New Auburn arrest videos add context—not a verdict on at least 20 punches

What do the newly released Auburn arrest videos explain—and do they justify an officer punching a man at least 20 times? They expand the record of what happened before and after the blows. They do not settle whether the force was lawful. That distinction is now the central task for an investigation whose leadership and scope remain unclear. ^{1 5}

Auburn police released additional body-camera, dash-camera and traffic-camera recordings Thursday, October 29, following the encounter a day earlier in Auburn, Washington. Police also confirmed that the 33-year-old man had been booked and released on bond. The officer was already on administrative leave: the department’s Thursday statement, reproduced by KOMO, said that decision was made “yesterday,” establishing October 28 as the leave date. Leave is an interim employment measure, not a finding of wrongdoing or an exoneration. ¹¹

The new recordings supply something the roughly minute-long bystander video could not: a view of the officer’s approach, his use of a Taser, the attempted handcuffing and the aftermath. But the officer’s body camera falls during the struggle, and his later explanation includes uncertainty about a possible gun grab. More footage does not necessarily mean a conclusive view of every consequential movement. ¹

Police were dispatched around 3:15 p.m. October 28 to Auburn Way North and 37th Street Northeast after reports of a man running in and out of traffic and trying to enter passing vehicles. The department says the man refused commands, an officer used a Taser and a physical struggle followed when the officer attempted to handcuff him. Those descriptions of resistance are the department’s account, not completed investigative findings. ¹¹

There is witness support for the reported traffic danger. Todd A. Fee Sr., a nearby car dealership worker, told KIRO 7 that he encountered the man while accompanying a customer on a test drive. The man moved in front of their car, Fee said, then grabbed other vehicles’ door handles as drivers slowed to avoid him. Fee also questioned the punches and said police had other opportunities to de-escalate. His account matters on both points: a dangerous situation can require intervention without establishing that every subsequent use of force was necessary. ⁵

The original circulating recording showed an officer straddling the shirtless man in the roadway, holding him down with one hand and punching with the other, then switching fists. The man raised his hands to shield himself; the officer restrained a wrist while continuing to strike. Traffic passed only feet away. The Seattle Times described at least 20 punches, while the Auburn Reporter estimated approximately 22. These are compatible approximate counts, not a verified exact total. ^{1 12}

No other officers appeared in that short clip, which missed the beginning and aftermath. The later recordings show several officers at the scene. The limitation of the first video was its field of view—not proof that the officer acted alone throughout the encounter. ^{1 12}

The Seattle Times’ description of the released 18-minute body-camera recording provides a fuller sequence. The officer approaches the man in the roadway and orders him to the ground, warning that he will use a Taser. He fires it; the man screams and falls. The officer turns him over to attempt handcuffing, and the man tries to turn back. Whether the man attempts to hit the officer at that point is unclear. ¹

The body-camera view captures six closed-fist punches to the man’s face before the camera falls. For about three minutes, it records pavement. A different surveillance angle appears to show the man trying to wrap an arm around the officer while being punched. During the encounter, the officer says, “Stop grabbing my gear.” That command and the ambiguous arm movement do not, by themselves, establish a gun grab. This account rests on the outlets’ published descriptions of the recordings, rather than an independent frame-by-frame examination. ¹

That uncertainty cannot be edited out of the officer’s explanation. He also tells the medic that the man was pushing on his face and trying to grab his hair, and that he believed the man had been attempting a carjacking. Those are his descriptions and beliefs; neither a gun grab nor a carjacking is established by the available account. Investigators will have to assess the perceived threat against the movements and circumstances at each stage. ¹

After another officer reattaches the camera, several officers are restraining the man. The officer who punched him has bloodied knuckles and asks, “Can you roll my sleeves back … so I at least look cool.” Later, before leaving for hospital treatment, he says, “Well, this’ll be one for the books.” The man remains on the ground yelling, “I’m sorry.” The remarks document the aftermath; they are not substitutes for an assessment of the force itself. ¹

Police say four officers ultimately gained control of the man and handcuffed him, and that fire personnel were called because he continued screaming and resisting after restraint. Spokesperson Kolby Crossley initially described both men’s injuries as minor, and both went to hospitals for evaluation. That injury description comes from police, not disclosed medical findings. ^{1 11}

The man’s latest reported custodial status is no longer hospitalization followed by anticipated booking. KOMO reported Thursday that police confirmed his booking for non-felony controlled-substance possession, disorderly conduct, obstruction and attempted assault, followed by release on bond. These are booking allegations, not convictions; the available reporting does not establish a prosecutorial charging document or court outcome. ¹¹

The initial anticipated booking list also included resisting arrest and specified third-degree attempted assault. The later confirmation omitted resisting arrest and did not give an assault degree. That change in the reported list remains unexplained. It does not establish that prosecutors filed, or later dismissed, any particular charge. ^{1 11}

For the officer, Auburn’s rules require force to be “objectively reasonable,” and other officers have a duty to intervene against unreasonable force, according to The Seattle Times. The investigation therefore has to look beyond whether a struggle occurred. It must examine what threat existed as the encounter changed, whether the force remained necessary, what opportunities existed to de-escalate and whether other officers could and should have intervened. ¹

Police-practices consultant Jerry Rodriguez, who spent 35 years in law enforcement, told KIRO 7 that criminal and administrative inquiries ask different questions. A criminal investigation examines legal justification; an administrative investigation also assesses compliance with policy, procedures and training before, during and immediately after the encounter. Auburn police did not answer KIRO 7’s questions about who is conducting the administrative review or whether a criminal inquiry is also underway. ⁵

There is also a question about the city’s civilian voice. Pastor LaShund Lambert, a member of Auburn’s Police Advisory Committee, told KIRO Newsradio that the committee had not met since December 2025. “This is why we needed the PAC,” he said. He said he offered to resign if that would allow meetings to resume. MyNorthwest reported that police and Mayor Nancy Backus had not answered its questions about the hiatus. The reason for it remains unestablished. ¹⁴

Lambert said he retained faith in Chief Mark Caillier and other leaders while seeking policy and public dialogue that sustain trust. His concern ran in both directions: an officer should not be unfairly demonized, and a dangerous officer should not escape accountability. Former King County Sheriff John Urquhart likewise called the footage jarring while urging a thorough investigation before judgment. ¹⁴

That is not an argument for looking away from the punches. It is an argument for an investigation specific enough to explain them. The new videos widen the record; the next meaningful disclosure must do more than repeat that there was resistance. It must say what force was justified, when, and why.