No Crap

|

Force-feeding a suspect laxatives to get him to… produce his suspected drug stash is now a-OK in Wisconsin.

NEXT: When Speech Is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Speak

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. William Lloyd Garrison is now turning screaming in his grave.

  2. What a shitty job for the cops though.

  3. Couldn’t they have just x-rayed the guy to see if the bag was inside and waited? Not that forcible x-ray is better from a rights standpoint but I’d prefer that to laxative induced diarrhea.

    I would like to see the list of things that courts feel cross the line when it comes to police abusing a suspect in the drug war. It seems like it’d be rather short.

  4. I’d feel better about this if they got a warrant. I mean, a search is a search, and since they saw him swallow it I can’t imagine it’d be hard to get one.

    Doing this warrantless turns it into a potential harassment technique though.

  5. Why didn’t they just hold him for a day or two? Sounds like they had enough evidence to detain him.

    Knowing the way that everything is justifiable in the War on Drugs, I’m surprised they didn’t engage in a little vivisection. Just for kicks.

  6. I’d be more worried about the fact I’d swallowed a bag of smack rather than a cup of bum-loosener.

  7. What if they just thought you’d swallowed a bag of smack?

  8. In a dissent joined by Justice Louis B. Butler Jr., Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson wrote that the laxative-obtained evidence shouldn’t have been allowed because police didn’t try to obtain a search warrant during the six hours that passed between Payano-Roman’s arrest and when the first dose of laxative was administered.

    BINGO. And that would just be to search his stool. Forcing medical procedures against someone’s will is an even more egregious violation of personal liberty. Hardly a necessary one either, they’d just have to wait a few more hours.

  9. What if they just thought you’d swallowed a bag of smack?

    As in they suspected I had, even though I hadn’t?

    Not a problem for me. I’m not the one sifting through my stools (not the correct word in this instance as there’s no chance Mr Hanky would be solid after a litre of rapido).

    In fact, I’d welcome up to two to three days unwarranted detention just to be able to see the look on the poor officers face, a look as if he’s just come face to face with beelezebub and me say ‘any joy?’

  10. On one hand the government tells you you CAN’T put certain chemicals in your body, on the other hand they can FORCE you to put other chemicals in your body…

  11. In fact, I’d welcome up to two to three days unwarranted detention…

    I think you are underestimating our men in blue’s ability to find evidence.

  12. Duckman, it’s all about which will result in the state having more power over you.

    Once you realize that, the inconsistencies all make sense.

  13. How long can people in the states been held in custody without being charged? How long would this guy have to hold on before taking a dump?

  14. Back in 1988, I was a southern CA county deputy sheriff working in the local lock-up. We once put a guy in solitary without access to water — or a toilet — in order to “wait-out” a swallowed balloon of tar. The inmate managed to shit his jumpsuit, grab the soiled balloon, and re-ingest it before the understandably hesitant deputy watching him could move to stop him. After a brief discussion we decided that the inmate had earned the opportunity to keep his junk and, so, we put him into the general population where he, know doubt, hooked-up with an inmate with a needle and got high. From then on we referred to him as the “poop-shooter”.

  15. The inmate managed to shit his jumpsuit, grab the soiled balloon, and re-ingest it before the understandably hesitant deputy watching him could move to stop him.

    Boy. That is degrading!

    Imagine your boss behind you screeching ‘Stop him!!!’

    ‘Actually, I think I’ll just leave him be’.

  16. If an officer sees him ingest it, isn’t that generally enough for probable cause? Then just ask the judge to hold him without bail for 60 days while he awaits trial.

  17. “BINGO. And that would just be to search his stool. Forcing medical procedures against someone’s will is an even more egregious violation of personal liberty… “

    Just like urine testing for drugs.

  18. If you refuse to take a breathalyzer, the police can have a technician take your blood back at the station for an analysis. Basically, your body’s treated like your car now.

  19. You know, this isn’t just a Fourth Amendment issue. There’s also the question of whether we’re talking about a compelled confession, which could violate the defendant’s right against self-incrimination. If any other method had been used, the requisite “compulsion” probably wouldn’t have been in place, but the described procedure was pretty, ahem, compelling.

    It’s been a long time since Criminal Procedure, so I don’t really know the current state of Fifth Amendment jurisprudence without going all a Google. Still, it’s unlikely that there’s a bright line here–some “searches”/”compelled testimony” are permitted in certain circumstances (for instance, the anal probe enjoyed by the TIA).

  20. From the article:
    … and because the importance of using the drugs as evidence outweighed the intrusion for Payano-Roman.

    “Had the officers been unable to recover the heroin, the government’s case against Payano-Roman would not have been as strong,” Bradley wrote.

    With logic like this, what possible searches wouldn’t be allowed?

    Because its important to get evidence against a suspect, the suspects rights are outweighed by the need to obtain evidence against the subject?

    So any search that turns up evidence against a suspect should be allowed because of the importance of finding evidence against a suspect?

    Or am I misinterprreting something?

    This seems like pretty fucked up logic.

  21. Even ignoring the issue of rights and warrants, can someone explain to me from a medical standpoint why this isn’t irresponsibly dangerous?

  22. “You can have my drugs when you pry them from my cold, dead… no, wait, from my warm, fleshy… no, wait…”

  23. Have you ever taken a laxative? Painful! That’s awfully cruel to do to someone, in my opinion.

    Also, they’re not magic. It takes twelve hours to work anyway. It doesn’t really speed things up.

  24. I’d be willing to let the cops do that to me-if they were required to perform a taste test to find the drugs in my stool. Ha!

  25. Have you ever taken a laxative? Painful! That’s awfully cruel to do to someone, in my opinion.

    Also, they’re not magic. It takes twelve hours to work anyway. It doesn’t really speed things up.
    Actually, there are rather powerful laxatives that will get you going in well under an hour.

  26. Try castor oil. It does the job every time!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.