Police Officer Attempts To Set Record For Most Constitutional Violations In A Single Traffic Stop
from the and-all-with-his-own-camera-rolling dept
Here we go: three invasive searches -- each more invasive then the one preceding it -- without even the slightest shred of the Fourth Amendment intact by the end of it. Radley Balko has the details.
Here’s what happened: Lakeya Hicks and Elijah Pontoon were in Hicks’s car just a couple of blocks from downtown Aiken when they were pulled over by Officer Chris Medlin of the Aiken Department of Public Safety. Hicks was driving. She had recently purchased the car, so it still had temporary tags.As we're well aware, officers need not trouble themselves as to the details of the laws they enforce. If they feel something is a violation of the law, they're pretty much free to pull someone over and engage in some light questioning. (The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court recently declared it's even OK for police officers to lie about the reason they've pulled you over.)
In the video, Medlin asks Hicks to get out, then tells her that he stopped her because of the “paper tag” on her car. This already is a problem. There’s no law against temporary tags in South Carolina, so long as they haven’t expired.
Once pulled over, the fun begins. And by "fun," I mean three consecutive unconstitutional searches. While the "automobile exception" gives law enforcement more leeway to perform warrantless searches, it does not free them entirely from the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. But these South Carolina officers tossed caution, the Constitution and the two subjects' dignity to the wind in a matter of minutes.
The officers demand Pontoon show them his ID, even though as a passenger in the vehicle, he was under no obligation to do so. He complies. A few minutes later, an officer tells the driver (Hicks) that everything (bill of sale, driver's license) checked out. At this point, she and Pontoon should have been free to go. But, of course, they weren't.The dog arrived, sniffed the car, somehow failed to alert. Officer Chris Medlin -- performing an illegal search of Hicks' vehicle -- alerted, however.
Instead, [Officer Chris] Medlin orders Pontoon out of the vehicle and handcuffs him. He also orders Hicks out of the car. Pontoon then asks Medlin what’s happening. Medlin ignores him. Pontoon asks again. Medlin responds that he’ll “explain it all in a minute.” Several minutes later, a female officer appears. Medlin then tells Pontoon, “Because of your history, I’ve got a dog coming in here. Gonna walk a dog around the car.” About 30 seconds later, he adds, “You gonna pay for this one, boy.”
Early into the search, Medlin exclaims, “Uh-huh!” as if he has found something incriminating. But nothing comes of it.The car's a dead end, so Medlin figured whatever it is he's looking for must be hidden on/inside the driver and passenger. He told a female officer to search Hicks "real good." "Real good" is apparently law enforcement technology for "lifting the female subject's shirt and exposing her breasts on the side of a heavily-trafficked road." But there's nothing incriminating there, either.
Medlin then turned his attention to Pontoon, who he claimed, post-search, to have recognized from a previous drug arrest. The search of Hicks was humiliating but it's nothing compared to what Pontoon went through.
The anal probe happens out of direct view of the camera, but the audio leaves little doubt about what’s happening. Pontoon at one point says that one of the officers is grabbing his hemorrhoids. Medlin appears to reply, “I’ve had hemorrhoids, and they ain’t that hard.” At about 12:47:15 in the video, the audio actually suggests that two officers may have inserted fingers into Pontoon’s rectum, as one asks, “What are you talking about, right here?” The other replies, “Right straight up in there.”Because cops are naturally experts on rectal ailments. The civil rights lawsuit these officers are now facing -- while occasionally written more like an editorial than a court filing -- does contain this entertaining, low-key mockery of the expertise officers often claim they have ("upon information and belief, etc…").
Pontoon then again tells the officers that they’re pushing on a hemorrhoid. One officer responds, “If that’s a hemorrhoid, that’s a hemorrhoid, all right? But that don’t feel like no hemorrhoid to me.”
At no time during this illegal traffic stop and including up to the time of the filing of this Complaint, was the Plaintiff ever aware of any formal medical training of these two Defendants in the field of gastroenterology or proctology so as to be able to form a legitimate opinion as to what would constitute being "too hard to be a hemorrhoid".I guess when all you have is a glove and the desire to extract some sort of revenge for a drug bust failing to materialize, you're allowed to declare what is or isn't a hemorrhoid while you're still deep inside a citizen's anus. It's probably right there in the local Law Enforcement Bill of Rights.
But this isn't the only stupid thing Officer Medlin or his co-defendants had to say during this debacle. The lawsuit quotes Medlin several times. The words coming out of his mouth seem more motivated by frustration and vindictiveness than any actual law enforcement purpose.
After more than eleven minutes of exhaustive searching of the vehicle and with the Defendants clearly frustrated and upset that they have not found any incriminating evidence, Defendant Medlin proclaims at 12:43:40, "If he is hiding, he is hiding good."Balko asked John Wesley Hall, the former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (and purveyor of the essential FourthAmendment.com website) his opinion of the searches these officers performed.
Then at 12:43:49, Defendant Medlin proclaims, "We are gonna search somebody" to which Defendant Clark (or possibly one of the Defendant Does) affirms, "Yeah".
[...]
At 12:45:36 during the middle of this humiliating and illegal search of her private areas, Lakeya rightly objects to this horrific and demeaning treatment.
In response to Lakeya's lawful objections, Defendant Medlin retorts and attempts to justify this illegal search with "It's a female officer."
[...]
At 12:50:27 and after the conclusion of the seemingly unending illegal cavity search of Elijah, Defendant Medlin explains "Now I know you from before .... when I worked dope, I seen ya, and that's why I put a dog on ya car."
This is quite appalling, to say the least. I’ve encountered on the street strip searches of men in my own practice, but never of a woman on the street, and then this case has the added anal probing. Worse yet: There is no legal justification for anything, including the stop because criminal history alone isn’t reasonable suspicion. Everything starting with the stop was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and it just got progressively worse.No reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause. The stop was unconstitutionally extended (US Supreme Court's Rodriguez decision) to bring in a drug dog and perform two additional searches. The city's probably going to need to reach into its taxpayers' pockets and pay out a settlement in the near future if it wishes to prevent a closer examination of its police department and the day-to-day actions of its officers.
And the statement made by its police chief -- when talking proudly about its 6-year-run as a federally-accredited law enforcement agency -- won't help much in fighting off indirect culpability for these officers' actions.
They are trained a certain way and indoctrinated into a system of policies and procedures that just become part of their everyday work. I am extremely proud of how they interact with citizens and provide services to our community, while maintaining excellence and professionalism, even during some very trying circumstances.There's your "deliberate indifference," inadvertently confirmed. From the lawsuit:
The unconstitutional actions and/or omissions of all Defendants employed by or acting on behalf of these Defendants, upon information and belief, were pursuant to the following customs, policies, practices, and/or procedures of the ADPS, The City and Director Barranco, or stated in the alternative, were directed, encouraged, allowed, and/or ratified by policy makers for ADPS and the City..From everything captured by the dashcam and relayed in the filing, it appears Officer Medlin was so sure he had a drug bust that he did everything but raid the evidence locker and plant drugs at the scene. What happened here should cost him his job, but it likely won't. The department says it's already investigated the incident and cleared him. Now, because it's facing litigation, it has refused to discuss anything else.
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: aiken, chris medlin, elijah pontoon, fourth amendment, invasive search, lakeya hicks, ohio
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you suggesting that they should probably choose to remain a criminal for the rest of their life because the police have a right to treat them that way for life?
Is it a worthy goal of the police to discourage anyone from ever getting their act together and becoming a law abiding citizen?
It is probably worth extending this thinking to family relations as well. If your grandfather had any criminal activity, then you might too. Or your cousin, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speechless.
What happened here should cost him his job, but it likely won't. The department says it's already investigated the incident and cleared him.
Lose his job? He should be arrested. And be thankful that we are in a civilized society (apparently he's not part of it) and we opted not to apply the same thing he did to himself.
I really want to see how the union and other cops associations will twist this parade of horrible into "the victims are to blame! they looked too druggy!" or whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speechless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speechless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speechless.
He will be promoted.
Standard procedure in cases like this. "He is an exemplary officer that has just been promoted for excellence of duty, your honor."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speechless.
And the department already 'investigated' and determined that the officers committed no wrongdoing because they followed department policies and procedures?
RICO Act, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speechless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speechless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is what it has unfortunately come to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Others say it began when the Mars company introduced the blue M&M.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right. Well, if the system is broken, fix the system. Start with the police chief. It also wouldn't hurt to fire the officers' supervisors since they're responsible for their officers' failures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"One charge of contempt of cop, sentence to be carried out immediately..."
And they wonder why people don't trust them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "One charge of contempt of cop, sentence to be carried out immediately..."
The cops can just see someone they don't like and decide to single them out. Make an example of them. Harass them. Invade their property and indeed their body cavities. And then still be convinced that they have not gone far enough to find what they were looking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhm...
and no reason for the searches...
why aren't they pressing rape charges? Sure, they're cops, but they violated the law to essentially rape 2 people, in public.
These cops are rapists. The female officer may be an accessory if the other officers lied to her, but its still rape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhm...
The only difference between the cops and criminals are the badges.
Cops are the biggest liars out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhm...
So while I agree, the system protects the cops and there's no way this will happen. Which is just disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whar's the evidence, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whar's the evidence, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whar's the evidence, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whar's the evidence, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mandatory retraining as part of any settlement agreement
120 hours regarding search/seizure including 4th amendment jurisprudence
120 hours sensitivity
40 hours on courtesy and respect
40 hours on honesty and integrity
By the clock, exclusive of breaks, lunch, etc.
And while we're at it, let's throw in immediate citizen review of all drug-related stops. If the citizen doesn't like what she/he sees, the stop and any evidence get tossed out the window and the cop involved gets to do the whole training over. Again. And the chief gets to spend 24 hours behind bars for every stop tossed out by the citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mandatory retraining as part of any settlement agreement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mandatory retraining as part of any settlement agreement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mandatory retraining as part of any settlement agreement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mandatory retraining as part of any settlement agreement
How about having the ACLU conduct the training?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mandatory retraining as part of any settlement agreement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
south carolina
br3n
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But when the police dog did not trigger and they continued searching, that completely changes the situation. They clearly did understand that the first search was improper, and they were "doubling down". They needed to find contraband to justify their actions.
I'm left speechless by the body cavity search. I can imagine drugs being carried that way when crossing a border or entering a prison. But it seems extremely improbable when driving in a private car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly cops...
These guys must've missed the training program the big-city corrupt cops go through. Small-town amateurs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reader Poll
Would you rather be subjected to an intimate body search by a heterosexual of the opposite sex or a homosexual of the same sex?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reader Poll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Close, but no cigar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
civil suit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Settlement
Could the police officer/s go to jail or can they be sure to go free? In all cases I read about the people go for the settlement so I am kind of wondering would could happen if they'd go to court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Settlement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Settlement
If towns & cities are going to continue to pay for police officers misconduct, rather than solve the problem with their police forces, judgements need to become large enough to have a deterrent effect. A small town getting a 20 million dollar penalty, or a city getting a 100 million dollar penalty might start to get citizens proactive to make sure their police force isn't raping the citizens.
Or perhaps a big enough judgement would convince prosecutors to start prosecuting cops who do stuff like this.
Otherwise, I'm afraid to say, the only solution will be for citizens to start taking punishment of the cops into their own hands. If the judicial system doesn't want that to happen, they need to stop this sort of cop crime now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Battery and manslaughter
It’s also amazing that this didn’t end up with someone being killed, because the guy would’ve been totally justifed in using force against the officer. You have the absolute right to protect yourself from assault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Battery and manslaughter
Heh, I can tell you from personal experience that the written law varies greatly from the real law on that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They've charged people who farted in their direction with "assault with a chemical weapon". But I doubt he would have lived long enough to be charged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Payback is hell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Payback is hell
So we don't need a special place in hell as much as a place in jail for people considering themselves to be above the law and acting on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Payback is hell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oops, why look at the time: it's the 21st century! 20th was over so fast, I quite missed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, isn't that...
Non-consensual penetration by an untrained, unqualified third-party under the guise of "just doin' my job!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This reminds me of a phenomenon among burglars...
That's exactly what this feels like. Officer Chris Medlin felt like he deserved the collar for all the work he put into getting it.
In both occupations, this is (or should be) considered unprofessionalism. Really, law enforcement officers should be completely disinvested in affecting an arrest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shoot?
a) before the rape?
b) during the rape?
c) after the rape?
d) all of the above, just shoot on sight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only good rapist is a dead rapist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]