Pennsylvania Police Settle Lawsuit With Woman Forced to Undergo 'Humiliating' Strip-Search
Even though police found no signs of drugs or other contraband, Holly Elish was strip-searched by Pennsylvania police officers.

Pennsylvania police officers have reached a settlement with a woman who says she underwent an unnecessary and humiliating strip-search after she was pulled over for a minor traffic violation.
According to a lawsuit filed in 2021, Holly Elish was traveling through Bentlyville, Pennsylvania, on her way home from work when she was pulled over by local police officer Brian Rousseau.
When Rousseau pulled Elish over, he quickly asked for consent to search her vehicle, which Elish denied. According to the lawsuit, Rousseau responded that "he had the right to search her vehicle." Soon after, a second police officer arrived on the scene. The two men again asked to search Elish's vehicle, telling her that even more officers would soon arrive.
"Fearing for her safety and knowing that the police did not have justification to search her vehicle yet were insistent and intimidating in attempting to do so, Ms. Elish allowed the vehicle search to occur under duress and coercion," the complaint states.
The officers searched Elish's car but found no sign of drugs, illegal weapons, or other contraband. However, that wasn't enough for the officers to let Elish go. A female police officer—unnamed in the suit—had arrived on the scene, and after having a brief conversation with the other officers began to strip-search Elish.
The officer "began the strip search by physically and visually inspecting Ms. Elish's breasts," according to the complaint. Elish then had "to remove her pants and underwear to her ankles and 'squat' to the ground, during which she bent down to the ground with one knee and performed a visual cavity inspection."
The complaint further states that the female police officer "began to put gloves on her hands stating to Ms. Elish, 'I'm sorry. This is the worst part of my job.'" However, the suit states that, just before physically searching Elish, she asked her "Do you know why they want me to do this?" Elish responded that she didn't know and that she was "simply on her way home from work to pick up her child."
Following this interaction, the female officer refused to search Elish. She was eventually allowed to leave, though Rousseau did later write Elish a citation for driving five miles per hour over the speed limit. That citation was dropped, though, when Rousseau failed to appear at the hearing.
Elish filed a lawsuit against the two male officers in November 2021. After a more than three-year legal battle, including a civil trial, a settlement was reached in the case, though the exact terms of the settlement have not yet been revealed.
"This warrantless search culminated in a minor traffic violation for driving five miles per hour over the posted speed limit, for which Ms. Elish was subsequently found not guilty," the complaint read. "As a direct and proximate cause of this search, Ms. Elish suffered mental anguish, embarrassment, and [humiliation]."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Never consent to a search for any reason. I got pulled over for "weaving within my lane" and the first thing the cop asked was to search. Nope. He then got other cars there and still a giant Nope from me. He told me he could get the dogs out and I told him I had all day so make it happen. Ended up not doing that and only gave me a warning to boot.
Yep. Also, if they ask you any questions beyond identifying yourself and showing them your license, registration, and proof of insurance, you just politely state, "I'm not answering any questions." They can't use your silence as evidence against you.
They can’t use your silence as evidence against you.
Can they? No. Will they? Yes.
I believe the Supremes ruled that you have to positively state you are invoking your right to silence; that merely refusing to speak does not count, and the only way to get the police to back off and leave you alone, question-wise, is to say you are refusing to speak.
It reminds me of that scene in Life of Brian where he jumps into the pit and knocks the old man over, who screams "I was silent for 30 years and he made me speak!" which the crowd of course takes the wrong way.
the only way to get the police to back off and leave you alone, question-wise, is to say you are refusing to speak.
They won't leave you alone and stop questioning you. They just can't use your silence against you if you explicitly invoke the 5th.
you just politely state, “I’m not answering any questions.” They can’t use your silence as evidence against you.
I don't think that's enough anymore. Pretty sure you must actually say "Fifth Amendment" in the sentence or your refusal to answer questions will be considered to be evidence of guilt. Same with getting a lawyer. Saying "Lawyer" or "I want a lawyer" isn't good enough. You have to say "I need to speak with an attorney" or something to that effect.
To answer you and Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf above:
Yes, you do have to positively assert the right, but you don't have to use technical wording, such as "I plead the Fifth." Stating you will not answer questions, or that you want to speak with a lawyer before answering questions, is enough. Sure, the cops could still arrest you based on what they've ascertained up to that point, but you do yourself no favors by answering their questions. The prosecutor can't use your refusal to answer questions against you.
The prosecutor can’t use your refusal to answer questions against you.
Assuming we're talking about a court of law and not lawfare theater.
I would still say "I invoke my 5th Amendment right to silence" just to be on the safe side. And record it in case the cops lie and claim you didn't.
Never a bad idea.
The prosecutor can’t use your refusal to answer questions against you.
CAN he? No. WILL he? Yes.
It appears this article is in error: other sources indicate that the victim of the police was a woman from Bentleyville, PA, but that the stop was initiated by Trooper Brian Rousseau of the Pennsylvania State Police, and that the female officer was Sgt. Abigail France of the North Strabane police department.
https://www.observer-reporter.com/news/local-news/2024/feb/27/state-police-settle-federal-lawsuit-over-strip-search-of-bentleyville-woman/
I can't think of one single human being in this slave-minded country who does not deserve to be cavity searched, tortured, and summarily executed by law enforcement. Not even myself because I put up with it too.
This sounds unreasonable to the point where I struggle to believe the story. I get power-mad cops. I get pervy cops. I struggle to believe that multiple cops were brought in to do this as described without a personal vendetta and/or additional factors. What's being left out of this story? If it weren't for Emma's habit of dishonest reporting, I'd be 100% on board with being outraged over this. Unfortunately the math isn't mathing and I want to know the missing variable.
And she doesn't even provide a link. Dishonest and useless, what a winning combination.
Googled, found nothing more.
I remember this one on YouTube. Tried googling it and came up short as well. Odd.
I struggle to believe that multiple cops were brought in to do this as described without a personal vendetta and/or additional factors.
I don't. Not in the slightest. Cops will always back each other. So if one pig is a douche, the rest of the sounder joins in the fun. Why would someone seek out a job where they hurt and humiliate people unless they think it's fun to hurt and humiliate people?
I’m mind blown that the *one* cop that we can confirm, by any telling, that actually performed the search is the *one* person we know to have done so with *zero* justification and she’s the one who didn’t get sued.
So, for all we know, Ofc. VehicleSearch told Ofc. LadyHands to search Elish’s person and Ofc. Ladyhands took it upon herself to strip the female down and to nearly her birthday suit before admitting, out loud, “Wait, I don’t have a reason to do this.” and then sent Elish on her way to avoid the "Oops. He said pat down, but I heard pap smear." outing.
For those looking:
Initial reporting when it happened in 2021
https://triblive.com/local/regional/bentleyville-woman-alleges-state-trooper-strip-searched-her-during-i-70-traffic-stop/
Reporting of a settlement 2 days ago.
https://www.observer-reporter.com/news/local-news/2024/feb/27/state-police-settle-federal-lawsuit-over-strip-search-of-bentleyville-woman/
Docket & Filings at Justia.com
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/pawdce/2:2021cv01584/284326
Off topic but I was wondering if the famously 1A press freedom absolutists at Reason would report on this. Nah.
https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/28/report-fbi-plans-to-arrest-blaze-media-reporter-without-telling-him-what-charges-hes-facing/
The FBI is expected to arrest a Blaze Media reporter on Friday for what appears to be his coverage of demonstrations at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, without informing him of what charges he’s facing.
On Tuesday, investigative reporter Steve Baker revealed that following months of delay, federal authorities informed his legal team there is a signed warrant for his arrest and that he is to self-surrender for “alleged J6 crimes” in Dallas, Texas, on Friday morning. Baker has been at the forefront of reporting on the more questionable aspects of the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.
According to Baker, he is to turn himself over to the FBI at 7 a.m. on Friday, at which point federal officials will “transport [him] to the Dallas courthouse, where [he] can meet [his] attorney at 9:30 am.” An unnamed federal prosecutor reportedly told Baker’s attorneys that he is to wear “shorts and sandals” during his surrender, representing an effort by the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) to give Baker “a dose of the personal humiliation treatment.”
Thanks! That was a better lead than this article.
Sweet, now let's go after the tsa
All the post spam in here, and I get "moderation under review" for posting actual cited works. Thanks reason.
For those looking (I had to strip the links out) :
Initial reporting when it happened in 2021
https // triblive. com/local/regional/bentleyville-woman-alleges-state-trooper-strip-searched-her-during-i-70-traffic-stop/
Reporting of a settlement 2 days ago.
https // http://www.observer-reporter. com/news/local-news/2024/feb/27/state-police-settle-federal-lawsuit-over-strip-search-of-bentleyville-woman/
Docket & Filings at Justia. com
https // dockets.justia. com/docket/pennsylvania/pawdce/2:2021cv01584/284326
All the post spam in here, and I get “moderation under review” for posting actual cited works. Thanks reason.
Sometimes the spam filters get one right.
James Otis resigned as Geo III attorney general and defended patriots against "Writs of Assistance" pro bono publico, for nothing I suppose. John Adams, aged 16, heard Otis' argument as to why unbridled powers of search are tyrannical and wrote in his diary: "Then and there the child of independence was born." Perhaps, along with their oath to support the Constitution, and the 4th Amendment, cops ought to be required to read Otis's peroration?
Actually the citation for driving 5 MPH over the speed limit was illegal. Pennsylvania law states that you have to be going more than 5 MPH over the limit before they can cite you.