Update – Second Trooper Suspended – Criminal Sexual Assault – Women Suing State Troopers Over Roadside Cavity Searches – No narcotics, contraband found during searches

updateTEXAS - The second of two Texas State troopers at the center of a lawsuit involving a roadside cavity search  has been suspended with pay.

The two women from Irving are suing Trooper David Farrell, Trooper Kelley Helleson and the director of the Department of Public Safety for what they call an unconstitutional search without probable cause.

On Thursday, the DPS said Farrell had been suspended with pay effective Dec. 21 pending the outcome of an investigation into the incident. Helleson had also been suspended with pay on Dec. 19.  (updated link)

Bumped. Another Media Report Here - But, let me just clear something up.  This was not a search; This was not reasonable; This was recorded forcible sexual assault by police officers under the auspices of their threatening authority.   Rape, period.

There were no attempts to search their pockets.  They were not told to empty their purses, or put their personal contents on the ground or top of car for inspection.  This was not a pat down – the officer never even checked the legs, socks or shoes.  The female officer was not conducting a search, she immediately put her fingers in the anus and vagina of both victims.

The officers proceeded to engage in unlawful activity against a victim who expressed no prior unlawful conduct, reason to suspect, refusal to comply with instruction, or noted contraband from visual search, or review, that would warrant such a gross violation.  In addition the first responding officer had already performed a background check on the driver and passenger using both their drivers liscenses.

Texas Penal Code – Section 22.011. Sexual Assault – § 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:

 (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;

(7)  the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by threatening to use force or violence against any person, and the other person believes that the actor has the ability to execute the threat;

(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, except that an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree if the victim was a person whom the actor was prohibited from marrying or purporting to marry or with whom the actor was prohibited from living under the appearance of being married under Section 25.01.

Both police officers should be immediately arrested and charged with armed, aggravated, criminal sexual assault with special circumstances (the assaulters were both armed).

TEXAS - Two Irving women are suing two Texas State troopers and the director of the Department of Public Safety after they say they were violated, during what they call an unconstitutional search, when they were subjected to a roadside cavity search in full view of the public and without probable cause.

On July 13, while driving along State Highway 161, Angel Dobbs and her niece Ashley Dobbs were stopped for littering by Trooper David Ferrell. In the dashcam video released by the women and their attorney, Ferrell can be heard telling the women they would both be cited for littering for throwing cigarette butts out of the car.

Farrell then returned to his cruiser and, in the video, can be heard calling female Trooper Kelley Helleson to the scene to search both women whom he said were acting weird.

While waiting for Helleson to arrive, Farrell asked Angel Dobbs to step out of the vehicle and began questioning her about marijuana use. In the video, the trooper is heard telling Dobbs he smelled marijuana coming from the vehicle while asking her several times how much pot was in the car.

Farrell: How much marijuana is in that car? And don’t lie to me.
Angel Dobbs: I don’t smoke marijuana.
Farrell: OK, how much marijuana is in that car? That’s my question.
Dobbs: I swear to God, I don’t smoke marijuana.
Farrell: I’m not asking you if you smoke it.
Dobbs: I don’t think there is any marijuana in that car.
Farrell: OK, when was the last time somebody smoked marijuana in that car?
Dobbs: I honestly don’t know. It’s my boyfriend’s car. So, I just borrowed it.
Farrell: There’s an odor of marijuana coming from the car and that’s why I’ve got to talk to you further about it. Um, and the more upfront you are the better it’s going to go for you. So, you’re telling me there’s no marijuana in that car?
Dobbs: To the best of my knowledge, no there is not.
Farrell: Is there anything hidden on your person?
Dobbs: On my person?
Farrell: On your person, in your shoes, in your underwear?
Dobbs: No. I feel like I’m being treated like a criminal right now. What’s going on?
Farrell: I’ve got a female Trooper up the road, she’s going to come down here and we’re just going to check a little bit more.

After Helleson arrived, she can be seen in the dashcam video putting on blue latex gloves to conduct a search of both women. According to the lawsuit, when Angel Dobbs asked about the gloves, Helleson “told her not to worry about that.”

In the lawsuit, Dobbs said the trooper conducted the cavity search on the roadside, illuminated by the police car’s headlights, in full view of any passing motorists.

“This has been an eye-opening experience for me. I’ve never been pulled over, never searched like this. I was totally violated over there a few minutes ago… this is so embarrassing to me,” Angel Dobbs said on the video.

“I’ve never been so humiliated or so violated or felt so molested in my entire life,” Angel Dobbs told NBC 5.

Dobbs said she never gave consent for the trooper to “frisk, pat-down, search or otherwise touch her” and that she never gave consent for Farrell to search her vehicle — which he can be seen doing in the dashcam video while the cavity search was under way.

Dobbs said she was powerless to stop it. “What are you going to say? What’s going to happen to you if you challenge that authority?” she said.

With the cavity search concluded, Farrell then asked Dobbs about prescription medications found in the car. Dobbs said they were for her thyroid and for migraines. According to the lawsuit, Dobbs also suffers from a medical condition that was irritated by the search.

Meanwhile, Helleson can then be seen performing the same cavity search on Dobbs’ niece, Ashley.

“It’s because somebody is a daily smoker in that car. OK, you can attribute it to that,” Farrell can be heard saying on the recording.

The lawsuit further alleges that Helleson performed searches on both women, touching both their anus and vaginas, without changing the latex gloves between searches.

“I don’t think anybody needs to have to feel, or go through what we went through,” Ashley Dobbs said. “It crosses my mind every day. It’s humiliating,” she said.

After searching the entire car and finding no narcotics, Farrell then administered a DWI test that Dobbs passed, the lawsuit said. The women were then issued warnings for littering and released at the scene.

The lawsuit goes on to say that a bottle of prescribed hydrocodone was missing from Dobbs’ car and purse after the search. The women returned to the scene of the traffic stop the next day to search for the medication, but it was nowhere to be found.

Their lawyers say the search was illegal and a complaint about it was filed in August but that DPS Texas Rangers who investigated the incident took no action.

“This is outside the constitutional grounds by a mile. It’s not even close,” attorney Scott Palmer said. “This has to stop. These two need to be stopped. There’s no telling how many other people they’ve done this to and we hope that others come forward.”

Attorney Charles Soechting Jr. said his father was a DPS trooper and he has great respect for the agency. “But in this instance they have completely failed the citizens of Texas,” Soechting said.

Soechting said a records request to DPS produced no policy that allows for cavity search of any suspect in public.

“What we’re dealing with is a Class C misdemeanor. It does not justify any type of pat-down, let alone an invasive search of cavities of women,”” he said.

Calls for comment to the DPS Austin headquarters were not returned Tuesday.  (more)

UPDATE: On Wednesday, the DPS told NBC 5 Helleson is suspended with pay. There had been no other suspensions as of Wednesday night.

The women are requesting a trial by jury and are asking for unspecified, compensatory and exemplary damages and interest as well as recovery of attorney’s fees and court costs.

The Dallas County District Attorney’s office told NBC 5 it has received the case and will refer it to a grand jury in January.

About these ads
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, A New America, Communist, media bias, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

121 Responses to Update – Second Trooper Suspended – Criminal Sexual Assault – Women Suing State Troopers Over Roadside Cavity Searches – No narcotics, contraband found during searches

  1. cajunkelly says:

    Another sign of where we’re headed:

    It seems the power hungry are having a little trouble initiating this law. More than one town meeting has been cancelled due to “concerns” over public reaction.

  2. TandCrumpettes says:

    Are there any smokers here? (cigarettes, I mean – I don’t know when or where the term changed to mean pot but I don’t play that game. Smoke = tobacco.)

    Yes, I admit I am a filthy, smelly, good for nothing smoker. I hope that doesn’t sway anyone’s opinion away from my awesomeness. ha! Anyway, one thing that really sucks about smoking (among all of the other obvious things) is that one cigarette out of say, 10 cartons smells just like marijuana. Now you’re stuck smelling like pot. Your home/car reeks of it. I’ve always wondered what I would do if I were stopped by a police officer just after finishing one of those weed cigarettes. Would he actually believe me, if he were a non-smoker, that every so often tobacco smells like pot?

    That, plus modern cars do not have ashtrays, and knowing I will get pulled over for littering…I stopped smoking in my car all together.

    This is just bizarre. On the one hand, I don’t doubt he smelled marijuana – if there are any other smokers here, you should know what I’m talking about. The aroma of pot is so distinct, so is tobacco. The two can not be mistaken but…that one cig out of 1,000. It smells just like pot and I don’t know why.

    But he said he observed them throwing butts out the window twice. I actually know nothing about pot smoking. Would one smoke quite that much? One joint after the other, much like we do with cigarettes? One thing I DO know about joints is that the cherry is not quite as flammable. In the dark, a tobacco cigarette will strike against the ground and spark…smell of pot or no, it should have been obvious the gals were just smoking normal cigarettes.

    Besides, if he hated litterbugs so much, why did he wait for them to do it twice?

    • Arkindole says:

      Let’s face it. They were initially stopped for throwing a cigarette butt out the window. Littering…. Now, that’s what I call law enforcement priority. This LEO had something in mind way before the lights went on. Couldn’t be profiling the stoner U of Dallas cuties…Naw…

      • michellc says:

        I’ve heard of stopping people during burn bans for throwing butts out the window, but it’s honestly the first time I’ve heard of someone being pulled over for littering with a butt.

        The problem with cops is they either don’t know the law or they think they’re above the law. If you go up to 10 cops and ask them if it’s legal for them to search a car during a traffic stop without the owner’s permission or a warrant and at least 3 of the 10 will tell you it is. Ask those same cops if it’s legal to search someone’s property if they get a call of suspicious activity at the property without a warrant and at least 5 out of 10 will tell you if they look through the windows and see something that looks suspicious and they get no response they have the right to go in without a warrant.

        I’ve been around cops pretty much my entire life because I’ve had family members who were cops and it has always amazed of how ignorant they are of the constitution. Far too many think their badge gives them the authority to do as they please. I couldn’t tell you how many I’ve had reply to me when I tell them if someone has a sign posted NO Trespassing on a shut gate without permission or a warrant they are not allowed to enter the property that their badge says NO Trespassing signs do not apply to them and they can enter property they want and all they have to say is they had suspicion of a crime taking place.

        • jordan2222 says:

          I seriously doubt that cops have to pass any written tests about the Constitution. You would think they would be required to have a thorough understanding of citizens rights besides Miranda.

          • This would change if we implemented a few “common sense” laws when it comes to the police. Law #1 if an officer cites you for an offense or arrests you, he needs to be able to cite the precise statute you have violated and recite it word for word. If he is unable to do so then he is automatically guilty of an armed kidnapping and gets a mandatory 5 years in prison.

            That provides incentives for the officers to know the law (currently impossible) so it also provides an incentive to dramatically reduce the amount of current rules and regs governing every potion of our lives.

            We could go on and on but the take home message is that the way to end this kind of abuse by police is to stop treating them as demigods, and treat them as what they are – government employees empowered to use force against others. When police mess up (as it appears they did here) they do not get “suspended with pay”. And at worst may eventually be “terminated”. They go prison for a long nasty stay. I would not be sad to see penalties for crimes committed by police on duty to be 10x the statutory maximum, since the same crime committed by she charged with enforcing the law is worse than if your average joe were to commit it.

    • Sharon says:

      “I admit I am a filthy, smelly, good for nothing smoker.”

      The only people who would describe you in those terms are the people trying to control all of our lives. I’ve never smoked in my life, and I’m here to tell you that you are welcome (with your cigarettes) in my home, and we’ll figure out where to drop the ashes.

      Even if they threw three packs of cigs out the window this is not ok. What we have here is the developing result of the truism: you put enough laws and regs on the books, any citizen will be found in violation of one or more of them at any time on any day.

      That’s the nature of reality in Madagascar where my 70 year old childhood friend is serving as a fulltime volunteer nurse after a lifetime as nurse missionary there. There are women’s prisons filled with women who have never been charged, but were put in prison when they went to get groceries or whatever. The police can pick them up and lock them up–and there they sit indefinitely with no specific reason given to them, no paperwork cut, no nothing. (And they will eat when and if their families figure out where they are and bring them food to prepare in the prison yard) Some of them remain in prison for weeks on end, or longer, and they are sometimes then released without ever being charged. They got arrested in the first place, BTW, because some police officer got irritated by something they did or just felt like arresting somebody. This is “norm” in much of the world. Our Constitution actually WAS something special.

      Eventually perhaps we will all (and I’m starting with me here) get a clear understanding (experiential, unfortunately) of the reasons the founding fathers specifically outlined our RIGHTS in the Amendments. The body of Constitution consists almost entirely of defining the limits of government…those nasty “negative liberties” as boy prez puts it–specifying what government cannot do in terms of its form and actions. The Amendments specify OUR PERSONAL LIBERTIES, what the government may NOT do to us as individuals.

      The founding fathers came from situations where this event was common. So they specified it may not happen here. Except now–“here” is “here” any more.

      Madagascar, here we come.

      • ottawa925 says:

        Sharon, I smoke, but I don’t smoke in the house. I cannot think of one fellow smoker that has never been mindful of ppl who don’t smoke. Most smokers wish they could quit. But I would NEVER think to light up in someone’s home. NEVER. I don’t want it in MY home, why in the heck would I think it’s OK in your home. Smokers are very happy to go outside and have their cigarette. And NO to Tand who thinks maybe normal pot smokers would just smoke one after another like cigs. Nooooooo way. You would have to be a junkie on other stuff crack and heroin, etc., to even think to smoke joint after joint. It just would not be the norm.

        • Sharon says:

          OK–out on the patio then. ;) I was just harking back to childhood courtesies–no one in our immediate family smoked. Some of my uncles did, and others who were occasional guests in our home. My mother always kept 2-3 nice ashtrays in the cupboards, and if a smoker was a guest, it was common courtesy to set an ashtray out for them.

          The way smokers are treated today, publicly and privately, just shrieks of personal liberty issues. It has nothing to do with health issues. If it did, habitual or occasional drinkers/users of adult beverages would be treated the same way.

          • Chip Bennett says:

            I think smoking is a dirty, nasty, horribly unhealthful habit. But I support 100% the right of individuals to choose to engage in that activity.

            (But that doesn’t mean I’m going to let you smoke in my house. The smell permeates, and the smoke gives me headaches and drives my sinuses crazy.)

            My biggest complaint with smokers (in general) is the littering. Far too many smokers rail with righteous indignation over their individual liberties being infringed, and then turn around and abdicate their personal responsibility by dropping their cigarette butts everywhere.

            But smoking itself? Yeah, I agree: it is a legal activity involving a legal substance. If a restaurant wants to allow smoking, I can simply choose to patronize a different restaurant (yay, free market!). The government need not get involved; especially wannabe statists in local governments who keep trying to force-feed smoking bans.

            • TandCrumpettes says:

              I agree the littering is a problem. People will stomp out a cigarette when a public ashtray is 5 feet away! Sheesh.

              The least you can do is stomp it and pick up the butt.

            • jordan2222 says:

              Most veterans still field strip cigarettes.

              • cajunkelly says:

                Ya beat me to it. DH introduced me to field stripping. :) I used to ask him to do mine, cuz I was afraid I’d burn my fingers. Finally got the hang of it.

        • TandCrumpettes says:

          Yeah, I didn’t think pot smokers did one after the other! I wouldn’t know from experience, but I would have guessed they don’t. If the officer witnessed them throwing butts twice, that alone should have tipped him off that they were only smoking cigarettes!

      • TandCrumpettes says:

        Aww, thanks Sharon!

        Smoking’s more trouble than its worth. Unfortunately I’m addicted like a maniac. I could quit, but I need rehab to do it. Lock me in a room for a month, take away all of my responsibilities – let me yell, stomp, and break things, give me a steady flow of Arby’s and I think I’d be okay.

        One of these days, though, I swear I’m going to do it. I’m at the point now where I’m tired of doing it.Its not “cool” or “fun” anymore. I just do it to keep withdrawal away.

        They ain’t kiddin’ when they say, “don’t ever start!” ha!

        • Sharon says:

          Understand! ;) If you substitute “diet coke” for “smoke” in your comment, that’s me. Can’t deal with the withdrawal. Oh, well.

          None of us are getting out of here alive anyway. 8O

          • jordan2222 says:

            I think we should all be addicted to love. My motto: We are here to help one another, not change others to our way of thinking.

        • jordan2222 says:

          I have been both a smoker and non smoker. I have quit for periods of 8 years, 5 years and many times for a year or two. I seem to always find them again. I am looking at a box of Chantix on my desk as I write this trying to get the courage to do it again. I do not know of anything more addictive since they started putting unnatural crap in them.

          • WeeWeed says:

            NO Chantix. Do NOT take the pill. Call me crazy, but there’s something WORSE in IT. Yes, I smoke – and have also had relatives/friends take that to quit.

            • jordan2222 says:

              Please explain. I am aware of most of the side affects including the suicidal ones.

              • TandCrumpettes says:

                Chantix is awesome – but I can’t afford it. I don’t smoke enough to equal cost! On two occassions I’ve said, “Okay…enough. I’ll take Chantix for one month and just try really, really hard…”

                Nah, I need it for at least 2 months. Probably more. I’ve decided the next time someone gives me crap for smoking, I’m going to say, “Fine, I quit. But you pay for the Chantix. Seeing as you care about me so much…you shouldn’t mind.”

                I didn’t have any side effects except nausea immediately after taking it. A great big meal always took care of that.

                The dreams were awesome….beautifully awesome. I dreamed of my husband (aww, isn’t that just sweet? ha!). Okay, okay…maybe he frequently looked and sounded like a certain actor or something….maybe it was just someone I saw at the grocery just passing by…maybe it was nobody in particular, just a dream-generated person. But deep down I KNEW it was my husband, he just looked different… a lot different! ha!

                But let me tell ya, those dreams aren’t “side effects,” they’re favors. Great big favors. I love my hubs with every single fiber of my being. I would never EVER compromise that in real life – but those dreams….so vivid and real, it takes several hours the next day to sort everything out and conclude it even WAS a dream.

                You’re a bit like the stereotypical hungover, wandering about, scratching your head and wondering, “What the heck did I do last night? Did I REALLY…no, I couldn’t have! Could I? I had to have…I can still smell his cologne…but I don’t remember going to the theme park! Did I? Wha? I should check the odometer on my car….Funny, I don’t remember ever meeting George Clooney!”

                My hubs smokes as well, even more than I do. He’s fortunate enough to get Chantix discounted from his work. UNfortunately, he’s heard the horror stories and refuses to even try it.

                I don’t know how to tell him about the dreams without implicating myself! ha!

                • cajunkelly says:

                  My insurances pays for Chantix IN FULL, no co pay even. (sigh) I fall into that “rare” category in that with the second pill I broke out in hives and couldn’t breathe. So I have a full month’s supply, sans 2 pills, sitting on top of the fridge….right next to a carton of Marlboro lights.

                  • TandCrumpettes says:

                    How terrible! You’re so lucky and yet…not so much! ha!

                    Chantix is indeed very powerful. Before I got a handle on how much I needed to eat with it, it would make me so sick to my stomach I had to lie down for hours.

                    Once I got a handle on that, I was good to go. I’ve suggested to my husband to get the cheap script for himself, then just give the pills to me. I don’t know if that’s exactly kosher but his smoking cessation program at work doesn’t include me! I’d be all over it if I were!

      • Dabigragu says:

        You’re one in a million.

    • ftsk420 says:

      People usually don’t smoke joints like that people share joints. I have never in my life came across a cigg that smelled like weed but I guess it’s possible. I have been pulled over and had a trooper tell me he smelled weed in the car which I knew was untrue and he told me he’s from Jamaica and knows the smell. I had been taken out of the car made to walk 10 paces in front of the car and had to stay on my knees with my hands on my head on the side of the highway while they searched my car. No weed was found but they did find a pipe but the pipe was brand new never used and not illegal.

      • TandCrumpettes says:

        Yep, its possible! Like I said, its maybe 1 out of 1,000 cigarettes – its like winning a very unfortunate lottery. You just light up and…shoo whee!

        I have no idea what causes it. Maybe that will be my next research project!

        • Wraith says:

          My theory is that there’s likely a couple of wild MJ plants growing in the same area as the tobacco fields. A bit of ditchweed gets caught up in the tobacco harvest and poof, there you have a couple of random smokes out of that batch that smell like ganja.

          When I smoked, I noticed the same thing. Usually with Camels.

        • cajunkelly says:

          Been there, done that TandC….glad to know I’m not losing my mind. :) As you say, it’s not often, but once in a blue moon you light up and WHOAH!

          • TandCrumpettes says:

            YES! Its unreal, huh?

            I don’t think nonsmokers really “get” it unless they happen to be around a smoker frequently. Its easy to say, “No way, cigs and pot smell totally different…”

            I’ve come home from shopping or whatnot just as my hubby got the lucky weed-cig at home. Walk in the door and…bam…unmistakable odor of pot. If I weren’t a smoker myself I might have the urge to ask, “What the heck have you been doing while I was away?!”

            Let’s see, my hubs and I together have to buy a carton every 3-4 days. Gross, huh? I smoke about a pack per day but he does about two, I guess. So we smoke a lot.

            I think the last time we got the weed cig was maybe 6 months ago or more. Definitely this year but long enough ago I can’t remember exactly. You should get a prize or something when you get it….ha!

  3. jordan2222 says:

    Since they taped it, maybe they believe they can do this?

  4. tara says:

    Anyone else thinking that Angel should have put up a fight? That’s what I would have done. I would hever allow myself to be the subect of that kind of search. People need to know their rights.

    • mung says:

      Yes that is when you request the supervisor be called to the scene or you say take me to the station.

    • thefirstab says:

      Hi Tara – enjoy your thoughtful comments. Had to chime in on this one. Yes, run, scream your head off, FIGHT. Attorney can sort it out later.
      I experienced a terrifying time in my teens, in an area close to my hometown. I can’t link from this tablet (its not the tablet, it’s me). Look up Gerard Schaefer, was a local sheriff’s deputy at the time. He enjoyed stopping young girls for some minor infraction, and would then drag them into the woods and do despicable things before killing them. One survived IIRC and provided enough info to catch him. My friends and I were in his target demographic.

    • jordan2222 says:

      It is very easy for all of us to say what you should or would do. IDK. Maybe holler for help like someone is trying to kill or rape you. A frantic, serious call for HELP usually gets attention.

    • John Galt says:

      “Anyone else thinking that Angel should have put up a fight?”

      No, she would have been beaten, pepper sprayed and perhaps Tasered to death.

  5. sundance says:

    This is beyond outrageous. Way beyond. I hope she sues the hell out of thos police officers personally, as well as the department. They should be fired immediately. If you have not watched that video – you should. That is the most unreal violation of rights. Sickening abuse of power. Fire them both and sue the damn department into oblivion. Period.

    • stellap says:

      I’m also asking why they allowed themselves to be violated in this way. Ask to be taken to the station. No way should any of this have taken place.

      • sundance says:

        The first young lady says she had never even been pulled over before. Based on the tone of her voice, and the phrasing she used, she certainly appeared to me to be highly credible and honest in the way she was handling herself.

        That said, perhaps she just didn’t know better. And even “if” she did, I mean, seriously. These are armed police officers, with multiple police cars surrounding you, I’m sure they were both freaked out…. These young girls were just massively violated.

        If someone, anyone, let alone an authority figure, touched my daughter like that, it would be their last time touching anything. Promise.

      • michellc says:

        Some people are raised to never question authority and not everyone even realizes they can fight back or are too scared to fight.
        Sadly far too many people in this country don’t have a clue what the constitution says. Then you add the fear factor in and a cop(s) who prey on the weak and uninformed and this is what happens.

        I’ve been around cops all my life and have known the good and the bad and have known many who would have used the intimidation of their badge and gun to use their fear against them.

        • Little Laughter says:

          When my son became a teenager, and would be going out with his friends to the mall or movies, ONE of the things I always told him was to always do whatever a policeman instructed. I was thinking of how cops would stop and question a group of teenaged boys and I didn’t want him to give the officer any reason to give him trouble. I believed (nievely) that if he was respectful and did as he was told, he would not be subjected to anything more than a few questions about what they were doing, etc. I know better now. He now knows to be respectful, but to be aware of his rights. Even if you have been in a car accident and have done nothing wrong, DO NOT give a statement without an attorney present. I never had a reason growing up not to trust police. I don’t trust anyone- NOT ANYONE- anymore. (Save for my family and God).

    • maggiemoowho says:

      How can they violate a person like that. That male officer probably gets off watching his female buddy do that to women. Wonder how many women have been raped and violated by those officers in the past. Those women need to sue those two officers for everything they own and anything they think about owning. I bet more women come forward after seeing that video.

      • thefirstab says:

        That’s what I’m thinking. Women especially are trained to think of the police as someone “safe”, just like small children who are abused, most know something’s not right but allow it anyway.

    • Josh says:

      Watching the video, “Officer” Helleson went for the breasts, vagina and anus ONLY.
      “Officer” Helleson did NOT check the shoes, for example, where many a possessor of drugs hide their contraband. “Officer” Helleson as well as “Officer” Farrell were simply out to get a *fix* of their own. This is one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen!

      To the Dobbs ladies – Go get ‘em!

      I believe even Handel (handelonthelaw.com) would tell you that you’ve got a case.

      • sundance says:

        That’s the very first thing I said when watching this ridiculous nonsense. “they never even checked their pockets first”, or asked them to put the contents on the car.

        This was straight up RAPE. Not only should BOTH of those police assaulters be fired, they should be arrested. ARRESTED !

        • Josh says:

          Ditto, sundance.
          I can’t put this out of my mind. I had to watch it again to confirm something and yes I saw correctly.
          Sorry about the language but it is what it is:
          Victim 1 probe: anus, vagina
          Victim 2 probe: anus, vagina

          IF, IF, and I’m saying IF this were okay in ANY way WHICH IT IS NOT the procedure would be reversed with each victim along with a glove change.

          Little girls are taught to wipe from front to back for obvious reasons.

          I wish there were something to wipe this from my mind permanently. Arrrgggggghhhhhh!

          • Sharon says:

            Josh, I think what you said needed to be said. You did it as a gentleman and with dignity. Sometimes saying what is so means saying things we have never ever in our lives had to say…and it can be done with courtesy. Thank you.

        • ftsk420 says:

          Was there any police dogs called.

        • myopiafree says:

          Sundance – You are RIGHT. I assumed the two did this “pocket turn” off camera. But they had no right to 1) Search the car – with NO PERMISSION and 2) Do a body-search – with NO PERMISSION. Yes “Car Cams” do pay off – for justice.

    • Sharon says:

      Well, ok. I watched it. There’s not enough brain bleach or heart bleach in the whole world. Legalized sexual assault. Exactly like the TSA.

      • jordan2222 says:

        This was not “groping.” It looked like penetration to me.

        In retrospect, they should have gone to the hospital and reported sexual assault. There would have been DNA as a result of the glove and that would have proved their allegations. How else could that be explained or defended in a criminal trial?

        We should all be watching this one, Sharon.. Maybe it’s worth devoting some space here to it. This is BAD. really BAD. You can bet it is not their first rodeo.

  6. czarowniczy says:

    Wish I could say this is unusual but reports of police sexually abusing women they’ve detained are not that unusual, they just aren’t widely reported that often. There’s a minor conspiracy in the press to keep these things local, if they are reported at all. In the last few years we’ve had an uncomfortable number of women abducted and/or assaulted by police and sheriff’s deputies in New Orleans. This includes domestic violence but also includes police officers in uniform ‘arresting’ women on the street, putting them into their marked units and assaulting them.

    This doesn’t take into account one of our police sergeants now on death row convicted of ordering a drug dealer he was protecting and working with to kill a woman who’d made an ‘excessive force’ complaint against one of his squad. It doesn’t include female officer (also on death row) who – during the commission of a robbery she was committing at a restaurant that had hired her for security details (irony there)- murdered her partner and the two owners of the restaurant in front of their children, execution-style. As a sidebar, when NOPD was searching her house they found her father’s body, she’d (allegedly) killed and buried him under the house but as they already had her on three murders, one more trial would have been overkill.

    Police are hired from the general population and despite what their cheering sections say, they are no better or worse than the populations they serve. I had officers working with me I’d trust with my kids’ live and others I wouldn’t trust to take out my trash. Just have to find the bad ones and make an example out of them.

  7. Chip Bennett says:

    What’s the problem here? The officers were just training for their moonlighting jobs as TSA agents.

    • waltherppk says:

      The problem which exists for some “public servants” is that they continue breathing which enables them to do more in the way of what they think is “public service”. In a simpler time that “public service” related problem would get fixed …one way or another.
      In the not too distant future it seems entirely plausible that some “shortcut solutions” for remedying such problems of overstaffing involving incompetent public servants could become commonplace as the patience of the public ends for putting up with such tyrannical nonsense, and such problems get buried the old fashioned way. How much unacceptable crap are people expected to peaceably endure before there is serious blowback ?

  8. Gary Chadwick says:

    What was going through those troopers minds the next time they went to bed?

  9. “Suspended with pay” – isn’t that more or less a paid vaycay?

    • Tom Aig says:

      Agree with you professor – what kind of “punishment” is free vacation time that is unearned? I notice that this seems to be a common practice for cops and schoolteachers that are suspected of wrongdoing.

  10. sputzie says:

    The Officer smelled marijuana in the vehicle so hence the search. There was nothing illegal or worthy of a lawsuit shown on the tapes, an embarrassing moment for the women but nothing more. The officers were well within their rights to check these women and the suit is sure to fail. Littering is littering i know my blood boils every time i see a smoker toss their butts out an open car window. Nothing like having thousands of butts littering our roadsides.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      Really? The smell of what may potentially be stale marijuana is sufficient probable cause to perform a cavity search?

      We apparently have irreconcilable differences regarding what constitutes reasonable search and seizure.

    • Sharon says:

      Wow. This is what we’re up against, folks….bunches and bunches o’ folks who apparently have no idea of the value of our Constititional protections, those inalienable rights given to us by our Creator.

      They will be the capos Aufseherinnen at the camp.

      (Apparently “capo” was not the right word— Solzhenitsyn referenced them in his writings. I think it was a transliteration. Short word. Anybody know what I was after there??! If ya do, let me know….I’ll go check something and see if I can find it….the word I substituted is the German for the female prison guards.)

    • sundance says:

      Just because a person “says” they smell something does not give them the right to shove their fingers up your ass. EVEN IN OBAMA’S AMERICA.

      Jumpin’ Bananas…. have you really gone that far in your own conception of permissible? Seriously?

      Please tell me that comment was meant to be sarcastic humor.

      • John Galt says:

        “Just because a person “says” they smell something does not give them the right to shove their fingers up your ass. EVEN IN OBAMA’S AMERICA.”

        Perhaps they can’t do that roadside (until the next SCOTUS decision). But they could have arrested her for littering and conducted the search at the jail.


      • diwataman says:

        Clearly people can hide whole bricks of cocaine up their arses and these woman were clearly drug dealers because only drug dealers throw cigarette butts out the window. It’s hard being a smoker these days, now I have to worry about some cop sticking their fingers up my arse.

    • stellap says:

      That’s crazy. If there was probable cause for an arrest, the officer should have taken the women back to the police station and booked them. At that time, before they were admitted to jail, they would have been “searched”. That is the correct way to handle a situation such as this. This officer had no right to search their car or their persons without a warrant. If he asked and was granted permission, then a search of the car could be done. To do a cavity search at the roadside just isn’t done. Never.

    • Josh says:

      Sorry sputzie, but you’re an idiot.

    • akathesob says:

      Oh boy. Back that bus up I found a missing ryder…

    • michellc says:

      I hope someday you’re driving down a dark highway and oops your taillight is out without your knowledge and you get pulled over and some jerk cop says your car smells funny and sticks his big fat finger up your bum checking for drugs.
      After all he would have full rights to pull you over for not obeying the law and driving around with a burned out tail light and then he has full rights to stick his finger up your bum because your car smells just a little funny.

      • cajunkelly says:

        These days it’s the old “license plate illumination device” ploy. How many of you *ever* check the light bulb over your license plate?
        It used to be “failed to signal lane change”. Now they’ve found an even easier reason to pull you over.

        Check that “illumination device” over your license plates, Treepers!

        • ftsk420 says:

          I have been pulled over for that a few times. I have also been pulled over for something hanging from my rear view mirror.

          • cajunkelly says:

            Yep, another of their little-known laws they use to harass…”obstructed view”.

          • cajunkelly says:

            Yep, another of their little-known laws they use to harass…”obstructed view”.

            • ftsk420 says:

              I was pulled over by NJ state trooper he said I was doing 70mph now I knew the car I was driving was incapable of doing those speeds in a short distance. I explained to the cops that I was lost I also explained that the car was an 89 Camary and in it’s best day couldn’t get to 70mph in such a short distance. He came back with a ticket not for speeding but for the air freshener hanging from the mirror.

    • Until we have a device capable of detecting and recording a smell for a later court date “smell” should be an unacceptable sense to use in the justification for an abridgement of liberties. Police have lied about “smelling weed” more times than I can count to justify something or other they are not supposed to be doing. Additionally since technology now allows for it I would like to see all officers required to have dashcams and cameras on their person, recording audio and video, every single moment that he or she is on duty. Without this dashcam there would be no case. If an officer is accused of wrongdoing and the on person and dashcam footage “disappears” (as it so often does), then they should be treated as automatically guilty of the offense accused of. Alternatively “loss of video footage of an accused crime” could be a felony for which an officer would be found summarily guilty of, and would carry a sentence of (at least) several years in the pokey.

      There is ZERO reason for the people to pay mega dollars to train, equip, and pay government employees like these officers, and to turn around and be treated in such a way. If you were hired as a private security agent at a company, and you saw one of your bosses break a company rule would you shove your hand up his/her butt? If it doesn’t work int he first situation it does not work here.

      • John Galt says:

        “Police have lied about “smelling weed” more times than I can count”

        They don’t even have to lie anymore, just give the drug dog the signal to bark.

    • Lawabidingcitizen says:

      I’m sure if this was done to your wife, daughter, mother, aunt, cousin, neighbor etc you would welcome it. Shoot if you were say the passenger I’m sure you’d tell the officer to make sure she’s thorough. Disgusting filth. littering of a cigarette butt is NOTHING compared to the humiliation, rape and invasion of privacy these two INNOCENT women experienced.

    • ftsk420 says:

      Come on of all the times I have come in contact with police I have never in my life seen a cavity search done like that. The situation could have been avoided by calling in a dog to sniff for drugs. If the dog give no response on the women or car there is no need to do any search. I know many cops who just try and get lucky and some do. Again I have never seen police do a search like that.

  11. sputzie says:

    if you cant beat em, just censor em. Typical.

  12. John Galt says:

    “What we’re dealing with is a Class C misdemeanor. It does not justify any type of pat-down, let alone an invasive search of cavities of women,”

    SCOTUS has no problem with arresting, incarcerating and conducting invasive searches on people charged with very minor offenses, punishable only by a small fine. Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 US 318.

  13. LHlaredo says:

    This nothing new, this a basic annoyance if you live in South Texas and male, but over here we get search by School District Police, local PD, Sheriff Dept, State Troopers, Border Patrol, ICE and basically anybody else with a badge. The reason being were so close to the border that the assumption of doing something illegal is the general rule.

  14. Knuckledraggingwino says:

    This was not merely an unreasonable search and seizure, it was a sexual assault. The officer actually wearing the glove might have been a putative woman, but I have non doubt that she is a lesbian. Given the fact that the department teaches hygienic procedure, the failure to change gloves between women and the search of the anus before the vagina was an intentional, potentially dangerous physical assaul.

    I have a well deserved reputation for being lecherous, but even I intentionally chose to not watch the video because it would have been a further violation of these women’s dignity.

    These two “police officers” are precisely what the founding fathers were worried about when they wrote the Secon Amendment. It is unfortunate that hey did not accost women who had the courage to shoot them for sexually assaulting them under color of authority.

  15. cajunkelly says:

    There is a serious disconnect between telling the driver he’s going to simply write her a citation for littering and walking back to his car, then deciding he “smelled marijuana”.

    I think he decided she wasn’t appropriately respectful of his authority (she was laughing) and decided to “teach her some respect”.

    There are some obvious breaks in the video. What was edited out before the LEA released it?

  16. Lawabidingcitizen says:

    Omg this is disgusting….. RAPE… no change of glove and she did anal cavity and THEN vagina… they are suspended with pay?????= vacation.

    and can someone with better speakers listen to when she’s asking him which one to search first? He says the white shirt and if i’m not mistaken then says something along the lines that he thinks they might not find anything but he still wants them searched…. I have crappy speakers.

  17. enough says:

    Wow. So I wonder if these poor ladies had to deal with a bacterial infection after this? Or worse…what if one of the ladies had an STD? I did not see her change the glove from one search to the other. This looks like a case of rape….nothing less.

  18. Knuckledraggingwino says:

    These women are fortunate thatnthey were not accosted by the Portland Oregon police. Back in the 1990s police responding to a 911 call to a Portland cop found the officer’s nude wife laying on their bed in a pool of blood with a massive gunshot wound “in the area of her right buttocks.”. The responding officers made no arrest because they accepted their collegue’s explanation that he had neglected to unload his 12 gauge before “playing around with it,” and had concluded that there was “no evidence of domestic violence.”. The wife actually survived the horrif injury from the load of buckshot that travelled upwards and forwards through her torso, inflicting such massive trauma that she required 50 units of blood.

    The Portland SERT unit didn’t appreciate it when I suggested that their department should be issuing Kevlar condoms to them so that they can practice safe shotgun sex. It became an amusing confrontation.

  19. froggielegs says:

    This might be a stupid question but, can this female cop be charged with attempted murder? I mean does she know if the first woman has Aids/HIV at the time of the search? There are many cases out there where people with HIV/Aids and Hepatitis are charged with attempted murder for spitting on cops. Can’t the same charge be given here being as the cop didn’t know and didn’t change gloves?

  20. Gary Chadwick says:

    Why did they want the job? What do they do on the job? What pleases them about the job? Do they harbor any hostility towards anyone due to what was done or wasn’t done before or after being on the job? Do they have any mentally unsound actions due to that and those? Do they have any thoughts or fantasies that they found very pleasing after being involved in those types of actions? Ect. What does that make them? EXACTLY!

  21. Gary Chadwick says:

    What are the chances they would protect criminals that are like them?

    • Gary Chadwick says:

      Check the facts and the stats in the City of North Miami Beach,Florida. You can go to YouTube channel “NMBCDV” to see and read some of that and more. Be sure to read ALL of the Descriptions. For your own good. Their actions are spreading to every town,city and state at an alarming level. That channel will lead you to more that is so important to see. Who could have prevented the Sandy Hook Massacre instead of assisting in it? If your viewing and reading comprehension is good you may be able to figure that out too. Hint : He went to the shooting range with the shooter and his mother.

  22. janc1955 says:

    I’m not usually given to conspiracy theories, but as soon as I read this (don’t have the stomach to watch the video, sorry), I immediately assumed the two cops work as a team, and whenever the male cop stops a female driver he instinctively knows won’t put up a fight, he calls the female cop (who is always “just up the road”) and she arrives, snaps on her gloves, and goes to town. One or the other, or both cops, are getting off on this … and yes, I mean sexually. There is absolutely NO OTHER EXPLANATION for this behavior. Predators easily pick out their victims. Where I’d venture to guess most women who post here at the Treehouse would not let this happen to them, there are plenty of women who are less feisty, for a number of reasons. And predators can see the difference immediately. These 2 cops are predators. This just has my blood boiling.

    • jordan2222 says:

      As I said in a previous post, I wish they had gone to the hospital and reported they had been sexually assaulted. They would both have DNA in or on them from the glove and from the glove being used on one and then the other. How would they ever explain that in a criminal trial?

      I will not presuppose what the two cops did afterward but I doubt that this was the first time and would not be surprised to see others come forward.

      I sent this to both of my daughters explaining what to do if they ever find themselves in this situation. Run like hell, screaming HELP and/or RAPE all the while.

      We will sort it all out later.

      This is one of those situations in which a father would have a hard time not taking justice into his own hands.

  23. onlyinbama says:

    I noticed the victims pain pills were gone. This “team” of cops sounds more like they wanted a bribe. The females were assaulted while the male got any “goods” he could find.

  24. Josh says:

    Cop violates the 4th Amendment and arrests person for exercising his rights.

    This is Texas DPS Highway Patrol Officer David Farrell using excessive force when he didn’t get consent to search a vehicle on 11/07/2009 in Sanger Texas at exit 477 on I35. A K-9 unit from Corinth Texas was called in and it alerted (false alert given by the handler, Officer Carson Crow). The vehicle was then unlawfully searched, nothing was found Man arrested for false charge of Resisting Arrest.

  25. Josh says:

    Aunt and niece as well as their attorney, Scott Palmer, both appear in this news video.

  26. Gary Chadwick says:

    Most of the ones I’ve come in contact with walk around with theirs up theirs. That’s why many are now calling Florida “Where the Sun Doesn’t Shine State”!

  27. Josh says:

    This blogger is asking for signatures on a petition to help “put the pressure on state attorney general Greg Abbott to launch a criminal investigation”
    (I rarely sign petitions)

  28. AghastInFL says:

    Update part deux, both officers involved have now been suspended:
    “On Thursday, the DPS said Farrell had been suspended with pay effective Dec. 21 pending the outcome of an investigation into the incident. Helleson had also been suspended with pay on Dec. 19.”

  29. jordan2222 says:

    Thank you

  30. Thank you for the update. These two so-called “public servants” need to be put in prison, NOW.

  31. Daniel Dehoog says:

    The thing that bothers me is that the Texas Rangers did an investigation and found nothing wrong? They are supposed to protect us from bad cops. By God every Texas Ranger that signed off on this should be fired. By the way where is Gov Perry in all this?

  32. Chip Bennett says:

    More police behaving badly, urinating on the Fourth Amendment, and potentially committing a felony:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s