Police confiscate Indiana man's bodily fluids using forced catheterization

[Destro]

Why is the officer that hard up for a result.

But it sounds like the guy gave him a refusal with a bow on top.

 

[hornadylnl]

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.

They say for a stereotype to stick, there has to be "some" basis in truth behind it.

We shouldn't believe this guy because something like this would never happen. Oh wait... https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...orced-colonoscopy-cops-wins-$1-6-million.html

 

[Leo]

What kind of country have we become when we are upset by water in the face of an enemy combatant in war conditions but we have civilian police officers penetrating citizens bodies as an acceptible? And this violation of decency was after trained medical professionals were enlisted? I do not care if the order came from the whitehouse, it is just plain wrong.

 

[HoughMade]

...We shouldn't believe this guy because something like this would never happen....

Who said that? Are you saying that if the police deny it, we shouldn't believe them because people accused of crimes never lie?

I don't know who to believe. All I know is that only one side has had it's story told.

"In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines." Proverbs 18:17 NIV

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

 

[T755]

Well that escalated quickly. Wow

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

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.

...and now I have read the Complaint, so I no 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.

r. kelly this man is not.

 

[Tombs]

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.

Seems like an 8th amendment violation to me. This is about as bad as what you hear about happening to POWs.

AMENDMENT VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

[El-Cigarro]

The ones siding with the COPS on this, just wait till YOU have a rough, rubber HOSE, being FORCED up yer D***HOLE! I'm thinkin' you jest MIGHT change your mind.....

 

[Benny]

The ones siding with the COPS on this, just wait till YOU have a rough, rubber HOSE, being FORCED up yer D***HOLE! I'm thinkin' you jest MIGHT change your mind.....

The only people siding with law enforcement are trolling for attention.

The only actual police officer in this thread that expressed an opinion said this is ridiculous(in more words than one).

 

[HoughMade]

Who is "siding with the cops"?

 

[Denny347]

The ones siding with the COPS on this, just wait till YOU have a rough, rubber HOSE, being FORCED up yer D***HOLE! I'm thinkin' you jest MIGHT change your mind.....

I was lucky enough to have been under sedation for the insertion. I woke up with it in, I was like "WTF is this?" It was no fun getting it removed but it had to be better than being awake for the insertion.

 

[Denny347]

Rule #23-What is in your colon or bladder is yours to keep.

 

[Darral27]

I was lucky enough to have been under sedation for the insertion. I woke up with it in, I was like "WTF is this?" It was no fun getting it removed but it had to be better than being awake for the insertion.

I was hospitalized and had one inserted while wide awake and alert. Not a pleasant experience even while trying to remain relaxed knowing it is necessary. I could not imagine having one forcibly inserted while I was restrained. Being mostly males on here I cannot see anybody disagreeing with that.

 

[Destro]

The ones siding with the COPS on this, just wait till YOU have a rough, rubber HOSE, being FORCED up yer D***HOLE! I'm thinkin' you jest MIGHT change your mind.....

I don't think anybody here is siding with law enforcement if the allegations are true...some are waiting for the other side of the story before casting final judgement

 

[Timjoebillybob]

...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.

Is there a link to the Complaint that us laymen can reach?

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.

Why not just treat a refusal as any other contract law violation? And why any and all chemical tests. If I blow and bleed but can't pee on command what's the problem.

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.

Urine from my understanding can give more than a pass/fail. But blood is more accurate as to what is currently in your system. Urine can give an idea of what was in your system. For alcohol the timeline is usually within a few hours, other drugs can be up to a month or more.

But it sounds like the guy gave him a refusal with a bow on top.

How did he give him a refusal with a bow on top? He consented to breath and blood, but couldn't pee.

Seems like an 8th amendment violation to me. This is about as bad as what you hear about happening to POWs.

AMENDMENT VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

More of 5th Amendment violation to me, although the courts seem not to agree.

I was lucky enough to have been under sedation for the insertion. I woke up with it in, I was like "WTF is this?" It was no fun getting it removed but it had to be better than being awake for the insertion.

I was awake for insertion and removal. It's no fun either way. But yes insertion was worse.

Rule #23-What is in your colon or bladder is yours to keep.

I can agree with that.

 

[Destro]

why any and all chemical tests. If I blow and bleed but can't pee on command what's the problem.

because it's the law

IC 9-30-6-2
Probable cause; offer of test; alternative tests; requirement to submit
Sec. 2. (a) A law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that a person has committed an offense under this chapter, IC 9-30-5, or IC 9-30-9, or a violation under IC 9-30-15 shall offer the person the opportunity to submit to a chemical test.
(b) A law enforcement officer:
(1) is not required to offer a chemical test to an unconscious person; and
(2) may offer a person more than one (1) chemical test under this chapter.
(c) A test administered under this chapter must be administered within three (3) hours after the law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe the person committed an offense under IC 9-30-5 or a violation under IC 9-30-15.
(d) A person must submit to each chemical test offered by a law enforcement officer in order to comply with the implied consent provisions of this chapter.

 

[steveh_131]

Who said that? Are you saying that if the police deny it, we shouldn't believe them because people accused of crimes never lie?

I don't know who to believe. All I know is that only one side has had it's story told.

"In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines." Proverbs 18:17 NIV

This isn't a court room. Again, this is a discussion forum. Someone presents a scenario and we discuss that scenario. We're not making judgment calls. We're not on the jury and we're not prosecuting it. It would be very boring for us to present a scenario then sit around and wait in silence for SCOTUS to reach the final decision before we begin discussing it.

Here, I'll ask: Would anyone in this thread be in favor of imprisoning these officers before hearing their side of the story or allowing the plaintiff to be cross examined or analyzing the evidence available?

 

[Rookie]

We probably shouldn't answer that. Kirk and houghmade would get upset.

 

[HoughMade]

If anyone wants to discuss, of course...that's what we do here. But why can't part of the discussion be whether people are jumping to conclusions based upon incomplete information? Some are, some aren't.

You may be surprised at how many people think that just because a lawsuit is filed, the allegations are true. Maybe they are, maybe they are not. The point is, there is no evidence of anything yet. Representing defendants about 90% of the time, the plaintiff's advantage in getting their story out first is a powerful, powerful tool. One that is difficult to overcome. However, just because people frequently buy what they are sold first does not mean that justice is done.

Maybe this lawsuit is 100% based on the truth and some serious consequences are needed. All I know is that, without exception, there is always more to the story than there appears at first blush.

We can discuss all we want, but choosing up sides based on, not only incomplete, but completely one-sided information is a bad habit to get into.

...and this is a civil suit. Only $$$ is at issue.