Parents stated they were “treated like criminals;” police release body cams

The California mother of an abducted boy, who has since been found, is telling the media that the police treated her like a criminal after she reported her son missing.  The police responded by taking three body cam videos and posting them on You Tube.  (Read full story here).

 The whole incident began when Brock’s father, Paul Guzman’s put Brock in their 2001 Corolla and started the engine and went back into the house to get some belongings and his older son (no mention of which of the older two sons it was, other than it was the one who attends school 40 miles away in Napa.  It was then, at that exact moment that a car thief hopped in and drove off with the car and Brock in the back seat in the early morning hours of April 20.

When the police arrived, Suzanne Brock, Brock’s mother decided that she was not going to let the police into her home to search for Brock.  For some reason she didn’t realize that the more she stood her ground the more suspicious she seemed.

It is hard to take Suzanne’s side after watching the video, as her constant profanity and screaming about them not entering the house makes it all about her and not her missing son.

Suzanne Guzman

With all the protesting she does, you can’t help but wonder, as I assume the police must have, if Brock wasn’t really in the house or which I believe is more likely, there was something in the house she didn’t want them to see.

Was there maybe a small marijuana plant growing in the closet, or an unregistered handgun?  There must have been something there that she was worried about the police finding because I just can’t believe that she would feel the need to stand up for her constitutional rights at a time like this. What parent would be concerned about their 4th amendment rights when their child is missing and in possible danger.  Maybe one that had something to hide inside their house?

There are many, many families of missing children who have opened up their homes to the police even though it is obvious the child is not there, just so the police can do their procedure and move to the next step of the investigation.

“Here’s what I think, you do what the police ask, or suffer the consequences…if they step on your rights, you can deal with that at a later time…but her child was missing? she should have just let them in if she was innocent so the police could rule her out and move on to what really happened…her actions caused the police to focus on her, when they could have been searching other avenues,” Kim posted on Facebook.

I think it’s her right to refuse access to anyone – including police – into her home. It’s called the 4th amendment. BUT, I think it’s an unwise decision on her part. I agree with her in theory, but in this situation she really should’ve been more helpful. Something stinks,” posted Lucy.

On Suzanne’s Facebook page she posts:  “Paul was cuffed because they told him he could put the dogs away at the end of video- he got to the door and one of the ones that touched me up grabbed him and drug him away- the other pulled their taser on him, he said ‘what are you going to shoot me?!’ And he put his hands up (I thought it was a gun), they cuffed hi and put him in the car. No explanation at all, I think it was to isolate Liam from his parents.”

 During the video you can hear the policeman ask Suzanne why was her husband is driving around with a flat tire.  She responded he was looking for their son.  I find it odd for many reasons.  Where did this second car come from?  Was it a car they owned but had been sitting because it had a flat tire?  Why did dad feel he had would be able to find his son by driving around the neighborhood.  Was it because he already have a good idea who took him?  
Although both parents deny knowing who left the bike behind that was found on the property, it seems so strange that a random bicyclist goes by at that exact time and sees Paul walk into the house and thinks to himself, “Hmmm, I am going to ditch my bike and steal that car.”  I am wondering if that person may have known the Guzman’s or even possible been there for some reason at that time in the morning.

During that meeting with the media, Brock’s father, Paul Guzman told the media that the reason the police could not come into the house was because they had a dog that would bite.  Guzman’s Facebook page shows he owns a pit bull named Oso (bear).


No matter what the Guzman family says, it comes down to why they didn’t want the police in their house and I suspect it is not because of a biting dog or the 4th Amendment.
Will Suzanne be charged with hindering an investigation by denying the police access to the home and slowing down the procedure or will the Fairfax police department and Guzman family call it a draw and drop the whole thing? 

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/portableplayer/?cmsID=300872091&videoID=Vgy_k3fF83q8&origin=nbcbayarea.com&sec=news&subsec=local&width=600&height=360

About Missing Persons Admin 4604 Articles
Jerrie Dean, who is retired from Federal Law Enforcement, is the Founder of Missing Persons of America.

4 Comments

  1. It would be awesome if the person who runs this site would stick to the facts and leave their thoughts and theories of of it?, ppl come here to see the facts! Of missing people not what you think happened ? Just stick to police records and police affidavits , plz and TY

  2. It would be awesome if the person who runs this site would stick to the facts and leave their thoughts and theories of of it?, ppl come here to see the facts! Of missing people not what you think happened ? Just stick to police records and police affidavits , plz and TY