Regina Copeland Allegations

The jury convicted Daniel of raping Regina Copeland, but, the objective evidence—specifically the Automated Vehicle Locator (AVL) system and police radio logs—demonstrates that Copeland’s account was physically impossible. Her narrative only persists because the State insulated the jury from the digital records that contradicted it. A post-conviction review of these immutable data points destroys the allegation.

​

1. The AVL Data Undermines Copeland’s Route

​

Copeland testified that Daniel followed her to a relative’s home on N.E. 24th Street, where he pulled up beside her and raped her.

​

The AVL data presented at trial proves that never happened.

​

During cross-examination, Det. Davis confirmed:

​

• The AVL never shows Daniel’s patrol car on N.E. 24th Street.
   

• She agreed that the stop Copeland described “didn’t happen,” because AVL never places him at the house or on that street at any point relevant to the allegation.
   

This is not a credibility contest—this is digital proof.

​

Her described route is objectively false.

 

2. The “Impossible” Three-Minute Window

​

Copeland alleged a prolonged sexual assault. The police radio logs—an independent, contemporaneous record—prove that such an assault could not have occurred.

 

The AVL Timing

​

Adams confronted Det. Davis with the AVL animation:

​

• Vehicle stops at 21:11:00

• Vehicle moves again at 21:15:33

• Maximum stationary window: 4 minutes 33 seconds

​

What the State Claims Happened in Those 4½ Minutes

​

To accept Copeland’s story, the jury would have to believe that Daniel:

​

1. Exited his vehicle,

2. Walked to the back passenger side,

3. Opened the door,

4. Engaged the victim in conversation,

5. Exposed himself,

6. Committed vaginal rape to ejaculation,

7. Pulled his clothing back into place,

8. Returned to the driver’s seat,

9. And cleared the call by radio.

​

The logistics are not merely improbable—they are impossible.

​

Her Story Shifted to Fit the Timeline

​

• Initial Interview: The rape lasted “a long time.”

• Preliminary Hearing: “Five to ten minutes.”

• Trial: Magically shrinks to “maybe about three minutes or so” [Tr. 2831].

​

Her testimony bent itself to match the AVL logs, revealing its artificiality.

​

​

3. Daniel Broadcast His Exact Location—Conduct Inconsistent With a Crime

​

The transcript shows Daniel radioed his location at 2425 N.E. 24th Street, telling dispatch he was “97” (on scene).
Det. Davis acknowledged this was:

​

• Standard procedure
   

• An open broadcast heard by any unit or supervisor in the district
  
   

It is irrational to believe an officer intending to commit a felony sexual assault would announce his exact location over the police radio system. His behavior was consistent with a routine, lawful interaction, not a concealed criminal act.

​

4. Media Exposure and Identification Contamination

​

Copeland did not report any sexual assault in April 2014. Instead, she was contacted by detectives months later—and only after Daniel’s face was all over the local news:

​

• Copeland testified that she and her daughter looked up Daniel’s photograph online before speaking to detectives.
   

• She was first contacted by police months after the incident, in October 2014.
   

Her identification was not independent memory—it was shaped by media exposure and pre-interview internet searches.

​

5. Credibility Problems and the “Lost Key” Fabrication

​

Copeland’s personal credibility was deeply compromised.

​

Intoxication

​

She admitted to consuming alcohol and cocaine on the night of the alleged event [Tr. 2858].
 

The Lost Key Myth

​

She claimed she lost her apartment key during the assault.

​

Objective checks disproved this:

​

• Her landlord had no record of a lost key.

• Police metal detectors found no key at the scene.

• Her cousin, Tammy Summers, told police Copeland had previously “lost” keys and falsely blamed others—demonstrating a pattern of invented explanations.
   

6. Contradicted by Her Own Family

​

Two family members provided statements that undercut Copeland’s version of events.

​

John Copeland (Brother)

He said Regina told him an officer made her “pull her clothes down” but never mentioned rape.

​

David Copeland (Brother)

His wife reported that David “blew off” Regina’s story because she had been on one of her “binges” and he was frustrated with her behavior.

​

Even those closest to her doubted her reliability.

​

BOTTOM LINE

​

The conviction of Daniel for raping Copeland rests on testimony that is directly refuted by the digital record.

​

Regina Copeland was:

​

• Intoxicated on cocaine and alcohol,

• Confused about her own route,

• Contradicted by AVL and radio logs,

• Influenced by media exposure,

• Prompted by detectives,

• And contradicted by her own relatives.
   

The immutable data—AVL tracking and police radio logs—prove the alleged crime could not have occurred as she described.
 

Her testimony cannot withstand scrutiny. The objective evidence exonerates Daniel on this count.