Not only is "rape by cop" entirely accurate, the DA isn't even trying to hide the "fuck-you."
Shockingly I was able to correctly guess the races of the people involved.
Not quite in the mood to read this. Did they also leave her in the parking lot without her pants on? Because somehow, I think I'd feel even more violated if I were left without my clothes.
The video was shared with me, so I watched it first. At about 2:09, the Harris County attorney basically deadpans: "Oh well. Sorry. Poor judgement. Not a criminal offense."
Obviously police are getting away with murder, so I shouldn't be shocked, but...public (gang) rape?
I'm sure she was led to believe she had no choice and couldn't refuse the search, even though she had a right to.
Anyway, I guess the answer to my question is that it was a crime that happened to be perpetrated by those to whom laws don't apply.
I really hope it doesn't turn out it inexplicably qualifies as a Terry search.
I'm sure she was led to believe she had no choice and couldn't refuse the search, even though she had a right to.
I don't think that judgment can be made from the news story. The article and video are kind of short on giving detailed facts but from what the DA says in that interview I'm guessing there was technically probable cause for a search but they conducted that search in a manner that violated all kinds of policies and SOP.
8: Probably not. Terry frisks are exactly that, a frisk of the outside of the clothing where you're looking for weapons.
I'm guessing there was technically probable cause for a search but they conducted that search in a manner that violated all kinds of policies and SOP.
It seems unlikely that, legally speaking, probable cause is a blank check that allows you to do whatever you want to do, physically, to a subject.
Here's what it says in the article that you describe as "short on giving detailed facts":
"They then took Miss Corley and placed both ankles behind her ears spread eagle position and started to search for something in Miss Corley's cavity in her vaginal area," said Cammack.
And according to the video, which Fox 26 has fully reviewed, the probing went on for at least 11 excruciating minutes before Corley was allowed to emerge from beneath the car and cover her naked body.
Sure, yeah, maybe there's no chance of a conviction, but the scandal here is worse if they didn't do something illegal. Anyway, the prosecutor is crystal clear that there's a legal problem here. She just says that she's not the one to do something about it:
"I feel terrible for what happened to Miss Corley. It should never have happened and unfortunately we are in the business of prosecuting criminal offenses and though it may not be criminal, it doesn't mean she won't receive justice," said Sinclair.
I'm guessing that Sinclair isn't referring to vigilante justice here. She's just explaining that the laws against this sort of behavior aren't going to be recognized by a criminal court in Texas when the complainant is a black woman and the perps are cops.
10: I think what gswift was saying is that there may have been probable cause for some kind of search, but the details on that are absent from the account. The details of the horrible treatment during their search are all too concrete.
Yeah, I'm not sure why he's saying that. The only argument I can see for it is that if they weren't prosecuted, there must have been a legit reason, so he's inventing a possible reason that would make it legit.
12: To be clear, I totally disagree with what he's saying.
Usually the protection against a warrantless search is that the evidence is inadmissible. But what's your protection if you did nothing - other than a civil rights claim?
I'm still totally unclear on why they thought there was cause- any cause- to search her.
And I can't see how 'probable cause', even if some could be ginned up, could legitimate this conduct. There is no plausible exigency that justifies stripping a suspect and conducting a body cavity search on the roadside, and it's got to be a policy violation. At which point even if there was reason to think a crime had been committed ("probable cause"), the cops are still engaging in conduct that is criminal on its face if not justified by necessity or police procedure, and it was patently not so justified.
The remedy for sexual assault, which is what happened here, is criminal prosecution. She's also got a hell of a civil suit for false arrest and police brutality.
14 and 15: I get that, but there are other searches all the time that aren't justified that are harmful but not clearly assault. As an individual it doesn't seem like you have a ton of redress.
But even before we get to the assault and the fact that there is no exigency which could justify their behavior, (1.) why did they say they stopped her and (2.) what did they claim made them think she had something they could find which would show that she was involved in a crime.
She's just explaining that the laws against this sort of behavior aren't going to be recognized by a criminal court in Texas when the complainant is a black woman and the perps are cops.
Reading the story, it seems to me that the prosecutor deliberately fucked up the case because the cops would have lost in court.
As an individual it doesn't seem like you have a ton of redress.
The problem with civil suits is that they're not much of a redress unless you've got quantifiable damages. I've defended State Troopers on a false imprisonment claim where the plaintiff's version of the story was that she was detained improperly for about fifteen minutes, at which point possible damages are very small. (In a civil rights suit, a successful plaintiff can get their attorney's fees paid -- we ended up settling for a small fraction of what her attorney's fees should have been.)
This case, she should be able to get a pretty impressive mental anguish/pain and suffering verdict.
No idea why I capitalized Troopers there, it looks weird.
And I can't see how 'probable cause', even if some could be ginned up, could legitimate this conduct.
Not legitimizes, but maybe makes the criminal side difficult and redress via civil court or federal civil rights prosecution more likely? I'm just guessing based off of that DA interview. I'd really like to know what they were initially charged with and what this supposed new evidence is. To me it sounded very much like she was saying they were way over the line but that criminal prosecution might be difficult. Maybe she's intentionally fucking it up but god only knows what's lurking in TX case law on drug searches.
I'd really like to know what they were initially charged with
According to the news reports I saw, it was misdemeanor official oppression. Guess they really decided to throw the book at 'em.