3 ms·

So, it sounds like they cloaked the search in terms of a "medical procedure". That surprises me, but I guess by now it shouldn't. They do this kind of thing,

by starkd 4y ago

So, it sounds like they cloaked the search in terms of a "medical procedure". That surprises me, but I guess by now it shouldn't. They do this kind of thing, when they know they can get away with it.

notch898a 4y ago
So I decided to test that exact theory. The warrant wasn't actually signed by the judge until about halfway through my detention. So I complained to the nursing board, that the nurse had searched me without consent and without a signed court order after a doctor had explicitly noted I was fully alert and oriented and denied informed consent. The nursing board denied the complaint, stating a nurse acting under the command of an officer is acting in a "search" and not bound by nurse practice act that would make it impermissable to act without a signed court order or informed consent (if individual alert and oriented, which dr documented I was). That's the gambit. When you legally claim it was a search, they call it a "medical procedure." When you attack the medical procedure, they call it a search. They just flip flop so it's impossible to hold anyone accountable.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Sounds like their position is law enforcement officer commanded the nurse to perform a medical procedure which as result of it being related to a border crossing was legal if there was “reasonable suspicion” which you have said the claimed to have based on your responses and lack of cell phone. To be clear, not stating I agree with situation, fully understand law, your perspective, law enforcement perspective, etc — but claim that body cavity search requires a warrant once reasonable suspicion is established at a border crossing to my knowledge is inaccurate if you’re claiming it is. Example of Google search that appears to return search results supporting this: https://www.google.com/search?q=is+it+legal+for+us+customs+to+do+anal+cavity+search+without+warrant https://www.google.com/search?q=is+it+legal+for+us+customs+t... Disputing reasonable cause is very hard to do. Most people would likely find it reasonable to be suspicious of a person lacking a cell phone. Also appears judge granted a warrant, which to me confirms they believed their the threshold for reasonable suspicion had been passed.
  - newjersey 4y ago
    > Disputing reasonable cause is very hard to do. Most people would likely find it reasonable to be suspicious of a person lacking a cell phone. Also appears judge granted a warrant, which to me confirms they believed their the threshold for reasonable suspicion had been passed. I don’t know what I stumbled upon but it definitely does not meet my threshold of reasonable suspicion to do an involuntary body cavity search for anyone solely because they do not own a cell phone. Also I would hope the public pays for all costs of whatever involuntary search or medical procedure regardless of whether the search results in evidence of guilt but definitely if the search does not yield anything.
    - O__________O 4y ago
      To do X is irrelevant, what matters is if it meets legal definition of reasonable suspicion, which I assure you is both extremely low at border crossings and that law enforcement is very aware of how to establish it; hence why the warrant was granted. Way to address issues like this is not online or at a border crossing — but by changing laws themselves. I assure that vast majority of people support laws like these, otherwise they would not have been in place so long. Again, I am not saying I agree with situation, but attempting to accurately describe the reality of it.

by starkd 4y ago

So, it sounds like they cloaked the search in terms of a "medical procedure". That surprises me, but I guess by now it shouldn't. They do this kind of thing, when they know they can get away with it.

notch898a 4y ago

So I decided to test that exact theory. The warrant wasn't actually signed by the judge until about halfway through my detention. So I complained to the nursing board, that the nurse had searched me without consent and without a signed court order after a doctor had explicitly noted I was fully alert and oriented and denied informed consent. The nursing board denied the complaint, stating a nurse acting under the command of an officer is acting in a "search" and not bound by nurse practice act that would make it impermissable to act without a signed court order or informed consent (if individual alert and oriented, which dr documented I was). That's the gambit. When you legally claim it was a search, they call it a "medical procedure." When you attack the medical procedure, they call it a search. They just flip flop so it's impossible to hold anyone accountable.

O__________O 4y ago
Sounds like their position is law enforcement officer commanded the nurse to perform a medical procedure which as result of it being related to a border crossing was legal if there was “reasonable suspicion” which you have said the claimed to have based on your responses and lack of cell phone. To be clear, not stating I agree with situation, fully understand law, your perspective, law enforcement perspective, etc — but claim that body cavity search requires a warrant once reasonable suspicion is established at a border crossing to my knowledge is inaccurate if you’re claiming it is. Example of Google search that appears to return search results supporting this: https://www.google.com/search?q=is+it+legal+for+us+customs+to+do+anal+cavity+search+without+warrant https://www.google.com/search?q=is+it+legal+for+us+customs+t... Disputing reasonable cause is very hard to do. Most people would likely find it reasonable to be suspicious of a person lacking a cell phone. Also appears judge granted a warrant, which to me confirms they believed their the threshold for reasonable suspicion had been passed.
- newjersey 4y ago
  > Disputing reasonable cause is very hard to do. Most people would likely find it reasonable to be suspicious of a person lacking a cell phone. Also appears judge granted a warrant, which to me confirms they believed their the threshold for reasonable suspicion had been passed. I don’t know what I stumbled upon but it definitely does not meet my threshold of reasonable suspicion to do an involuntary body cavity search for anyone solely because they do not own a cell phone. Also I would hope the public pays for all costs of whatever involuntary search or medical procedure regardless of whether the search results in evidence of guilt but definitely if the search does not yield anything.
  - O__________O 4y ago
    To do X is irrelevant, what matters is if it meets legal definition of reasonable suspicion, which I assure you is both extremely low at border crossings and that law enforcement is very aware of how to establish it; hence why the warrant was granted. Way to address issues like this is not online or at a border crossing — but by changing laws themselves. I assure that vast majority of people support laws like these, otherwise they would not have been in place so long. Again, I am not saying I agree with situation, but attempting to accurately describe the reality of it.