Two Sheriff’s deputies (Deputies Philpot and Cobb with the Dunklin County Sheriff’s Office) responded to a woman lying on the shoulder of a highway. The woman tells the deputies she was fleeing domestic violence. After talking for nearly 18 minutes, the woman, who very clearly appears to be drunk, asks the deputies for a ride away from the pitch black highway. The deputies talk it over and decide they don’t want to. They tell her to just keep walking. The woman pleads with the deputies to taker her to a gas station. But they leave her and tell her to keep walking down the dark road.
13 minutes later, the woman was hit and killed by a tractor trailer. The truck’s dash cam appears to show her purposefully sitting in the middle of the dark road. The State of Missouri is now seeking to discipline both deputies for reckless disregard of a woman who was clearly in need. But according to their lawyer, they did nothing wrong.
Excerpts from the police report that I discuss in the video:
Here the officer explains that they left Michelle Anders on the side of the road with instructions to keep walking, and that eventually she’d “end up in Kennett.”
Here the officer claims that Anders “did not appear to be intoxicated,” which is clearly contradicted by his own statements in the bodycam, as well as by the footage itself, showing Anders to be obviously unstable, confused, slurring her words and acting erratically.
Just below the original police report is a “supplemental” report describing being called back to the scene after Anders was hit and killed by a tractor trailer.
This is an excerpt of the disciplinary complaint against the officers by the Missouri Dept. of Public Safety.
In the Eighth Circuit (applicable in Missouri), as elsewhere for the most part, police officers are generally required to act where they have probable cause to believe that a vulnerable person might walk into danger or commit suicide. If there is evidence suggesting immediate risk or danger, officers must intervene in a manner that is objectively reasonable to prevent harm, or they could face liability for deliberate indifference to a known risk. See Graham v. Barnette, 5 F.4th 872 (8th Cir. 2021).
Media report no. 1 here.
Media report no. 2 here.
For complete context, here’s the full truck driver dash cam, since I only used a brief excerpt in the video.
All officers need accountability, too many take the law into their own hands to benefit themselves