Police Soon To Begin Mass Rectal Searches of U.S. Population. What do you think about this?

Question

The laws are in place to start giving all U.S. citizens full rectal searches passing borders.

Pretty soon Rectal Checks will be as commonplace as the demeaning searches that we now have to endure at airport security.

But U.S. citizens will learn to accept this as police Security.

We've accepted loss or Miranda, loss of 4th amendment.

Now it's your a.s.s.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/318/toomuch.shtml

Florida motorists are watching their rear-view mirrors this week after an appellate court ruled that rectal searches by police are legal. According to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, the removal of 54 grams of cocaine from a suspect's rectum by a member of the Orange County highway drug squad was "part of a legal patdown to make sure the man wasn't armed..." America, land of the free, home of the rectal patdown...


http://www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2002/10/17/UWireDcBureau/D.c-Police.Garner.2nd.Suit.Aclu.Claims.Improper.Search-301349.shtml?norewrite200609240112&sourcedomain=www.gwhatchet.com


Law says 85% of rectal searches done on innocent people

here's the link

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=414&invol=941

This case paves the way to allow police to give everyone a full rectal search.

In another case, he ordered the suppression of heroin
discovered through a warrantless rectal search, even though there
was more than adequate probable cause to believe that the
defendant was carrying heroin in his rectum as he came across the
U.S. border. Kennedy criticized the search as unnecessarily
intrusive, and expressed a desire to protect the privacy rights
of innocent persons against such searches. U.S. v. Cameron. 538
F. 2d 254 (1976).

CRIMINAL LAW - INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL - SIXTH AMENDMENT - PREJUDICE

Facts: Appellant, Dwight Evans, appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. A jury convicted Evans of distribution of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute. Evans asserted that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to move to suppress evidence obtained in a warrantless rectal search of Evans on a public street, in broad daylight, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Evans argued that his counsel’s performance fell below Strickland’s objective standard of reasonableness. In regard to the prejudice prong of Strickland, Evans asserted that his sentence was enhanced because of counsel’s deficient performance. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City denied Evans’s request.

Held: Reversed. Evans satisfied his burden under both prongs of Strickland. His counsel’s performance fell below objective standards of trial conduct because he failed to seek suppression of evidence obtained by a public rectal search on the street of Baltimore City, which deviated from standard procedural guidelines that protect the integrity and constitutional rights of individuals. This is the case even though Evans’s counsel litigated an equally strong argument regarding Evans’s arrest and search incident to that arrest. In regard to the prejudice suffered by Evans, had his counsel properly sought suppression of the evidence, the two drug charges would have been merged and the detrimental effects of the nine vials of cocaine found in his “rear end” would have ameliorated his sentence. This satisfied Evans’s burden under the prejudice prong of Strickland.

Evans v. State, No. 289, September Term 2001, filed June 25, 2003. Opinion by Sonner, J.

Answer 1

I hope they give the courtesy of a reach around.

Answer 2

While this type of search is pretty disturbing, I find it extremely difficult to have sympathy for drug dealers. We aren't talking about people who are innocent. The cops know who the drug dealers are and how they hide drugs. The shame is that these drug dealers got off on a technicality and the ACLU is once again trying to help a scumbag drug dealer. By the way, why are you so concerned with this topic. Is it a fetish? hmmmmm Go check it out first hand and come back and tell us how the experience was.

Answer 3

Police officers nationwide refusing to do mass rectal exams! What do you think about that?
"Cause that's what you'll get if this hairbrained idea were to actually be true.

If I have to start doing rectal exams, I'm putting in my papers and retiring. I think this is a little far fetched kiddo. I just don't see it happening. By the way, what about a search at an airport is demeaning? Frustrating, pissed about the delay I understand, but demeaning I don't get.

Answer 4

My bet is the first thing they will find is the brain of the person who started all this baloney in the first place...

Why is it that druggies are more worried about their anal virginity and their "right" to break the law than their health or the social consequences of their obsession?

CASurfWatcher and CelticWarrior each deserve 10 thumbs-up for those responses!

Answer 5

Turns out the guy deserved to be searched. But honey, this happened in 2004. Digging deep for this one eh?

BTW. If you don't want this to happen. Don't be a convicted drug dealer.

'nuff said.

Answer 6

Well I guess if its tah stop them people from sellin' drugs to our kids its okay.

Or if its tah stop them Osama bun Lahduns its okay.

Or tah stop them Michael Jacksons or OJ Simpsons or them illegal mexicuns or them neighbors ah mine, then go ahead.

I git so sick ah them people takin up fer drug dealers and child molesters they need to start cuttin there heads off to put a stop tah this whining about there freedom and how this is america and we have all these rights and stuff. If the police think you are a criminal, you shouldn't have any rights.

It used to be that if there was a pervert in your community, everybody could go hang em. But now theres all this civil rights stuff.

Answer 7

What's new about it? Police have been doing cavity searches since the beginning of time! Men and women! Shitty job, though!

Answer 8

Craziness

Answer 9

fascinating, however you still miss the point ... BCS(body cavity search) has always been legal .. the 4th amendment protects you against UNREASONABLE search and seizure ... they still need to have probable cause.

your halfway reporting has just created a misinformation alarmist response from most of these people

Answer 10

Yikes! Too many words to read! I'll wait for the condensed CNN version before forming an opinion.

Answer 11

Well, I ask this. What kind of a guy would go to an job interview and say "I've always wanted to check out people's Retum so I'm the man for the job." .....OR....a father proudly says "My son always wanted to be a rectal inspector and I'm so proud of him"....( I DON"T THINK SOOOOOO ) OR....a high school states "Most of our former students are rectal inspectors"........Can you think of any more?