In our opinion the CDA Press story (Page C1 Feb. 9) was not balanced and because the staff writers were not in the courtroom much of what they said only gives a very slanted, biased story supporting in totality the CDA Police.

The fact in this case is, and it is in the trial record that the CDA police officer did admit to going up under the plaintiff, our daughter's skirt and touching her bare buttocks and vagina. It is a fact. It is also a fact that he admitted doing that more than once in his testimony. The fact that he did touch her as she says he did is clearly not reflected by Randy Adams when he states that "We're very pleased, of course, that the jury found that officer Reneau acted appropriately during the arrest." But did he? Really? If you were in the courtroom I contend that you very well might form a different opinion solely based on his Training Officer (Reneau's) personal testimony of what acting appropriately means!

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution provides that all people are to be free from unreasonable search of their persons. In this case, Ms. Reighard alleges that Training Officer Reneau violated her Fourth Amendment rights when on or about August 6, 2008, he conducted a search of her person in an unreasonable manner by intentionally touching her unclothed buttocks and vagina.

The officer claimed that he did not do that intentionally. But as stated earlier did admit to touching her again on her bare skin in the manner alleged by Ms. Reighard. The Training Officer's initial defense was that it was not skin to skin but his glove to her skin. Would whether it was glove or skin really lessen the humiliating intrusion on her person and breach of her constitutional rights?

Ask yourself this: How could any reasonable person take his or her hand and travel approximately 10 -14 inches up a bare leg to the groin area and touch both the buttocks and vagina without intent? Did he have a muscular disability that allowed his hand to override his brain? Both officers and Mr. Adams tried to justify this behavior by saying that she could have had a weapon under her dress.

In this case the Judge ruled that touching in a pat down was legal ONLY on the exterior clothing. This would rule out the Training Officer being allowed to go under the dress. Period. The presiding Federal Judge in this trial ruled that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution provides that all people are to be free from unreasonable search of their person. In this case, Ms. Reighard alleges that Training Officer Reneau violated her Fourth Amendment rights when on or about August 6, 2008, he conducted a search of her person in an unreasonable manner by intentionally touching her unclothed private body areas.

The Fourth Amendment as interpreted in this case states: "The Constitution and laws of the United States prohibits unreasonable searches of a person's private body areas. An intentional touching of a person's private body parts, in this case her buttocks and vagina, during a search incident to an arrest would constitute a violation of the law prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures."

Again, in this case the Judge ruled that touching in a pat down was legal ONLY on the exterior clothing. This would rule out the Training Officer being allowed to go under the dress. Period.

In jury instructions the judge ruled very clearly that "under the circumstances of this case, the search of Ms. Reighard was limited to the pat down search of her exterior clothing such as her skirt and blouse. At the scene of arrest, the law does not permit the placing of hands inside the exterior clothing and the touching of undergarments which are inside the exterior clothing of the person arrested unless a pat down of the exterior clothing indicates that a weapon or foreign object is concealed in underclothing." In this case it did not reveal such objects.

So, it was VERY clear to everyone in the courtroom that Training Officer Reneau did touch Ms. Reighard where she said he did.

The question you all need to ask yourselves now is should a Trainee (Reneau) after hearing his training officer speculate that the passenger in the car may have "been getting his finger dirty" and doing an exterior pat down as described and limited by the law above and having found NO objects that would have allowed him to go beneath her exterior be allowed to claim he didn't intend to violate her rights?

This case is clearly much more than what the CDA Press reporters (who by the way were not in the courtroom) printed in the paper. It is also clear, to those sitting in that courtroom listening to the entire proceedings, that Mr. Adams and the City of CDA for some reason feel the need to retry this case in the court of public opinion after having for now just prevailed in court. It is unconscionable to us that any caring individual after having eyewitnessed how this incident crushed our daughter (who was telling the truth) could ever feel the need to gloat over their victory earned on not the truth but a technicality.

We were in the courtroom for the entire trial and it is appalling to us that the City attorney feels compelled to paint only one side of the issue and neglects to mention the things the Police did wrong. Is it more important to be 100% right even when you too are complicit in the situation?

As a final note the Judge did admonish the Defense, Police Department and the several uniformed Police officers present in the courtroom by offering some very wise, well thought out suggestions as to how they should re-think their procedures, training and interaction with honest, decent taxpaying citizens.

This case may not be over and may be appealed. We are very proud of Natalie and what she accomplished by having the character and strength to stand up for her and all of our Constitutional rights. She held firm to her belief that the way she was treated was wrong and it should never be allowed to happen again to other innocent citizens. Maybe your children or loved ones?

Remember we all are human beings and God wants us to treat others as they would want to be treated.

I would like to thank the CDA Press and especially Mike Patrick for giving us the opportunity to let you hear the other side to this sad story.

Martin and Sandra Reighard are Kootenai County residents.

   Related story:  Jury clears Cd'A police