New Jersey Woman Charged After Dashcam Contradicts Her Charge That Officer Pulled Gun On Her At Traffic Stop

120615-st-pqpeccooWe often discuss the transformative role of video technology on the prosecution of police abuse, particularly the ubiquitous presence of cellphones with video capability. However, this is not a one way street. The technology also clears some officers rather than implicates them in crimes. One such case is the controversy at a traffic stop in New Jersey after Hyacinth Peccoo, 50, of Irvington, accused Officer Daniel Caffrey of yelling and pulling a gun on her. A dash cam video not only showed that Caffrey not only did not do so but actually appeared to cut her a break on a violation.

Peccoo was pulled over for failure to stop at a stop sign. She later filed a complaint against Caffrey and said that he yelled at her, pulled his gun, and pointed it at her. She supplied a written statement and gave an account to an investigator. The investigator, Detective Lt. Michael Fairweather, however, already knew about the dashcam videotape when he interviewed Peccoo, making it something of a set up. After the interview, Fairweather told Peccoo about the videotape. He said that not only what she had just told him was a lie but that Caffrey could be heard giving Peccoo a break by not issuing her an $85 ticket for failure to stop at a stop sign as it carries two points. Rather gave her a $26 ticket for failure to change her address on her license.

She is now charged with making a false report to law enforcement authorities, a disorderly persons offense. The written complain is enough for such a charge, though the oral interview can also be part of the charged conduct even though it appears to be a set up. I would be more troubled by the interview if she had not already filed the complaint and the interview was the sole basis for the violation.

What do you think?

Source: NJ

32 thoughts on “New Jersey Woman Charged After Dashcam Contradicts Her Charge That Officer Pulled Gun On Her At Traffic Stop”

  1. Why was the interview a “set up”? Don’t cops interview suspects all the time, without disclosing all evidence they have against them?

    When someone files an IA investigation, isn’t that the normal procedure to interview them, find out what they have to say, and then prove or disprove it?

  2. Thank goodness they had dash cam video. Otherwise, with the way our mob media justice has been going, an innocent cop could have lost his job, received death threats, and yet another city could have suffered looting and rioting. I’m sure they’ll still come up with a catchy slogan out of this. Just like when people learned that Michael Brown did not, in fact, have his hands up, they still stood by the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” meme, because it addressed the “core issues.”

  3. From the information in the article I agree with the criminal charge.

    I disagree with our host that this is a set up situation as it is merely a case of an investigation on whether or not the defendant will complete a crime for which she had initiated.

    There is another angle that civilians will mainly not be aware of.

    Making a false accusation against a law enforcement officer in this context can put an officer through a very difficult bind, emotionally and in many cases financial because when they are put on administrative leave they cannot earn overtime or extra-duty pay.

    I have mentioned before that sometimes an investigation can be a form of punishment to a defendant and I suspect this woman did such a thing knowing it would cause harm to the officer and/or his department.

    It should also be noted that the officer was really giving more of a break to her than what most realize. He wrote her for a non-moving violation (failure to change address on license) so that it would not affect her driver record for insurance rating purposes. She was probably in a situation where she needed to get a ticket in the mind of the officer based on her moving violation but he cut her a break so as not to affect her insurance rates. This is a practice that some LEOs do.

  4. This article is interesting when juxtaposed with the case of the WOMAN WHO HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED.

    The FBI Director has not recommended charges for Hillary Clinton who mishandled classified documents.

    The AG has not indicted Hillary Clinton who mishandled classified documents.

    Further juxtaposition:

    Gen. Petraeus was not only indicted but convicted of mishandling classified documents.

    The AG does not LEAD the law.

    The AG follows the law.

    Dereliction and negligence by any and all civil officers of the United States, from the President to the AG to

    the Speaker, are the very definition of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    Article 2, Section 4

    “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”

    Let’s get this party started.

  5. Yes the word “moron” is not the equivalent of the blacklisted word of “retard” or “retarded”. Moron should have the word “friggin” said before it. Dogs have their hair combed at night to get rid of fleas. So do humans but they don’t want to admit it. And if a human gets fleas he wants to blame it on a dog. Blame it on the fleas for Christ sake. And as long as we are discussing Christ and fleas did any of you see the news about the pastor who was fleecing his flock and got prosecuted for stealing after dark. Seems to me that a pastor should just pass the plate on Sunday and be done with his collecting. Ever notice all the snakes on the regular antenna networks on Sunday morning that try to fleece a flock on the air, over the television? My God!

  6. Several references to teaching a “moron.”

    Doesn’t the very word convey the futility of such an endeavor?
    Moron and teachable moment?

    Anybody remember all the “little moron” jokes? Like….he combs his hair at night to make a good impression
    on his pillow?

    (“Moron” does not refer to those who are tragically impaired. Rather it’s the epitome of one who is capable but never clicked with common sense. Maybe we should just hand out HUYA awards or the “No Branches” award as in no branches in your family tree.)

  7. But wait–I’ve heard many people take the position it is a set up to question a police officer concerning an allegation before he has a chance to see the video-tape–In fact, some departments’ policies make doing so almost impossible. Why not afford members of the public the same protection. In my view, police officers and non-officers can appropriately be questioned about an incident where wrongdoing is alleged. There is no reason to afford officers additional time and opportunity to fabricate. The circumstances should be no different for an officer being questioned than they are for anyone else. I feel that both are appropriately questioned without being fully informed as to the content of the evidence against them. When I depose a witness who I think will lie, I don’t lay out the information I have first. I ask questions that permit him equally to either tell the truth or continue the lie. His free choice and his responsibility.

    As for the set-up, I think our host is referring to her being set up to commit new criminal violations during the interview. I could see it as a set up if the officer did something to push her into making the additional/more specific statements for which she was subsequently prosecuted. For example, if she was vague or started to backtrack and he told her that unless she provided that subsequent statement detailing misconduct, he would have to consider the initial report false and prosecute her for making a false report. That seems pretty unlikely here, though.

  8. Another photo of an ugly dog on the blog. Ugly dog on blog is becoming common across the internet. I think it deserves an acronym: UDOB. What do you humans think? I am from Planet Remulak and all creatures there sort of look alike. It is boring. But here. Mein Gott!

  9. Kiwi Joe–Cops love this stuff. Cops who are rightly accused of something-and there are plenty of them–will cite this incident as proof of their innocence. You sound like one of those cops.

    BTW I have no problem w/the law getting very tough on people who make false allegations. I was once the subject of a false allegation & escaped disaster only because my idiot accuser couldn’t lie intelligently & eventually gave himself away. Lock him & Hyacinth in the same cell.

Comments are closed.