India-US relations: cooling and warming up (merged thread)

[jmm99]

from arraignment before the Federal magistrate (pursuant to the DoS complaint which we have) about 4pm, she was in custody of the US Marshals Service from about noon. This was the most verbatim statement I could find, as reported by PTI, US Marshals (Press Trust of India, Washington, December 19, 2013):

Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade, arrested last week in New York on charges of visa fraud, was not subject to cavity search, as being alleged, the US Marshals Services claimed today.

"In reference to your question about the cavity search, the answer is no," Nikki Credic-Barrett, spokesperson of the US Marshals Service, told PTI in response to a question on the allegations by the family of the senior Indian diplomat that she was subject to cavity search.

"Devyani Khobragade was transferred to the US Marshals at approximately noon, December 12, pending her initial appearance before a United States federal magistrate judge," the spokesperson said.

"After her appearance, she was released at approximately 4 p.M. The same day. Khobragade was subject to the same search procedures as other arrestees held within the general prisoner population in the Southern District of New York, which in this case was a strip-search," Credic-Barrett said.

"In reference to the DNA swab, the responsibility for collection of a DNA sample was that of the arresting agency, US Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security," she said when asked about the allegations of DNA swab.

The applicable USMS Directive is here; and the point of controversy will be this:

3. Strip Search: A complete search of a prisoner's attire and a visual inspection of the prisoner's naked body, including body cavities. The following procedures are applicable to a strip search:

a. Strip searches on prisoners in custody are authorized when there is reasonable suspicion that the prisoner may be (a) carrying contraband and/or weapons, or (b) considered to be a security, escape, and/or suicide risk. Reasonable suspicion may be based upon, but is not limited to, one or more of the following criteria:

1) Serious nature of the offense(s) charged, i.e., whether crime of violence or drugs;

2) Prisoner's appearance or demeanor;

3) Circumstances surrounding the prisoner's arrest or detention; i.e., whether the prisoner has been convicted or is a pretrial detainee;

4) Prisoner's criminal history;

5) Type and security level of institution in which the prisoner is detained; or

6) History of discovery of contraband and/or weapons, either on the prisoner individually or in the institution in which prisoners are detained.

I expect the USMS will defend its officers' decision on the basis of 5 & 6.

Please note that this is a "false statement" case - a Martha Stewart redux; and technically the legality of the search does not bear on that charge.

And, a "whoa Silver" on those talking about generic "US police". This case was brought by the US Department of State - and the arrest and initial custody (until noon) was by DoS Diplomatic Security officers. I expect that we'll also find out that some diplomatic "back channeling" went on before the arrest.

Regards

Mike