A Missouri Cop Stole a Woman's Nude Photos During a Traffic Stop, Lawsuit Claims
Former cop Julian Alcala allegedly stole a woman's nude pictures after he took her phone during a traffic stop.

A former Florissant, Missouri police officer is facing accusations that he pulled over a woman during traffic stops and stole nude photos off her cell phone—and allegedly committed similar offenses against at least seven other women.
A lawsuit filed this week by one of the women alleges that Julian Alcala, then an officer with the Florissant Police Department pulled over a woman—identified only as "G.E.S."—for a broken taillight on two separate occasions earlier this year. During these stops, Alcala asked for G.E.S.'s proof of insurance. When she told him it was on her cell phone, he took her phone back to his car, where he searched her phone for nude photos. When he found them, he took photos of them with his own cell phone and later distributed these photos to others.
The lawsuit states that there are at least seven other victims of similar thefts of intimate photos. While Alcala is no longer employed with the Florissant Police Department according to local news station KOMU, it is unclear whether he resigned or was fired.
G.E.S.'s lawsuit argues that Alcala obviously and grossly violated her constitutional rights to privacy.
"The right to privacy is embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment and includes an individual's interest in avoiding disclosures of personal matters. The obtaining of G.E.S.'s pictures and the dissemination of those pictures was either a shocking degradation and/or an egregious humiliation of her to further some specific state interest, and/or a flagrant breach of a pledge of confidentiality which was instrumental in obtaining the personal information."
The suit adds that, while G.E.S. gave Alcala her phone, she still "had a legitimate expectation that the information would remain confidential while in Alcala's possession."
However, the lawsuit will have to surmount stringent qualified immunity protections that shield officers from civil liability, even in cases of egregious misconduct—such as Alcala's alleged actions.
"The right to be free of an unreasonable search of unclothed photos on a cell phone by government actors, for no legitimate government purpose…is so egregious that any reasonable officer would have realized that searching Plaintiff's phone for photos of herself unclothed would offend the Constitution," the suit reads. "So no prior case with the same fact pattern is required to meet the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis."
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time that a police officer has stolen intimate photos off women's phones. In 2014, a group of California police officers came under investigation for engaging in a "game" of stealing nude photos from arrested women's phones.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Did she get off? He apparently he did.
His supervisor told him he needed to get more busts so he did.
Former cop...
While Alcala is no longer employed with the Florissant Police Department according to local news station KOMU, it is unclear whether he resigned or was fired.
You should find out before saying he's a "former" police officer. Because unless what he did was against department policy, and I highly doubt what he did violated department policy, he most likely resigned and got hired by another department in the same day.
Ideas ™ !
Or you could perform a simple web search and get some of those questions answered:
https://www.komu.com/news/state/florissant-cop-accused-of-stealing-nude-photos-is-sued-in-federal-court/article_06e50cc5-be68-5b32-92fb-8fc62ee66b12.html
His last day with the Florissant police was June 6. The city did not specify if he resigned or was fired.
Alcala could not be reached Tuesday for comment.
Missouri's Peace Officer Standards and Training said on Tuesday he had permanently surrendered his Class A peace officer license.
A Florissant police department spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Yes , the cops are scum. Also, don't put nudes of yourself on your phone, what are you mental ? 2nd also, don't give the cops your phone in the first place. Print a paper proof of insurance and use that.
Damn straight. Every time I read of digital proof of insurance or digital driving licenses or digital passports, I wonder where all those gullible people came from. Even if you could bring up the one picture and lock it, I still wouldn't trust my phone in government hands.
A cop can’t take your wallet, why can he take your phone?
Not to defend the police, but we're at possibly the most threadbare minimum of the definition of 'stole' here; to the point of the word having lost any meaning.
He didn't even really embezzle or misappropriate the photos. Which isn't to say that it's right or should be legal but...
Stupid games, stupid prizes.
I hope you aren't a copyright defender, with that attitude.
A cop can't take your entire wallet but a cop can take your license and proof of insurance to verify them. With paper, you pull them out and hand them to the cop and off she goes to enter key details into the cop car's computer to verify that they're still valid. With a phone, you've chosen to comingle your legal documents with your personal files. You're not really giving the cop a choice but to take your phone back to the car with her.
So, yeah, you made a choice and you have to live with the consequences of that choice. Which reinforces Liberty's point - don't make that choice in the first place. Print the damn things out and keep them in your glovebox like a sane person.
Third, password or code, anyone? Don't use fingerprint, that can be forced. It is known...
All valid points. I've never understood why women (or men, for that matter) take and send nude photographs. Phones now automatically upload pictures to various places, If you have Microsoft 365, Bill can look at your ladybits. Google stores them, and usually the phone manufacturer has their own cloud. And the NSA sees them all, if they choose to.
The police can see your phone as soon as you see a court order signed by a judge demanding you hand it over. Until then, there ain't no way. And as soon it does happen, the very next person you speak to better be an attorney.
Don't keep your insurance card on your phone.
This is not blaming the victim, Officer Bill Clinton here is WAY in the wrong and should be fired and get an extra-legal ass-kicking from her brother. But you have got to be smarter than this.
OK, full stop. Why would you leave your nude photos laying around for someone to steal in the first place?
FFS.
OK, I'll go read the article now.
Wait, it's Emma Camp. Well.... read the article or drink a bunch of antifreeze. The result will be the same. Decisions decisions...
G.E.S.'s lawsuit argues that Alcala obviously and grossly violated her constitutional rights to privacy.
She literally handed him the phone without any qualifications.
The suit adds that, while G.E.S. gave Alcala her phone, she still "had a legitimate expectation that the information would remain confidential while in Alcala's possession."
That's stupid. It's like consenting to a cop to enter your home. Whatever he sees while he's there, that you've left out in the open and accessible, is fair game.
This is why you don't consent to things like letting a cop into your home or phone without a warrant.
Now, that being said (first let me fix this Emma Camp BS...):
When he [ALLEGEDLY] found them, he [ALLEGEDLY] took photos of them with his own cell phone and later distributed these photos to others.
That's messed up. And actionable. 100% preventable, sure - but people, especially women, are so unforgivably stupid these days. But that doesn't make the cop's alleged actions justified.
That said, if he'd found pics of her dealing drugs or known criminals in her contact list (because I'll bet he checked that out too), I don't see how she has a Constitutional Rights claim there. She gave him the phone without any qualifications.
Don't do that.
And FFS, don't store nudes on your phone. What's wrong with people.
I have some dick pics on my phone if you want them. They aren’t of me but of Rachel Levine and Mike Obama.
Actually, send me those.
Hey Grok...
You better show ID if you want to look at porn.
I don't. I want to hand them directly over to an AI to do fun stuff with them.
OMG, how much fun that would be.
I’m pretty sure the pictures weren’t already pulled up when she handed the cop the phone. That means the cop had to affirmatively close the app that showed her proof of insurance and start opening new drawers and files to find the nudes. That’s not “in plain sight”.
If a cop comes to your door in response to your noise complaint and you consent for the cop to come into your house to get out of the rain, that does not imply consent for the cop to start opening closets or flipping over sofa cushions.
That’s not “in plain sight”.
Is on an unlocked phone. Just like an unlocked room.
The cop didn’t go opening closets or flipping sofa cushions. He looked at what the idiot gave him unfettered and unlimited access to.
This very clearly falls under the category of, “Know your rights, moron.”
The cop didn’t go opening closets or flipping sofa cushions. He looked at what the idiot gave him unfettered and unlimited access to.
Not true. The officer asked for specific information and it happened to be on her phone. Unless the background of the phone was of her in the nude, he would have had to open other applications to find the files he allegedly copied. What probable cause existed for that to be permissible?
If a cop asks to use the bathroom and you allow it, that doesn't constitute permission for him to open doors to other rooms and conduct a search.
Ross said it best already: With a phone, you’ve chosen to comingle your legal documents with your personal files. You’re not really giving the cop a choice but to take your phone back to the car with her.
You hand the cop your unlocked phone with no stated limitations. How can you possibly think that an expectation of privacy still exists there?
If a cop asks to use the bathroom and you allow it, that doesn’t constitute permission for him to open doors to other rooms and conduct a search.
He's not conducting a search. He's seeing what's in plain view. Everything on your unlocked phone which you consented to him looking at and using.
You hand the cop your unlocked phone with no stated limitations. How can you possibly think that an expectation of privacy still exists there?
You don't have to express limitations, as the act of handing a cell phone over at the cop's request of specific information is not tacit consent to search the entire phone.
Even the government itself concedes this.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/10/remarklable-new-fifth-circuit-decision-limiting-cell-phone-searches/
He’s not conducting a search. He’s seeing what’s in plain view. Everything on your unlocked phone which you consented to him looking at and using.
Provide a court case that supports this assertion.
Are you stupid? High, maybe? Probable cause? You really think he's going to defend what he did by claiming he had probable cause to do so?
No, that's you trying to misapply that case to the present circumstances. The cop wasn't looking for evidence of a crime without probable cause. He was looking to exploit the fact that she handed him her phone.
If you've got your insurance card right there next to your nudes, that's you being a dumb idiot. Plain and simple.
You're either being intentionally obtuse about how cell phones work, or intentionally obtuse about handing one to a cop.
You know what cops have on them? A pen and a small notebook. Flash them your insurance card on your phone and tell them to write it down. Don't give them carte blanche access to your cellphone.
The Court: Do you say you’re entitled to everything inside that phone so long as you can look at anything inside the phone?
The Government: No, your Honor.
Provide a court case that supports your position that everything on a cell phone falls under the plain view doctrine.
The cop wasn’t looking for evidence of a crime without probable cause. He was looking to exploit the fact that she handed him her phone.
It’s possible that the cop was doing both and just didn’t find any evidence of a crime. Regardless, the idea that every bit of data on an unlocked phone is somehow ‘in plain view’ is not supported by any legal case of which I am aware, since the information on computers are not considered in plain view either, even when the computer is on and accessible. Only what appears on the screen at the time of a search is considered in plain view. And if you want to claim a smartphone and computer are different, let’s hear that too. But as it stands your choice to use the word 'exploit' seems to suggest that you agree the cop did something illegal or unethical, yes?
You’re either being intentionally obtuse about how cell phones work, or intentionally obtuse about handing one to a cop.
I agree it’s an error to assume a cop would not be unscrupulous and would operate within the law.
Too late to edit the above post, but I do see where you said the cop’s behavior was ‘messed up’ and actionable. It just also happens to be illegal.
Friggin' reason.
Sloppy reporting, Reason. First of all, was she hot? Second, we here in the peanut gallery need to see examples in order to verify their authenticity.
" . . . local news station KOMU . . . "
KOMU is in Columbia, MO. Florissant is in St. Louis. They are about as local as a station in Newport News reporting on the Baltimore police department.