Jeffrey Smith became a Savanna (Oklahoma) Police Department (SPD) police officer in 2022. During his training, he was involved in two incidents that concerned his superiors.
The first involved him being overly friendly and almost flirtatious with a female during a traffic stop. The second involved a traffic stop of a young female for a minor traffic violation. The stop was made despite the police chief’s instruction not to stop drivers for minor violations. Smith also violated SPD policy by failing to radio in the stop. His field training officer warned him that another SPD officer had been federally investigated for sexual misconduct and was serving a federal prison sentence.
Upon completion of his training, Smith was on patrol during the early morning hours of November 2, 2022. He pulled over a vehicle for speeding. During the stop his overhead lights were activated, along with his patrol vehicle dashcam and his bodycam. The stopped vehicle was occupied by a male (J.G.) and a 19-year-old female (K.H.). Smith determined that J.G. had an expired driver’s license and found that K.H. was able to lawfully drive the vehicle.
Smith ordered both occupants to exit the vehicle and issued a traffic citation to J.G. Smith questioned K.H. and learned that she was a professional nightclub dancer. Smith then deactivated his body-worn camera. Rather than allowing them to leave, Smith asked J.G. for consent to search the vehicle. Consent was initially denied but subsequently permitted after Smith said they would need to wait for a K-9 to arrive at the stop location. Smith next searched K.H.’s purse and found a marijuana cigarette inside. He then stopped the search and ordered J.G. to return to his car.
Smith went back to his patrol vehicle and pressed the “stop record” button for the dashcam. Unknown to Smith, the dashcam continued to record without sound when the “stop record” button was activated. Smith ordered K. H. to sit in the patrol car. The dashcam showed that 17 minutes later K.H. returned from the patrol vehicle to J.G.’s vehicle looking subdued and somber.
According to the court, Smith entered the patrol vehicle and asked her very personal unprofessional questions. He forcibly kissed her and stuck his tongue down her throat. He touched her inner leg and painfully grabbed her breast. Smith stuck his hand inside her clothing and penetrated her vagina with his finger. He grabbed her hand and forced her to rub his still covered penis.
Smith’s misconduct was reported to various Oklahoma law enforcement agencies. The investigation resulted in Smith being indicted by a federal grand jury. Charges included sexual assault in violation 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 250 (b)(3) (federal criminal civil rights statutes), and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519. The latter involved Smith falsifying and covering up an SPD record by intentionally deactivating both his bodycam and dashcam prior to his egregious misconduct.
Federal court trial and appellate proceedings
Smith was convicted after a jury trial of all charges. The trial judge sentenced Smith to 480 months (40 years) in federal prison for the civil rights violation and to concurrent 240-month terms on the two falsifying-records counts involving the camera deactivations. Smith appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Smith’s convictions and sentence. [1]
Smith argued on appeal that 18 U.S.C. § 1519 does not prohibit “passive behavior such as failing to record criminal conduct.” The court reviewed the actual language of the statute as follows: “Section 1519 provides: Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States … shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
The court determined “that Mr. Smith’s conduct falls within the scope of this statute because his knowing and intentional deactivation of his recording devices falsified and altered the records created by those devices.” The court explained that SPD policy required Smith to record his complete and entire interaction with the public. The court observed that Smith activated his cameras at the beginning of his interaction with J.G. and K.H. This activation created an official law enforcement record.
The court further noted that Smith subsequently “took deliberate and affirmative steps to manipulate the contents of these recordings by manually deactivating both of his cameras before he began his sexual assault.” In so doing, the sound portion of the dashcam video was silenced and a significant portion of the audio and visual portions of his bodycam was missing. The court concluded by stating that Smith “ensured that key information about his interactions with J.G. and K.H. would be omitted from the official records of the stop. A reasonable jury could find that this conduct constituted a knowing alteration or falsification of ‘any record, document, or tangible object.’” [2]
Lessons learned
This case offers lessons not only about criminal misconduct and record falsification, but also about the importance of recognizing and responding to warning signs during training and supervision.
- Engaging in any kind of sexual misconduct is verboten and must be scrupulously avoided. Failure to do so has dire consequences that include, job termination, police employment decertification, civil lawsuits, and state and federal prosecution. Remember Smith was sentenced to 40 years in federal prison.
- This case involved federal prosecution for violation of federal statutes prohibiting civil rights violations and obstruction of justice. Depending on applicable state law and the facts of a case, similar conduct may also result in state criminal charges.
- This case involved deactivation of cameras to cover up sexual assault. Depending on the facts and whether the statute’s elements are met, similar conduct involving police reports or other official records could also result in liability under § 1519. The statute also covers making false entries into official records.
- Officers and supervisors must be sure that their police reports are honest, completely truthful and submitted without false information.
- Reports must not involve leaving out, omitting, or concealing and covering up police misconduct.
- This matter involved inappropriate conduct by Smith during his training period, involving flirtatious interaction with a female driver. In addition, he stopped another young female for a minor traffic violation and failed to radio in the stop. The latter error in judgment was a direct violation of SPD policy. Both incidents were observed by his training officer. The opinion does not indicate whether the department took formal disciplinary action in response to those incidents.
- Negative conduct by a trainee under observation by a training officer should be taken seriously by police departments. These are red flags that raise serious questions about whether a trainee is suitable for continued employment
Taken together, the case is a reminder that conduct raising concerns about professionalism, boundaries or policy compliance during training should be documented, addressed and evaluated before an officer moves into solo patrol. Field training officers and supervisors have an important responsibility to recognize and report warning signs, and agencies should ensure their hiring, background investigation, field training and supervision processes are thorough, documented and consistent with the responsibility of placing officers in positions of public trust.
References
1. United States v. Jeffrey Scott Smith Jr., No. 25-7019 (10th Cir. July 20, 2026).
2. 18 U.S.C. § 1519
