Another Reason Never to Consent to a Search
---
You might not be wearing clean underwear:
And remember: Being wronged, suing and winning is not the same as never having been wronged in the first place. Most people would choose not to suffer such an indignity rather than suffer the indignity and get a payment in exchange (just as most people would prefer not to be punched in the face over being being punched in the face and winning a lawsuit after the fact, or would prefer having a quiet funeral for a loved one over a disrupted funeral coupled with an $11 million judgment).
Meanwhile, one wonders if it might be time for law enforcement to incorporate screening mechanisms to weed out applicants who might be predisposed to engage in conduct that degrades and humiliates suspects. There's one notorious example who sticks in my mind, from several old episodes of COPS — a Passaic County, New Jersey, deputy named Anthony Damiano (my pet name for him is "Corporal Asshole").
In incident after incident, Damiano relentlessly and childishly denigrates the people he detains — "teases" might be a more accurate descriptor. (Perhaps ironically these days, one of his favorites taunts is, "Don't call me Bro, I'm not your Bro.") And you can see in the clips that he enjoys every minute of it, in exactly the same way that a schoolyard bully might enjoy his pursuits. "To protect and serve" indeed. (Yet it is exactly displays such as these that make COPS so popular. Go figure.)
Yes, screening out sociopaths from law enforcement is definitely a good idea — right after we clear up all this confusion about the propriety of Taser use by police officers.
In the meantime, never consent to a search in a criminal matter. Never.
The case is North Carolina v. Stone, 2007 N.C. LEXIS 1228 (December 7, 2007).
We conclude here that a reasonable person in defendant's circumstances would not have understood that his general consent to search included allowing the law enforcement officer to pull his pants and underwear away from his body and shine a flashlight on his genitals.The defendant prevailed on his motion to suppress (yes, he did in fact have illegal drugs "down there" — point conceded). But what about the next suspect, the innocent suspect, who consents to a search because he indeed has nothing illegal "down there" and is subjected to the same degrading treatment?
And remember: Being wronged, suing and winning is not the same as never having been wronged in the first place. Most people would choose not to suffer such an indignity rather than suffer the indignity and get a payment in exchange (just as most people would prefer not to be punched in the face over being being punched in the face and winning a lawsuit after the fact, or would prefer having a quiet funeral for a loved one over a disrupted funeral coupled with an $11 million judgment).
Meanwhile, one wonders if it might be time for law enforcement to incorporate screening mechanisms to weed out applicants who might be predisposed to engage in conduct that degrades and humiliates suspects. There's one notorious example who sticks in my mind, from several old episodes of COPS — a Passaic County, New Jersey, deputy named Anthony Damiano (my pet name for him is "Corporal Asshole").
In incident after incident, Damiano relentlessly and childishly denigrates the people he detains — "teases" might be a more accurate descriptor. (Perhaps ironically these days, one of his favorites taunts is, "Don't call me Bro, I'm not your Bro.") And you can see in the clips that he enjoys every minute of it, in exactly the same way that a schoolyard bully might enjoy his pursuits. "To protect and serve" indeed. (Yet it is exactly displays such as these that make COPS so popular. Go figure.)
Yes, screening out sociopaths from law enforcement is definitely a good idea — right after we clear up all this confusion about the propriety of Taser use by police officers.
In the meantime, never consent to a search in a criminal matter. Never.
The case is North Carolina v. Stone, 2007 N.C. LEXIS 1228 (December 7, 2007).
Posted by Kip on
10 December 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
