[Ang]

This is why we have so much crime. Personally, I believe that the officer saved the man's life. If that baggie had broke open or dissolved inside the man, he would be dead from a drug over-dose. But no, his rights were violated so now he is free to go back on the street and sell more drugs....

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=48592.29

Police choke hold violated privacy, court rules
INDIANAPOLIS - Police officers violated a man's privacy rights when they grabbed him by the throat until he spit out a bag they suspected contained drugs, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

According to the court's ruling involving a case out of Marion County, officers stopped a driver in August 2005 for having an expired license plate and he was gagging after being ordered out of his car. When the man opened his mouth on command, offices noticed a clear plastic bag.

The man refused to spit it out, so an officer grabbed his throat and applied enough pressure to prevent the bag from being swallowed. After about 20 seconds, the man spit it out and he was subsequently charged with possession of cocaine.

The man claimed that his privacy rights had been violated and moved to have the bag and its contents excluded as evidence. The trial court denied the request but put the case on hold so the evidence motion could be considered by an appeals court. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial judge's ruling, but the state's high court did not.

The ruling cited a previous court decision that found a police choke-hold in a similar situation violated a person's bodily integrity, posed health and safety risks and was likely to incite violent resistance.

[JHeath]

I don't know the entire situation, but I'm inclined to agree with you on this one, Ang.

Are the "pat-down" searches going to be ruled out next?

[Roger Kaputnik]

Did the court find that the choke hold per se was a violation, or only that the police use of the choke hold in this case was the violation? I think it was the latter, so JHeath's fears for the future of pat-downs are groundless. What was the urgency of the situation that the Indianapolis police felt justified the use of the choke hold? It could be the person's safety, the preservation of evidence, and so on; but what did they claim it to be? is there any way to get the decision on-line?

[Max Main]

bump