Okay, so I have been practicing law around here for a while (25 years) and I find it surprising that these kind of stops are news to you all. They have been going on for as long as I have been practicing law(and much longer I am sure, but I've only been around for 25).
The fact of the matter is, when someone gets the "stop and frisk" or the stop and toss the car and pants and socks, when nothing is found, the subject of the illegal search just goes away relieved. If contraband is found, sometimes a pretext is found for the search and of course no one believes the druggie, and sometimes suppression motions keep the evidence out and the defendant goes free.
The only difference in the Shutter case is the claim that a male cop stuck his hand down her pants being convinced that she was cruising to buy drugs and had them stashed.
The legal/constitutional fact is that everything that was done to Ms. Shutter, after the stop, (assuming that she did not "consent" to the search) was in violation of her constitutional rights. Searching her purse, car and cell phone was not justified without probable cause, a pesky constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. And just as true, is the fact that these kind of police actions do turn up drug sellers and buyers and guns sometimes, and some would say the end justifies the means. And of course, the constitution is not much in vogue of late, and in fact some people (not including gun enthusiasts) consider it kind of "quaint".
You all should not think that APD are the only ones that do this, as my daughter told me after the fact that on a couple of occasions when she and friends were hanging out in Guilderland, cops came up asked what they were doing "Hanging out and talking" they said, whereupon the GPD asked if they "consented" to a search of their vehicle, to which they "agreed" (Since they were not into alcohol and drugs and figured they had nothing to hide...) Cops searched bags and cars then left. I was pretty irate that A) Cops even asked with no reason to suspect anything, except that they were teens, B) that they forfeited their constitutional rights and C) my own daughter did not call me when it happened.
Of course, upon reflection, I thought what would I have done as a 17 year old kid? Probably the same thing because you are intimidated and don't know any better. If she had called and asked me, I would have told the cops on their behalf, NFW you can do a search without probable cause. But, things being what they are, I would not feel 100% confident that there would not have been some negative consequences... I have just seen too many things over the past 25 years.
As to Ms. Shutter, all the BS about she whether she lied about this or that, or her friend was a parolee or whatever, it is all purely irrelevant, the cops had not right to do any of what they did, even assuming there was no cavity search. And what was she supposed to do, call a lawyer on her cell phone.
And last, but absolutely not least, you can call me naive if you want, but in my view of the world, I can understand any possible reason why every cop car should not have a mounted camera and every interrogation room should not have video taping. It protects the cops and subjects and it makes every good stop and/or interrogation and/or statement or "admission" virtually bullet proof, but it also eliminates almost all chances getting away with the trampling of peoples rights.
In Shutter's case, the cops obviously suspected that she was buying or had bought drugs, but unfortunately, driving while white in a rental care in a minority neighborhood is pretty half assed profiling and simply does not provide any reasonable cause to do what they did, and lucky for her, and unlucky for the cops, their hunch was wrong.
Sorry for the long post, but I have been reading all the stupid back and forth for a while that does not address the real issues of this situation and finally had to put in my 2 cents.
