Why is it that a civilian who inserts a foreign object into the private parts of an unwilling person is guilty of "first degree rape" or "sexual offense," but a cop who does it is acting in the line of duty?
According to the suit, police arrested Jamie Lockard, 53, on suspicion of drunken driving in March.
A Breathalyzer test showed he was under the legal limit, but Officer Brian Miller doubted the findings.
Lockard and his attorney claim in the suit that police took him to Dearborn County Hospital and forced him to submit to a urine and blood test.
Police said they obtained a warrant, but Lockard's attorney said his client was shackled to a gurney and had a catheter inserted against his will.
If the story is true, the magistrate who issued the warrant should be fired. I've received catheter insertion during kidneystone treatment, and found the experience rather humiliating and painful, despite anesthesia. I can't imagine what feelings an involuntary catheterization would provoke, apart from the natural feeling of "sue the bastard" or perhaps, "kill the bastard."
Assuming Indiana is like other states, drunk driving is an "implied consent offense." By driving, one impliedly consents to the revocation of one's driver's license for refusing to consent to a reasonable search such as a breathalyzer test.
Which Lockard had already passed. What about the hospital? They're being sued as well. I don't know anything about Indiana law, but query whether a doctor is under a duty to assist the police in an involuntary catheterization for a "patient" sober enough to know he doesn't want it. It certainly violates the Hippocratic oath. Is it a tort?
As for the police, I'm not inclined to do much searching for case law on whether involuntary catheterization, for an offense as trivial as drunk driving when one has already passed the breathalyzer, is reasonable. According to Sullivan v. Bornemann, 384 F.3d 372 (7th Cir., 2004) it may be.
But if it is, something is wrong with this country.