TexasCHLforum.com

mamabearCali wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:What will it take for the FBI to investigate this scum pit?

A new Attorney General?

DING DING DING! We have a winner!

VMI77 wrote:http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3209305.shtml

Eckert's attorney, Shannon Kennedy, said in an interview with KOB that after law enforcement asked him to step out of the vehicle, he appeared to be clenching his buttocks. Law enforcement thought that was probable cause to suspect that Eckert was hiding narcotics in his anal cavity. While officers detained Eckert, they secured a search warrant from a judge that allowed for an anal cavity search.

It's gets much more absurd from there --they gave the guy enema's and a colonoscopy. But hey, it was all in accordance with "policy."

Edited to add:

1. Eckert's abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.

2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

4. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

5. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

6. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.

8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert's anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.

VoiceofReason wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

jmra wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

jmra wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

jmra wrote:Where was the nurse who should have been acting as the patient advocate who would have stopped the procedure for lack of consent? Where was the risk management specialist for the hospital? Where was the hospital legal counsel who should have been consulted before action was taken?
I see major procedure changes at this hospital along with privileges being yanked from several doctors assuming they manage to get past the medical review board.

They had a warrant, so no lack of consent.

Warrant means nothing to medical personnel. A nurse could have stopped the procedure just as the doctor at the first ER did. I have a family member that runs an OR - showed the story to her and she laughed. You can bring any warrant you want into her OR, without patient consent they aren't touching the patient.

Not sure about other states. Texas can require assistance in executing a search warrant.

Just checked to make sure, not at a private hospital. Also a nurse or doctor practicing in Texas at a public hospital can refuse to comply based on the Hippocratic oath...first, do no harm. This info was confirmed with a local hospitals legal council.
ETA: in short, a warrant can compel a public hospital to comply but the hospital can not compel its employees to comply.

I was wrong...don't even need a warrant. Obv, we're teetering on the cutting edge of case law, so it is an extreme example. That said... The CCP could be applied (though poorly IMO) in a way to avoid the non-compliance of medical personnel.

Art. 2.14. MAY SUMMON AID. Whenever a peace officer meets with resistance in discharging any duty imposed upon him by law, he shall summon a sufficient number of citizens of his county to overcome the resistance; and all persons summoned are bound to obey.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.


Art. 2.15. PERSON REFUSING TO AID. The peace officer who has summoned any person to assist him in performing any duty shall report such person, if he refuse to obey, to the proper district or county attorney, in order that he may be prosecuted for the offense.

Let’s see. They would be trying to prosecute me for not assisting a police officer in performing what I believe to be an illegal act? If the “district or county attorney” was stupid enough to prosecute, and the judge didn’t laugh and throw the papers back at him, how do you think this would play to a jury?

gigag04 wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

jmra wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

jmra wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

jmra wrote:Where was the nurse who should have been acting as the patient advocate who would have stopped the procedure for lack of consent? Where was the risk management specialist for the hospital? Where was the hospital legal counsel who should have been consulted before action was taken?
I see major procedure changes at this hospital along with privileges being yanked from several doctors assuming they manage to get past the medical review board.

They had a warrant, so no lack of consent.

Warrant means nothing to medical personnel. A nurse could have stopped the procedure just as the doctor at the first ER did. I have a family member that runs an OR - showed the story to her and she laughed. You can bring any warrant you want into her OR, without patient consent they aren't touching the patient.

Not sure about other states. Texas can require assistance in executing a search warrant.

Just checked to make sure, not at a private hospital. Also a nurse or doctor practicing in Texas at a public hospital can refuse to comply based on the Hippocratic oath...first, do no harm. This info was confirmed with a local hospitals legal council.
ETA: in short, a warrant can compel a public hospital to comply but the hospital can not compel its employees to comply.

I was wrong...don't even need a warrant. Obv, we're teetering on the cutting edge of case law, so it is an extreme example. That said... The CCP could be applied (though poorly IMO) in a way to avoid the non-compliance of medical personnel.

Art. 2.14. MAY SUMMON AID. Whenever a peace officer meets with resistance in discharging any duty imposed upon him by law, he shall summon a sufficient number of citizens of his county to overcome the resistance; and all persons summoned are bound to obey.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.


Art. 2.15. PERSON REFUSING TO AID. The peace officer who has summoned any person to assist him in performing any duty shall report such person, if he refuse to obey, to the proper district or county attorney, in order that he may be prosecuted for the offense.

Let’s see. They would be trying to prosecute me for not assisting a police officer in performing what I believe to be an illegal act? If the “district or county attorney” was stupid enough to prosecute, and the judge didn’t laugh and throw the papers back at him, how do you think this would play to a jury?

Couldn't care less actually... I'm clearly not advocating doing it...


This is still the internet right?

texanjoker wrote:Pretty harsh to go for a rectal based on a dude clenching his butt. I would like to read the search warrant affidavit to hear their side. They must be hard up for a dope arrest if they go through all this. Pretty lame.

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Pretty harsh to go for a rectal based on a dude clenching his butt. I would like to read the search warrant affidavit to hear their side. They must be hard up for a dope arrest if they go through all this. Pretty lame.

If the story is legit, it sounds more like a power trip by a few sick criminals dressed like cops than any desire to clean up the streets. Time will tell, maybe.

kragluver wrote: Apparently this guy had a history as a drug mule.