Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Why Is That Cop's Finger in Your Butt?

The war on drugs now features roadside sexual assaults.

Last month the Texas House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill that requires police officers to obtain a warrant before probing the anuses and vaginas of motorists during traffic stops. The fact that the bill was deemed necessary speaks volumes about the way the war on drugs has eroded our Fourth Amendment rights and encouraged cops to inflict outrageous indignities on people they suspect of violating pharmacological taboos.

How often do Texas cops decide to perform body cavity searches on people they pull over for routine traffic offenses? More often than you might think. Looking for the case that gave rise to this bill, I immediately found three cases, all involving young women suspected of marijuana possession.

On Memorial Day in 2012, Alexandria Randle and Brandy Hamilton, both in their 20s, were driving home to Houston from Surfside Beach when they were pulled over for speeding on Highway 288 in Brazoria County. Claiming to smell marijuana, Trooper Nathaniel Turner ordered the women out of the car. After he found a small amount of pot in the car, Turner called a female trooper, Jennie Bui, and asked her to perform a body cavity search on both women. "If you hid something in there, we are going to find it," Bui says on the dashcam video of the traffic stop. It turned out there was nothing to find. The stop ended with a ticket for possession of drug paraphernalia.

"It was extremely humiliating, especially with my entire family, including my 8-year-old nieces and my nephew…in the back of the car," Randle told HLN. "They saw all of this happening, as well as everybody on the side of the road….I have a whole different feeling when I see police officers now….It's a very touchy thing dealing with them."

Randle and Hamilton sued the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) over the incident. Initially both troopers were dismissed, but Bui was reinstated. "It was determined that the relatively inexperienced trooper was directed by a more senior trooper to conduct the inappropriate search," DPS Director Steve McCraw explained.

Randle and Hamilton's ordeal was not unique. The same month they filed their lawsuit, DPS settled a case brought by two other women, Angel Dobbs and her niece Ashley Dobbs, who were 38 and 24, respectively, when they were stopped for tossing cigarette butts from their car on Highway 161 near Irving in July 2012. Trooper David Farrell claimed to smell marijuana coming from their car and called in a female trooper, Kelley Helleson, to poke around in their private parts. According to the lawsuit, Helleson conducted these "painful, humiliating, and shamefully embarrassing" body cavity searches "on the side of a public freeway illuminated by lights from the police vehicle in full view of the passing public."

Like Randle and Hamilton, Angel and Ashley Dobbs said the trooper who searched them did not bother to change gloves between assaults. No drugs were found. The women got $185,000 for their trouble.

In this case, the trooper who conducted the search was fired, while the trooper who arranged it was suspended. Helleson was charged with two counts of sexual assault, while Farrell was charged with theft for allegedly stealing a bottle of hydrocodone. Last year Helleson pleaded guilty to two counts of official repression and received two years of probation, plus a $2,000 fine. According to the New York Daily News, "Helleson apologized in court, saying she was only doing what she was trained to do." A grand jury declined to indict Farrell on the theft charge, and he is "back on active duty," keeping Texas highways safe.

In yet another strikingly similar incident, Houston resident Jennifer Stelly says she and her boyfriend were pulled over for speeding in Brazoria County on the way to Surfside Beach in March 2013. The troopers claimed to smell pot, found a little in her purse, and decided a body cavity search was a good idea. "I was on my cycle," Telly told the Fox station in Houston last December, "so she could not penetrate the vaginal area but she went to the anal area, and she penetrated and put her finger inside, and I just felt violated." Stelly is suing DPS too.

According to DPS, searches like these are contrary to department policy, but apparently not all troopers got the memo. So you can begin to understand the motivation behind the bill that the Texas House passed last month, which was sponsored by Rep. Harold Dutton Jr. (D-Houston) and still needs approval from the state Senate. Dutton's bill says "a peace officer may not conduct a body cavity search of a person during a traffic stop unless the officer first obtains a search warrant pursuant to this chapter authorizing the body cavity search."

You might think Dutton's bill is redundant, since we already have a Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable searches." If these highly invasive, weakly justified searches do not qualify as unreasonable, what would? But while the courts probably would conclude that the searches described by these five women were unconstitutional, it is not hard to see how an overzealous drug warrior might think otherwise.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld routine strip searches of arrestees, even people accused of minor offenses such as marijuana possession or failure to wear a seat belt. In those cases the searches, aimed at finding weapons or contraband, took place in jail prior to confinement. But in 2003 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless inspection of body cavities in other settings as a "search incident to arrest." The case involved Danny Joe McGee, a suspected crack dealer who was arrested for marijuana use. Based on a tip from an informant who suggested that McGee might be concealing crack "between his buttocks," a police officer took him to "a secluded area" of a fire station and "compelled McGee to drop his pants, bend over, and spread his buttocks." A "visual search of McGee's anal region" revealed "several rocks of crack cocaine wrapped in red plastic in plain view lodged between McGee's buttocks."

The Supreme Court also has indicated that warrantless body cavity searches are permissible near the border as part of the government's drug interdiction efforts. In a 1985 decision that upheld the detention of a Colombian woman whom customs agents suspected of swallowing balloons filled with cocaine, the Court said "we suggest no view on what level of suspicion, if any, is required for nonroutine border searches such as strip, body-cavity, or involuntary x-ray searches" (emphasis added). In other words, the Court assumed that such searches, aimed at addressing "the veritable national crisis in law enforcement caused by smuggling of illicit narcotics," do not require probable cause, let alone a warrant.

In 2009 the Court ruled that public school officials went too far when they looked in the underwear of an eighth-grader suspected of bringing ibuprofen to school. But that decision left open the possibility that a strip search might be constitutional in a case involving a drug scarier than Advil if there was reason to believe a student had hidden it under her clothing.

The searches that prompted Dutton's bill are different from the ones that have been upheld by the courts in several significant ways: They did not follow an arrest, they were not initiated by customs agents, they were conducted publicly on the side of the road, and they were not based on specific information indicating that the women had concealed drugs inside their bodies. Furthermore, the searches involved physical contact as opposed to a visual inspection.

Still, in at least two of the cases, there was evidence of an arrestable offense: marijuana possession. Perhaps the troopers thought a search in that situation was reasonable even without an actual arrest. Or perhaps they did not see an important difference between searching someone's car, which police are allowed to do without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe they will find evidence of a crime, and searching someone's anus or vagina.

That may be hard to believe, but it is also hard to believe that six troopers in three separate traffic stops thought it was reasonable to explore those private areas on the off chance that there might be some pot there. Such judgments can be understood only in the context of a prohibitionist mentality that sees bits of dried vegetable matter as a grave threat to public order.

"I was shocked to learn that these very intrusive searches were performed without a warrant and without regard to basic sanitary practices," says state Rep. Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock), who is sponsoring another bill aimed at preventing such incidents. "While I have a tremendous amount of respect for our local police and sheriff's departments, I am concerned about the fact that this could happen to any of us, here or in other parts of the state, as we travel. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, and I believe this bill is a natural reflection of that right."

Burrows' bill goes further than Dutton's by requiring a warrant for a body cavity search of anyone detained (but not arrested) by police, whether during a traffic stop or in another context. It also requires that body cavity searches be conducted "in a private, sanitary place…in accordance with medically recognized, hygienic practices"; forces law enforcement agencies to pay medical costs associated with searches regardless of the results; and makes evidence obtained in violation of the new rules inadmissible in court. Sadly, the concern that people forced to undergo such searches will be stuck with the resulting medical bill, even when no contraband turns up, is no more fanciful than the concern that traffic cops will commit sexual assault in the name of enforcing our drug laws.

This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

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.

  • d3x / dt3||

    Shouldn't Reason have to have a warrant before publishing early-morning nutpunch articles?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    At least these people weren't subjected to a forced colonoscopy to find what they might have been concealing from the state. It's not like the drug war has destroyed all our constitutional rights. It hasn't progressed to that point.

  • sarcasmic||

    I see nothing in the Constitution's enumerated rights specifically banning forced colonoscopies.

  • Marshall Gill||

    The Founders didn't know about colonoscopies so they couldn't have believed in regulating them.

  • Faceless Commenter||

    That's why we invented progress.

  • rocks||

    But the Founders, many having lived as commoners under court appointed betters, did understand the abuse of power.

    It is why we have the 2nd amendment. People today have forgot that the purpose of 2A is not so you can keep firearms to go plinking on the weekend, but to keep firearms so that you can USE them against people who infringe on you.

    Cops sticking fingers up you butt are infringing on you, so the question is how long until people start to remember why we have the 2A and act accordingly.

  • Swiss Servator, Switzier!||

    Why Is That Cop's Finger in Your Butt?

    Searching for missing alt-text?

  • Poppa Kilo||

    If it's an assault finger with the thing that goes up, of course it should be limited to the police.

  • modurhead||

    sexually assaulting people because they "might" have drugs that sounds like something nixon and reaganbush would be proud of. Land of the fee and home of the slave.

  • Poppa Kilo||

    Not sure why you would think that, other than general antipathy for the folks named.

    Not everyone you find disagreeable is necessarily evil in all respects. Except me, of course.

  • MSimon||

    "Look, we understood we couldn't make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue...that we couldn't resist it." - John Ehrlichman, White House counsel to President Nixon on the rationale of the War on Drugs.

  • PS||

    and yet it's something obama and holder are proud of. go figure.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The Drug War idiocy is bipartisan. That is to say, it is a policy so stupid and venal that it attracts support from both parties. And please keep in mind that whatever party you may prefer to blame for the War On Drugs, it is largely the Democrats who have helped the growth of public sector unions like the ones that make it next to impossible to effectively discipline rouge cops.

  • livinhinnc||

    I have not seen any democrats say that being a union member should prevent somebody from being charged with a crime. If I've missed someone making that statement please point it out ot me.

    Now I have no trouble finding where republicans say and pass laws saying that being a union member is a criminal offence or at least be illegal. talk about abuse of power. what's next for them making it illegal to be members of groups that don't agree with your beliefs?

  • lmuncie||

    as Joel implied I am stunned that people can get paid $9211 in a few weeks on the internet . learn this here now.......... www.Work4Hour.Com

  • ImanAzol||

    I'm stunned that there are still tards who fall for that, and that no civic-minded millionaire has hunted you down and had you exposed to a pack of rabid weasels.

  • qli63509||

    Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super... I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I've ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h..... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.Jobs-Cash.com

  • ImanAzol||

    As I will state outright, you should be raped to death with a jackhammer.

  • ||

    Does my right to dignity contravene or reinforce my right to a public colonoscopy?

  • Faceless Commenter||

    Which right to dignity? I ask in honest curiosity.

  • ||

    http://reason.com/blog/2015/05.....an-fallout

    I can understand the confusion. It couldn't be a more obvious thought-terminating clichè to cover any one of a number of ulterior political agendas or something...

  • The Last American Hero||

    So the cost to the cops was $2,000 and probation. They should be in prison where the inmates can show them how to properly perform a cavity search.

  • ||

    I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h… Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......
    www.work-cash.com

  • ImanAzol||

    That's great, if I want a pay cut. But, as a public service, I'll beat the shit out of spammers for only $20 an hour.

  • John C. Randolph||

    If I were on a jury, and the defendant was charged with going berserk on a cop who had shoved his finger up his ass, the defendant would walk.

    -jcr

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Anarchist !!!!!!11

  • ||

    I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h… Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......
    www.work-cash.com

  • ImanAzol||

    Please arrange for this person to get a cavity search with a ball bat.

  • ||

    In the Atwater decision, there's this:

    the court observed that, although the Fourth Amendment generally requires a balancing of individual and governmental interests [...]

    'Balancing' is such a weasel word: almost anything can be justified by it. Furthermore, I can't see much of a "requirement for balancing" in this text:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.www.netjob80.com

  • ImanAzol||

    Jesus tits, can't the Reasontards find some way to stop the spam?

  • ImanAzol||

    Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!

  • perlhaqr||

    In Soviet Compton, Police Fuck You?

  • american socialist||

    Hey Jacob,

    That's nothing, man. Some Republicans want to shove a probe up your coochee-coo if you go to the doctor to get an abortion. I love this...

    "In Pennsylvania, for instance, former Gov. Tom Corbett (R) sparked national outrage when he defended the state's mandatory ultrasound bill by telling women, "You just have to close your eyes.""

    I bet some nanny-state prog is behind all of this, though. Those nanny-state progs are tricky tricksters.

  • Win Bear||

    Some Republicans want to shove a probe up your coochee-coo if you go to the doctor to get an abortion.

    Well, I guess that makes it alright then! /sarc

  • Suicidy||

    Go back to 'mediamatters' you goddamn fucking piece of traitor shit. You have noting to contribute but the kind of oppression discussed in the article.

  • epsilon given||

    Whether you disagree with this or not, I would have to point out that one minor point in favor of the Republican bill, over what the police are described of having doing, is that this probe shoved up a coochee-coo is standard procedure for (1) determining the health of the fetus, (2) preparing for the abortion. If I recall correctly, and I'm not sure that I do.

    But I've been at the doctor's office when my wife had a routine early ultrasound, and I've been there when she had to have a D&C to clear out the remains of a miscarriage. I can assure you, if someone about to have an abortion doesn't want to have anything stuck up her coochee-coo, then she's out of of luck: she will have to carry the baby to term. The ultrasound probe is probably less invasive than the abortion itself.

    And all this is a far cry from probing people at random, out in the middle of the street, at the flimsiest of pretenses.

  • Win Bear||

    "Oh yeah, a little to the right. Yeah, baby, that's the spot. Oooh, don't stop. Wait, you're taking money for this?"

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "It was determined that the relatively inexperienced trooper was directed by a more senior trooper to conduct the inappropriate search,"

    This is interesting to me. I ran across a discussion in the comments section of Instapundit over the weekend about whether cops are civilians (a number of commenters were insisting they were not). I retorted that, if we accept that, then, logically, police should be tried in military courts according to military justice, rather than by friendly juries in their own jurisdiction. By that standard, Ms. Bui would not only not be reinstated, she'd be serving time at Leavenworth.

  • Suicidy||

    We need co-op organization to help put out hits on bad cops for this kind of shit.

  • Señor Loco||

    "No, you're not under arrest -- just checking for hemorrhoids, that's all."

  • buybuydandavis||

    Don't worry, folks.

    I know it sounds dangerous, but no officers suffered finger injuries in these hazardous operations.

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    With three letter agencies trafficking narcotics into this country to fund their black ops, kinda makes the war on drugs a misnomer, more like a war on americans.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Take a dump on their finger.

  • burserker||

    +1

  • TxJack 112||

    People are much to willing to give up their rights when stopped by a police officer. In a business law class this subject came up and the professor told us at no time every consent to anything unless you are under arrest. Clearly the women were not under arrest or the trooper would have waited until they were taken to the county jail. He was hoping to find something of greater importance than busting them for a tiny amount of pot. We have raised our children to understand police are not evil, but they are also not your friends. The court has given the ability to lie about anything in order to get a confession which is all they really want so they can close a case. Police like prosecutors claim to seek justice but in reality they simply seek arrests and convictions. If they find actually manage to find justice, it is a bonus, but never a prerequisite to 99% of the actions they take.

  • Unable2Reason||

    Hey, how come the male cops weren't allowed to do the vaginal searches? How do we know the female cops weren't dikes? Trying to prevent perverse sexual thrills by using the same sex is so...so...well, so before now! Comeon LGBT. Where u at?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online