Police want bullet from man's head

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jacobus Rex

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
226
Location
Southeast Texas
A very interesting case:

Police want bullet from man's head

From the Beaumont Enterprise:

Police want bullet from man's head

By RYAN MYERS, The Enterprise
12/05/2006
Updated 12/04/2006 11:04:50 PM CST

Police frequently collect bullets as evidence.

They collect them from walls and trees. Even collecting bullets from bodies isn't uncommon.

But Port Arthur police are after a bullet lodged in the head of a living man, a bullet they believe can prove the man tried to kill someone.

"We really need that bullet," said Lt. Pat Powell, who is leading the department's effort to get the legal go-ahead to surgically remove the projectile.

The bullet police want is inside 17-year-old Joshua Adam Bush, who has refused to give consent for the projectile's removal.

Bush was in Jefferson County jail Monday, indicted on one count each of deadly conduct, burglary of a habitation, criminal mischief and two counts of engaging in organized criminal activity.

Powell wants the bullet to develop attempted capital murder charges against Bush, according to a search warrant affidavit.

Authorities believe Bush, whom they say has admitted to being the commander of the Young Blood Gorillas street gang, was shot July 21 after a burglary of a Port Arthur car lot, Powell said.

Police said they arrested three men during a burglary at Olive Used Cars in the 3000 block of Gulfway Drive, but Bush avoided capture. After investigators left, he confronted lot manager Allen Olive.

Olive told police Bush shot at him but missed, prompting Olive, an accomplished competition pistol shooter, to return fire, according to the affidavit.

Police believe Olive hit Bush and that removing the bullet will tie Bush to the shootout.

Bush's mother, Tammie Bush, said she took her son to the University of Texas Medical Branch hospital in Galveston on Aug. 1 to see about having the bullet removed.

Doctors notified Port Arthur police a gunshot victim was seeking treatment, according to the affidavit. But before police arrived the Bushes left because they did not have insurance to pay for the bullet's removal, Tammie Bush said.

Police later took Joshua Bush into custody on charges unrelated to the shooting, according to the affidavit.

He admitted to involvement in the car lot burglary but denied knowledge of the shooting and attributed a swelling on his forehead to a basketball injury, the affidavit states.

On Wednesday, District Judge Layne Walker issued a search warrant authorizing the bullet's surgical removal.

But the operation by St. Elizabeth Hospital trauma surgeon David Parkus, who could not be reached for comment Monday, was unsuccessful, Powell said.

"We just did the surgery in the emergency room, and the surgeon said some bone had grown around the bullet and he would need an operating room and some more tools to get the bullet," Powell said.

Because the search warrant was only valid for 72 hours, another is required before a second surgery is attempted.

Tammie Bush said she was appalled to hear about the first surgery and is trying to hire a lawyer to help prevent any subsequent attempts to remove the bullet.

"They're willing to risk Josh's life, willing to kill him even to get that bullet," Tammie Bush said. "They just don't have any right."

Josh Bush's attorney, Rife Kimler, was out of town Monday and could not be reached.

The law surrounding surgical removal of evidence from a suspect without consent revolves around the extent of invasiveness required for the procedure, said Ramon Rodriguez, the Jefferson County assistant district attorney handling Bush's prosecution.

"It's decided on a case-by-case basis. For example, imagine I burglarized a home and in the process busted a window with very unique glass, glass not found anywhere else in Jefferson County," the prosecutor said.

"Now let's say I have a shard of this glass in the skin of my thumb and a shard in my chest cavity in my heart. Removing the glass from my chest would be much more invasive than removing the glass from my thumb."

There is no established guideline for what is so invasive as to constitute an unreasonable search and seizure and potential violation of the Fourth Amendment, Rodriguez said.

Tammie Bush said she was upset her son's lawyer was not notified and not present for the surgery, but Rodriguez said there is no right to have an attorney present during the execution of a search warrant.

For Powell, the next step is getting another search warrant.

He said he's convinced the surgery is no more invasive than the one attempted Wednesday.

"We just need to schedule an operating room," he said.

That scheduling, and the scheduling of a surgeon willing to do the surgery and provide subsequent testimony in court, complicates the process.

"Because we only have 72 hours after we get the warrant we pretty much have to have everything lined up beforehand," he said.

But Powell said he's willing to do the work.

"It's burglary charges versus a possible attempted murder charge," he said. "That's a pretty big difference. We really need to get that bullet."

Even if the bullet is removed, Rodriguez said arguments could still arise about it's admission in a trial.

Powell said Judge Walker, who issued the first warrant, was out of town Monday,

"We're waiting for him to come back to see if we can try again," Powell said.
 
so now we can be forced to submit to intrusive medical procedures in a hunt for evidence that might incriminate the victim of the medical procedures.

if this is a legitimate use of state power, how far are we from mandating far less invasive medical procedures? how about we inject an rfid tag into everyone?

the slippery slope gets closer every day. soon we will just slide over the edge, and maybe not even realize it.

and what ever happened to "do no harm"?

I cannot imagine any ethical doctor agreeing to perform a medical procedure on a rational adult without that person's consent. The doc that did the first surgery ought to have his license revoked.
 
Sounds like that kid got lucky when he didn't die. Its a shame that he might get lucky again.

No to self: To prevent murder chargers in the future, hide evidence in body.
 
"Do no harm" is right. Any doctor that does such an unnecessary surgery should be disciplined by his state medical association.
 
ilbob, I think this differs from mandatory chipping of the population. The police know the bullet is there, Allen Olive states he put the bullet there in response to Mr Bush attempting to put bullets in him and at least one judge considers the possible evidence to be retrieve sufficent cause to at least attempt to recover the bullet.

I've never considered such a situation, so my reasoning is on this is very nascent. One thing I am curious about, is who owns the bullet at this point? Does a shooters ownership of a projectile cease once the projectile has been fired?
 
I hope the police dont force there way in. While i do think that he is guilty i dont think they have the right to preform a dangerous operation if he does not want to go through it. I believe it will come down to this:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
 
F THAT!

What kind of a ridiculous stunt is that? Government has forced its way into every aspect of our lives, our homes, our bedrooms, and now it wants our bodies too. I say: F THAT!
They are trying to force someone to basically have brain surgery. The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sure it’s too bad that this punk left that store on his feet instead of feet first, but unreasonable is unreasonable. When it comes to a judicial official saying that someone must have surgery. I say enough is enough.
 
Guys, they have more than enough probable cause. The only real question is whether the search is "unreasonable" given the circumstances.
 
Way I got it figured, a man puts a bullet in me, he *gave* it to me. It's mine.

Biker
 
Forcing someone to go under anesthesia...

To have their head cut open. I think that would qualify as "unreasonable". If at a later date, he chooses to have it removed, then it should be collected as evidence. Government should stay out of peoples "persons"
 
DogBonz ~

Reading the article, I do not think they are talking about brain surgery.

It sounds as if the bullet is lodged just beneath the skin of his forehead, and that they need a proper operating room because in the first attempt they thought they could just pop it like a pimple in the ER. Instead of being that loosely-lodged, the bullet has to be cut out of the bony growth that has encapsulated it. Painful & icky, but a long way from brain surgery.

Could be wrong. But that's what it sounds like.

Will be interesting to see this one play out. I wonder if the suspect's own attempt to have the bullet removed will have any effect on the legal arguments?

pax
 
Can the gunshot victim/suspect refuse on the grounds of self incrimination?

Lesson to be learned: shooting until the immediate threat stops isn't always enough. This little prick decided that he was angry enough at the car dealership owner to confront him with deadly force for calling the police to a burglary. What do you think is in store for this dealership owner if this punk walks away from this a free man? I'm willing to bet victimization of some kind.

If someone takes a shot at you, and you have to shoot back, don't stop until the assailant is on the ground where he can be easily scooped up for evidence. Running away is running for cover to resume the attack later, and that's exactly what you tell your lawyer after the fact.
 
@ Sindawe

Interesting indeed. I take it the police want the bullet for ballistics comparisons? How good is the resolution of modern medical imaging technology, good enough to see the grooves on the bullet?

No sir, it is not good enough. Even if it was good enough to resolve class characteristics (left or right hand twist, number of lands and grooves and spacing) it would still not be good enough to resolve impressions relating to individual characteristics.

Basically, when dealing with medical imaging in this case there are only two options:

1) Plain radiography, whether it is digital or analogue (film).
2) Computed tomography or CT (known by lay persons as CAT scans).

In plain radiography, all images are subject to X-ray beam projection which results in magnification and various other possible undesirable effects related to the physics of image recording on the X-ray receptor. The lead mass of an intact bullet is usually too dense to be penetrated by the X-ray beam (especially such beams as found in the hospital). You therefore cannot see the rifling impressions (well I haven't seen any yet and I've seen quite a few). In many cases the geometry and physics associated with the imaging process makes it impossible to determine whether the bullet (if it is a relatively intact ogive nosed projectile) even has a jacket! It may be that X-ray beams produced from a higher voltage from multiple angles may be of use if the resultant images were subsequently analysed with non-standard software... BUT that is very unlikely to happen because such radiography on a live patient carries increased radiation dose concerns and there is a limited clinical referral and involvement in that order.

CT (or CAT) scanning is not subject to the same distortions related to magnification and beam divergence because of the way the image data are collected. The trouble with CT is that dense metals such as lead cannot be penetrated by the X-ray beam and therefore the algorithm fails because of detection errors. This results in streak artefacts which obliterate the contour of the bullet and therefore the rifling cannot be seen. Even if this was not the case, the resolution with today's technology is not sufficient to demonstrate impressions that can be used to match individual characteristics. A CT scan to image a bullet for forensic reasons only is likely to be labelled an abuse of ionising radiation and I can't see them authorising it anyway.

Okay, now for the surgical retrieval problem.

The guy was shot and only attended hospital a week later in order to have the bullet removed. This is therefore a trivial injury, and is most likely a palpable bullet without any intracranial involvement (didn't go into the brain).
For financial reasons they didn't get that bullet removed at the first visit to the hospital.
Then he went back a few months later and the ER doc tried to remove it under local anaesthetic in the emergency department. I know this because they don't do retrievals under general anaesthetic in the ED. In fact they don't like to do any general anaesthetics in the emergency department. Okay, so that retrieval failed because the doc had no access to the bullet. The article says bone had grown over the bullet (which would imply that the guy had a fracture at the time of the shooting). This may be accurate, and it may not be. The retrieval could have failed for some other reason (such as a partially-embedded projectile which he may have had access to, but was too scared to pull without neuro backup). Anyway the reason why he couldn't get it out is not important, the fact is he can't get it under local anaesthetic.

And this is where we hit the big problem, because a general anaesthetic is a big deal. A local anaesthetic retrieval can be done by one doc (maybe even one nurse if the nurse is properly trained) but a general anaesthetic carries risks and expenses that are far greater than a local anaesthetic. It needs an anaesthetist, a circulating nurse, the surgeon himself and possibly a radiographer. The theatre has to be booked and the patient has to be kept for observation after the surgery. When bone is involved there is a great concern about possible post-operative infection.
And in this case, all of that is weighed up against the fact that the procedure has no clinical benefits that warrant this risk.
I am betting that this case goes no further.
 
Riktoven said:
Can the gunshot victim/suspect refuse on the grounds of self incrimination?

Well, usually the law of "homo corpus" would be involved. "The body of man." The doctor would need permission of the patient before intruding into his body.

Given how our laws have perverted over time, issueing a warrant may be possible. I don't see how the police could force any particular surgeon to perform an operation if said surgeon should refuse, however.
 
@ Riktoven

Can the gunshot victim/suspect refuse on the grounds of self incrimination?

I don't know about the legalities of this in the US, but I would assume the situation is similar to the drawing of blood for DUI tests on road traffic accident patients and similar also to the use of X-rays or ultrasounds to detect ingested contraband in drug smugglers. In the latter case, here in the UK they are allowed to request the patient to have medical imaging studies to determine whether he is smuggling or not, but he can still refuse. However, if he refuses it puts him in a very bad position legally (almost tantamount to admitting guilt).

This case with the gunshot is difficult because the guy didn't attend hospital on the day he was shot. If things had been different with the financial side of things they may very well have retrieved the bullet and in my view it would then belong with all the other evidence associated with the original crime scene.
 
Last edited:
PC or no, you can't get much more invasive than drilling a hole in the head. We don't even do that to terrorists. It's very different from pulling evidence from a digestive tract. As an invasive surgery against the will of the person, it's felony assault. Could the police obtain admissible evidence via other types of felony assault, such as beating the suspect with hoses or pulling his nails out? Those assaults would not be as serious as drilling a hole through his cranium to remove evidence, but there's no way evidence obtained from them could be considered admissible.
 
That's some BS, if you have a bullet inside your friggin' skull then no one has the right to try to force you to go through extremely dangerous surgery just to incriminate you.

What about the Fifth Amendment, which protects you from being forced to incriminate yourself in any way, shape, or form?
 
1) the police will need at the least osme kind of search warrant or other form of due process to get the bullet, and they can and should be denied if removing th ebullet is considered a life-threatening procedure.

2) that bullet was not a gift. That kid owes the shooter at least a quarter for trying to rob the guy and taking a bullet in petty theft :neener:

If the bullet could be construed as stolen property it could be siezed, but I doubt that novel legal argument would go very far. (property removed during a criminal act - one bullet)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top