home

WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Drug Suspect

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:47:08 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Police in Wisconsin arrested a man they suspected of having ingested a bag of heroin. I guess they were in a hurry, because they made him drink six doses of a laxative to cause him to excrete the bag faster.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court yesterday upheld the police action.

The laxative was reasonable because police had a clear expectation it would help reveal evidence of a crime, the court ruled in reversing a state appeals court decision. The laxative also may have reduced the danger Tomas Payano-Roman would have faced had the bag ruptured in his body, the high court's decision said.

"The government would have had more difficulty in proving its case without use of the laxative," Justice Ann Walsh Bradley said in writing for the majority.

Is anyone else appalled by this decision? You can read the decision here. [Via How Appealing.]

< Court Rejects Safavian's Requests to Exclude Tyco and Scotland Trip Evidence | Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Drug Suspect | 54 comments (54 topical)
    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:12:19 PM EST
    Appalled, yes. Surprised, no. Fifteen years ago, or more, there was a holding ward appended to customs at JFK Airport in NYC. If they thought you were smuggling intestinally, Customs sent you there, where you were cuffed to a bed in a hospital gown until you went. And went. In a bedpan. I think someone held out for 11 days once, but even that person eventually they gave in. It was upheld by the Second Circuit.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:33:19 PM EST
    Appalled? That's a start. Due process and reasonable search are dead!

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#3)
    by BigTex on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:33:43 PM EST
    This seems like a well reasoned decision. It doesn't create a new rule of law, and it serves to protect public policy. Had the laxitives not been medically necessary the opinion strongly suggests that their use would be violative of the 4th Amendment. This guy's life was literally at risk every moment until he went. The longer the baggie stayed in him the greater the chance that digestive juices would cause a rupture, and the heroine absorbed. The decision is careful to note that the laxitive decision was medically necessary, and that the medical personel deliberated on the need to give a laxitive before coming to the conclusion. This isn't a case of the police directing hospital treatment. If the court had held that the search was unreasonable, the end result is either a) no laxitive is given and a greater chance of rupture and consiquent threats to the individual's health or b) people start swallowing baggies more to aviod the evidence from being seized. This once again increases the threat to the individual's help.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#4)
    by demohypocrates on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:47:29 PM EST
    Tex, I agree with you for the most part, but the cops should have sought a warrant and the officer should not have been involved in administering the laxative. They could have very easily achieved the same result while still protecting the rights of the defendant and leaving themselves with a case less vulnerable to attack.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#5)
    by nolo on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:55:09 PM EST
    In the "not detained by the police" world, adults have every right to refuse medical treatment, even if doing so will be fatal. So, no, I don't buy the argument that medical necessity somehow makes this ruling acceptable.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#6)
    by demohypocrates on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:03:45 PM EST
    Nolo, This guy was under arrest, so the cops could have just followed him around with a pooper scooper for a couple of days to make you happy, or does he have an inalienable and Constitutional right to flush heroin down the john?

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#7)
    by aw on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:41:45 PM EST
    If they have no evidence, they have no evidence. Period. Stay the hell out of our bodies. I just can't believe what some of you think is reasonable.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#8)
    by demohypocrates on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:46:37 PM EST
    aw, No evidence? Innocent people quite often stuff baggies filled with a white powdery substance down their throats when confronted by police.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:25:55 PM EST
    I was impressed by the reasoning in the dissenting opinion. I found the argument legally impeccable, and was thus persuaded to change my mind. At first glance I thought the ruling seemed, well...rather reasonable, but close scrutiny of the dissent convinced me the weight of the law should have led to a different conclusion. Maybe next time....

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#11)
    by TChris on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:51:53 PM EST
    I'm surprised that Justice Bradley wrote the decision. I'm not surprised that Chief Justice Abrahamson wrote a compelling dissent that takes the warrant clause seriously.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:19:18 PM EST
    Umm, at the risk of being facetious, I'd think this ruling constitutes a slippery slope;-)

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:47:50 PM EST
    gee, using this "logic", administering sodium pentathol, for the person's own good, would be perfectly reasonable. narius, at the risk of being rational, how could the police possibly know what was in the bag? it could have been powdered sugar for all they knew. the only way they could know for certain was to violate, under the guise of medical treatment, this guy's 4th amendment rights. how hard would it have been for them to have obtained a warrant first? one hopes that this will be overturned on appeal. one hopes. let me clue you in guy, some of us are a tad more protective of our civil liberties, even at the expense of the occasional criminal going free, than you apparently are. i bet you'd have loved the gulags.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#14)
    by aw on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:51:31 PM EST
    What is so unreasonable about it? The cops are making judgements out there. That's what's unreasonable. Extrapolate from there.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#15)
    by BigTex on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:24:47 PM EST
    demohypocrates - I agree. nolo - it doesn't sound like he objected to being given the laxatives. cpinva - administering truth serum wouldn't have a medical purpose. Et al - The hospital personel made the decision, not the state. All the state did was to give the continuing administration (it is unclear if they gave the 1st dose or if the hospital did) of the laxitive. The fourth amendment complaint was technical in nature, not subsnative. The only power given to the state by this ruling is to administer a laxitive, when deemed medically necessary and the patient doesn't object to taking the laxative.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#16)
    by HK on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:30:24 AM EST
    For those who believe that the suspect had no objections to taking the laxative, the first line from the linked article suggests otherwise:
    Police were within their rights when they forced a drug suspect to drink a laxative
    [My emphasis] They should have sought a warrant and if the uncooperative suspect had died as a result of his own actions in the meantime, a post mortem would have given them their evidence. Narius ~ oh how I've missed you and your voice of reason.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dusty on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:51:28 AM EST
    Since it took them six hours to administer the laxative, they had plenty of time to get the search warrant. This seems like a no-brainer.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 02:01:46 AM EST
    Every manager needs a narius on their staff -- they could enjoy a brilliant career if whenever they had a significant issue to resolve they just asked his opinion, then did the opposite. An uncanny talent indeed.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 04:27:00 AM EST
    The "six doses" statement gives me cause for concern. If an "officer" (not a medic) really administered six doses of a laxative, it implies: a) great impatience; and b) lack of appropriate medical supervision. One dose of laxative should be sufficient, repeated if necessary. Additional doses will not result in faster action, but will increase the severity and duration of the diarrhoea, putting the suspect at unnecessary risk from dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. It will also make the recipient suffer much more pain and distress, much like the infamous castor oil treatment. So. The use of a laxative may have been appropriate. I cannot address the legal considerations. But I am sure the the use of an excessive dose of laxative is absolutely not appropriate, it carries a small but not insignificant health risk, and could be construed as a form of punishment. It was argued that the chance the the bag might rupture would increase with the time it is present in the bowels of the subject. I don't know of any data to support such a contention. Most plastics are not susceptible to chemical degradation in the gut. If the bag was completely sealed to start with, the length of time before it is passed should make no difference (and if it was not properly sealed when ingested, then the laxative would do no good anyway.) However, if we consider the mechanical forces acting on the bag, the strong gut contractions caused by the laxative are more likely to promote rupture than avoid it.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#20)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri May 19, 2006 at 06:33:32 AM EST
    What's next? Reasonable surgery?

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 07:15:59 AM EST
    From cpinva:
    i bet you'd have loved the gulags.
    Thank you Dick Durbin. Laxative = Gulag.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#22)
    by nolo on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:19:38 AM EST
    Big Tex, you mentioned that the guy didn't object to the laxative. But the guy was under arrest and being detained by the police, which is presumed to be a coercive environment. Or do you think a person under arrest has to make a specific objection to everything he's asked to do while in custody in order to preserve his rights? Oh, and as for this:
    This guy was under arrest, so the cops could have just followed him around with a pooper scooper for a couple of days to make you happy, or does he have an inalienable and Constitutional right to flush heroin down the john?
    They could have gotten a freaking warrant. But I guess that's too much to ask.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#25)
    by Patrick on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:54:57 AM EST
    Destruction of evidence and incident to arrest are two exemptions to the warrant requirement that fit this case. No need for a warrant. Plus once a person is in custody, they no longer have a right to refuse medical treatment.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:11:17 AM EST
    I think what is appalling is that people are rooting for the CRIMINAL who is OBVIOUSLY trying to destroy evidence.
    What is appalling are your sadistic views and tunnel vision mode of thought. Nobody is "rooting" for criminals. If this is how you perceive the responses to this subject, you are less intelligent than I thought. You have once again successfully missed the point of yet another TalkLeft article.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#27)
    by demohypocrates on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:28:35 AM EST
    Terrible analysis narius. They are not rooting FOR the criminals. They are rooting AGAINST the police.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:41:41 AM EST
    Terrible analysis narius. They are not rooting FOR the criminals. They are rooting AGAINST the police.
    When it comes to the police making a decision such as the one in question, you're damn right I am going to "root" against the police. In no way does my questioning of this particular police action imply that I condone criminal behavior. It simply means I do not agree with the police action.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:47:52 AM EST
    And don't throw civil liberty at me. I, and no one I know, will ever miss the "right" of eating plastic bags containing white powder in front of police officers.
    The precedence set by this decision goes beyond your bullsh*t, "'right' of eating plastic bags containing white powder in front of police officers." Nice attempt at creating a strawman but I suggest you try harder next time because this...
    And I don't have much sympathy to your cocaine eating friends who may feel a little sad because they have to take a few laxatives.
    ...is a pathetic attempt.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#32)
    by BigTex on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:05:42 AM EST
    Or do you think a person under arrest has to make a specific objection to everything he's asked to do while in custody in order to preserve his rights?
    The above quote would be more persuasive if the police made the decision to administer the laxitive. However, the medical staff made the decision to administer the laxitive for medinical purposes. If he doesn't object there is implied consent. It certinally changes the analysis if he does object, though the outcome may be the same. Fourth Amendment rights, like any other rights, are waivable. If he does object then the violation of 4th Amendment rights becomes subsnative, not technical. As it stands he didn't object to medical treatment, therefore implied consent, therefore waiver on the decision to administer the laxitive. The argument is about the way the laxitive was administered and the way the bowl movement and subsiquent droppings were handled. The state entangelment giving rise to the 4th Amendment rights in question was subsiquent to the decision to administer the laxative. Had he objected then the state entanglement would be in the decision to administer the laxatives, which is far more troubling than allowing the police to administer the laxatives to be sure they were taken. Oh, and nolo, no one is disagreeing with the statement that they should have gottena warrant. The question is did they need a warrant for the medical treatment to go forth, or did they need a warrant to search the droppings.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:09:02 AM EST
    Well, i guess your side lost. Too bad :) May be you should ask them to appeal to the US Supreme Court.
    My "side" argues for civil liberties and against unnecessary government intrusion for everyone, including people with sadistic views such as yourself. You "lost" as well. You are just too ignorant to realize it.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#34)
    by HK on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:11:20 AM EST
    Ah, Narius is back, and this time he's found the CAPS LOCK... This isn't really about taking sides, it's about finding the most effective way to resolve the situation. A plastic bag full of drugs is not going to disappear inside a person. In fact, there are only two possible outcomes: 1. The suspect craps out the (suspected) bag of drugs. Or 2. The bag of drugs ruptures inside the suspect, necessitating medical intervention or bringing about his death. Either way, laxatives were not necessary. The fact is that the police jeopardised their case by acting as they did. No body wants criminals to get away with their crimes because officers violated their rights while they were in custody. No one wants innocent people or frightened offenders to die as a result of unnecessary medication administered by non-medical personnel. No one wants a situation where poor improvisation is accepted and may set a precedent. If you think this is about mollycoddling criminals at the expense of others then you are very much mistaken. It is about doing what is best - and what happened isn't it.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#35)
    by nolo on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:13:13 AM EST
    Plus once a person is in custody, they no longer have a right to refuse medical treatment.
    Yeah they do, and the state can't force them to undergo medical treatment without due process.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#36)
    by Patrick on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:27:21 AM EST
    Nolo, I shouldn't have made such a broad statement. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, and my generalization was over broad and poorly stated. If I take a person into protective custody, they can be treated against their will. The liability then falls on me and my department, as do the costs. I've also been in a similar situation, where a female ate a bag of dope in front of me. She too got plenty of laxatives at the hospital while she was being medically cleared for booking. They held her for observation for several hours and then released her. My other experience is a search warrant doesn't always work in these situations, especially if you need a Dr to execute it. Most Dr's will refuse body cavity searches and forced blood draws, even if there's a warrant. I think the adminsitration of laxatives in these types of cases is medically proper and necessary, and that's why the case was decided the way it was.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#37)
    by Patrick on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:28:34 AM EST
    The fact is that the police jeopardised their case by acting as they did.
    Apparently they actually didn't.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#38)
    by nolo on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:28:38 AM EST
    BigTex, you act like the police took the guy to the hospital out of the goodness of their hearts, and that the medical staff acted solely out of concern for his welfare. Which is BS.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#39)
    by Patrick on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:31:24 AM EST
    Which is BS.
    Perhaps from your perspective, but not from others. See, that's an opinion and you know what they say about those.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#40)
    by demohypocrates on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:35:52 AM EST
    Paging Dr. HK; Thank you Doctor, I didnt't realize the bag wouldn't deteriorate and cause the suspect's death. No rush.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#41)
    by Patrick on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:38:41 AM EST
    HK, The longer the bag is inside the human body, the more time there is for it to rupture. Laxatives reduce the transit time and therefore reduce the risk.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#42)
    by nolo on Fri May 19, 2006 at 11:53:02 AM EST
    Patrick, I'm not saying the medical staff had no concern for the detainee's welfare. I'm just saying that it's really hard to believe that the police officers who brought the guy in had no interest in the matter.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#43)
    by Patrick on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:11:25 PM EST
    Nolo,
    I'm just saying that it's really hard to believe that the police officers who brought the guy in had no interest in the matter.
    Of course they had an interest. It's their duty and it's the law. They don't operate in a vacuum. They can still be concerned about a prisoner's welfare and legally obtaining evidence at the same time. It's not hard to believe at all.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:49:31 PM EST
    I don't find this concept to be that outrageous. We see these types of things in the hospital frequently, and depending on how the drugs are packed, there are various ways of getting them out. Incidently (someone mentioned this above as an extreme, but it has happened), surgery is sometimes required for bowel obstruction; a well-recognized complication of body packing. Note: it is often a VERY good idea to get the drugs out sooner rather than later... if a patient ruptures an entire condom full of cocaine or heroin (condoms are often used for packing), that person is at significant risk of death from overdose. Mild cathartics are sometimes used, as packers have been known to intentionally constipate themselves to hold/retain more drugs. There is good medical reason for getting those drugs out quickly, particularly if they're not well-packed for transport (ie. the patient stuffed them down as the police were breaking down the door). The fact that they became evidence is mostly immaterial as far as the medical folks are concerned.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:43:41 PM EST
    All that wasted time and no bust, if the suspect dies. Tragic. Bets are on that the caring officers will not attend the funeral or tell the family.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#46)
    by BigTex on Fri May 19, 2006 at 04:48:09 PM EST
    Wow such cynacism Squeak. Let's go down that road for a bit. Suppose the perp dies. That's one more pusher off the street. The police would likely obstruct giving treatment in hopes that he does die if we are going to be cynical. Patrick is right. The police can have compassion and uphold the law at the same time. The tragedy here isn't that the perp was given a laxative, but it is the failure to see that the compassion of giving the laxatives.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#47)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri May 19, 2006 at 05:19:48 PM EST
    TheNewGuy, It is medically unsafe to administer a 6X dose of even a laxative. Severe abdominal cramping can ALSO induce rupture. Plus I'm sure the police are not aware of the potential electrolyte imbalances that can be caused by deliberately inducing excessive diarrhea. This is a dangerous validation of an assault under color of authority. People may think it's all fun and games because it's a laxative. But any medical practitioner who condoned giving a 6X dose of any drug should have a complaint filed with their medical board.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#48)
    by roy on Fri May 19, 2006 at 05:36:21 PM EST
    Che, Did you read up on the particular drug administered, Golytely? I know better than to ignore your informed judgement on this one, but this layman's attempt at research suggests that massive doses are the norm for this drug.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#49)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri May 19, 2006 at 05:47:53 PM EST
    Roy, You could be right, and the article wrong. Golytely is a saline cathartic. It comes in a gallon container and it would NOT be an OD to drink 6 glasses of it. Where did you see that?

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#50)
    by roy on Fri May 19, 2006 at 05:48:16 PM EST
    Whoops, hit "post" too fast. Meant to link to this, which mainly addresses using the drug in preparation for surgery, but is still interesting w.r.t. safety:
    Usually, a specific amount of solution is consumed every 10 minutes until the stool is watery and clear. ... The first bowel movement usually occurs about 1 hour after starting to drink the solution. Frequent bowel movements will continue until the bowel is clear.
    Which suggests that six doses is about the right amount, and safe enough to self-administer.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#51)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri May 19, 2006 at 05:54:09 PM EST
    As any suspect should have the right to speak with an attorny before speaking to the police, this should also apply to ingesting any drugs that would be cooperating. That incriminates the suspect. IMHO.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#52)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri May 19, 2006 at 07:05:23 PM EST
    We could also have a discussion about the efects of digestive enzymes upon various types of plastics, but it's Friday night.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#53)
    by BigTex on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:24:08 PM EST
    As any suspect should have the right to speak with an attorny before speaking to the police, this should also apply to ingesting any drugs that would be cooperating.
    If he was read his Maranda rights when arrested, and cooperated, then that is a waiver of rights. I have to assume that he was read his rights as part of SOP. If he wasn't then that changes the analysis entirely. Now, there is alwas the question of his not having command of English, did he understand his rights, and therefore make a knowing waiver. But that issue was not before the court, so it apparantly wasn't raised, or the rights were repeated in Spanish making the issue no longer an issue, and further constituting waiver of his rights.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:24:42 PM EST
    Go-Lytely is a commonly used preparation of polyethylene glycol, mostly used as part of a bowel prep prior to endoscopy. It does indeed come in a gallon jug, and patients sometimes end up drinking the whole thing; six glasses is actually a fairly pedestrian quantity. It's also used for whole bowel irrigation to remove ingested drugs, particularly ones that cannot be inactivated by adsorption (ie. bound to activated charcoal). Iron would be a good example. There are far more unsafe things they could have used... Paraffin-containing laxatives can actually degrade latex rubber, potentially leading to rupture of drug packets. GoLytely is certainly safer than going after the packets with an endoscope. I've seen that done, though not for some years. Endoscopy is risky, invasive, requires anesthesia, and it's really not considered a good move under current standards of care. There are far worse things they could have done than to give some Golytely and wait for the inevitable results...

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#55)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:27:35 AM EST
    There are far worse things they could have done than to give some Golytely and wait for the inevitable results... All illegal. If he was read his Maranda rights when arrested, and cooperated, then that is a waiver of rights. Ignorance of the law is not a permit for the authorities to medicate suspects for their own convenience. And puulllleeeeze do not try to convince me that the police were doing this for his own safety.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#56)
    by Patrick on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:53:28 AM EST
    Big Tex, The Miranda warning is only required if they are going to question him and he is in custody. His custodial status seems clear enough, but there's no need for Miranda unless they are asking him questions designed to elicit incriminating responses.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#57)
    by Sailor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:21:47 AM EST
    there's no need for Miranda unless they are asking him questions designed to elicit incriminating responses.
    Now here's the prolem I have with this whole mess. I think being forced to blow in a machine, have your bodily fluids (and chunks) extracted, is forcing a person to testify against themselves. I know the courts haven't held this, but to my of thinking, what could possibly be more intrusive than the gov't entering your body?

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 06:15:46 PM EST
    I'm not attempting to convince anybody of the police's good intentions... I think that would be a waste of effort with some of you. But that aside, the medical personnel were arguably acting in the patient's interest. Anyone who has taken care of a truly massive drug overdose will tell you what a mess they can be... rivers of antidote, seizures, hyperthermia, cardiac instability, critical care out the wazoo... and despite our best efforts, some of these patients still end up dying like dogs. The medical folks have an obligation to try to save the suspect as much unnecessary badness as possible, and you can't tell me they wouldn't be faulted for erring on the side of not treating, particularly if the patient had a bad outcome. I'd rather be attacked for doing too much for a patient than for doing too little.

    Re: WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Dr (none / 0) (#59)
    by HK on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:53:07 AM EST
    demohypocrates, apologies for the delay in responding ~ I have been away at a conference this weekend. I realise that this thread is all but over, but gather from your post that you required a response. At no point did I say that the bag would not deteriate and cause the suspect's death. This is a very real possibility, although to respond to Patick's point also, the risk of rupture is greater (in that it occurs more frequently) than the risk of deteriation and excessive use of laxatives may well increase the risk of rupture. The study you link to suggests that deteriation occurs more than rupture, but not only were only a very small number of cases examined, but they were all from the same area, which means that the same type of bag may well have been used to contain the drugs in all cases, made out of a material which was especially susceptible to deteriation within the human body. It does not tell us an awful lot about wider use of bags used to contain drugs inside the bodies of smugglers. What I actually wrote was that the bag (and its contents):
    is not going to disappear inside a person
    [emphasis added] The bag and its contents will not disappear inside a person. Deteriation or rupture of the bag may occur and, further, cause the death of the carrier, but that person still has the right to refuse laxatives anyway.

    WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Drug Suspect | 54 comments (54 topical)