Skip to main content
All McKinley County voters can vote by mail
39days until early voting · Oct. 6
67days until Election Day · Nov. 3
GET YOUR MAIL-IN BALLOT NOW →
MCSO ACCOUNTABILITY THE RECORD · THE QUESTIONS · THE TRUTH

MCSO CASE 2026-00010128 · DOCUMENTS · RECORDINGS · OFFICIAL RESPONSES

IF VICTIMS
DESERVE BETTER,
PROVE IT.

An independent accountability project examining the July 16, 2026 Greyhound incident near Gallup, the McKinley County Sheriff’s Office investigation, the records trail, and the command-level decision that the investigation was “sufficient.”

START HERE · 60 SECONDS → OPEN THE RECORD →
PUBLIC RECORD · CASE 2026-00010128
CAD record preview
MCSO investigative report preview
Waveform generated from 911 audio
READ IT. WATCH IT. CHECK IT.
★ INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT · NOT AFFILIATED WITH MCSO, McKINLEY COUNTY, JAMES MAIORANO III, OR ANY POLITICAL CAMPAIGN ★
Scene still from MCSO-produced video in the case record
JULY 16, 2026 · CASE SCENE

THE RECORD STARTS HERE.

This still comes from an MCSO-produced video included in the evidence set. The site now uses the actual records visually instead of hiding them behind text links.

OPEN VIDEO EVIDENCE →
MCSO-PRODUCED VIDEO · SOURCE FILE INCLUDED

UNDER HIS COMMAND · THE PUBLIC STANDARD

August 21 command review source preview
Command review source preview
“
They’ve got to know how to prepare their evidence. They’ve got to know how to provide discovery.

Sheriff James Maiorano III · remarks published by New Mexico DPS · August 19, 2026

VIEW AUG. 19 SOURCE →

HIS WORDS.
HIS STANDARD.NOW READ THIS CASE.

Two days later, Maiorano said he reviewed Deputy Miguel Bittony’s report and video and concluded that the investigation conducted by Bittony and approved by Sgt. Savannah Benally was “sufficient.”

COMPARE THE STANDARD →

START WITH THE RECORD

DON’T READ A CLAIM. OPEN THE SOURCE.

Verified evidence index preview
THE ROADMAP

TIMELINE

The incident, investigation, public-records trail, Sheriff review, DPS response, and HB 87 developments.

VIEW TIMELINE →
Frame from an MCSO-produced video
WATCH / VERIFY

INVESTIGATION

Translator request, comprehension problems, the six formulations, ten alternative-explanation moments, and nine reassurances.

VIEW INVESTIGATION →
MCSO report preview
COMMAND REVIEW

MCSO RESPONSE

What Sheriff Maiorano said he reviewed, what he concluded, and how that compares with the record.

VIEW RESPONSE →
911 audio waveform
FOLLOW THE PAPER TRAIL

RECORDS

CAD, 911, report, Benally video, WatchGuard audit material, IPRA history, DA status, DPS, and HB 87 records.

OPEN EVIDENCE →

PEOPLE & ROLES

WHO IS IN THIS RECORD?

Redacted body-camera scene still
Accused passenger

Shubham

Identified in MCSO records as “SHUBHAM, NO GIVEN NAME.” Identity and locating questions remain documented separately.
Investigative report source image
Deputy

Miguel Bittony

Primary responding deputy, substantive interviewer, and author of the investigative report.
Frame from MCSO-produced Benally video
Sergeant

Savannah Benally

On scene during the response and identified in the same-day supervisory review record.
JM
Sheriff

James Maiorano III

Later said he reviewed Bittony’s report and video and called the investigation “sufficient.”
THE RECORD AT A GLANCE
6×generic “touching” formulations · full timestamps below 10×alternative explanations · supplied / reinforced / reintroduced 9×reassuring or minimizing statements · full timestamps below 11:35translator requested before substantive questioning
MCSOA VISUALS

THE GRAPHICS ARE PART OF THE PROJECT.

The visual work we built is back in the live site. Older concept graphics are clearly labeled as design references when their baked-in wording has since been superseded.

MCSO Accountability investigative homepage concept
INVESTIGATIVE HOMEPAGEOPEN THE VISUAL ARCHIVE →
 MCSO Accountability timeline dashboard concept
TIMELINE DASHBOARDVIEW GRAPHIC →
 Sheriff Maiorano accountability dossier concept
MAIORANO DOSSIERVIEW GRAPHIC →
 Unanswered Questions dashboard concept
UNANSWERED QUESTIONSVIEW GRAPHIC →
SEE ALL RECOVERED MCSOA GRAPHICS →

THE QUESTION

WAS THIS INVESTIGATION SUFFICIENT?

Read the bodycam. Read the report. Listen to the 911 audio. Follow the CAD. Compare what was said with what was written. Then read the Sheriff’s command-review conclusion.

START WITH FIVE RECEIPTS →
The record is public. The questions are simple. The answers are overdue.

THE RECEIPTS: 6 / 10 / 9

When these counts are used on MCSOA, the timestamped record stays with them.

6 TIMES THE ALLEGATION BECAME JUST “TOUCHING”

Bittony already knew the female passenger had reported multiple instances of touching of her butt and private area.

20:12
“She said that you were touching her.”
20:18
“With your hand. Touching her?”
21:52
“Why would she say you were touching her?”
25:32
“You didn’t touch her? Maybe you were sleeping.”
27:20
“The female is saying that he was touching her.”
27:27
“Why does that lady say he’s touching her?”
28:31 — “But the girl was saying that he was touching her butt.”
This is the first identified buttocks-specific description. The full allegation involving both her butt and private area still is not clearly presented to Shubham on the available recording.

10 INNOCENT-EXPLANATION MOMENTS

1. 18:19
“You don’t know? You were sleeping, maybe?”
Sleep explanation supplied by Bittony.
2. 21:20
“She was moving all over the place?”
Movement explanation supplied by Bittony.
3. 21:38
“She’s just moving around all over?”
Movement explanation reinforced by Bittony.
4. 21:44
“Does she get in your space, in your seat?”
Shubham: “No. I’m sitting this in my area only.”
Seat-space explanation supplied by Bittony. Rejected by Shubham.
5. 22:14
“Maybe your bag?”
Shubham indicates his bag was positioned in front of his seat.
Bag explanation supplied by Bittony.
6. 25:32
“You didn’t touch her? Maybe you were sleeping.”
Sleep explanation reintroduced by Bittony.
7. 25:40
“Maybe you were sleeping and your hand like this?”
Bittony physically demonstrates the accidental hand movement he is suggesting.
Shubham: “No, no, no.”
Accidental-contact explanation supplied and demonstrated by Bittony. Rejected by Shubham.
8. 28:38
“She kept moving around.”
Movement explanation reintroduced by Bittony.
9. 29:10
“When she was moving around, did she move into his space?”
Seat-space explanation supplied by Bittony.
The civilian assisting with translation responds: “He just listen to music.”
That response does not support Bittony’s suggestion that she moved into Shubham’s space.
10. 29:31
Bittony asks again: “Did she move into his space?”
The civilian assisting with translation, not Shubham, initially answers: “Yeah.”
Bittony immediately repeats the proposition.
The subsequent response contains:
“No.”
“Only in her space.”
“her seat.”
The “Yeah” did not come from Shubham. The seat-space explanation originated with Bittony, not from an unsolicited account by Shubham.
WHY IT MATTERS
The issue is not that an investigator considered innocent possibilities. It is who supplied those possibilities, when they were supplied, and what happened when Shubham rejected or failed to support them.

9 REASSURANCES

22:43
“It doesn’t mean you’re going to jail with me.”
31:17
“So he’s not going to be arrested or anything like that.”
31:52
“He’s not going to be arrested. It’s just I’m going to do a report.”
34:47
“He’s not in trouble with me.”
34:47
“You’re not going to go to jail.”
36:34
“Then it’s nothing.”
36:46
“Just don’t think about it too much.”
41:01
“It’s okay, man. You’re going to be okay.”
41:12
“Yeah. It’s unfortunate, but you’ll be fine.”
FIVE SECONDS APART
34:47 — “You’re not going to go to jail.”
34:52 — “I have to gather all the evidence to put it together into a report.”
SEE THE SOURCE → WHAT CAN I DO? →