Sunday, February 10, 2013

Cop Accused of Groping Cuffed Pregnant Woman





With "he said; she said" when both statements are present, it is not difficult to discern truth from deception, or even errant perception.  We only have the alleged victim's statement and not that of the officer.  If we had both statements before us, we would likely know, as police would have both of them write out what happened.  Here, we only have a few sentences from the alleged victim. 

AUBURN, Wash. -- An Auburn police officer is under investigation for allegedly groping a pregnant and handcuffed woman.

The incident happened at 1:30 a.m. on a Sunday morning last month. The alleged victim, Hannah Thompson, said she was so traumatized that she's now afraid to be home alone because the officer knows were she lives.

Thompson said she got an uncomfortable feeling when spotted a police officer as she left the Sports Page Bar in Auburn.

"I had made eye contact with him and I kind of got just a weird vibe," she said.

note the certainty of the eye contact, and then note the lack of certainty with the perception.  That she can say "I had made eye contact" is strong, and the "vibe" is something that is a perception and more difficult to say with certainty.  For her it was "kind of" just a "weird vibe."

This is the expected.  
She drove away, and said the officer followed her the two blocks to her house.

"When I went to get out of the car he was like, 'Get back in the car,' and this whole time I didn't even know he was behind me. His lights weren't on or nothing," Thompson said.

Thompson claims the officer accused her of trying to elude him.

"He asked if I had something to drink, I said I had a glass of wine earlier at the Muckleshoot. I'm pregnant and can't drink," she said.

Communicative language is important as we look for consistency. 
He "asked" is polite and "I said" is appropriate to "asked";
Note that her answer is "I had a glass of wine earlier" and "I'm pregnant and can't drink." This is obviously inconsistent.  Follow up questions would have likely yielded an understanding. 

If someone said to you, "I had a drink.  I can't drink because..." would you ask for clarification? 

Journalists need training in Analytical Interviewing.  

When she said, "I can't drink" did she mean to excess?  If so, it may be her norm.  Having a single drink, to her subjective personal dictionary may not be "drinking" but it is only in the follow up questions that we can gain the information. 


She said the officer administered sobriety tests, then handcuffed her and put her in his patrol car. Thompson claims the officer said she smelled like pot and he would have to search her.

It would have been better for the journalist to write what she said here.  

"He went down my shirt in the front, underneath the wire," she said.

Thompson said the officer never looked in her jacket or back pockets, but did put his hand down the front of her pants.

"He started at the left side and went to the right side, and as he got to the front he kind of went down further," she said.

Thompson began crying and the officer took off her handcuffs, but told her he wanted more information.

"He asked, like, three different times if he could come inside," Thomspson said.

Note that he took off the cuffs, indicating a lesser tension.  At this point, she used the word "asked" which is more consistent with a lesser tense atmosphere. 
Note "three" is used.  If someone is going to fabricate, they often are drawn to "three", though it is not, by itself, to conclude deception via this number alone. Things do happen in threes, at three o'clock.  If we find it along with other indictors of deception, it becomes something of more interest to us. 
Thompson contacted the Auburn Police Department and the officer was placed on paid administrative leave. The Puyallup Police Department is now conducting a criminal investigation.

The officer is likely offered a polygraph.  Interestingly enough, police unions tell their own not to take the polygraph.  By calling it a criminal investigation, it is being taken seriously.  

"There have been no complaints like this before with this officer, and he's been with us for 4 to 5 years," said Auburn Police Commander Mike Hirman.

Note "like this" may indicate there have been other complaints, just not of this nature.  

Thompson's fiance said she's been stressed out and depressed ever since the incident and she miscarried last week.

"For it to be a law officer protecting to serve, who you are you going to turn to next if you feel you can't turn to them?" said Thompson's fiance, Benjamin Mayfield.

The use of "you", second person, is appropriate given the context.  

Puyallup police will forward the results of their investigation to the King County Prosecutor. 

Regardless of whether or not charges are filed, the Auburn Police Department will conduct its own investigation of the officers.

What do you think of the words of the alleged victim?

Is her description of what happened truthful?

Is it truthful that the officer asked to come inside her apartment three times?

Did the officer apologize and say he was off duty?

Or...

do we need more actual statements in order to draw a conclusion?

If the officer takes a polygraph, it will help bring clarity.  If he did not act inappropriately, nor seek entrance into her apartment, the polygraph can show it.  

Some police officers, when accused, will boldly take a polygraph, over their union's objections.  

38 comments:

john said...

For me there isnt enough there to draw a positive/negative conclusion one way or the other.We need a statement from the Officer himself and then see if there is any contradiction in what he says to what she has said.

Her use of the word KIND OF is significant to me.He either did or didnt put his hands down further.

Hobnob said...

Thompson said she got an uncomfortable feeling when spotted a police officer as she left the Sports Page Bar in Auburn.

"I had made eye contact with him and I kind of got just a weird vibe," she said.

She doesn't tell us she got a weird vibe only that it was kind of just a weird vibe.
there are 2 qualifiers which weakens her statement. Kind of got is not the same as got a, and, just minimises down.
Why would she worry aout making eye contact with a cop if she has nothing to hide?

"When I went to get out of the car he was like, 'Get back in the car,' and this whole time I didn't even know he was behind me. His lights weren't on or nothing," Thompson said.
She doesn't say he told her to get back in the car she says he was like so we can't say it for her. What was actually said if he was only like saying it?

"He asked if I had something to drink, I said I had a glass of wine earlier at the Muckleshoot. I'm pregnant and can't drink," she said.
She tells us she is pregnant and can't drink yet tells us she had a glass of wine. they are contradictory statements.

She said the officer administered sobriety tests, then handcuffed her and put her in his patrol car. Thompson claims the officer said she smelled like pot and he would have to search her.
No mention of if she passed or failed the sobriety tests.
Also no mention of if she had taken pot or not. here would be the time she should tell us she hadn't taken pot.
She tells us she had a glass of wine in regard to the sobriety tests yet no denial of taking pot when she claims he said she smelled of it. Is she being deceptive by ommission?

"He started at the left side and went to the right side, and as he got to the front he kind of went down further," she said.
Again she doesn't say he went down further only that he kind of which weakens he statement. If she can't say he went down further we can't say it for her.

Thompson began crying and the officer took off her handcuffs, but told her he wanted more information.
"He asked, like, three different times if he could come inside," Thomspson said.

Oh dear there is the liar's number (mark McClish). Note again she doesn't say he asked 3 times if he could come inside, only that he asked like three different times.
It is also weaked by the qualifier different if you habe to ask something multiple times they are different times not the same time (otherwise they overlapped)

There are multiple redflags in this woman's story. I am not buying it, there is a lot she isn't telling us (lying by ommission) as well as deceptive statements with qualifiers and the liar's number.

Any statement from the officer will clear or implicate him and don't cop caars these days have cameras in situ so stops are recorded as well as to record what goes on inside the vehicle?

If there is video footage of the stop etc we have our proof.

Sus said...

I'm agreeing with Hobnob. There are too many "like" and "kind of" in her telling to find her story believable. I would like to see the officer's report.

The woman says she can't drink, yet she did drink. She did not say if she passed the sobriety tests and did not deny smoking pot.

Some other omissions that seem glaring:
If she was told to get back in the car, and accused of alluding a police officer, and she "went to leave" her car, the situation seems combative.

If she was cuffed and put in a patrol car after sobriety tests, did she fail them? Was she combative?

In her description of being searched, she doesn't say where it happened. Were they sitting in the car? Or did the officer move her to outside the car? That makes a big difference in my mind.

Were there any charges pressed against her?

Hobnob said...

off topic

FRANKLIN, Neb. – A mother convicted of prostituting her 7- and 14-year-old daughters using online ads across south-central Nebraska has received up to 60 more years in prison in her last round of sentencing.

The 36-year-old woman was sentenced Thursday for nine charges in Franklin relating to the prostitution of the girls, the Kearney Hub reported (http://bit.ly/WWuOO1).

The woman already had been sentenced to several decades in prison for similar charges in other counties. In January, she was sentenced in Buffalo County to 80 to 90 years in prison. She garnered an additional 20 years from Furnas County District Court earlier this week.

The Associated Press is not using the woman's name to protect the identity of the girls. The AP does not usually identify victims of sex crimes.

On Thursday, the woman was sentenced to 40 to 50 years on each of five counts of visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct. She also was sentenced to 25 to 30 years for each of two counts of human trafficking and five years for each of two counts of child abuse. Many of the sentences issued Thursday are to be served at the same time.

When all of her sentences in the case are combined, the woman will be nearly 88 years old before she is eligible for parole, Franklin Deputy County Attorney Henry Schenker said.

Investigators have said the woman placed a personal ad online offering female companionship. She offered her 14-year-old daughter to an undercover police officer who posed as a man answering the ad on April 26, authorities say.

In Buffalo County alone, prosecutors said, the mother let at least seven men have sex with her 14-year-old at least 20 times and at least three men had sex with the 7-year-old.

Five men have been convicted in the case so far and await sentencing.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/09/nebraska-mother-gets-more-prison-time-for-prostituting-2-daughters-ages-7-and/#ixzz2KX9fMlvt


They should all be consecutive in cases like this.
I would prefer the death penalty for all cases of child abuse and child murder, since, in the future do-gooders could claim such long sentences are cruel and unusual punishment and they should be released after say 25 yrs. (In the UK the death penalty was abolished and we, the public, were told life would mean life. Nowadays they give a life sentence and set a minimum term before consideration for parole, sometimes as little s a couple of years. It doesn't man they will get out, only that they can apply for parole. Murders are then released on licece and can be recalled if they commit other crimes. Basically it means killers get out and kill again, which, if they were serving a whole life sentence they wouldn't have been able to do. We do have some serving whole life sentences when there are multiple victims or the crime is particularly heinous, such as ian huntley - murdered two girls in soham, the yorkshire ripper,rose west- multiple murders rape and incest, fred west her hubby killed himself before trial

Anonymous said...

John,
I agree with the KIND OF standing out to me. Hobnob's comment makes a lot of sense.

I didn't even realize she didn't address the pot thing.

I'm begging to wonder if she was pregnant at all, or if she *thought* she was and her period was late and heavier than usual so she claimed miscarriage. Yes, I know women that have done this in the past. They (it was 2 different ones in a group of friends I used to hang out with) did it when their boyfriends moved onto new girls within the group and they were angry about it.


Kathead

john said...

"When I went to get out of the car he was like, 'Get back in the car,' and this whole time I didn't even know he was behind me. His lights weren't on or nothing," Thompson said.

How did the Officer know she was going to get out the car?.If he did, wouldnt she have said "When i was getting out of the car"
He then wouldve seen her intention to get out of the car,therefor saying"Get back in the car"

How did she know it was a police car if he didnt have any lights on,no one would stop for a car with no lights on on their own and pregnant unless they identified themselves as LE..

john said...

Theres no mention of her telling the Officer to stop touching her and get off,she doesnt say she felt disgusted and violated.I would expect to see anger and or disgust when she is talking and reliving what happened,instead i see shoulder shrugs.
When we shrug it shows doubt in what we are saying or what we are thinking or what happened,her body language is inconsistant with someone who went through an ordeal like that,she is very casual and nonchalant.

Hobnob said...

"When I went to get out of the car he was like, 'Get back in the car,' and this whole time I didn't even know he was behind me. His lights weren't on or nothing," Thompson said

Anything in the negative is sensitive, she didn't know he was behind her.
Would it have made a difference if she had known he was behind her?

Why would a cop follow her if he didn't have a good reason to, was her behavior/driving such that she caught his attention

It is out of chronological order, i would expect her to say i didn't know he was behind me, I pulled up so did he, he came towards me and as went to get out of the car he told me to get back in.
(I am not explaining this well i know) he is telling her something before she says she didn't know he was behind her.

She was placed in cuffs and then in his car after the sobriety tests, if she was under the limit he would have no reason to cuff her so either she failed or her behavior was such that cuffs and the police car were to protect him from her and to protect her from herself.
Cuffing her and sticking her in the back of the car would not have happened if she has been sober, compliant and not smelling of pot.
He must have had a reason to do what he did which she hasn't told us. She tells us she drank wine but not that she passed the sobriety tests, she tells he he said she smelled of pot, yet, doesn't say she didn't smoke pot.

She shows deception, we need to find out why.

Anonymous said...

I believe her. The "kind of" getting a weird vibe--this doesn't indicate she's lying about the incident. It indicates the vibe she got she was uncertain of--it was "kind of" weird not over the top "wow this guy's a freak of nature. I'm almost 40--I've gotten my share of "kind of" weird vibes as well as some really weird vibes--I think anyone who's being honest will admit they have gotten a "kind of" weird vibe off someone before!
Here's where you can see she is telling the truth 1) He followed her with no lights on 2) accuses her of trying to elude him 3) says she smells like pot 4) checks up her shirt and down her pants. Too many specific clear details. The story begins and ends with the cop acting shady. She's telling the truth.

Anonymous said...

He sounds like a potential rapist. It is good the police dep is taking it seriously.

JerseyJane said...

She made up story.. Fiancé was going to find out the tooting around town to bars as she did, without her man... Soo her getting pulled over by cop, made the story shift over in the cops direction when she acted pregnancy to the already drama..She already appears to be a drinker, it shows in her face.if pregnancy can't keep u out of the bars, nothing can..

Or maybe she lost HIS pot to the cops.

Anonymous said...

Wow no offense but I am not impressed by people's analysis here w this story. I hear truth in her story. It really seems like you all are pretty naive about cops (like there are no pervy ones). Do you think she made up that he followed her w no lights on? Why do you think he did this? So others would not see what ge was doing!

Anonymous said...

I find it weird that she said, "I had made eye contact with him..." instead of, "I made eye contact with him..."

She used the past perfect tense instead of the simple past.

Lis said...

Peter, thanks so much for covering this story! This one has me boggled.

My first impression was that she is telling the truth. She gave precise, clear details and they rang true to me. The "like 3 times" and the inconsistency about her drinking were possible flags I noted but her description of what happened seems plausible.

After I watched the video, I began to have second thoughts. I felt like she did not show appropriate emotions. The story says that she was so freaked out by the experience, that she has been afraid to be home alone and that she miscarried as a result. But in the video, she did not strike me as frightened and as she described what the cop did (putting his hand down her pants, etc) she did not seem awkward or embarrassed about telling it, as I would have expected. It seems like an experience like that would be very hard to verbalize in front of a camera.

So I am torn between the statements and the body language, I guess. I wish we had the officer's statement to compare.

Jen said...

One of the important details being glazed over is the fact that although she claims to be pregnant and has a boyfriend...she was leaving a bar at 1:30 in the morning...she admits to having 'a' glass of wine (unlikely...if she is pregnant and 'can't drink' then why have ANY alcohol, this along with her omission of the results of the field sobriety tests and the fact that she was cuffed afterwards suggests she was indeed impaired). Her claim that the officer didn't have his lights on may be true..she only traveled 2 block so he may have noticed her leaving the bar (when they made eye contact and she got a weird vibe, probably oh crap-I'm about to get pulled over) and followed her to observe her driving and whether she was DUI. Since she only traveled such a small distance, then stopped her car to get out, the officer may have believed she was eluding him by pretending to be at her destination and trying to get out of the car before he could pull her over.

Her description of the 'groping', sounds like basic frisking to me, which the officer is required to do when he puts her in the vehicle to be sure she isn't concealing weapons. He probably should have called a female officer to do the frisking but since she was in front of her apartment, and was crying (probably, please don't arrest me...I'm pregnant...I'm going right inside to bed..etc.) he may have decided to cut her a break and let her go. If he actually asked to go INSIDE her apartment with her, then there's no excuse for that, and it's totally inappropriate...but it could have gone, "OK, I'm not going to arrest you since you are home, I'll walk you to your door" (to make her prove that she really lived there and wasn't jerking him around). I would ask her as a follow up question whether her drivers license showed her correct and current address. If not, then you can probably bet that's why the officer pressed her to prove that she really did live there.

I'd be very interested to hear the officers side of the story..there's a lot of wiggle room in hers. It makes me weary to hear she claims to have miscarried due to the stress and depression caused by this encounter. It sounds like a lawsuit cooking and even her 'worst' accusation is soft...she doesn't claim he fondled her intimately, but that he "kind of went down further". I would also ask if her pregnancy was ever confirmed by a doctor.

Sus said...

It's her choice if she wants to drink, but I see a discrepancy when she says "I can't drink." Yet she says she had a glass of wine earlier in one bar and is leaving another bar at 1:30 am.

Katprint said...

I'm shocked at the level of hostility directed at the woman.

If the police officer was on duty and stopped her for DUI, his police cruiser lights should have been on and he should have radioed in the stop. He should not have handcuffed her unless she failed the sobriety test and was being arrested for DUI or for some other reason (outstanding warrants, whatever.) He should not have body-searched her, period. If she smelled like pot, that is not illegal because the State of Washington recently legalized pot so smelling like pot could not provide a legal reason for a body search. If a body-search was appropriate for some other reason (for example, if she was being arrested), it should have been conducted by a female police officer. If she was arrested, she should have been taken to the police station and booked into custody.

There were so many things done wrong by the police officer, I'm not surprised that the police department put him on administrative leave regardless how the criminal investigation turns out. If in fact he was NOT on duty - possibly one of the reasons why the police department acted so quickly to put him on administrative leave if they were immediately able to verify that fact from their shift schedule records - then it's a pretty clear cut case of assault and battery, and most likely "indecent liberties" or "custodial sexual misconduct" as well. Similarly, the woman's medical records ought to verify whether or not she was pregnant and miscarried.

The link includes a video of the woman where she says (in the intro) "I would never want somebody to have to go through what I went through." 0:08 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Police-officer-accused-of-groping-handcuffed-pregnant-woman-190472651.html?tab=video&c=y "What I went through" is past tense. Her physical gestures concerning the area of her pelvic region groped by the police officer ought to clear up any ambiguity concerning how the police officer "kind of went down further" between her legs.

Yes, sometimes there are bad cops, like that pesky ex-police officer running around southern California murdering innocent people.

john said...

Has she a FB account?i cant find one.Usually when something like this happens its posted on their FB wall.I was wondering if her language on FB is consistent with what she said in the interview or if there are any contradictions?

john said...

OT

Police arrest twins in rape investigate

Twin brothers have both been arrested for a series of six rapes in France – because police don’t know which is their prime suspect.

The 25-year-old pair share virtually identical DNA, meaning it could take weeks for experts to identify which one was at the scene of the crimes. One of the brothers – named only as Elwin and Yohan – is suspected of raping six women over three months in the hallway of a block of flats in Marseille last year.

The victims have identified photos of the twins, without being able to tell which one was their attacker. One of the pair was also caught on a CCTV camera, but again both police and the victims can not tell which brother it is.

Both men, who are unemployed delivery drivers, deny the offences committed between September and December 2012. Marseille police chief Emmanual Kiehl yesterday said: “It is a highly unusual affair.

“This pair have almost identical genetic codes. It is possible to tell them apart but it could take weeks and we do not have the facilities here in Marseille.

“There are very slight differences in their DNA formed as they were developing in the womb. It could take thousands of separate tests before we know which one of them may be guilty.

“Meanwhile, both are being held in custody on a special warrant due to the rare nature of the situation.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/international/police-arrest-twins-in-rape-investigation-1-2784199

Mainah said...


I find her assertions questionable for the reasons Hobs pointed out. I would like more statements from her and the officer. There is much she indicates, but we can't say for her.

"like" is common in language today, especially for young(er) people. (Thank the 1980's Valley Girls song for that, I think) For some young people it seems as involuntary as breathing. However, she weakens her assertions in other ways as well ("just" kind of", etc.)

I can understand a victim of such an assault minimizing up and until the point of knowing for sure the LEO's intentions. Frisking someone could be confusing. Asking to go into their apartment while groping them, not so much.

I've become distrustful of the journalism industry. I'm not sure what has caused the changes in the last 30+/- years. Perhaps it's only my perception as I grow older and more discerning. Perhaps it's the internet competition, or money/greed/politics of the corporations owner(s), or fear of lawsuits. I can only speculate. It seems to me the industry has lost integrity and/or competence.

Peter, I'd be interested to know if LE officers (trained in SA) have an advantage in situations like this. Can they lie more convincingly and manipulate the outcome of an investigation? I think on the onset, yes, they could/should know how to articulate a solid reliable denial, yet I think a lengthy interview process could/should reveal them.

Hobnob said...

"I would never want somebody to have to go through what I went through."

Would is future conditional. I expect to hear the stronger "I never want somebody to go through what i went through"

There is deception at play from the woman, she doesn't tell us the result of the sobriety test despite telling us she had a glass of wine she can't have because she was pregnant. If she passed and was compliant why would he need to cuff her.
She makes no mention at all to rebut his claim she smelled of pot.
here we have two ommissions.
She doesn't say she was sober nor she didn't smoke pot making them sensitive.

I have no hostility towards the woman, i don't know her and never will, all i am interested in in the words she speaks.
Her words tell me what went on.
What i need to work out now is why she was deceptive (by ommission)in regard to the drink and drugs.

Deejay said...

She talks 'like' her generation. (Her definition of 'not drinking' while pregnant is discerning - but she tells us her definition.) I believe something inappropriate happened with the policeman. But maybe she is exaggerating for some reason.
Her hedging may come from embarrassment that being searched (like that) is a violation, even if he only 'kind of' hovered in that area.
I believe her that he did not have his lights on or search her coat pockets. Also most people will ask something 2-3 times before giving up. (not once, not ten)

Not showing the emotion of fear or at least disgust is odd, so maybe I am wrong that she is somewhat truthful...

SA is really cool- but you have to be neutral- which is hard when you are looking for deception.

Peter Hyatt said...

Deejay,

good post. This is what makes it complicated. She gave indicators of veracity, but did she also stretch things also?

Her weak statement about the vibe:

A "vibe" is just that, a weak statement. If someone speaks of a vibe in definitive terms, it would cause me more alarm. The very nature of a "vibe" or "feeling" is that it is not concrete.

Her communicative language, "asked, said" is consistent with truthfulness.

But is she stretching things about the searching?

She then talks about what he "started" but does not conclude the action.

See Hobnobs comments about the marijuana. This is the perfect place for her to deny it. She does not.

I think there is truth and exaggeration in her statements particularly about his touching of her.

I do believe the officer was inappropriate with her, and likely did apologize to her. The fact that she was not arrested is important, but as someone else pointed out, she may have been late with her boyfriend and used this as an excuse.

There is another possibility: We would need to interview her to find out, but if the cop was hitting on her, and did not molest her, could she be perseverating about past abuse?

There have been some great commenting here. If we had the police statement, we would likely rectify the scenario.

I also appreciate the honest comments about thinking one way with the statements, and then expressing doubts with the video.

Hint: stay within the words.

For me:

I believe much of her account, but not all of it.

Peter

Dane said...

I think when she says: "I'm pregnant and can't drink." She means she cannot drink the amount that would make her over the limit to drive.

Jen said...

Im not hostile toward the woman, just pointing out the inconstancy in her language and what she claims to be a terrible event, which caused her a miscarriage.

If the officer was inappropriate then shame on him, we don't have his statement to analyze so at this point the one-sided analysis of only her statement SHOULD strongly suggest her innocence, and her recollection of the encounter. However she leaves a lot unsaid and that's not expected considering what she accuses and the severity of the consequences she claims to have suffered. She should be indignant, as in...'I was not intoxicated, I did not smell of pot, and Officer XX abused his position of power to victimize me'.

Hobnob said...

Dane said...
I think when she says: "I'm pregnant and can't drink." She means she cannot drink the amount that would make her over the limit to drive.


Hi dane
Don't interpret what you think she meant, look only at the words she uses.


Sus said...

Some of you are saying the policeman followed her with no lights and he shouldn't have frisked her,etc. I don't know if he did any of those things. That's why I'm looking at the woman's few statements.

She states some discrepancies and has some omissions, and that makes me wonder about the truth of the statement in its entirety. Of course, the police may have a more complete statement and have the policeman's report.

Dane said...

Thanks Hobnob.... I should have known better! ha!

Anonymous said...

No offense but I seriously cannot believe how badly this was analyzed by most and also how badly this woman's story was squished and squashed to fit into the way other people "think" it might have really happened and also the minimizing that I see towards the officers behavior. Cops aren't supposed to "hit on" handcuffed women! Following her without his lights on--this is very shady! Getting "kind of" a weird vibe--are you kidding me people? YOu have never gotten kind of a weird vibe off of someone? It sounds to me like the cop was "lurking" and looking for a vulnerable woman to walk out of the bar. From there, he proceeded to follow her without his lights on. Of course he asks her "are you intoxicated?" Then, even if she smells like pot, he does not have the right to reach up her shirt and down her pants. That is a molestation, not a pat down for pot. Seriously, take off your blinders--not all cops are "good"--why do you think a lot of them go into that profession--for some it is to exploit power. Yawn, not reading anymore analysis on this post, bc it's not good.

Anonymous said...

I think the preggo means the cop never put his flashing lights on her. I don't think she means he was driving with his headlights off. I suspect there is more to this story we don't know because they have started not merely an internal investigation of the officer but also a criminal investigation.

I get a bad vibe about the preggo watching the video. She seems like the kind of person who lets others walk over her.

~ABC said...

Anon @8:37. Your comment feels like bait. To see how some might respond to your labeling the pregnant woman "preggo"

Katprint said...

Fortunately, the City of Auburn, Washington police cars have dashboard video cameras. If this incident were a legitimate DUI stop, the officer would be protected from any false accusations. The Auburn, WA police department has previously released favorable dash cam videos like http://www2.wjbf.com/news/2011/aug/11/caught-video-police-washington-round-bull-running--ar-2261919/ . IMO it is not a big mystery why the Auburn Police Dept. put the officer on administrative leave and referred the case for a criminal investigation instead of releasing an exonerating dash cam video of the incident.

Anonymous said...

It's possible she is telling the truth, or at least some of it since they opened a criminal investigation of the matter.

Out late,pregnant, wine on breath, exhausted no doubt from the aforementioned-perhaps she did act like a pothead with eyes focused on one thing. If he never turned on the blue lights, perhaps it is because he saw her leave the bar and followed her hoping to make a bigger bust after stereotyping her.

He asks himself: why would a pregnant woman leave a bar alone? No husband! Single or lives with another woman.

"I can't drink" though one glass is OK (and it is) may mean not like she used to.

What did she smell like? Cigarette smoke from the bar? Did he search her car prior to the roving quasi-strip search? I'd look in the ash tray before investigating their underwear.

Hobnob said...

Anon 4:05pm

You still haven't explained or covered why she was handcuffed and placed inthe car if she passed the sobriety tests and was compliant.

She tells us she had 1 glass of wine in relation to the sobriety tests ( pretty much everyone miminises their drink intake when pulled over for possible dui and how big was the glass as they can vary considerably) she fails to mention though anything in regard to the claim she smelled of pot. No explanations as in others were smoking it around me and the smell got into my clothes. She didn't say she didn't smell of pot so we can't say it for her.

We can't say she is being deceptive about what allegedly happened to her, all we can say is she is being deceptve about something.

Anonymous said...

Here's one similar: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16769883-texas-set-to-terminate-trooper-following-roadside-cavity-searches?lite=&lite=obinsite

Texas state troopers performed roadside cavity search in front of passing motorists because they thought the two litter bugs (threw out cigarette butts)were acting weird. I'd act weird too if someone thought cigarettes smelled like mary-jane!

Prescription meds disappeared after search they claimed. Hydrocodone...the well sought after pain killer that keeps others stalking people and doing family background checks if they have a toothache. They should pray the pain goes away if their family aren't royalty.

In Texas you'd think they'd be looking for drugs smuggled across the border and leave the hormonal migraine crowd alone...bar those with teeth who wouldn't pass the protest phase.

john said...

Why isnt her boyfriend angry?if that was me and my girlfriend miscarried because of stress related to the alledged groping i would be crushed and want payback..They both are to passive for me,they are being deceptive about something..

Anonymous said...

It's hard to find knowledgeable people about this subject, but you sound like you know what you're talking
about! Thanks

My web-site: selling downloads online

Stu Dunn said...

Enjoyed your post, thanks. I agree, however didn't write up a statement analysis as such: http://studunnsdl.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/police-officer-accused-of-groping-handcuffed-pregnant-woman/

Thanks :-) Stu