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.
This article was published in collaboration with the Marshall Project.
Q: Did it hurt when she inserted it?
A: Oh, yeah. Bad.
Q: Describe that for me.
A: Just as if somebody would take a burning hot coal and stick it up your penis. – Deposition of Jamie Lockard, in a lawsuit against police in southeastern Indiana In the United States, there is a wealth of case law pertaining to the Fourth Amendment, with the US Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary fashioning jurisprudence on what constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure. But the courts have yet to reach any kind of consensus about one particularly cringe-worthy practice, as exemplified by what happened to Jamie Lockard in a small town in southeastern Indiana, close to the Ohio border. In March 2009, police in Lawrenceburg, Indiana, pulled Lockard over for not stopping at a stop sign. Suspecting he was drunk, the police had him take a breathalyzer test. He blew a .07 percent, just under the legal limit. The police then obtained a search warrant for blood and urine samples and took Lockard to a local hospital. The blood draw—nurse and needle, with no resistance from Lockard—was no problem. The urine was another matter. Unable to get a sample from Lockard the conventional way—hospital personnel said he wouldn't go, Lockard said he couldn't go—the police took Lockard to the emergency room and handcuffed him to a bed. A police sergeant held one of Lockard's ankles while an officer held the other. A nurse inserted a catheter tube, typically 16 inches long—up the urethra, through the prostate and into the bladder.
www.vice.com...
originally posted by: carewemust
If that happened to me, both officers would regret it for the rest of their lives.
originally posted by: Spider879
originally posted by: carewemust
If that happened to me, both officers would regret it for the rest of their lives.
I don't know what your response would have been beyond lawyering up and sue somebody, but I am guessing you be on the losing end of this, cops don't get punished by the system and you will be for punishing them.
Unless you are Luke Cage.
Utilizing the legal system takes too long and doesn't relay a strong enough message.
originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: carewemust
Utilizing the legal system takes too long and doesn't relay a strong enough message.
And in this you are Luke Cage for he said the same thing, only bullets can't hurt him..
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.
originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Ameilia
yea, you would do that. what else would you be ok to do, or what is your limit; if invasive, illegal sampling insnt there yet...
i guess even though he wasnt legally under the influence, they wanted samples to 'take to the station' and have them come back above the limit, or would have found 'substances in his sample analyzed by other law abiding law enforcing officers/affiliates.