Disclaimer

Disclaimer: I am providing the content on this blog solely for the reader's general information. This blog contains my personal commentary on issues that interest me. Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed on this blog are mine alone, and not the views of any law firm with which I am in any way associated or any other member of any such law firm. Nothing on this blog is intended to be a solicitation of, or the provision of, legal advice, nor to create an attorney-client relationship with me or any law firm. Please view my "Full Disclaimer" statement at the bottom of the page for additonal information..

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Texas State Trooper Rapes a Driver on the Side of the Road: Evil doubled Down



The Houston Chronicle reports on what I hope is not the end of a horrific story of the literal rape of a driver on the side of the road by a Texas DPS officer (state trooper) conducting a drug search. 

The driver and her friend were pulled over. Some alleged suspicion (not confirmed) of drugs was had by the trooper’s supervisor, and the trooper was told to do a cavity search on the side of the road.  That everyone involved was a woman doesn’t matter. An officer, with no warrant, and without the driver’s consent, digitally raped – rape by a finger - a woman on the side of the road in Texas.

The news today is that not only did the officer not get indicted, she has been reinstated as a DPS officer.  Let me break that down.  A grand jury was presented the case and declined to indict her.  A grand jury isn’t so grand.  It was created centuries ago to investigate crimes.  Now, it is a dozen people drafted for six months to review evidence presented by the DA and decide if the charges should be pressed.  Why doesn’t the DA just press charges himself?  Why does the grand jury still exist?  For cases that are politically charged.  Here, where the facts aren’t in dispute (they’re on a trooper dash-cam), the DA is literally saying to 12 people, “Are you cool with this? Would another jury convict or am I going to be wasting my time and look like a fool to bring this case?”  Apparently 12 people in Brazoria County, Texas are cool with digital rape of motorists on the side of the road.

And now the Texas DPS has hired the trooper back on, because the grand jury didn’t indict, and because the officer was told to do the search (commit the rape) by her boss.  She used the Nuremburg defense. Would that work if she’d shot a fleeing suspect in the back.  How about if she’d stolen money from a crime scene?  But, rape is different? How?


And how in God’s name did we get here?  We’ve gotten to the point where some members of the police seem to feel they can do what they want to, and the public has gotten the feeling that the police can use whatever means they want in fighting perceived crimes.  How have we been conditioned by the drug wars and crime wars to allow this?  Maybe it is the overuse of SWAT Teams. SWAT teams are necessary in any society that allows citizens to have and use military-style weapons and ammunition, whose only purpose is to shoot another human, or go sport shooting, so the officers aren’t out-gunned.  I get that.  But, when SWAT teams are used to bust up small time poker games, it’s gone too far.  Radley Balko has an entire book on this, which I am not going to try to duplicate.

Maybe it’s when we don’t throw police in prison for stealing money from motorists in “civil forfeiture” cases.  See Walter Olson at Cato at Liberty and Sarah Stillman in The New Yorker, on the whole sorry mess of “civil forfeiture” done through criminal law actors – law enforcement.

What we can ask, legitimately, is who is serving whom here?  Are the troopers serving the citizens and protecting us, or are they committing crimes. And when they do, and are not held accountable, they are surely not serving citizens anymore. We’re not cool with that.  When the evil of criminals is found wearing the uniform of the law that is supposed to serve and protect, it is evil doubled down.

No comments:

Post a Comment