The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

74° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat


Police Beat 11/27/2019: Thanksgiving stuffing

Courtesy UAPD

University of Arizona Police Department officers on the UA campus. 

Studying hard

Honestly, it’s amazing that Police Beat has gone at least two years without an entry about a couple (possibly) having sex in the library. But now that streak is broken.

When two University of Arizona Police Department officers arrived at the Main Library at around 2 a.m. on Nov. 12, they spoke with a library employee who told them that she had caught two people engaging in sexual activity in one of the study rooms. 

The employee told the officers she had been performing a security check of the third floor study rooms when she spotted the pair. The woman was reportedly sitting in a chair, with her face near the man’s pelvic area and was moving her head “back and forth,” according to the employee. The man had his hands on the woman’s head and had his back to the door, the employee further reported.

After making eye contact with the man, the employee quickly walked away. When the pair tried to leave the study room, the employee stopped them and told them that the police were coming, so they could not leave.

When asked, the employee said that she had not seen the man’s penis, but that she was going to be a “witness” and “victim of sexual behavior,” according to the report.

RELATED: Police Beat 11/20/2019: Edgar Allen Go Away

One of the officers then went to speak with the couple, who were sitting on a nearby stairwell. The officer spoke with the woman first, who showed him that she was a UA student.

The woman told the officer that the employee had detained her and her boyfriend when the two were about to take a study break and get food. She also told the couple that the police were on their way.

The student said the employee thought she and her boyfriend were having sex, but that it was a misunderstanding. She then showed the officer she had been sitting backwards in the chair, with her knees on the seat. Her boyfriend had been standing behind her, rubbing her back.

When the officer asked her straight out if they had been having oral sex, the woman told him they had not. She also told him that her boyfriend had never removed his pants, after the officer asked about that as well.

The officer then spoke with the man. The man also said the employee thought he and his girlfriend were engaging in sexual activity in the study room but that they had not been. His retelling of the events matched his girlfriend’s story, in that he said he had been giving her a massage as she kneeled on the chair, according to the report.

Based on the information the officers gathered, no arrests were made. 

Angry MIP

If looks could kill, then smirking might actually be a crime. However, underage drinking is a crime, which means intoxicated students would normally avoid talking to officers, but not in this case.

Two UAPD officers were on “party patrol” on Nov. 15 and on the lookout for any overly rowdy students when they spotted a group of women standing near a white van at around 12:45 a.m. One of the women was yelling curses at the driver while flipping him off.

One of the officers activated the emergency lights on the police car in order to get the yelling woman’s attention. The move stopped the woman from yelling. However, she and a friend approached the officers and told them that the driver was making them feel “uncomfortable.” One of the officers reported that he could smell the odor of alcohol on the women. The friend was also reportedly very unsteady on her feet.

The officers asked the women why the driver was making them uncomfortable. They responded by saying he had “just been waiting there” and that he had said something to them. When pressed, the first woman said that the man had asked them if they were waiting for an Uber.

Her friend then told the officers that the man had done something to them. When the officers asked what she meant, she said, “he smirked at us,” according to the report.

The officers reminded the women that smirking is not a crime and that alcohol could be affecting their perception of reality. After this comment, the friend walked back across the street and the woman soon joined her.

RELATED: Police Beat 11/13/2019: Red blood, yellow paint and underage blues

The officers then approached the students. One of the officers spoke with the friend. According to the officer’s report, the student was clearly, visibly intoxicated. She told him she was 19 years old and that she had been drinking Four Lokos that night.

The officer conducted a field sobriety test, which the friend failed with flying colors, displaying six out of six signs of intoxication.

She repeatedly told the officer that the driver had made her uncomfortable but did not provide any information to indicate that he had done anything suspicious or criminal. She did say she was concerned “because of everything that was going on in the world,” according to the report.

During the officer’s conversation with the friend, the woman who had been shouting repeatedly tried to interrupt them and the officer had to ask her to stop.

The officer ended up referring the friend to the UA Diversion Program. The friend said she understood.

The other officer spoke with the woman who had been cursing the driver. According to the officer’s report, she was noticeably less intoxicated than her friend. Like her friend, the woman also reported that she was 19 years old and smelled of alcohol.

The woman stated she was a pre-law student and thus requested to hear her Miranda Rights. The officers obliged. She told him she had drank beer earlier that night. The officer questioned this and said she smelled like she had been drinking more than beer, which she denied.

The woman also tried to invoke the Good Samaritan rule, which states that a mildly intoxicated person is not penalized for helping a dangerously intoxicated person in an attempt to “get out of trouble,” according to the officer. The officer referred her to the Diversion Program and “must have explained to her 3-5 times what that meant.” 

The driver of the van was not located, as he had picked up a group of riders and left without further incident.

Follow Vanessa Ontiveros on Twitter

More to Discover
Activate Search