On March 13, 1999, Officer Samuel Ramirez allegedly entered the home of a pregnant Austin woman and engaged in "verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which was implicitly made a term and condition of the exercise and enjoyment of a right, privilege or power, to wit: freedom of movement and freedom from restraint and freedom from a restriction of privacy." That was the language included in the charge on June 8, in the indictment handed down by a Travis County Grand Jury against Ramirez for "official oppression," a class A misdemeanor. Ramirez was released on $2,000 bond.

To you or me, forcing someone to engage in "sexual conduct" under penalty of having their "freedom of movement" restricted sounds suspiciously like "rape." Doing so with a weapon, as Officer Ramirez allegedly did, would normally make the charge "aggravated rape." But not in the eyes of the Travis County District Attorney's office.

What did Ramirez actually do? According to an affidavit filed by the victim with the APD Internal Affairs Division, Ramirez and a partner had come to her home because an alarm had gone off accidentally and they responded. After making several sexual-oriented remarks to the victim, Ramirez allegedly told her that he would return to her home about 3 p.m. when he was off for lunch.

At 3 p.m., Ramirez allegedly did come back, and began to force himself upon the victim. The affidavit states "He had his right hand on my shoulder, pushing me down ... and he's sticking his dick in my mouth." "I was forced," she said, because he had "a strong grip on my arm" and a gun (his service revolver), which they spoke about during the attack. She said "he kept on twisting his gun back and the way [sic] he was trying to get it out of the way while he was sticking his dick in my mouth."

This case might have never come to light if the victim hadn't had the presence of mind to run to the bathroom and spit the officer's cum into a plastic bag to preserve it as evidence.

Tom Stribling, the Austin Police Association's principal legal counsel and initially Ramirez's attorney, denied all allegations in typical fashion. Stribling told the press "there was no evidence of criminal conduct."

Why didn't the District Attorney submit this case to the Grand Jury as aggravated rape? Likely he decided to grant leniency because Ramirez is a police officer.

The Hall of Shame submits that any other person besides a cop would have been charged with aggravated rape under similar circumstances with similar evidence. The incident report filed by the sex crimes unit lists offense codes 200 and 2716, corresponding to rape and criminal trespass. But Ramirez was charged with neither of those crimes, meaning the District Attorney's office lessened the charges relative to the interpretation of the investigating officers.

Initially, Chief Knee put Ramirez on paid administrative leave until the complaint was resolved. However, on August 11 Chief Knee gave Ramirez an "indefinite suspention" (the equivalent of firing). Ramirez's attorneys had the suspension overturned on a technicality in November, and he is permanently back on the force, but suspended without pay until the denouement of his criminal proceedings.

Ramirez's pretril hearing has been postponed several times, most recently on November 11, and it could be months before the case goes to trial. (When asked in June when would be a good time for his client to proceed with the hearing, Ramirez's attorney jokingly wondered aloud whether the court might have some space on the docket in 2005.)

If convicted of "official oppression," Ramirez will be eligible for up to one year in jail, a $4,000 fine, and he will no longer be eligible to serve as a peace officer in Texas. By contrast, a first degree rape conviction might mean decades in the state penitentiary system.