The police sexual aggressors in this type share the same characteristics. They target male and female victims and lack the self-control to curb their impulsive sexual inclinations. Victims usually are selected opportunistically during a “hunt” for victims who are seen as throwaway sex objects. Violent rapists and serial sexual predators are the most dangerous police sexual aggressors except for serial sexual offenders. They are considered to be “rotten apples”, even in departments known for other forms of police misconduct, mainly for the irrational nature of their crimes that lead to extensive media attention. However, in many instances the police peer group was aware of their sexual misconduct before the bizarre incident that exposed them.
Violent Rapists
Violent LEO rapists are “outliers,” even in “bad” or rogue police departments . Particularly, troubling is that many were known or knowable problem officers and their reign of terror could have been prevented. The victims are lucky to be alive. In one case, there are two alleged murders . In the other two Illustrative Examples, the disturbed behavior of the Violent Rapists indicates the possibility of sexual assault plus murder . The first I.E. is an off-duty officer, but he is included in this discussion because of the progression of his sexual inclination that began on duty and culminated after he finished his shift. The police officer’s bizarre behavior is extremely violent and confused, leading to the conclusion that he may have been an unidentified sexually motivated serial killer or on the path to being one like David Middleton .
NYPD—Michael Pena—Let Me Finish
Eyewitnesses called 911 and yelled for him to stop.
“I’m almost done,” Officer Pena yelled back.
Trial Testimony. (Buettner, March 15, 2012)
According to newspaper accounts and court documents, Officer Michael Pena , a three-year NYPD veteran, drunk and off duty approached a petite 25-year-old woman on a residential street in Upper Manhattan (Zanoni et al., August 19, 2011; Ross and Mcshane, June 21, 2012; Doll, March 30, 2012; Crimesider Staff, May 7, 2012). It was 6 a.m. on August 19, 2011, and the excited young woman waited for a ride to her first day of school as a teacher. She was hired the night before by a charter school to teach second grade. The principal lived nearby and offered her a ride to the school. She waited outside his house as Pena approached. Unknown to her, the drunken off-duty NYPD officer spent the night drinking in a frustrated search for sex after he finished his shift He began drinking at a nearby bar around midnight while watching strippers perform. He called a woman he met the night before, but she did not respond. More drinks and he hit on the waitress—struck out again. Somewhere around 5 am he called several escort services, but they did not return his call. The drunken Michael Pena left the bar and began trolling the neighborhood for a sex object—impulsive inclination. He spotted the soon-to-be second-grade teacher—opportunity.
Pena asked the pretty young woman for directions to a subway stop and suggested she accompany him. Declining his offer, the helpful target started giving directions to a subway stop. The encounter turned bad as Pena grabbed her, showed her a gun, and warned, “Shut your f______ mouth, or I’ll shoot you in the f_______ face.” “You’re coming with we,” he said. Pena pulled the stunned and frightened woman three blocks to an alley between two apartment buildings—a perceived safe setting. Once in the alley, he began brutally sodomizing and raping her. She screamed for help. Her screams alerted nearby witnesses who looked out their windows. One dialed 911 and leaned out her window and yelled for him to stop the brutal assault. The callous rapist continued and yelled “I’m almost done” and continued the sexual assault.
Within minutes, two uniformed officers were on the scene. The shaken victim worried about the officer’s safety yelled: “He raped me; be careful, he has a gun.” The grinning Pena stood with his pants down and said, “I’m a cop,” pointing to his pants as if “being on the job” would somehow protect him from arrest. The uniformed officers found Pena’s NYPD identification and badge in his pocket. Pena’s 9-millimeter Glock pistol lay on the ground beside him. The disgusted officers arrested him and called an ambulance for his brutalized victim.
Pena showed little or no concern for his victim. He was consumed with self-pity. He asked a sergeant, “how am I going to call her [his girlfriend] when I got arrested for cheating with another girl?” Pena complained about being in custody and asked if his case could be “fast-tracked,” because of his police status. He whined about the handcuffs being too tight and feeling dizzy. “Will my car be impounded?” He asked an arresting officer. “Do you know what the sentence is?” He asked a lieutenant. He expressed no remorse for the victim. The officers investigating the assault were disgusted with his attitude and feared he was a repeat offender—a real possibility. One unnamed law enforcement officer was quoted as saying “I think if you throw out the fact that he is a cop, and you have a cop who would rape a woman, a stranger like that—you have to think it is not a one-time thing” (Daily Mail Reporter , September 21, 2011).
Michael Pena’s bizarre trial began on March 16, 2012, with the defense argument that Pena did assault the woman, but he didn’t technically rape her. The admission was an attempt to avoid a rape conviction that carried a life sentence. The most serious charge—rape—required vaginal penetration. Therefore, the defense conceded Pena did assault the victim and he deserved punishment but not life in prison. There was, the defense contended, no DNA evidence or eyewitness testimony to show vaginal penetration. Pena’s DNA was found on the victim but not in the victim.
On March 17, 2012, the jury returned a split verdict. The jurors unanimously found Pena guilty of three counts of criminal sexual assault—involves touching—and three counts of predatory sexual assault—possessing a weapon during the sexual assault which carries a maximum of life in prison, but were deadlocked on two rape counts which requires vagina penetration. Five lawyers on the 12-person jury may have influenced this strict interpretation, including one with 40 years experience as a prosecutor, defense attorney, and law professor. Jurors revealed the lawyers debated legal elements of the crimes for an inordinate amount of time. The victim left the courtroom in tears after the verdicts were announced. She could not understand. She testified he penetrated her and it hurt. Many jurors believed her. Newspaper accounts reported one juror’s feelings: “I think she came away thinking, how could people not believe me. I wish she could know that there were people in the jury room who absolutely believed her, about the whole story” (Dwyer, April 3, 2012). The jury felt empathy for the victim and considered her courageous because she started teaching a few weeks after her brutal “rape.” The judge left with no choice declared a mistrial on the rape charges. The prosecution declined to comment on a retrial but promised to request the maximum sentence of 25 years to life in prison at sentencing.
On May 7, 2012, Michael Pena , although he escaped the rape convictions, was sentenced to 75 years to life in prison. The legal technicality of penetration for rape did not avoid a life sentence. The judge gave him the 25-year maximum on each charge, to run consecutively. The judge declared Pena had assaulted the victim “in the most brutal and degrading manner possible.” His victim beamed with a wide smile and hugged friends, family, and law enforcement officers. Pena apologized saying, “I have no explanation for what happened that day.” Pena will not be eligible for parole until after his 100 birthday. He later pleaded guilty to the two rape charges with no effect on his sentence. He claimed he did so to spare his family the pain of another trial.
Hartford, Connecticut—Julio J. Camacho—Violent Rapist and Possible Murderer
On October 24, 1997, four-year-old Rosa Marie Camacho walked with her mother Rosa Delgado to a nearby store to buy groceries. The 38-pound Hispanic female, nicknamed Rosita, was never seen again (Kovner, October 12, 2000; May 1, 2001), Rosa’s mother disappeared with her, but she was seen again, and at least, her remains were seen again.
In November 1997, a headless and handless woman’s body was found floating in three feet of water in western New Jersey about 180 miles from where the child and mother disappeared. The condition of the corpse—headless and handless—was an apparent attempt to thwart the body’s identification through dental records and fingerprints. The nameless “Lady of the Lake” lay in the morgue unidentified until the FBI lab identified her as Rosa Delgado in 1999. The last person to see three-foot Rosa and her mother was the baby’s father and the mother’s former boyfriend Julio J. Camacho, a ten-year veteran of the Hartford, Connecticut Police Department. Camacho was a police officer with a checkered past who could not stay out of trouble.
According to published newspaper account (see above), Camacho was a problem officer before he completed his first year on the job. He was fired in January 1989 after an arrest for third-degree assault, accused of striking his ex-wife during a domestic dispute. For some not explained reason, a month later he was reinstated with the termination changed to suspension. The Harford Police Department (HPD ) would regret that decision. Repeated infidelities with women he met on the job marred his second marriage to another Hartford police officer. In addition to fathering the missing Rosa Camacho, he was the father of a child with another woman that he met on duty. Officer Camacho met her sitting on her front steps while patrolling her neighborhood. She gave birth to Julio Camacho JR the next year. He was paying $752 a month child support for Rosita and $600 a month for Julio Jr. Also, he paid child support for a child from his first marriage. Combined, his child support payments totaled nearly $1600 a month, a real strain on his second marriage, and later alleged to be a motive for murder .
As disturbing as Officer Julio Camacho’s private life and on-duty sexual activity was, it paled in comparison with what a 2001 federal grand jury’s investigation of police corruption in the Hartford, Connecticut Police Department (HPD ) revealed. The HPD was a rogue police department with numerous accusations of sexual abuse (Kovner, May 1, 2001, see also Yolanda v. City of Hartford; Hartford Police Department; Officer Julio Camacho). The grand jury indicted seven officers, including Julio Camacho for sexual offenses, including forced sex acts ranging from oral sex to masturbation with a police nightstick. All victims were known as prostitutes or exotic dancers—vulnerable pool of victims. One woman was allegedly forced to perform oral sex on police officers seven different times over a three-year period. While on duty and in uniform, two Hartford officers allegedly took four women who worked as topless dancers at a local strip club to a motel and forced them to perform sex acts on each other. One officer used a department Polaroid camera to take nude pictures of the women. All the officers were convicted and received sentences from probation to ten years.
At Julio J. Camacho’s bail hearing for the two rapes disclosed during the sex scandal investigation, the federal prosecutor dropped a bombshell to prevent his release. In open court, the prosecutor revealed Camacho was the prime suspect in the beheading of Rosa Delgado and the disappearance of Rosita Camacho (Kovner, October 12, 2000). He outlined the circumstantial evidence found to support the allegation including possible murder weapons—a garrote-like wire with a loop on one end and a handmade hatchet. A search of his car revealed the trunk lining had been removed and the metal trunk bottom had been sanded clean. The search of his home found a New Jersey map with notes tracing the route to the spot where Delgado’s body was found. Also found was a macabre library of books on serial killers and committing a perfect crime, including chapters on decapitation and concealing the identity of a corpse. The prosecutor said they were waiting on more evidence to charge Camacho. He went to trial on the rapes.
Julio J. Camacho received 10 years for raping two known prostitutes while on duty and in uniform. The pattern was the same for each woman. The women were not breaking any laws; at the time, he handcuffed them, pushed them into the back seat, and drove to a secluded area and raped them. He pleaded guilty on the condition the government would not pursue charges made by other women—at least four—against him. His public defender asked why the two women victims had not filed complaints when the alleged rapes occurred. The prosecutor quickly fired back “Who are they going to go to? They had no confidence that if they went to HPD , their complaints would be heard. It was only after this investigation began that they gained confidence that the system would treat them fairly” (Kovner, May 1, 2001).
Camacho has been released after serving his sentence, but he remains a suspect in the murder of Rosa Delgado and the disappearance of his daughter (Wagner, January 13, 2016). The FBI dug up the yard of his former house in 2016 looking for evidence. At the time, Camacho was incarcerated for failure to pay child support from previous relationships. There is no statute of limitations on murder .
Miami, Florida—Michael Ragusa—Kidnapper and Rapist
Thirty-one-year-old Michael Ragusa’s three-year career with the Miami, Florida Police Department came to an inglorious end on March 20, 2007, with his arrest by the Miami Beach police for kidnapping and attempted rape (Christensen, April 5, 2012). Even the state prosecutor admitted that Ragusa was a serial rapist who misused his police position to commit rape on numerous occasions (Matos, April 29, 2010). Sadly, his violent sexual assaults could have been prevented. Court documents revealed that the abduction and attempted rape should never have happened. Officer Michael Ragusa should never have been in a marked Miami PD police vehicle targeting vulnerable targets. He should never have been hired as a police officer. According to published reports, the city psychologist who interviewed him warned, “This is not somebody you’d want to hire.” Other police agencies—Broward County Sheriff’s Office and Miami-Dade PD, North Miami PD , Fort Lauderdale PD, and Cooper City PD—had rejected him. Furthermore, he did not attempt to disclose his sordid past and personality defects. Ragusa wrote on his Miami PD application that he paid for sex with strippers and prostitutes, stole cash from restaurants he worked as a waiter, and had a fiery temper. A cursory examination of his background and employment history would have quickly documented his unsuitability for police work. Why was this discredited applicant hired.
The police background investigator’s, Willie Bell , history at the time was worse than Ragusa’s (Christiansen, April 5, 2012). The Miami PD had disciplined Bell an unbelievable twenty-six times in his career. Those disciplinary actions included using unnecessary force, neglect of duty, improper discharge of a firearm, and theft. The background investigator had been arrested for battery, falsifying police records, and official misconduct, but the criminal charges were dropped when he agreed to attend an anger management program—failure to deal with a known problem officer creates a low-risk perception in the police agency. An assistant city attorney declared, “He is the most disciplined officer in the history of the city.” The Miami Police Department moved him into the background investigators position to get him off the street, hoping to reduce the opportunity for him to get in trouble. This same moving the trash syndrome regularly occurs in police agencies and will be present in other types of police sexual misconduct . I have personally observed it in other police agencies and had it confirmed by other working and former police officers at all levels of government.
A new police chief came in as a reform agent the year after Bell was appointed background investigator. The new chief pledged to restore confidence in a department rocked by the scandals in the 1980s and 1990s. At that time—the 1980s and 1990s—the Miami PD went on a “hiring frenzy” to raise the number of minority officers on the street, pledging to hire 56% of the new hires from minority groups, including women. A laudable objective, except lax background checks, ignored psychological profiles; speedy training and rushing them onto the streets, combined with faulty supervision, insured the best minority applicants were not hired. Instead, the quest for minority candidates in a hurry ignored questionable backgrounds and deviant practices. The resulting scandals, corruption, misconduct, criminal activities, including robbery and murder , rocked Miami, made national headlines, and called for reform. The mess needed to be cleaned up, hence a new chief.
The new reform chief as part of his “Blueprints for the Future” declared his focus was “not on how to improve the quality of the men and women on the MPD , but the urgent need to increase their quantity.” This undue pressure to hire led, as it had before, to putting officers like Michael Ragusa in uniform (Christiansen, April 5, 2012).
Published accounts and court documents reveal the events surrounding his 2007 arrest. Ragusa was off duty and riding around in uniform in his Miami PD take-home vehicle when he spotted a suspected illegal immigrant getting off a bus in Miami Beach, a few blocks from Ragusa’s Miami Beach apartment. The 31-year-old single mother was a recent immigrant and single mother returning home from her 10-hour shift as a waitress. According to the police report, Ragusa dragged her into the car by her arms. He then drove three blocks to an unlit park where he exposed himself. Ragusa forcefully removed the crying woman’s pants and started to penetrate her. The quick-thinking woman claimed to have a venereal disease. He stopped the assault and drove her home after getting her phone number. He later sent her a text message and called on her phone. The women, fearing other contacts, complained to the Miami Beach PD, who notified the City of Miami PD . He was arrested and charged with kidnapping and attempted rape.
The arrest for sexual assault by a police officer and its publicity usually trigger additional complaints. A second woman, a self-described prostitute, told investigators a slightly inebriated Michael Ragusa in uniform pulled her into a marked city of Miami police vehicle in Miami Beach and drove to a nearby unlit lot and forced her to perform oral sex. The investigation revealed Ragusa was off-duty and driving his take-home police vehicle. The State Attorney at a news conference remarked other victims were possible and “There may be evidence that suggests he was preying upon the most vulnerable, which is probably known prostitutes,” she said. “They’re afraid to go to the police, they’re afraid no one will believe them” (Watcher, March 21, 2007). A third woman came forward and complained of forcible kidnapping and rape under the same circumstances.
His police history confirmed that Ragusa was “bad to the bone” with four lawsuits for using excessive force in his brief police career. Ragusa was a problem officer, and it was evident. He was sentenced to 10 years after pleading guilty to sexual battery, kidnapping, and kidnapping with a weapon. The 31-year-old victim that led to his arrest received a $550,000 settlement from the City of Miami and left the United States. The background investigator retired, and the reform chief moved on. The Miami Police Department resumed business as usual until another police misconduct scandal erupts. Miami PD is one of a handful of US police agencies with a cyclical history, roughly every twenty years, of scandal and corruption. New York City PD, New Orleans PD, Chicago PD , Los Angeles PD, Miami PD , Philadelphia PD, and Baltimore PD are other police departments with a storied history of police scandal, misconduct, and corruption (Barker 2011).
The next type of police sexual aggressors we discuss is not generally as violent as the impulsive rapists described above, but they can be.
Serial Sexual Predators
The following Illustrative Examples of police sexual aggressors who use physical force on occasion. What we know from the published reports is that they primarily use threats of physical force to achieve their sexual acts. They are armed and represent a deadly threat if resisted or threatened. Therefore, there is always the possibility that further research will find little difference between the two categories. However, at this time they distinguish themselves from Type 3—Sexual Extortion by the threat of force not arrest or citation, and their acts are more repetitive. Nevertheless, these serial offenders exhibit the inclination for police sexual misconduct and select their victims—male, female, and same sex—from an opportunistic pool of vulnerable persons with credible issues. Finally, the police sexual aggressors act in a setting of real or perceived low risk. And, their acts are repetitive.
The first Illustrative Example describes the most egregious known example of a law enforcement serial sexual predator in recent US history. It was his outrageous behavior that ignited the current interest in PSM. Daniel Holtzclaw is the epitome of those incidents that elicit an “I can’t believe he did that” reaction from the police community and the public. That reaction is the foundation for most law enforcement sexual misconduct —the failure to recognize that PSM is a perennial police problem and taking appropriate action to prevent it. In the end, a three-pronged approach is necessary to identify the possibility of problem officers, reduce the opportunities, and insure that PSM is a zero tolerance —high-risk—behavior. Police organizations must be held accountable for the occurrence of Law Enforcement Police Sexual Misconduct .
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma—Daniel Holtzclaw-Racist Sexual Predator Rapist
Daniel K. Holtzclaw on paper was the epitome of a modern professional police officer—a police recruiter’s dream (Wikipedia, May 23, 2019). He came from a police background; his father and brother-in-law are police officers. The father is a 17-year veteran of the Enid, Oklahoma Police Department. Young and physically fit with a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice what could be wrong? Well? Daniel K. Holtzclaw , aka The Claw, nickname when he was a star football player—Freshman All-American from the Football Writers of America—at Eastern Michigan University majoring in Criminal Justice is a serial sexual predator . He went on trial November 2, 2015, for 36 felony counts including rape, rape by instrumentation, sexual battery, forcible oral sodomy, burglary, indecent exposure, and producing lewd exhibition.
The young officer with three years on the job faced life in prison for sexually assaulting 13 black women over a 5-month period—February 2014 to June 2014. The victims ranged in age from 34 to a grandmother of 58—black females with credibility issues. These safe targets—middle-aged lower status black women who had reason to fear the police and credibility issues because of outstanding warrants, drug issues, or a prostitution background. The acts occurred under the veil of darkness during his 2 pm to 4 am duty shift. Without a doubt, the white police officer racially profiled his vulnerable victims.
He chose his victims randomly as the opportunity presented itself; some women walked the street, one became a repeat victim, and some were pulled over in the classic sex or arrest technique, whatever worked he used. The prosecutor stated at his arraignment: “He identifies a vulnerable victim that without exception except one have an attitude of What good is it gonna do? He’s a police officer. Who’s going to believe me? (Testa, September 5, 2014).” His predatory behavior would have continued, except he deviated from the pool of vulnerable safe targets and selected a credible middle-class black woman driving through, but not from, the run-down neighborhood he patrolled. Following her sexual assault, the woman went home and told her daughter what happened. They immediately reported it. The investigation revealed a history of sexual assaults.
On February 27, 2014, Holtzclaw’s first known sexual assault occurred in the Culbertson East Highland neighborhood, one of Oklahoma’s poorest census tracks where fifty percent of the population (80% black , 10% white) lives in poverty (Testa, September 5, 2014; Garcia, December 11, 2015). Just past midnight, his victim sat in her car in front of her house with her children and a friend. Two police cars pulled in behind her and blocked her in without explanation. The suspicious cops ran her friend’s license and found no warrants. One officer left, and the other, Holtzclaw, remained. He ordered the children and friend into the house. He checked the victim for warrants and found three outstanding warrants. He said he needed to search her and for her to “play by the rules.”
Holtzclaw’s rules required lifting her shirt, so he could fondle her exposed breasts. His sexual urges satisfied, and he set her up for future contacts by saying he could help her with city warrants if she needed and drove off. The victim knew it could have been worse. Holtzclaw left the scene confident he was safe.
Two weeks later on March 14, a black woman walked down a dimly lit street among the vacant lots and abandoned properties in the same area. Holtzclaw stopped her and made her expose her breasts. She later told investigators she didn’t report him because police officers could cause a lot of problems for her like “telling a drug house she was a snitch,” a possible death sentence among her crowd.
Following two more contacts and fondling the women, his behavior escalated. The next victim, a black female, walked alone at night when Holtzclaw stopped her. The woman confessed she had a history of prostitution and drug addiction. She admitted smoking crack earlier. He searched her purse and found a crack pipe. The woman testified Holtzclaw drove to her house five blocks away and took her into the bedroom. Holtzclaw told her to sit on the bed as he “unzipped his pants and put his erect penis in her face.” After forcing her to perform oral sex on him, he sodomized and raped her.
Two weeks after this brutal attack, Holtzclaw was at it again, picking up another woman walking and then sodomizing her in his patrol car. He then drove to an abandoned school, parked behind a building, and raped her. The sadistic rapist drove away telling the woman to “have a good night.” The very next day Holtzclaw sodomized another black woman in the back seat of his patrol car. His attacks became more frequent and aggressive, as he felt safer in his depravations.
In the early morning of June 18, 2014, Holtzclaw’s reign of terror ended. He stopped a 58-year-old grandmother driving home after playing dominos with a friend. During the preliminary hearing on September 5, 2014, investigating detectives described Holtzclaw’s actions (Testa, September 5, 2014). He stopped her and proceeded up to the driver’s side window. The woman identified as J.L. could not lower the broken window. She opened the door a few inches to talk to the approaching officer. The burly six feet three two hundred and sixty pounds officer opened the door wider and moved closer to J.L. J.L. recounts her inner radar went off as she felt this night would not end well. Holtzclaw directed the apprehensive woman to the rear seat of his patrol car and asked if she had been drinking. J.L. replied no and said the Styrofoam cup in her front seat was filled with Kool-Aid. He told J.L. he had to check her out and to lift her shirt. She raised her shirt, not high enough to expose her breasts. Not satisfied, Holtzclaw told the frightened woman to lift her shirt and bra, shining his flashlight on her exposed breasts. J.L. reported Holtzclaw started playing with his penis and told her to stand up and pull down her pants. She complied but left her underwear on as Holtzclaw shined his flashlight on her “vaginal area.” She felt his erect penis on her face. She begged him to stop. J.L. told the investigator she kept thinking “OK, this is a police officer, and if he’s gonna do this, he’s gonna kill me. And I’m not gonna make it out of this alive” (Testa, September 5, 2014).
The attack continued. He put his penis in her mouth for about ten seconds, pulled it out, and stopped, telling her “I’m gonna follow you home.” J.L. went back to her car and drove into what she thought was a driveway and did a U-turn. Holtzclaw pulled his patrol car around her and unexpectedly drove off. The shaken and bewildered woman drove home and told her daughter. The victim and her daughter went to a nearby police station and reported the sexual attack. She was told to go to the hospital for a sexual assault medical forensic exam. The on-call Oklahoma City Sex Crimes detective met her there.
The police had a previous complaint of sexual assault by a uniformed officer in the area but were unable to link it to Holtzclaw until the June 18 victim came forward. He was placed on leave the day of the June 18 victim’s complaint. The media picked up the allegation, and other claims of sexual assaults by Holtzclaw were reported. Holtzclaw was arrested on August 21, 2014, after GPS records from his patrol car put him at the scene of the sexual assaults—use of technical assist. His bond was set at $5 million. On August 28, 2014, the outraged Oklahoma NAACP sent a certified letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking for an investigation into a Hate Crime Violation(s) of Racial Profiling by Oklahoma City Police Officer Daniel Holtzclaw. The Oklahoma NAACP applauded the actions of the Oklahoma City police but wanted an expanded investigation.
On September 5, 2014, Holtzclaw had his bond reduced to $500,000. The prosecutor argued against bail reduction, insisting he was a danger to the community. Family and friends rallied behind Holtzclaw and raised the money. His release had a number of conditions: He was under house arrest living with his parents, fitted with a GPS monitoring device, and forbidden to have any contact with his alleged victims.
There was a bizarre twist to media coverage of the alleged sexual assaults that raised the fear of other police sexual predators in Oklahoma. Within two weeks of Holtzclaw’s release on the reduced bond, two other Oklahoma police officers were arrested for multiple sexual assaults, creating a media circus of calls for reform and investigations. The first arrest occurred on September 14 when an Oklahoma Highway Patrolman was charged with kidnapping and rape after three women alleged he assaulted them. The first woman claimed the highway patrolman stopped her, asked sexually explicit questions, and then drove her to a secluded spot and raped her. The second and third victims made similar accusations. All three women claimed the trooper turned off his uniform video camera before the sexual assaults—failure to use technical assist. The next day a Tulsa County Deputy Sheriff was arrested for sexually assaulting two women by exposing himself and inappropriately touching them following a call to their home. Newspaper accounts reported authorities to expect to receive at least five more complaints on the deputy. Holtzclaw regained the media’s attention.
Not able to stay out of trouble, in October 2014, he was ordered to serve 14 days in jail and have his bond increased to $609,000 for going to his doctor’s office without reporting it—a technical violation. In August 2015, after a second bond violation, the insurance company securing the bond pulled out. The revoked bond cost the Holtzclaw family $50,000, and they could not raise the entire bond amount. He remained in jail until his trial.
The trial began on November 2, 2015. He was tried before a jury of eight men and four women, all white, raising troubling questions given the racial dynamics of the case, especially when the defense would center on the victims’ reputations. The victim’s reputation became a central issue when one accuser was not allowed to continue testifying because she tested—judge called for testing—positive for PCP, prescription drugs, and marijuana. Later, the woman told the jury “I’m not going to lie. Before I came here, I smoked some marijuana and a blunt stick laced with PCP” (Schwab, November 13, 2015). Destroying the credibility of the witnesses was the primary strategy of the defense. The expected and common defense in police rape cases was not successful. Daniel Holtzclaw was convicted of 18 counts of sexual battery, rape, and other offenses and sentenced to 263 years in prison. He cried at his sentencing but never expressed remorse for his crimes.
Anchorage, Alaska—Anthony Rollins
The local agency that helps sexual abuse victims, Anchorage’s Standing Together Against Rape, reported a 13-year veteran African-American Officer Anthony Rollins , in uniform and on duty raped a woman. The Anchorage, Alaska Police Department (APD ) command structure reacted in stunned disbelief (Grove, March 3, 2012). Not Tony Rollins? He was married to Sgt. Denise Rollins, APD’s supervisor of the School Resource Officer Program. Anthony Rollins was a member of APD’s Honor Guard. The decorated model officer received a Meritorious Conduct award two years earlier for assisting in anti-bullying programs in Anchorage schools, earlier in the year he was awarded the department’s highest recognition, the Medal of Valor, for rescuing a man from a burning building. Following department protocol, he was placed on paid leave until the matter was resolved. Everyone in the department assumed the allegations were false. What was found was unexpected.
The three-month investigation revealed the model officer was a sexual predator that assaulted at least six women over the past three years—2006 to 2009. Equally disturbing, the investigation revealed the APD’s lax attitude toward police sexual misconduct created a culture among officers that contributed to the burgeoning scandal—perceived safe setting for PSM. Furthermore, model police officer Anthony Rollins married to an APD sergeant was known to engage in “consensual” sex acts on duty and in uniform (Anonymous, March 3, 2012).
On July 15, 2009, a grand jury indicted Officer Anthony Rollins on four counts of Sexual Assault 1, six counts of Sexual Assault 2, Criminal Use of a Computer 4 counts, and six counts of Official Misconduct. He was placed in the Anchorage Jail with a cash-only bond of $100,000.
After numerous delays, the trial began on January 20, 2011. Court documents revealed all six victims testified to sexual assaults—sex acts or inappropriate touching. One woman testified Rollins forced her to perform oral sex while he processed her at the police station for a drunk driving arrest, and another claimed Rollins picked her up at an alcohol sleep-off center and raped her. The other victims were walking or driving when stopped and sexually assaulted. They were all in their late teens or early 20s. In an unusual and risky move, Rollins took the stand. Rollins testified he only had sex with four of the victims, and it was consensual. He claimed he was an adulterer but not a rapist. Readily admitting the sex acts were on duty and in uniform, he claimed many APD officers had sex on duty—everybody does it defense. Another APD officer testified officers had sex on duty, just not as much as Rollins said.
On February 20, 2011, Rollins was convicted of 18 of the 20 counts. The judge said Rollins was “a rapist in blue with a badge” (Grove, April 12, 2012). A year later, Rollins was sentenced to 87 years in prison. It was not the end. A civil lawsuit filed by his victims revealed Rollins engaged in a pattern of sexual misconduct long before he was brought to trial and the Anchorage Police Department knew it and did not take proper action to prevent future acts—organizational and peer group support. The department knew or should have known he was a threat to women. There was a pattern and history to his sexual misconduct (Anonymous, March 3, 2012). The first investigation into his sexual misconduct occurred in 2001 with a report that a woman performed oral sex on him in an apartment hallway. The woman and Rollins denied the accusation, and it was deemed unfounded. Two years later, a prostitute claimed Rollins threatened her with arrest if she did not have sex with him. Sensing a “bad” cop, the APD and the FBI ran a sting. He made several flirtation remarks to an undercover officer, but no sex or arrest solicitations. The sting revealed he spent a lot of time at the home of a woman member of his church while on duty. Called in, Rollins admitted to 20 sexual encounters, adding he listened to the police radio at her house and answered all the calls he received. The disciplinary reaction was a negative review and a transfer. He should have been fired for this gross violation. The prior pattern of sexual misconduct was clear. Anchorage, Alaska Police Department failed to supervise and discipline an officer known to engage in police sexual misconduct . It was predictable he would become a sexual predator. The lawsuit was settled for $5.5 million. Following a review by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Anchorage Police Department instituted a zero-tolerance policy for sexual misconduct (Strom, October 6, 2012).
West Sacramento, California—Sergio Alvarez
Officer Sergio Alvarez , a five-year veteran of the West Sacrament CA PD , was arrested on February 25, 2013, and charged with 35 felony offenses for sexually assaulting six women between October 2011 and September 2012 (Anonymous, February 26, 2013; Walsh and Stanton, October 22, 2015). The disturbing charges included rape, oral copulation against will, and kidnapping. His victims—ages 20 to 47—were selected from a vulnerable pool of women living on the edges of society in an area known for prostitution activity—safe targets. A deputy assistant attorney described them as: “These people [women] were down and out, hardcore dope users and alcoholics but they were victims and vulnerable because of a combination of being homeless, prostitutes, drug addicts, and afraid of the police” (Bordon et al. 2014). Alvarez stopped them while he was on routine patrol and forced them into performing oral sex on him.
One of Alvarez’s victims had the courage to call the female shift commander of the precinct where Alvarez worked, and she initiated the investigation. The investigation discovered five more victims willing to register a complaint and Alvarez was indicted and fired. Alvarez pleaded not guilty and took the stand in his defense, claiming he did not know some of the women accusers and those he knew had engaged in consensual sex —common defense. The jury after nine days of deliberation found him guilty on 18 counts, including rape, oral copulation against will, and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 205 years in prison.
Fort Worth, Texas—Daniel Lopez and the Iron Sergeant
In February 2010, Daniel Lopez , a 20-year veteran of the Fort Worth, Texas PD , pleaded guilty to 5 sexual assaults of women between August and November 2010 and received a twenty-year sentence (Anonymous, February 29, 2012). Lopez used well-known police techniques to identify targets for his sexual depravations—pretext stops and record checks. Checking their criminal records after stopping them, Lopez discovered their vulnerability—intoxication, no license, equipment violations, or warrants, combined with a history of drug or prostitution arrests. Marginalized women with credibility issues were his preferred targets—safe victims.
Lopez made a critical error—one of his victims was not a safe target. She reported him to the sheriff’s department. The investigation began, and another complaint was made. The Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department alerted the Fort Worth detectives to a woman reporting a rape by a uniformed Fort Worth officer. The woman said she was walking down a city street when an FWPD patrol car pulled up. The officer asked for her name, handcuffed her, and then put her in the back seat of his car. He drove to a park and brought up her prostitution history. “The officer told me to give him oral sex, or I’d go to jail.” Feeling threatened she complied. A third victim reported she was jaywalking when a uniformed officer stopped her. He checked her criminal record and found outstanding warrants. The sexual predator drove to a nearby park and forced her to perform oral sex on him.
Lopez confronted with the complaints admitted contact with the victims but claimed he detained them briefly to question about drug activity. Lopez was aware the detectives could establish a connection with the women through his GPS tracking—technical assist.
Fort Worth PD savvy detectives retrieved the GPS records for Lopez’s vehicle the date of the complaints. Fort Worth PD, like some US police departments, equips patrol vehicles with GPS recording devices mounted in the trunk. Known as “Iron Sergeants ” or “Skunks in the Trunk,” they keep track of the car during the shift and record its travels, that is, useful for officer’s safety and dispatching purposes; GPS tracking is also used for accountability purposes making sure patrol cars stay on their beat, do not spend too much time at a particular location, or were or were not at a complaint location. Cops hate them.
The detectives confronted Lopez with the radio transcripts showing his checking women for outstanding warrants and the GPS record showing his patrol car in the area described by the victims. Officer Lopez’s pattern of checking criminal records before sexually assaulting victims was obvious. They contacted women whose records he checked. Two more sexually assaulted victims filed complaints. However, the detectives suspected other victims among those contacted unwilling to make a formal accusation. In any event, the evidence against Lopez was enough to convince him to plead guilty to the five rapes and receive a twenty-year sentence. A technical supervisory assist like “The Iron Sergeant” proved its usefulness.
Houston, TX—Abraham Joseph—Legal Immigrant Victimizing Illegal Immigrants
On January 2, 2011, Houston, Texas Police Officer, Abraham Joseph , born in India and a naturalized US citizen, stopped outside a southwest Houston cantina where an illegal immigrant from El Salvador in her early twenties who spoke little English worked as a waitress. It was 3 am, and she was taking a break and talking to a Hispanic man. Officer Joseph without explanation handcuffed both and put them in his patrol car. He drove to an isolated area where a business surveillance camera filmed him taking the man’s handcuffs off, letting him go, again without explanation. He was a cop, why explain to these illegals—he was safe. Joseph drove to an unlit park in southwest Houston, where he brutally raped the still handcuffed victim multiple times, including once on the trunk of his patrol car. Finished, he let her go, and the troubled young woman made her way home on foot (Daily Mail Reporter , September 4, 2012).
The victim recounted the ordeal to her aunt and uncle. As she relayed the details of her savage kidnapping and rape, they noticed bruise marks on her wrists, arms, and legs. At first, they could not believe the incredible tale. They never believed a police officer would do such a thing. Finally, the hysterical victim persuaded her relatives to drive back to the park and look for evidence. They found tire tracks, indications of a struggle, and what appeared to be body fluids. Conflicted, they debated calling the police. They feared the police would come, accuse the victim of lying and have her deported. Finally, after heated arguments, they called the police. The uncle waited at the crime scene for the police while the aunt and the victim went to the hospital.
The Houston PD detectives, contrary to the family’s expectations, believed the victim. The crime scene investigation and witness interview by HPD’s elite Special Crimes Division and Internal Affairs Division found cause to relieve Joseph of his police duties that day. He was subsequently indicted and fired. During the pre-trial investigation and publicity, four women came forward with allegations of similar rapes by Officer Abraham Joseph . The new victims were all illegal immigrants, working in nightclubs in the southwest section of Houston. He threatened them with deportation if they complained. One victim claimed Joseph raped her twice, telling her each time she had outstanding warrants and would go to jail and be deported if she did not have sex with her. She became pregnant and aborted the pregnancy. At trial, the prosecutor told the jury Joseph targeted women in the country illegally stating, “These Hispanic women are trash to him. They don’t even belong. He can rape them and dispose of them, and they wouldn’t dare tell. He’s a Houston police officer” (Daily Mail Reporter , September 4, 2012).
Joseph miscalculated with his last victim and paid for it. After a month-long trial, former Houston Police PD Abraham Joseph was convicted and received the maximum sentence of two life sentences. Joseph cried at his sentence, and his wife collapsed. His last courageous victim sat on the front row with a huge smile on her face. She later said through an interpreter “I want to thank God, first of all, the district of attorney, the jurors. And all the people that believed me because I just told the truth. And I am very pleased because justice has been made” (KHOU Staff, October 9, 2012).
NYPD Wilfredo Rosario—Community Policing Gone Awry
“The truth will come out,” Wilfredo Rosario told NY Supreme Court Justice Daniel Fitzgerald.
“Mr. Rosario, the truth did come out,” Justice Fitzgerald fired back. “You’ve stained the reputation of every decent, hardworking police officer on the force.” (Eligon, August 6, 2010)
This exchange took place after the second conviction for a series of sexual assaults committed by former NYPD Community Affairs officer Wilfredo Rosario . Rosario’s first conviction took place in January 2010 for an official misconduct and attempted coercion complaint lodged against Rosario in 2002. The eight-year hiatus occurred because the 2002 complaint was not acted upon until another woman complained in 2008.
In 2002, Rosario, a 10-year NYPD veteran, father of five, and Marine veteran of Desert Storm, and his partner approached a car parked after hours in Riverside Park. The victim, then 18 years old, and a male friend were in the car. After separating the two, officers questioned each. Rosario began by asking the girl routine questions, age, name, address, and phone number, before switching to personal questions, “Were you going to make out? Were you going to have sex? Are you a Virgin?” Then, he asked the shocked teenager would she perform oral sex on him. If she did, he wouldn’t have to tell her parents, and he would throw away the summons he was writing. Recognizing the dangerous situation she was in, she devised a strategy.
She promised to comply at a later date and engaged him in conversation. Eight years later, she testified, “I just wanted to keep him talking,” she told jurors, “I’m so used to television shows and movies that when you keep them talking, you’re safe.” She asked his name. He said his nickname was Buddha. Feigning a bad memory, she asked him to write it down. He complied misspelling it in block letters—BUDDAH—on a scrap of paper. She gave the scrap of paper to NYPD investigators later. The same scrap of paper was introduced into evidence eight years after the incident. She and Rosario agreed to meet the following day. Instead, the young girl reported him to the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB ) several days later. Her complaint of solicited oral sex was not acted upon, probably because she admitted on cross-examination eight years later she had left it out of her email to the CCRB . She had also not mentioned in her first taped interview with detectives that Rosario promised to tear up the summons in exchange for oral sex, the key element in a sexual coercion charge. Rosario was convicted on the 2002 charges and immediately fired, however; sentencing was delayed until the outcome of his second trial.
May 18, 2010, was not a good day for the NYPD , former NYPD officer Wilfredo Rosario convicted of official misconduct and attempted coercion the past January was on trial in Manhattan for sexually assaulting two women (Sulzberger and Eligon, May 18, 2010). Across the bridge in Brooklyn, NYPD Narcotics Detective Oscar Sandino was arraigned in federal court for violating the civil rights of two women by using the threat of arrest to coerce them into sex acts. In February 2010, the 13-year veteran narcotics detective arrested a woman and her boyfriend on drug charges following a raid. At the precinct, Detective Sandino told her she would lose custody of her children unless she had sex with him. She complied. After her release, Sandino told her he expected her to continue having sex with him and began calling her. She called the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Division, which began an investigation. The investigation revealed two more allegations of coerced sex. One involved the cousin of a man Sandino arrested on drug charges in 2006. He told the cousin if she didn’t have sex with him, her cousin would receive a “lengthy sentence.” On September 7, 2010, Sandino pleaded guilty to federal misdemeanor charges, was suspended from the NYPD , and agreed not to fight the dismissal proceedings.
In Manhattan , Wilfredo Rosario’s second trial began. One woman testified Rosario had approached her on the street and began a conversation. She told him she wanted a job as a school crossing guard, and she wanted to get her son into after-school programs. Rosario told her since he was a Community Affairs officer he could help. He got her name and address. The next day he appeared unannounced at the woman’s apartment, claiming to have application forms for her to fill out. She let him in, and he began fondling her and then raped her. After he left, he called her from the precinct and threatened her if she reported the sexual assault. According to court documents, “I know where you live. Don’t’ tell anybody what has happened,” were his exact words. A second victim claimed Rosario lured her into his car with promises to help her find work. He then drove to a secluded area, touched her breasts, forced her to kiss him, and touch his erect penis while his pants were unzipped.
At trial, Rosario denied the accusations and claimed the NYPD was trying to frame him because he was part of a successful racial discrimination suit against the department. The prosecution countered this. The prosecuting attorney citing the possibility of additional victims called Rosario a “selfish, narcissistic predator.” He went on to say “He thought he could victimize them without consequence,” and added. “He thought they were people who would never report what happened to them, or no one would believe even if they did.” The jury convicted Rosario, and he was sentenced to five years in prison. The conviction for the 2002 incident was included in the sentence. The police officer miscalculated in choosing victims and one where earlier department action might have prevented further misconduct.
Pittsburg, Pennsylvania—Adam Skweres—Consequences of Failure to Act
Pittsburg PD Officer Adam Skweres was arrested in 2012 and charged with bribery, coercion, official oppression, and indecent assault for a series of sexual assaults that occurred as early as 2008. The time lag between complaint and charge led the executive director of the Pittsburg Citizen Police Review to opine that it was a very unsettling situation. “That time frame is concerning.” Equally disturbing is Skweres first attempt to join the PPD when the city’s psychologist deemed him “not psychologically suited for police work” (Harding, February 23, 2012).
The psychologist determined he was unfit after reviewing Skweres background investigation file, which included what neighbors, and others said about him, his financial history, and a personal interview. He also examined the results of a polygraph exam and the results of a written psychological test. Skweres appealed the psychologist’s findings and his rejection to the civil service board. The city appointed another psychologist who found him suited. The city’s psychologist, who had examined Pittsburg police candidates for 20 years, declined to comment to press inquiries, other than to say he was disappointed. Events would show that the original rejection was the correct finding. Careful vetting is an absolute necessity in the police hiring process. Identifying and dealing with problem officers are also necessary. The Pittsburg Police Department, in Skweres’s case, disregarded both of these essential practices and paid dearly for their actions or inactions.
Officer Skweres, an Iraq war veteran, honorably discharged as s staff sergeant, had five years on the Pittsburg PD at the time of his arrest. However, he was a known problem officer. Skweres had 18 months on the job when the first complaint against him was made. His victim was driving to work when a motorcyclist hit her car. Officer Skweres arrived, and she admitted to no insurance and a suspended license. He pulled her aside and told her she was in a lot of trouble, but he could fix it and made several sexual advances. Claiming she was late for work and had to go, Skweres let her go with a threat: “If you say anything about this I’ll make sure you never walk, talk, or breath again.” He then wrote his cell phone number, work phone number, extension number, and badge number on a piece of paper from his police notepad. She told her boss what happened, and he convinced her to report the sexual advances it. She contacted the police and met with a detective and female officer and took a polygraph test. The results were inconclusive. The victim never heard from the police until Skweres’s arrest in 2012.
A second complaint, also in 2008, occurred when a woman was in court testifying as a victim in one of his cases. Skweres called her outside the courtroom to talk privately. He told the women he knew she and her husband were having child custody problems and he could help her out. Help came with conditions. He would write a positive letter to the county’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families if she would give him oral sex. A negative letter would be sent if she turned him down. The woman filed a complaint with the Pittsburg Police Department but never heard from them.
A third complaint was filed against Officer Skweres in December 2011. The rogue officer appeared at the victim’s house and offered to help her boyfriend who had been recently arrested. In order to receive his help, the woman had to strip and perform oral sex. She declined and offered to expose her buttocks to him “in order to satisfy him” she wrote in her complaint. The fourth complaint and the one resulting in his arrest occurred on February 11, 2012. Skweres had arrested a woman’s boyfriend several months earlier. He promised to help him out if she performed oral sex. She resisted and Skweres unclipped his holster to frighten the woman. She performed oral sex on him, and then he cleaned himself with a paper towel and left. The distraught woman reported her sexual assault to the FBI . An outside agency was now involved (Gurman and Ward, February 17, 2012). This complaint from an outside government agency prompted a full-scale investigation by the police department. Five days later, Skweres was fired.
The city defended their inaction on the other complaints by saying that it wasn’t until the fourth complaint that there was enough “hard evidence” to make an arrest and take him off the street. Dr. Samuel Walker , a national expert on police misconduct, commented on the city’s inaction: “Common sense would say if you have suspicions about this person’s conduct, you take [him] off the street, period. If there were two [complaints] back in 2008, that raises the significance of it even further. There should have been something done” (Fisher, August 14, 2014).
Skweres spent almost a year under house arrest with electronic monitoring before he appeared in court. An additional woman came forward, raising Skweres’s “known” victim count to five. He pleaded guilty to all counts and received a sentence of 3 ½ years to 8 years in prison and lifetime registration as a sex offender. Whether or not this punishment fits his crimes in open to debate.
Broward County, Florida Jonathan Bleiweiss—Same-Sex Sexual Predator
Eight months before his ignoble arrest, Deputy Sheriff Jonathan Bleiweiss was nominated for Employee of the Year by supervisors and faced 15–20 other nominees for the prestigious award (Anonymous, August 8, 2009). He finished first on the secret ballots. He responded by saying “I think it shows how far we’ve come in the world when a police worker, an openly gay officer, could achieve an award like this.” He pointed out things had changed since he became a Broward County Sheriff’s Office —BSO—employee in 2002 and endured a sergeant making jokes about him, calling him a “sex offender.” He was touted in newspapers as a pioneering openly gay police officer. Bleiweiss and the BSO did not know a tsunami of condemnation was coming.
At the time the award nomination and selection process were going on, Deputy Sheriff Jonathan Bleiweiss was stalking illegal immigrants, stopping them and performing sex acts with them and demanding their phone numbers and other contact information to set up future liaisons. The men were chosen because Bleiweiss knew they would not report him—safe targets. They feared not being believed and retaliated against by being deported. He also knew shame and embarrassment would come from their peers in the Hispanic community (Mayo, February 16, 2015). This was a vulnerable pool and Bleiweiss knew it. He was safe; at least, he thought he was.
In April 2009, an investigation was opened after complaints came to the sheriff’s office from an attorney saying a BSO deputy was sexually abusing undocumented immigrants from El Salvador and Mexico during traffic stops (Anonymous, August 8, 2009). In July, eight victims made a positive identification of Bleiweiss from a photo lineup. In August, he was arrested on 14 charges, including three counts of sexual battery by a person in authority, four counts of battery, and one count of stalking. There was a pattern to his sexual depravations.
Victims were fondled during early morning traffic stops. He coerced most of the men and one minor to engage in oral sex with him with the possibility of deportation. Some were forced to give cell phone numbers and agree to future sexual encounters. They complied because they feared reprisal. One illegal Mexican immigrant told investigators he had five separate sexual incidents with the deputy. He pleaded for Bleiweiss to stop because he only liked women. Another man, also an undocumented Mexican immigrant, reported assaults on three occasions. The minor, a teen from Mexico, said Bleiweiss fondled and masturbated him on two occasions.
Bleiweiss was held without bond in protective custody awaiting trial. The State’s Attorney fearing victims would not testify if their names became public requested identifying information be excluded from trial and a gag order imposed on what the lawyers could say about the victims. His unnamed victims had already been humiliated on Spanish language TV. The judge denied the request, stating, “I don’t see any reason for imposing any special restrictions or closings in this case.”
After a state habeas corpus hearing, Bleiweiss was granted bail in January 2010 and moved to Oregon living with his father while awaiting trial. In 2013, he moved to San Francisco. When the cases went to trial in February 2015, most of his victims had been deported. Those remaining in the United States were reluctant to testify and many witnesses could not be found. Most of the civil suits filed against Bleiweiss and Broward County were dismissed. The end result was predictable, a plea deal. Bleiweiss pleaded guilty to 14 counts of false imprisonment, 15 counts of battery, and four counts of stalking. His deal involved five years imprisonment and no sex offender status and 10-year probation after finishing his sentence. The prosecutor declared, “After six years, it was the best and the most just and fair resolution that the state could come up with.” Probably so, Deputy Sheriff Jonathan Bleiweiss’ careful selection of victims saved him from being labeled a sex offender the rest of his life and spending the rest of his life in prison—victims refused to testify.
San Diego, California—Anthony Arevalos—Known Sexual Predator
San Diego, California , is considered to be one of the nations safest city—a low crime and victimization rate. Safe unless you were a female partying in the popular downtown Gaslamp Quarter from 2009 to 2011 and encountered the officer known by his peers as “The Los Colinas Transport Unit”—Los Colinas Detention Facility (jail). San Diego PD Officer Anthony Arevalos , 18-year veteran, married and father of two, was well known for targeting attractive female drivers and arresting more women than any of his peers. It was known that he took lewd pictures of women he stopped and showed them to fellow officers (Stickney, November 14, 2011). Those allegations included pictures of women giving him oral sex in the back seat of his police vehicle. He showed off women’s driver’s licenses like trophies.
Court records revealed several officers refused to work with him or assist him in arrests because they feared his sexual misconduct would get them fired. Yet he was never formally reported or investigated—peer group support for police occupation deviance. The knowledgeable officers had the prescience to know that sooner or later Arevalos was going down hard. That happened on November 17, 2011, when a jury found him guilty of eight felony charges of sexual battery, assault, and soliciting sexual bribes from five women. He was sentenced to eight years and eight months in prison. His trial and conviction was the inevitable result of his known pattern of sexual misconduct and the police department’s failure to take appropriate action. His pattern of behavior fits into the characteristics of police sexual predators.
Officer Arevalos worked a special unit in the San Diego PD traffic division, a proactive unit patrolling for drunk drivers, paying extra and overtime. Working alone, he picked and chose who and when to stop a suspected drunk driver. San Diego’s party district, Gaslamp Quarter , was like shooting fish in a barrel. He offered attractive women a way out of arrests. He was assigned to this special unit even though, or some allege because, his supervisors knew of his bizarre sexual habits—known disturbed inclination. In 1998, he admitted to flirting with a woman with mental disabilities in the backseat of his patrol car. The officer assisting him on the call testified in a civil suit that Arevalos’ behavior beyond flirting (Moran, March 29, 2013). He testified Arevalos took pictures of the nude woman as she masturbated with a police baton in the back seat of a police vehicle. “He had his Polaroid out and when I got there the female was in the back seat naked with her handcuffs in front of her and she had the baton” he said. The officer reported Arevalos to his supervisor who gave Arevalos a verbal warning for an obvious firing offense—bureaucratic cover-up of known police sexual offender creating a real or perceived low risk for such deviant acts.
His next PSM violations were similarly mishandled. In 2007, Arevalos was caught viewing pornography on a department computer on duty. The same year, a father also complained of the way Arevalos handled the traffic stop of his 16-year-old daughter. She was returning from the beach dressed in a bikini top and short skirt. Arevalos stopped her to inform her that her registration tags were going to expire soon, “chicken crap” pretext stop (police argot). Arevalos made her bend over in front of him. The girl said the experience “creeped” her out. Arevalos was issued a verbal warning for both transgressions. However, as a result of these complaints, Arevalos was transferred to the traffic division as punishment—a common practice in departments where the traffic division is considered a lessor assignment than patrol. Within two years, he was working the special DUI unit that expanded his opportunities for predatory sexual abuse among a larger pool of vulnerable victims. Buoyed by the department’s inaction toward his sexual misconduct , he continued his aberrant behavior.
At trial, a 26-year-old female bartender testified that in September 2009, she closed up a Gaslamp Quarter restaurant, slammed down several drinks, and drove off. She inadvertently drove the wrong way on a one-way street and was stopped by Officer Arevalos. He took her to the station for a breath test. She read double the legal limit (Stickney, November 14, 2011). Instead of booking her he drove back to the woman’s car, all the while pressuring her for sex in exchange for letting her go. She didn’t promise anything. He said he would come to her restaurant and collect on what she owed. She reported the contact to a detective friend who said she should call internal affairs . She did not report it again until Arevalos was arrested. When asked to comment on the detective’s failure to report Arevalos’ complaint, an assistant chief demurred and said it was unclear whether the detective’s inaction violated department policy.
In February 2010, Arevalos arrested a woman for drunken driving after she was involved in a single-car crash. She testified in a civil suit deposition that he took her to the Las Colinas jail. On the way to the jail, he stopped his car and sexually assaulted her by inserting his hand in her vagina. The woman filed a complaint that night. Two days later, she called to check on the status of her complaint and was told there was no record of it. After Arevalos was arrested in March 2011, departmental officials told newspaper reporters her complaint was investigated and turned over to the District Attorney’s Office, which decided not to file charges. Another missed opportunity to end Arevalos’ sexual depravations. His sexual assaults continued.
In October 2010, Arevalos stopped a suspected DUI driver. He asked about her private body parts, touched her breasts, and put his hand down her pants. He told her if she flashed her breasts, he would let her go. The woman flashed him, and he put his hand in her pants and moved it from front to back. Arevalos called her a cab and let her go. The next month, Arevalos stopped a 20-year-old San Diego State University student at 1:30 a.m. as she left a Gaslamp Quarter bar. Following her arrest, he made improper suggestions of things she could do to get out of the arrest. Then, in January 2011 Arevalos arrested a young female coming out of a nightclub. After he handcuffed her, the women testified he asked her twice what she had to “offer” him. He added that sometimes women offered things to him to help himself. She did not offer him anything to “keep my dignity.” Two months later, Arevalos predatory sexual behavior finally came to an end.
March 8, 2011, was the night of Mardi Gras in the Gaslamp Quarter . Arevalos following his usual pattern stopped a thirty-one-year-old woman leaving a nightclub for failure to use a turn signal, a “chicken crap” pretext stop. The woman tested over the legal limit for blood-alcohol content. He asked her what she would do to make the DUI arrest go away and suggested she give him her panties. She agreed and Arevalos took her to a bathroom of a nearby 7–11 convenience store. They both entered the bathroom—captured on surveillance tape—where the woman removed her panties and Arevalos digitally penetrated her vagina. Arevalos conducted another breathalyzer test, and the woman tested under the legal limit. He allowed her to leave. Then the incident turned bizarre.
- Victim to Arevalos:
“You’re a cop, you’re a little intimidating, it’s a little overwhelming. I was standing there with no panties on.”
- Officer Arevalos:
“I know that. You’re a grown woman. You handled it very well.”
- Victim:
“What did you like best?”
- Arevalos:
“You know what I liked the best? When the shirt came up and the pants went down, I didn’t expect your body to be as nice and wonderful as it was.”
On March 11, 2011, Arevalos was arrested and charged with the sexual assault and the SAPD put his picture in the paper and asked for other victims to come forward. They did.
On November 17, 2011, Arevalos was found guilty on eight felony charges, acquitted on eight charges, and a mistrial declared on one count where the jury could not reach a unanimous vote. He was also found guilty of four counts that were reduced to misdemeanors. During the trial, the defense argued that the women were too intoxicated, emotional, and vengeful during the traffic stops to accurately know what happened. Obviously, why Arevalos chose them. He was sentenced to eight years and eight months in prison. Thirteen women filed suits against the City of San Diego claiming that the City and police department knew or should have known he was a danger to women and failed to take action against him. The police department countered that the complaints never reached the top; however, they settled and promised to deal with the issue. Twelve of those suits were settled for a total of $2.3 million. The remaining suit, involving his last victim, was settled right before trial for $5.9 million (Sklar, October 28, 2014).
The City reacted by appointing the city’s first female chief of police—the current chief abruptly resigned—and asked for a Department of Justice review of the San Diego Police Department (Watson, March 24, 2014). The federal audit made 40 recommendations to improve recruiting, hiring, training, and supervision all aimed at identifying problem officers more quickly. Eighteen DUI arrests made by Arevalos were vacated. New SAPD policy required two officers to accompany females in custody. A mandatory reporting policy for police misconduct was implemented. The new female chief began testing the wearing of body cameras, and all patrol officers were to be equipped with body cameras by the end of 2015. Body cameras are a useful, but not perfect by itself, technical supervisory assist in preventing police sexual abuse. They like digital audio recorders must be turned on to be useful.
Fullerton, California—Albert Rincon—Digital Audio Recorder—Technical Supervisory Assist
Fullerton, California , a city with a checkered past when it comes to allegations of police misconduct, had policies in place to deter or prevent police sexual misconduct . Police department policy stated that “whenever practical” pat-downs of detained persons should be done by an officer of the same gender as the person being searched. If not possible to have a same-sex officer to do the pat-down, a witness officer is to be present. Court testimony revealed a second department policy required officers to wear a digital audio recorder (DAR) and turn it on whenever they made contact with a suspect (Staff, September 30, 2011). Officers were required to transfer audio files from the DAR to the City’s computer at the end of each shift. The DAR is a valuable tool that provides unobtrusive ear evidence to law enforcement citizen interactions. It, like a body camera, provides evidence to support the officer’s or complainant’s version of a hostile/disputed incident. The DAR tells the truth. The DAR is also less expensive than body cameras—less than one hundred dollars.
However, policies are of no effect if individual officers do not adhere to them and supervisors do not enforce them. They are often all show for public relations purposes. This was the case in Fullerton’s police department. Officer Albert Rincon admitted in five years with the Fullerton PD he never called for a female officer to pat down a female he detained, creating a real or perceived low risk for PSM. No one ever checked. Rincon also turned off his DAR at some time during female detentions. The investigating officer testified at deposition: “I know that in dealing with this case, there always seemed to be a point where [the DAR] would go off.” Judge Guilford, the federal judge at the summary judgment hearing, pointed out that turning the DAR off rather than forgetting to turn it on indicated, “Rincon chose to leave no audio recording of the arrest” (Bode & Nastashi v. City of Fullerton et al. SACV 1-835 AG [MLGx]). Thus, deliberate attempts to hide the nature of the encounters. Rincon offered no explanation for turning the DAR off. A simple audit—routine risk management—would have put the brakes on Rincon’s predatory sexual abuse. This demonstrates organizational indifference to a known police problem.
Fullerton PD Officer Albert Rincon was never criminally charged with any of the alleged sexual assaults; therefore, we rely on information contained in the successful civil suit filed by two of his victims to describe the alleged depravity of his behavior. Court documents detail the complaints against Officer Rincon starting with an incident on August 1, 2008 (Bode & Nastashi v. City of Fullerton et al. SACV 10-835). Officer Rincon allegedly entered a bar where a female bartender worked and asked if she was on probation. She replied yes, and he searched her purse and the surrounding area. He claimed to have found a small amount of illegal drugs in the surrounding area and handcuffed the female and placed her in the back seat of his patrol car. He then, according to testimony, proceeded to pat down the woman by running his hands over her breasts and running his hands over her legs and cupping her groin area. He put the seat belt on the woman, exposing her right breast and refusing to cover it. He then made comments on her “nice” breasts. On the ride to the station, he asked the woman for oral sex in exchange for releasing her. She refused. At the station, Rincon allegedly grabbed the handcuffed woman and cupped her groin and digitally penetrated her vagina with his middle finger. After her release, Officer Rincon allegedly repeatedly harassed the woman at her workplace and asked to be her friend and engage in sex acts. The woman was interviewed by an Internal Affairs detective in November 2008, booked, and appeared at a preliminary hearing where all charges were dropped for insufficient evidence for a criminal trial. This was the basis for the civil suit.
Officer Rincon pulled over the second plaintiff in the civil suit on November 14, 2008, for allegedly driving with her headlights off—a “chicken-crap” offense. Rincon administered several field sobriety tests. According to testimony, the tests indicated the woman was sober and Rincon called another officer to administer an additional alcohol test. In spite of the evidence to the contrary, Rincon arrested the woman for DUI and put her in his police vehicle. During the pat-down search in the back seat, Rincon allegedly groped the woman and digitally penetrated her vagina. In putting the seat belt on his victim, Rincon allegedly forced the woman’s shirt and bra over her chest, exposing the woman’s breasts. Rincon allegedly offered to drop the charges if he would arrange a date with her daughter who had been in the vehicle when she was stopped. She refused. The woman was booked and appeared at a preliminary hearing where the Orange County District Attorney dropped all charges for lack of sufficient evidence to file a criminal complaint.
The City of Fullerton contacted the Orange County District Attorney’s Office on November 17, 2008, and asked that one of their investigators examine the sexual abuse allegations against Officer Rincon and determine if he should face criminal charges. The City placed Rincon on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation. The investigator decided to review other women arrested by Rincon in 2008. He was able to identify twelve women and interview seven of them. The seven women alleged Rincon had sexually violated them in some way. Five of the seven women were never prosecuted for their arrests.
A similar pattern of sexual misconduct became evident. Officer Rincon would detain or arrest women and make sexual propositions or inappropriately touch them or both. There was never a female officer or a witness during any of the pat-downs. Finally, Rincon would turn his DAR off at some time during the arrest or detention. The results of the investigation were sent to the District Attorney’s Office who, for some unknown reason, decided not to seek criminal charges.
The City of Fullerton conducted its own disciplinary investigation, listing all seven allegations of sexual misconduct against Officer Rincon. The City found that there was “no evidence of improper conduct” in six of the seven allegations. Instead of firing Rincon, he was given two reprimands for violating the DAR policy, one reprimand for violating the pat-down policy and one reprimand for misplacing one of his victim’s drivers license. He was ordered to receive training on pat-downs and the importance of using gender assistance and keeping his DAR activated during searches. The handling of the Rincon allegations led the federal judge in the civil suit to conclude: “At the end of the day, the City [Fullerton, CA] put Rincon back onto the streets to continue arresting women despite a pattern of sexual harassment allegations. A reasonable juror could conclude, based on the facts, that the City did not care about what its officers did to women during arrest” (Bode & Nastashi v. City of Fullerton et al. SACV 10-835).
The City of Fullerton settled the civil suit for $350,000. Although Albert Rincon was never charged with any PSM offenses, he no longer works for the Fullerton PD . The city did take action to prevent any more real or alleged police sexual misconduct . In 2014, the Fullerton City Council approved $650,354 to purchase body cameras for all its police officers. The body cameras would replace the DARs and record all public contacts, including use of force incidents. In February 2015, the Fullerton PD became the first police department in Orange County , California, to equip all its officers with body cameras that record video and audio.
Rogue Police Department—Maywood, California—Serial Sexual Predators the Norm?
“The Maywood Police Department has failed to consistently follow generally accepted hiring practices in evaluating applicants for the position of police officer and has failed to screen out and disqualify individuals who are not suited to perform the duties of a police officer.”
In the Matter of the Investigation of the City of Maywood Police Department. California Attorney General’s Final Report 2009.
The Attorneys General’s investigation followed a scandal revealing the MPD towed and impounded 17,773 vehicles during the time period under investigation. There was a quota system in effect, 2-car minimum each shift per officer. Targets for the city’s revenue-generating campaign were Hispanic , poor, and undocumented immigrants. Adding fuel to the clamor for an investigation was an unsuccessful recall of three of the five City Council members, including the Mayor and Vice Mayor. There was a good reason for the recall vote. The three council members voted to hire, a new chief of police without a background check, according to the state investigation.
The investigation revealed the chief in question was a former Maywood police officer that was convicted of falsifying overtime records while employed by the Los Angeles Police Department —gypsy cop. The new chief had also been a college instructor until terminated for acts of dishonesty. The chief in question replaced a chief who resigned after allegations of domestic violence . Several months after his hiring, the newly selected chief resigned following allegations of sex on duty. Enough was enough. California’s Attorney General announced a “top to bottom” review of the police department after the towing and hiring scandals and accusations of sexual misconduct , racism, and brutality among the officers in this small suburb southeast of Los Angeles. Maywood was a troubled city with a sordid history.
Maywood, California, was known as the last resort for California’s Gypsy Cops . Maywood PD’s sorry reputation resulted from the departments hiring practices, poor supervision, absence of training, no early warning system to identify problem officers, nonexistent complaint system, and no personnel directive system of policies and procedures. Maywood Police Department was a rogue police department, a refuge for misfit police officers.
The rogue police department hired police officers that could not be hired by another agency because of their questionable backgrounds or poor character (Glover and Lait, April 2, 2007). Examples included a Los Angeles deputy sheriff terminated for abusing jail inmates, a LAPD officer fired for intimidating a witness, and a former Huntington Park, California officer charged with negligently shooting a handgun and driving drunk. One officer had been terminated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office for “bizarre behavior and unprofessional conduct.” Another officer rejected by 25 other police departments was hired by the Maywood Police Department . A third of the police force had troubled pasts with other police agencies. Their hiring was justified by a Maywood police chief with a checkered past of domestic violence as “Its OK to give a person a second chance if you learn from your mistake.” Their behavior did not improve in Maywood after their “second chance” as the Gypsy Cops built up a history of misconduct and crime. Why would a police department engage in such egregious hiring practices?
In order to save money, MPD conducted superficial, or no, background checks. Certified police officers were allowed to laterally transfer without MPD checking to see if charges were pending. This was a boon to the agency, no reason to send an already certified officer to the academy, a significant saving in money and lost time. Another cost-cutting measure dispensed with the requirement of pre-employment polygraph examination. Does the practices save money? In the long run, hiring Gypsy Cops ends up being costly to the agency in terms of criminal and civil liability. According to published reports that happened, when Maywood, California Police Department hired Ryan Allen West. West had just resigned amid allegations of misconduct from the Brawley, California Police Department.
West wasted no time getting back into trouble. In 2006, he was accused, along with two other Maywood officers of handcuffing two students outside a bar and using a Taser gun on their genitals. No action was taken against him or the other officers. Later, in March 2008, he was charged with 12 felonies, including rape, assault by a public officer, burglary, and multiple accounts of sexual assault. One victim claimed West approached her and threatened to arrest her because of an outstanding warrant unless she met him at a local hotel. West admitted meeting the woman at the hotel but said the encounter and sex were consensual. The investigation led to other victims and West was fired. At the time of his appearance in court in June 2013, West had been charged with sexually assaulting five women on duty in 2006 and 2007. He pleaded no contest to five felonies, two counts of rape, and three counts of penetration with a foreign object and was sentenced to 19 years in prison (AP , June 4, 2013). Civil suits are pending.
In 2010, the city finally gave up its efforts to reform it police department when its liability insurance was canceled because of excessive civil damages paid. The California Joint Powers Insurance Authority terminated general liability and workers compensation coverage because the city posed too high a risk. The city had no choice but to disband its police department. As one councilman put it, “We have no alternative. Nobody will insure us, not as long as we have the police department” (Vives, June 17, 2010). The city of Maywood disbanded its police department and contracted with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD ) for police services.
The LASD is the largest sheriff’s department in the world employing 18,000 deputies (www.lasd.org). The LASD contracts with 42 cities within the county for police services, patrols 130 unincorporated communities, and provides services such as jails, laboratories, and academy training for smaller cities in the county. There are numerous small cities in the United States that would benefit from disbanding their police departments and contracting with a larger agency for police services.
Conclusion
PSM Causal Equation: Inclination + Opportunity + Real or Perceived Risk = PSM.
The chapter once again points to the consequences of poor or nonexistent accepted police hiring practices—no or lax background checks of prospective police officers. This allows individual’s with the inclination for sexual misconduct to enter the policework occupation . We saw the disastrous consequences of Gypsy officers who are allowed to continue their deviant sexual behavior in other agencies. The identified pool of vulnerable pool of targets—opportunity—includes same-sex victims. The real or perceived low risk for PSM was shown to be exacerbated by the organizations culture—code of silence and peer group support—and failure to identify and disciple malefactors. It is clear that sexual inclination and racial, ethnic, and status, profiling coupled with aggressive reactive policing strategies leads to law enforcement sexual misconduct under real or perceived low-risk conditions. We will see these conditions and combination of conditions in the following chapters. This chapter also introduced the existence of technological supervisory assists such as body and dash cameras and GPS devices in the discussion to prevent, control, and punish PSM.