Man Subjected To Multiple Rectal Searches And Enemas By Police Officers Receives $1.6 Million Settlement

Legal Issues

from the the-justice-pendulum-moves-slightly-in-the-other-direction dept

Wed, Jan 22nd 2014 5:45am — Tim Cushing

David Eckert, the Deming, NM man who was subjected to hours of invasive anal "searches" by two police officers (and a very compliant hospital staff), has received a settlement from two of the entities named in his lawsuit. For those of you who don't remember what Eckert went through in order to "produce" drugs he simply didn't have, here's the rundown.

Eckert's abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.
Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
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.
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.
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.
Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.
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.

Every search was nonconsensual and Eckert was detained for a total of 14 hours by the police, who also apparently mocked him before, during and after the medical procedures. The "justification" for these searches was one officer's "observation" that Eckert stance when he exited his vehicle was a bit "too erect" for an innocent man. The drug dog alerted on Eckert's car seat and at that point, the "evidence" was apparently too much to be ignored. When everything was said and done, the Gila Regional Medical Center presented Eckert with a bill for the procedures performed on him against his will and sent collection agencies after him when he refused to pay.

Eckert sued the city of Deming, Hildalgo County, the doctors involved, the Gila Regional Medical Center (which performed the searches after doctors at the Deming hospital refused to) and the District Attorney. So far, he's received a settlement from the city and county.

In December, Hidalgo County and the City of Deming settled.

Through a records request, 4OYS learned that settlement amount is set at $1.6 million.

"The gratifying aspect of this case is the media attention that it has gotten and the opportunity for discussions in the law enforcement and medical communities about how to deal with these opportunities and what to do with requests from law enforcement about medical exams for people in custody," Eckert's attorney Joseph Kennedy said.

Here is the settlement breakdown: Hidalgo County will pay $650,000 and the City of Deming will pay $950,000.

If the other entities involved "refuse to take responsibility," Eckert's lawyer will push for a jury trial. This ends the financial bleeding for the city and county, the latter of which has already spent $55,000 in taxpayer funds fighting the lawsuit. There's always the slim hope that large settlements will encourage the overseers of police departments (city and county governments) to realize that preventative measures are likely the cheaper option. Officers, like the two involved in this case, should be ousted before they cost taxpayers millions of dollars in settlements. (It's unlikely this was either officer's first abusive act.) Failing that, the penalties for the officers involved should be severe enough that it discourages other officers from engaging in abusive acts -- for instance, holding the individuals involved financially responsible for the reimbursing the cost of the settlements.

As it stands now, Eckert has received $1.6 million and the implicit admission that he was wronged by the city and county via the officers' actions. Now, he needs the same from the hospital that was so willing to aid these officers in tormenting him in search of drugs he didn't possess.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: david eckert, new mexico, police brutality

96 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 4:06am

It is kind of sad. A full trial would probably take much longer and I'm sure the guy has suffered enough psychological trauma for his life but it could spark concrete measures against the abuses. Notably I find it disappointing that the officers are not being directly prosecuted for such blatant abuses (if I got it right the doctors will have to face the consequences). If law enforcement is not held accountable for its abuses a whole world of misconduct is open, ripe for abuse. They already have too much power and way too much judicial immunity - although I can see why they need some sort of protection it is clear that such protections are way too broad as they are set up now.

It's not an exclusive issue of the US. Here we have our share of such abuses too as do other countries I have more contact with and knowledge so I'm gonna guess it's sort of a worldwide problem. Now, who judges the judges eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- McGreed (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:05am
  
  Re:
  I still don't understand how and why anyone would go along with at least half of those examination, that is just fucked. I know some people would say "Oh you talk big, but you would go along as well." but hell no, seriously... surgery??? No fucking way I would EVER accept that without a lawyer present and a court order. That's just insane. Not even the repeated enema.
  I hope seriously hope that the involved people will get fired and at least that they reject the settlement and they will go to court, because this shit gotta stop.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bob V (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    I hope to god I would have the moral fortitude to step back and say no, that's wrong. That being said, we're looking at this from a nice clean view with enough facts known to make our judgments. I'm not excusing or even attempting to excuse the doctors, nurses or the cops behaviors. But I would imagine crowd psychology, racial prejudices, the moral flexibility of the cops and Eckert challenging the cops alpha status all came together to create this situation. Bullies are usually smart enough to keep themselves out of trouble but this situation escalated somehow that there was a clear paper trail of wrong doing. I would hope that someone in a position to effect change would look at this situation and figure out a way to minimize the chances of it happening again rather than looking at a payout as enough of a punishment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Brazenly Anonymous, 22 Jan 2014 @ 8:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      For all that, the doctors at Deming hospital seemed to have little issue seeing things for what they were. The view couldn't have been that muddled.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 8:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Agreed. I'm guessing he was coerced by force. If you are beaten enough you may eventually give in. You know, torture.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Robert, 22 Jan 2014 @ 2:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Thing is, most people aren't aware of their rights. That's why those anal probing ass clowns can get away this stuff. Some guy called into a fast food restaurant and pretended he was law enforcement. He then told the manager one of their employees(female), was suspected of a crime and needed to be detained. The caller then ordered the manager to strip search her and perform cavity exams. The fact that this has happened numerous times in different states and counties shows how we believe that our officers have full and unquestioned authority over us. This leads to some officers abusing their authority and regular citizens becoming their unwitting accomplices.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:25am
  
  Re:
  "...if I got it right the doctors will have to face the consequences"
  
  Maybe not. I don't know about New Mexico, but some states, under the guise of "tort reform", have passed laws greatly limiting doctor's liability for pain and suffering. So, in some places, doctors can now get away with this kind of stuff with relative impunity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    So he wouldn't get money for pain & suffering. They'd still be on the hook for punitive damages. This was pure malpractice. The doctors were under no legal obligation to engage in these procedures, the procedures were not medically necessary, and the harmfulness of them in the totality is self-evident.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 8:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "So he wouldn't get money for pain & suffering. They'd still be on the hook for punitive damages."
      
      Umm, no. Punitive damages are under pain and suffering.
      
      He could get actual damages. In other words, he just wouldn't have to pay for the actual procedure (like the hospital and doctors are trying to make him do).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 8:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Punitive damages are under pain and suffering.
        
        IANAL, but it was my understanding that these were two different things, and that P&S goes to the victim, where punitive damages does not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mr. Applegate, 22 Jan 2014 @ 12:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Umm, no. Punitive damages are under pain and suffering.
        Cite Please!
        
        There may be limits on punitive damages, I don't know, but Pain & Suffering IS NOT part of Punitive Damages.
        
        Here let me help. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/pain+and+suffering
        
        pain and suffering n. the physical and mental distress suffered from an injury, including actual broken bones and internal ruptures, but also the aches, pain, temporary and permanent limitations on activity, potential shortening of life, depression, and embarrassment from scarring, all of which are part of the "general damages" recoverable by someone injured by another's negligence or intentional attack. The dollar value of damages for pain and suffering is subjective, as distinguished from medical bills, future medicals, and lost wages which can be calculated, called "special damages." (See: damages, general damages, special damages, suffering)
        
        http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/punitive+damages
        Punitive Damages
        Monetary compensation awarded to an injured party that goes beyond that which is necessary to compensate the individual for losses and that is intended to punish the wrongdoer.
        
        Punitive damages, also known as exemplary damages, may be awarded by the trier of fact (a jury or a judge, if a jury trial was waived) in addition to actual damages, which compensate a plaintiff for the losses suffered due to the harm caused by the defendant. Punitive damages are a way of punishing the defendant in a civil lawsuit and are based on the theory that the interests of society and the individual harmed can be met by imposing additional damages on the defendant. Since the 1970s, punitive damages have been criticized by U.S. business and insurance groups which allege that exorbitant punitive damage awards have driven up the cost of doing business.Punitive damages have been characterized as "quasi-criminal" because they stand halfway between the criminal and Civil Law. Though they are awarded to a plaintiff in a private civil lawsuit, they are noncompensatory and in the nature of a criminal fine.
        
        Punitive damages were first recognized in England in 1763 and were recognized by the American colonies almost immediately. By 1850, punitive damages had become a well-established part of civil law.
        
        The purposes of punitive damages are to punish the defendant for outrageous misconduct and to deter the defendant and others from similar misbehavior in the future. The nature of the wrongdoing that justifies punitive damages is variable and imprecise. The usual terms that characterize conduct justifying these damages include bad faith, fraud, malice, oppression, outrageous, violent, wanton, wicked, and reckless. These aggravating circumstances typically refer to situations in which the defendant acted intentionally, maliciously, or with utter disregard for the rights and interests of the plaintiff.
        
        Unless otherwise required by statute, the award of punitive damages is left to the discretion of the trier of fact. A small number of states refuse to award punitive damages in any action, and the remaining states have instituted various ways of determining when and how they are to be awarded. In some states, an award of nominal damages, which acknowledges that a legal right has been violated but little harm has been done, is an adequate foundation for the recovery of punitive damages. In other states, the plaintiff must be awarded Compensatory Damages before punitive damages are allowed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pragmatic, 22 Jan 2014 @ 8:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's a 4th amendment violation and they've violated his civil rights. The rest is gravy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Sunhawk (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Particularly as the warrant was actually not valid for the time and location of the hospital that did the procedure (was in a different county, I think?).
        
        Actually, that *may* open the officers up to false arrest charges once he expressed his unwillingness to undergo the "medical" procedures... as it was under authority that was not being exercised in the appropriate jurisdiction.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - greenbird (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 10:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    have passed laws greatly limiting doctor's liability for pain and suffering.
    
    That's for malpractice, unwillful mistakes. This has nothing what so ever to do with malpractice. This is performing invasive risky procedures against someones will. They should have there license to practice medicine revoked and be facing criminal charges.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 1:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This is performing invasive risky procedures against someones will.
      
      Which is a kind of malpractice, at least in my state.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 5:49am

Who foots the bill?
Before anyone says something stupid about the taxpayers should not have to pay for this, let me remind you that the reasons the taxpayers pay is because they are doing nothing about it. The taxpayers DESERVE to pay for these clowns botch ups. Until 'We The People' put ourselves back in charge this doesn't stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:09am
  
  Re: Who foots the bill?
  But it's a big enough settlement that he is now self censored and is no longer screaming about his appalling treatment.
  
  On the other hand it's a tiny enough portion of their budget that no tax payer will care if its raised as an issue.
  
  So I don't think these settlements actually fix much.
  
  ----
  
  Mike, I see you've hidden my 'See Thailand as your futures' posts. Fair enough, but they are your future. I'll attach these comments only to related posts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bengie, 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:21am
    
    Re: Re: Who foots the bill?
    Yes, the 1.6mil settlement was a "tiny" portion of that city's 9mil budget in 2013.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:36am
    
    Re: Re: Who foots the bill?
    That's not Mike hiding those comments. For the last friggin' time, Mike does not choose which comments to hide. It's the community, and yes, I clicked report too. Each person who clicked report on those comments did so individually, there was no conspiracy or meet-ups or conversations between Techdirt members saying "Guys, click report on this!" We all as individuals read those comments and individually came to the conclusion that they had nothing to do with the article.
    
    If you want to complain about your posts being hidden, go right ahead. Just don't immediately start off assuming that it was Mike. It wasn't. It was me and those of the Techdirt community who clicked report. Direct your complaints to us.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:47am
    
    Re: Re: Who foots the bill?
    In fact, a story such as this would actually not be out of place on Techdirt. The problem is you're introducing it in the comments section of an article that has nothing to do with it.
    What I suggest you do is write up an article yourself and submit, and hopefully it gets published. That way, the story and point you want to make gets addressed and seen by an audience and then we can have a discussion. No-one wants to be reading an article about the MPAA, cinemas and Google Glass and then suddenly someone brings up Thailand for some fucking reason: that's an entirely different topic. It'd be like being in English class studying Shakespeare one day and then your professor mid-quote in Romeo and Juliet starts talking about the effects of the logging industry in South America. Good topics both, but they just don't belong together.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:13am
    
    Re: Re: Who foots the bill?
    "Fair enough, but they are your future."
    
    Why should anyone take your off-topic theories seriously when you can't even correctly identify why and how they're being hidden?
    
    "I'll attach these comments only to related posts."
    
    ...but at least you got the right message even if you're woefully wrong about who sent it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 8:57am
    
    Re: Re: Who foots the bill?
    I agree that it fixes nothing. I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood who is at fault. We keep blaming politicians yet we are the ones voting them in.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Trails (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 10:55am
    
    Re: Re: Who foots the bill?
    I hereby affirm and avow that clicked report on that comment under direct orders from Mike Masnick.
    Dear Trails,
    
    Your country needs you! You must click report on this comment [comment url] because it reveals my shading dealings with the Thai monarchy and the Illuminati.
    
    Novus Ordo Seclorum!
    Master Mason Michael Masnick
    
    I regret this as I now see how reporting your deeply insightful and relevant post plays into the larger shadow government conspiracy to resurrect Reagan and take over the world.
    
    First they came for the morons, and I didn't do anything cause I'm not a moron....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:53am
  
  Re: Who foots the bill?
  But this is premised upon "respondent superior", one of several bases for secondary liability...and yet, this site regularly rails against any suggestion of secondary liability since the one being sued is not the person(s) committing the underlying legal act.
  
  This comment is not to suggest that the governmental groups should be cut slack (even though it is taxpayers who ultimately have their pockets picked for something they would certainly find offensive), but only to point out an inconsistency.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:58am
    
    Re: Re: Who foots the bill?
    Who is being sued that didn't commit an illegal act? The doctors arguably did.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 9:01am
    
    Re: Re: Who foots the bill?
    I would say you have it all backwards. The citizens/taxpayers are at fault. When we no longer have the ability to speak out against these things and call for heads then you may have a point, but once we no longer have a say then its time to start directly lead their direction not words.
    
    This is not like suing the gun manufacturer because someone was killed with their gun. The one pulling the trigger is at fault. Incidentally... the taxpayers are the ones pulling the trigger on who is in power.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldGeezer (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 5:52am

Call me a whore but I'll bend over for 1.6 Mil!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:11am
  
  Re:
  Be thankful you have a choice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:16am
  
  Re:
  What will $50 get me?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - art guerrilla (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    a butt plug and a lollipop...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      1) I hope I don't put the wrong one in my mouth. Could be disastrous.
      
      2) Deal!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - BeeAitch (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 4:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Reminds me of an old joke:
        
        Q. How do you tell the difference between an oral and a rectal thermometer?
        
        A. Taste.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Vanye (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Lets just hope they're different objects...or are presented in the other order.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 10:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      you cheap bastard!!!
      
      at least give him 2 lollipops ;)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Trails (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 10:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    Let me introduce you to my cat, Mittens.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Eight Thirty-Two (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 8:39am
  
  Re:
  OK, OldGeezer, I'll oblige: You're a whore.
  
  But I'm afraid $1.6 million is more than the market will bear. How about ten bucks and a bottle of Mad Dog?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - OldGeezer (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 10:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm 61 and recently got the camera up my butt and with the drugs they gave me I don't even remember it happening. My doctor sticks his finger in there every year during my physical. Not exactly enjoyable (guys of a different persuasion might think so) but not exactly painful either. What this guy suffered was embarrassment and inconvenience. That is not to say the officers should not be fired for being complete idiots and the doctors who helped them severely disciplined by their boards. How exactly did the dog alert? Did he just seem to spend a little extra time sniffing the seat or did he go crazy ripping it apart? Maybe he just said rutt row.
    
    This guy deserves some compensation but 1.6 million from taxpayers is a bit much. Whatever is paid should come directly out of the pockets of everyone who participated.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Trails (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 10:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What this guy suffered was embarrassment and inconvenience.
      
      You forgot irradiation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 11:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm 61 and recently got the camera up my butt and with the drugs they gave me I don't even remember it happening. My doctor sticks his finger in there every year during my physical. Not exactly enjoyable (guys of a different persuasion might think so) but not exactly painful either. What this guy suffered was embarrassment and inconvenience. That is not to say the officers should not be fired for being complete idiots and the doctors who helped them severely disciplined by their boards. How exactly did the dog alert? Did he just seem to spend a little extra time sniffing the seat or did he go crazy ripping it apart? Maybe he just said rutt row.
      
      This guy deserves some compensation but 1.6 million from taxpayers is a bit much. Whatever is paid should come directly out of the pockets of everyone who participated.
      
      @OldGeezer... just what is your definition of 'freedom' and 'rights'? Suppose he was just passing out flyers of the "Declaration of Independence" which according to 'our new age laws' is illegal because it contains incendiary language against the government. What would you say then? How about you suffer "embarrassment and inconvenience" the next time police just decide you are a criminal.
      
      The point is not about what was convenient or not... abuse of our rights is not a convenience issue... its a core problem! 1.6 million is just to try to set and example... but at the end of the day, heads should have rolled!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - James, 22 Jan 2014 @ 11:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      By this reasoning, because my wife and I have consensual sexual relations, no woman should have grounds for a lawsuit or criminal prosecution of any racist. After all, by your words, rape is an embarrassment and inconvenience.
      
      That it was performed by employees of the state and local governments, and by physicians who (besides being regulated and instructed by policies) have sworn an oath to "do no harm," makes it a physical attack.
      
      Did you even think about what you were posting?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Bernard, 22 Jan 2014 @ 12:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      OldGeezer, have someone do it to you against your will, and I bet you'd change your tune.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - OldGeezer (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 12:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Never said he did not have every reason to sue for an extreme violation of his rights. Emotionally I am sure he suffered but there was no real physical pain involved. If it happened to me I would not only expect a cash settlement but I would want the names of everyone involved published and fired or at least severely disciplined. 1.6 mil is still a bit much.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mr. Applegate, 22 Jan 2014 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Emotionally I am sure he suffered but there was no real physical pain involved.
        Right because the sedated him before they shoved a camera up his ass against his will. That makes it better?
        
        If he had gotten 10 Mil it wouldn't be enough, not because he deserved it, but because those that performed the act need to know what they did is not acceptable behavior.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Eldakka (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What this guy suffered was embarrassment and inconvenience.
      
      No, what ths guy suffered was:
      
      1) Wrongful arrest
      2) wrongful imprisonment
      3) Assault
      
      Let's take your analogy to an extreme.
      
      I know this girl who likes playing 'rape games' with her partners, and likes being choked during sex.
      
      Are you saying that if she was actually raped and choked by some random stranger then it'd just be "embarrassment and inconvienience" because she sometimes consents to similiar acts?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 8:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What this guy suffered was embarrassment and inconvenience.
      
      No. What this guy suffered was rape.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - alternatives(), 23 Jan 2014 @ 9:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What this guy suffered was embarrassment and inconvenience.
      
      That was not consented to and was done with the force of "authority".
      
      If "authority" is not corrected when the power is abusive in some way, what will be the outcome?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:05am

I bet the negligent police officers still have their jobs. As do the doctors and everyone else involved in this massive waste of taxpayer resources.

Simply a disgrace, because without holding the individuals involved accountable, events like this are sure to repeat over and over again.

Then again, what do the people involved care? It's just free taxpayer money they're throwing around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:20am
  
  Re:
  What needs to be done is just what you mentioned, make the individuals in question foot the bill for their actions.
  
  Go directly after the officers and doctors, and slam them with fines so high they'll be paying them off for decades to come, and let it be known that future abuse will be treated the same way, not with a taxpayer paid settlement, but the person(s) responsible paying out themselves.
  
  Do that and I can guarantee they'd take note, until then, it's exactly as you say, they don't care, and have no reason to, because it's not their money being paid out in cases like this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:58am
  
  Re:
  From what I can tell, the doctors are still being sued, and have yet to settle.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 10:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, soon their lawyers will be talking to the press about how they intend to fight the case because the lawsuit was only filed because the plaintiff was just butthurt about being arrested - oh wait - nevermind.
    
    (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 10:38am
  
  Re:
  Just how exactly does what these officers did constitute NEGLIGENCE? They didn't accidentally forget to not violate his rectal rectal region multiple times. This was an OVERT action taken WILLFULLY and PURPOSELY by these officers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I Forgot, 23 Jan 2014 @ 8:47am
  
  Re:
  The possibility exists that everyone involved in this fiasco could be in cahoots for their split of the taxpayers' payout. If that is all it takes to get a share of $1.6 MM, it has to be agreed that its a hell of a lot easier than some poor average Joe scamming the lottery.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:18am

eye-for-an-eye
I have a better idea. Instead of socking it to innocent taxpayers, make the actual culprits pay. Force all the cops - and medical staff enablers - to undergo all those procedures on themselves. Filmed and uploaded to Youtube.

Since statutory damages are typically up to ten times actual damages, I would propose that all these people be subjected to everything done to the victim TEN TIMES OVER.

That would be real justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:30am
  
  Re: eye-for-an-eye
  No, that would be little more than 'mob justice', which isn't just in any sense of the word, you want them to pay, hit them in the wallet, directly, none of this 'settlements paid with taxpayer money' crap.
  
  For the 'cops'/thugs, assuming they aren't fired on the spot, take a decent chunk out of every single one of their paychecks until the amount is paid back, and if they quit/retire before the full sum is paid, either take the difference out of their pensions, or just make them pay it back some other way.
  
  If they are fired, treat it like any other debt, just because they no longer work there, doesn't mean it goes away, so if they have to start selling their stuff to pay off the debt, too bad for them.
  
  For the 'doctors', and I use that word very loosely given their actions, they deserve to be flat out fired and their medical licenses revoked after such blatant disregard of medical ethics. Given this will turn a previously highly valuable degree into nothing more than paper, I'd say that would be punishment enough, no need for further monetary punishments, and they can go find another job, hopefully one where they'll act in a less reprehensible manner in the future.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bob Coulis, 22 Jan 2014 @ 9:31am
  
  Re: eye-for-an-eye
  The taxpayers are not innocent. In this case, they re-elected a sheriff and police chief with histories of this sort of abuse, and a mayor with a track record of being incredibly "tough" on drug offenses. In a democracy, and in this case, the people have the power, and power comes with responsibility. If they didn't want to pay for this, they shouldn't have voted for who they did - and they shouldn't have sat by and let this happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

citizen, 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:34am

I hope some gangbanger shoots these cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RadialSkid (profile), 25 Jan 2014 @ 6:29am
  
  Re:
  I'd prefer it if some shooter gangbangs them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guardian, 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:34am

i want 1.6 million
1st wtf is this shit about me being a spam bot?

2nd ya bung me for 1.6 million
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:36am

Turnabout
I don't think I would have settled with the city/county for any less than giving the two cops enemas in front of the precinct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:40am

In other news, several figures in a high profile police brutality case were found dead in their homes last night, in what appeared to be an expensive professional hit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jackn, 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:48am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 22nd, 2014 @ 6:40am
  And the doctor lost his license and is facing rape charges.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob Dowling (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:47am

Medical licensing
In the UK the licence to practice medicine is managed by the General Medical Council who can and do withdraw the licence from doctors who perform unethically. There is a formal process called "fitness to practice" which the GMC can invoke to withdraw a licence. One of the grounds under which a doctor can be found unfit to practice is a "doctor has abused a patient�s trust or violated a patient�s autonomy or other fundamental rights."

What is the state or federal equivalent in the USA? Can the doctors be reported to it?

Fitness to practice (UK): http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/21721.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gonzo, 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:03am
  
  Re: Medical licensing
  There is a state board that does that. After they loose license in home state, there is always revocation of licenses in other states, if they have one. That means, they have to find another job in another less stressful field.
  
  The novel strategy should be to go ALSO after medical licenses psychologists's who certified that criminals are fit to work for police.
  
  In any case, victim shoul go also after medical malpractice insurance of both medical coconspirators and psychologists.
  
  Yes, make it personal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Applesauce, 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:50am
    
    Re: Re: Medical licensing
    The doctors (and especially the nurses) may have gone along with this because they were afraid of losing their jobs if they refused.
    
    It needs to be explained to them (by yanking their licenses) that if they had lost their job for the crime of being decent human beings, they might have gotten another job. But by their cowardice and lack of moral fibre, they now lose their license to get a job in their field anywhere. This is important in order to send the message that ethics, especially medical ethics, have real meaning.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rich, 22 Jan 2014 @ 9:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Medical licensing
      No doctor is going to fear losing he/her job be refusing to perform a procedure.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Clownius, 22 Jan 2014 @ 9:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Medical licensing
      Having followed this story on and off for a while i think the Doctors have a LOT to answer for.
      
      He was taken out of county because the local Doc's refused to do these procedures.
      
      More people have come forward since with similar stories and the same medical center....
      
      This is money spinner for this medical center and the cops take suspects there on more than one occasion. They always bill the victim too.
      
      Kickbacks for the cops maybe?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:53am

sounds to me like it's the others involved here who are 'in the shit' now!

i am not too surprised by the actions of the police officers (not agreeing with it in any way at all, though!) given the way we are turning into a 'Police State' where people seem to have or are treated as having, no rights at all, but as for the conduct of the medical people involved, that is even more disgraceful! all need to lose their jobs with the medical staff struck off as well!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gyffes, 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:55am

Seriously
I think the worst part is his being presented a bill for their "services."

That hospital needs to be made to pay, and pay BIG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pragmatic, 22 Jan 2014 @ 8:32am
  
  Re: Seriously
  This could be a case of, "Mud sticks," i.e. they've been accused so they must be guilty.
  
  Peer pressure is hard to fight in an environment where you're afraid to speak out in case you lose your job. What happens to those who fall afoul of those cops?
  
  They really need to lose their jobs - and the power that goes with it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
streetlight (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:04am

New Mexio has a problem with police
Seems to me that there was another case of police/sheriff abuse of a prisoner in the news recently. A man was tossed into a room for two years and basically forgotten about. Somehow he got some food but after he got out he looked skeletal with a long beard and hair and is clothing was in tatters. No toilet facilities were in the room, so you can imagine what that caused. I can't remember what it cost the jurisdictions in this case or whether it has been resolved. I'm not sure I want to travel through New Mexico under any circumstances much less live there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:16am
  
  Re: New Mexio has a problem with police
  Is this the story you're talking about?
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFy8sW9KgOg
  
  I think Techdirt covered the story but unfortunately I can't find it. As it says in the video, the man got a $15.5 million settlement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - streetlight (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 10:22am
    
    Re: Re: New Mexio has a problem with police
    Rikuo:
    
    Thanks for the Info. You have a better memory and persistence than I have.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:20am

Techdirt to Dirt
If Techdirt continues to present situations of this nature it will become appropriate for their to be a name change from Techdirt to simply Dirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:25am

I know that guy, he told me he keeps his stash under the car seat :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ahow628 (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:47am

Only $1.6M?
This guy needs to stick to his guns. He deserves all the money the county, the city, the doctors, the nurses, and the cops have. All. Of. It.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 8:25am
  
  Re: Only $1.6M?
  Agreed. Then again I'm principled/spiteful enough that I'd push for more outright ruination.
  
  I wonder if it is possible to come up with a different sort of settlement: the city can avoid fiscal liability, they just need to remove all legal immunity from those involved. Probably regrettably barred but it would be a good way to get them to think twice about police brutality when they all find themselves in jail for decades and on sex offender registries.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:53am

Being in New Mexico, I can only assume these officers worked for the NYPD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Applesauce, 22 Jan 2014 @ 7:58am

Name Names
I've read several articles about this incident. They all give the name of the victim, David Eckert, but none have named the police officers, the doctors, or the nurses.

Doesn't society have a legitimate need to know WHO is actually responsible for this travesty? Shouldn't the perps, at a minimum, be held publicly accountable? I don't believe that they deserve to be spared the embarrassment of having their names out there. If they feel they did the right thing, then they should stand behind their actions instead of hiding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 22 Jan 2014 @ 2:42pm
  
  Re: Name Names
  Exactly this. Why do these guys get away without their names out there for all to see?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 2:52pm
  
  Re: Name Names
  "They all give the name of the victim, David Eckert, but none have named the police officers, the doctors, or the nurses."
  
  Here it is: PDF
  
  Defendants
  
  1. City of Deming
  2. Deming police officer Bobby Orosco
  3. Deming police officer Robert Chavez
  4. Officer [no first name provided in original complaint] Hernandez
  5. Hildago County
  6. Hildago County sheriff officer David Arredondo
  7. Hildago County sheriff officer Robert Rodriguez
  8. Hildago County sheriff officer Patrick Green
  9. Deputy District Attorney [prosecutor] Daniel Dougherty
  10. Gila Regional Medical Center
  11. Robert Wilcox M.D.
  12. Okay H. Odocha M.D.
  
  No nurses sued:-(
  
  Mr Odocha apparently brought this rectal custom from his native Nigeria. And in such a case, victim should have sued together as his codefendant the DHS for deportation back to his place.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 2:56pm
    
    Re: Re: Name Names
    criminals Orosco and Chavez
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sunhawk (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 11:59am

Perhaps some principle-minded New Mexicans might hold a good old-fashioned sign-holding stint outside the hospital in question.

"Is willing to repeatedly anally violate patients based on bogus law enforcement requests" might be a good start.

Might hit the hospital administration a bit - probably not enough to get them to deal appropriately with the doctors in question and ensure a lack of a repeat, but it might help.

Do it enough and other hospitals in the area might also take note.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DB (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 12:12pm

There is likely no legal basis to charge any part of the settlement to the police officers involved. 'Qualified immunity' while acting in an official capacity is effectively 'full immunity'. They can be fired, eventually. Typically those in the process of being fired for cause resign first, with a confidentiality agreement in exchange for the resignation. So their bad acts don't even show up on their employment record.

At this point the hospital and doctors involved should be very worried. The staff may claim they feared for their jobs if they refused the police. Especially the doctor, who was, I believe, foreign born and trained might have this as a significant concern. That might transfer financial liability to the hospital, but it wouldn't prevent professional discipline. Perhaps they will claim they feared police retribution if they did not comply... that might be interesting..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 3:16pm
  
  Re:
  "There is likely no legal basis to charge any part of the settlement to the police officers involved. 'Qualified immunity' while acting in an official capacity is effectively 'full immunity'. "
  
  Only if acts are discretionary. Which exactly statue allows police discretionary rectal exams? I will settle for case law.
  
  Now you see why they running away like cockroaches from flashlight.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldGeezer (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 12:24pm

I just wonder how the dog alerting on the car seat justified them assuming he had something up his ass. Was he farting cocaine fumes into it? Dogs can be helpful in finding drugs but interpreting their actions can be sometimes be entirely subjective. Other times it is unmistakable. When I was in the Army they brought a drug dog into the barracks. A friend had a bag of pot hidden in his mattress cover. The dog went straight for it barking loudly and pulling on the mattress in his teeth.

Why was the X-ray and one probe not enough for these idiots? Wouldn't a warrant be required for even this much? Any judge would set some kind of limits. No way he would have allowed any further action after an X-ray was negative.

Is there some part of the story we are not hearing? Maybe this guy was a drug dealer and the cops were waiting to bust him. It just so happened he was not carrying this one time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zonker, 22 Jan 2014 @ 5:01pm
  
  Re:
  The dog alerted to the car seat, not his ass. Thus they only had probable cause to search the car seat, not his ass. I'm pretty sure that car seats and men's asses are two different things, otherwise my car seat will be sitting on a man's ass as I drive home today.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 1:26pm

Sounds like this man was raped, sodomized, and all involved in this heinous, felonious act should be tried by a jury of their peers. There probably is not a Grand Jury with the stones to do the right thing though. Guess President Obama's Chicago preacher was correct, "God Damn The United States Of America"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2014 @ 2:19pm

They're lucky it was not me because I would have took their asses to the cleaners. Suing for a few hundred million demanding a jury trial and demanding criminal charges to be brought against everyone involved.

He could have bankrupted them and they need to remember that the next time one or more of their officers fucks up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 22 Jan 2014 @ 4:55pm

why this "may" have happened
Not condoning this in ANY way, however, I read about this on another site, and I believe the "victim" in this case was caught with drugs hidden in his anus before, on a previous arrest, (or at least that is what was reported) I wish I had time to search for the link, but I do not at this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Clownius, 22 Jan 2014 @ 9:36pm
  
  Re: why this "may" have happened
  Actually they claim and un-named officer told them he had been caught with drugs up his arse before. No record can be found of this being true anywhere. But you know cops words are unquestionably right even when wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 8:41am
  
  Re: why this "may" have happened
  If that's true, it still explains nothing. That would explain the initial x-ray and (maybe) anal probe. It does not explain anything beyond that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:33pm

I have no knowledge of the legal system, but if it was me, and it's legally allowable, I would have made it a condition of accepting the settlement that the officers involved be fired. Not reassigned, not allowed to resign, FIRED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christopher Bingham (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 6:50pm

Sexual assault
Once the civil trial is over, then the cops and doctors should be charged with sexual assault. The doc should be barred from practicing medicine in any capacity and the cops should not be able to get a job in any kind of future security work, ever.

That should all happen after they have served prison sentences that take them into old age.

Of course the city should pay - they hired the rapists. But the city should sue the rapists for the settlement plus attorney fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spano, 23 Jan 2014 @ 8:50am

Settlements for police abuse
Settlements for this and other kinds of abuse sould come out of the police pension fund!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 9:19am
  
  Re: Settlements for police abuse
  I disagree. The funds should come out of the police budget. Let the police come crawling back to the taxpayers and explain why they need more money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:01am

I just wonder how the dog alerting on the car seat justified them assuming he had something up his ass.

Dog Alerting is like divining rod use to figure out where water is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]