Clenching your buttocks during a Terry stop? Prepare for your anal probing.

[Buck_Godot]

@Zyanthia

Well, that sure would explain a lot! “Hey, it happened to us, let’s do it to him!”

Or maybe, New Mexico is the training ground for our first interstellar explorers.

Perhaps they were right that the examination was racially motivated, but not Anglo vs Hispanic, but Human vs Andromidian.

[pohjonen]

@Little_Nemo

A police dog was reportedly present and indicated suspicion.

Like dogs never sniff butts unless there are drugs involved.

[Musicat]

@silenus

I hope he collects millions.

If the facts are as stated, not nearly enough.

[Merneith]

Kevin Underhill at Lowering the Bar covered this yesterday. He points out that there are jurisdictional problems with the warrent, on top of everything else:

Do NOT Clench Your Buttocks in Deming, New Mexico

I guess he should be thankful they didn’t dissect him. I mean, they had a warrant.

But about that warrant… It was issued in Luna County. But GRMC is in Silver City, New Mexico. Which is in Grant County. In which whoever issued this warrant has no authority. Even if they had not taken their victim across the county line, the warrant expired at 10 p.m. The records show that the colonoscopy started three hours later. Horrifying enough that they were still going hours and hours later, but they were also doing so illegally, even assuming there had been probable cause—which, remember, they derived from the clenching of buttocks by someone who rolled through a stop sign.

The cops involved are going to be the World Heavyweight Buttocks-Clenching Champeens before this is all over, hopefully.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

Wow, this is really surreal. What are the qualifications of whoever ordered those tests, anal probing, dog communication, improper procedure, and anal probing (he really likes anal probing)?

[Marley23]

I can’t believe this kind of thing could happen to someone who wasn’t a woman wanting an abortion.

[Johnny_L.A]

@VinylTurnip

The colonoscopy propels it into the realm of the surreal. Are there *any *circumstances where someone can be ordered to undergo such a procedure, lawfully?

@Accidental_Martyr

It seems to me that the doctors and hospital would have refused to do the procedures just because of the potential lawsuits.

IANALorMD, but I believe it is unethical for a doctor to perform an invasive procedure without the consent of the patient. I think unethical behaviour can result in the loss of one’s medical license.

[purplehorseshoe]

WTF did they think the third enema would turn up that didn’t get flushed out during the first two?

[Musicat]

Hell of a way to treat someone who is just trying to hold in a fart.

[elucidator]

Last time he farted in the car, he OD’d.

[SeaDragonTattoo]

I hope the doctor from the first hospital gets promoted or something, for refusing to go along with something so stupid and just wrong. What a bunch of idiots, that poor man. I hope he gets a shit ton of cash and the people involved get fired and lose licenses to practice.

[Musicat]

@elucidator

Last time he farted in the car, he OD’d.

I wish people would take my farts as seriously. Mostly, they just move away and open the window. What I wouldn’t do to get a court order for an anal probe. Maybe it would put my ass on the map.

[Little_Nemo]

@Merneith

Kevin Underhill at Lowering the Bar covered this yesterday. He points out that there are jurisdictional problems with the warrent, on top of everything else

“Honey, go ahead and order the pool and the speedboat.”

[lieu]

@purplehorseshoe

WTF did they think the third enema would turn up that didn’t get flushed out during the first two?

Dessert.

[China_Guy]

maybe he thought he was due for his 5 year inspection and went along. Or maybe he could just see the lawsuit coming down the pike, and said “yessir, I need ANOTHER enema”

[Ethilrist]

@Little_Nemo

A police dog was reportedly present and indicated suspicion. But the lawyer is saying it was just a generally trained police dog and was not trained in drug detection.

It probably doesn’t help that even drug-sniffing dogs will tend to alert on people that their handler is suspicious of. “What’s that, boss? You don’t like this guy? grrr… I don’t like him either!”

[elucidator]

Cite? (Not disbelief, curiosity…)

[elucidator]

@lieu

Dessert.

You are a very sick puppy.

[SeaDragonTattoo]

@Ethilrist

It probably doesn’t help that even drug-sniffing dogs will tend to alert on people that their handler is suspicious of. “What’s that, boss? You don’t like this guy? grrr… I don’t like him either!”

You know, I think this can be true in some cases. I was returning from a trip to Jamaica many many moons ago, and while waiting at the luggage return a cute doggie came up to me and sat down. Apparently this is an “alert” and I was asked to come with the security people. They searched all my luggage and I had the pleasure of going into a little room with another lady to remove my clothes.

At that point in my life, I had never touched anything other than alcohol - not even tobacco - and it was just a total waste of everyone’s time. That dog couldn’t have been more wrong if I was Mother Theresa.

[Ethilrist]

@elucidator

Cite? (Not disbelief, curiosity…)

Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes - Animal Cognition

@Results link above

In order to evaluate effects of handler beliefs and expectation on detection dog performance, this study measured performance of 18 handler/dog teams in four separate search areas (NULL, MARKED NULL, UNMARKED DECOY, MARKED DECOY, described in “Materials and methods”). Each team ran each search area twice, for a total of 36 runs per condition (2 runs/team × 18 teams) and an overall total of 144 separate runs (4 search areas × 2 runs/team/area × 18 teams) (Fig. 1).

…

The goals of this study were to (1) identify whether handler beliefs affect detection handler/dog team performance and (2) evaluate relative importance of dog versus human inputs on those beliefs. To test this, we influenced handler beliefs and evaluated subsequent handler/dog team performance according to handler-identified alerts. The overwhelming number of incorrect alerts identified across conditions confirms that handler beliefs affect performance. Further, the directed pattern of alerts in conditions containing a marker compared with the pattern of alerts in the condition with unmarked decoy scent suggests that human influence on handler beliefs affects alerts to a greater degree than dog influence on handler beliefs. That is, total number of alerts identified by handlers did not differ across conditions. However, distribution of these alerts did differ across conditions; more alerts were identified on target locations indicated by human suggestion (paper marker) than on locations indicated by increased dog interest (hidden sausage and tennis balls).