A newly released dash cam video has become the centerpiece of a ๐๐ฝ๐ธ๐ธ๐๐พ๐๐ criminal case, showing the beginning of a traffic stop that prosecutors allege ended with an Oklahoma state trooper raping the woman he pulled over. The footage, paired with forensic DNA evidence and a damning text message, has led to the arrest and termination of Trooper Jarkez Evans and ignited a firestorm over police conduct and accountability.
The video captures what appears to be a routine stop for an expired tag in Oklahoma City on January 26, 2025. Trooper Evans is seen conducting a pat-down, placing the woman in his patrol car, and searching her vehicle. For approximately 18 minutes, the procedure seems standard. Then, according to court documents, Evans manually deactivated his body camera microphone and the in-car audio.
This deliberate act of silencing the official record is where the encounter allegedly turned criminal. A civil lawsuit filed by the victim states Evans never wrote a citation. Instead, he presented her with a horrific choice: meet him at a secondary location or go to jail. Operating under that threat of arrest, she complied.
GPS and surveillance data reportedly confirm both vehicles moved to a dimly lit area near Southeast 31st Street and South High Avenue. The lawsuit provides a harrowing account of what happened next. It alleges Evans entered her vehicle, unzipped his uniform pants, and assured her she would not be arrested for prostitution while confirming his body camera was off.
The plaintiff states Evans then ordered her to bend over. Under duress and fear, she complied. He forcibly removed her clothing and sexually assaulted her. Afterward, he simply drove away. No traffic citation or arrest report stemming from the stop was ever filed. The official record of the interaction effectively ended when the audio was cut.
The case broke open when the victim reported the ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐. The ensuing investigation by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation did not rely solely on her account. Forensic testing was conducted on Evansโs uniform pants. Analysts located a semen stain on the interior surface of the garment.
DNA analysis conclusively identified Evans as the major contributor. The victim could not be excluded as a contributor to a secondary profile. This physical evidence forms a critical pillar of the stateโs case. Investigators also uncovered a digital statement against interest that further undermines any potential defense.
The morning after the incident, Evans allegedly texted his ex-wife, admitting he had โdone something badโ with a woman he had pulled over the previous night. This apparent admission of guilt, captured in his own words, adds a powerful layer of corroboration to the victimโs testimony and the forensic findings.
Based on this evidence, Jarkez Evans was arrested, fired from the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, and criminally charged with rape and forcible sodomy. His case is pending in the criminal justice system. The victim also pursued civil action, filing a lawsuit that named both Evans and the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety.
That civil complaint makes explosive ๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐ถ๐๐พ๐ธ๐๐ beyond the events of that night. It claims the OHP engaged in negligent hiring and supervision by bringing Evans onto the force despite what the suit characterizes as a series of glaring red flags. These include a prior compelled resignation from a police department in Grenada, Mississippi, under circumstances suggesting potential criminal misconduct.
Furthermore, the lawsuit states that during his OHP academy training, Evans negligently discharged his service weapon into a wall. The suit argues this serious incident should have triggered a deeper psychological evaluation and raised immediate concerns about his fitness for duty. By hiring and retaining him, the plaintiff alleges, the state failed in its fundamental duty to protect the public.
This civil lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in federal court earlier this year, a procedural move that allows the plaintiff to refile the claims at a later date. Legal analysts suggest this could be for strategic reasons, potentially to refile in state court or amid ongoing settlement discussions. It does not indicate an abandonment of the claims.
The silent dash cam video now serves as a haunting visual record of the stopโs final moments. After the audio cuts, Evans is seen walking the woman back to her Suburban. Both vehicles sit idle before driving away in the same direction. Evansโs cruiser camera then shows him pulling over again, his car sitting motionless and silent for approximately twelve minutes.
According to the affidavit, this is the period when he allegedly met the victim at the secondary location and committed the ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐. The video then shows Evans starting his car and driving away, leaving no digital audio record of what transpired. The absence of evidence itself has become a key piece of evidence, pointing to a conscious effort to conceal.
Criminal defense attorney John Day, analyzing the case, noted the overwhelming nature of the evidence. โThe old saying is the video doesnโt lie, but in this case, itโs the absence of the video that doesnโt lie either,โ Day stated. He emphasized that an officer manually turning off recording equipment during an active stop immediately raises the legal concept of โconsciousness of guilt.โ
Regarding the DNA evidence and text message, Day called the case โdamningโ and noted the difficulty of mounting a defense. The text message, he explained, severely undercuts any potential argument of consensual activity. โYou donโt say, โIโve done something badโ if you feel like youโve done something good,โ Day said.
The broader implications of the lawsuitโs negligent hiring claims are significant. If proven, they suggest systemic failures that allowed an individual with a problematic history to wield state authority. The case forces a painful examination of vetting procedures, academy oversight, and the mechanisms meant to identify officers unfit for the profound power they hold.
For the victim, the lawsuit alleges violations of her constitutional rights under the color of law, transforming an already violent personal violation into a profound ๐ช๐ซ๐พ๐ผ๐ฎ of governmental authority. The allegation that the ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐ was perpetrated under the threat of arrest creates a distinct category of trauma and legal claim, separate from a standard ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐ case.
The Oklahoma Highway Patrol has declined to comment extensively on pending litigation but confirmed Evansโs termination. The criminal prosecution is proceeding independently of the civil claims. As the case moves forward, it stands as a stark reminder of the trust placed in law enforcement and the catastrophic consequences when that trust is weaponized against the very citizens officers swear to protect.
The community and the nation are left to watch a case built on digital breadcrumbs, forensic science, and a victimโs courage. The silent dash cam video, the DNA match, and the self-incriminating text message weave a narrative that prosecutors believe is incontrovertible. The final judgment now rests with the courts, which must weigh this evidence and deliver justice.