trump message in it? Seriously?



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

And now, the rest of the story (well, the summary in court documents, at least, which explains more of the story):

- LOCKARD stopped at approx. 10:40pm for speeding and failing to stop at two stop signs (please note that the overall elapsed time matters)
- Multiple field sobriety tests were administered with Lockard failing them
- A breathalyzer was administered, which registered a 0.07 alcohol content (but with blood-shot eyes and slurred speech, apparently the officer wanted a more accurate test, which is only achieved via blood and/or urine)
- LOCKARD refused to submit to further requested chemical analysis of his BAC, which is in violation of Indiana Code 9-30-6-1 (and was noted to LOCKARD at the time)
- Officer arrests LOCKARD and requests the search warrant
- Search warrant granted at 12:10am by judge, which reads in part, "You are hereby authorized and ordered, in the name of the State of Indiana with the necessary and proper assistance to obtain and remove a blood and urine sample from Jamie N. Lockard." Emphasis mine...please note that it says blood AND urine sample.
- LOCKARD is escorted to hospital and arrives at 12:34am
- LOCKARD voluntarily provided blood sample at approx. 1:05am
- LOCKARD is then asked for a urine sample, which he is either unable or unwilling to give, refusing assistance, such as offered water, to aid in the ability to urinate. He then (allegedly) states that, "that he wasn't going to give a sample and that [Officer Miller] could do what he had to do [referring to the catheter]."
- Around 1:30am, the doctor orders the nurse to catheterize LOCKARD--she asked LOCKARD why he doesn't just urinate, and LOCKARD responds with, "Because I don't want to."
- LOCKARD taken to room for catheterization at 1:35am
- Between prep and trying one catheter tube and then switching to a smaller one, a urine sample was finally obtained without a time being noted (this is important!)
- LOCKARD discharged from the hospital at 2:00am

Okay, this is where things seem to fall into place on LOCKARD'S side of the lawsuit--here is the pertinent verbiage (with my underlined emphasis) of the Indiana Code linked to earlier:

IC 9-30-6

Chapter 6. Implied Consent; Administrative and Evidentiary Matters


IC 9-30-6-1
Chemical test for intoxication; implied consent

Sec. 1.
A person who operates a vehicle impliedly consents to submit to the chemical test provisions of this chapter as a condition of operating a vehicle in Indiana.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.18.

IC 9-30-6-2
Probable cause; offer of test; alternative tests; requirement to submit

Sec. 2.
(a) A law enforcement officer who has probable cause to
believe that a person has committed an offense under this chapter,
IC 9-30-5, or IC 9-30-9, or a violation under IC 9-30-15 shall offer
the person the opportunity to submit to a chemical test.
(b) A law enforcement officer:
(1) is not required to offer a chemical test to an unconscious person; and
(2) may offer a person more than one (1) chemical test under this chapter.
(c) A test administered under this chapter must be administered within three (3) hours after the law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe the person committed an offense under IC 9-30-5 or a violation under IC 9-30-15.
(d) A person must submit to each chemical test offered by a law enforcement officer in order to comply with the implied consent provisions of this chapter.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.18. Amended by P.L.53-1994, SEC.7.


So, as I underlined in the Indiana Code, it specifies that chemical samples "MUST BE ADMINISTERED WITHIN THREE HOURS" after probable cause was determined, which puts the start time at approximately 10:40pm. After everything went down that is noted above, he was not even taken into a room to have the procedure started for catheterization until 1:35am, and understanding that the sterilization of the area, the first attempted catheterization and then the final catheterization which yielded the resultant urine sample in about two minutes could not have possible taken only five minutes, we're looking at the sample having been obtained after the specified three-hour time window contained within the law.

To me, this is the big point in this whole story, and could invalidate the sample AND actually, possibly, maybe give Mr. Lockard legal grounds to claim illegal search and seizure.

This will actually be interesting to see how this plays out.

Regardless, I never wish a forced catheterization on any human being--I can't imagine what that would feel like, and I've had a vasectomy.

ETA: Concerning my other post in this thread, after researching the law, I now understand why patience was not utilized in this instance--they were running out of (and may have actually ran out of) time to extract the urine sample.
edit on 5-10-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-10-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-10-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Well, see my post above this one concerning the Indiana Code of Implied Consent--the officers and judge were within their legal right to order the chemical analysis.

That said, there are punishments that could be administered in lieu of forced urination, but by the time LOCKARD apparently refused (or couldn't...although I fall of the side of refused) to urinate, a judge had already ordered the extraction of a urine sample--they had to do it by judge's order.

It's not as if the cop took it upon himself to shove a garden hose up the dude's dingle on the side of the road or anything.

I do, however, think that, with Lockard having been speeding and failing to stop at two stop sign, the officer had plenty of reason to order the subsequent chemical tests in this particular instance. Evidence suggests that Lockard refused to pee of his own accord, and brought on the catheterization by way of his own actions.

There is, however, an issue with timing, and it's highly possible that the forced catheterization happened outside of the legal time limit of three hours after initial probable cause concerning OWI, so that may be a 4th-amendment issue in that regard.


edit on 5-10-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: WilburnRoach

Give it a rest...



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Boadicea

Well, see my post above this one concerning the Indiana Code of Implied Consent--the officers and judge were within their legal right to order the chemical analysis.


First and foremost, officers and judges have no "right" to order anything... they have only those authorities and powers granted them by the people in accordance with the Social Contract and natural law, in which anything and everything they do must further the common good of the people they serve. We the people have rights.


That said, there are punishments that could be administered in lieu of forced urination...


But this wasn't a punishment, which would fall under "cruel and unusual;" it was for investigatory and evidentiary purposes.


... but by the time LOCKARD apparently refused (or couldn't...although I fall of the side of refused) to urinate, a judge had already ordered the extraction of a urine sample--they had to do it by judge's order.


I don't care who "ordered" it for what reason. It's wrong. If the officers felt he was a threat to public safety as an operator of a motor vehicle, then stop the threat... take his license, impound his vehicle, and send him home.


It's not as if the cop took it upon himself to shove a garden hose up the dude's dingle on the side of the road or anything.


Indeed, as I noted in one of my replies. The LEOs are just following orders -- which is exactly what and how the top brass like it. The rot starts at the top.


I do, however, think that, with Lockard having been speeding and failing to stop at two stop sign, the officer had plenty of reason to order the subsequent chemical tests in this particular instance.


"Plenty of reason" for what purpose? Public safety? Nope. That could have been achieved without brutally and cruelly performing a painful invasive procedure without consent, which comes with its own risks to the health and well-being of the "suspect." Lockard had not hurt anyone at that point, and had not violated anyone else's rights.


Evidence suggests that Lockard refused to pee of his own accord, and brought on the catheterization by way of his own actions.


No. Evidence tells us that Lockard did not pee of his own accord -- it cannot and therefore does not tell us why. Evidence does however tell us that he did in fact submit of his own accord to two other tests (breathalyzer and blood test) that gave LE the information sought. Just because it didn't give them the results they wanted/expected does not justify abuse and violence upon their person.

Further, this blaming the victim for the actions of LE is the biggest chicken# copout there is. Someone made the rule, someone can change the rule. If their actions cannot be defended and justified without blaming their victim, then they have no defense or justification.


There is, however, an issue with timing, and it's highly possible that the forced catheterization happened outside of the legal time limit of three hours after initial probable cause concerning OWI, so that may be a 4th-amendment issue in that regard.


It's ALL a violation of our 4th amendment rights.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Are you really going to argue the semantics of my comment about "legal right?" You get the point of that comment, and bickering about using "right" or "authority" doesn't matter in the context of my point. The point is still valid, but thanks. If a judge has the authority to order something, and it's within the law created by the people voted to represent the residents of the State of Indiana, just because you feel that it's wrong is inconsequential--but that is why is a previous comment of mine, I noted that we should be focusing on changing the law, not whining about the officers and judge who are there to aid in enforcing the law that they didn't write.

That said (and why I have to repeat this so that you get it is beyond me), there are other avenues that this could have (and should have, IMO) traveled to get to a better end result, but that's neither here nor there--one of my points is that what went down was not illegal under the law, UNLESS the urine sample was taken after the three-hour window.

You need to understand something, Boadicea--driving in America is not a right, it's a privilege, and with it comes responsibilities, such as knowing the rules of the road. Nowhere in the Constitution does it provide Americans the right to a driver's license and a car. In the State of Indiana, one of the legal stipulations to which you passively agree when driving is that, if you drive impaired or there is probable cause to think that you are, you MUST submit to requested chemical analysis of your breath, blood, urine, or a combination of the three--to include all of them. If you refuse, you can automatically lose your driving privilege, and then a judge can revoke said privilege even more after that.

Look, I get that you have an ideological issue with what happened, and I tend to agree with you, but you're fighting the wrong fight--just citing how you feel about the issue and spouting off that "it's ALL a violation of our 4th amendment rights" does not change the law, nor does your opinion make it fact.

Fight to change the law--speak out against the law--but for Christ's sake, quick bickering about trivial s**t with me that will change nothing. At the moment, I'm citing the law, and I even linked to the law--I hate to tell you, but in this instance, I'm right as the law stands, no matter how many times you quote me and respond to my comment piece by piece.

Move to Indiana and take it up with their legislators--do something that will actually matter and maybe change something.

Also, your accusation of me "blaming the victim" is downright comical--citing personal responsibility by people isn't always "victim blaming." Seriously, get over yourself.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Get over myself? Really?

This is not a law. It is a law enforcement practice authorized by someone, but not the law. I defy you to show me even one codified law on the books -- in Indiana or anywhere -- that REQUIRES law enforcement to forcibly take urine samples under these or any conditions. This is not a law. It is a police procedure which courts have ruled to be "legal" under color of law.... because any "law" that violates our rights as established in our founding documents and organic law is by definition against our law. And in this specific instance, I can cite half a dozen constitutional rights which have been violated -- under color of law -- including our constitutional right to freedom of movement and travel. So no, I won't work to change the law, because the law -- the true law -- is just fine.

It is government officials who are out of bounds. And the only way to correct the matter is to understand the foundation of our law, and the necessary principles to respect and uphold going forward and establishing better policing procedures for the circumstances. Among those principles is that they serve us, and must work in our best interests, and receive their power to be governed by the consent of the people. Government does not get to tell us what they can and cannot do... we tell them. And I defy you to show me any constituent group that demanded government do this.

It is, in fact, by government authorities claiming non-existent "rights" that they justify their abuse of the people.

We cannot fix anything if we do not understand the proper foundation and principles for the solution.

Oh! And no, I won't "get over" myself.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Urine test was not needed
They got a voluntary blood sample
What can you get from urine that you cant get from blood?
BS stupid cops



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879
Those two cops are sadistic perverts..Smfh.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   
It seems like you could defend against this "attack" by pissing all over the cops.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
If that happened to me, both officers would regret it for the rest of their short lives.

There ... fixed it for ya.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Boadicea, I have been a part of the legal system for over 1/4 of my life, four years of that being a paralegal for both prosecution and defense attorneys, and the remainder dealing directly with federal prosecutors, federal agents, and courtroom evidence as my daily job.

I know what a law is and what a law isn't.

Here, this is something that may help you understand how a law comes to be so. This is for a federal law, but it's very similar at the state level, too.

So, you see that once a bill is proposed, passed by the legislative body and then signed by the proper authority (president, governor, etc.), it is a LAW. Whether or not it's an unconstitutional LAW can only be determined in a court of LAW when it gets challenged. Until a court rules that a LAW violates the constitution (state, federal, or otherwise), the LAW is valid. This is something that you apparently need to understand, because it is obvious that you ignore this reality in order to back up your interpretation of reality, and that is from where my comment about getting over yourself stems.

I'm no fan of the ability to forcibly remove fluids from someone, but sometimes it's a necessary evil in society in order to obtain criminal evidence (and, yes, speeding, running stop signs, and driving while impaired [which doesn't only have to be shown by BAC] are crimes), otherwise we are often left with just having to take an accused criminal at his/her word. I don't think that it needed to be applied in this case, because I honestly think that the breathalyzer and the blood sample should have been enough--and quite honestly, I think they were just fishing for a large pay day from the fines at that point, anyhow--but again, that doesn't mean that what they did was illegal, as it is expressly noted in the State of Indiana that if you are driving in the state, you automatically consent to having these chemical analyses performed on you. If you refuse, you can be ordered to do so (obviously), or face automatic penalties of fines, loss/suspension of license, and jail time. That is the LAW.

So, like I said, if you don't like the law, take the State to court over it and have it proven to be unconstitutional, otherwise, like I've said before, this is just a bunch of rants and feelings from you that will change nothing.

(sorry for the late reply...I was never notified of your response)
edit on 6-10-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Boadicea

Boadicea, I have been a part of the legal system for over 1/4 of my life, four years of that being a paralegal for both prosecution and defense attorneys, and the remainder dealing directly with federal prosecutors, federal agents, and courtroom evidence as my daily job.

I know what a law is and what a law isn't.

Here, this is something that may help you understand how a law comes to be so. This is for a federal law, but it's very similar at the state level, too.



(sorry for the late reply...I was never notified of your response)


That's all fine and well, but can you please describe to me the function of conjunction junction?



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Seems to me any kind of body samples be it breath, urine, or blood is self-incrimination. We have the right to not have to testify against ourselves. This was a particularly nasty way to get a urine sample, cops obviously wanted to see the guy suffer.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join