Urinary catheter (Photo: drawdrawdraw, Getty Images/iStockphoto)
South Dakota. I am so not surprised. SD cops aren’t exactly a nice bunch of people, and they have the bad habit of stopping anyone with a Rez license plate, or being suspiciously brown looking. In keeping with that, rather than looking to be good human beings, they’ve gone with a threat, one they are happy to carry out. Anyone who will be traveling in my part of the world, you might want to go around SD.
Police in South Dakota are collecting urine samples from uncooperative suspects through the use of force and catheters, a procedure the state’s top prosecutor says is legal but is criticized by others as unnecessarily invasive and a potential constitutional violation.
The practice isn’t new, according to attorneys, but it’s been brought to light in a recent case in Pierre. An attorney for a man charged with felony drug ingestion is asking a judge to throw out evidence from an involuntary urine sample, saying it violated his client’s constitutional rights.
[…]
“Sticking a needle in your arm is very intrusive – I can’t imagine anything more intrusive than this,” said Ryan Kolbeck, a Sioux Falls lawyer and president of the South Dakota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
It’s unclear how widespread the practice of forced catheterization is in South Dakota. Attorney General Marty Jackley said in an interview that the practice is permitted with a signed court order under state law, and he cited several cases that supported the legality of the practice.
The attorney general said law enforcement would prefer not to collect urine samples by force, but that ultimately it’s up to suspects if they don’t want to cooperate.
“I don’t think anyone wants to go through that methodology,” Jackley said.
Police always take the person to a hospital if they are going to take a forced urine sample, said Tim Whalen, a Lake Andes attorney who has represented a couple of clients who have had urine samples taken without permission. Health care workers at the Wagner and Platte hospitals conduct the procedure on a regular basis, he said.
“They don’t anesthetize them,” Whalen said. “There’s a lot of screaming and hollering.”
Christ. Yeah, nothing wrong with this at all. Nope.
Kolbeck said he doesn’t know what state law would allow authorities to use forced catheterization. It’s an extreme measure that shouldn’t be used in routine cases such as drunken driving or drug ingestion, he said. Most disturbing, he said, is the fact that it could be happening to women.
“They want someone’s urine that bad?,” Kolbeck said.
The Pierre Police Department declined to comment and deferred all questions to the Hughes County State’s Attorney office. Hughes County State’s Attorney Wendy Kloeppner declined to comment on the case or the practice of forced catheterization.
Pam Hein, a defense attorney in Lake Andes, said the practice of forcing catheters into suspects’ urethras “has been going on for years.”
Hein has seen the issue from both perspectives. She’s served as Charles Mix County State’s Attorney and Bennett County State’s Attorney.
Often an officer will have suspicion of drug use, request the warrant for testing and get the test before any reports on a drug violation charge lands on a prosecutor’s desk.
“Do I think that it’s being abused? Yeah, I do,” Hein said.
Usually it doesn’t come to force, though, Hein said. The threat alone is enough. Officers can hold defendants in a room, sometimes for hours, she said, and then tell them they can offer the urine test voluntarily or face a warrant that would allow the officer to take it by force.
“Most of the time, when they threaten them with catheterization, they said, ‘That’s OK, you can have it,’” Hein said.
I am officially out of words. Argus Leader has the full story.
Officers can hold defendants in a room, sometimes for hours, she said, and then tell them they can offer the urine test voluntarily or face a warrant that would allow the officer to take it by force.
That doesn’t sound in the slightest bit coercive.
Just remember -- when referring to the police, use the gender-neutral word, “pigs.”
Shit like this terrifies me. Even on relatively short car trips, I’m well medicated at some point. Scrip meds, and I’m not driving, but that wouldn’t matter much to these assholes. I don’t know what the fuck I’d do if someone hauled me off to a hospital and threatened me with a catheter. It wouldn’t be good.
I’m amazed that there aren’t more targeted cop killings.
Just… no. Basically a warrant for assault, and something very like sexual assault, considering the intrusive nature of catheters.
USAmerica, you scary.
This really hits home for me right now.
On Thursday, a medical emergency brought me to the ER where I was catheterized. In my case it was necessary and consensual, but hardly pleasant. Matter of fact it’s still in and will be until Tuesday, so I have an uncomfortable long weekend ahead.
It sickens me to think of this happening to someone by force or coercion. Not only is it painful, it also comes with significant risk of infection, which would increase dramatically if the catheteree were struggling and resisting the insertion.
Having experienced both within a few days, I’d choose giving a blood sample over being catherterized in a heartbeat. If the former is illegal without consent, the latter should be doubly so.
How are the medical personnel not refusing to do this? What happened to “do no harm”?
Don Dueed:
According to the article:
That said, I don’t know how they are getting away with no anesthesia -- as you note, it’s hardly a pleasant procedure. I’m sorry to hear you have firsthand experience with this right now, I hope the problem clears quickly for you.
DonDueed@#5:
it also comes with significant risk of infection, which would increase dramatically if the catheteree were struggling and resisting the insertion.
I’m sure that cops are well-trained in catheterizing people, and know not to use too much force and puncture anything. They’re also awesome at sanitary practices. #snark.
Caine@#6:
I don’t know how they are getting away with no anesthesia
If they did that, they’d have to have an anesthesiologist or a real doctor to write a prescription. I would hope that no certified medical professional would be involved in that sort of thing, though I’m sure the CIA found a few to work at Gitmo.
The cops have the arrestee’s body, and usually plenty of time.
They can get all the urine the suspect has with a chair, handcuffs, and an adult diaper.
Catheters in this context serve only the purposes of sadism and humiliation.
Health and safety and invasive procedures that violate people’s rights aren’t the only issues. US cops and labs have a long and sordid history of falsifying drug tests to discredit the accused. Or should I say, the often falsely accused -- false positives are used to coerce guilty pleas and give the impression of guilt before trial.
You can’t spell “corrupt” without c-o-p.
Pierce:
That sort of coercion is not right, by any fucking means. Maybe you’ve had the luxury of never having to deal with cops, but I have, and that sort of shit is immoral and flat out wrong.
Sounds to me like lawyers are going to be smuggling urine out in their briefcases.
Caine @ # 10: … that sort of shit is immoral and flat out wrong.
Yes it is. But it is (well, would be) less so than what they actually do, less effort and expense, and would very probably have given this plaintiff’s lawyer a lot less to work with.
The difference, as I said, is the payoff of sadism and humiliation. (Yes, I have dealt with cops…)
Considering how regularly police work calls for urine samples these days, holding cells with toilets that go directly to individual collection tanks should* be standard features in every detention center. Relatively hardcore cases might need some additional restraint to prevent drinking the evidence.
* I use this word here to signify practicality, not legality or ethicality. For those, see NORML et al.
Holy fuck. It’s not often that shit with police can actually shock me, but this did it.
TMM @ 13:
The only thing that didn’t shock me was that this is going on in SD.
So the SD cops are torturing people, more or less legally.
Ice Swimmer @ 15:
Yes. One way or the other, it’s torture. Extortion, too.
Caine, thanks for the good wishes. It looks like my problem was brought on by a drug interaction so it should all be sorted out by Tuesday. Kinda ruined the long weekend, but oh well.
Ice Swimmer: well, it’s not the very worst torture I’ve ever heard of, but it should damn well be illegal. If they did that to me I’d push it as far as the courts would let me. But my white male privilege would probably mean I’d never have to, gorrammit.
DonDueed @ 17:
Scary. You can’t always foresee these things, but I’m glad to hear it’s something you’ll be able to prevent in the future. I’m one of those people who has unpredictable reactions to a lot of meds, so weird interactions is always a low-grade worry in the back of the mind.