We're not far from Sisseton, South Dakota, where the city police department has agreed to pay people whose Fourth Amendment rights were violated in a most unreasonable manner.
In the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, Danielle Ferguson reports in Federal judge awards thousands to those forcibly catheterized for urine samples:
A federal judge has approved a settlement to individuals who were unconstitutionally made to provide urine samples for suspected drug use through forced catheterizations.
U.S. District Judge Roberto Lange approved the $440,000 settlement in a Fourth Amendment case brought on by the ACLU of South Dakota against three South Dakota cities and their law enforcement agencies, and the South Dakota Highway Patrol. Individual officers were also named.
The ACLU of South Dakota and attorney Jim Leach of Rapid City filed the Fourth Amendment case on behalf of individuals who were subjected to the practice. The settlement, reached in August, was announced by the ACLU of South Dakota on Wednesday.
Plaintiffs said they were held down and forced to be catheterized after police obtained search warrants for urine samples to test for drugs.
Read the 2017 Argus Leader investigation:Hooded, handcuffed, and 'violated': South Dakota's use of forced catheterization
The suit was brought against the city of Wagner and the Wagner Police Department, the city of Pierre and the Pierre Police Department, the city of Sisseton and the Sisseton Police Department, and the South Dakota Highway Patrol. ...
The lawsuit followed a 2017 Argus Leader investigation into the practice, which found that even children had been subject to forced catheterization.
While some readers might reflexively cuss out "the media," work like the 2017 Argus Leader investigation can help defend people from abuse by the government that ought to protect us. In 2017, the Argus's Mark Walker reported in What it's like to have police take your urine against your will:
They found marijuana paraphernalia on the workbench, so I was arrested for that. And they said I was acting fidgety, so they suspected I had been using methamphetamine. They took me to jail and asked me for a urine analysis.
I refused.
I feel like that’s my bodily fluids, so I had the right not to give them a urine analysis.
They came with a warrant, and said they had a warrant for my urine and that if didn’t produce it, they would take me to the hospital and catheterize me. I refused to produce the sample.
So they took me to the hospital. Four cops held me down and a female nurse inserted a catheter to get my urine. The interesting thing is the doctor who was in the emergency room that day on duty happens to bea Pierre part-time SWAT officer. [Argus Leader Media confirmed the doctor, Peter Maningas, is a reserve officer for the Pierre Police Department and a member of its SWAT team.]
I was angry. I felt like my civil rightswere being violated. I thought it was a threat. Even when we went to the hospital I thought it was a threat. I didn’t actually think they were going to go through with it. And then when a female did it, I thought, this is unreal.
First of all they put a spit mask over my head. Then I had one officer per limb — one officer for each arm, one officer for each leg — holding me down. There was one officer with a camera recording the whole thing and after that my head was back, I felt my pants being pulled down and the catheter was inserted.
There was extreme pain.
The worst pain was urinating afterwards for the next two days. I tried to hold it in. I believe I may have moaned in pain. There is no way to describe it. After was the worst part. It feels like you are urinating razor blades.
There was extreme pain every time I had to urinate. I remember afterwards, I believe it was nurse who asked doctor, ‘Do you want blood?’ (The doctor said) ‘No, that’s not necessary we got what we need.' I believe the warrant was for urine and blood.
I was really surprised they were doing all of that to get evidence for a crime that carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. I don’t know. I felt like there had to be a better way. Hair sample or something. Afterward they took me back to county jail and booked me for several charges, one of them a felony ingestion from methamphetamine when they didn’t even have the results back from the lab...
Earlier today, we received a copy of the court's order of judgement from the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota; Sparks is one of the plaintiffs.
Federal Judge Approves Settlement in ACLU’s Fourth Amendment Challenge to S.D. Law Enforcement Practice of... uploaded by Sally Jo Sorensen on Scribd
Here's the press release that accompanied the document:
U.S. District Judge Roberto Lange has approved a settlement in a case that says South Dakota law enforcement’s practice of using forced catheterizations to obtain urine samples from suspects is unconstitutional.
The ACLU of South Dakota and attorney Jim Leach of Rapid City filed the Fourth Amendment case on behalf of several individuals against the city of Wagner and the Wagner Police Department, the city of Pierre and the Pierre Police Department, the city of Sisseton and the Sisseton Police Department, and the South Dakota Highway Patrol along with individually named law enforcement officers.
In the case, the plaintiffs said they were held down and subjected to involuntary catheterization after police obtained search warrants for urine samples to detect the presence of drugs, a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches. None of the search warrants obtained by police specifically authorized forced catheterization as a means of obtaining evidence.
“The Fourth Amendment guarantees people the right to be free from unreasonable police searches,” Leach said. “There is nothing reasonable about forcibly catheterizing someone. The Constitution’s purpose is to protect people from police intrusions exactly like this. Now the practice of police using forced catheterization to gather evidence will stop.”
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants – the cities of Pierre, Sisseton and Wagner and former South Dakota Highway Patrol Officer Adam Woxland – agreed to collectively pay a total of $440,000 in damages, legal costs and attorney’s fees.
In his April ruling, Lange said he found that the mere suspicion of low-level drug crimes did not justify this invasive and painful procedure.
“The plaintiffs were not smuggling drugs or weapons in their urethras and bladders, and the catheterizations would only provide evidence of drug ingestion rather than the more serious crime of drug trafficking. … Ingesting drugs is one of the least serious drug crimes a person can commit,” Lange wrote.
South Dakota is the only state that imposes a felony for ingestion of a controlled substance. These counterproductive drug policies have swept thousands of nonviolent drug offenders into the state’s criminal legal system and cost taxpayers millions of dollars. This settlement is another reminder of why criminal justice reform is needed.
“South Dakota’s tough-on-crime approach to drug users struggling with addiction, as evidenced with the use of forced catheterization to secure evidence, doesn’t work,” said Libby Skarin, ACLU of South Dakota campaigns director. “Though drug use is undoubtedly a serious issue, we can’t incarcerate our way out of addiction. Our lawmakers should see the outcome in this case and finally eliminate ingestion as a felony offense. It’s well past time for the state to prioritize people and not prisons and to help reform our state’s criminal legal system.”
We agree. Drug abuse is a serious problem, but as Skarin said, we incarcerate our way out of addiction.
Image: His and hers urinary catheterization.
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
Comments