![]() |
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. |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 26999648)
Did anyone else catch this blatant attempt at blackmail?
|
Originally Posted by jphripjah
(Post 26992798)
Strip searches are not banned and asking about illegal drugs isn't banned.
|
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 26999648)
Did anyone else catch this blatant attempt at blackmail?
Extortion to try to cover up their wrongdoing is quite common, though. |
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
(Post 27000842)
I see no blackmail.
Extortion to try to cover up their wrongdoing is quite common, though. |
Originally Posted by nachtnebel
(Post 26983743)
The victim in that case, David Eckert, certainly clinched a big payout, to the tune of $1.6 million. There was a warrant granted by a rubber stamping judge, but unfortunately for the perps in this case, they had the cavity searches done in a neighboring county where that warrant was invalid.
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. It's also disgusting to know that the medical personnel who assaulted Eckert are likely still licensed and employed. There was no medical justification for the procedures performed, nor did they make sense as a purely exploratory exercise. They assaulted the man repeatedly and watched for their own warped kicks. And got away with it. Is this really the first time these cops have done something like this? |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 27002655)
And got away with it. Is this really the first time these cops have done something like this? Extracting "consent" from targets in positions of duress is but another form of classic blackmail used by the powerful over the relatively powerless. And at the border, a lot more seems to be "allowed". |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 27000322)
Elements of the medical community's complicity in the abuse of people on behalf of government has shown itself yet again, this time being a case of it being done inside the US on behalf of CBP. Glad to see the involved medical community elements held accountable a bit for being involved in the harming of "patients".
|
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 27003101)
If medical personnel willingly engage in this type of non-consensual and risky medical procedures every time a cops tells them to do it, one wonders why they object to participating in lethal injections? Profit, perhaps???
there is more widespread concern about medical professionals facilitating killing (of convicts) on behalf of governmental actors than there is about medical professionals otherwise violating the bodily integrity of "suspects" and perhaps even causing tissue and/or psychological damage. Rather disgusting what some people are capable of doing for even government behind color of professional activity, all the while even thinking it's being done "for the greater good" of some sort. CBP generally thinks cavity searches are a useful tool for law enforcement (i.e. "the greater good), and so these kind of outcomes are part of the scene. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 27002010)
It's extortion and it's classic blackmail, this being a case of the target being told to pony up what CBP wanted or they won't be left alone in terms of having to pay in another way.
I see no blackmail in what was described. They were not threatening to reveal detrimental information. Rather, they were threatening adverse consequences for not waiving their rights. A threat to do bad things to you if you don't do what they want is extortion. |
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
(Post 27005577)
I think you have a problem with the terms.
I see no blackmail in what was described. They were not threatening to reveal detrimental information. Rather, they were threatening adverse consequences for not waiving their rights. A threat to do bad things to you if you don't do what they want is extortion. Blackmail classically doesn't have as a necessary condition that there be a threat of revelation of detrimental information in the absence of demanded specific performance. A threat of other detrimental action may be sufficient for blackmail to take place. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 27007269)
I'm sure I have no problem with the terms. The etymological origin and historical use of the term blackmail have informed me rather well.
Blackmail classically doesn't have as a necessary condition that there be a threat of revelation of detrimental information in the absence of demanded specific performance. A threat of other detrimental action may be sufficient for blackmail to take place. |
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
(Post 27010418)
You're describing extortion.
|
Of course all this depends upon the jurisdiction in which the offense occurs, in some venues they are truly synonymous - in others the specific predicates are (slightly) different. The most common (and commonly known) element of blackmail is the threat of releasing derogatory information but GUW is right, in many jurisdictions it is not the only one.
The IMPORTANT thing is that only in the most exceptionally rare circumstances are government employees held criminally liable for coercion. Coercion is a time-honored and tested tool in the law enforcement/prosecutorial toolkit - the most that ever happens is the evidence resulting from an illegal search are excluded at trial and the government's case falls apart. Possibly the bad actor might suffer some kind of adverse personnel action (such as a letter of reprimand, or a poor annual evaluation) that maybe stalls career advancement, but who knows....? Small consolation for the aggrieved citizen(s)...... |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 27003101)
If medical personnel willingly engage in this type of non-consensual and risky medical procedures every time a cops tells them to do it, one wonders why they object to participating in lethal injections? Profit, perhaps???
|
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 27003101)
If medical personnel willingly engage in this type of non-consensual and risky medical procedures every time a cops tells them to do it, one wonders why they object to participating in lethal injections? Profit, perhaps???
|
the most that ever happens is the evidence resulting from an illegal search are excluded at trial and the government's case falls apart.
The proverbial "Fruit of the Poison Tree," for the pre-law crowd. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:20 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.