There is a relatively rare case developing in Connecticut where Professor Minati Roychoudhuri, 62, has been charged with making a false police report after charging that she was racially profiled by a police officer. A review of the dash cam video contradicted factual assertions made by Roychoudhuri in her sworn statement.
Roychoudhuri was pulled over on May 9th by an officer and cited for failure to drive in the established lane. A month after the citation, she filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Public Safety:
Dear Sir/Madam
I was traveling to Wethersfield on Route 15/5 to attend a meeting 9th May. I was on the left lane on route 15 and had to take exit 85. After the Brainard Airport exit, and after the merging lane ended, I signaled and went to the right lane to take exit 85. An unmarked police car with flashing light stopped me on the ramp after I had taken the exit. The policeman asked me if I could speak English and if I knew why he had stopped me. I said, “yes” to speaking English and “no” to why he had stopped me. He then asked me for my driver’s license and registration. He returned with an envelope and said that I could simply mail in the infraction.
The officer did not give me any reason as to why had stopped me. His asking if I could speak English shows that he had racially profiled me and was not able to give me a concrete reason for stopping me. Further, the officer had checked “Hispanic” in the race category in the infraction ticket. I am a Professor in English at Capital Community College, I teach about diversity and the negative impact of racial profiling, I have now become a target of the same insidious behavior! It is easy to connect the dots with the nationwide racial profiling which has led to serious consequences. I request that my infraction charges be dropped and action be taken against the officer. I have talked with the Senator and Legislator of my constituency regarding this matter and I am sending a copy of this letter to them as well.
Thank you in advance, Sincerely, Minati Roychoudhuri
The police conducted an investigation and reviewed the tape. This is the transcript and the investigators concluded that the officer never asked if Roychoudhuri could speak English and did in fact explain the basis for the citation:
Officer: Hi ma’am, do you know why I’m stopping you today?
Roychoudhuri: No
O: OK. There’s that big gore area with white lines painted across it and you cut in front of it, in front of me, thinking it’s a lane or something. You have to wait until it’s a dotted white line. License and registration.
(She handed him insurance, so he requested the registration again, which she gave him)
O: Thank you. This is for your Subaru car.
R: This is my Subaru car.
O: Is this a station wagon, color green? The plate doesn’t match what’s on there.
R: [Inaudible]…I thought that was my [inaudible]
O: I’ll run the plate and see what it comes back with.
R: This is the [inaudible] that I have.
(Officer returns to his car for three minutes to write out the ticket for failure to drive in the established lane)
O: Ma’am. So I wrote you the infraction for that improper lane change that you did.
R: Please, you know, I probably crossed over there, and that’s why I did it.
O: OK.
R: Obviously I did that.
O: [Inaudible]
R: My [inaudible] is absolutely clean.
O: Ok. So I wrote you an infraction for that improper lane change that you did.
R: OK.
O: The answer date is on the front of it and the instructions are on the back of it.
R: Wait, what?
O: It’s a mail in infraction. All you have to do is mail in, either a check or money order, and mail it in.
R: OK.
O: Alright.
R: Thank you.
The Internal Affairs investigators interviewed Roychoudhuri in person and she repeated the same claims of racial profiling as well as specific allegation that there was no explanation of the violation. She then signed a statement that it is a crime for her to make any claims that she does not believe to be true in an effort to mislead a public servant.
Roychoudhuri has now been arrested for giving a false statement in the second degree. The state code mandates:
Sec. 53a-157b. (Formerly Sec. 53a-157). False statement in the second degree: Class A misdemeanor.
(a) A person is guilty of false statement in the second degree when he intentionally makes a false written statement under oath or pursuant to a form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable, which he does not believe to be true and which statement is intended to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official function.
(b) False statement in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
The videotape does appear to show that Roychoudhuri misrepresented the officer’s statements. However, there is always a concern about the police criminally charging citizens who come forward with abuse allegations. Notably, while Roychoudhuri does stand contradicted on the facts regarding the questioning of whether she spoke interest and lack of explanation of the ticket, her allegation of profiling generally could still be true. The mere publication of the transcript is highly discrediting in itself. The question is whether a criminal charge, even a misdemeanor, is warranted in such a case.
In the meantime, various people have gone on the Facebook account of the Capital Community College to call for the school to “fire the liar.” Once again, my concern is that a professor made an allegation of profiling that could still be an honestly held belief (based on the minor infraction used to pull over her car). I am not saying that this was a valid belief in these circumstances but some complaints made be based on subjective viewpoints. There is always a fear of a chilling effect on people coming forward to express such concerns if they can be charged with a crime if police clear the officers. On the other hand, her statement did indeed appear to contain very specific and false elements despite her swearing to their accuracy.
Do you believe a criminal charge and/or university punishment is warranted in such a case?
Absolutely she should be prosecuted. Without the recording of the actual conversation, she could have adversely affected the officer’s job and reputation. She lied. She showed willful disregard for the officer and the truth
Not only willful disregard butmalicious. Her lies could have cost this officer his career and livelihood at the very least. It was a calculated attempt to harm the officer and to make herself look like a victim.
She got caught doing wrong and attempted to harm someone else to deflect from her own inadequacy. Is this the type of person you want to be in charge of educating your child/young adult and who has the power to harm by giving bad grades based on some sort of perceived racial bias that doesn’t exist?
Fire her.
She did lie and sent a letter. By sending a letter, it sends a signal that she has confirmed the lie and wants some kind of “Compensation”. NOW she has to own it and will suffer for it. Therefore, before anybody sending any letter (written statement and legally binding), she/he has to think twice since it will have the impact and will bite you back.
“her allegation of profiling generally could still be true. ”
Oh please! This PC nonsense is out of control. Bottom line is, SHE LIED! I’m surprised she didn’t beat herself up and blame the cop. Profiling! In Arizona? That’s laughable. Most likely the officer was Hispanic too.
You cannot go to the lengths she did and lie, to not only get out of a ticket but get the officer in trouble because she got caught breaking the law.
Her reckless driving could’ve caused a car accident. She did cross over in front of the officer, how did he know she was Hispanic from behind her car? You Liberals just can’t handle responsibility, can you. Smh
Lisa N – she was in Connecticut, not Arizona. 🙂
Based on these facts, she broke the law once she signed the statement. The transcript clearly exposed the falsity of two charges she made in the letter. But she should not lose her job. The terms of employment that could support her firing are an unacceptable chilling of first amendment protection.
Michael Scott – most colleges and universities have a morals clause in their employment contract. I think committing perjury is an immoral act. She referred to herself as a Professor of English at the college, bringing them into the game. I would fire her base on those grounds. She took a ‘better than thou’ attitude and hoped to get away with it. These body cameras and car cameras cut both ways. This time she gets cut.
bettykath, I believe your suggestion is the most sensible. Maybe she was upset at something else at the time and focused her anger on this encounter. I’ve been mad at X and said something nasty about Y online over a simple disagreement because Y happened to be a more convenient target, then regretted it.
You’ve got a gray area here. There’s nothing in the transcript to support the claim, but that doesn’t change the fact that it might have been racial profiling that was the motivation for the stop in the first place. It wouldn’t be the first time that a racist officer used race as the reason for a stop and yet was perfectly professional during the stop. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, there’s no evidence of racial profiling, so we cannot reasonably assume profiling on the part of the officer, and thus we cannot take action based on such an assumption.
If I were doing the investigation I would let her see the video and then ask if she would like to withdraw the complaint. If her memory was refreshed and she apologized, I’d drop it. Cops get to make false reports all the time and walk. She could have been honestly mistaken. As the supporters of the cops who make false reports tell us, our memories sometimes play tricks on us.
I am in favor of prosecuting this woman because her lies are so blatant and I am in favor of more prosecution of cops too for their perjury that they indulge in so often. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Having people feeling free to complain about police is not the problem. Lying like this woman or “HANDS UP” has become a huge problem. If dash cams are going to be used to charge police, as they should. If ubiquitous cell phone cams are going to be used to keep cops from violating people, as they should. Then this lying SOS should should pay for her blatant lies. Chrissake JT, your prejudice is showing. You need to spend some time in a cop car on ride along.
“However, there is always a concern about the police criminally charging citizens who come forward with abuse allegations. Notably, while Roychoudhuri does stand contradicted on the facts regarding the questioning of whether she spoke interest and lack of explanation of the ticket, her allegation of profiling generally could still be true.”
Come on JT! He could have also been looking for a good time but the FACTS don’t align with that theory either.
For example, Ted Rall, one of our lefty political cartoonists was not fired for advocating violence against conservatives, but was recently canned by the LA Times because in a May 11 post on The Times’ OpinionLA blog he lied about a 2001 experience he had with the LAPD.
He was also undone by an audiotape of the incident.
Memo to SJWs everywhere: Your interactions with the Fuzz are being recorded. So lie about something else, or lie less specifically.
Say the officer made you feel “uncomfortable” or “fat-shamed” or something plausibly deniable.
Up your game, people!
JT wrote, “However, there is always a fear of a chilling effect on people coming forward to express such views”.
I wonder if any current or former students at CCC had problems with this professor?
“Arrested For Filing An Alleged False Report of Profiling”
She should write another letter saying she was arrested because she was profiled while filing a false arrest report.
Look, SJWs always lie. Always.
It’s what we teach them. Heck, she teaches a class on it.
But she made a dumb mistake here.
Instead of a formal letter of complaint to the police, she should have:
1) used it in her class as a personal example,
2) used it at yet another SJW protest, or
3) written a woe-is-me article about it for HuffPo.
We tried to teach her how to use these encounters, but no-o-ooooo….
Absolutely she should be prosecuted. Without the recording of the actual conversation, she could have adversely affected the officer’s job and reputation. She lied. She showed willful disregard for the officer and the truth. I ceertainly would not hire her to be my child’s tutor, if she is so unfriendly to truth – the end game of human inquiry (education). In particular, her field of study is in an area where objective truth is very difficult to establish, which means the truth-teller (read teacher) shoiuld be particularly judged by his/her pursuit of truth. Fire her, please.
No, she is 62 years old: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/college-professor-charged-falsely-claiming-be-racially-profiled-officer
Is she really 32 years old?
I think the professor should have taken a deep breath and reconsidered what she was doing before she made this report and stating that she was taking the issue up with her legislature and demanding the officer be fired for doing nothing more than enforcing a traffic law.
As for her statement declaring the significance of the officer checking the Hispanic race on the form, this is used strictly for identification and statistical purposes and relies on officer observation. He might have been mistaken.
As for her employment at the college I don’t see how this matter should affect her. It is not related to suitability for teaching.
As for the arrest, I tend to think it went a little far thought I can see how it costs money and time to investigate a case that is baseless. But in arresting people who file reports it creates certainly a chilling effect on reporting actual misconduct.
Moreover, this is different from filing a false police report that defrauds an insurance company or causes a third party to be arrested or investigated on baseless information and lies. In this case it was the state who was the third party so in my view the bar should be higher if prosecuting someone, though it could be articulated that the officer could have been put in jeopardy of his job and career and could have suffered an economic loss.
Professor needs to be fired.
I hope the charges hold.
Her lies go against the morals of what she is supposed to be representing for the school.
Thank goodness this officer had everything recorded.
That woman’s lies could’ve cost this officer his career and reputation!
That woman deserves all she gets. What a racist she is!
pled
I see nothing wrong with what the officer did. Driving in the gore is against the law in AZ and people are ticketed (regardless of color) when the Highway Patrol sees them. She seems to admit twice to driving in the gore.
Having done this (admitting the violation) I do not see the validity of trying a racial attack by the officer. Maybe she thinks because she works at a community college that it will work like it did for the professor who was arrested at ASU for jaywalking. She plead guilty, he lost his job.