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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. by the time anybody gets to such files they will probably have been totally vacuumed anyways. they're pros at this at universities. anything to protect their incomes. Still, a laudable attempt. Let's go for throat though: how about the idea of unionizing football college football players so they can get a fair shake for their work? then if one of the players is a pain in the neck cut them loose instead of protecting them. if that kills the big programs, great, what do they have to do with learning anyways? nada. just another way for universities to rake in the billions even as they skate from paying taxes with their bogus "nonprofit" status.

  2. Um the affidavit from the lawyer is admissible, competent evidence of reasonableness itself. And anybody who had done law work in small claims court would not have blinked at that modest fee. Where do judges come up with this stuff? Somebody is showing a lack of experience and it wasn't the lawyers

  3. My children were taken away a year ago due to drugs, and u struggled to get things on track, and now that I have been passing drug screens for almost 6 months now and not missing visits they have already filed to take my rights away. I need help.....I can't loose my babies. Plz feel free to call if u can help. Sarah at 765-865-7589

  4. Females now rule over every appellate court in Indiana, and from the federal southern district, as well as at the head of many judicial agencies. Give me a break, ladies! Can we men organize guy-only clubs to tell our sob stories about being too sexy for our shirts and not being picked for appellate court openings? Nope, that would be sexist! Ah modernity, such a ball of confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmRsWdK0PRI

  5. LOL thanks Jennifer, thanks to me for reading, but not reading closely enough! I thought about it after posting and realized such is just what was reported. My bad. NOW ... how about reporting who the attorneys were raking in the Purdue alum dollars?

ADVERTISEMENT