|
CBP Settles Cavity Search Case
From AP:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection agreed to pay $475,000 to a New Mexico woman who accused agents of forcing her to undergo body cavity probes and then got charged for the exams, civil liberties advocates said Thursday. The settlement in the case, which drew national attention three years ago, also will require new training for hundreds of customs officers, American Civil Liberties Union affiliates in Texas and New Mexico said. "The settlement should not be taken as an admission of liability or fault. The settlement was entered into by both parties in order to compromise on disputed claims and avoid the expenses of further litigation," the U.S. Customs & Border Protection said in a statement. |
It's truly amazing when there is a settlement this large and some government henchmen can stand there in front of a podium and claim they did nothing wrong. Yes, because the government always pays out nearly a half a million dollars when they did nothing wrong. This kind of thing will keep happening until everyone who was involved is sentenced to length jail sentences.
|
It's not anything unique to government employees. Lawsuits between private parties often result in these sort of settlements in which neither side admits fault but one pays a substantial settlement. The usual rationalization is "well, it's cheaper than paying the lawyers".
As for the retraining when no fault was admitted ... well, TSA employees are continually refreshing their training, right? :) |
So, what's the fallout?
Customs cannot do cavity searches anymore? Or only in special circumstances? |
Originally Posted by yandosan
(Post 26978421)
So, what's the fallout?
Customs cannot do cavity searches anymore? Or only in special circumstances? But if I were running a hospital, I wouldn't allow any such searches without a warrant, even if the federals didn't think they needed one. That was a one million dollar mistake for University Med Center. |
From the news accounts at the time the woman sued, apparently CBP policy requires both a supervisor's approval and either consent or a court order, for both cavity searches and x-rays.
One has to wonder about the mental capacity of an agent who would do this without either of the above. That is something re-training can't really address. |
Originally Posted by VelvetJones
(Post 26978162)
It's truly amazing when there is a settlement this large and some government henchmen can stand there in front of a podium and claim they did nothing wrong. Yes, because the government always pays out nearly a half a million dollars when they did nothing wrong. This kind of thing will keep happening until everyone who was involved is sentenced to length jail sentences.
|
Originally Posted by nachtnebel
(Post 26978501)
From the news accounts at the time the woman sued, apparently CBP policy requires both a supervisor's approval and either consent or a court order, for both cavity searches and x-rays.
One has to wonder about the mental capacity of an agent who would do this without either of the above. That is something re-training can't really address. |
Originally Posted by VelvetJones
(Post 26983543)
At least this was a border incident, where they do have more leeway(not that I support this behavior). Remember the mental midgets in New Mexico that cost their city and county $1.6 million dollar, all because they claimed the person "clinched" his butt when being harassed over a stop sign slow and go in a Walmart parking lot.
Local medical centers in the county where the search warrant was issued refused to do the colonoscopy due to the involuntary nature of it, warrant or no warrant. The cops who were behind this are still on the job, I believe. |
For those who want to know more about the case from primary sources (instead of news articles), look here:
https://www.aclutx.org/en/press-rele...avity-searches It looks like if any of the 110 hospitals do it again, they are really screwed. |
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 26984629)
For those who want to know more about the case from primary sources (instead of news articles), look here:
https://www.aclutx.org/en/press-rele...avity-searches It looks like if any of the 110 hospitals do it again, they are really screwed. Your staff should know that CBP agents have no authority to compel healthcare professionals to assist in law enforcement searches. ... Thus, even if CBP personnel insist that a person in their custody may be concealing contraband such as illegal drugs, healthcare professionals are under no obligation to comply with a request to conduct a search. Even for persons in CBP custody, the healthcare professional retains the obligation to ensure that body cavity searches, X-rays, CT scans or similar procedures are for legitimate medical reasons and to adhere to the patient consent requirements appropriate for that procedure. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 26979075)
What cost does government accrue by going to trial? The government lawyers are federal employees paid if they just sit in their office. Government didn't move forward because they would have been found in the wrong.
|
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 26984629)
For those who want to know more about the case from primary sources (instead of news articles), look here:
https://www.aclutx.org/en/press-rele...avity-searches It looks like if any of the 110 hospitals do it again, they are really screwed. |
Strip searches are not banned and asking about illegal drugs isn't banned.
|
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 26984629)
For those who want to know more about the case from primary sources (instead of news articles), look here:
https://www.aclutx.org/en/press-rele...avity-searches It looks like if any of the 110 hospitals do it again, they are really screwed. Having found no contraband, CBP agents offered Ms. Doe a choice to either sign a medical consent form or be billed for the cost of the searches. Ms. Doe refused to sign, and was later billed $5,488.51. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:28 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.