Beware - Traveling in New Mexico

[zinger1457]

Deming NM is a popular stopping off point for folks traveling through, I always stop there to gas up since they have the cheapest prices for miles. I did get pulled over once by Deming PD for speeding. With a smile the officer gave me 3 choices, pay the ticket, come back and fight it in court, or he would issue me a warning. Not a difficult choice . My guess is the driver was giving the cop a hard time and the cop decided to show him who the boss was. Certainly no excuse for what was done.

 

[ziggy29]

My guess is the driver was giving the cop a hard time and the cop decided to show him who the boss was. Certainly no excuse for what was done.

It's certainly possible, but it's still no excuse. I realize cops are human but someone being "difficult" is no license to treat them much more harshly. That said, the last two times I was pulled over (including once for passing a stopped school bus -- it's a long story), I went out of my way to be very polite and respectful and got off with a warning both times.

 

[REWahoo]

That said, the last two times I was pulled over (including once for passing a stopped school bus -- it's a long story),...

Shame on you. A preacher's husband should set a far better example.

 

[ziggy29]

Shame on you. A preacher's husband should set a far better example.

Yes, he should. But I wasn't a preacher's husband at the time. So there.

 

[HFWR]

Yes, he should. But I wasn't a preacher's husband at the time. So there.

I think you should repent, and [-]drink[/-] say three [-]bloody[/-] hail Marys...

 

[harley]

Scene two. Same cast, same location.

4 On Your Side reveals another traffic stop nightmare | KOB.com

 

[NW-Bound]

Read the whole suit here:
Complaint: David Eckert v. City of Deming, Hildago County, Gila Regional Medical Center

The judge will have his work cut out for him. Getting to the bottom of this won't be easy.

I read the complaint, and it appeared to me that this man said something to diss the cop, and the vindictive cop was hell-bent on giving this man a tough time.

I hope they will put this cop in jail!

 

[lrak]

I hope they will put this cop in jail!

Not a cop. There were five(?) of them involved.

I personally hope they all get fired with no pension benefits and put on the sex offender registry.

 

[NW-Bound]

Yes, there were more than one. Some already had an altercation with the plaintiff earlier.

This guy probably was no saint, but law enforcement officials could not be allowed to abuse their power this way.

 

[Badger]

A colonoscopy? How far in do they think the drugs could be pushed? After a few inches in the short rectum there is a 90 degree left turn to the Sigmoid Colon and in another few inches another 90 degree turn to the Descending Colon. Then how would you get it out without a string attached. If the cops were so sure then why not hold the person and wait it out.

The cops, police chief, doctors and judge should all be up for jail time and pay a large settlement.

Cheers!

 

[haha]

I read the complaint, and it appeared to me that this man said something to diss the cop, and the vindictive cop was hell-bent on giving this man a tough time.

A vindictive police officer? My heavens, what will happen next?

Ha

 

[NW-Bound]

A vindictive and abusive one?

 

[Nodak]

Turns out this has happened more than once.
Poor Richard's News - New Mexico cops subject ANOTHER man to forced anal exam after minor traffic violation.

 

[MRG]

Guess drugs must be really hard to find in NM.

MRG

 

[Gumby]

I say all the malefactors should suffer the Edward II treatment.

 

[harley]

Yes, there were more than one. Some already had an altercation with the plaintiff earlier.

This guy probably was no saint, but law enforcement officials could not be allowed to abuse their power this way.

I'm not sure he would qualify for sainthood, but according to the warrant request What Is The Quantum of Proof Necessary for Police to Rape and Torture you in New Mexico? | Popehat he wasn't arguing or being an asshat.

The factors that allegedly justify police intrusion into David Eckert's anus are:

• That his hands were shaking and he avoided eye contact during a traffic stop;
• He refused to consent to a search of his person;
• He stood erect with his legs together;
• No drugs were found in his car or in a pat-down of him (police pat-downs for weapons often turn up drugs, which mysteriously feel like dangerous weapons when touched by police, or which are immediately identifiable as drugs when touched by police);
• A drug dog (with no information given about the dog's training or qualifications or success rate) "alerted" to his car seat (though no drugs were found in his car); and
• An unidentified Hidalgo County K-9 officer asserted, without any specificity, that Eckert had previously hidden drugs in his anus.

That's all. It really comes down to three things: (1) subjective officer impressions that Eckert looked nervous, (2) a dog alerting on his seat, and (3) an unnamed cop making an unspecific claim that he had previously hidden drugs in his anus.

The dog alerting is the only even remotely reasonable excuse for suspicion, and even well trained dogs are only right about 45% of the time. This is just beyond the pale.

 

[NW-Bound]

I was not using the right words when saying the plaintiff was no saint, when what I meant was that he could have been more tactful in dealing with these cops. See the following excerpt from the complaint.

14. On or about September 6, 2012 at approximately 6:26 pm, Plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped by Defendant Robert Rodriquez for a cracked windshield.
...
21. Defendant Rodriquez issued Plaintiff a written warning for the windshield violation.

22. Defendant Rodriquez told Plaintiff Eckert he was free to leave.

23. As Plaintiff walked away, Defendant Rodriquez continued to ask Plaintiff more questions.

24. Plaintiff asked Defendant Rodriquez if he was free to leave, which Defendant Rodriquez contends that he found rude.

25. Defendant Rodriquez told Plaintiff he suspected Plaintiff of having illegal drugs in his car and proceeded to interrogate Plaintiff on the matter.

26. Plaintiff refused to engage in Defendant Rodriquez’s “conversation.”

27. Defendant Rodriquez then seized Plaintiff’s vehicle without probable cause.
​

It appears to me that the cop was letting him go with a written warning, but was angered when the plaintiff said something. It does not mean that the cop had the right to do what he did of course.

 

[harley]

I was not using the right words when saying the plaintiff was no saint, when what I meant was that he could have been more tactful in dealing with these cops. See the following excerpt from the complaint.

14. On or about September 6, 2012 at approximately 6:26 pm, Plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped by Defendant Robert Rodriquez for a cracked windshield.
...
21. Defendant Rodriquez issued Plaintiff a written warning for the windshield violation.

22. Defendant Rodriquez told Plaintiff Eckert he was free to leave.

23. As Plaintiff walked away, Defendant Rodriquez continued to ask Plaintiff more questions.

24. Plaintiff asked Defendant Rodriquez if he was free to leave, which Defendant Rodriquez contends that he found rude.

25. Defendant Rodriquez told Plaintiff he suspected Plaintiff of having illegal drugs in his car and proceeded to interrogate Plaintiff on the matter.

26. Plaintiff refused to engage in Defendant Rodriquez’s “conversation.”

27. Defendant Rodriquez then seized Plaintiff’s vehicle without probable cause.
​

It appears to me that the cop was letting him go with a written warning, but was angered when the plaintiff said something. It does not mean that the cop had the right to do what he did of course.

I think you are reading this backwards. The cop is the defendant. Number 23 has the citizen leaving (after being told he was free to go) but still being questioned by the cop. The citizen asked if he was free to leave, which the cop found rude? After having told the citizen he was free to leave, the cop continued interrogate the citizen, and got angry when the citizen refused to participate.

I don't see where the guy (non-cop) did anything wrong. No indication anywhere he was confrontational, smart-assed, or anything. If I'm the one reading it wrong, please elucidate.

 

[NW-Bound]

I did not read it backwards. I can however imagine the following conversation.

22. Cop: "OK, I will give you a warning about the broken windshield this time. You are free to go"

Plaintiff: "Yep, it's about time"

23. Cop: "You need to replace that windshield asap, or next time there will be a citation. Are you going to do that?"

Plaintiff walking away: "Hell, all you guys do is to hassle people for nothing"

Cop: "Hey, come back here. I want to talk to you"

24. Plaintiff: "You said that I could go, so I am going. So, am I free to go or not?"

The cop is now hot under the collar...

 

[harley]

I did not read it backwards. I can however imagine the following conversation.

22. Cop: "OK, I will give you a warning about the broken windshield this time. You are free to go"

Plaintiff: "Yep, it's about time"

23. Cop: "You need to replace that windshield asap, or next time there will be a citation. Are you going to do that?"

Plaintiff walking away: "Hell, all you guys do is to hassle people for nothing"

Cop: "Hey, come back here. I want to talk to you"

24. Plaintiff: "You said that I could go, so I am going. So, am I free to go or not?"

The cop is now hot under the collar...

Hmm...imagining.

I guess I still don't see your point. Even if you "imagined" correctly, that's still not doing anything wrong. Failure to show deference isn't against the law. Nothing that you have said should have resulted in the abuse of authority that was performed. The police (and the doctors) are wrong in this one, unless some extenuating circumstance shows up.

 

[NW-Bound]

I read that the cop was letting the plaintiff go with just a warning on the broken windshield, then suddenly reversed and hassled the guy. So, what happened to cause that? The plaintiff said that he was found rude by the cop.

And I did not say that the cop had the right to do what he did afterwards.

... I hope they will put this cop in jail!

... This guy probably was no saint, but law enforcement officials could not be allowed to abuse their power this way.

A vindictive and abusive one?

People behave differently when stopped by a cop, but I myself find that a non-confrontational demeanor is safer, in case you find yourself dealing with [-]thugs[/-] cops like these. Most of the time, they had a valid reason to stop me. I would not want to argue with them anyway. It's better to go before a judge.

 

[Koolau]

At least two or three of these "cops-gone-wild" stories make the natl. news every year. Typically, they are well enough documented that the law suit is successful (money damages) but from my experience (non-scientific and fading memory) it is unusual for the LEOs to be disciplined beyond the typical slap on the wrist (30 day suspension would be extreme). There are exceptions, but for what ever reasons, we have tended to give a pass to the policing bodies we have asked to protect us.

It's true that many of the incidents which end up making the news start with the victim being a jerk or maybe just foolish. Still, the average citizen has no right to seek revenge on someone who hurts our feelings or even insults us. Even responding to a physical threat or actual assault is still illegal in some jurisdictions. (You're supposed to call the police after you run away.) Why is it that police are allowed to retaliate when people are (non-threatening) jerks? Why do they usually keep their jobs after such incidents? I have no explanation. If local folks demanded "justice" (loudly enough) it would happen. My suspicion is most local folks (the ones with power to get something done) just shrug it off as "he must have deserved it."

I encountered an out of control cop once. I had gone around a barricade which said "local traffic only" looking for a gas station I knew to be just ahead. Turned out, the sign was to warn that work was being done on a grade crossing. When I got to the roadwork, I realized the gas station was just on the other side of the tracks so I turned around. A cop stepped into the street and put up both hands to stop me. When I did so, he began screaming at me. I'm not talking about raised voice. I really mean screaming.

Picture the scene. It's a sleepy Sunday morning on the downtown square of a little town (less than 10,000 people). I am the ONLY car moving. DW and I just got out of church (back in the day, we "dressed" for church). Mom and dad are similarly dressed in the back seat. And here is an out of control cop screaming so loud that folks in the local diner spill out to see what the "crime of the century in Podunk" is. The guy never even asked for DL/Reg. He just screamed for (seemed at least) 5 minutes. When he was finished, he walked away and I drove off. I had not spoken a single word. I was truly in fear for the lives of my passengers and myself. I was actually trying to figure how I would take this guy out (think about that for a minute) if he pulled his weapon on me. I honestly do not believe I did anything wrong. If I had, the guy could have charged me. He didn't. I considered filing a complaint, but I knew it wouldn't go anywhere and I would be the "stranger" in town trying to accuse a local LEO. I let it go as I'm guessing most people would. Had it been in my home town, I think I would have pushed it, but not without contacting a lawyer first.

I've had two other encounters in which the LEOs attempted to berate me or otherwise harass me. In both situations, a case could be made that I was (originally) in the wrong though I was never disrespectful. Speeding deserves a ticket or maybe a lecture on safety - not an attempt at humiliation. Most other contacts I have had with LEOs were "neutral" (I got what I deserved or LESS) or actually positive (accident investigations, etc.)

I bought a bumper sticker for a LEO friend once. It said "WARNING - YOUR LOCAL POLICE ARE ARMED AND DANGEROUS." He was not amused. I think that explains a lot. YMMV

 

[Buck2520]

we need the whole story

Pretty sure we have not heard the whole story from the alleged victims attorney. 30 years in LE and I am pretty sure no police agency is going to be so stupid as to go to these lengths without some pretty specific justifiable reason. We need to hear the whole story, not just the plaintiffs attorney side. PS the first hint the attorney is not telling the whole truth is HE IS AN ATTORNEY

 

[HFWR]

Pretty sure we have not heard the whole story from the alleged victims attorney. 30 years in LE and I am pretty sure no police agency is going to be so stupid as to go to these lengths without some pretty specific justifiable reason. We need to hear the whole story, not just the plaintiffs attorney side. PS the first hint the attorney is not telling the whole truth is HE IS AN ATTORNEY

The whole story will come out below the fold on page 9...

 

[MDJO]

Read the whole suit here:
Complaint: David Eckert v. City of Deming, Hildago County, Gila Regional Medical Center

The judge will have his work cut out for him. Getting to the bottom of this won't be easy.

I hope everything comes out alright.