So: these cops got a warrant that vaguely allowed a search in David Eckert’s anus for drugs. Even though searches found nothing, the cops and doctors continued to escalate to steadily more invasive procedures into David Eckert’s body to find drugs. Yet, under the “good faith” exception, their reliance on the warrant might be valid if the warrant was valid. Moreover, as Prof. Kerr explains, the cops might be able to rely on the qualified immunity that government employees tend to enjoy when they do things like subject us to involuntary anal probing.

Some people are citing this incident for the proposition that it is terrifying that police officers and doctors would break the law and violate a suspect’s rights. I submit there is something far more terrifying about it: the prospect that a court might find that Mr. Eckert’s rights weren’t violated at all, and that he has no recourse for a team of cops and doctors raping and torturing him.

What’s terrifying is that the warrant requirement is supposed to protect our rights from overzealous cops, but here a judge approved a warrant to probe a man anally premised on fluff and a tip from an anonymous cop.

What’s terrifying is that lawyers are supposed to guide cops in the law, but a Deputy DA approved this warrant.