I’ve written in the past about the civil liberties problems with the police department in Dearborn, Michigan, mostly in relation to their unconstitutional attempts to squash the free speech of Christian missionaries. But now a Dearborn officer has been caught on tape discriminating against an HIV-positive woman during a routine traffic stop. I was lucky enough to be the editor for Todd Heywood, the reporter who broke the story, for three years. This story is a great example of why he’s such a tremendous reporter.
The officer initially pulled the car over because of a burned-out brake light, but smelled marijuana when he approached the vehicle. There was indeed marijuana in the car, but the passenger in the car had a medical marijuana card through the state of Michigan (which is apparently expired and in the process of being renewed). But the officer didn’t really seem to care much about that. The driver of the car, it turns out, had a warrant out for failing to pay an earlier fine; the officer removed him from the vehicle and put him in the police car in handcuffs. Then he asked the girlfriend, who is HIV-positive, to step out of the car so he could search the vehicle.
During the search, he found several medications and asked the woman what they were for:
LACEY: Hey, Shalandra, what are these ones?
JONES: I’m HIV positive.
LACEY: OK, that’s (inaudible) probably something you want to tell me when you get out of the car, OK? If you ever get pulled out for any reason, you want to tell us, OK?
JONES: Alright.
LACEY: ‘Cause I want to make sure I put gloves on and all that stuff, OK? What is it?
JONES: [inaudible]
LACEY: For your HIV? OK?
The fact that the woman did not tell him that she was HIV-positive — there is no legal requirement for such disclosure and it’s extremely unlikely that he could possibly be infected through such casual contact — seemed to really set the guy off. He ends up telling them that he’s only writing them a ticket because she failed to immediately volunteer her health status before ever being asked about it.
Lacey told Jones that if suspects don’t disclose diseases they have and whether they are carrying needles, “we’re going to be really mad.”
“I understand that what you have isn’t something I could get, but it makes me nervous … I don’t want to take it home to my family,” Lacey told Jones. “Honestly, if it wasn’t for that, I don’t think I would have wrote anybody for anything. But that kind of really aggravated me, you know what I mean? You got to tell me right away, ‘I’ve got this. I’ve got that.’ ‘Cause at that time, I wasn’t wearing any gloves.”
This is discrimination, plain and simple. The woman didn’t do anything wrong or illegal by not telling him she was HIV-positive. When she was asked about it, she said yes. But based purely on him being mad at her, he decided to write them a ticket for the marijuana (which will almost certainly get thrown out once she has her medical marijuana card up to date).
19 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
eric
September 21, 2012 at 1:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Given that the back-and-forth was recorded, I’m surprised the whole citation hasn’t been thrown out. The officer is basically admitting to a form of quid pro quo: if you had given me information you don’t legally have to give me, I wouldn’t have written you a ticket. Since you didn’t give me that, I will.
Brandon
September 21, 2012 at 1:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Reading the full article makes it seem like he was concerned with an needle stick while searching her purse or patting her down. His handling of it was inappropriate, but that doesn’t seem like an entirely unreasonable thing for a cop to concern himself with.
This doesn’t sound discriminatory, it sounds like reasonable action. His words were inappropriate, but I don’t see anything in his actions taken.
eric
September 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Brandon, I agree, but a policeman still cannot give/withold a ticket on the basis that the driver didn’t tell them something the driver does not legally have to tell them. Don’t like wearing gloves when you search? That’s your choice. But don’t blame the outcome on the driver.
Gregory in Seattle
September 21, 2012 at 2:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“…it’s extremely unlikely that he could possibly be infected through such casual contact…”
That is to say, absolutely no chance. And even less, if she was on antiretroviral medications.
I’m inclined to say that the cop was merely ignorant. That can be corrected but, that this was a Dearborn cop, I’m not going to hold my breath
Gregory in Seattle
September 21, 2012 at 2:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
(Dang Enter button.)
That said, it seems that he was technically correct to write the ticket: I suspect that carrying marijuana with an expired medical permit is no different from driving with an expired license. Why he chose not to exercise his discretion is beside the point.
Funny Diva
September 21, 2012 at 2:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Actually, gloves won’t protect against a needle-stick! If you’re worried about needles, you damn well better ask before you go poking your hands into people’s business, even if you’re wearing a badge.
But the likelihood of someone carrying (their own) UNCAPPED needles on their person or in their handbag is vanishingly small.
Plus, I sincerely doubt that officer Unfriendly would have had the same reaction to a diabetic (they often do carry needles!).
Plus, many women wear pierced earrings (which were apparently what set him off in the first place) and many other undesirable, though cure-able, diseases _can_ be picked up through casual contact, or a prick from earrings (which _aren’t_ actually sharp anyway).
Plus, there were NO needles in the car.
So, sorry, I don’t think the cop has any excuses here. He was just taking out his irrational fears on a basically law-abiding citizen because he could. Typical “make it up as I go along” rules from a cop.
Oh, and does a cop really have the right to demand confidential medical information just because someone is carrying their ‘scripts? And, if so, do they have to abide by HIPAA privacy regs like medical professionals do?
(PS: Ed, Glenn Greenwald is no longer at Salon.com. He’s at Comment is Free at The Guardian! Your Misc Faves still link to Salon.)
Funny Diva
September 21, 2012 at 2:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh, and this is a great quote from Officer Unfriendly:
“So that way we don’t get pissed [off]. ‘Cause we get pissed–bad things happen.”
Niiiiiiice.
Marcus Ranum
September 21, 2012 at 3:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If you’re worried about needles, you damn well better ask before you go poking your hands into people’s business
That’s a general rule, I think. I had a cop once ask if he could look inside a container I was carrying, “You can but you shouldn’t. It’s concentrated nitric acid.” All correctly labelled and in a kimcote bottle. If I were a cop, I’d ask, “is there anything I should know about before I start looking around in here?” But then I’d never do something as immoral as be a cop.
Vaguely reminds me of Inspector Clouseau, “Does your dog bite?”
Brandon
September 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Plus, I sincerely doubt that officer Unfriendly would have had the same reaction to a diabetic (they often do carry needles!).
To the best of my knowledge, diabetes is not contagious.
Plus, there were NO needles in the car.
I know of no plausible way for him to have known this before searching the vehicle.
Brandon
September 21, 2012 at 3:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Blah, messed up my quote tags. Oh well.
Morgan
September 21, 2012 at 5:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Zero to utter fail in two clauses.
baal
September 21, 2012 at 5:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Cops can do certain kinds of safety checks during a stop but they don’t have a right to look in the belongings of passengers (for example) absent some additional reason (like smelling of marijuana). You do need to be polite but you can refuse a lot more than you might think.
Funny Diva
September 21, 2012 at 5:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
baal@12
“…you can refuse a lot more than you might think.”
If you’re the right race, gender and socio-economic class. And if you’re willing to spend a night in jail or recovering from a beating or tazering. And if you can afford a lawyer or have the resources to mobilize public sentiment to educate the gendarmerie in question about the difference between the Law and rules pulled outta some cop’s ass.
IOW, just because you _can_ doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. And it seriously sucks that the way things are is so far from the way things ought to be!
kevinvaughn
September 21, 2012 at 8:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He admitted that he treated them differently due to their medical condition. That is the discrimination part. It doesn’t matter if he had a legitimate reason to ticket them. If an officer only issued speeding tickets to African-Americans and used “discretion” for everyone else, it would still be discrimination even if an infraction occurred every time a ticket was issued. And yes, medical conditions share the same protected status as race.
satanaugustine
September 22, 2012 at 12:33 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If I’m pulled over by a cop in the future I’ll be sure to warm him or her:
“I have chronic depression with recurrent major depression in addition to an anxiety disorder and chronic insomnia. Better put on some extra-motherfuckin’-heavy duty gloves and maybe a gas mask, too. Believe me, you do not want this shit, officer!”
wholething
September 22, 2012 at 9:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
How about someone with diabetes and hepatitis?
If the officer is searching a car, he must have some suspicions and should have concerns for drug paraphernalia, anyway. HIV is prevalent among intravenous drug users.
Ichthyic
September 23, 2012 at 7:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I know of no plausible way for him to have known this before searching the vehicle
wow. really?
strangely, I myself probably would have asked.
In fact, it’s my understanding most officers are in fact trained to ask if there are any potential hazards before conducting a search of vehicle or person.
seems pretty fucking “plausible” to me.
sc_927908633f6cfe59f5e697f6ecd01c31
September 23, 2012 at 11:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It is unlikely that HIV can be transmitted even from a needle stick in a traffic stop. HIV can only survive with great enough viability and quantity to infect in a large bore needle with fresh blood. And, yes, latex gloves don’t offer much protection against a needle.
Hep B is much more likely to be spread in that fashion. I would be surprised if the police officer would expect someone to disclose their hep B status, or would have reacted similarly to someone who did volunteer that information. I think it’s very problematic to insist on knowing medical diagnoses at routine traffic stops, especially with conditions that have significant stigma, as evidenced by this example.
Uncle Glenny
September 23, 2012 at 11:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I agree with googleplex above. A friend of mine was once robbed at dirty-needle-point and pricked in the process so had to deal with this.
I’m certain I’ve seen prick-resistant gloves for sale, for just this reason. (Some time in the past I was on mailing lists of catalogs for all sorts of military and police supplies.)