9 Comments

Actually, the proper quote would be, “We from the government, and we’re here for your jewelry. But since it’s attached, we won’t take it.”

“grillz” are jewelry, and, as best I understand it, dentists recommend against them for dental health reasons and STRONGLY recommend that they be removable. The “grillz” in this case were apparently permanent, and the government dropped its request when that was made known.

This is much ado about nothing. (Well, other than the general topic of asset forfeiture, which is important, but this needlessly inflames it.)

Deoxy: I’m just curious whether you read the associated legal documents before reaching those conclusions? In the affidavit, the DEA agent wrote: “[Grillz] can either be a removable type similar to a retainer or attached to the teeth with dental cement similar to braces.” In other words, they either knew the grillz were cemented to the teeth and didn’t care, or they didn’t do any investigation. I’m not sure which is worse. Anyhow, the actual legal documents are available at this link.

How does one investigate in advance whether a target’s teeth jewelry are removable or attached? Was the government supposed to subpoena his dentist before filing the asset forfeiture complaint? How is that less intrusive?

Given the logistics involved, it’s hard for me to see what the government should have done differently. You file the forfeiture complaint, acknowledge in the complaint that the facts may not bear out seizure, and then see where things shake out and act accordingly.

The warrant for seizing the gold teeth makes no mention of granting a dentist or physician the right to forceably perform a medical procedure on an unwilling patient.

No physician or dentist can touch a patient without their informed consent. Presumably these gentlemen were not likely to give their consent so that should have ended the whole fiasco. The warrant authorizing the seizure in no manner would have in no way convinced me as a physician that I was authorized to act against the patient’s wishes.

Indeed, there is precident for allowing any physician or dentist to by conscience opt out of patient ‘care’. In this case the ‘care’ provided would be strictly forbidden by the AMA and presumably the ADA ethical guidelines.

My question is what type of ethics does a dentist have to have to pull out “grills” for the government? I understand that the gov likely did not know they were attached as they were, but just the idea of a medical professional removing items like this is slightly wrong.

Mike,

Yes. Nothing you said contradicts what I said. As Ted points out, how, exactly, does one “investigate” the status of the “grillz”, especially when permannt “grillz” are considered bad dental practice?

Gunner,

See what nevins said. I don’t think pulling “prmanent” “grillz” was ever intended or attempted.

Overambitious agents did intend to have a dentist pull the attached grillz. I think we can all agree that that would’ve been improper.

You file the forfeiture complaint, acknowledge in the complaint that the facts may not bear out seizure

Ted, I agree. But that is not what the agent intended to do. Note in the seizure application that the agent continually refered to the grillz as “”removable cosmetic dental appliances.”

Only once does the agent note that the grillz might be cemented to the teeth. The application absolutely downplayed any likelihood that the grillz were cemented, perhaps because that would’ve made it less likely that the judge would’ve approved the seizure warrant.

Note, also, that the warrant did not ask for a judge’s permission to remove the grillz subject to the condition that the grillz were not cemeted. To me, that’s a telling omission.

So, we can agree to disagree over whether the government would’ve had a dentist remove “permanent” grillz from a drug dealer’s mouth. But there is no room for disagreement that the agent wrote the application in such a way that the reader would conclude that the grillz could easily be removed.

“But there is no room for disagreement that the agent wrote the application in such a way that the reader would conclude that the grillz could easily be removed.”

Which is a fairly reasonable assumption, since dental groups officially disapprove of permanent “grillz”. That is, a dentist who installs one of those things permanently is performing what his own profession has declared to be bad dentristry. One would certainly hope that permanent “grillz” would be exceedingly rare.

And yes, pulling them would be wrong in the vast majority of cases. (Interesting cases would include ones where the “grillz” in question were stolen and then installed, among others.)