Texas troopers who cavity searched women to face charges

EMNofSeattle said:

Working in a law enforcement role is not the same thing as working private sector, your argument is a logical fallacy.

and for that matter, yes your private employer can be held liable for your screw-ups in many cases. Why do you think most companies fire employees who bring guns to work?

Click to expand...

See, you think that they are special employees ... special ... when they lose this specialness then instances like this would go to zero.

davidmcbeth said:

See, you think that they are special employees ... special ... when they lose this specialness then instances like this would go to zero.

Click to expand...

No, incidents like that will never be zero, ever. you're starting the think like an anti-gunner living in fantasy land.

what it will do is cause deaths and injuries because officers will never contact people or make arrests due to fear they'll be subject to a civil witch hunt for any action they take. if anyone wants to be an officer after that.

Of course, this may be a boon to people who illegally traffick pistols to Illinios, but not so good for the majority of the public.

davidmcbeth said:

If the facts I read are correct, piecing this should be no problem.

If the cops personally lose $$$ is another question. It will not be until cops lose the cushion of the governments paying for their mistakes as opposed to them losing financially personally then these issues will never go away.

If you clunk someone over the head at your employer's ya think your employer would pony up the cash if you lose your civil case? Not a chance.

Click to expand...

I think that far better than them losing $$$ is that they lose their FREEDOM as befits criminals. But, them losing their $$ is just frosting on the cake...and if the departments have to chip in to make up the difference in what $$ the officers are worth, then HOPEFULLY they will do a better job vetting, training and managing their officers.

carolina guy said:

I think that far better than them losing $$$ is that they lose their FREEDOM as befits criminals. But, them losing their $$ is just frosting on the cake...and if the departments have to chip in to make up the difference in what $$ the officers are worth, then HOPEFULLY they will do a better job vetting, training and managing their officers.

Click to expand...

Well these officers are being charged on felonies and one has already been fired.... what more are you asking for? anything that happens to them at this point is at the mercy of the DA, Judge, and Jury. Departments do pay out most of the time their officers screw up. what more do you want in the hiring process? they throroughly analyze someone's background. I got a call from a police department just the other day asking questions about a guy from high school I barely even knew, it was obviously a background investigator. the system is already strict as it is, there comes a point where you have to spend more and more resources for a smaller and smaller benefit, law of diminishing returns.

Just think how much more Freedom, and Liberty people will have when Texas secedes from the Union.

The police raped these women; hopefully they will be convicted of rape. Who knows though, in a backward state like Texas.

EMNofSeattle said:

Well these officers are being charged on felonies and one has already been fired.... what more are you asking for? anything that happens to them at this point is at the mercy of the DA, Judge, and Jury. Departments do pay out most of the time their officers screw up. what more do you want in the hiring process? they throroughly analyze someone's background. I got a call from a police department just the other day asking questions about a guy from high school I barely even knew, it was obviously a background investigator. the system is already strict as it is, there comes a point where you have to spend more and more resources for a smaller and smaller benefit, law of diminishing returns.

Click to expand...

Jail time, loss of assets and reputation would be excellent.

As far as the departments, working on eliminating the culture of silence when it comes to fellow officer misconduct would be a great start. If they want to hire former military for the "gun-ho" attitude, they need to realize that it will cost them to retrain the new officers. They need to de-emphasize unit "loyalty" that comes with the military service. That does not have the same place in CIVILIAN law enforcement. Finally, how about spend more time (and $$) TRAINING the officers on a continuing basis to let them know how much they do NOT know. Don't rely on briefings and word of mouth. That does not work well enough.

I would also suggest periodic trips to the local prison to visit a former LEO to get a feeling for the penalties of failing/violating the public trust. IMO, most LEO are upstanding people...but, they occasionally forget their place in the grand scheme of things and need a reminder that they are public SERVANTS, NOT the masters.

If it is "reasonable" to expect and require that attorneys and doctors attend yearly training sessions to keep their knowledge current, and pay for their own malpractice insurance, it might not be unreasonable for LEO to do the same. I know there is a bit of a pay differential...but if the police are always acting within legal and reasonable limits, the liability insurance/bond would be relatively inexpensive (and tax deductible). If they can't get it or afford it, then that is a REALLY good indication you don't want them patrolling your streets. Kinda like auto insurance.

EMNofSeattle said:

No, incidents like that will never be zero, ever. you're starting the think like an anti-gunner living in fantasy land.

what it will do is cause deaths and injuries because officers will never contact people or make arrests due to fear they'll be subject to a civil witch hunt for any action they take. if anyone wants to be an officer after that.

Of course, this may be a boon to people who illegally traffick pistols to Illinios, but not so good for the majority of the public.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence to back your statements up. First, rarely do cops prevent any murders or crime, they come in after the fact and take notes. Maybe go on a massive man hunt if it happens to be a fellow cop that was the victim.

And I would gladly have less cops, especially ones who feel the law protects them from grossly violating people.

One fired and the other likely to return to work. One fired is good, the other likely returning to work, not good. Are the charges misdemeanors or felonies in TX? Or a combination of both?

OC for ME said:

One fired and the other likely to return to work. One fired is good, the other likely returning to work, not good. Are the charges misdemeanors or felonies in TX? Or a combination of both?

Click to expand...

I want them both to go to jail, any reasonable person knows what they did was a crime, they knew it was a crime. It makes it more aggravated, IMO, that they used badges and the authority of the state to commit that crime. The thought that this could have happened to my spouse or daughters makes my blood boil.

WalkingWolf said:

I want them both to go to jail, any reasonable person knows what they did was a crime, they knew it was a crime. It makes it more aggravated, IMO, that they used badges and the authority of the state to commit that crime. The thought that this could have happened to my spouse or daughters makes my blood boil.

Click to expand...

+1

I know that it is ultimately up to the prosecutor, but can't the victims swear out a complaint? If they file the complaint and the prosecutor does not act, they should take it to the media.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

WalkingWolf said:

I want them both to go to jail, any reasonable person knows what they did was a crime, they knew it was a crime. It makes it more aggravated, IMO, that they used badges and the authority of the state to commit that crime. The thought that this could have happened to my spouse or daughters makes my blood boil.

Click to expand...

For "normal" civilians, the fact that they were "armed" would have been an aggravating factor in most jurisdictions...must not be in TX ??

OC for ME said:

One fired and the other likely to return to work. One fired is good, the other likely returning to work, not good. Are the charges misdemeanors or felonies in TX? Or a combination of both?

Click to expand...

Well the female trooper who's already been fired faces these charges

Two Counts

Sec. 22.011. SEXUAL ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally or knowingly:
(A) causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person's consent;................................................................................................................................................................................................
(b) A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if: (my note, it seems all of these subsections can be used against her)
(1) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by the use of physical force or violence;
(2) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by threatening to use force or violence against the other person, and the other person believes that the actor has the present ability to execute the threat;
(3) the other person has not consented and the actor knows the other person is unconscious or physically unable to resist;.............
(8) the actor is a public servant who coerces the other person to submit or participate;
........................................................................
(f) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree

Click to expand...

Here's the kicker, according to Texas DPS's official website, anyone convicted of the section she's charged with (TPC 22.011) is required to register as a Sex Offender under Megan's Law for life!
https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/D....aspx?PageIndex=Index&QuestionID=308&AreaID=1

The other two charges she faces are both "official oppression"

§ 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant
acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if
he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or
to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment,
or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the
exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity,
knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual
harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts
under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to
act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or
purported capacity.
(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome
sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a
term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right,
privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

Needless to say, these are the least of her worries at this point....

As far as the male trooper, he's only being charged with stealing some kind of pain killer that the women had legally prescribed to them, I'm not sure if he's being charged with larceny for the value of the pills or some drug offense, I'll need more info there

New Article

Stakes High For Texas State Trooper Charged With Sexual Assault After Roadside Cavity Search
DALLAS (CBS 11 NEWS) - Experts say the stakes couldn’t be higher for the female state trooper who conducted this roadside cavity search of two North Texas women captured on dashcam video.

As we first reported Friday, a Dallas County Grand Jury indicted trooper Kelley Helleson on two counts of sexual assault and two counts of official oppression.

Peter Schulte is a Dallas attorney and police officer.

He says, “In the course of doing her job, by going beyond of what the law allowed her to do, she could find herself as a registered sex offender for the rest of her life, if she’s convicted.”

Click to expand...

They also mention that the male trooper is still on suspension, for all the details on that you'll have to click the link since I'm limited to an FUQ

kind of reminds me of what i have said before

a LEO can butt F*** you over the hood of the car and there ain't a thing you can do about it legally, until it goes to court. of course they will probably call it a cavity search

papa bear said:

kind of reminds me of what i have said before

a LEO can butt F*** you over the hood of the car and there ain't a thing you can do about it legally, until it goes to court. of course they will probably call it a cavity search

Click to expand...

I would imagine that if either of them go to prison, they may just be submitted to cavity searches, though possibly not by the jailers. If so I would call it poetic justice.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Just think how much more Freedom, and Liberty people will have when Texas secedes from the Union.

The police raped these women; hopefully they will be convicted of rape. Who knows though, in a backward state like Texas.

Click to expand...

First, there is no chance and no push to secede, so enough already. There is a good deal of liberty and freedom here, at least we don't have stop and frisk laws.

Second, f*ck off with your "backwards state like Texas." We are not progressive, which suits me just fine, but "backward" isn't the word to describe "non-progressive". What we do have it way too many northern and southern immigrants, both of whom bring nasty habits to our state.
This officer is such a poor indicator of the quality of law enforcement in general that it's not worth generalizing. However, I have seen a slide toward authoritarian attitude among police here, even in small towns. This is just an extreme extension of that attitude, combined with a sadistic streak all too often present in people like Saddam Hussein's kids. Absolute power and all that.

nonameisgood said:

First, there is no chance and no push to secede, so enough already. There is a good deal of liberty and freedom here, at least we don't have stop and frisk laws.

Second, f*ck off with your "backwards state like Texas." We are not progressive, which suits me just fine, but "backward" isn't the word to describe "non-progressive". What we do have it way too many northern and southern immigrants, both of whom bring nasty habits to our state.
This officer is such a poor indicator of the quality of law enforcement in general that it's not worth generalizing. However, I have seen a slide toward authoritarian attitude among police here, even in small towns. This is just an extreme extension of that attitude, combined with a sadistic streak all too often present in people like Saddam Hussein's kids. Absolute power and all that.

Click to expand...

We don't have stop and frisk in Washington (where Beretta lives) either. In fact, what she said is not technically incorrect, we have more constitutional liberties in WA, and our laws ensure much greater gun rights then in TX.

This would never have even occured in WA, I've just spent some time reading police policy manuals for WA departments, every single one says "officers are not to conduct a body cavity search in the field under any circumstances" Seattle police requires any cavity searches only be done upon receipt of a search warrant, and only be medical professionals at Harborview Hospital...

The fact that the officer even thought for a second this would be authorized is only evidence that your state doesn't have the same level of constitutional protection. in fact, nearly every liberal democrat state this would even be considered, to have officers, in the field, conduct a warrantless 'gina search to look for a few flakes of reefer, this is outright ridicolous, I guess this is how states ruled by "small government" republicans operate these days

EMNofSeattle said:

We don't have stop and frisk in Washington (where Beretta lives) either. In fact, what she said is not technically incorrect, we have more constitutional liberties in WA, and our laws ensure much greater gun rights then in TX.

This would never have even occured in WA, I've just spent some time reading police policy manuals for WA departments, every single one says "officers are not to conduct a body cavity search in the field under any circumstances" Seattle police requires any cavity searches only be done upon receipt of a search warrant, and only be medical professionals at Harborview Hospital...

The fact that the officer even thought for a second this would be authorized is only evidence that your state doesn't have the same level of constitutional protection. in fact, nearly every liberal democrat state this would even be considered, to have officers, in the field, conduct a warrantless 'gina search to look for a few flakes of reefer, this is outright ridicolous, I guess this is how states ruled by "small government" republicans operate these days

Click to expand...

This could happen in ANY state, so let's not make claims you CAN'T back up. The officers knew they were breaking the law, evidenced by the stolen scripts by one officer. IMO I believe the whole thing of the MJ claim was so the second officer could get her jollies. Hopefully she gets her jollies in prison also. And let's not pull the party line crapp, unless you can prove that either of them were republicans.

WalkingWolf said:

This could happen in ANY state, so let's not make claims you CAN'T back up. The officers knew they were breaking the law, evidenced by the stolen scripts by one officer. IMO I believe the whole thing of the MJ claim was so the second officer could get her jollies. Hopefully she gets her jollies in prison also. And let's not pull the party line crapp, unless you can prove that either of them were republicans.

Click to expand...

She searched after being directed by the male officer, what I want to know is, did that male officer have any command authority over the female officer? if he did and used said authority he should be facing the sex assault charges too, although I don't know if the concept of "command responsibility" is used in criminal law....

The stolen scripts are implied that the DA charged him because that would stick, the first article I cited states that the charge was filed on the women's claim that the scripts were missing after the stop.... not exactly that high as far as evidence goes.

And I think this is allowed, because the trooper is fighting through the union to get her job back, from what I know about unions, unions will generally fight for reinstatement if
A) The employee did not actually violate a written policy through actions and the charge is being overhyped
B) The employee did break policy but so have many other people who have not recieved equivelant discipline (firing) for breaking the policy.

Either circumstance indicates behavior like this has been encouraged or at least tolerated in the past.