FLORISSANT, Mo. — An unidentified Florissant police officer made copies of “intimate photographs” on a woman’s phone during a traffic stop earlier this year, according to a lawsuit filed last Friday by the woman and her husband.
The lawsuit said during the stop in February, the officer told the woman her car had a defective tail light. The officer then asked the woman for proof of insurance. She said the officer said she needed to pull it up on her phone.
The woman unlocked her phone and, without her consent, the officer took the phone back to his patrol car. He also disconnected the phone from its Bluetooth pairing with the woman’s car, the lawsuit said.
For at least 10 minutes, the officer was in his patrol car while the woman “anxiously awaited his return and the return of her phone.” When the officer walked back to the woman’s car, he gave her phone back but did not issue a ticket.
About five months later, FBI agents contacted the woman and asked her to identify a photograph of a naked woman that had been blown up and printed out.
“(She) was shocked: the naked photograph was of her; a photo that she had only ever exchanged with her husband,” the lawsuit said.
The FBI told the woman that the photograph of her and other “explicit” photographs were discovered in the possession of a Florissant police officer.
The woman, her husband, and the officer are referred to in the lawsuit by pseudonyms.
“(The officer) had taken (the woman’s) phone under the pretense of a traffic stop and needing her insurance information. (The officer) accessed (the woman’s) private messages, entered the pinned conversation between (the woman) and “My Husband ♥️,” and scrolled years back into (the woman’s) messages, voyeuristically viewing naked photographs of both her and her husband and their intimate messages,” the lawsuit alleged.
The woman said she specifically does not keep any naked photographs in her phone’s camera roll or other photography-related apps to avoid a violation of privacy.
The lawsuit said the woman and her husband have “good reason to believe (the officer) has done the exact same thing to other (people) in Florissant.”
Rick Voytas, the couple's attorney, said they do not feel safe; they feel violated.
"(The officer) shattered their privacy and shook their confidence in those who are supposed to protect and serve. Their most intimate moments are now in possession of an unknown number of persons,” Voytas said.
Florissant police confirmed the officer is no longer employed by the department, adding that it is cooperating with the FBI St. Louis Division, which is leading the investigation.
The couple believe the FBI is leading the investigation because the officer shared the photographs with other people.
Rebecca Wu, a spokeswoman for the FBI’s St. Louis office, said it “declined comment.”
The city of Florissant, also named as a defendant in the lawsuit, “hired (the officer) despite red flags that would indicate that (he) was a depraved predator who should not be policing the community and would demonstrate a threat to the community, particularly young women,” the lawsuit said.
“Florissant has received complaints about (the officer’s) inappropriate behavior in the past and chose to retain him, … especially considering he pulled over multiple young women with pretextual stops, took their unlocked phones back to his police vehicle, and nonconsensually copied their naked photographs.”
The lawsuit said Florissant has purchased insurance through the Missouri Public Entity Risk Management Fund, which would cover the accusations against the city.
The Florissant Police Department said it was “deeply concerned by these allegations and want to assure the community that (it takes) any claim of officer misconduct very seriously.”
“The officer in question is no longer employed by the city of Florissant and there is no indication that any other member of the Florissant Police Department was involved in the alleged misconduct,” spokesman Officer Steve Michael said.
5 On Your Side reached out to Florissant Mayor Tim Lowery and city attorney Jackie Gravis, who both said they had no comment beyond the statement issued by police.
Heidi Saguitan, the director of clinical services and education at Safe Connections, said the organization often works with people whose images were taken without consent.
“It’s very upsetting that someone would not only abuse their power and their position the way this officer did, but then use that to intrude on someone’s personal space and the most intimate relationship of their life,” Suguitan said. “I imagine (the woman) had a huge mix of feelings — everything from embarrassment to rage to having the FBI show up at her door with this image that she had not shared with anyone except for her husband. I’m sure her mind was spinning (and) wondering who all has seen this? How long has this been out there? When did this happen? It’s completely a violation."
Suguitan said the worst thing about the case is that the couple will have to relive what happened each time it’s brought up in court.
“For him to take her photos without her consent and then disseminate them is a Class D felony under Missouri law. How could she have known? It’s an extreme situation, and I think it’s an elaborate plan from an individual. She did nothing wrong. She tried to do everything right, and he still found a way around it,” Suguitan said.