Brickbat: This Might Hurt


Erin Janssen /

A number of South Dakota law enforcement agencies told the Argus Leader that they would request a warrant to forcibly catheterize someone for a urine sample only in extreme cases, such as a vehicular homicide. Not the Pierre police department. The newspaper found that it has repeatedly had people forcibly catheterized, including a 3-year-old boy.

NEXT: Movie Review: Unforgettable

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sexually violating a child, BFYTW

    Reminds me of the case where they medically sodomized some guy after a traffic stop, BFYTW because “hur hur hur” he seemed to be hiding something up his butt.

    Vote WoodChipper!

    1. Found the charming case

      ACLU Account

        1. Try here. Not only was this a horrible way to collect “evidence”, I can’t even figure out why they wanted the kid’s pee in the first place.

          1. I would assume its- If you’re smoking meth in the house, trace amounts will end up in the child’s system.

            Taking samples from people gets the police off the hook to do real police work. Most police don’t know how to do a proper investigation nor come up with articulable probable cause to obtain warrants. Police depend on informants to do their police work and corrupt judges who rubber stamp warrants no based on probable cause.

          2. Babies’ urine is routinely collected simply by attaching a bag externally.

            1. They’re babies, you just point them at a basin, beaker, bottle, whatever, and squeeze. Gently, it doesn’t take much.

  2. This perfectly demonstrates the mindset of the drug warrior. They completely divorce themselves not only with the reality of the damage they’re doing but also any empathy with the public. It’s borderline sociopathic, no doubt reinforced by the culture within and the groupthink of drug enforcement.

    1. “Borderline sociopathic”? Maybe, if they’re approaching the border from the other side.

      1. X-
        My thought exactly.

  3. This is because of the Supreme Court’s rulings that fingerprints, blood, DNA, urine and breath are not covered by the 5th Amendment because they are simply evidence.

    The simple solution to police wanting to force take urine from you is piss your pants. Destroys their chain of evidence. Give them a stool sample while they are at it. Each time they are there, say that you plead the 5th Amendment and refuse to be compelled to be a witness against yourself.

    In the states that require breath samples and refusals are punished by some action, just sit there. Never say “no” just say nothing. Just sit there. Time is no your side. After 24 hours, they let you go because they need you to not enforce your rights under the 5th Amendment to convict you. Pretty much telling on yourself.

  4. Thug bulwark of the secretly-aggressive dictator is the ‘declined to comment’. Three words tossed out as bureaucratic lip staples veiling plethoras of terror.

    ‘Declined to Comment’ is the punji stake of the governing snake.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.