Terrorism

Elvis Impersonator's Home "Uninhabitable" After Ricin Search

Another development in the ricin case.

|

Kevin Curtis, the Elvis impersonator charged and then un-charged with sending ricin to the president, isn't happy with how the police conducted themselves while searching his home. According to the AP,

YOU WOULDN'T TREAT GRACELAND LIKE THIS.

Curtis' lawyer, Christi McCoy, has sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Felicia Adams demanding that Curtis be provided temporary housing and the government repair his Corinth, Miss., home and possessions. She also wants the government to pay his legal bills.

"To be specific, Mr. Curtis' home is uninhabitable. I have seen a lot of post search residences but this one is quite disturbing. The agents removed art from the walls, broke the frames and tore the artwork. Mr. Curtis offered his keys but agents chose to break the lock. Mr. Curtis' garbage was scheduled to be picked up Thursday, the day after he was snatched from his life. A week later, the garbage remains in his home, along with millions of insects it attracted," the letter says.

If McCoy's claims are true, I think Curtis should be compensated. To align the incentives appropriately, the compensation should come from the budget of the department that conducted the search.

Advertisement

NEXT: Sock Puppeteer Wants North to Secede So Whole Country Can Be as Dumb as He Is

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. “To align the incentives appropriately, the compensation should come from the screams of the agents of the department that conducted the search getting kicked in the testicles.”

    FTFY

    1. Well, that wouldn’t do much to finance the repair of Mr. Curtis’s home, though, would it? I’ll meet you half way. How about “To align the incentives appropriately, the compensation should come from the funds raised by having the agents of the department that conducted the search getting kicked in the testicles at a dollar per kick.”

      I know I’d pay a dollar for the privilege of kicking one of these clowns in the nads.

      1. Deal.

    2. To align the incentives appropriately, the compensation should come from the budget of the pension fund for the agents of the department that conducted the search.

      FTFY. Otherwise, you’ll never get the union to give a shit.

  2. Mr. Curtis offered his keys but agents chose to break the lock.

    WTF?

    1. Opening the door with a key would not look ‘active’ enough on the training videos.

    2. They were never properly trained in the use of keys. Procedures were followed. Nothing else happened.

    3. What part of intimidation don’t you get?

    4. If they used the keys then he would have been able to lock up behind him. It’s better that the door be left ajar so animals and people can go in and further destroy the place while he sits in jail waiting for a chance to prove his innocence.

    5. It was OK to abuse him since they new he was guilty and deserved to have his home destroyed.

      1. This is basically it. I hope the level of all-around self-satisfaction started to diminish as they continued to tear this guy’s house apart without finding anything.

    6. This guy is a terrorist. He used a weapon of mass destruction. Who knows what sort of booby trap a terrorist could rig to his doorlock?

  3. Isn’t there case law that states that the authorities have to conduct searches in the least disruptive manner practically available to them?

    I thought that in the 19th century, it was settled that if a homeowner offered to unlock his door, the cops were supposed to let him.

    Those dunphies sure are bullies aren’t they?

    1. Isn’t there case law that states that the authorities have to conduct searches in the least disruptive manner practically available to them?

      Maybe, but “least disruptive” seems to be a term as slippery as an eel.

      Knew someone a while back who had to retrieve his stolen car from the cops. It was taken into “evidence” after the allegedly drunk driving thieves got away after a chase.

      The car was covered in police tape, the sticky kind, sounded like duct-tape grade adhesive. Took forever to get off and messed up the finish pretty bad. (It might not have been so bad if it was professionally removed)

      Of course, they had to try to pin the driving on him even though he had proof of where he was while the cops were chasing his car around.

      1. Of course, they had to try to pin the driving on him even though he had proof of where he was while the cops were chasing his car around.

        Guilty until proven otherwise.

      2. My 4X4 pickup was stolen and taken on a joyride. The perpetrators monster trucked about eight cars, totalled the truck, and fled. I discovered the truck was stolen in the morning and called the police. The detectives were very interested in talking to me. I went into their office thinking I was going to get a police report for my insurance, and info on how to get my truck back. Instead, they wanted to arrest me for the accidents, and they were talking DUI charges. They didn’t have any evidence. I went out to the impound lot to get my truck. I found a screw driver on the floor of the truck, and a huge chunk of African-American scalp (with afro attached) in the windshield. I also noted that all of my rap CD’s were missing, yet curiously none of the punk CD’s. I went back to the detectives and told them of my findings. They weren’t happy. I blew their assumptions. And their investigation.

        Fuck those douchebags.

        1. Fuck that pole lease!

          And California.

        2. Sounds like we have discovered the procedure, used universally by the government. Blame the victim, especially of the only person caught is the victim.

          Works in almost every instance too. See the history of Love Canal in the media vs. what really happened.

          1. I reported a break-in a while back, and when the cops arrived they said it must have been drug related because they didn’t see any nice stuff that was worth stealing. They left after I declined to let them search the place for drugs.

            1. Did you tell them that it was because all the nice stuff HAD BEEN STOLEN!

            2. This is just their way of saying “we don’t really care, but would you like to keep bothering us because we’ll make it worth your while.”

        3. and a huge chunk of African-American scalp (with afro attached) in the windshield

          That must have given you some satisfaction.

          1. I’m surprised that they didn’t accuse him of aggravated assault since he obviously took a divot out of someone’s head purposing to pervert the course of justice.

          2. Yeah. There was blood everywhere, too. I figure the guys were busted up bad enough to need ER care. So I suggested the detectives track down anyone who went to the ER overnight with a broken nose, busted teeth, and missing a large chunk of scalp. The cops asked me if I had insurance. I told them I had full coverage, and they handed me a copy of the police report. That was the end of that, and I never heard from them again. Case closed, apparently.

            God I miss that 4X4. It was fun as hell.

            1. One of my coworkers said her neighbor’s car had been broken into, and all the cds were stolen. So she called the cops who then filed a report. The next thing she did was go to local pawn shops looking for the disks, and sure enough she found them. She then told the cops who mocked her for doing detective work. Well, it’s a good thing she did, because they wouldn’t have. The cops grudgingly arrested the kid who had sold the disks to the shop. Very grudgingly.

            2. There’s no money in prosecuting larceny, assault, etc. That’s why they spend all their time on drugs and moving violations.

              1. The fact is that the police exist to protect the government’s interests, and whether your stuff gets ripped off is insignificant.

        4. Did they do any further investigation, like fingerprints and such, or did they quit as soon as they discovered they couldn’t charge the reporter of a crime with a crime?

          1. Some cockeater stole all four wheels off my car, and I was shocked to find an actual evidence team show up later in the day to search for fingerprints.

            1. I would have been shocked as well. Without exception I’ve been treated like a criminal whenever I have called the police, to the point where I will never again call them unless there’s a dead body. And even then only if I can’t dispose of it myself.

              1. If it wasn’t for insurance purposes I wouldn’t call either. The two officers that showed up to take my initial complaint… well one filed her nails while telling the other one which lines to fill in. It was pretty clear that I was wasting their valuable time.

                The evidence team were actually decent and professional.

        5. I wonder if that’ll make the local news.

          1. This Crime of the Century happened back in 1994. But it probably made the news back then. It was a pretty big deal. To me. 😉

            1. They did your story on A&E the other day. Sorry, but I think you’re guilty.

              1. I’m late to the party, what’s the story on this?

                1. He killed some guy with an afro, scalped him and wrecked his favorite truck to cover up the crime.

            2. That was another Century.

              Besides, there is a new “Crime of the Century” every 10 years or so.

  4. To align the incentives appropriately, the compensation should come from the budget of the department that conducted the search.

    WTF insanity!

    If those noble law enforcement professionals are required to consider the potential consequences of their actions, the terrorists win!

    1. The compensation should come from the pockets of those who did the search and those who ordered the search and not the department itself. Otherwise their just passing the buck to the tax payer and they won’t give a dam how they treat their next target, and I do mean target.

  5. IF YOU’RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR

    1. If you’re not doing anything wrong, and the police don’t think you’re doing anything wrong.

    2. IF YOU’RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG, WE CAN FIND A LAW AGAINST IT ANYWAYS.

      1. IF YOU’RE NOT DOING ANYTHING, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR, UNLESS WE’RE INVESTIGATING A CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE CASE IN WHICH CASE NOT DOING ANYTHING IS PRESUMPTIVE GUILT.

  6. I think that even people who are guilty as fuck should be conpensated if their homes are unnecessarily trashed when a search warrant is executed. There is no reason why they have to trash the place to search. It seems like it would be easier to find what they are looking for if they didn’t as well. It’s just pure assholery.

    1. Look, if the guy wasnt guilty of something then they wouldnt have had to search his home. He must be punished.

    2. Look, I’ll repeat myself: what part of intimidation don’t you get?

      1. I get it. That don’t mean I like it. Someone’s got to point out how things should be from time to time.

        1. I’m sure there are plenty of government boot-lickers who have a vastly different opinion of how police should act.

          John Yoo comes readily to mind.

          1. See, that’s what I really don’t get. Maybe some people really think that trashing the place is the best way to conduct a search. But I just can’t fathom anyone thinking that it is perfectly OK to unnecessarily trash the property of someone simply because there is probable cause for a warrant.

      2. You mean that’s why they shave their heads, wear wraparound sunglasses, polished jackboots, black uniform, keep their hand on their weapon while maintaining an aggressive posture… I never… Intimidation?

        1. Intimidation? I thought that was just lookin’ gangsta. Like Louis Farrakhan’s “guards”.

  7. Think about this for a moment: The guy is totally innocent and did nothing wrong. Nothing. The fact that law enforcement mistakenly thought he was involved, for whatever reason, shouldn’t free the state from the obligation to make him completely whole. 100% compensation for the damage done to his property at a minimum, and if the search and arrest weren’t 100% justified, compensation for that, too.

    1. The world needs more Richard Jewells. Why are you denying the government another Richard Jewell?

      1. They should find a way to bring him back from the dead so they can make it up to him. Not just not the bad guy, actually the hero on the scene.

    2. Agreed about the property damage, but I don’t want to make LEAs gunshy about making arrests in cases like this where there’s imminent danger to the public if you allow a perp (which this guy wasn’t of course) to continue his criminal activity. If the arrest/search were obviously unjustified that would be one thing, but I’d give the LEA a bit of leeway in the gray areas.

      1. I thought you had taken your ball and gone home.

        =-(

        1. Haven’t you figured out that he’s a liar by now?

      2. If they break something and the person isn’t guilty, why should that person bear the cost? If I, as a citizen, took an axe to someone’s house under the totally reasonable belief under the circumstances that it was burning down, but it was actually Episiarch searing some beef in the kitchen, the owner (not Episiarch, he broke in through the doggie door in the nude to use the kitchen) would have a cause of action against me for the damage done.

      3. I’d give the LEA a bit of leeway in the gray areas.

        Just like you give them blowjobs in dark alleys?

        1. I was wondering that actually. Is ‘leeway’ some kind of new gay euphemism for some kind of incredibly filthy sex act involving multiple cocks, nightsticks, and handcuffs in the back seats of police cruisers?

          1. I’ve always found it interesting when people who proclaim themselves tolerant of sexual orientation differences IMMEDIATELY turn to claiming someone is gay when they want to insult that person. In insulto veritas, or something. Your true colors are apparently NOT a rainbow, Hugh.

            1. You know who else’s true colors weren’t a rainbow, Tulip….

            2. Tulpa (LAOL-VA)| 4.21.13 @ 7:50PM |#|?|filternamelinkcustom

              OK, I’ve reviewed the situation and decided that it’s in the best interest of everyone if I take a vacation from posting here. Perhaps you will have a better understanding of how valuable my utterances have been when I see you all in May. Have fun.

              1. Perhaps you will have a better understanding of how valuable my utterances have been when I see you all in May.

                BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!1 *inhales deeply* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!11!!!! *wipes tear away* Oh, man, I didn’t see that back when it was originally posted. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

                An might I had, “narcissistic douchebag” is too kind a term for that shit.

              2. He couldn’t even hold out for one more day.

                1. He couldn’t even hold out for one more day.

                  Poor impulse control. He probably wet the bed until puberty and couldn’t understand why all the neighborhood pets avoided him.

            3. Ah yes, Tulpy-Poo. Attempt to smear Hugh as homophobic, though there is absolutely no precedent for that and he’s a known joker, as a way of distracting from the fact that you are an authority-fellating abject liar. You like being a liar, Tulpy-Poo? I think you do. Is it May yet, Tulpy-Poo?

              1. Attempt to smear Hugh as homophobic, though there is absolutely no precedent for that and he’s a known joker.

                Never rub another man’s rhubarb, Epi.

                1. Shut up, Hugh. I’ll never forgive you for you making Tulpa make me defend you. I have no idea what I just said.

            4. Just so you know, insulto in Latin is a verb meaning to spring in, bound in, prance, leap, jump in, gambol.

              1. Apparently the filter isn’t tied in to Cassell’s Latin-English dictionary.

                1. It’s just the primary definition. I think at some point, it took on the meaning it has now in English.

            5. You’re the one reading the insult into that comment, Tulpa.

              If you want to crawl home at the end of the night covered in cop juice, pepper spray, and mustache hairs, that’s your lifestyle choice and I salute you for it.

              But if you think every time someone describes something as gay, they’re lobbing an insult, maybe you’re the one who’s insecure about your sexuality.

              1. Uh-huh. So you and sarc were not actually attempting to insult me there? You were just randomly wondering about male peace officer involvement in my sex life for no apparent reason?

                1. Tulpa (LAOL-VA)| 4.21.13 @ 7:50PM |#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                  OK, I’ve reviewed the situation and decided that it’s in the best interest of everyone if I take a vacation from posting here. Perhaps you will have a better understanding of how valuable my utterances have been when I see you all in May. Have fun.

                2. Oh, they’re insulting you, Tulpy-Poo. It’s just that their manner of doing so is going way above your head. Because you’re fucking stupid.

                3. So you and sarc were not actually attempting to insult me there?

                  I was attempting to insult your unwavering worship of all things law enforcement, not your sexuality.

                  Of course you would understand this, if you only had a brain.

                  1. It’s not the sucking, but rather who is being sucked.

                  2. I was attempting to insult your unwavering worship of all things law enforcement, not your sexuality.

                    You were insulting my supposed attitude for police by metaphoring it to an activity which virtually all homosexual men engage in during more than a quarter of their sexual behavior.

            6. Actually, the history of using the concept of being a fellator as an insult is something separate and apart from homophobia.

              Ancient Greeks and Romans who engaged in homosexual conduct (as the pitcher) would still consider it an insult to call someone a “catcher”.

              Because abasing yourself before police officers and servicing them sexually would be degrading to you not because it’s homosexual behavior, but because it’s socially subservient behavior.

              1. What Fluffy said.

              2. Ancient Greeks and Romans who engaged in homosexual conduct (as the pitcher) would still consider it an insult to call someone a “catcher”.

                The homosexual activities the Greco-Roman elites engaged in were mostly frottage, which is non-penetrative. (I don’t know how you think they arranged to have penetrative sex with each other with none of them having to be penetrated.) So their disdain for men who allowed themselves to be penetrated was simply prejudice against a “different” sexuality.

                And of course, the larger issue is that I don’t see how one can claim to be tolerant and appreciative of other sexualities while disdaining half of every expression of said sexuality.

      4. Oh, you said you agreed about the property damage. Okay. I’m not suggesting they can’t make arrests if there’s ample reason for doing so. They just have to deal with the consequences if they’re wrong, particularly when they do things like detain the suspect well past the time they’re sure he’s not the guy or pull some of the tactics they do with high-profile suspects.

        1. Well they’re already not supposed to do things like that.

          The practical question, which glibbies sharing this subthread with us never seem to consider, is how you enforce those rules against the LEA without making things worse. Angry comments on blogs don’t do the job.

          1. I don’t understand your reasoning here. What is being made worse by enforcing rules on law enforcement officers?

            1. If you make a rule it has to apply to every case, not just this one. The cops didn’t know the guy was innocent when they approached the residence so you can’t have special “innocent rules”.

              For example, there were plenty of chances for LEAs to lock up the Boston bomber brothers before they did the deed, but they didn’t because there were rules against doing it with the info they had at the time. Now, most of those rules are good ideas in general, but in THAT case they made things worse.

              1. Holy shit you are stupid, Tulpa. It’s kind of incredible how stupid you are about your own stupidity. You so badly want to be smart, but you just can’t. But you also can’t stop trying and failing so very miserably. I’d advise you to stop, but it’s all kinds of hilarious, so I say: keep digging.

                1. Oh, fuck off, Epi. Everyone knows that the problem is that the police have hands tied–TIED, I SAY–by pesky old rules of evidence. If they could lock up whoever they wanted for whatever reason with no repercussions, the Boston Bombings would have happened.

                  Episiarch is objectively pro-terrorist.

                2. You know, you’ll be sorry when you make Tulpy cry and run away again and we all miss his valuable comments.

                3. If giving the police the ability to lock anyone they want up based on mere suspicion that they might possibly be involved in something nefarious in the future, I for one, cannot see an argument against it. Why do you hate America?

              2. If you make a rule it has to apply to every case, not just this one. The cops didn’t know the guy was innocent when they approached the residence so you can’t have special “innocent rules”.

                This is a joke right? An ill-informed attempt at levity? Right?

                1. Nope. That’s Tulpa. He’s the joke.

          2. Does being a flat out liar give you any pause, Tulpy-Poo? Or will you just ignore your own mendacity? I bet you’ll just ignore your own mendacity.

            1. Why are you talking to Tulpa like he is people?

              1. It’s a thought experiment.

                1. An experiment? And what hypothesis are you testing Episiarch? That clueless, stupid shitweasels can’t change?

                  What Mengele did wasn’t necessarily human experimentation – often it was pointless torture.

              2. Tulpa (LAOL-VA)| 4.21.13 @ 7:50PM |#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                OK, I’ve reviewed the situation and decided that it’s in the best interest of everyone if I take a vacation from posting here. Perhaps you will have a better understanding of how valuable my utterances have been when I see you all in May. Have fun.

                And look at the article he just had to break his vow for… so he could defend the poor put-upon peace officers who tore an innocent man’s house to pieces.

                Don’t orphan the balls, Tulpa.

                1. that was a short vacation.

                  1. that was a short vacation.

                    Yes. We did have a short vacation from Tulpa. Way too short.

          3. There are several reasons LEO abuses its power. One is that there are rarely personal consequences, even when the officer acts beyond the scope of his legal authority.

            Another is that there is this idea that harm done by mistake gets the government a pass that no other entity or individual would get.

            Also, the focus on preventing illegal searches and the like rests almost entirely on the inadmissibility of evidence secured that way. Which allows for a lot of infringement of civil liberties without that much consequence, as fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree only rarely stops a case entirely.

            1. This wasn’t an illegal search. They had a warrant.

          4. Tulpa (LAOL-VA)| 4.21.13 @ 7:50PM |#|?|filternamelinkcustom

            OK, I’ve reviewed the situation and decided that it’s in the best interest of everyone if I take a vacation from posting here. Perhaps you will have a better understanding of how valuable my utterances have been when I see you all in May. Have fun.

            What day is it, liar?

            1. In Tulpatown, he’s set all the clocks forward 18 hours. Because.

              1. Because it is really a more efficient use of time. He just saved 18 hours!

            2. I guess it’s May somewhere.

      5. but I’d give the LEA a bit of leeway in the gray areas

        I’m shocked.

      6. Guess you have to break a few eggs heads to make an omelette Orwellian police state.

      7. “I’d give the LEA a bit of leeway in the gray areas”?

        What was a “gray area” about pretending to search a house by wrecking it? This isn’t a gray area, it’s hostile incompetence. How in the act-of-procreation is it possible to do a professional search of a property by trashing it? As in all the cases of intimidatory “searches” the cops were more likely to destroy evidence than to find it.

        Several of my friends have had their houses burglarized. In all cases the burglars were able to find exactly what they wanted to take without tearing the house up. Our Protect and Serve Professionals lack the investigative skills of a common housebreaker.

        Gawdamighty, what is wrong with us that we not only let this crap continue but try to justify it in a public forum?

        1. The real fun will be in a few days where he denies he said it and then when confronted with his own words will begin furiously moving goalposts.

          Oh, and his continual deference to the police is just something I came up with out of thin air.

        2. Gawdamighty, what is wrong with us that we not only let this crap continue but try to justify it in a public forum?

          Who’s this “we” you speak of? I only see one person on this thread trying to justify this shit, and he’s been ridiculed mercilessly above for doing so.

        3. Well, I stated that they should pay for the damage to the house that was unnecessary given the search. Since they’re looking for powder it’s possible that they thought it could be hidden inside a wall or something; it’s not like they were looking for a bong. But, the cops should have to justify that in court if the guy wants to sue them.

    3. The state does not have obligations. The state has powers. You have obligations to the state, which are whatever they say they are. Don’t forget it on pain of death.

  8. The point of smashing shit when doing a search is a show of power. They can destroy your property and you are powerless. You can do nothing. If you try then you will be beaten. If you continue to fight you will be killed.

    Welcome to the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    1. Actually, it’s welcome to government and monopolies on force. Enjoy.

  9. Have they ever said what evidence they had to suspect him in the first place? I never heard, all I got was an announcement that they had their man…and then that they didnt.

    1. I think just his signature “I’m KC and I approve this message.” That’s probably all they went on. The thought that the guy could easily have been framed with that never occurred to them. They just wanted to go break some doors down.

  10. No one is innocent.

    1. “Since time is short and you may lie, I’m going to have to torture you. But I want you to know, it isn’t personal.”

      1. “Sometimes, people just explode. Natural causes.”

        1. I’m Agent Rogersz, and I approve this message.

    2. Innocent? Innocent of what?

  11. If you’re driving around sucking on a Pep O Mint Lifesaver with a blood alcohol level of 0%, you’re merely taking advantage of a loophole in the law. Any law enforcement professional worth his salt would toss you in the slammer because you’re a drunken car crash just waiting to happen.

  12. It’s better that the door be left ajar so animals and people can go in and further destroy the place while he sits in jail waiting for a chance to prove his innocence DISPROVE HIS GUILT.

    Son, I am disappoint.

  13. Re the alt text: “YOU WOULDN’T TREAT GRACELAND LIKE THIS”

    You want to make a bet on that, Jesse?

    1. This was in Mississippi, and you know those uneducated, uncultured southern rednecks: they all love them some Elvis! /prog-derp

  14. Once again, we can thank the contraband laws for this situation.

    Why are disruptive searches like this necessary? And commonplace?

    Because the police are accustomed to conducting searches for contraband. Specifically, small contraband.

    Stuff that is designed to stored, and not used, prior to sale. Stuff that is designed to be transported clandestinely.

    No one is going to carefully disassemble a couch so they can hide incriminating evidence linking them to a murder inside it. So if you are searching someone’s house for the candlestick they murdered someone with in the conservatory, you don’t have to demolish their couch. In fact, demolishing their couch would make no sense.

    Somebody MIGHT hide their cocaine in a couch, though.

    When dealing with evidence of REAL crimes, you will usually destroy the evidence and not retain it. Contraband crimes, though, you have to KEEP the evidence and hide it. That’s the whole point.

    If our contraband laws went away, how often would destructive searches really be necessary? After diamond heists, maybe. But when somebody steals a dozen widescreen TV’s, you don’t have to smash their cookie jar on the floor to look for them.

    1. Well these idiots were searching for evidence of ricin, which could be pretty small. If they were ripping up artwork and generally not being orderly and methodical, they’d be likely to miss important stuff.

      1. When the criminal doesn’t give up what the searchers are looking for, then the searchers will destroy valuables and kill pets in order to get the guy to talk. Of course if the person is innocent, then they have nothing to give up. They’re just left with dead pets and destroyed property.

      2. That’s true.

        But I’m just saying where the search protocols come from.

        Did cops in the 50’s totally tear houses and cars apart when they searched them? Was that the norm?

        Because now it’s the norm.

        What changed?

        I think what changed is we had 60 years of an arms race in the hiding of contraband. Destructive searches are the norm now because the war on drugs made them routine. I bet they’d search like this if they were looking for evidence that I stole an elephant, now.

        1. Twenty or so years ago my wife was crossing from Canada into the US with her parents. Customs decided to search the car in front of them for whatever reason. Found a Cuban cigar or something. Very first thing that came out was a huge knife with which they opened up all of the car’s upholstery. Completely destroyed the vehicle’s interior. Didn’t find anything.

          Nothing else happened.

        2. It’s not the norm now, either. Even most of the abusive search stories we see reported on in Reason don’t involve destruction of property other than dogs and doors.

          And police procedures in the 50s weren’t exactly out of an Officer Friendly cartoon, especially if you were nonwhite and/or poor. Those court cases like Miranda didn’t come out of a vacuum.

    2. The “contraband” in this case is not the victimless kind, it’s nerve poison.

      I do think that since they didn’t find any they should have to compensate the searchee.

  15. So I guess the guy who framed Curtis knew what he was about. Even though it quickly became obviously Curtis was innocent, his life has still been ruined by our benevolent authorities.

  16. I’m also hearing reports that they stomped all over his shoes even after he repeatedly warned the officers to “lay off” of them. Do you know how hard it is to get boot prints out of blue suede?

    1. Really, dude? Really!?

      *shakes head disapprovingly while trying not to chuckle*

  17. Prediction: He’ll die on the toilet.

    1. When my eldest was nine he had his tonsils removed but resisted taking pain meds.
      His reasoning?
      “I don’t want to end up like Elvis.”
      The goof is now 24, but still a teetotaler. Where did I go wrong?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.