San Jose man arrested after hidden camera found in Starbucks bathroom ⁠9%

By Molly Gibbs⁠6%

7/18/2026, 6:27:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 5 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Biased Writer Voice, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 33.2% saturation with 74 hits. Analysis detected 192 faulty-reasoning hits from 223 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠9% (19,381 of 21,171 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.50% of the article peer group.

A San Jose man was arrested after a hidden camera was found in a Starbucks bathroom at a downtown San Jose coffee shop last month, authorities said Thursday. 
According to the San Jose Police Department, officers responded to a report of an invasion of privacy incident at a Starbucks located in the 100 block of East Santa Clara Street on June 9 at around 9:30 a.m., after an employee of the business located a hidden camera in the public restroom. 
Authorities said SJPD Sexual Assaults Investigation Unit detectives discovered the camera had been installed by an adult male suspect that same morning and was operating for about 30 minutes, from 9-9:30 a.m. 
Detectives used assistance from the SJPD Real Time Intelligence Center and Automated License Plate Reader cameras to identify the suspect vehicle and suspect, the department said. 
Detectives identified 38-year-old San Jose resident, David Perales, as the primary suspect and obtained an arrest warrant, authorities said. 
Perales was located and arrested on July 2 and booked into Santa Clara County Main Jail for invasion of privacy, the department said. 
Anyone with information about this case or similar cases is asked to contact Detective Gregory of the San José Police Department Sexual Assaults Investigation Unit via email: 4435@sanjoseca.gov or cell at 408-277-4102. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 3.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 2.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 3.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 1.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 1.6%East Bay Times: 8.2%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 7.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.7%Molly Gibbs: 3.9%East Bay Times: 2.6%Appeal to Authority11.7%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.4%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 33.2%Molly Gibbs: 11.1%East Bay Times: 0.9%Unattributed Quote33.2%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 12.6%Molly Gibbs: 4.2%East Bay Times: 7.6%Biased Writer Voice12.6%This article: 14.3%Molly Gibbs: 4.8%East Bay Times: 2.8%Indoctrination14.3%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Gibbs: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.3%Molly Gibbs: 4.8%East Bay Times: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…14.3%

223 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers38%attributed speech139writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageSan Jose Police Department • 52 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageSan José Police Department Sexual Assaults Investigation Unit • 32 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words38% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%San José Police Department Sexual Assaults Investigation Unit: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%San José Police Department Sexual Assaults Investigation Unit: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-53.2 ptsWriter: 53.2%San José Police Department Sexual Assaults Investigation Unit: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.1 ptsWriter: 20.1%San José Police Department Sexual Assaults Investigation Unit: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.