SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
SovereignMan.com has an article regarding a woman's interaction with US Customs and Border Protection:
According to the published case files, she was frisked, and then ordered to squat so that a drug-sniffing dog could check out her nether regions.
Apparently the dog liked what he smelled, because Ms. Doe was then taken to yet another room, ordered to pull down her pants, and crouch.
At that point an agent from Customs and Border Protection "inspected her anus with a flashlight."
She was then ordered to lean backwards in a crouched position, after which another agent inserted a speculum into her vagina to search for drugs.
Another agent then "parted Ms. Doe's vulva with her hand, pressed her fingers into Ms. Doe's vagina, and visually examined her genitalia with a flashlight."
They then took her to a hospital for a further 6 hours of involuntary testing, which included forcing her to have a bowel movement as they all watched, plus X-rays, CT scans, and more.
[...] Ms. Doe was "brutally probed against her will" for hours and hours without judicial oversight, due process, or even reasonable suspicion. And they found nothing.
[...] They told her that if she signed a consent form, retroactively giving her permission to be abused and violated, that the government would pay for all the tests and various medical expenses.
But if she didn't sign the consent form, she'd have to pay for them all herself.
Ms. Doe refused to sign, and the United States government sent her a bill for more than $5,000, essentially demanding that she pay for her own sexual assault.
Emotionally shattered she went home feeling like a rape victim. She sued.
[...] Finally, as of a few days ago, the case has been settled. And the US government agreed to pay Ms. Doe $475,000.
(Score: 4, Informative) by CirclesInSand on Friday July 29 2016, @10:00PM
Police dogs are all a lie anyway. They are not trained to find anything. They are trained to give the police an excuse to avoid a warrant.
Do you think independent 3rd parties do regular tests of the dogs to ensure that they can actually deliver their promise of finding drugs? Not a chance. It's very simple: trainer pulls on the leash, dog does his thing (sitting or whatever), trainer pretends to have found drugs. That's all there is to it.
If you are ever on a jury, throw out any evidence obtained where police dogs are involved, even circumstantially. It's all crooked as hell.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 30 2016, @12:31AM
You are exactly right. My youngest son experienced this very thing in a traffic stop incident. Cop wanted to search, the kid says "Get a warrant", cop says, "We can get a dog out here" son says "Get your dog". Dog follows the handler around the car three times, without alerting on anything. Handler looks at the cop who stopped the son, cop nods at the handler, handler reaches into his pocket and pulls out a ball. Bounces the ball in a manner that the ball hits the car door, and the dog lunges to catch the ball. "Oh, the dog found something!"
My son laughed at the dumbass cops when they found nothing at all, and asked if they thought he was stupid. "What do you mean?" "Your dog didn't alert, you made him do what he did." "No, we don't make the dog do anything". "You really do think I'm stupid. I'll see you in court."
People such as my son who have been around dogs all their lives understand dogs well enough to know. Dogs can indeed be a valuable asset, because they CAN find things that people can't. But the dogs are manipulated to give the desired results.
But, you, the average citizen, are supposed to be both ignorant, and intimidated by the entire process.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday July 30 2016, @06:08AM
Not really the right way to handle it. Bottom line is that if the cops think they have probable cause to do a search they'll do the search, there's not much point in opposing it beyond just saying no and keeping your mouth shut.
Whether or not it is probable cause is something that ultimately gets handled in court after the fact. It's a sucky way to handle it, but we've allowed the courts to be stacked with people who care more about loopholes and minutia than right and wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 30 2016, @09:47PM
Right is honoring the highest law in the land, the constitution, while wrong is intimidating and otherwise tricking people into voluntarily giving up their rights or pleaing guilty to crimes they didn't commit for fear of ending up in prison for decades for a crime they didn't commit. Wrong is making it a crime to enjoy one's self-sovereignty in the first place.