ILNews

Man sues after forced catheterization

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Lawrenceburg man has filed a suit against a police officer and others because he says he was given a catheter against his will to get a urine sample.

Jamie N. Lockard was stopped in March 2009 in Lawrenceburg by police officer Brian Miller for allegedly failing to stop at a stop sign. Miller suspected Lockard had been drinking and gave him a portable breath test, which read 0.07 percent. A search warrant was granted allowing Miller to get a blood and urine sample from Lockard.

His blood was drawn at Dearborn County Hospital, but Lockard was unable to provide the urine sample, according to the suit. As a result, Dr. Ronald C. Cheek authorized a forced catheterization. The blood sample showed Lockard was under the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle. He was charged with obstruction of justice as a Class D felony for refusing to consent or cooperate with the catheterization.

In his suit, Jamie N. Lockard v. The City of Lawrenceburg, Ind., Brian Miller in his individual capacity, Dearborn County Hospital, and Ronald C. Cheek, M.D., No. 4:09-CV-113, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Lockard claims he suffered extreme pain and humiliation as a result of the unlawful actions of the defendants. He says his Eight Amendment rights were violated because he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and to torts of battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT