For some version of “answering the question” that refers to spewing irrelevancies, ignoring contradictory facts that are available, forsaking the use of critical thought, engaging in fallacious bifurcation and unfounded speculation, all in an attempt to shore up an untenable position, I’d have to agree with you.

Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. If the police had a good reason to believe it was likely Clement had drugs concealed inside his body, that would be a textbook example of a valid search without a warrant.

A balloon or condom full of drugs is a very dangerous thing for a suspect to have in his body. If the balloon ruptures, then the mule will die of an overdose.

Imagine a situation where, instead of searching Clement, the police put him in a holding cell and go before a judge to get a warrant to search his body. While they are waiting for that, the baggie in his guts breaks open, and he dies in police custody.

Would you be praising the police for respecting this guy’s Fourth Amendment rights in that situation? I think you would be angry at the “pigs” for not getting the guy the medical assistance he clearly needed.

A “reasonable suspicion” is sufficient to justify a stop-and-frisk search, which is probably most of what the narc cops in Albany are doing at the bus station. A more intrusive search, like a cavity search or a search of domicile requires “probable cause” to believe there is evidence of a crime going on. If there is no urgency that harm will occur unless police act, or that evidence will be destroyed if it is not seized quickly, the police should go before a judge and get a warrant.

If the police believe that there is an urgent need to proceed immediately, the justification for the search is considered retroactively and if it is found to be lacking, the evidence resulting from the search is suppressed.

In this case a “phalanx” of officers rushed this guy to a hospital where doctors performed an expensive medical procedure on him. One possible interpretation of these facts is that these professionals reasonably believed that this guy was likely in imminent danger and responded in a manner consistent with that belief.

The other possibility is that there was a large conspiracy of cops and doctors to stick stuff up this guy’s butt.

I think you can guess which scenario I think is more likely.

Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. If the police had a good reason to believe it was likely Clement had drugs concealed inside his body, that would be a textbook example of a valid search without a warrant.

A balloon or condom full of drugs is a very dangerous thing for a suspect to have in his body. If the balloon ruptures, then the mule will die of an overdose.

Imagine a situation where, instead of searching Clement, the police put him in a holding cell and go before a judge to get a warrant to search his body. While they are waiting for that, the baggie in his guts breaks open, and he dies in police custody.

Would you be praising the police for respecting this guy’s Fourth Amendment rights in that situation? I think you would be angry at the “pigs” for not getting the guy the medical assistance he clearly needed.

A “reasonable suspicion” is sufficient to justify a stop-and-frisk search, which is probably most of what the narc cops in Albany are doing at the bus station. A more intrusive search, like a cavity search or a search of domicile requires “probable cause” to believe there is evidence of a crime going on. If there is no urgency that harm will occur unless police act, or that evidence will be destroyed if it is not seized quickly, the police should go before a judge and get a warrant.

If the police believe that there is an urgent need to proceed immediately, the justification for the search is considered retroactively and if it is found to be lacking, the evidence resulting from the search is suppressed.

In this case a “phalanx” of officers rushed this guy to a hospital where doctors performed an expensive medical procedure on him. One possible interpretation of these facts is that these professionals reasonably believed that this guy was likely in imminent danger and responded in a manner consistent with that belief.

The other possibility is that there was a large conspiracy of cops and doctors to stick stuff up this guy’s butt.

I think you can guess which scenario I think is more likely.

You might not be aware of a little thing called the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. It guarantees that we will be secure in our persons, unless there is probable cause to demand a search.

We know that the search occurred, and we know that there was no court order presented to the hospital (which is why they checked their risk before performing the procedures).

So, feel free to explain how any other fact could arise that could excuse the decision to perform such a search without a warrant.

If the police had probable cause to order this search, they should have obtained a warrant. Even if the law does not require it - and I can’t believe that the law could be *that* bad, but I admit it’s possible - it would have demonstrated a respect for human dignity. “No sticking cameras up a person’s ass without a warrant,” doesn’t sound like a hard standard for the cops to live up to.

And if they didn’t have probable cause, they shouldn’t have performed the search.

Not even if the victim was extraordinarily “not nice”.

Let me place your sorry @sses in Graterford. It is in Pennsyltucky and you might find benefit in dealing with so many “wronged” individuals. You can share so much. Hate to tell you, but most folks in jail are not nice. Very few are Nelson Mandela. Most are Jeffy Dahmer or Ms Homulka.

Mitchforth brings up points and all you do is stick fingers in your ears and emulate Bush. Not what I’d expect from adults.

Goes without saying he could get them from Clement. Clement is in prison on a drug conviction arising from an arrest subsequent to the one disputed in his lawsuit, because he is a habitual felon.

Clement is not quoted in the article, and there’s no reason to think the reporter talked to him. One would assume he is letting his lawyer speak for him about his lawsuit.

Also, strategic omissions can certainly change the context of of facts in a narrative. I’m sure you’re familiar with patients who have filed spurious or baseless malpractice suits against your hospital. Consider the way those facts would appear if the story were only told by the lawyer suing you, and he provided a copy of the patient’s records with redactions to make the hospital look as bad as possible. That’s what’s going on here.

This is absolute bullshit. A patient or former patient can request copies of their records at any time, whether they’re suing the hospital or not. As a hospital nurse, I can’t imagine how you could concoct a story like this just by withholding or “redacting” parts of an otherwise innocent record… but if there was any question of that, all the reporter would have to do is accompany Clement to the hospital when he picked up his copied records. Mitchforth, there’s such a thing as skepticism, and then there’s such a thing as bending over so far backwards to give the cops the benefit of the doubt that your head disappears up your ass. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Please go away.

One last time, but only because you’re a complete dunderhead.

I don’t even know what you’re talking about with regard to Spitzer. His bank reported him to the IRS because he was moving money around in a suspicious way to pay for the prostitute.

And no charges have been filed. So, as yet, no proof of a crime.

They have his text messages and wiretapped conversations. They have subsequent wiretaps of the girl talking about how she had sex with him.

They have a wiretap of a woman talking about how she *met* with him. No specific statement saying that a law was violated.

Newspapers are reporting now that he had a years-long habit of buying sex and that the prostitutes all knew who he was.

Yes, newspapers are saying something now. If only they’d said the exact same thing yesterday, you wouldn’t be looking like quite so much of an idiot. Just curious: do they actually have someone alleging an illegal action? Or are you missing the point that you can hire a woman from an escort service and do things with her that are legal (but would still make most men ashamed to talk about in front of TV cameras)?

Face it, the NY GOP called for impeachment when they couldn’t name a specific act that they knew he performed that they knew was illegal. That was sleazy.

As for the rest, please, go on; I’m sure you won’t be satisfied until you’ve made another feeble argument. This time I won’t answer, because you’re a waste of time, so you’ll be able to pretend that you actually “won”.