What I've observed while running an arm of the American Government is that they don't fiddle with their operating practices or lose focus when they hear high-sounding names and titles (designations). We all know that America is far from perfection but when it comes to rules and regulations, they don't care for the status or the office of a person involved as we do in India. We have heard about various American leaders, bureaucrats and luminaries (not Indian leaders only) having been stopped, searched or fined by seemingly petty officers. It was big news when Ed Rendell, the Pennsylvania Governor was stopped and fined for some traffic violation by the highway police. If somebody is arrested (in the present case, there is a valid reason too), that person is to be taken to a nearby police station and kept there (in custody) from where he is taken to the court after preliminary investigation for adjudication proceedings. Rule of law prevails and emphatically enough, its not like India where the police may record arrest after several days and/ or produce the accused in court after several weeks or may minimize the offence depending on recommendation/ money. They don't have five-star amenities or VIP rooms in police districts (as they call it there). Everyone arrested (and they range from pan handlers to mafia bosses) has to be kept in a well-lit area where one or two armed officers will be on duty, watching over. And they strip- search everyone who gets there, not caring for their ranks or positions in society because that's what they are trained to do (besides, they may not have Master Degrees to know all about diplomats, diplomacy, immunity and associated jargon: this may be the first time they hear those words. This writer once walked into a U.S. court room and asked to see his clients- the accused in a criminal case who were arraigned there that day but was told by the duty officer that he doesn't know who the accused are, nevertheless, pointed out the defendants). After all, all those brought there are under some criminal charges or due to whatever suspicious activities and are detained according to the law of the land. Those officers and the police department don't want to take the risk of having somebody among the detainees keeping drugs or prescription meds or weapons (may be as small as a piece of blade or as simple as a string or elastic piece- of even an underwear- but capable of killing somebody) or potassium cyanide or some other poison, stacked away in some folds of their bodies, to end their own lives... After all, a person arrested and detained may have sufficient plus one reason to go to any extent viz., committing suicide and so the authorities will have to search each and everyone, especially a new offender who wouldn't have a rap sheet from which they can discern the history of that person. This does not mean in any way that I am advancing the American case but saying only that he who is assigned to do a particular job will do it which is the rule and not the exception there (they are required to do so or they may lose their jobs). They don't look for which political party the offender belongs to or who one is related to. This is still a mind set that the Indians are not used to. (profiling- racial or otherwise- is an allegation that has surfaced recently, though). Further, I believe that American bureaucracy had information of all that was about to happen; they may have planned it to establish their law regarding minimum wages- this may not have happened for the first time or with the first person. This 'nanny business', paying low wages, trafficking etc. would have been going on for some time. I would even guess that 'the Nanny' even might have applied for political assylm in America saying her employer is powerful and influential at home, capable of ruining her life and her family. In the circumstances, the US officials would have been waiting for the perfect timing or building up strong evidence or both. Now that our government has made a fuss over it, it's best to make amends/ adjustments at the diplomatic, still better, political level in a hushed tone (Am I voting against my own premise, here?) or boldly face the charges by employing a great lawyer in America. Thanks.
The culprits in Suryanelly case can possibly raise a strong defence leading to clean acquittal and that is by claiming themselves to be mentally challenged (retarded). Those of whom we hear connected to the said case appear to meet all the requirements needed for mental retardation that can be proved with their low IQs.