{"id":10808,"date":"2013-08-07T01:49:24","date_gmt":"2013-08-07T08:49:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=10808"},"modified":"2013-08-07T01:49:24","modified_gmt":"2013-08-07T08:49:24","slug":"texas-gop-think-they-own-your-lady-parts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2013\/08\/07\/texas-gop-think-they-own-your-lady-parts\/","title":{"rendered":"Texas GOP Think They Own YOUR Lady Parts"},"content":{"rendered":"

Were this to happen in any other state Than Texas \u2026 or North Carolina \u2026 or Wisconsin, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, or other states, where Republicans lied their way into complete control, I might believe this is the individual officers\u2019 doing, and perhaps it is anyway.  But in those states where the primary Republican emphasis has not been the promised jobs, but has centered on what goes on between women’s legs, the following crimes fit the Republican pattern.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"7republicans-in-your-vagina\"A pair of videos posted online show police probing the genitals and anal regions of three women<\/a> they claim to suspect of possessing marijuana. In one video, a woman is seen bent over and grimacing as an off camera police officer conducts the search. Shortly before this search, a male officer explains to the woman that he is calling a female officer over \u201cbecause I ain\u2019t about to get up close and personal with your woman areas.\u201d<\/p>\n

The videos depict two vehicle stops, one for speeding and another for littering. In both videos, a male officer asks the women if they have any marijuana in the vehicle, suggesting that the purpose of their search is to find evidence of this drug. At one point, immediately before conducting her search of a woman\u2019s genitals, a female officer warns the woman that if she \u201chid something in there, we\u2019re going to find it.\u201d<\/p>\n

These searches almost certainly violate the Constitution. Although police do have broad latitude to search a vehicle<\/a> when they have probable cause to believe that they will uncover contraband within, it is quite a stretch to extend these precedents to this most intimate of searches. As the Supreme Court explained in a 2009 decision regarding a student who was strip searched by school administrators, \u201cboth subjective and reasonable societal expectations of personal privacy support the treatment of such a search as categorically distinct, requiring distinct elements of justification<\/a> on the part of school authorities for going beyond a search of outer clothing and belongings.\u201d\u2026 <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Inserted from <Think Progress<\/a>><\/p>\n

Here are the videos:<\/font><\/p>\n