Police

Cincinnati Cop Charged in Teen Sex Scandal May Not be Only Officer Involved

|

policeprostitutionandpolitics.com

In 2013, Cincinnati Police Officer Darrell Beavers was indicted on felony charges related to his use of fake police substations to conduct an inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old girl. Now the city is investigating whether Beavers was the only officer involved. 

Beavers, 45, is a 12-year veteran of the Cincinnati Police Department (CPD) who previously played NFL football for the Philadelphia Eagles and the Kansas City Chiefs. Last December, Beavers was indicted on one count of tampering with evidence, one count of theft in office, and four counts of "illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material." Beavers met the minor in question as a community liasion for the Cincinnati Police Explorer program, which bills itself as "experiential learning with lots of fun-filled, hands-on activities that promote the growth and development of adolescent youth." 

Though Beavers denies having sexual intercourse with the teenager, he did "send and receive 650 sexually explicit photos and texts" with her before "destroying an incriminating cell phone once he knew he was being investigated," according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. The girl's stepfather discovered the material on her phone and alerted the CPD. In June 2014, Beavers pled guilty to receiving nude photos from a minor and tampering with evidence.

Beavers' offenses, however, allegedly go beyond an inappropriate relationship. Investigators say he convinced two apartment building owners to provide rent-free space for police substations, which he said would be used to monitor drug and prostitution activity in the area.

Instead, police found evidence the fake substation was used for sexcapades. … Once (he) had the apartment, it was adorned with an official Cincinnati Police logo as well as beds, bedding, personal lubricants, pornographic videos and a police-owned night-vision camera to record events that were happening in the dark.

"We also found several indications that the two beds in the (fake substation) were used frequently for sexual activity," (Sgt. David) Schofield said.

As part of Beavers' plea deal, the "theft in office" charge stemming from these fake substations was dropped, allowing Beavers to retain his police pension. He was sentenced to one year in prison, added to the state sex-offender registry, and ordered to pay the building owners he bilked $9,615 in rent and utilities.  

The "indications" of sexual activity Schofield spoke of is a polite way of saying they found semen on the sheets. But when Beavers pled guilty, CPD closed the case, never testing the bedding for DNA evidence. After the Cincinnati Enquirer began raising questions, however, the department decided to reopen the case to investigate whether other officers were involved.

According to Mariann Hock, landlord at one of "substation" buildings, several uniformed and plainclothes officers came and went from the apartment, along with "a couple of females." Residents of the other building say they also saw multiple officers coming and going from the fake substations. 

"He was here regularly," (Aarik) Ford said. "I saw him take two girls into the apartment … I seen him at least twice with (other) officers and at least twice with girls going into the substation."

Darlene Etter, another resident of the French QuarterApartments and a city of Cincinnati crossing guard, watched Beavers put up the decal in the complex window indicating it was a City of Cincinnati police substation. Her son saw even more. "He said he seen girls down there," Etter said. "He said it looked like they (were) down there drinking."

"People already don't trust police officers and when you do that, it makes it worse. It makes you wonder, are all the cops like that?"

Cincinnati police wondered if other officers were involved in Beavers' scam. They asked him several times to talk to them about that but he refused. "It was their belief that there are other Cincinnati police officers (who) have used, were using the so-called substation for other activity other than police work," Carl Lewis, Beavers' attorney said. "My client was not in a position to give them any information."

The one time Beavers shows any hint of integrity, it's to avoid ratting out other potentially crooked cops. Lovely. 

Cincinnati Police Chief Jeffrey Blackwell told the Enquirer CPD "would be willing to exhaust any investigatory procedure to get a complete picture." However, even if the bedding turns up DNA from folks other than Beavers, the department is unlikely to pinpoint co-conspirators since it can't just demand officers submit to a DNA test without probable cause. 

NEXT: Before You Fly Remember the TSA's 12 Banned Items of Christmas

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He gets to keep his goddamn pension?

    Jesus.

  2. the Cincinnati Police Explorer program, which bills itself as “experiential learning with lots of fun-filled, hands-on activities that promote the growth and development of adolescent youth.”

    Talk about truth in advertising.

  3. So has ENB taken over for Balko on the nut-punching front?

    1. I think we’re all on that beat.

      1. Ow

  4. “experiential learning with lots of fun-filled, hands-on activities that promote the growth and development of adolescent youth.”

    I’m sure there’s several good jokes in there, but I just can’t today. I’m gonna go ice down my nuts.

  5. As part of Beavers’ plea deal, the “theft in office” charge stemming from these fake substations was dropped, allowing Beavers to retain his police pension.

    Rat out bad cops and you lose your pension. Fuck teenagers on the clock and you keep it. Go figure.

  6. We should keep a list of crimes that police officers can commit that actually result in firings and/or actual criminal charges and crimes that they can commit with impunity.

    We already know murder, shooting dogs, taking property and wrong house raids are all A-OK.

  7. However, even if the bedding turns up DNA from folks other than Beavers, the department is unlikely to pinpoint co-conspirators since it can’t just demand officers submit to a DNA test without probable cause.

    You’ve got witnesses, you’ve got work schedules. Or, you could just ask for volunteers. The ones who don’t are the ones you can concentrate on, and it would be very interesting to see how well cops cooperate with a criminal investigation, no?

    You’ve got plenty to develop probable cause with. If you care to try, anyway.

    Incredible, isn’t it, how the rabid pursuit of child molesters becomes more, I dunno, mild, when the suspects are all cops.

    1. Yeah, not sure if it’s clear from my paragraph, but that was what the police chief was saying. I was thinking exactly what you said, that there’s probably enough (considering there were eyewitnesses, and only certain cops working with Beavers, etc.) to have probably cause if they do get DNA evidence

      1. This part makes me think they are just looking for reasons to let the investigation die:

        the department is unlikely to pinpoint co-conspirators since it can’t just demand officers submit to a DNA test without probable cause.

        “Welp, we can’t ask for DNA because we don’t have probable cause. Guess we’re done here.”

        Put a team on it. Tell them that if they don’t come up with matches for the other DNA, they’ll be walking beats.

        1. Oh, of course they want to let the investigation die. Do you think any of the other cops have perfectly clean hands? Cop sociopathy ends when they can start to see how they might get in big trouble, and that’s why they actually have empathy, but only for other cops.

          They all know that many or most of them could also be fucked by being too closely looked into. Best to let things blow over like they’d hope would be done for them if they were in his position.

          1. Once again, Epi nails it.

    2. Can’t they send in a semen-sniffer dog to bark and create probable cause?

  8. The one time Beavers shows any hint of integrity, it’s to avoid ratting out other potentially crooked cops. Lovely.

    Well, yeah. That would have cost him his pension.

  9. “hands on”

    fap fap fap

  10. “Beavers”… heh heh.

    1. Beat me to it, asshole!

        1. Hey Beavis. His name is Beavers. Get it? Beavers. Hehehehehehe…

  11. It makes you wonder, are all the cops like that?

    Many are worse; much, much worse.
    This guy never even killed anybody (as far as we are aware).

    1. Also as far as we can tell he didn’t rape the girl and threaten to kill her family if she told.

  12. If this were a crash pad being used by anybody other than cops, do you think they would have waited over a year to start investigating who might be involved?

    The double standard just keeps on giving. Make sure the crooked cop keeps his pension even after a felony conviction. Make sure the most elementary investigations are not done at all, or until too late. Make sure the investigation is so lackadaisical that you can’t even come up with probable cause to ask for DNA samples.

    Nothing else happens because a lot of people go out of their way to make sure nothing else happens.

  13. I think we’re all on that beat.

    “BEAT”

    Get it? Nyuck nyuck nyuck.

    Those nuts were made for punching

    and that’s just what she’ll do

    One of these days your nuts`will get

    a brutal punching, too!

  14. Darrel Beavers

    Ok, that’s it, I can’t take this story seriously now.

  15. One other thing:

    Who (other than a cop) gets a frickin’ plea deal without ratting out their cohorts in crime? Jeebus on toast, this thing reeks, and the feeble attempts at backstroking now that its in public don’t really dispel the stench.

    1. The. System. Is. Beyond. Repair.

      1. I dunno. Abolish the unions and take away immunity, and things might change a bit for the better. Not that either of those things will ever happen. So yeah, you’re right.

        1. Abolish the unions and take away immunity

          can’t be done.

          Police unions are backed by the unholy alliance of tough-on-crime conservatives and labor-uber-alles liberals.

          1. Hang on there. Are conservatives really pro-union when it comes to police? I’m not so sure. In fact, this might be a good issue to change this whole topic in a libertarian direction. Is some sort of legislative fix possible, short of abolishing police unions?

            One of the reasons I liked the Postrel-era Reason was that the articles often seemed to focus on doable, real-world libertarian-oriented solutions. I realize that it’s in the nature of a blog to just have short posts, but it still seems that there’s a lot more complaining and a lot less solving going on around here.

            1. Are conservatives really pro-union when it comes to police?

              They’re blindly and reflexively pro-cop, and that’s close enough.

              Remember who Scott Walker protected from his union reforms in Wisconsin?

              That’s right. Cops.

              1. No, I think that was a tactical move. He didn’t want to bite off too much at once. I believe Kasich tried that and failed in Ohio. I’m pretty sure Walker would not have exempted police and firemen if he didn’t think that was needed to successfully tackle the other public unions.

                1. Even as a tactical move, it shows that cop unions have wide political support.

            2. DRINK!!!1!1111!

        2. And don’t forget that cops can and do go after opponents with DUI charges and anything else they can get to stick.

          1. They’re thugs, and if you fuck with their special status, they will go after you like thugs. They’re entrenched at this point, dug in like ticks. Dislodging them is near to impossible.

    2. Who (other than a cop) gets charged with “illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material” as opposed to production of child pornography?

      1. good catch

      2. Elected officials?

        1. Elected officials?

          I’m not sure that even most of them could get away with it.

          1. Elected officials don’t have a union to protect them. They have to resign in disgrace when this sort of thing happens.

          2. For you, Heroic: Virginia politican convicted of sex with minor has to spend nights in jail, but free during day.

            And this is not to say that all of them can get away with this, but this is a particularly egregious example. Merry Xmas.

      3. I’m kind of amazed that that is the name of a crime at all. “Use of a minor”?

        1. My guess is that crime was created to cover cases where someone photoshops a kids face on a nude adult model or in other way implies that the minor was involved in a porn production as opposed to actual pornographic pictures of a minor

  16. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..ys-1-.html

    The first step is putting the bell on the cat.

    We need lots of rich, white liberals to start pushing really, really hard on getting body cameras on cops.

    1. The body camera thing has potential but I fear most will suddenly and mysteriously “malfunction” right when they are most necessary.

      1. It is a start.

        And the technology exists to make the cameras tamper proof and to spool off videos to secure servers.

        When the cameras become pervasive, the police will have difficulty getting rid of all the ugly evidence. Recordings of egregious cases will continue to disappear. But the first step in reform is proving to middle class white people that misconduct is pervasive and not just a few isolated incidents.

        1. That technology exists, but you can be damned sure it won’t be implemented.

      2. And the answer to,that is to,make it an a cepted part of law, through legislationor rulings from the bench, that if there Should be video and there isn’t, absent one hell of a good explaination “the suspect shot me in my camera, that’s why I’m in all these bandages” the cops testimony is discounted.

      3. You need cameras and a presumption that if the cameras are broken then the cop is lying.

  17. Investigators say he convinced two apartment building owners to provide rent-free space for police substations, which he said would be used to monitor drug and prostitution activity in the area.

    If the cops ever approached me about using any of my rentals (rent-free no less!) for police purposes I would tell them to kindly fuck off. This whole story is just awful.

    1. Who would just let them use it for free? I suspect that the property owners either had something hanging over them that went away or got some other special treatment out of the deal.

      1. … or got some other special treatment out of the deal.

        Maybe like getting to bang a 17 year old girl with the approval of local law enforcement?

      2. The landlord quoted in the Enquirer article said she was glad he would keep away “drug dealers and prostitutes”

    2. If the cops ever approached me about using any of my rentals (rent-free no less!) for police purposes I would tell them to kindly fuck off.

      There’s a lot that they can do to make your life miserable if you choose not to “cooperate.”

    3. Isn’t that a violation of the 3rd Amendment? Is nothing sacred?!

      1. It should be, but that 3rd Amendment case out west is still hanging fire.

  18. OK, fuck it, two things:

    1. As part of Beavers’ plea deal, the “theft in office” charge stemming from these fake substations was dropped, allowing Beavers to retain his police pension. He was sentenced to one year in prison

    How in the hell can a public employee do something so serious as to go to jail for a goddamn year and still keep their pension?

    2. The “indications” of sexual activity Schofield spoke of is a polite way of saying they found semen on the sheets.

    This is H&R, Elizabeth. We were pretty much up to speed there already.

    1. This is H&R, Elizabeth. We were pretty much up to speed there already.

      In fact, SugarFree has already covered this in his exciting installment of Warty Hugeman and the Doomcock of Doom Versus The Jizzinatti Police.

      1. He never lets us down!

  19. How do you make a plea deal that doesnt involve him turning over everyone involved? Who the fuck approved that?

    1. Uh, his buddies who investigated and prosecuted.

  20. The body camera thing has potential but I fear most will suddenly and mysteriously “malfunction” right when they are most necessary.

    In P Brooks -topia, “The camera malfunctioned” would be strictly interpreted as an admission of guilt.

  21. Your lunch time derp- a comment from my local paper

    “That’s the great thing about Christianity. In Islam you will convert or die, and in Christianity God allows you the choice of life eternal or death in hell, but it’s all up to you.”

    which can easily be rearranged to:

    “That’s the great thing about Islam. In Christianity, you either believe or go to hell, and in Islam the choice is convert or die, but it’s all up to you.”

    http://www.timesrecordnews.com…..stmas-tree

    1. The difference is between being subject to eternal damnation in the afterlife and being subject to painful execution right the fuck now.

      It was terribly worded, though, if that was indeed the point the author was trying to make.

    2. And in Islam (traditionally, for the most part) it isn’t even convert or die (unless you are converting from Islam, in which case it is convert and die). More convert or pay this special tax.

      1. Only Jews and Christians get the jizya option. Everyone else gets the convert, die, or flee ultimatum.

        In India, the rule was relaxed since there were so many Hindus.

        1. In India, the rule was relaxed since there were so many Hindus.

          Shah Jahan was always such a softie.

          1. Shah Jahan Akbar was always such a softie.

        2. Yeah, Islam blows. I’m just trying to encourage some peace and ecumenicism or something.

          It’s not like Christians never killed people for believing the wrong thing. They just mostly learned to relax and not take it all so seriously. I mean, you aren’t meant to take that shit literally, are you?

          1. It’s not like Christians never killed people for believing the wrong thing. They just mostly learned to relax and not take it all so seriously. I mean, you aren’t meant to take that shit literally, are you?

            When was the last time a Christian crusader gave a non-Christian people the choice between the cross and the sword? What 200-300 years?

            Islamists are doing it RIGHT FUCKING NOW in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

            You can take your moral equivalence arguments and shove them squarely up your stupid fucking ass.

      2. More convert or pay this special tax.

        Only for the Ahl-i-Kitab (People of the Book), “polytheists and idol worshipers” such as Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, etc. are only given the choice to convert or die.

        And now you know…

  22. Before we go all pichforks and torches, the young woman IS above the age of consent, is she not? I mean, the cops is VERY PROBABLY a scumbag, anyway, but if the relationship would be legal absent the “on the clock” and ell-phine pictures aspect, I’m not sure how much outrage I really feel. I’m one hell of a lot more,concerned with coos arresting people for taking pictures, or beating the hell out of them because FYTW.

    1. the young woman IS above the age of consent, is she not?

      Not for producing, possessing, and/or distributing “explicit sexual images”.

      1. Which is weird in and of itself. You are of,age to participate in an activity, but cannot legally take pictures of yourself doing so? How does that accord with theFirst Amendment?

      2. Or if he is an authority figure, like they do with lady teachers who bang their 18-year-old syudents…

        Beavers met the minor in question as a community liasion for the Cincinnati Police Explorer program

    2. Two teenagers may lawfully have sex with each other if they are above the age of consent. If either or both of them take an explict photo of their legal sexual encounter, they can both be charge with making and possessing child pornography and will certainly wind up on sex offender lists for the rest of their lives.

      As HM notes, it is extraordinary that a 45-year-old man was not charged with production and possession of child pornography.

      1. It’s an incredibly stupid aspect of the law that someone considered an adult for the purpose of sexual consent isn’t for the purposes of consenting to making sexy images. Pictures of a 17 year old having sex are not by any reasonable standard child pornography.

        But in the case of a cop apparently abusing power, I’m not getting too worked up. He chose a career in law enforcement, he gets to have a taste of how it is to be on the other side. And using the position to seduce 17 year old girls is pretty scummy, so fuck ’em.

        1. Yeah, normally it’s like, 17, okay, but.. he met her at a program for teens to learn about law enforcement that he was helping run. That’s fucked up

          1. He was teaching her that one of the perks of enforcing the law is that you can break it with impunity.

          2. Yeah, normally it’s like, 17, okay, but.. he met her at a program for teens to learn about law enforcement that he was helping run. That’s fucked up

            I love when ENB talks all gangsta and shit!

          3. Who do you think is going to volunteer for such a program?

            Create positions of power/opportunity, and the worst possible people will gravitate to them. It always happens.

          4. Did he get her attention by catcalling her? Because if so, that would change everything.

            1. EAP giggled.

          5. Yup, no doubt, he’s a scumbag. But he’s a scumbag I’m far less conserned about than the keystone kops gone Rambo who tossed a flashbang into a crib, and who are apparently keepin their jobs.

            1. The abuse comes from the same root stock, it’s just a difference of degree.

        2. The problem is the same pig who violates that stupid law would enforce it to the hilt if YOU were the one bagging a 17-year-old.

          Personally, I think cops should be held to a higher standard than the general public – as in, any convicted of a crime should automatically have the greater of 1 year or 50% added to their sentences.

  23. Cell-phone pictures. I am never going to bet the hang of a virtual keyboard. I can barely type with a real one.

  24. The one time Beavers shows any hint of integrity, it’s to avoid ratting out other potentially crooked cops. Lovely.

    This seems a rather idiosyncratic definition of integrity. If what he was doing was wrong, which the plea deal at least tacitly concedes (if that applies to the rest of us, then it applies to cops), then isn’t the act of integrity to acknowledge the wrongdoing of others that you were complicit in concealing?

    Or are we applying an omerta conception of integrity?

    1. Omerta is probably the kindest word for it.

  25. One bit of irony:

    “…, added to the state sex-offender registry, …”

    In Ohio, someone can be added to the registry without being convicted of a sex crime.

    1. Public urination can get you added to sex-offender registries in some states.

      1. The sex offender regustry is an absurdity. It has been diluted to the point where it serves no good purpose, but it still ruins lives. The idiot who thought it up needs to be keelhauled.

      2. Tells you what those states’ legislators fetishize.

  26. In 2013, Cincinnati Police Officer Darrell Beavers

    wait, no… c’mon.

    1. It’s all about the beavers…

  27. So this was a Big Store grift?

  28. Why hasn’t he been charged under the Federal “kiddie porn” laws?

    According to the DOJ web site:

    ” Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.
    Federal law prohibits the production, distribution, reception, and possession of an image of child pornography using or affecting any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce (See 18 U.S.C. ? 2251; 18 U.S.C. ? 2252; 18 U.S.C. ? 2252A). Specifically, Section 2251 makes it illegal to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for purposes of producing visual depictions of that conduct. Any individual who attempts or conspires to commit a child pornography offense is also subject to prosecution under federal law.
    Federal jurisdiction is implicated if the child pornography offense occurred in interstate or foreign commerce. This includes, for example, using the U.S. Mails or common carriers to transport child pornography across state or international borders. Additionally, federal jurisdiction almost always applies when the Internet is used to commit a child pornography violation. …

  29. (cont.)
    Even if the child pornography image itself did not traveled across state or international borders, federal law may be implicated if the materials, such as the computer used to download the image or the CD Rom used to store the image, originated or previously traveled in interstate or foreign commerce.
    In addition, Section 2251A of Title 18, United States Code, specifically prohibits any parent, legal guardian or other person in custody or control of a minor under the age of 18, to buy, sell, or transfer custody of that minor for purposes of producing child pornography.
    Lastly, Section 2260 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits any persons outside of the United States to knowingly produce, receive, transport, ship, or distribute child pornography with intent to import or transmit the visual depiction into the United States.
    Any violation of federal child pornography law is a serious crime, and convicted offenders face severe statutory penalties. For example, a first time offender convicted of producing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. ? 2251, face fines and a statutory minimum of 15 years to 30 years maximum in prison. “

  30. Dude iW ould be tearing that teen tale up if I could too! Got a great blowjob at the mall a couple months ago from some hottie for $50.

    http://www.AnonWayz.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.