Rocky Ford Officer sees 'green dot' from gun laser on his chest
According to the Rocky Ford Police Department (RFPD), around 2:15 a.m. on April 26, a Rocky Ford officer was parked at Rocky Ford High School and was meeting with deputies of the Otero County Sheriff's Office.
The officer and deputies saw a car pull into Babcock Park after park curfew, and shortly after, the RFPD officer spotted the green dot from a sight laser aimed at his chest. The laser was then also pointed at the deputies.
The deputies pulled over the car after it left Babcock Park, and a gun with a green laser attached was found in the car. Illegal narcotics were also discovered during an 'incident to arrest' search.
According to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, an incident to arrest search is a legal exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement that allows police to conduct a warrantless search, based on, among other things, the need to protect officer safety.
The suspect, 35-year-old John Mitchell, was arrested on firearms and narcotics charges.
'As we recognize National Police Week this week and remember those law enforcement officers who gave their lives in the service of their communities, let us not forget how dangerous this profession still is,' said Chief of Rocky Ford Police, Matthew Wallace. 'This incident serves as a reminder for all of us that even in a small city, our officers risk their lives every day they put on the uniform and serve. To my fellow law enforcement officers: Stay safe and serve honorably. To our community: A smile, a head nod, a wave, or even a thank you means a lot.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
11 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Family of man shot by IMPD in 2023 files lawsuit. Officer has since retired from department
His killing by an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police officer was a heavy topic of community discussion on officer-involved shootings. Two years later, his family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the officer and the City of Indianapolis. Gary Harrell Sr., 49, was shot in the back and killed by then 28-year veteran IMPD Officer Douglas Correll on Aug. 3, 2023. A critical incident video shows Harrell running from the officer after a traffic stop with a firearm in hand, but he never points it at the officer, prompting community members and his family to question why Douglas would shoot. "We are tired, frustrated, and fed up with all this police brutality against us," Harrell's sister, Melissa "Missy" Williams, said during an October 2023 protest for Harrell. "This was my brother... It could have been one of your loved ones." Harrell's name was shared frequently in 2023 discussions about officer-involved shootings. The next man shot and killed by police that same month prompted a town hall meeting nearly 24 hours later. The Black Church Coalition called Harrell's shooting death an "egregious pattern" by the department, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police told IndyStar that Correll has since retired from the department. Harrell was the oldest of six kids, and in the lawsuit filed by his mother, it's alleged that Correll had previously been accused of using excessive force while working for the department. An 'egregious pattern': Group, family demand transparency after officer shoots, kills man Harrell's estate is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, including all reasonable and necessary medical and hospital, autopsy, and funeral expenses, and the loss of love and companionship from Harrell, along with administrative costs and attorney fees. The lawsuit was filed in July 2025, and the claims being brought forth are wrongful death, common law assault and battery, violation and deprivation of Harrell's civil rights and the Fourth Amendment's unreasonable seizure and excessive force use. Overall, the lawsuit alleges that the City of Indianapolis failed to 'properly monitor the use of excessive, unreasonable and unnecessary force by its officers,' since the city oversees the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. "Officer Correll's actions during his interaction with Gary Harrell Sr. exhibited reckless and callous indifference to Gary Harrell Sr.'s constitutional rights," the document filed reads. It claims that IMPD tolerates and has failed to properly review, revise, implement, and enforce policies regarding investigations and handling use-of-force situations by officers. IndyStar reached out to the attorney for the lawsuit, who did not respond the time of this article's publication. 'Out of respect for the judicial process, we do not comment on pending litigation,' the department said about the case. In a 2018 lawsuit, Correll was accused of maliciously battering and crushing the spleen of an unarmed, non-resisting young man who had requested the assistance of police after he had been shot by an unknown assailant. Just before 2:15 a.m., on July 2, 2016, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police were called to a duplex in the 3900 block of Hillside Avenue. There, they encountered Joshua Harris, who had thought he'd been shot while outside. A police report for the incident states that Harris had not been shot. "He had, however, been physically assaulted by a suspect he refused to identify and arrested for resisting law enforcement after he physically impeded efforts to continue the investigation," it reads. The police report says that Harris was taken to Eskenazi Hospital for treatment of injuries he received in the initial assault. Harris's lawsuit states that when Correll and another officer arrived, Harris tried to explain what happened and show them his foot. The court document states that Correll walked straight past him and said, "Get the f--- out my face." When officers began to enter his home, Harris told them they didn't have permission. That's when Correll is accused of punching Harris twice in the face, causing him to fall to his knees. While trying to stand up, the lawsuit says Correll grabbed both of Harris's shoulders and kneed him in the abdomen. Harris would later be arrested for resisting law enforcement, but the case would be dismissed. In that case, the City of Indianapolis paid $380,000 to a trust fund for Harris on Dec. 30, 2019.
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
Can you flip off a cop? Here's what the law says in Oklahoma
Traffic stops can get frustrating for drivers in a hurry, and sometimes lead people to do or say things they may regret later. But is lashing out, maybe just by flipping off the officer who pulled you over, a punishable offense in Oklahoma? In recent years, the Oklahoma City Police Department has taken a firm stance against members of their agency using the gesture after a metro officer flipped a driver off in 2023. But what are citizens able to do without facing a fine or consequence? Here's what to know about the legality of the action, how the Constitution may come into play, and what to know next time you're interacting with police in Oklahoma. Can you flip off a police officer during a traffic stop? In short, yes. Though it's impolite, it's not against the law according to a few legal precedents. This decision came in 2019, after Debra Cruise-Gulyas was pulled over in 2017 during a routine traffic stop in Michigan. The officer, Matthew Minard, pulled her over for speeding and gave her a ticket for a non-moving violation, a lesser charge. Cruise-Gulyas, in turn, gave him a two-word statement with her middle finger while driving away. Minard pulled her over again and raised the violation to a speeding ticket. Cruise-Gulyas then sued Minard on the grounds there was no probable cause for seizure during the second stop, thus violating her Fourth Amendment right; upgrading her ticket to a higher offense due to the gesture, thus violating her First Amendment right of freedom of speech; and that it overall violated her right to due process as set by the 14th Amendment. First Amendment protected speech The district court presiding over the case sided with Minard, who stated that the second stop was a continuation of the first. But, when Cruise-Gulyas took the case to the Appellate Court, the Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled in Cruise-Gulyas' favor in 2019. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton stated that 'Fits of rudeness or lack of gratitude may violate the Golden Rule. But that doesn't make them illegal or, for that matter, punishable or, for that matter, grounds for a seizure.' Sutton later noted "Any reasonable officer would know that a citizen who raises her middle finger engages in speech protected by the First Amendment." What to do during a traffic stop While different states have different rules for drivers' duties during a traffic stop, experts generally agree on a few steps drivers should take to ensure the traffic stop remains calm. The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma recommends that if you're pulled over by police, you should take the following steps: Stop the car in a safe place as quickly as possible. Turn off the car's engine. Turn on the internal light. Open the window partway. Place your hands on the wheel. The ACLU also encourages people to stay calm during the traffic stop and not to run, resist or obstruct officers. More: Do you have to roll your window down during a traffic stop? ACLU, police weigh in The Oklahoma City Police Department recommends many of the same actions, including lowering your window to speak with the officer. If you're afraid during the stop, the police department's website also suggests you can lower your window a few inches, ask to speak with a supervisor or call 911. This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Is it illegal to flip off a cop? Here's what Oklahoma law says Solve the daily Crossword
New York Post
a day ago
- New York Post
Big Brother is watching you — but this homeowner made him back down
Last month, Charlie Wolf attended a meeting of the Greers Ferry, Ark., city council to complain about a license-plate camera that he said was violating the Fourth Amendment by regularly taking pictures of his driveway and front yard. Greers Ferry Police Chief Kallen Lacy acknowledged Wolf's 'distress' but rejected his legal analysis, saying 'over 5,000 cities' across the country use such cameras, 'so there is no constitutional violation there.' Despite Lacy's assurance, the widespread acceptance of automated license-plate readers as a crime-fighting tool only magnifies the privacy concerns they raise. They enable routine surveillance of a sort that would have troubled the Fourth Amendment's framers. 'Unlike red-light cameras or speed cameras that are triggered by specific violations,' the Institute for Justice notes, ALPRs 'photograph every vehicle that drives by and can use artificial intelligence to create a profile with identifying information that then gets stored in a massive database. 'Once that happens, officials can search the database for any vehicle they wish, all without a warrant.' Worse, 'departments around the country are automatically sharing data with each other, making it simple for police anywhere to track drivers' movements. 'All of this arbitrary discretion threatens people's privacy, security and freedom of movement by creating an atmosphere where everyone knows they are being watched and tracked whenever they hit the road.' Wolf's experience crystallizes these concerns. As he noted at the city council meeting, the camera that was installed across the street from his house on May 13 was photographing 'our yard, curtilage and vehicles' whenever a car passed by. 'We're being photographed and entered into a database without consent or violation of any law,' Wolf said. The camera captured images of Wolf and his wife whenever they left their home or returned to it. The camera also documented the comings and goings of the Wolfs' visitors, including their friends, children and grandchildren. Depending on the vagaries of traffic, it might record trips to the mailbox, kids playing in the yard or anything else happening in front of the house. Local officials initially were unfazed by the Wolfs' complaints, insisting that the camera, one of five installed in the tiny town under a contract with the ALPR company Flock Safety, would stay where it was. But they reconsidered after receiving a letter from Institute for Justice attorney Joshua Windham, who explained why the couple's objections deserved more respect than they had received. In 2018, Windham noted, the Supreme Court held that the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment when it collected cellphone location data without a warrant supported by probable cause. That ruling, he explained, was based on the principle that the Fourth Amendment 'must preserve at least as much privacy as Americans would have enjoyed when it was adopted.' Back then, Windham observed, 'police lacked the means to create a historical record of people's physical movements' because 'they simply did not have the manpower or the technology to do so.' He noted that a federal judge in Iowa and two state supreme courts have recognized that 'the placement of a surveillance camera in front of a home,' like tracking someone's movements via cellphone data, 'may violate a reasonable privacy expectation.' Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The morning after Windham sent that letter, Greers Ferry officials posted a defense of ALPRs that read like a Flock press release. But by the end of the month, they had agreed to remove the camera that was spying on the Wolfs. That small victory for privacy was followed a week later by another encouraging development: Scarsdale, NY, terminated its ALPR contract with Flock Safety after more than 400 residents signed a petition expressing concern about 'the broad and lasting implications of deploying such a surveillance system.' The official rationale for the town's decision was lack of funding. But the criticism provoked by the project suggests Americans are beginning to recognize the perils of surrendering their privacy in the name of public safety. Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine.
