People · Deputy
Primary responding deputy, principal interviewer on the available bodycam, and author of the investigative report.
Email: miguel.bittony@co.mckinley.nm.us
MCSO office: (505) 863-1410
Office address: 1000 East Aztec Avenue, Gallup, NM 87301
Office hours: Monday–Friday, 8 a.m.–5 p.m.
Source: Miguel Bittony’s MCSO business card, front and back, provided to the passenger on July 16, 2026.
October 2, 2026 · Failed to appear · Bench warrant · NO BOND
Bittony investigated. Benally approved. Maiorano called it “sufficient.” Shubham did not appear. When the case was called at 8:40 a.m. Mountain Time on October 2, Judge Tina Garcia granted a bench warrant with no bond. The question for MCSO is now brutally practical: how are you going to find him and get him back before the court?
Bittony’s July 16 report records the single-name entry as “SHUBHAM, NO GIVEN NAME,” lists Fayetteville, Georgia, and describes an interstate bus journey. These were facts available during the investigation. The locating record also raises a different ticket-associated name, a reportedly disconnected telephone number, and an address without an apartment or unit designation. By September 10, the DA’s correspondence still acknowledged uncertainty about the unit.
Writing down an answer is not verifying it. An out-of-state address is not a plan for finding someone later. A single legal name is not itself evidence of deception; the investigative question is whether the identity entries were reconciled and the contact details checked. The published record does not establish those independent checks or a reliable plan to locate him after departure.
You questioned him, recorded his information and told him he would not be arrested. What did you actually verify while he was still there? Where are the records showing a working contact route, a complete address and reconciliation of the names?
The report names you as reviewer. Maiorano says you approved the investigation. What did you check about the recorded name and Georgia address? If these problems passed your review, what protection did that review provide?
You said you reviewed the report and video before calling the investigation “sufficient.” The out-of-state entry was on the face of that report. What verification or follow-up did you require before defending the work?
Who is assigned to locate Shubham? What identity and contact information has now been verified? What are the warrant’s pickup limits? Will the District Attorney seek his return if he is found outside New Mexico—and who will arrange it? If the plan is to wait for a chance encounter within the warrant’s limits, MCSO and the DA should say so plainly.
The victim showed up. The defendant did not. The people who investigated, approved and defended this work owe an answer that goes beyond “sufficient.”
The chronology matters: Bittony’s on-scene handling, Benally’s documented review and Maiorano’s later defense are distinct actions. The unanswered questions concern what each checked and knew at those stages; the failure to appear does not by itself establish why Shubham missed court.
Watch the October 2 hearing · Report: name, Georgia address and reviewer · Contact-information source notes · Ticket-name recording · DA’s address uncertainty · Sheriff’s review and approval statement
No direct email located
No direct email from Bittony to the passenger was located in the reviewed correspondence. His July 16 on-scene role is documented; the September 9 narrative email to the DA and September 10 signed complaint are later case actions, not replies to the passenger.
See the later narrative and signed complaint
Direct email correspondence reviewed through October 13, 2026. This status does not establish whether any later phone or in-person contact occurred.
Deputy · McKinley County Sheriff’s Office
Original report · September 9 narrative · September 10 complaint
The continued-contact wording can be followed through three documents:
The passenger’s account includes the words “continued to feel Shubham’s hands and fingers” and describes her immediate confrontation.
Bittony’s email to Bernitz lists a Word attachment. The reproduced narrative retains that continued-contact passage.
The complaint signed by Bittony omits the passage. The passenger’s paragraph moves from “However, she” directly to “told Shubham to stop”.
Documented: Bittony authored the report, sent the September 9 narrative and signed the September 10 complaint. Unresolved: who edited the text, why it changed, and who reviewed that change before filing. The produced email printout is not the native Word file or its revision history.
The driver-attributed paragraph still contains a private-area reference. The comparison concerns the missing passage in the passenger’s own account.
Read the exact side-by-side wording and oath · Records sought to explain the change · Bernitz’s dated responses
Shubham requested a translator, described his English as limited, and was questioned about the allegation.
VIEW →The timestamp review identifies six generic touching formulations and ten exculpatory explanations.
VIEW →Nine reassuring or minimizing statements are identified while the investigation was still underway.
VIEW →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.
10 INNOCENT-EXPLANATION MOMENTS
9 REASSURANCES
The 2019 certification record establishes documented MCSO service by that date; it is not presented as an exact hire date or a measure of completed years of service. The salary is the annual salary listed in McKinley County’s 2025 report, not overtime, benefits, take-home pay, or total compensation.