Trooper Accused of Raping Woman During Traffic Stop: Dashcam

Newly released dashcam video shows what. began as a routine traffic stop in. Oklahoma City, but it's one that. prosecutors [music] say ended with an. Oklahoma state trooper raping a woman he. had pulled over. Court records allege. Trooper Jarquez Evans turned off his. body camera and microphone during the. stop, ordered the woman to a second. location under threat of arrest, [music]. and sexually assaulted her. We are going. to break down the video and the digital. and forensic [music] evidence with a. criminal defense attorney right now. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law &. Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. [music].

All right, we definitely wanted to bring. you this story clearly. And one of the. reasons that we can do that is because. of the support that we get from our. sponsor Morgan & Morgan, America's. largest personal injury law firm, a firm. with over a thousand attorneys who have. recovered, get this, 25 billion dollars. for more than 500,000 clients. Think. about that. In the past few months. alone, a client in Florida received 12. million dollars when insurance offered. just 350,000 dollars. Out in. Pennsylvania, another client was awarded. 26 million dollars. That is 40 times the.

insurer's offer. Morgan & Morgan, they. make it easy to fight for what you. deserve. You can even start a claim from. your phone. So, if you're injured, you. can start a claim at. forthepeople.com/lcsidebar. You can click the link below, or you can. scan the QR code on screen. We have obtained dashcam video that. captures the start of a traffic stop. that ended with an Oklahoma state. trooper now charged with rape. Now, fair. warning here, before I get it any. further into this one, I'm just going to. tell you right now, this is incredibly.

disturbing if these allegations are. true, okay? So, the footage shows then. Trooper Jarquez Evans pulling over a. woman for an expired tag out in Oklahoma. City in January of last year. Now, we've. chosen not to identify her, but you see. him search her, place her in his patrol. car, and search her vehicle. But, according to court documents, about 18. minutes in, Evans allegedly turned off. his body-worn microphone and camera. And. court documents allege he then told the.

woman to meet him at another location, or she would go to jail. And it was. there that he allegedly, and he is. accused of, sexually assaulting her. Now, we're going to break down this. newly released video, the disturbing. affidavit, how DNA evidence from the. trooper's own uniform apparently led to. his arrest. You wonder how on earth. could this happen if it's true. So, I. want to walk through the allegations. from the very beginning. It is January. 26th, 2025. A woman is pulled over by. Trooper Evans. And the reason is there's. an expired tag. So, for the first.

several minutes, it kind of looks pretty. standard, pretty procedural. Evans has. her step out, empties her pockets onto. his car hood, then he has her sit in his. cruiser while he searches her SUV. And. while in his car, she makes some calls, and we can hear some of what she says. You ran a light. Well, I'm on 29th and. High. Why'd you get pulled over? Uh an out-of-date tag. Oh my god, I'm going to. What car are you in?

The new Suburban. I don't think I'm going to jail, but I. don't know. Then, the official record. stops. Evans, according to a lawsuit. that was filed by the victim, switched. off his body mic and dashcam audio. According to that lawsuit, Evans. allegedly never wrote a ticket. Instead, he is accused of giving her a choice, either meet him at a secondary location, or go to jail. And under that alleged. threat, she reportedly complies. And at. this new location, the suit alleges that.

Evans got into her car, unzipped his. uniform, and sexually assaulted her. And. afterward, he simply left. No report was. apparently ever filed for that stop. But, you know what? It was the woman who. reported it. The investigation that. followed wasn't just about her word. You. had OSBI forensic testing on Evans'. uniform pants, and guess what they. found? Apparently, a semen stain. DNA. identified Evans as the main. contributor. Investigators also found a. text that he allegedly sent his ex-wife.

the next morning saying he'd quote done. something bad with a woman he pulled. over. So, Evans was arrested. He was. fired. He was charged with rape and. forcible sodomy. The victim also filed a. civil lawsuit against him, and named the. OHP as well, claiming they ignored red. flags in his past. So, you're basically. making a claim that he shouldn't have. been hired. This is negligent hiring. This is negligent supervision, right? That's the main allegation. Now, here's. the thing. The key dashcam video of the. traffic stop's beginning, that has been. released. This is the footage of those.

final recorded moments before the audio. cuts out and the alleged assault began. So, we want to go through it. And right. away, we see Evans pull over the. Chevrolet Suburban. He exits his. vehicle. He approaches the driver's. side. He has the woman step out of her. vehicle. He immediately begins a pat. down, empties her pockets, placing her. phone, her keys, other personal items on. the hood of his patrol car. And then, he. guides her to the front passenger seat. of his cruiser. He leaves her there, goes back to search her Suburban. Evans.

is out of frame, seemingly searching the. vehicle. And meanwhile, she's in his. car. And that is when, according to the. lawsuit's timeline, she makes those. phone calls. It is from there we see a. second trooper arrive and appear to aid. in the search of this car. Now, the stop. continues, and at one point she gets out. of the car to speak with the officers. And more than 20 minutes into the. traffic stop, the second trooper leaves. That's when everything changes. Because. Evans seemingly continues talking to the.

woman. And according to the lawsuit that. she filed, this is when Evans manually. deactivated his body-worn microphone and. the in-car camera audio. That is what. she's accusing him of. That's an. allegation. The video may continue from. certain angles, but the official audio. record, that ends. In this silent video, we see him seemingly walk her back to. her Suburban. He returns to his driver's. seat. Both vehicles sit for a moment. And then, they drive away in the same. direction. The dashcam from Evans'.

cruiser shows him driving kind of a. short distance and then pulling over. again. And the video shows his parked. cruiser with no other vehicle in frame. There's no audio. So, his car sits. unmoving for seemingly about 12 minutes. And this, according to the affidavit, is. the period when he allegedly met the. victim at that secondary location and. assaulted her. And then finally, the video appears to. show Evans starting his car and driving. away. The traffic stop from the system's. perspective is over. There is no.

citation that was ever generated. There. was no arrest report that was filed. Okay. So, to help us try to understand. the implications of this case, I'm. joined now by criminal defense attorney. John Day. John, thank you so much for. taking the time. I want to start with. the video itself, because we see this uh. traffic stop. By all accounts, it looks. procedural. And then the audio cut cuts. off for a specific moment. So, from a. legal standpoint, if this is true, how. significant is that.

allegedly manually turning off his. recording equipment during an active. stop. Let's start there. Right. Well, thanks for having me. So, you know, the old saying is the video. doesn't lie, but in this case, it's the. absence of the video that doesn't lie, either. Why would a trooper, why would a. police officer have any reason to do any. basically editing in the field? I mean, that certainly raises suspicions right. off the bat. It's not supposed to. happen. You're not supposed to be. selectively recording what you're doing. as an officer wearing a body-worn. camera. So, legally, it certainly raises.

the idea of consciousness of guilt right. from the start. Yeah, unless there was. some sort of safety issue. You can claim. there's a malfunction, which I don't. believe either is happening here. I I. will say the lawsuit that we're talking. about here. This lawsuit claims this. wasn't just an isolated act by Trooper. Evans, but a failure of the Oklahoma. Highway Patrol system, pointing to past. red flags, like a prior forced. resignation from another department, a. negligent weapon discharge in the. academy. When you look at that, in your. experience, how does that argument of,

right, negligent hiring, negligent. supervision, how does it work in a case. like this? What makes it so powerful? Right. What makes it powerful is it's. global. It says, look, this individual. officer had a history. And he was. brought onto the force, the state police. force, the highway patrol, in spite of. that history. And it alleges negligent. hiring, negligent, basically, no. background check, or whether they did a. background check, they didn't care what. the results were. So, the lawsuit. alleges the negligent supervision,

negligent training, negligent hiring, and also alleges a conspiracy to. essentially bring on an officer with. that kind of a history onto the the. state patrol force. And look, the full scope of these. allegations, they are laid out in this. lawsuit, this civil lawsuit that was. filed in Oklahoma County District Court. on August 26th, 2025. So, you're 7. months after the traffic stop, so 5. months after Evans was criminally. charged. We should note uh this lawsuit. was voluntarily dismissed without.

prejudice in federal court late last. year, which means the plaintiff could. potentially refile it, but the important. part about it, what we want to get to, is the detailed claims. If we take it as. true, it provides quite the narrative, okay? And I want to walk through what. alleges happened after that dashcam. audio cut off. So, first it claims that. Evans never wrote a ticket or made an. arrest. Instead, he allegedly used his. authority to move the encounter to a. second isolated location. Quote,

"Following the stop, defendant Evans. instructed plaintiff to meet him at a. secondary location. Plaintiff, under. continued threat of arrest, complied. GPS data and surveillance footage. confirmed that plaintiff drove to a. dimly lit area near Southeast 31st. Street and South High Avenue, where. Evans later arrived." And now here is. the core of the sexual assault. allegations, because in the lawsuit's. own words, it says, "Upon entering. plaintiff's vehicle at the secondary. location, Evans unzipped his uniform.

pants. When plaintiff expressed concern. about being arrested for prostitution, Evans assured her that she would not be. and confirmed that his body camera was. off. Evans ordered plaintiff to bend. over. Plaintiff, under duress and fear. of arrest, complied. Evans forcibly. removed plaintiff's clothing and engaged. in sexual activity without her consent.". John, back to you. You read this, you. take these allegations as true, and. obviously, you know, these are.

allegations, but you read it, it's quite. harrowing. Um, what stands out to you from this. narrative? Is it the potential. digital evidence? Is it the idea of. duress or fear of arrest? When we talk. about if something was consensual or. not, it's pretty remarkable, but from a. legal point of view, what stands out to. you? Well, remember the starting place is. this is done under the color of law. Basically, they're saying in the lawsuit. that the plaintiff was violated, her. rights were violated, and her body was. violated by a police officer acting. under the color of the authority of the.

state, of the government. And that's. where the civil rights violations, the. constitutional violations come in, because this is not just I mean, if. there is such a thing an ordinary sexual. assault, this is a sexual assault, according to the plaintiff, accomplished. because she was under the authority of a. police officer, and she was acting with. the fear of things like arrest and. charges. And she makes that statement. about not being charged with. prostitution if she engages in this. The. whole thing is based on her fear, uh, not only of a police officer, but of the. officer's authority and things he could.

do and things he wouldn't do if she. complied. Mhm. And by the way, just to. be clear, the lawsuit says that Evans. then just left, but to be clear, the. investigation didn't rely solely on her. account. The affidavit details the. forensic evidence in this case. Quote, "During the subsequent investigation, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol submitted. Evans' uniform pants to the Oklahoma. State Bureau of Investigation for. forensic testing. OSBI analysts located. a semen stain on the interior surface of. the garment. DNA analysis conclusively.

identified Evans as the major. contributor, and plaintiff could not be. excluded as a contributor to the. secondary profile." John, in the. totality of this, it looks really bad. from a defense perspective. Where do. they go with that? Well, you know, where do you go with. that? There's not much room for a. defense to the charges. Uh, you. certainly have to allege that DNA, uh, could get on clothing from a variety. of ways. And if there was any contact. from the initial stop, that that could. certainly contribute to it. But, I mean, it's just the evidence is overwhelming.

and it's damning. And if you're trying. to defend the civil lawsuit, your best. bet is to try to resolve this thing. through a settlement and just close the. chapter, cuz it's so sordid and it's so. awful for the young woman involved to. have a police officer, the the power of. the state compelling you to do something. like engage in sexual activity, um, and then the officer basically. trying to hide all the evidence, turning. off the camera, and so on. It's almost. an indefensible case from that. perspective. I I mean, I guess they'd. have to explain it was there for some. other reason. Maybe he was.

I don't know, doing something, or maybe. there was somebody else that he was. involved with. I don't know. I don't. want to go down that rabbit hole, but it. obviously, we're talking about it, it's. uh it's an issue. Um, this is. interesting. So, there's then what the. affidavit calls a statement against. interest. And we'll talk about it. But. the lawsuit reveals this apparent text. message. Quote, "Investigators recovered. additional corroborating evidence from a. text message exchange between Evans and. his ex-wife, sent the morning after the. incident. In that message, Evans.

admitted he had, quote, done something. bad, referencing a woman he had pulled. over the prior night." So, John, when we. say a statement against interest, what. do we mean? And B, when we talk about. potential evidence in a case, we talk. about surveillance footage being key, we. talk about forensics, we talk about. witness account. The text messages, right? Those are some of the most. damning because they do go to sometimes. a state of mind, unless you're going to. be arguing someone else had your phone. and sent something. But, a message like.

that, A, what is statement against. interest? And B, what is How powerful is. that message? Right. Well, statement against interest. is as it sounds. It's a statement made. by a party that is against their. potential defenses, that puts them in a. place that is not advantageous to them. And in this case, texting an ex-wife. something like, "I've done something. bad" undercuts any possibility that. there's going to be some sort of. consensual defense to this, that somehow. that this was a an act that both parties. agreed to be in. It shows consciousness. of guilt essentially on the part of the.

sender, on the part of the officer, because you don't say, "I've done. something bad" if you feel like you've. done something good. So, the statement. against interest here is so clear, and. it helps from the plaintiff's. perspective establish that he knew what. he was doing, he knew he'd done. something wrong, and he is documenting. that, uh, to his ex-wife. I got to say. something. I mean, if these allegations. are true, this is a member of law enforcement. They know about evidence. Why would you. put something in text messages like. that? Yeah, that's a that's a question, but.

again, was this the best, uh, trained. and most experienced and smartest police. officer around? No. We know about at. least the allegations of his history. We. know that he had a very cloudy history, to say the least. And so, you do have to. wonder if this officer was thinking. about things clearly, he wouldn't have. done that. But at the same time, if. you're the plaintiff, you're grateful. that he is not the smartest police. officer on the force, and that he's. established a paper trail and a digital. trail that points to his bad acts. So, finally, the lawsuit makes a much.

broader claim. And that is that the OHP. should never have hired or kept Evans. And it points to what it calls a series. of red flags. Quote, "Prior to his. employment, Evans was compelled to. resign from the Grenada, Mississippi. Police Department under circumstances. suggesting misconduct of a potentially. criminal nature. During his training at. the Oklahoma Highway Patrol Academy, Evans negligently. firearm into a wall within the training. facility. This serious incident should.

have triggered further psychological. evaluation. And yet, after the detailed. allegations that we just outlined, the. lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. without prejudice in federal court in. January of this year." Before we even. get to that, how relevant is everything. in the past, John? How relevant is it to. the case? How much of that would. actually be introduced? Because couldn't. you say, you know, you have to have some. sort of connective tissue? Well, if your claim is that, uh, the. state was negligent when they hired and. retained this police officer, you do go.

into the past. You say, "Why were they. negligent? What did they know, and when. did they know it? And if they didn't. know it, should they have known it, and. why didn't they?" So, it goes into the. officer's history, it goes into reasons. why the officer might have been. terminated, it goes into anything that. shows that he was not suitable to be on. the police department. And so, you've. got, if you're the plaintiff, you've got. to dig into reasons why somebody should. have raised the red flag early on and. said, "This person's not suitable. Look. at the history here." And then the. lawsuit alleges somebody made a.

decision, "That's okay. Let's bring him. on. We're okay with that history." And. that's where the negligent hiring comes. in, and that's where the essentially the. allegation of a conspiracy to bring him. on to the force, even though they knew. about the officer's, uh, shady past, according to the lawsuit. So, John, when. they say without prejudice, we know that. that means the plaintiff, you know, can. refile the case in the future. For now, the civil claims against Evans and the. Oklahoma Highway Patrol are on pause. But this felt like a surprising turn, right? Cuz from the outside, it looks.

like a strong case, given the apparent. DNA evidence, the text message, the dash. cam. Why would a plaintiff and their. attorneys choose to voluntarily dismiss. a case like this at this stage? Well, you know, it depends on where you. want to be, federal court versus state. court. There's some strategic reasons. why you might choose one over the other, or there might be discussions going on. that nobody knows about. There's a lot. that potentially could be happening, but. it doesn't seem like the plaintiff is. giving up on the claims. It just seems. like there's something going on that we.

may not necessarily know about. >> And what are your overall thoughts about. the criminal case against him? It's a. strong case. You've got the entirety of. a digital trail in terms of the dash. camera, the timing, you know, officers. are tracked through their work shift. We. know where they were. We've got the. video. We've got the video that the. officer was self-editing. We've got the. statements from the woman and the. investigation. So, the fact is is that. if you are someone whose job is to. enforce the law, if you choose to break. it, it's pretty catastrophic. And there.

are ways to follow up and track that. So, again, the officer, you would think. an officer would not even engage in this. kind of activity, a sworn law. enforcement officer. But like any. profession, there are always going to be. those who do not live up to their, uh, their their mission. John Day, great seeing you. Thanks for. taking the time. Thank you. And that's all we have for. you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining. us. And as always, please subscribe on. YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts.

You can follow me on X or Instagram. >> [music]. >> I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time.