Police confiscate Indiana man's bodily fluids using forced catheterization

[Darral27]

You mean the Answer filed by the defendant isn't public record? There are no motions with attached discovery materials filed in a court of public record which could provide more info.?

Newspapers access court records all the time to look for the new and interesting lawsuits. Much like some of our INGO friends, the newspapers are not too interested in providing balanced reporting of both sides. Drive-by journalism, just hitting the most attention-grabbing allegations is more the standard.

I did say the whole truth. I am also not a lawyer so not familiar with all the inner workings of our legal system. I do think these discussions would be pretty boring though if it were all just you and Kirk and tlex going back and forth. I am sure you are all very interesting folks, but.......

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Don't forget the corroborating tweets and Facebook posts.

You have those? Great, let's see them!

 

[steveh_131]

Don't forget the corroborating tweets and Facebook posts.

How can one practice law without corroborating tweets?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How can one practice law without corroborating tweets?

How can one make assertions without evidence?

Oh, wait, INGO, or the prosecutor's office. Got it.

 

[HoughMade]

I did say the whole truth. I am also not a lawyer so not familiar with all the inner workings of our legal system. I do think these discussions would be pretty boring though if it were all just you and Kirk and tlex going back and forth. I am sure you are all very interesting folks, but.......

My issue is simply this- taking sides and assuming, as some here are, that one side is right and the other is wrong based upon an initial filing in a civil case, or worse yet, a newspaper story about an initial filing, is exactly the same as accepting the word of police, without question, when criminal charges are brought. How many people here would do that?

An open mind is all I would like to see and usually what I see is people choosing sides based upon preconceptions and slamming their minds shut.

...and now I have read the Complaint, so I know one side, kind of. Plaintiff says that the police did a breathalyzer and told him he blew a .11, but he claims that there is no evidence of that. He says that he offered up blood which showed a .073 (question- how were the results reported?). He then claims he drank a glass of water, then still could not urinate, so they forcibly used a foley catheter to extract the urine. Missing from the Complaint if the alcohol results of the urine test, if it was tested.

If everything he says happened just the way he said, well, some people have some answering to do. Certainly, but objectively, we don't know if that is what happened or not.

 

[steveh_131]

How can one make assertions without evidence?

Oh, wait, INGO, or the prosecutor's office. Got it.

My issue is simply this- taking sides and assuming, as some here are, that one side id right and the other is wrong based upon an initial filing in a civil case, or worse yet, a newspaper story about an initial filing, is exactly the same as accepting the word of police, without question, when criminal charges are brought. How many people here would do that?

An open mind is all I would like to see and usually what I see is people choosing sides based upon preconceptions and slamming their minds shut.

Nobody here is 'slamming their minds shut', as far as I can tell. This is a discussion forum. Not a jury box. We discuss topics based on the information available.

If new information comes to light, the discussion shifts.

Stop whining. You do it too.

 

[88GT]

So we're believing, as gospel truth, what a local newspaper reports about what one side claims happened...no questions asked? Oh wait, of course we are. For a second there I forgot where I was.

No, we're accepting at face value with reservation the bare premise that perhaps what was done to this man was out of line and perhaps not fully legal. It's not a choice between gospel truth or absolute heresy.

My issue is simply this- taking sides and assuming, as some here are, that one side id right and the other is wrong based upon an initial filing in a civil case, or worse yet, a newspaper story about an initial filing, is exactly the same as accepting the word of police, without question, when criminal charges are brought. How many people here would do that?

An open mind is all I would like to see and usually what I see is people choosing sides based upon preconceptions and slamming their minds shut.

I think this thread has plenty of people taking a wait-and-see attitude. There's nothing that says an intellectually honest person can't reserve final judgment until all the facts are in but still make an evaluation of the information that is available.

That said, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the citizen, and question the claims of the state, every time if there is insufficient information to make a final judgment.

 

[Destro]

I don't understand this? Why didn't they just treat it as a refusal and hook him? He's required to submit to all chemical tests, not just one....and if he couldn't pee then he can explain it to the judge.

 

[T.Lex]

Some more legal-technical info.

State v. William B. Clark, 45I02-1205-CM-00307, MA: Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated, MC OWI and Operating with controlled substance in blood, and a couple infractions like following too close and speeding, Offense date 5/19/2012.

Lake County online docket:
https://www.lakecountyin.org/portal...se/js_pane/P-feb6810afe-10000/caseid/12043671

Direct link probably won't work, will probably have to search for his name.

Case still pending - looks like it has been continued about 15 times. Not sure what Crim. R. 4 issues might be out there, too.

Edit: oh, and looking at the search results, this isn't exactly his first interaction with law enforcement. His other cases include a dog at large and open container. Look like all misdemeanors or less.

 

[rambone]

If the forced catheterization happened, regardless of any other detail, then I would still be appalled.

I don't care what order it took place or what the results were. The process is disgusting and doesn't belong in a free country.

So unless the entire evening was fabricated, and he never went to the hospital and was not catheterized, then I'm comfortable being outraged right now.

 

[T.Lex]

The process is disgusting and doesn't belong in a free country.

There are worse. I'll just leave it at that.

Also, if it makes you feel any better, the officers probably weren't thrilled with it, either.

 

[rambone]

There are worse. I'll just leave it at that.

Indeed, at least we aren't the worst. That's almost comforting.

 

[88GT]

Indeed, at least we aren't the worst. That's almost comforting.

There's been a lot of the house slave arguments in threads lately.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok folks, this story does get a bit more complicated.

Looking at the dockets for this guy, it does almost seem like he's either a guy that just enjoys breaking low-level laws (usually involving intoxicants) or the police are... well... focused on him. No value judgment there - they may have good reasons.

But, an open container charge was filed just a couple days after the catheterization event. It was dismissed, though.

Also, dude was popped later in 2012 - August - for OWI:
https://www.lakecountyin.org/portal...on/page/case.psml/js_pane/P-13b9cba924f-114d4

That case made it past suppression, then he was convicted. But in the catheter case, it doesn't look like there's been a suppression motion.

I'll just say it - in that quaint small town way, there may be a bit of "he must be guilty of something."

 

[88GT]

I'll just say it - in that quaint small town way, there may be a bit of "he must be guilty of something."

Careful. That's awful close to a judgment without all the facts.


(Though I do appreciate the additional info and candid nature of the post.)

 

[T.Lex]

Oh and, of course, very few things are original in law.

This document will probably be a roadmap for how this will play out and give non-lawyers an idea of the issues:
Document 106 :: LOCKARD v. CITY OF LAWRENCEBURG, IN et al :: 4:2009cv00113 :: Indiana Southern District Court :: US Federal District Courts Cases :: Justia

Have no fear - Judge Pratt's decision is very readable in my opinion.

Keep in mind in that case, there was a warrant. If there was no warrant in the OP, then it will be more difficult for the state to defend it - both legally and morally.

 

[Denny347]

From what I've been told, urine is more of a pass/fail kind of test. It's a **** poor (pun intended) replacement for blood. There is no better test than blood. The only immediate blood test I know of is one done at the hospital and HIPA should prevent Hospitals from releasing that information. Why is the officer that hard up for a result. Do your SFST in the field, administer a PBT in the field to insure you are dealing with ETOH. If the PBT results are not consistant with SFST results, call a DRE to the scene (drug recognition expert) and see if they can determine the type of drug involved. If you have poor driving behavior and failure of SFST's you have enough for the OMVWI arrest and forget the "per se" charge involving the BAC, you don't need it. I've had a catheter while in the hospital. No one should ever have to endure that outside of a medical emergency or medical need. It has no business in law enforcement.

 

[steveh_131]

No one should ever have to endure that outside of a medical emergency or medical need. It has no business in law enforcement.

This guy right here ^

 

[hornadylnl]

This guy right here ^

Unfortunately the "ends justify the means" crowd won't bat an eye.

Thugs n stuff.

 

[Crbn79]

If I recall correctly this was a warrant-less search. The Police drove the guy around from Hospital to Hospital until they finally found a Dr who would do a cavity search and the cath. If this isn't the case there was one very similar either in IN or IL recently. Heck the Hospital they finally found 1 or 2 counties over still refused and were threatened with Criminal charges.

I was mistaken, the same hospital had several staff who refused to perform it, then one finally agreed after being threatened with criminal charges.