Lawsuit Claims Forced Catheterization After DWI Stop

Radley Balko | September 7, 2009

An Indiana man has filed a lawsuit against a Lawrenceville, Indiana police officer and a local doctor and hospital, claiming he was forcibly catheterized after a DWI stop. According to the lawsuit, Jamie Lockard passed his roadside breath test. But the officer still detained  Lockard and took him to a local hospital, where doctors strapped him to a gurney, pushed a catheter inside of him, and forcibly extracted blood and urine from him. The blood and urine tests also showed Lockard to be under the legal limit. 

Lockard was never charged for drunk driving. According to the lawsuit, he was charged with "obstruction of justice," apparently for having the temerity to resist someone shoving a tube into his body without his permission.

A local magistrate signed off on a warrant for the procedure.

I guess this means the results of those trustworthy roadside breath tests are only reliable when they show that someone is intoxicated.

(Via Popehat)

Comments

hmm|9.7.09 @ 11:39AM|#

I'd seek relief in the form of a forced anal cavity search of all involved. With a boxing glove on.

On another note, they wouldn't need to cath me. As soon as they made it clear they were going to force it everyone would get a free sample and they could charge me with battery.

|9.7.09 @ 11:45AM|#

Whoa, whoa, whoa. All it takes for the state to have the right to catheterize you is a judge's signature? Methinks the tree of liberty is thirsty if that be the case.

Joe M|9.7.09 @ 11:49AM|#

Well shit, Radley, happy fuckin Labor Day to you too.

Kyle Jordan|9.7.09 @ 12:02PM|#

"Well shit, Radley, happy fuckin Labor Day to you too."

I know, right!?

One day, ONE DAY, there will be a line. That line will be crossed and the worthless cunts that do shit like this will suffer greatly for their idiocy. I only hope I'm alive to see that day and be part of the bitchslap given to these shitbags.

|9.7.09 @ 12:11PM|#

happened to me once. forced blood sample, no cath. the charges were dropped also. it sucks.

i can't imagine that we've come so far that this is not a blatant violation of the fourth and fifth amendments in the eyes of the law...

Joe M|9.7.09 @ 12:26PM|#

THREADJACK:
Van Jones resigns!"

I can't believe this wasn't posted here yesterday.

hmm|9.7.09 @ 12:29PM|#

Joe M | September 7, 2009, 12:26pm | #
THREADJACK:
Van Jones resigns!"

I can't believe this wasn't posted here yesterday.

my palm and forehead can't take much more.

Le Fail.

or

Le Flail.

MNG|9.7.09 @ 12:29PM|#

"A local magistrate signed off on a warrant for the procedure."

Score one for proponents of vesting power in local governments to protect individuals' rights!

Chief Wiggum|9.7.09 @ 12:29PM|#

One day, ONE DAY, there will be a line. That line will be crossed and the worthless cunts that do shit like this will suffer greatly for their idiocy.

Really? Oh no! Have they set a date?

|9.7.09 @ 12:35PM|#

Yeah, MNG, I'm sure Obama is hot as a pistol about this and would never let a federal judge do the same thing. If only the federal govt were in charge of DUI enforcement, there would be zero problems.

</sarcasm>

Joe M|9.7.09 @ 12:35PM|#

my palm and forehead can't take much more.

Haha, you can't expect me to go sifting through all the old threads. I'm a busy man.

|9.7.09 @ 12:38PM|#

The suit should include the magistrate. All of the officials involved here should be up on charges for depriving the plaintiff of his civil rights under color of authority.

-jcr

|9.7.09 @ 12:50PM|#

"apparently for having the temerity to resist someone shoving a tube into his body without his permission."

Into his body? What's with the euphemism? They shoved a tube down his penis.

The Angry Optimist|9.7.09 @ 1:11PM|#

Score one for proponents of vesting power in local governments to protect individuals' rights!

ooh, do I get to use any example of unions behaving badly to take away the liberties of unions?

Or of citizens behaving badly, so I can take away the First Amendment?

Some rules are overall better for liberty than others. Local control, as a general rule, favors liberty more than central, nationalistic control.

|9.7.09 @ 1:18PM|#

cripes TAO; don't you know if your system isn't perfect the current boondoggle clusterfark is better by default?

Gyro Captain|9.7.09 @ 1:24PM|#

From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the urine of tyrants and patriots.

|9.7.09 @ 1:28PM|#

If the CIA did this to a terrorist in Afghanistan, the Eric Holder would be trying to throw them in jail for it. But when the cops do it to a US citizen, they were just following procedures.

Further, the damned Magistrate needs to be shot. How the hell do you find probable cause for a warrent when they guy passed a field test? Is there any warrent this clown won't sign? How many other bogus warrents has he signed?

|9.7.09 @ 1:37PM|#

i guess 'cause it was probable they could extract large sums of money from him...

|9.7.09 @ 1:38PM|#

crap. handle fail.

robc|9.7.09 @ 1:42PM|#

I made my last humorous handle FAIL just before I started using incif. Having something that inserts the name field for you works wonders. Of course, if you are trolling under an alt, it can cause a different fail.

Officer Miller|9.7.09 @ 1:54PM|#

A Breathalyzer test showed he was under the legal limit, but Officer Brian Miller doubted the findings.

I doubted those damn catheterization results too, but couldn't get a vivisection warrant in time!

|9.7.09 @ 2:05PM|#

robc:

thanks for the tip. hell if i knew what it stood for i would have looked into it earlier. i think this is a case where the acronym does a disservice to the product.

|9.7.09 @ 2:16PM|#

We always have more to fear from the police than from the criminals. When they are not the same people, that is.

Art-P.O.G.|9.7.09 @ 2:19PM|#

I doubted those damn catheterization results too, but couldn't get a vivisection warrant in time!

This got a pretty big smile from me...

smartass sob|9.7.09 @ 2:26PM|#

According to the lawsuit, he was charged with "obstruction of justice," apparently for having the temerity to resist someone shoving a tube into his body without his permission.

Fuckers can always find some way to charge you with something. I'm surprised they didn't get him for "disorderly conduct" as well. Chicken-shit bastards.

Ben P.|9.7.09 @ 2:29PM|#

Hrm. I note that the original article only says that police *claimed* that they had a warrant. Nowhere does the reporter say that this is confirmed, or name the magistrate.

Just sayin'....

DT|9.7.09 @ 2:52PM|#

Our court system is really circling the drain when they can charge you with "obstruction of justice" for resisting assault with a catheter.
"Obstruction of justice" has become a catch-all criminal charge for anytime the police want to charge someone who hasn't actually committed any crime.
My blog: http://statelesspatriot.blogspot.com/

|9.7.09 @ 3:33PM|#

I can't think of any rational justification for this. If the guy was obviously impaired, they don't need the test. If he wasn't, then where's the great harm posed by just letting him go?

Candy Lightner|9.7.09 @ 3:45PM|#

What we need in this war on drunk driving is hollow glass tubes at the DUI checkpoints.

Smash the tube in the penis to get a blood and urine sample.

For the children.

anon|9.7.09 @ 4:01PM|#

if they're not trying to get something out of you, they're trying to put something in you...

BakedPenguin|9.7.09 @ 4:03PM|#

Hey, he might have been hiding a bottle of ibuprofen in there.

Anonymous|9.7.09 @ 4:22PM|#

The ACLU has bigger fish to fry, like Muslims being in the same building with feces or gun ownership existing.

Fluffy|9.7.09 @ 4:55PM|#

Local control, as a general rule, favors liberty more than central, nationalistic control.

Actually, I would gain more liberty if my local government ceased to exist than I would if the federal government ceased to exist. All other things being equal.

I understand your point, because you can at least walk away from your local government - but as the guy in this story discovered, you often can't do that walking right at the moment you most need to.

By the way, it is pretty apparent to me that in any jurisdiction where a law enforcement officer presents a petition for a warrant for a blood test that offers as part of its reasoning the claim that breathalyzers are unreliable should be collaterally estopped from using a positive breathalyzer result as evidence at trial, or even as evidence to support an arrest, ever again.

If the tests are unreliable, they're unreliable. They can't be both reliable as evidence and unreliable as evidence.

Some Guy|9.7.09 @ 6:44PM|#

If the tests are unreliable, they're unreliable. They can't be both reliable as evidence and unreliable as evidence.

Well a test could be far more biased to false negatives than false positives.

Of course, in this case it's just epic bullshit, but there are tests where that could be true.

Officer Miller|9.7.09 @ 7:19PM|#

This got a pretty big smile from me...

Assume the position.

Andrew_M_Garland|9.7.09 @ 7:27PM|#

Apropriate to this discussion:

You Should Not Take A Breathalyzer Test

Attorney Darryl Genis talks about the uncertainty of a breathalyzer test and the complexities of Driving Under the Influence of alcohol or drugs.

Tricky Prickears|9.7.09 @ 7:33PM|#

Holy fucking shit. You mean to tell me that they didn't call in SWAT? What the hell's wrong with these guys? Are they not aware of proper operating procedure? When dealing with an unruly, uncooperative suspect, the first response is to have SWAT immediately dispatched to said suspect's place of residence to shoot his fucking dogs. Even if they are not fucking, they must be shot. Then, and only then, can an official Magistrate be called in order to obtain permission for a forced medical procedure, such as, but not limited to, castration.

The catheter was just a cover. They were really trying to cut his dick off.

Tricky Prickears|9.7.09 @ 7:43PM|#

If the tests are unreliable, they're unreliable. They can't be both reliable as evidence and unreliable as evidence.

They are reliable as evidence for alcohol consumption, but not for narcotics consumption. Obviously the cop felt that if the guy wasn't drunk, he had to be high on something (not that that justifies what the cop did).

|9.7.09 @ 7:55PM|#

Further, the damned Magistrate needs to be shot. How the hell do you find probable cause for a warrent when they guy passed a field test? Is there any warrent this clown won't sign? How many other bogus warrents has he signed?

Word. Both of these pricks need a tar shower and a feather suit.

Chrispy|9.8.09 @ 1:35AM|#

Shame on the doctors. I expect this kind of thing from cops, but "first, do no harm" still means something to some people.

Paul|9.8.09 @ 1:41AM|#

But we're right on the edge of turning back the drug war. Right there. So close I can taste it.

*|9.8.09 @ 3:00AM|#

Shame on the doctors. I expect this kind of thing from cops,...

Just wait until we have government-run health care - doctors will probably be doing all sorts of things you won't be able to refuse.

@|9.8.09 @ 8:23AM|#

The story is short on details. Stopped, passed the test, catheterized. What happened in between?

edna|9.8.09 @ 8:31AM|#

it may not have been doctors. these days, cops get certified to do blood draws and catheterizations. and we know how gentle and concerned with "patient" comfort they are likely to be.

doesn't that concept make you feel better?

|9.8.09 @ 10:26AM|#

I can tell you from personal experience that the police have arrested ER staff who refused to draw blood on a patient over the patient's objection.

In fact, I have a meeting with the local warlords law enforcement heads to discuss this very issue. My position - hospital staff are in the healthcare business, not the law enforcement business. If the cops want blood, urine or anything else from someone who is objecting, then they can get it themselves.

|9.8.09 @ 11:46AM|#

They can take blood and urine forcibly?
What's the part of the constitution that allows abortions? Shouldn't this be covered under that?

|9.8.09 @ 11:59AM|#

They shoved a tube up (down?) his penis, but at least they didn't shoot his dog...

Sean Healy|9.8.09 @ 12:36PM|#

Apropriate to this discussion:

You Should Not Take A Breathalyzer Test

I don't remember the law in the US, but in Ireland it's illegal to refuse the breathalyzer, which can be administered without probably cause (e.g. at an ad hoc checkpoint).

|9.8.09 @ 12:52PM|#

Unfortunately this intrusion started with the whole "contract" with the state into which you have entered by signing your driver's licence. Most state laws basically say that you have agreed to take a breath test if ordered to by a LEO. Technically there are hurdles, probable cause for a traffic stop, smell of alcohol, slurred speech etc, but these are easy. Take the test or lose your license, regardless of whether you are convicted or not.

Now, under Florida law you have further consented to blood samples if the state wants them. Since they have your "consent" (your driver's licence as "contract") no warrant is required. However, I've never heard of this extended to urine samples obtained by Foley catheter before.

This goes back to how the whole notion of the state's right to grant permission to exercise basic rights in some alleged interest of public safety can be used to further restrict rights in the name of said public safety, even to the extent of requiring to surrendering the fundamental one in the Bill of Rights.

|9.8.09 @ 12:59PM|#

"I don't remember the law in the US, but in Ireland it's illegal to refuse the breathalyzer,..."

Sean, what's the penalty?

In most states (if not all) you lose your license for a year if you refuse, regardless of the outcome of your DUI case.

In fact, i have had one attorney tell me that they are finding it easier to get DUI readings suppressed than they were in the past of getting a favorable view of a client's refusal. So, the advice has changed. If stopped, take the test and have your attorney argue for exclusion on grounds of probable cause.

Some Florida judges are starting to take a somewhat jaundiced view of breathalyser evidence. To soon to spot a trend or anything, though.

|9.8.09 @ 1:01PM|#

I should have added after my second sentence "So, for all practical purposes, it is illegal in the USA."

Medic001|9.8.09 @ 3:43PM|#

Ya...and next they will be strapping you down to give you the H1N1 "Swine flu" for the "health" and "safety" of all.

Last I checked you had to have consent in order to 1. Take a person to the hospital.
2. Strap them down ( unless a danger to them sleves or the staff)
3. Consent to test as well.

I hope he takes down the entire hospital.

Medic001|9.8.09 @ 3:46PM|#

Dean: This has been a growing problem. We had staff here in WA arrested for refusing to take blood from an 18 year old.

He didn't consent to they refused. One is paying of a 10,000$ fine and the other tech is still awaiting trail.

You'd have to arrest me to violate my PTs rights first too!

Medic001|9.8.09 @ 3:52PM|#

One more for the fire.

In the Navy, we didn't use the breath test. we knew they were crap.

So what the OOD ( officer of the Day) would do when he had a "drunk" sailor report to duty. He brought them to our ER to be tested.

Wow, lets see. I've got timmy with his brains laid out on my table, lil jonnie has a broken wrist, and now some asshole brings in a "fuctioning drunk"

So that guy would have to wait 2-5 hrs to do the lab test to check his BAL.

By the time we could see them, they were sober, and the blood test was a waste of my time.

My favorite was when some hot cock would bring in a kid and demand he be seen first.

I would send him to my favorite Marine for a tude check.

Its a pretty Flipp'n obvious thing if some one is THAT drunk.

|9.8.09 @ 5:25PM|#

"""doesn't that concept make you feel better?"""

After they give you the pill to make you forget you will.

|9.8.09 @ 5:26PM|#

"""In the Navy, we didn't use the breath test. we knew they were crap."""

DoD cops sure loved using them on the Navy though.

|9.8.09 @ 5:37PM|#

In the Navy, we didn't use the breath test. we knew they were crap.

Must depend on where.

Someone I know told me the first thing that happened when he reported for boot camp at Great Lakes circa 1992 was a breath test. Then a piss test. All with the implication that if they failed either they would be sent home.

Another friend who reported for boot camp at Great Lakes circa 1966 said his group showed up shitfaced with no consequences.

|9.8.09 @ 8:31PM|#

I guess this means the results of those trustworthy roadside breath tests are only reliable when they show that someone is intoxicated.

That's absolutely correct. They are used to develop probable cause, not negate it. An officer can ALWAYS charge you with DWI regardless of quantitative breath/blood results. All the officer has to do is say the magic words "based on my training and experience the suspect/defendant was legally intoxicated." They don't even have to say on what substance you're intoxicated. It can be sudafed, claritin, benadryl, valium, pot, oxycontin, anything. They don't have to prove beyond that you actually had a particular intoxicant in your system. Just that, in their opinion, you were a little screwey to be driving.

Boom - conviction. Because a CHILD could have been playing in the street, and thus you are a child murderer who just didn't get the job done this time. Jail for you.

Isaac Bartram|9.9.09 @ 2:01AM|#

Actually, no, Bruce.

Juries have a way of disregarding claims of officers that do not seem to be borne out by the facts.

A surprising number of DWI cases that go to trial end up as acquittals.