I agree. He made not effort spot her. He's guilty and should also be fired.

My guess is that the male trooper called for female assistance for just a routine search or patdown of a female suspect but then she acted on her own. But then at the same time he did let it happen.

Read the article, the MALE trooper was suspended TWO days after the female trooper, PENDING THE OUTCOME of this. Can't fire him, IF they don't fire HER.

Links in a chain, folks.

Technically, they should cavity search anyone at the station and not out in the open.

I'm all for State Troopers protecting us but it does seem as though they think that they're invincible and play God while on duty.

I have to agree with both woman saying that "what are you going to do?" They're the law and what repercussions are going to happen if you challenge them on the spot?

I think that this is what the Troopers were hoping they would do so they can have an excuse for doing what they did but, the ladies complied to their demands and now, well, you know the outcome.

I hope the ladies walk away with a few million a piece just to use this experience as an example of right and wrong for the other Troopers.

Police are stupid.

Don Giacomo,

The male officer don't have to report anything after the fact, he should not have allowed it to happen in the first place. They both should have been fired on the spot as soon as the incident was found out.

And no crap about having only heard half of the story, they police had all the proof they needed in the dashboard cam.

A police officer who allow another officer to blatantly commit illegal acts is not doing his job which is to stop peoples from committing illegal acts REGARDLESS of who that person is.

Thank goodness for the camera. It used to be the officer's testimony against yours. No wonder people don't trust the police. These police don't know the basics of law enforcement and the rights of a citizen.

This behavior will not stop until the time that the cops are required to wear a head or clip on camera with full audio. Fire immediately any cops who turn off or "lose" their camera footage. Too many cops are turning a blind eye to the borderline or illegal behavior of other cops. This puts them in the position of abetting the criminal actions instead of stopping them.

There would be zero reason for a good cop to turn a blind eye to the actions of bad cops if cameras were mandatory. They wouldn't have to worry about crossing the blue line and pissing off other cops then. Too many cases of highly questionable police activities to allow it to continue unchecked. The means are there to enforce the cops to behave in a manner that their job should be championing. Use the cameras or lose the public trust, and thus the support of the public.

YEE HAW!!!! Just one more reason NOT to visit TEXAS!

Texas......they make their own rules

They are both suspended WITH PAY? What kind of punishment is that? Hold back their pay, and if they are found no guilty (highly unlikely based on the video) they can be reimbursed.

Who watches the watchers?

Sadly, the abuse of power is far more widespread than most law abiding citizens would suspect.

Enma, that'the culture in Texas....evangelical to the core. Lots of sexual hang ups and taboos which drive Texas to be among the top sexual crimes States in the country./

If anything like this occurs to you, the first thing is to clearly comment that you do NOT give permission for ANY searches (self, home, vehicle)....also you want to establish if you are under arrest by saying "I understand you have a job to do officer but am I free to go?". Things like this can help in any court proceedings for illegal searches and/or detainment. Not required, but does help.

SICK SICK SICK and they want respect, if this is not stopped in its tracks we are all in serious trouble, power has to be taken away, some are worse than the ones they go after and protected bt thier other gang or cult memebers, think if that was your wife or daughter what would you do and if you dont go along with their abuse, you get labelled, time for a reform and by the way they should both be fired and charged with sexuall abuse they are to zelous and enjoy cavity searches too much

Suspended with pay has to stop too, how about a really really good reason for search besides smells a joint which he probably just got done smoking

StackDat

Exactly. You don't want to physically resist, but make sure it is clear you do not give consent for any search...including cavity searches!

Funny video showing citizens (Texans for Accountable Government) standing up to Texas police:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeYHBbwZDVY

Anyone who is in a position of authority and abuses that power should have that authority immediately removed and face severe consequences! It is mortifying to think that this was done in public and worse, not changing the gloves is extremely non-hygienic!

You folks are funny with your comments.

They are both suspended WITH PAY? What kind of punishment is that? Hold back their pay, and if they are found no guilty (highly unlikely based on the video) they can be reimbursed.

Janine..The article states..

DPS spokesman Tom Vinger released the following statement on Tuesday: "The Director of DPS has made a preliminary determination to terminate Kelly Helleson. By policy, she will be given the opportunity to meet with the director before the decision is finalized."

The male officer who stopped them was suspended with pay. In all likely hood he will be fired as well...he was the only one to search the car and well the only one to have access to any missing drugs.

Yhbu..

Lots of sexual hang ups and taboos which drive Texas to be among the top sexual crimes States in the country./

That's the ticket....it is our evangelical population creating crime in Texas....Our sexual crimes certainly wouldn't be attributed to the illegal immigrants or just general deviant criminals. BTW can you cite your source that we are the top state for sexual crimes? When I searched it was Delaware and Texas was not even in the top ten. Sadly, we were not in the bottom 10 either.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/sex-offender-statistics/

The female trooper is being terminated but not the male trooper involved? He's the one who called for the cavity search! Typical misogynistic Texas!

Enma...I don't suppose you thought that comment through. How can Texas be a misogynistic State when they actually hire and train female officers? She lost her job, rightfully so, because she violated these women in public. Go Texas, she had no legal right to cavity search these women on the roadside. She must have missed the day when they explained search and seizure at the academy. Personally, the female officer should have lost her job and should face criminal charges for her actions. If they were absolutely suspicious of these women they should have arrested them and further searched at the jail.

As for the owner of the car...I'm thinking he was a rather lousy boyfriend for loaning his car to his GF without getting it cleaned and deodorized.

As for the women who were completely violated on camera out in the open...I hope that their horrible experience resounds through the various police agency's and that this violation doesn't happen again.

both troopers need to be put in jail. That lady trooper just wanted a cheap feel. Both need to be fired and arrested.

Using the same gloves on two different people? Do they do this routinely? Way to spread HIV/AIDS, officers...good job troopers.

Could've been manslaughter had it been two other victims, one already infected.

Men, can you imagine going the doctors office for a prostate exam only to find the doctor used the same pair of gloves on the other four guys ahead of you???? What if one of these women had some disease or infection and it got passed to the other female because of this? stupid stupid cops...

This is a good thing. Anytime you take a crooked cop off the street our society is better for it. Let that be a lesson to other bad cops that think they have the right to bend the Constitution to suit their needs.

texmom32

#1.23,

Placing blame on the boy friend for "not" cleaning the "car" and getting it deodorized, is lame. All fault lies with these two troopers. The fact that they took it to this point for littering is disgusting and should not be defended for any reason what so ever.

I know cannabis is not legal in Texas but neither is sexual assault and that is the real crime here and it was committed by the very ones who should not only know better, they are the ones the good folks of Texas should be able to look too for protection from such a crime.

The fact these two are not in jail speaks volumes about the law enforcement of Texas and that should scare you to the core.

As far as cannabis not being legal in Texas, that is one of the reasons the wife and I will not vacation there. What if the guy that rented the car before us left a piece of pot under the seat and now we have to convince the "cop/judge/jury," it is not ours.

Colorado, see you again next summer and I hope I run in the guy who was so willing to share at the "Garden of The Gods". Man that was some good Colorado green:)

The only way to halt an abusive policy put into practise by authorities is to hit them very hard in their pockets. That includes suing the state of Texas for a big bunch of money. What was done to those two women goes beyond shocking the conscience.

The male officer requested a female officer to do a search of these two women. This was entirely appropriate and following procedure. Male officers are not supposed to frisk/search females. The female officer is the one that crossed the line with the cavity search. Whether or not the male officer realized what she was doing is open for debate. He was searching the car, so he may not have been aware of what she was doing. Whether or not he had probable cause to search the car is another matter. If he claims he smelled marijuana, that is considered probable cause in many jurisdictions, I do not know about TX. I have found that police are pretty good at manufacturing probable cause and often judges throw out searches when they do this. One of the favorite tricks is getting a drug dog to alert to justify a search, which is pretty easy to do for an experienced dog handler. The firing of the woman officer was definitely the right thing to do. I am not sure about the male officer. He did not request the cavity search and nothing in the article indicates he was even aware that this was occurring at the time. You can see him in the background of the dashcam video ducking his head into the car to search at the time the female officer is starting the search, so he may not have known what the female officer was doing. He may be guilty of an illegal search for going through the car, but I am not sure if that is a firing offense. I would, however, have liked to see him drug tested in light of the missing hydrocodone prescription. The fact that the driver had this prescription to me seems to indicate that he may have been justified in conducting the DWI test as well as justify his suspicions about drugs, the driver may well have been under the effects at the time she was stopped. Unfortunately, a lot of people take these opioid pain killers and then drive, not realizing how much they can effect a person's reaction time and driving ability.

traffic avenger Fla.... I'm guessing you don't have a sense of humor.

Placing blame on the boy friend for "not" cleaning the "car" and getting it deodorized, is lame. All fault lies with these two troopers.

Actually, a good man will clean his car when taking a woman out. That's just a sign of a thoughtful man who respects the woman they date. Perhaps he is not a good man and has been busted for drugs driving that car.....I'm guessing you still don't see the humor. The article said nothing about running a license check on the car. I wonder what they discovered when they checked the plate.

I agree the fault for this over the top search is clearly on the female cop. She had no right to violate these women on the roadside regardless of what they suspected, smelled or found.

As for stopping them for tossing out cigarettes. The cop saw one out the window an did not pull them over and then the other went out the window and he stopped them. This may seem trivial to you but my state has been in a severe drought for some time and yes a cigarette thrown out the window can actually ignite dry brush. So where it may seem trivial it can be a serious hazard. I would suggest they find a bottle and extinguish/dispose of their butts that way. Just a suggestion not a judgement.

I don't believe that we need to alter our drug laws to attract tourists. So go have a wonderful time in Colorado.

txmom32

#1.31

The sense of humor is in fine shape. Sorry I did not see the reason for humor in such a story. Seeing we are talking about the sexual assault on a pair of women by a pair of Texas troopers on the side of highway for littering and smelling like pot. What more probably cause do they need?

I know it says only the female put on the gloves but in the radio dispatch that was released with this story last month the male cop called the female cop with the intent of the cavity search.

I think humor is maybe a little out of place for such a story, but then maybe that is the way all the people of Texas get their jollies. Again we are talking about Texas and when it is all said and done, I'm sure that the courts will side with the troopers and find that these women got what they deserved at the hands of these two fine officers, after all the were littering the highways of Texas and smelling like pot and are damn lucky the cops didn't just go ahead and beat the snot out of them on side of the road with their flashlights as well.

As far as running the plate, why even bother. The cops were there for their own jollies and the women were a target to be dealt with for the pleasures of these two troopers.

As for Colorado, I have and I will.

Both times I was in Texas I said I would not return do to all the friendly people I dealt with. You have convinced me that nothing has changed in Texas.

Have a nice day, Ya'all.

Actually, a good man will clean his car when taking a woman out. That's just a sign of a thoughtful man who respects the woman they date.

Maybe back when women were supposed to be treated like objects to acquire rather than as people.

You might want to stop being so misogynistic.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The public doesn't get to see just how out of control our law enforcement has become.

Along with the protections of the "thin blue line", their unions have the public completely over the barrel. What politician in his right mind would ever say "no" to a law enforcement union at the risk of his political territory being without "protection" and his re-election and political power all but being squashed. They have their employers by the throat with threats and the public by the throat with laws (the way they interpret them) and guns.

The people have pushed for public oversight, to no avail. The unions refuse. Their opinion is they can handle things "inhouse", but it's like the fox guarding the chicken house.

The horse has already been let out of the barn. For agencies who have the power and the legal authority to decide whether I live or die, the public needs to stop treating them as super heroes who can do no wrong and demand more accountability and regulation.

There is no defense of the so called lady cop, she is was getting her jollies, dollar to donut says she is a lesbian. She deserves to be fired wihtout benfits or and forfiet her retirement if she is eligible. Her action is sick.

Isn't what they did technically considered "rape" using the federal definition of the term?

FBI definition of rape: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

Doesn't much matter if the female cop is straight or a lesbian. This is about bullying, not sex. The male cop outranked the female and should be held accountable for what she did in his presence. I don't give a crap if he was paying much attention to her, he SHOULD have been paying attention and should be fired with the female cop.

If I was a trooper down there, I'd want these two canned immediately. This outrageous behavior makes it very difficult for good cops to do their jobs. The women should have received littering tickets and been on their way. Now they will probably get a nice settlement (and if I were them, I'd move to another state).

...so, when you say ..."terminate"...

Remind them who they work for and pays their wages and they talk about bullying what a frickin joke

Justredd & paleblue....

I agree. Criminally prosecute her (and him as a coconspirator) and send them to prison for rape where they will find out first hand what its like to be cavity searched every day for 7-10! Fired is not enough.

They should get the same punishment for rape as anyone else would get! AND LITTERING (IF IN FACT THEY LITTERED AT ALL) IS NO EXCUSE TO PULL SOMEONE OVER AND THEN VIOLATE THEM NO MATTER WHAT THE PIG "SAYS" HE SMELLS! Sh!t like this makes me wonder, everytime I hear of a cop being shot, What did the cop do to deserve it right then or at an earlier time?

Remind them who they work for and pays their wages and they talk about bullying what a frickin joke

That's the problem, makes me wonder. They technically work for us, but how they work for us is based on the decisions of a few politicians who never want to lose their positions by standing up to the bullies.

The public is going to have to demand action. They did it in the City of Fullerton; it can be done everywhere else:

http://www.fullertonrecall.com/

Two by two, hands of blue...I'm getting as far as I can from Alliance territory!

This is shocking.

I've been stopped MANY, MANY times (when I was much younger, and they nearly took my license) for speeding by TX DPS Troopers, county deputies, city cops and weasel deputy constables. I've seen the range, from the utmost professional to the crooked, small-town speed traps, and can tell you that BY FAR the DPS Troopers exhibit professionalism second only to the DPS Texas Rangers (the two of whom I've actually had the pleasure to meet).

I won't speculate about this claim, but any bad Troopers need to change careers and go work security at the food court in the mall--instead of disgracing one of the finest and most professional LE organizations in the world.

...instead of disgracing one of the finest and most professional LE organizations in the world.

If this is an example of their finest, I'd had to see their worst.

The lawsuit goes on to say that a bottle of prescribed hydrocodone was missing from Dobbs' car and purse after the search.

This illegal search was done on the George W. Bush Turnpike. The law enforcement needed some extra pain killers at citizens expense... rolling eyes

Janine-1645002

They are both suspended WITH PAY? What kind of punishment is that?

Union negotiated "punishment".

Traffic Avenger,

The sense of humor is in fine shape. Sorry I did not see the reason for humor in such a story. Seeing we are talking about the sexual assault on a pair of women by a pair of Texas troopers on the side of highway for littering and smelling like pot. What more probably cause do they need?

Just to be clear about the troopers, only one actually physically assaulted the women, from what we saw, and she is no longer a trooper and will probably a good deal of time in various courtrooms in her future. The other trooper seems to have the question of missing prescription hanging over him. There will most certainly be a determination to come.

Again, it does seem like a picky point to pull someone over for tossing cigarettes out of the car, until you live in a drought stricken area then it changes the perspective, because road side fires are a real problem. Remember he didn't pull them over until the second cigarette went out of the window. I really don't have a problem with the traffic stop at all. He didn't call for another officer until he had spoken with the driver. I have a huge problem with what was a very real sexual assault on both women. I have, as I am sure many do, concerns of what happened to the prescription bottle of pills.

As for heighten concern and search of the vehicle, I think a strong odor of marijuana coming from the car gives him probably cause to look for drugs. It could also be reasonable to call another trooper, female, to pat down the women. What the female trooper did went too far over the top when she placed her hands down the women's pants. If they were that concerned about hidden contraband then they should have placed the women in the patrol car and taken them in.

Maybe back when women were supposed to be treated like objects to acquire rather than as people. You might want to stop being so misogynistic.

So I gather you just learned a new word. Perhaps you should check out the definition of the word "misogyny", because it seem out of context in your post 1.33. Just saying, my darling dear one and I will be celebrating our 17th anniversary this weekend and my bet is that he will walk in the house of Friday with at least a dozen roses, Godiva and when we go out to dinner on Sat night he will have had the truck cleaned. But then respect is recripocal so when I take him out on Sat morning I will be doing that in a clean car too. Are you suggesting that a man would only clean his car for woman if he chose to objectify her? That is just silly.

The thing with the pills can be iffy. If the police officer did smell pot then how the hell do we actually know there was a pill bottle to begin with. So many people these days will lie to be able to sue somebody, it's ridiculous. I'm by no means saying what happened to them was right, but I've known too many 'pill heads' in my life and people who will add lies to the truth to get a little something extra.

Debbie i dont know who could stand by a watch an innocent man being beat to death, the ones that did it every last one should get the death penalty and i dont believe in the death penalty Fullerton will have a dark cloud over it for eternity

texmom32

#1.48

Happy Anniversary, hope that none of Texas finest ruin your evening or morning of celebration.

Also tell your loved one to buy you rose plants and bushes and then you can enjoy them when they bloom and not just watch them die on the dining room table. The wife told me that many, many moons ago and now she enjoys the rose garden we planted over 25 years ago.

And I will only take credit for what I have posted.

#1.33

Belongs to others.

If you think Florida has never had a drought with wildfires, you would be sadly mistaken.

Littering, regardless of what they through out the window, (unless it was a body) and smelling like pot, was no reason or justification for the actions of these two troopers and jail is where they both belong. PERIOD.

Regardless, both of these cops were way out of line and should be in jail. Perhaps when it is all said and done they will be.We can only hope.

Cheers.

As for heighten concern and search of the vehicle, I think a strong odor of marijuana coming from the car gives him probably cause to look for drugs.

Before any officer is allowed to search for probable cause, a supervisor should be called to verify the "probable cause". No marijuana was found. That officer searched her car without her consent, a clear violation of her Constitutional rights. He should be terminated and both officers prosecuted.

We can't keep allowing officers who are terminated for violating laws to just slink away and get rehired by another department. When they break the law in the line of duty, they need to be prosecuted, like everyone else. We're treating them the same way the Vatican covers for their pedophiles by allowing them to transfer to another church. It's wrong.

Traffic Avenger....thank you for the well wishes. I can agree with your wife...valentines is two weeks after our anniversary and that is usually when I get the rose plant for the garden. This year it will be six rose plants because we killed some in a transplant in the fall. Nothing better than being able to cut your own flowers when you want to.

My deep apologies regarding post 1.33, that was "some guy" from 1.48. I will repost to make sure he gets credit for his thoughts and you are certainly not tainted by them.

I understand your anger at the lady cop...don't care that she is a lady cop she needs to keep her fingers to herself. Why so angry at the male cop....he was actually doing his job.

some guy

Maybe back when women were supposed to be treated like objects to acquire rather than as people. You might want to stop being so misogynistic.

my reply to "some guys"

So I gather you just learned a new word. Perhaps you should check out the definition of the word "misogyny", because it seem out of context in your post 1.33. Just saying, my darling dear one and I will be celebrating our 17th anniversary this weekend and my bet is that he will walk in the house of Friday with at least a dozen roses, Godiva and when we go out to dinner on Sat night he will have had the truck cleaned. But then respect is recripocal so when I take him out on Sat morning I will be doing that in a clean car too. Are you suggesting that a man would only clean his car for woman if he chose to objectify her? That is just silly.

txmom32,

She (the female cop) was no lady.

He neglected his duty to protect the ones who needed it the most.

His security was never a question.

The crime did not fit the punishment.

What happened to the rights of these women when he turned on the blue and reds? Fairy dust and Disney?

The list is end list in the all the ways this should have been avoided.

Hope you and yours enjoy the night.

Why so angry at the male cop....he was actually doing his job.

He was doing his job by violating her Constitutional rights and searching her car without her consent nor without a warrant? Or maybe taking her medication?

His department needs to do a hair follicle test on him, but his union would probably prohibit that from taking place.

how come everyone elses unions are disappearing?

The reason everyone else's unions are disappearing is because people can stomach others striking and are still able to go about their daily business; but when it comes to the perceived threat and fear of their "protectors" striking, that taps into a primal fear where the fearful do not want to confront.

Thus, through threats and primal fear, law enforcement unions remain powerful and untouchable.

I absolutely agree that she should be fired and she should be subject to prosecution for the sexual assault on the women.

As for the male cop. He had a reasonable argument to search the car when smelling marijuana. He doesn't need a warrant from a judge. The car is mobile and on public roads and the odor is offers reasonable cause. People may not like his reasoning for pulling the women over but it is actually a valid legal reason. People may not like that he searched the car but after smelling marijuana in the car he had a legal right to search the interior of the vehicle and the purses inside the car. Now he didn't find marijuana in the car so at that point the women should have been ticketed for the littering and sent on their way. If there was no concern of weapons on their persons I don't think the women should have been touched at all.

So in watching the entire clip not just the snippet attached...he was respectful to the women. There seemed to be a question about addresses on ID. He was given permission to search the car and at least one purse. When one woman asked if she could have a cigarette, on the roadside, he said, "no because it is supper dry out here." One woman confessed to having cleared warrants recently, he made it abundantly clear that he was concerned about marijuana in the car and his intention was to search. He was polite and respectful as were the women. I'm not sure how he came to the determination that they were acting weird they both seem very calm and reasonable to me. Now when he found the rolling papers even though he found tobacco, that offered him the opportunity to search the car further. Now his response to the driver saying very clearly that she felt violated in my opinion seems very unconcerned that she had been molested and attributing that to someone being a daily marijuana smoker in the car really does not connect those dots. No one should be subject to that humiliation. But the body search was done by the female cop as the male cop was searching the car. Could he have done things differently, of course. Did he act criminally...not from what I saw on the video.

There should be a clear review of what is being taught to troopers in regard to a search. I can't imagine that it was an appropriate action to do a body cavity search on a roadside and if that is what troopers have been taught then well that practive needs to be fixed. If a car emits a heavy odor from marijuana then the trooper has a duty to protect the rest of the public to make sure that someone is not driving under the influence on the roads.

His "probable cause" remains iffy at best, especially when no marijuana was found.

Just the smell of marijuana alone being used as a valid search seems to invalidate the 4th Amendment. Every traffic stop could include the "smell of marijuana" as a catch all to probable cause and used as an excuse to search someone's vehicle without a warrant.

From Police Chief Magazine:

"But when a police officer cannot prove that he smelled marijuana or that the smell was emanating from a particular place, he cannot reasonably conclude that probable cause existed.¹⁵ One court has held that an officer may only discern probable cause from the smell of burnt or raw marijuana if he can determine with reasonable accuracy the point in time when the marijuana was smoked. In that case, because the officer had not been trained in "determining the length of time a residual odor or marijuana has been present" it was not reasonable for him to believe that the vehicle contained marijuana.¹⁶"

Hopefully whatever court hears this case agrees and the officer loses his job for violating their 4th Amendment rights.

Where you may hope the court agrees I personally hope the court examins any evidence of the case, including the officers behavior on the tape and rules accordingly.

Yes, and unless the officer can prove he had been trained in "determining the length of time a residual odor of marijuana has been present", the evidence should speak for itself and the court will hopefully rule accordingly.

But with Texas's reputation for holding kanagroo courts, it's going to be a crapshoot.

Debi...so what kangaroo courts are you talking about? Obviously, if you bother to watch the tape, he mentioned the strong odor of marijuana several times. To at end, one of the ladies stated that the smell could be from a regular (pot) smoker. The car belonged to her boyfriend. She also offered to the officer that he had been ticked for a roach in the car before. One of the ladies very clearly gave him permission to serch her purse that was in the car. He did not begin any search until he ran both drivers licenses, neither of which had their current addresses on them. The insurance card in the car was not current either. He also did not begin any search or even call the other officer until after her ran the license plate numbers. Probable cause adds up and there was consent for at least one of the purses.

This still does not excuse the abuse from the female cop.

txmom32:

I just watched the dash cam video from start to finish, with the volume as high as it could go.

To at end, one of the ladies stated that the smell could be from a regular (pot) smoker.

NOWHERE did I hear "one of the ladies stating that the smell could be from a regular pot smoker".

She also offered to the officer that he had been ticked for a roach in the car before.

NOWHERE did I hear her "offer to the officer that he had been ticketed for a roach in the car before".

One of the ladies very clearly gave him permission to serch her purse that was in the car.

NOWHERE did I hear one of the ladies "very clearly give him permission to search her purse that was in the car".

He did not begin any search until he ran both drivers licenses, neither of which had their current addresses on them.

What difference does it make whether he searched the car without their permission or a warrant before or after he ran their drivers licenses? Neither had a record or warrant, nor a reason to do a search.

The insurance card in the car was not current either.

An insurance card not being current does not warrant a search.

What I witnessed were two very polite and respectful ladies who, without a fight or argument, had just had their 4th Amendment Right stripped from them by some yahoo in possession of a gun and were sexually assaulted by another yahoo, also in possession of a gun.

Either you have a big imagination (they say everything is big in Texas) or it doesn't appear you and I reviewed the same dash cam video.

Forgive me for only referencing Texas kangaroo courts, because after your analysis of the dash cam and comments, I should have also mentioned the kangaroo people.

AND did anyone else notice that she said it happened on the george bush turnpike.. I had to laugh.. Everything associated with that name is an afront to intellect and humanity.. I really don't think anyone would be upset if they ceded from the union..

Debbie, then you watched the wrong video. As I stated at one point above I watched the entire video not just the edited snippet that NBC attached. Perhaps if you reference the video, choose unedited version and sit and watch for an hour and you will actually see what will be presented to the court. You know it is sort of a track record for NBC to edit by cutting and pasting clips to get their readership all riled up.

Perhaps if you worried less about the kangaroo people in Texas and more about the progressive lemmings all over our great nation you could participate reasonably in a public forum.

txmom32:

Video or no video, the fact remains, the officer was obviously wrong in his "smell of marijuana" assessment and use of probable cause to search the vehicle because no marijuana was found, thus also wrong in his warrantless, non consensual search of the vehicle.

There's a reason behind your bias defending the indefensible, but only you have the answer to that reason.

FYI, I did not watch the NBC version due to the editing.

How come the offending officer just gets fired, instead of also being charged with multiple felony crimes including sexual assault too, as certainly would be the case if any private citizen had done this on the side of the road to two women guilty of nothing more than suspicion of a minor ticketable offense?

Old Timer:

They were BOTH offenders of the law, but not only were the women sexually assaulted by the one offender, while the other officer observed and was complacent, the person doing the assaulting did it while armed, and under the threat, of a gun. If that crime were committed by any other citizen, they'd be locked up with the key thrown away.

No one should be excused or treated differently just because of their job title.

Debbie...if you had watched the video you could note that the male officer did not stand by and observe. He was searching the car for the marijuana he smelled. He actually appeared to avoid even a glance in the direction of the women while they were being searched. Now you are really going off the wire...neither officer pulled a gun.

Agreed that there was preceived duress (not because of a gun but because of authority figure) with the search but no one had their guns drawn at any point in the stop.

Old Timer...we don't know what will happen to the fired officer because the story is still playing out. It is very reasonable to believe that there will be charges against the officer who did the search very possibly for rape. It could be that something develops against the male officer. If they find that there were drugs missing from the woman's purse and car he could be fired and charged as well.

The male officer did not touch the women. The male officer said nothing about a body cavity search. So unless he had some knowledge of the female officers search techniques then how could he be responsible for calling for a female officer to do the search. I agree that once he had knowledge that the female officer went into cavity mode he should have offered to take a report or to direct them to the right person to take a report.

It is probably good that you are not on the jury becuase it seems that you would not consider the least of evidence like the video.

txmom:

...if you had watched the video you could note that the male officer did not stand by and observe.

In case you forgot, the male officer was the one who actually called for the female officer to do the body search. Please, don't try and excuse him and say he was "oblivious" because he was busy searching the car. He knew damn well what was going on, even if he stood there with his eyes closed. The aunt is saying to him in the video that she never felt so violated because she was touched below front and back (I'm paraphrasing, but the aunt is specific about which body parts were touched). He absolutely had knowledge then and did nothing.

Agreed that there was preceived duress (not because of a gun but because of authority figure) with the search but no one had their guns drawn at any point in the stop.

One does not need to have a gun drawn on them in order to be threatened. Just the knowledge of someone with a gun is threat enough.

If you were held against your will and had a choice of escaping from someone concealing a gun or without a gun, which would you choose? It's the same thing when somebody robs a bank and gives the clerk a note telling them, not showing them, they have a gun. They are charged with armed robbery due to the perceived threat.

If they find that there were drugs missing from the woman's purse and car he could be fired and charged as well.

That will be tough to prove.

What should be easier to prove is his violation of their 4th Amendment Rights, in which he should be fired.

Why you continue to defend this cockroach, is telling.

I have no intention of convicting him just because an violation was made by the female officer.e showed prudence by calling for a female officer to do the search and in their conversation on the tape he never suggested a body cavity search.

The Aunt was specific about what body parts were searched after the female officer left the scene. He had knowledge after the fact.

One does not need to have a gun drawn on them in order to be threatened. Just the knowledge of someone with a gun is threat enough.

You realize that is subjective, right? I've seen any number of police officers who were armed and have never felt threatened. In my younger years when there was the occasional traffic violation and the officer was armed I never felt uneasy. When I have been pulled out of customs line at the airport and patted down those officers have been armed and where I was irritated I never felt threatened. Again if you watch the uncut video the women's body language did not change until the officer who was doing the search went too far. Neither woman seemed uneasy with the male officer to the point that after the female officer left the aunt still felt confident enough to tell the officer what happened. Again, I think the male officer made a very wrong statement, when he brushed that off as what happens when you drive around in a car that wreaks of marijuana. He absolutely should have taken the women's complaints with reasonable regard.

It's the same thing when somebody robs a bank and gives the clerk a note telling them, not showing them, they have a gun. They are charged with armed robbery due to the perceived threat.

Absolutely not the same thing. An armed robber is a criminal and by showing a note has no regard for the tellers safety or anyone else in reasonable proximity. A police officer is only going to draw their weapon if they feel an imminent threat to them is involved. Perhaps the women did feel there was a threat from the female cop, as she is the one searching. She is the one who violated them. Not the male cop.

So for your hypothetical, if a armed man came into my home and raped me is the driver, out in the car, waiting for the offender guilty of rape? Perhaps he thought the guy in the house was visiting a friend, making a drug buy or robbing the house or never conceived of the perpetrator doing something so horrific. He would probably be charged with something if caught but probably not for rape.

Also at no point did either officer threaten to pull their weapon.

That will be tough to prove.

What should be easier to prove is his violation of their 4th Amendment Rights, in which he should be fired.

Why you continue to defend this cockroach, is telling.

Yes it would be tough to prove that he took prescription drugs from her purse or from the car. That is why when she reported it to the police there should have been an investigation. If the bottle was in her purse could she have lost it at the casino...that is possible. The first thing to check would be go back to her DR to see if she sought another prescription..etc.

here is the text of the 4th amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The probable cause was the odor of marijuana in the car. The officer stated that several times. The Aunt gave permission to the search of her purse. Cars are an exception due to their mobility and to their use on public roads. The general public has a right to drive on public roads free from some idiot getting high in their car while driving. If a car wreaks of marijuana it is reasonable for an officer of the law to search. As for a body cavity search...that is not a reasonable search when no illegal drugs have been founds. The officer said several times the women were acting odd. Perhaps the women had taken pain killers while they were driving to the casino. This could account for some odd behavior but then you shouldn't be driving if you have taken pain medication. We wouldn't know that though because the officer did not as if the women had taken the prescription, which might have lent to an understanding of their odd behavior.

I have no idea if this officer is a cockroach...I think after watching the video the most that can be said about the male officers behavior is he took a very long time to conduct the search and personally he might be a real jerk but that does not equate to criminal behavior. It seems on here many people are unable to distinguish the difference in behavior of each officer. Then there are others that seem to believe that if the woman gets fired the man should too.

The Aunt was specific about what body parts were searched after the female officer left the scene.

Guess the female officer leaving the scene relieves him of any responsibility in reporting a crime. Sarcasm

I've seen any number of police officers who were armed and have never felt threatened.

While you were being sexually assaulted by one of them?

That is why when she reported it to the police there should have been an investigation.

Surprisingly, not, neither officer was investigated, for anything.

This could account for some odd behavior...

You call the women's behavior odd, the male officer called it "weird". I saw it as two women, respectful and polite, going out for the evening. The only thing I witnessed as being "odd" were the women being able to take a sexual assault without flinching. Also, I would have either requested a supervisor be present for this unverified and unfounded "probable cause" search and I would have had my attorney on the phone and on his way before the male officer could say "I'm going to violate your 4th Amendment."

Debi...I clearly stated that he did have a responsibility to report the complaint by the female cop. I don't know for sure that he did not tell his superiors about the details of the stop. Of course not and given that the female trooper acknowledged that she wished to use the male troopers video because she didn't wish the take the women to her cruiser. I truly do not know what the woman could or should have done at the hands of the female cop, they certainly did nothing that should warrant a body cavity search and the roadside was the wrong place to conduct that thorough of a search anyway, in my opinion. I have stated she is, based on the video, guilty of sexual assault. Yes both officers were the subject of an inquiry by the Texas Rangers and their report has been turned over to the district attorney. The Rangers did the investigation and nothing came of it, so we shall see through the trial if they were trying to cover up for the troopers, I would hope that is not the case. I have no problem with the women taking this to court and I hope that they are compensated for the violation and humiliation. I hope that this sends a red flag up to ever cop in the state to use their authority to the best ends.

I agree that both women were respectful and polite. The police officers were polite in demeanor, even the woman cop that assaulted the women was marginally polite, to the point that it was eerily surreal. It is probably that the women do not have attorneys or actually understand the extent of their rights. Had they, and assuming they had at least one cell phone then they would have done just that after the stop while they were sitting in the car. Again, this is delving into the unknown and none of that warrants a sexual assault on a roadside by a cop. The sticking point is only one cop put her hands down the ladies pants. Unless they find proof that the male police officer new that the female cop would violate these women he is not responsible for the sexual assault. Now if it comes out in a report, or they uncover other video that these two officers ran this as a scam then yes absolutely fire him and try him as an accessory to the crime.

txmom:

Unless they find proof that the male police officer new that the female cop would violate these women he is not responsible for the sexual assault.

But the male officer DID know a sexual assault had been committed by the female officer. The aunt clearly tells him. He should have arrested the female officer for sexual assault. The fact remains, he did nothing and should be held just as responsible as the female officer... fired and prosecuted.

Texas sucks. Just had to say that. Been there and the cops are morons.

I think there is a sense with law enforcement, particularly in sheriff's offices, that the rules (including those of common sense) do not apply to them. My grandfather was a chief of police, so I used to be inclined to view law enforcement favorably, but the actions of the individual officers I encounter day to day (on and off duty) don't really give me much reason to continue that view. Favors for friends, casual brutality, harassment of civilians (including my own mother), etc.

I'm with you 100%, JrzWrld. I was pulled over once after turning into a restaurant by a cop who actually made an unsafe u-turn in rush hour traffic to follow me in to say I made an illegal turn. WTF ? Illegal right turn into a parking lot from the right lane!!!!!????? When I started to question him as to what I did illegally, he gave me a typical condescending, power hungry cop's response of "Keep it up buddy and you'll be in deeper trouble". No ticket, not even a warning - just unneccessary harrassment.

Uh, steve k... You must be black, and the cop was/is white!!

I received a "failure to yield" by a cop who right-turned in front of me; HE was the offender. I chose to take it to court. He didn't show up, and the judge gave me the option to pay the ticket's fine and have nothing on my record if I maintained a clean record for six months. I refused and a new court date was set. Again the cop was a no-show. This time I only had to pay court fees ($15) and nothing put on my record. I'd really wanted to see this guy in court but I'd already taken two half days off work so I took the deal. No disciplinary action was taken against this cop.

steve k-1944950

I'm with you 100%, JrzWrld. I was pulled over once after turning into a restaurant

How long did it take you to turn back into a person?

@ steve k, my 50-something mother was pulled over at 3 am, driving home from a party on a lonely highway. The cop asked her how fast she was going, and she replied the exact speed - she'd had her cruise control set. He blasted her for wearing her seatbelt wrong - she replied that she had a health issue and had confirmed with the State Police office that she could wear her seat belt that way because of it. He told her she had an obstruction hanging from her rear view mirror - she told him that the string on the ornament was long enough that it hung below her line of vision and that she had deliberately set it up that way. He was utterly infuriated to be called out on every point and was quite rude to her - but he did let her go. I don't think he wanted to look like an utter ass in front of a judge when my petite little mother refuted every one of his charges.

I, however, was completely furious that someone pulled my mother over at that time of night just to fish for violations. If she'd been driving unsafely, I could understand it, but this guy was just bored and looking to harass someone.

How long did it take you to turn back into a person?

bah dum bum... chh!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI

There are good cops and a**hole one's. Saw a guy driving the wrong way on a one way street. Cop was at the intersection and the guy turned into a bank lot just before he got to the cop. I pointed out the window towards the guy as I passed the cop, cop pulled out, pulled behind me until I turned right, then turning behind me, kicked on the lights and pulled me over. My wife and kid were in the truck with me and both looked at me and asked "what did you do?" I replied I didn't know and waited for the officer to come up to the truck. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" he asked to which I replied I didn't and he said that my front license plate was missing. He started towards the front of the truck and made the mistake of taking off my seat belt and opening the door to follow when he ordered me to "get back in the truck" with his hand on his weapon. I immediately complied and he glanced at the front of my truck before coming back to lecture me about not getting out of my truck unless so instructed and that he must have been mistaken about my license and I'd better follow instructions in the future and that he was going to let me off "this time" with just a warning.

So he was pissed that I was telling him his job (pointing out a wrong way vehicle that could have resulted in a head on accident) and decided to make up the "missing license plate" as a feeble excuse to show who was in charge. I admit that I shouldn't have tried to exit the vehicle because I understand his POV (guy getting out of a vehicle behind him) but I was so shocked about missing a front plate (it was there that morning when I got into the truck!) I couldn't believe it! BTW, my last traffic ticket was in 1984!

no, there are no good cops. they cover for each other which makes them all accomplices. if there were good cops you would hear alot more about cops being arrested cause they would turn in the dirty ones.

MNPat

Know exactly how you feel, the cops can pull you over whenever, issue a bogus ticket, then not show up to face the consequences of their illegal actions, I suspect a conspiracy of city hall beauracrats requiring ticket quotas that add to their treasuries and the cops. Cops issue the ticket, knowing that most times it costs more to take time off to contest the ticket than it costs to pay the fine, that is what they are banking on.

everytime a pig dies an angel gets its wings.

I was turning left into my driveway on a two lane road on my motorcycle. A cop (in his personal vehicle and street clothes) tried to pass me on my right and when I told him I have the right to the whole lane, he yelled "I'm a cop you idiot"!

To this day I still can't get this out of my head!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3YuygxrvyA

hatr there are good cops just good people...what an ignorant statement....your pseudo name fits.

For the life of me I can't figure out who would think this would fall under "a good idea". I guess this department needs to prepare to bend over and get a cavity search of their own.

This story reminds me of something that aired on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno years ago. I tried to find a clip on You Tube, but alas had no luck...

Anyway, Jay had a guest whose sole reason for being on the show was that he'd applied to be a police officer and was turned down. Not so unusually in and of itself as I'm sure many people are turned away when applying for such a job. The odd ball part of the story was the *reason* he was turned down...the man had scored too high on an intelligence test.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, he wasn't given a job as a police officer because he was too smart! The Department's reasoning was that a person of that intelligence level would be bored by the job. Really?!?

So the next time you're unfortunate enough to interact with a "bad cop" just bear in mind that they probably have the IQ of a retarded chimpanzee (and most likely a temperament to match).

After talking to someone about this issue recently they told me this...

"There is no justice in our system. I don't know if there ever really was. Some people want to defend the system out of loyalty to the people who hold the positions of power and/or service to our country. They defend the system because it is unpleasant and unacceptable to admit that the entire system/country is infected with corruption and has become it's own system of organized crime. Even if they fire both these police officers, it will not change anything. The America that we all want to believe in and that we are so loyal to is not what America is in reality. The "idea" of America is what we love and have laid down our lives for, unfortunately, that is not what is real. Very sad."

I told them surely it was not this way and hoped that they would keep some faith alive.

I often wonder how so many people who obviously do not belong in law enforcement are allowed to be there. I was pulled over a few years ago in the parking lot of the place I work for by a police man who first asked for my drivers license, then asked me if I was married and when I said yes, proceeded to scream at me because my husband mixed up the license plates for our two cars. I asked if I could step out of the car, because at the time I was pregnant and so upset I had to throw up. He continued to scream at me while I was throwing up, accusing me of lying about the cars, which I found to be ridiculous because he can look up on his computer and see we own both and had them properly registered. He took my plate and I had to go to court to retrieve it. The only saving grace in this situation was that his supervisor ended up reprimanding him because my boss saw everything out the window and called the precinct and the officer had to apologize to me. Still, I don't think he should have remained a police officer. He obviously has 'power issues".

Is this the way all troopers in Texas get their jollies?

First it is roadside sex, then they rip off the pills.

All this because he says he smelled pot in the car.

Who are the criminals here?

End the madness they call the war on drugs. End the Prohibition on Cannabis.

Do the right thing and charge these two with the crimes they committed against these two women, or are women in Texas treated the same way the extremist in Africa treat the women there as nothing more then property to do with as the men see fit.

Hey Texas... Our state legalized Marijuana and the sky didn't fall...

I know how your police love arresting people for pot but this behavior is over the top.

This is simply another case of Bully with a Badge.......

READ the article Jrz..they were BOTH suspended..with pay pending investigation.

and then tell janine that one of them is now being terminated. better yet, quote the title of the article " Texas set to 'terminate' trooper".

there was no reason anyway so what if smelled pot high five sickos

They couldn't take them to the police station for a search because there was absolutely no grounds for it. Someone else would probably take over the processing there (if there was any) and the pervert cops would have been sent back on the road after having no fun. Besides, it's takes all the fun out of bullying if you don't do it in public to totally humiliate the victims. WHy cops would do this stuff when they know they are being recorded is beyond me. Must be delusional and think they are invincible. Brazen beyond stupidity.

LMAO!! Good thing they didn't try to fill those cavities.

@Stonepipe..... LOL LOL LOL! At least she couldn't whip a drill out.

The excuse of "I was only following orders" was negated in the 1940s.

The male trooper illegally searched the car. Prescription drugs in the possession of the victim of this crime were stolen. Why isn't the male trooper being fired, again? This case is revolting, from the illegal search of these women, the invasion of privacy in public, the stunning use of the same pair of gloves, the illegal search of the car to the Texas Dept of Public Safety finding nothing wrong! They didn't suspend these troopers or move to terminate one of them until the video was made public and notice of intent to sue was filed.

They had months to act and did nothing until this was exposed...

Like I mentioned on the other post, the cops WILL get away witht this @!$%# all the time unless some one records these @!$%#ing incidents & gets some exposure!!! But you @!$%#ing ass hole cops who are operating like this, you will get yours in return!!!! Karma is alive & well you @!$%#ers!!!!!!!!

The car search was not illegal, in Texas it is law that smelling marijuana in a motor vehicle is probable cause for a search. The vehicle is considered mobile and the evidence at risk of destruction if the officer is required to wait for a warrant so the "exigent circumstances" exemption to the warrant requirement comes into play. Like it or not the male officer did not do anything wrong, he followed policy and called a female officer to search the two female occupants, you never hear him ask for a body cavity search. He is not her supervisor and was busy conducting his completely legal PC search of her vehicle when the illegal body search occurred. This was all on her, an over-zealous officer who acted completely outside of her authority.

NOT ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD where he called for it to be done, and only a dr should be able to do that how do u know she did not get her jollies doing the search

Smelling pot is an nothing more now days than an excuse to harass and do unjustified searches. Most of the time they don't find anything which tells me they lie just to have an excuse to search...And how many times do they drop a roach or a bag of pot in the seat of someones car so they can bust them for what ever reason their pee brain minds come up with especially if you make them mad by refusing to let them search...We live in a world of evil and the evil comes from the criminals and the police. Better to stay at home than ride the streets of big cities.. Me I live way back in the country its much safer even from the police.

The car search was not illegal, in Texas it is law that smelling marijuana in a motor vehicle is probable cause for a search.

more like a convenient excuse for a jerk of a cop to search without cause

A male officer can but does not have to call a female officer for a quick pat-down search of a female he has stopped, so the fact that this officer called for female assistance to begin with supports that he wanted an intimate search (either strip search or body cavity search) and was indeed part of a conspiracy to violate these motorists' constitutional rights. Also, don't forget that the video is not the only record - the female officer has also given her side of the story to internal affairs, and I doubt she is prepared to fall on her sword for him if the male officer in fact equested a body cavity search.

"JustSaying74" sounds like one of the male cops buddies. They probably all hate women so they have no problem throwing her under a bus.

Claiming that David did "nothing wrong" is the biggest joke in the book. He did do something wrong. Do you really think he didn't know what the female officer was going to do? Because he did. Did he try and stop it after the first lady was searched? Nope.

You're pathetic. If the government doesn't handle this situation correctly by the end of the month, the entire government becomes labeled a criminal gang.

Guess what happens to criminal gangs that pack weapons?

Here is the issue with your resolution. Who pays the bill when towns or cities are sued??! Taxpayers. And lawsuits are settled daily based on cost not on guilt. So in the end you teach no one a lesson other than to sue for money. Don't get me wrong. I think these women were wronged and are due compensation but IMO it should be from the scumbags offciers who commited the crime and not the community who is not at fault for this. Who in their right mind would seriously condone this kind of BS? Very very few.

Webba...if these were Texas State Police or Texas Rangers, no taxpayers are paying for this. Correct me if I am wrong, but Texas does not have a state income tax. No community is at fault, the whole f'n state is at fault.

Webba, look at the article again.

"The two women from Irving are suing Trooper David Farrell, Trooper Kelley Helleson and the director of the Department of Public Safety for what they call an unconstitutional search without probable cause."

Looks to me that the taxpayers are in the clear! Then again, a few months ago it was reported that Texas is one of the few states in this country with a tax surplus. Remember all the secession talk. Texas can survive on it's own. A few million wont hurt the citizens one little bit!

Yes to sue is the way to make them pay..City budgets don't like million dollar lawsuits... Maybe they will learn to screen police applicants better or offer better training or listen to the public when innocents are complaining about certain police officers abusing their power..And also don't always believe the police against its own citizens...And at election time be sure to vote out all parties who condone police corrupted powers. Citizens have some powers and they must learn to use them..Once you give unregulated powers to local police over citizens without checks and balances that power always and I mean always becomes corrupted it brings out all the bad apples..

Nomad - I dont think the taxpayers are in the clear. The Troopers can argue that they were excercising the authority granted by the state and get the state to cover thier backsides. The Director of Public Safety is also probably going to be covered by the state because of his position, ultimately all 3 are representative/authority of the state and thus the state is responsible.

There is more at play here than violating department regulations establish by DPS. There are constitutional issues at stake and this case may find its way into a federal courtroom due to unlawful search and seizure. Remember, the women allege that a prescription drug was confiscated ~ yet no criminal complaint nor arrest ensued. It couldn't be claimed that the confiscation constituted "evidence" for there was no pending case. The unwarranted and unauthorized 'cavity searchs' speak for themselves. Both troopers and the DPS director will hide behind 'sovereign immunity' grated their employer, the State of Texas ~ ~ ~ but I doubt that will stand for long ~ before a state magistrate or federal judge. Needless to say, there are very likely some tightly contricted 'cavity orfices' around the DPS and attorney general's office right now.

Dejay -

Do you think income taxes are the only form of tax? Do you think that troopers and rangers are paid from the profits they generate?

Sales taxes, use taxes, fees, fines - they are all taxes.

Of course it is going to be paid for by the taxpayers.

Deejay research b4 you blab, DPS are state troopers and yes tax payers in Tx pay them, just because don't have state income tax doesn't mean we don't have taxes. Tx has bad cops just like all other states.

NOT only Texas

You are naive if you think Tx is the only state that has problems with over zealous cops.

Tired 72 -

What an intelligent comment ! ... NOT !!

Of course only TEXAS could POSSIBLY have some abusive or overzealous state troopers and police ...

I'm sure NONE of YOUR local or state police would EVER do anything wrong ... couldn't happen anywhere else, right ????????????

I smell $#!t on the (former) officer's gloved finger.

We have a hippie with us, PIG went out so long ago. Get with the time. I was a police officer in NY and I can not believe what they did. Both need to be terminated. Good cops do not cover for bad cops because then they become bad cops. Enough said.

Aren't like half the people living in NY hired on as cops now? Must be a real safe place to live, huh?

Chicago is the place with it's tough guns laws and Rohm the dom

Yeah, yeah, but at least our cops stay in their own goddamn state. NY cops wander up and down the east coast trying to pretend they are the FBI.

Actually, how about making the punishment fit the crime - both officers get their cavities searched, preferably with the big end of a baseball bat, no lubrication? I figure both of them are big enough ssholes that it wouldn't be a problem....Throw in the commanding officer as well, sheet runs downhill.

Actually both of the officers committed acts that are against the law, don't forget the male officer searched the vehicle without consent, so they should face the same process that a civilian would face in the same situation.

If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then that should apply even more when we are talking about an "officer of the law".

The smelling of the weed gives them legal probable cause to search the car, of course i'm quite sure this ruse is used hundreds of times a day by cops to conduct searches. It's no wonder Americans have lost trust in all levels of government and law enforcement.

There needs to be a penalty if they "smell" marajuana, conduct a search and are wrong. I would be totally offended if they tried that BS on me . This type of guise is in their training, kind of a "catch 22" to cover up illegal search and seizures.

The District or States Atty can investigate and file charges without police assistance in most states. But the civil suit will break those two for life.

and we all know those "idiot, power-mad state troopers" ONLY EXIST IN TEXAS ... !!!

What an IDIOTIC comment !!!

They finally got caught... thank God!.

Ahh good one "Myownthoughts56"!!! No jail so that they will know how hard it is to find a job or at least a decent one AND to know HE (I hope the female keeps her job since she was called in) had a good job & blew it!!! Hopefully some/most of those other officers will changer their style/attitudes, if not, then...Karma mother-@!$%#ers!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Right on.Manitowoc county in wisconsin has some of the worst cops!Cops from ILL have stated this so it is not a good thing.

Most cops are mentally deficient creeps. Only the ignorant weak people among us think most cops are "good". They aren't. Most cops are BAD. It doesn't matter if they happen to catch a few real criminals from time to that time. That HAS to be built into their job description to fool the people. Cops aren't here to protect you. They are here to oppress you. Maybe they realize it. Maybe they don't. Most cops are very uneducated and very stupid. They just needed a paycheck and like the idea of wearing a uniform that gives them power.

What are you talking about ?

What reporter? The video is from the cops dash-cam.

Reading is fundemental.

It's a shame when the police commit crimes against citizens. I hope that these woman have the book thrown at these troopers. It's all there in living color. Make them pay! They are not above the law.

Jerry Tremble- seriously? Wow. That's really all I can say about your comment. Please don't procreate

She'll be doing it to little children at that place. She needs mental help after she gets out of prison.