The original passenger narrative
Read pages 2–3 for the reported accounts; the continued-contact passage appears on page 2.
Open report · PDF →If Victims Deserve Better · Media resources
Press room.
The case. The documents. The questions that remain.
A reporting starting point for the July 16 Greyhound incident near Gallup and the public records documenting the response by the McKinley County Sheriff’s Office.
The story at a glance
A recorded account.
An omitted passage.
An unexplained change.
On July 16, 2026, a female passenger reported repeated nonconsensual touching by the passenger beside her on a Greyhound bus near Gallup, New Mexico. On Deputy Miguel Bittony’s bodycam, she says “Four times” at 02:14.
The original investigative report and a reproduced September 9 narrative describe continued contact. The September 10 criminal complaint, signed by Bittony, omits that passage. The documents establish a difference in wording; they do not identify who made the change or why.
Sheriff James Maiorano III had called the investigation “sufficient” on August 21. On September 23, District Attorney John William Bernitz said he did not consider the continued-touching discrepancy material.
At the October 2 hearing, Shubham did not appear. Judge Tina Garcia ordered a bench warrant with no bond. The published October 3 docket copy is a dated record, not a live warrant-status check.
Document comparison · Hearing outcome · Editing-history records sought
The documented sequence
Six dates to orient your reporting.
The incident and recorded account
Police respond to the reported touching on the bus. The passenger gives the four-contact count on bodycam.
Bodycam & timestamp guide →The sheriff’s review
Maiorano calls the investigation conducted by Bittony and approved by Sgt. Savannah Benally “sufficient.”
Command-review email chain · PDF →The passage is still present
The produced copy of Bittony’s email to the DA and reproduced narrative retains the continued-contact passage.
Email and reproduced narrative · PDF →The complaint is filed
The signed criminal complaint omits the passage. The filed charge is battery.
Redacted complaint and summons · PDF →The DA addresses the discrepancy
Bernitz says he is not concerned about the continued-touching discrepancy and does not consider it material.
Transcribed email excerpt →Failure to appear; no-bond ruling
Judge Garcia orders a bench warrant with no bond. Erika Pirotte appears for the State; Bernitz is not present.
Redacted hearing excerpts →
Go directly to the records
The essential source documents.
Public copies already published in the evidence collection. Personal identifiers are redacted where indicated.
The intermediate version
Agency-produced email and reproduced narrative. The native Word attachment and its revision history remain separately sought.
Open narrative · PDF →The version submitted to court
The redacted complaint and summons. Compare the narrative on PDF pages 2–3 with the original report.
Open complaint · PDF →The sheriff’s “sufficient” determination
The August 21 email chain documenting the sheriff’s response about the investigation.
Open email chain · PDF →The August 25 instruction to staff
Maiorano directs staff to forward the passenger’s emails to Chief Deputy Eric Jim rather than respond.
Open directive · PDF →The docket captured October 3
Lists the failure-to-appear warrant and bench-warrant letter. The no-bond ruling is documented in the hearing recording.
Open dated docket · PDF →Recordings with context
Watch the source. Keep the context.
JULY 16 / BODYCAM
Open the bodycam guide →The passenger’s account at 02:14.
The timestamp guide links into Bittony’s full recording. Review the surrounding exchange when using an excerpt.
Watch 8:40 AM MT excerpt →
Watch 9:08 AM MT excerpt →
Watch 9:13 AM MT excerpt →Times above are Mountain Time. The recording’s screen clock is one hour ahead. These are the site’s existing privacy-redacted excerpts.
Source notes
Details that matter when reporting.
Keep the two cases distinct.
MCSO: 2026-00010128
Criminal court: M-35-MR-2026-00188
The filed charge is battery. The reported conduct and the charge should be identified separately; an allegation is not a finding of guilt.
Date the court status.
The hearing occurred October 2; the published register was captured October 3. Confirm any later warrant or case status with the court before describing it as current.
Separate the record from the question.
The omitted passage is visible in the document comparison. Who edited it, why, and what review occurred remain questions. The sheriff’s August 21 determination predates the September complaint.
Know which copy you are reading.
The DA’s September responses are labeled transcribed excerpts. The September 9 PDF reproduces a narrative; it is not the native Word attachment. Publication and evidence policies →
Interview requests · Evidence questions · Corrections
Get in touch.
For interview requests or help locating a source, contact If Victims Deserve Better. Include your outlet, deadline and the record you want to discuss.
Prepared October 9, 2026 from the linked public record. Dated site updates · Right of reply