A disturbing lawsuit was filed last year in federal court detailing a horrifying nightmare endured by an innocent woman at the hands of San Antonio police. The victim, Natalie D. Simms had her tampon pulled out by police who then conducted a vaginal cavity search—in public and on video—all to search for non-existent drugs. After learning that the local government has been spending thousands of taxpayer dollars to protect the officers involved, the case may finally be settling for $205,000.
The Law Offices of Dean Malone issued a press release earlier this year explaining how the city has “spent countless hours litigating the case, defending depositions, taking depositions, and drafting motions.”
They also asked the court to grant summary judgement against Ms. Simms, which would mean a jury would never have been able to hear her case if it were to go to trial.
According to a city agenda recently posted online, the city council is expected to vote on whether or not to fund the settlement on Thursday.
Constitutional rights attorney Dean Malone explained earlier this year how the city and police have railroaded her client. “It is unfortunate that a San Antonio resident could be subjected to such a search, and then further be subjected to lengthy litigation with no attempt by the Defendants to resolve the case,” he said. “The Defendants have spent untold thousands of dollars, and are now attempting to avoid a jury trial through their latest-filed motions. Natalie was humiliated and degraded by the search. If the court chooses to deny the Defendants’ motions, we look forward to presenting Natalie’s horrific ordeal to a jury in San Antonio.”
As we reported last year, in 2016, Natalie Simms had done nothing wrong, she had harmed no one, and had committed no crime when she was approached by San Antonio’s finest who had a hunch that she might have an illegal substance.
She had no such substance.
In spite of being completely innocent, Simms was approached by a male cop, who then demanded to search her car, as she waited for her boyfriend. Simms consented to the search and nothing was found. Continuing to rely on a hunch, the male cop called in a female officer to search Simms. Officer Mara Wilson responded and this normal police harassment then turned into a nightmare.
The entire horrific scene was captured on the officer’s body camera as those who are sworn to protect proceeded to violate an innocent woman on a public sidewalk in the most depraved manner.
While the body camera has yet to be released publicly, the lawsuit released portions of the conversation. They are documented below.
Wilson: Stand up straight. Kind of lean back a little bit. (Inaudible) This
is — these are shorts? Oh, it’s a skirt-short?
Wilson: Oh, hell. Okay. Look straight ahead, okay. Spread your legs. I’m
gonna ask you, do you have anything down here before I reach down here?
Simms: No. I don’t have nothing in my –.
According to the lawsuit, the officer assured Simms that she would not “reach” and, instead, “just look,” however, Simms kept flinching as she was being violated in public.
Wilson: Uh-huh. Are you wearing a tampon, too?
Wilson: Okay. I just want to make sure that’s what it is. Is that a tampon?
Simms: Come on. Yes.
Wilson: Huh? Is that a tampon?
Simms: It’s full of blood, right? Why would you do that?
In her futile attempt to catch Simms with an arbitrary substance deemed illegal by the state, this officer pulled out an innocent woman’s tampon and proceeded to penetrate her vaginally. All of this was done without Simms’ consent as she repeatedly protested.
The entire time, Simms was pleading with the officer, trying to tell her that she had nothing on her. But this vile public servant continued to violate her, all the while sarcastically degrading and mocking her victim.
After the officer raped Simms, she then forced her to turn around in an attempt to do the same thing anally.
According to the lawsuit, “Wilson had violated Natalie vaginally, and now it appeared that she might violate Natalie anally. She was doing so without a warrant, with no medical personnel present, and on a public street in view of several people as well as those passing by. Officer Wilson continued to reach down in a manner indicating that she intended to search between Natalie’s buttocks and potentially engage in an anal cavity search. Natalie, in her continued shock and protest, responded.”
Simms: Why are you searching me like that out here?
Wilson: I have to check your back, because —
Simms: No. We can go to the station to do that.
Wilson: I ain’t going nowhere. I’m gonna search you right here.
Simms: But, Miss, this is like in public. Come on now. You already pulled the tampon out.
Wilson: Yeah, I know, but turn around.
After this entirely innocent woman had been publicly raped by a female officer who mocked her the entire time as five male officers watched, Simms was told she was free to go.
During the entire search, Wilson continued to assure Simms that she had nothing to worry about as long as she didn’t possess any illegal substances. Would officer Wilson agree to be publicly raped in the same manner if she didn’t have any illegal substances on her?
As the lawsuit points out “If Officer Wilson’s assertion were true, members of the public could be searched by police officers, at will, in malls, theaters, shopping centers, and grocery stores, and even the tourist-busy San Antonio River Walk, and the searches could include body cavity searches. As long as such citizens had no illegal contraband on them, according to Officer Wilson, they should have nothing to worry about regarding body cavity searches.”
Wilson is wrong, however, and her practice was and is entirely illegal and a violation of Simms’ constitutional rights.
Wilson would even admit to removing the innocent woman’s tampon in court, telling a detective she was “searching everything” and had to literally rape this innocent woman because she “just wanted to make sure there wasn’t anything in there.”
For admitting to publicly raping an innocent woman on the side of the road as strangers watched, officer Wilson faced no charges and was allowed to quietly retire. Now the city is complicit in covering for this officer as they squander taxpayer money to suppress the truth as well. And this is what we call “justice” in the land of the free.