Police Abuse

The Anal Rape Non-Drug Bust in New Mexico: The Reason for the Warrant


The excellent Popehat blog gets the specifics on the warrant that led to the anal rape and torture of David Eckert in New Mexico, which I blogged about yesterday.

You can read the specific language of the actual warrant at his post, but here is his accurate summation of it:

The factors that allegedly justify police intrusion into David Eckert's anus are:

  • That his hands were shaking and he avoided eye contact during a traffic stop;
  • He refused to consent to a search of his person;
  • He stood erect with his legs together;
  • No drugs were found in his car or in a pat-down of him (police pat-downs for weapons often turn up drugs, which mysteriously feel like dangerous weapons when touched by police, or which are immediately identifiable as drugs when touched by police);
  • A drug dog (with no information given about the dog's training or qualifications or success rate) "alerted" to his car seat (though no drugs were found in his car); and
  • An unidentified Hidalgo County K-9 officer asserted, without any specificity, that Eckert had previously hidden drugs in his anus.

That's all.  It really comes down to three things:  (1) subjective officer impressions that Eckert looked nervous, (2) a dog alerting on his seat, and (3) an unnamed cop making an unspecific claim that he had previously hidden drugs in his anus. 

The first factor is smoke and mirrors.  It is increasingly clear in America that a reasonable person should be fearful during an encounter with police, who can generally shoot you (or your dog) with probable impunity, and who, it appears, can arrange for you to be systematically anally raped if the mood strikes them…..

The second factor — the dog alert — has its own problems, but at any rate does not connect drugs to Mr. Eckert's anus. The third factor is effectively an anonymous tip. The affiant, Officer Chavez, does not identify the officer, explain the basis for the officer's knowledge, or offer any details about the alleged instances in which drugs were found in Mr. Eckert's anus. Anonymous tips must be corroborated to support probable cause, and this effectively anonymous tip isn't.

Mr. Eckert asserts that drugs were never found in his anus by any law enforcement agency. If true, that suggests someone lied – the K-9 officer who allegedly told Officer Chavez that, or Officer Chavez…..In deciding whether false information was provided to the court to secure the warrant, consider this: the Hidalgo County K-9 officer's report on the incident here doesn't mention any such knowledge about Eckert and doesn't say he conveyed any such information to Officer Chavez. Do you think that would have made it into his report if he had?

Jacob Sullum blogged yesterday about the mysterious powers of dogs to justify anal rape.

NEXT: Twitter Shares Huge Hit for IPO

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. Anyone got any stats on how often judges choose not to rubber stamp warrants? I mean, do they even bother to read them?

  2. The most offensive of all of the factors:
    “He refused to consent to a search of his person”

    How suspicious!

    1. I found the Brown Shugga at the specialty beer store. No Hairy Eyeball, no Pliny. But I did also get some Ayinger Celebrator as well. Then my friend and I cracked a Cascade The Vine at his place afterward.

      1. Had that in Portland. Good stuff, haven’t seen it on the shelves here, though.

  3. I’m glad this is starting to get picked up by the MSM. I saw it a few times in my Facebook feed this morning, too…

  4. Maybe I’m stating the obvious, or maybe I’m missing something, but doesn’t seem like this guy had to go to the bathroom really bad? That would explain running the stop sign and why he had his rear end clamped tight.

    1. Never had an enema myself, but I thought it was pretty amazing that he received 3 enemas and produced enough stool to search with each one. Is that normal?

      1. Only if you’ve been eating nothing but cheese for the last month.

      2. After the first one the guy should have been pretty cleared out. The additional ones actually were probably unhealthy in that they would have dehydrated him while producing nothing more than brown water.

        This whole situation is ultra fucked. Not only is anally violating this guy over “his buttocks were clenched” really fucked up, there was absolutely no need to give additional enemas (or even the first one). This actually rises up to torture because they were doing shit to him that not only was painful/uncomfortable but was also utterly pointless other than to cause pain and humiliation.

        1. ^^This!

        2. Most likely the enemas were administered as prep for the colonoscopy. Normally when someone is being prepped for a colonoscopy we have them drink oral laxatives such as magnesium citrate until it comes out clear. But PO can take 8 to 12 hours, so the enemas were probably used for expediency. They might not be as effective as, but when you’re looking for bags of weed or vials of meth rather than precancerous polyps, then maybe it’s good enough.

    2. What you’re missing is that he had open contempt for the professionals in blue and the difficult job they have protecting the public day in and day out from criminals who would assault them just for a funny look. I don’t care how badly you need to relieve yourself, you show some respect.

    3. Thought I saw a blurb somewhere that this guy is being told to pay for all of this examination too. Anybody know if that is for real?

      1. Yes; see the updated version of my original post from yesterday.

  5. This is why, as Brian says, any encounter with the police for any reason whatsoever needs to be avoided like the plague. Because today just might be the day you get the cop in a bad mood or who just likes to fuck with people who decides that he/she’s going to fuck with you. And they don’t get to just inconvenience you. No, they can anally violate you (or have doctors do it), or throw you in a cage, or beat you, or even kill you. Without consequence in most cases. It’s really quite chilling.

      1. What about “cunt” is that OK? Or sheepfucker?

        1. ALLEGED sheepfucker.

      2. Isn’t this pretty incontrovertible evidence that she shot the guy for not respecting her authoritah? I mean, he isn’t violent, says “what are you going to do about it, bitch?” and instantly gets shot dead.

        1. furtive movement

          totality of circs


          WEIGHTLIFTING, not powerlifting

      3. “The witness has asked us not to identify him.”

        Smart witness. Would be a shame if the cops knew who he was and he resisted a lawful order after a traffic stop.

    1. I went to my local sandwich shop last week for lunch. There were 5 customers in front of me, 2 of whom were cops. I walked out of the sandwich shop ad went down to my local taco shop. Thankfully, no pigs.*

      *Except for the carnitas.

      1. I went to grab lunch the other day and a cop car was parked in TWO 15 minute parking spots in a very limited parking lot. Then I get inside and he’s gesticulating OVER the sneeze guard. Who reaches over the sneeze guard!?

        1. The large apartment complex in Chicago where I lived until last week had two Chicago police vehicles that routinely parked all day in the handicapped parking spaces close to the door. There was no shortage of available parking in the lot.

      2. Story from my college days. Guy I knew was throwing a beer party. Apparently some underage folks were there. Cops come and arrest him – supplying alcohol to a minor or whatever. By the time they get to the cop car, all four tires had been slashed. He had to ride in the back of the car as they limped back to the station.

  6. I wonder how long it took Deming po-po and the doctors at the medical center to realize just how much trouble they’d gotten themselves into with this.

  7. He refused to consent to a search of his person

    Bingo! He’s standing over the body with the smoking gun in his hand. If that’s not “probable cause” what the fuck is?

    1. He obviously had something to hide.

  8. Even if the cops had actually had probably cause for their anal fishing expedition, it still doesn’t justify the repeated invasive procedures after the initial examination found nothing.

    1. anal fishing expedition

      I call band name!

  9. If you like your anal douche, you’ll be able to keep it.

  10. An unidentified Hidalgo County K-9 officer asserted, without any specificity, that Eckert had previously hidden drugs in his anus.

    What the fucking fuck?

    1. Are you doubting the word of our brave men in blue? You’re just like the terrorists, do you know that?

    2. Sixth Amendment. Name the fucking bastard.

  11. (lights Dunphy signal)

    1. I think he died or something.

      1. (lights candle, starts Dunphy seance)

      2. he’s up in heaven, surfing with Morgan Fairchild.

  12. Unless the allegation that he had hidden drugs up his ass before are true, and it seems from the article that they are not, then my money says the cops never believed any such thing. They were just fucking with this guy because….well we all know why and in this case not metaphorically.

    I hope the guy gets a zillion bucks out of these fuckers. Yes, I know it is the taxpayer who is on the hook for it, but hey, they are getting the government they deserve.

    1. Look at the motion for partial summary judgement – it contains the medical records as well as the reports by both the officer seeking the warrant (who claims the other cop told him he stuffing drugs in his asshole) as well as the officer who supposedly told him about the ass stuffing. The officer who supposedly told the other cop asking for the warrant that the guy was stuffing drugs in his ass never mentions in his report ANYTHING about the guy having drugs in his ass.

      Also – his medical records say the doctors were looking for a “bag of meth” but the affidavit for the warrant says NOTHING about that.

      1. Unless he was on his way to prison to visit a friend, why would anyone put drugs up their butt?

    2. Told this story to an ex-dealer / reformed junky friend of mine. His take is pretty much yours: someone on the force personally hated Eckert enough to start the torture-thon.

  13. Mr. Eckert was then informed of the K -9 alerting to the seat and was informed that a search warrant was going to be obtained. Hidalgo County K-9 Officer did inform me that he had dealt with Mr. Eckert on a previous case and stated that Mr. Eckert was known to insert drugs into his anal cavity and had been caught in Hidalgo County with drugs in his anal cavity.

    What the fuck. Was Eckert convicted of smuggling drugs up his ass? Obviously not, or that would have been on the affidavit instead of this hearsay.

    Officer Robert Chavez was known to fuck sheep when he wasn’t nursing a huge chubby watching ‘civilians’ get anally probed at the Gila Regional Medical Center, and has been caught fucking sheep in Hidalgo county according to my sources.

    1. I’m sure the deposition on that one will be awesome.

    2. He hasn’t denied fucking sheep in Hildago County, of this I am certain.

    3. Is it possible that this unknown Hidalgo County K-9 Officer was actually a dog?

  14. Oh man if this story puts the spotlight on Deming’s hyper-intellectual class of public official, this is gonna be a GAS!

  15. I think he died or something.

    We can only hope.

  16. Does lying in order to get a warrant count as perjury?

    1. depends on who’s doing the lying



      Oh, good joke, man. One of the best I’ve seen on Reason.

    3. I think it counts as extra credit.

  17. If this took until the wee hours of the morning, I suppose these cops collected a nice bit of overtime.

  18. He refused to consent to a search of his person;

    I seem to recall that in a fit of literacy and common sense*, SCOTUS has ruled that this cannot be used as probably cause.

    *Must be an old ruling.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.