Sunday, August 26, 2012


Three videos of male officers trained to subject female victims to (ever so slow motion) sexual battery: (groped in first minute – released at tenth minute) (groping begins at 12 minutes -- no longer available)

The NYPD’s atrocious policy for male-on-female cross-gender friscking is that  “a woman is just like a man."  To most police departments around the country this is policy – including slipping hands down hips, over legs and even lifting breasts with the back of the hand (the supposedly less sensitive side).  That's policy; as far as they are concerned the criminal statuted doesn't prohibit a male officer doing pretty much anything likes to a female. 

Departments cite Terry v. Ohio’s “hands over clothing” formula as carte blanche to ingore the differences between sexes – the magic words of supposed "empowerment."  Terry spelled out the limits of police leeway to conduct a bodily search imposed by the Fourth Amendment.  Terry in no way dealt with felony prohibitions against sexual battery.

Courts may only decide issues brought before them -- may not reach out and mandate anything beyond that: checks and balances.  No female -- no ruling.

Were criminal law at issue the judiciary would more likely have been at work elaborating limits in the same sense that Gardner V. Tennessee set limts -- by reinforcing the prohibition against sexual battery as Gardner reinforced the prohibition against unjustified shooting of suspects.  No way any court would -- could -- set aside the felony prohibition, categorically saying: "A woman is just like a man."

Any woman groped privately by a male officer except under the most dangerous exigent circumstances should sue for a million dollars.  I don’t understand why there are not hundreds or thousands -- or hundreds of thousands -- of these cases across the country.  

The eighth-grade math: New York City has 30,000 male police officers.  If they sexually batter one woman apiece over their twenty year careers (maybe 90-95% of them have more sense -- maybe it's the other way around -- I have no way of knowing), that multiplies to 600,000 sexual attacks on women over twenty years -- to possibly save one or two police lives?  

A teen girl recounts her ordeal -- much resembling the last video above:  “He started on my left ankle and worked his way up, with the FRONT of his hands until he touched, well you know. Not for very long but still. He then continued down my right leg and then around my waist and up my sides until his hands rested under my armpits, his fingers touching the sides of my breasts. WTF IS GOING ON??? I didn't stop him because I couldn't speak. He then started digging in the pocket on my sweatshirt, which was large because it's my boyfriend's and the pocket hangs low over know. I felt his hand in my personal area quite a few times, as he's trying to play it off by asking me about the simple objects he's pulling out of my pocket.” 

These are felony sexual assaults -- that is what the law says -- police department policy is irrelevant.  In my opinion, a woman may not legally give her permission to a male officer to grope her sexual areas -- anymore than she could give her permission to perpetrate any other kind of battery.

Balancing tradeoff claimed (if anybody else objects):
"Officer safety comes first": 8 out of 8 citing “officer safety.” 

You can run a small flashlight [*] or similar object along anywhere a hand can reach and a gun might be concealed (checking wrists, ankles and waistline by hand not wrong). A rear-cuffed female -- checked for guns -- would have to, first, do the Houdini and slip the bracelets and, and then, do the Incredible Hulk and tear aside the police car partition in order to draw a sharp object from her bra and scratch the police officer (don't drive a bus. or God-forbid a taxicab, if you are afraid of that).

[*] "Searches are usually conducted in one of two ways either with the hands or with the aid of a mini-flashlight or Kubotana. Personally, my preference is for the mini-flashlight or Kubotana technique. It has been instilled in me repeatedly during my career that personal contact with anyone other than extremely close friends and/or family members should be avoided, whenever possible. The mini-flashlight or Kubotan search methods allow for thoroughness yet remove the intimate, up-close, personal contact."

He seems to include both sexes in avoiding "personal contact" -- nevertheless he advises the following -- as if  male hands where we know they don't belong were remained a legal option:
"When searching a female it may be helpful to:
    · Have a female officer present, if possible.
  • Be certain that the written report of the incident contains details of the arrest, mention of any weapons or contraband that were being sought, what if anything was found in the search.
  • The more immediate or important the arrest the better. If there is a legitimate belief that she is carrying weapons or contraband a search should not be delayed.
  • Do not search a female alone unless it is absolutely necessary.
  • Conduct the search of a female in the same manner that you would search a male.
  • Before starting to search the front of a female, tell her that the search is not meant to embarrass her. Ask if any weapons or contraband are concealed in her clothing or body. She may deny having any weapons or contraband, search anyway. If she admits to having weapons or contraband locate it, seize it, safely secure it and resume your systematic search.
  • Use good judgement and discretion. These basic steps may be employed similarly when a female officer searches a male."]
Law enforcement doesn’t really think there is any legislated need to do any balancing trade off at all.  "We are professionals doing a job” – even -- "We are like doctors.”  Law enforcement thinks Terry's words allowing frisking "over clothing" gives them -- undifferentiated -- carte-blanche to treat females just like a male.

Terry went out of its way to state that cops are nothing at all “like doctors”:   "… it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure performed in public [my note: presumably straight male on straight male] by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a 'petty indignity.' It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly." (392 U.S. 1, at 16–17) 

"One lawsuit alleged—and the then-corrections commissioner largely confirmed—that an instructional videotape that DOCS then used to train officers suggested that a pat-frisk was to be conducted as follows: “An officer begins by ordering the inmate to stand against the wall with her back to him. The officer then approaches the inmate from behind, placing his hands on the inmate’s neck and inside the collar of her shirt. He works his hands down every inch of the surface of her body. Probing for small items, the officer runs his hands under and over the woman’s breast, brushing her nipples. Searching the woman’s legs, the officer grips one inner thigh. His hands press against the woman’s vagina before moving down her thigh toward the ankle. He then grips the other thigh and repeats this procedure on the woman’s other side.  [Emphasis mine]

“The policy mandated that officers conduct this procedure in certain situations. For instance, officers were required to pat-frisk every woman returning from a visit in which she had contact with un-incarcerated people. But the policy also allowed officers—regardless of their gender—latitude to conduct random pat frisks when an inmate aroused suspicion."  (13th-14th paragraph)

In the New York example there was no question of prison security – or even convenience of prison security. The prison system did not want males routinely frisking females – only in emergencies – or even guarding females in housing areas where naked viewing and clothed frisking most likely come into play. In the New York case it was the Department of Corrections’ effort to be in compliance with the fair employment provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that introduced male sexual battery into female lives.

But that cannot happen to female travelers at the airport, right?  Think again: 
“B. The STSO must ensure that the following notice is provided to an individual of the opposite gender before the individual enters the WTMD:
1) A TSO of the same gender as the individual presents him or herself to be is not available.
2) A TSO of the opposite gender will be required to complete the screening process, which may include physical contact between the TSO and the individual.
3) An LTSO or STSO, if possible, will be present.
4) Once the individual enters the WTMD, the individual must complete the screening process.”

[Note: how to avoid a gay male frisking you -- a male -- at the airport: “present yourself” as a female.]

Do touch; don’t tell:
“No personal or identifying information must be taken from the passenger for purposes of this report. For example, “three female passengers underwent opposite gender screening at Airport X” is an adequate count; however, including the names of the three female passengers in the count would be inappropriate.” 

”There is a standing legal decision in the 9th Circuit US Federal Court called Jordan v. Gardner (986 F.2d 1521 (9th Cir.1992) that found it is cruel and unusual punishment to have male officers conduct clothed body searches on female prisoners.” 

Violates the Eighth Amendment in jail: automatically violates the Fourth Amendment in jail.  But not at the airport?  (The gay acting TSO in this audio would not likely have performed this frisk -- division of labor.)  Why does the TSA want to strip or grope air travelers arriving from outside the US without cause?  Haven't the federal court precedents specifically barred invasive searches of persons arriving over land borders without probable cause? Wouldn’t such even fail the Fourteenth Amendment’s  “rational test”: does the TSA fear air passengers will blow up taxi cabs?

Put an end to the training of male law enforcement and security to routinely molest females (and of gay males doing the same to males) with the kind of lawsuits that stopped dead same-sex strip searching for traffic violations in Chicago (only women; men not bothered); ACLU, are you awake?; Ms. Foundation, are you there?  Next is to give notice to law enforcement professionals that felony prohibitions of sexual batter actually apply to them.  (“There is no rule that a male cannot frisk a female.”)  New Hampshire and Texas, are you awake ---- do you want the courts to be wide awake when your legislation goes to the airport? 

For the meantime they think nothing of it:
They even staged it (!) with a female TV journalist -- would they have staged a stranger molestation – he even runs his hands up a leg he has already run down: 
They even practice teenage boy cadets on teenage girl cadets (!): 
Talk about inexcusable -- even in a safe courthouse -- a widely reported AP story that notes without taking any notice of a mother with two little boys groped -- scanner stripped at the courthouse entrance too; fear panties bombs in the courthouse (?): 

For the meantime ladies, your driver's licenses; don't leave home without them!

Male officers cannot currently be prosecuted for sexually battering females as long as they are trained by the state to do so -- as long as they have any job motivated fig leaf: agent provocateur. 

No comments: