Friday, November 23, 2007

More on the Utah Taser incident

Most reaction to the tasering of Jared Massey by Utah Highway Patrol Officer John Gardner has been, quite rightly, supportive of Massey. Not just in the United States, but around the world, sensible people realize that Gardner was out of control, and that the officer responded with force to a situation that should have been engaged by conversation, or (if the officer has extremely poor control of his temper) by his leaving the speeding ticket with Massey and just driving away. It's worth pointing out that, only now, with the video of the incident available on the Internet, is UHP taking Massey's complaint seriously and scrambling to investigate the incident.

But a strident minority of voices defend Gardner and insist that Massey had an obligation to tug his forelock and obey every order issued by Gardner, and that his failure to do so justified Gardner's use of force in the incident.

This is ridiculous. At no time did Massey become aggressive toward Gardner. At no time did Massey pose a danger to police or the public. Massey did nothing more threatening than question the grounds for issuing a speeding ticket. Gardner may not like being questioned, but his pride simply doesn't enter into it. If he didn't want to continue discussing the matter with Massey, Gardner could have simply left the already-issued ticket with the driver -- signed or not -- and driven off.

There's no obligation on the part of any person to refrain from questioning police officers about their actions.

Let's remember the principles laid down by Sir Robert Peel when he established the modern policing profession. Principle seven states:

7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Remember that: police are only members of the public working full time to keep the peace. None of us -- with or without a badge -- have a right to assault people, even lawbreakers, simply because they vex us with questions or treat us without the respect we believe is our due. That's right, Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern police departments, never intended for police to have special rights to use force in circumstances where it would be inappropriate for the average person to throw a punch or draw a weapon.

If nobody has the right to use force against a man who does nothing more than ask questions and decline to sign a ticket, that raises some interesting thoughts about the Massey incident. Most importantly, it means that Mrs. Massey would have been completely within her rights to respond to Gardner's assault on her husband with whatever force was necessary to disarm or disable the officer and rescue Jared Massey. Under the circumstances, with her husband lying bleeding and stunned by the side of a highway because of the actions of an armed and aggressive man, the pregnant woman might well have been fully within her rights to draw a gun and shoot Officer Gardner.

It's fortunate that didn't happen. A living and intact John Gardner may yet have time to atone for his error and become fit company for the decent members of the human race. More important though, in a world that has become accustomed to treating police officers as a specially entitled aristocracy, the Masseys would have had a difficult time explaining their act of self-defense to a legal system that protects its own. Defensive force would have been justified, but it would have landed the Masseys in a world of hurt.

So it's good to know that Jared Massey has the opportunity to bypass official channels and take his case to the public. Embarrassed and under siege, UHP and Officer Gardner now have to explain a violent assault on a peaceful man.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

has this been removed everywhere from the internet? youtube isn't even producing a proper code, just "Http/1.1 Service unavailable". Flash versions actually embedded in other sites appear to be just gone. What's going on?

November 25, 2007 10:06 AM  
Blogger J.D. Tuccille said...

Hmmm ... I just tried my embedded video link and it's working. Maybe it was a temporary problem?

November 25, 2007 7:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This cop is not sane. He's obviously a psychopath who should never be allowed to possess a firearm. If there is any justice in Utah, he should be stripped of his badge and uniform, reprimanded and fired. He should also be charged with inflicting bodily harm and denying civil rights.

November 26, 2007 10:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know I will get attacked for this. I am not saying I agree with the officer. He CERTAINLY could have handled this better. That being said,
1) There is a law in Utah that requires you to sign a ticket. It is not an admission of guilt, it's an agreement to appear in court.
2) He can also right "refused to sign" on the ticket and given the driver his copy. This is also legal in Utah.
3) Refusing to sign a ticket CAN but usually doesn't result in another charge.
4) The officer, speaking in completely legal terms, does have the right to take the driver into custody for refusing to sign it. He can take him in and require him to post bond on the ticket.
That being said, the trooper certainly seemed to let his bravado and ego get the better of him. It certainly could have been handled much better.
As an attorney, I would certainly not like to defend the trooper in anything civil from this case.

November 26, 2007 12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Without regard to the specifics of this stop, we hear Officer Gardener blatantly lie to his fellow officer at the end this video.

Can the Utah Highway Patrol really allow an officer to continue to testify in court after the citizens of Utah have a video in which his integrity is so clearly shown lacking?

November 26, 2007 1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This trooper is a disgrace to Utah and to the UHP. What happened to the days of protect and serve? As a resident of Utah, I hope this guy is taken out of the UHP and enrolled in some anger management classes. Get this crazy guy off the streets!

November 26, 2007 8:08 PM  
Anonymous Tim said...

Hi, I wanted to pop my head in and thank you very much for your thoughtful and thought provoking writings. Not only do you have a great title for your site, you also appear to have great content from the couple of pieces I have read thus far :) I have quoted you from this and one other related post, and linked to you, but I also wanted to verbally acknowledge my appreciation for you and your readers for asking questions.

I truly believe the graver risk comes from not asking enough questions, not from asking too many. It is refreshing to be reminded that there are lots of others who do question and seek out truths and do not merely "tugging their forelocks" ;)

I shall keep reading, Cheers

November 28, 2007 1:41 AM  
Anonymous RobinHood said...

There have been many, many comments on this police video on the web mostly focussing on who is in the right and who is in the wrong.

Another question needs answering which arises from the rather strange beginning of the video. Why did the driver act like he did? Perhaps it was because he thought he was driving sensibly. After all he had his kid and wife in the car, he saw the first sign with flags warning of a construction area ahead, the police officer also acknowledged this sign, and certainly was not speeding in the normal sense of the word, taking only a few car lengths to pull up.

Perhaps he did not see the 40 mph sign at all.
He could have been looking elsewhere, daydreaming or driving carefully to avoid the white vehicle which was doing some strange manouvering on the highway.

Right from the beginning of the police video we see that first it pulls out into the road in front of the family car but appears to be going slowly, driving carefully he backs off on the accelerator but then sees the white vehicle pull over enough to let him pass which he does safely. We can all see the the 40 mph sign in the police video very clearly in fact we almost hit it! We can easily see this second sign, the police officer driving the disguised vehicle can see the 40 mph sign but can the driver who was pulled over moments later see the sign? Remember the strange behaviour of the disguised police vehicle. I have been driving for 40 years and I would be so focussed on that vehicle in case he did something silly I would not see the 40 mph sign and I would probably have my foot over the brake ready to stop and be looking up the road to see if I have room to dodge around him if he should suddenly pull out.
If you accept that Mr Massey felt he was innocent and had been driving carefully his subsequent pleas with the officer of the law makes sense. He did not see the sign and he is asking the officer to show it to him, quite a reasonable request surely.

Now we come to some questions which arise from from the scene we can see. Was there actually any construction work on this piece of road? If there was it must have been a long way away from the 40 mph limit because nothing was visible in the police video. Who put the signs there? Could it have been the arresting police officer perhaps? I wonder if the disguised police vehicle has room in the back for a couple of signs and a few sand bags. Surely an honest officer of the law would not do something like this. He would need to have expert driving skills to pull off such a trick and rely on the driving skill of man and his family to prevent an accident from happening but perhaps practice makes perfect!

Why would a police office sworn to uphold the law do anything like I suggest here? Hmm! Maybe, just maybe, people know if the go faster than a posted speed limit they will be caught and pay a fine so over time in Utah, as every where else speed fines are used by governments to raise revenue, the traffic is actually driving legally and it gets harder and harder for the police to reach their targets for the month. In this scenario the police officer needs to be creative in the methods used to 'catch people breaking the law' and so keep earning his pay keeping our roads safe. Is entrapment a defence in Utah?

November 30, 2007 4:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, I normally wouldn't stoop to responding to such a person but "Robinhood", you're an idiot. Police quotas for speeding tickets? I suppose the trooper gets a free toaster if he gets a certain number in a month? Don't let common sense enter into your thought processes whatever you do. The trooper certainly handled it poorly but planted speed limit signs? I guess he's from Hazard County. What is this the Dukes of Hazzard?

December 1, 2007 7:52 AM  
Anonymous RobinHood said...

Anonymous, I wish you had not 'stooped' to calling me an idiot. I may be, but why not stick to the situation as depicted in the video. Can you explain the way the police vehicle veered on and off the highway? I can't unless it is behaviour that ensures drivers pass him at a speed faster than the speed sign which is probably obscured by his vehicle. Do this 'experiment' enough times on prey and the predator will eventually find one who reacts like Jared Massey did. Hence in my opinion, for what it is worth, pulling the Taser and using it was inevitable. My criticism is not of the two protagonists in the video but of the authorities who expect to keep getting revenue from traffic enforcement. The only person who was a danger to the public was the driver of the disguised police vehicle. All the other vehicles in the video were being driven with due care and attention, even Jared Massey, that is why he could not understand the police officer's actions in accusing him of speeding. As far as he knew there was no sign restricting speed to 40 miles per hour just one indicating a construction area ahead.

December 1, 2007 12:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I actually can explain the way the trooper veered on and off the highway. He has what's called same lane radar. It allows you to radar vehicles directly in front or behind which isn't possible with conventional radar. If you see a troopers car, it's the round cylindrical device in the back window. It's usually in the upper left rear windshield. As far as the speeding, in his interview on the Today show, Mr. Massey admitted he was speeding. That being said, the trooper was WAY out of line. I too, believe he should be fired. Although he followed the letter of Utah law, he certainly could have handled it better and avoided the situation all together. I also agree that some officers (maybe even this one)try to write any traffic citation they can. Some even see it as a badge of honor if they write more than another officer. But, to talk about planted speed limit signs is just not common sense. Calling you an idiot probably wasn't the nicest thing on my part. The driver and the officer were both wrong. Unfortunately, an over zealous officer caused this situation. My point is that Mr. Massey must take some responsibility as well.

December 2, 2007 9:07 AM  
Anonymous Angry New Mexican said...

I guess we'll just wait for the next YouTube taser video where the wife shoots the officer to protect her husband.
Or maybe the one where they get somebody with a pacemaker.
Or maybe they leave somebody on the road and their head gets run over.

This is the US, not Soviet Russia or pre-2003 Iraq. We can't put up with this.

December 2, 2007 9:49 PM  
Anonymous plaasjaapie said...

Well, I expect that Utah is going to be years living this down. The endorsement of Gardner's out-of-control behaviour by the UHP has put the state in the same position as Mississippi and Alabama were in the 1960's and 1970's, viz, pariah states.

December 3, 2007 7:43 AM  
Anonymous bil said...

I just drove through Utah in October. That could have been ME even though I am not a whiner.
I will wait to see the outcome of this b4 I recommend the same trip.
Colorado Meza Verde is spectacular, dedicated to the Pueblo cliff dwellers, not to mention California is gorgeous and much safer than this power abuse mentality.

I have called the Governors office John Huntsman and Leigh van Der Esche, tourism, several times asking for the disposition of this case and when will it be safe to travel in Utah again? No resolution.
GO on utube and watch part 3 of the unedited tape (about 3 minutes) by the original poster, where the Utah troopers are yucking it up afterwards.
HORRIBLE for Utah tourism, and wasn't fun for the Jared Massey family.

New Utah state slogan.
"Don't tase me bro!"

December 3, 2007 9:33 AM  
Anonymous RobinHood said...

I have looked in vain many times for any indication from the beginning of the video that the first sign had a speed limit.
Utah may be different but it looks to me like the first sign we see is one warning of a construction area ahead and the driver should prepare to slow down. The 40 mph sign was passed by Mr Massey after he passed the police vehicle. So rear mounted radar would not help with the 40 mph speed limit. Is it possible then that the police officer did not actually have any evidence of Mr Massey speeding? That is why he asked him to incriminate himself by asking him to volunteer what speed he thought he was doing. If this is so then it becomes more understandable as to why the police officer did not just say something like '... the reading recorded by the (insert brand and model of radar set) was X in a construction area with a maximum speed limit of Y'. Mr Massey would probably still have argued as I do not believe he was able to see the 40 mph sign due to it being obscured by the police vehicle.
If the allegation of speeding made by the police officer is able to be shown to be false then I am afraid he has brought shame on his profession and shame on the police force in Utah for using a taser as a means of coercion.
I understand Mr Massey has said he was exceeding the speed limit, but which one, the construction limit of 40 mph or the highway limit? He certainly did not think he was speeding in the video, maybe he actually wants to do the right thing and expects the police officer to be the same but he knows differently now. I have read that he is studying law. It would not surprise me if he chooses to defend people once he qualifies.

December 7, 2007 2:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I follow your blog correctly, we should engage police on every occasion where we don't agree with their judgement of a situation, right there on the spot. I'm not really sure how that would work. Maybe we should take the human element out if it completely and enforce the law with radar controlled cameras like they do it Germany. Then the motorist would have had no opportunity to attempt to debate instead of following a rational and safe procedure of accepting the ticket and challenging it in court, which is the correct venue for defending oneself.

From the video, it did not appear to me that the officer "out of control". It did show that the officer unfortunately and incorrectly escalated the confrontation to an unacceptable level too quickly, with little cause. He should certainly be disciplined and retrained. However, the motorist was not following his instructions and while the officer didn't handle it correctly, one doesn't want to see roadside debates with police.

Let's forget the rhetoric and deal with the situation in a rational manner. What we witnessed was a complex problem of the kind confronted by human law enforcement officers every day. The officer has to cope with the eventuality that motorists, also being human, are going to exhibit a range of behavior from docile compliance to extremely aggressive. The motorist in this situation provoked an escalation of response from the law enforcement officer and while I don't condone tasing the motorist, I also don't think comparisons with pre-2003 Iraq apply either.

December 10, 2007 5:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This guy had it coming. What was the officer supposed to do? This "motorist" was walking back to his car. If he's like me, he carries a gun in his car on the open road. So what if this "motorist" went back to his car and picked up a weapon? I guess a dead cop is acceptable to the ACLU candyasses who are criticizing the officer.

December 14, 2007 6:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't understand the question here. This was an incident that obviously got out of control. Massey was not a threat. He voiced his disaggreement with the officer. Simple. The officer didn't like the test of his ego. At no time prior to being tased was Massey informed he was under arrest. The officer acted in a completely obtuse manner and will cost the State of Utah quite a few dollars. Look at the video, Massey was tased in the back, withour any explanation of being under arrest. This was a disgraceful plundering of our potentially wonderful Constitutional rights.

January 1, 2008 9:45 PM  
Anonymous Caesarmoridon said...

I completely agree with the author of this post. I personally believe that the required signing of a ticket is in its essence an violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. The constitution clearly states in the Fifth Amendment that No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself (herself). A signature on a ticket is a witness of a person being present at the scene of a crime (violation), and therefore represents a statement or admission of presence at a crime scene. This thereby is, though not necessarily an open admission of guilt, is an admission to proximity of a crime scene and is therefore, prejudicial against a person and thereby, a testimony against ones self.

February 4, 2008 10:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#1- I am a Law Enforcement Officer.

I have seen this video and the other news videos including the one on CNN interviewing the suspected speeder and the UHP spokesperson and have watched them several times.

This Officer is totally in the wrong. He should no longer be a police officer and Utah needs to train and select their officers better.

Is it normal for the UHP to initiate a traffic stop before the infraction occurs?

You can clearly see the 40 MPH sign in front of the officers squad car in the video before Mr. Massey passes the UHP squad car. The CNN video shows Massey stating that he had not passed the 40 MPH zone and thought the officer was pulling somebody else over because he had his lights on BEFORE the posted sign and before the suspected speeder passed the UHP squad car.

Also, since when are UHP squad cars "see through"?

You can definately see the posted sign (40 MPH) in front of the squad car prior to the UHP officer iniating the traffic stop. How can Mr. Massey see the 40 MPH sign when the UHP car is in front of it, blocking the sign from on-coming motorists?

Is it UHP's standard, to iniatiate "Use of Force" even though it is "non-lethal force" on an individual because they are pointing at a sign? You can clearly see Mr. Massey pointing at the sign when the Officer draws down on the subject with the Taser Gun. At which point during this situation did Mr. Massey show threat to the officer? I believe that when the Officer drew the Tazer and drew down (pointing it at the subject) severely escalated the situation which threw Mr. Massey into a fight or flight instance, which is normal behavior.

I think this officer acted very un-profesionally, and should of stated that by signing the ticket does not mean admission of guilt. I think the Offcier has an EGO problem and should not be an Offcier of the Law.

February 22, 2008 11:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Law enforcement agencies around the world use tazers. Many of them use them casually, as if an extension of their arm. They should only be used in extreme situations, not as an every day tool of forced compliance. Canadian RCMP officers killed a Polish citizen in an airport with a tazer because he wasn't "obeying their commands". The man couldn't speak english and had no idea why he was being detained. Tazers are dangerous weapons and should be treated as such.

April 11, 2008 1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People please remember this, when dealing with Peace officer’s, FBI, or any law enforcement agency. Do not speak, follow directions, gather information, and get an attorney, More people get in more trouble with their mouth....
Anything you say can be used against you...And will!!!

May 9, 2008 10:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The last post on this was months ago...but that is ok, I will still leave my comment.

I think the officer made the right decision concerning how the guy acted. I watched the video months ago and agreed. Officers need to protect themselves and the community.

Sorry if you don't agree. They really do have dangerous jobs. They must take the nessasary precautions to protect themselves and the communities they have sworn to protect.

The thing that makes me mad is that the UHP went ahead and gave Mr Massey money without defending the officer, just to get the situation overwith.

If I was a police officer and someone got out of their car and came towards me, and wouldn't obey orders, I would suspect they had a weapon. Better safe than sorry in this situation...Good job!

Mr. Massey should have been more respectful, sure, he could have refused to sign the ticket, but come on dude, take it like a man!

This has really been blown out of proportion! Get over it Mr. Massey, we all get tickets at one time or another in our lives.

August 19, 2008 10:36 AM  
Anonymous Justin Mang said...

I'm by no means defending the officer, what he did was wrong, but just think if the officer only had a gun. In my opinion the man would be dead right now with a loving wife and two kids on their own. My next argument is that the officer should have told the man that he was placing him under arrest before he asked him to get out of the car. By doing this it would have cleared up the issue of why he asked him to get out of the car. Did the officer want to go look at the sign, talk to the man with out his wife hearing, or the more obvious place him under arrest? In my opinion the situation was handled very unprofessionally and officer probably did not score too high on the "Treat with respect, Receive respect" part of the police training. I would have to look that up because the probably do not even have that test. You all might think I am just bashing police all together but I am not. The run ins I have had with the state police in West Virginia were very calm and collected. To better clear my statement up I was involved with a similar situation where, you guessed it, I thought I was not speeding and the officer thought I was. We solved the problem and he stated that if I wanted to follow through with my argument I would have to take it to court because "The side of the road is not the place to argue about who was or was not speeding." To sum things up I believe that the taser was not needed and the man should have never gotten out of the car, but what do I know I am just a college kid trying to argue his opinion. Seems like that does not go too far in modern American society.

August 25, 2008 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Justin Mang said...

I also want to argue with what "Anonymous" said. "This has really been blown out of proportion! Get over it Mr. Massey, we all get tickets at one time or another in our lives." Read your history books because one day, if we do not change our passive ways of life, we as Americans will be treated like slaves. Unless you want that my friend I suggest you stand up for what you believe now and then. What if you got a ticket for speeding and it was 3,000 dollars? Would you pay for it or would you argue your point? Sadly to say that is what is happening in Virginia. Is it justified? You tell me I voiced my opinion on it. "If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything." ---Aaron Tippin

August 25, 2008 1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The officer was calm and collected until Massey refused to sign the ticket and began telling the officer "what we're gonna do here." Even then, he just calmly told him to get out of the car. It wasn't until Massey approached the officer (which you should never do unless instructed to) that the officer told him to turn around and put his hands behind his back.

At this point, it was apparent that the driver was not going to do as instructed and the officer has to assume that things COULD get out of hand. Massey even started messing with his pockets as he's walking back to his car (ignoring the officer's intstructions). He should know can't ignore an officer and reach for your pockets!

At that point, the officer was completely right to taser him. You can't put an officer in that position by ignoring their instructions and behaving irrationally, even if you think you're right and he is wrong. Massey was asking for trouble with his actions.

August 29, 2008 8:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

J.D. Tuccille's initial article on this video was both well written and persuasive to those who do not understand the duties and responsibility of Law Enforcement. Sir Robert Peel, founder of modern day policing, laid out NINE Principles of Policing, not just ONE as quoted by Tuccille. Some of the other principles that were left out of Tuccille's article were as follows:

#1: The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

The motorist in this video started off being argumentative with the officer, refusing to provide his license and registration as REQUIRED by state law. Driving is a privilege, not a right. A condition of this privilege is that you agree to abide by the traffic laws or be punished accordingly. The law does not state that a motorist SHALL provide his license to an officer only after the officer has satisfactorily answered all of his questions. A condition of a license is that you SHALL produce it upon demand by the officer.

#5: Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

Officer Gardner approached the motorist in a polite and professional manner saying "How ya doing? You were going kinda fast, Can I see your license and registration?". It is clearly the motorist who escalates what should have been a simple traffic stop that may not have even resulted in a ticket. For every one ticket an officer writes, he lets off at least one motorist with a warning. Throughout the duration of this debacle, the officer maintained his composure and displayed a high degree of professionalism. He was enforcing the law as it was written, not as he interpreted it.

#6: Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

The officer seems to explain, for quite some time, the reason for the stop. The officer, although not required by law, explains to the motorist how it was he came to the conclusion that he had been speeding. The traffic stop is not the venue to argue the validity or merits of a ticket, that’s why the motorist is well within his right to make a court date and have an impartial judge decide his guilt or innocence. As it relates to the motorist's refusal to sign the ticket, Utah State law clearly states this is an arrestable offense. Part of having the privilege of a driver's license is knowing and abiding by the laws that govern that license. Ignorance of those laws is not an excuse to break them. If the motorist did not know he was subject to arrest for failure to sign the ticket, then shame on him, the officer is not required to inform him. As it relates to the officer "warning" the motorist several times before being tased, I think even the most diehard supporters of this motorist would agree that the officer warned him several times before actually deploying the taser. Common sense should tell you that if an officer is giving you an order and has a taser pointed at you, then refusal to comply with that order will probably result in the shock of your life.

Use of force was absolutely justified in this case. The officer had a legal right to arrest the motorist, the motorist failed to comply with the officer's orders and was subsequently tasered to affect that arrest. The motorist not only refused to comply but started to reach into his pocket and started walking back to his car. Two things could have happened: The motorist may have had a weapon in that pocket and used it to harm or kill that officer or he makes it to his vehicle and flees from the officer.

I think Tuccille's article was slanted and biased and meant to ruffle the feathers of those who are on the fence as to what a police force should be. The bottom line is that this incident was solely the fault of the motorist, not the officer. The officer's intention was to simply issue a ticket for a traffic violation, not to tase this guy and end up on You Tube. The motorist, by contrast, was looking for an argument the minute the officer pulled him over. He pulled over looking for a fight and he got one he couldn’t win.

October 23, 2008 5:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,

徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,

外遇, 離婚, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信,外遇, 抓姦, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社,

March 18, 2009 11:35 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home