Fox News89%

Viral bodycam captures Florida deputy's traffic stop unravel as he accuses one-handed driver of holding phone 48%

By Sarah Rumpf-Whitten0%

5/29/2026, 9:42:52 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Recency Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 30.5% saturation with 143 hits. Analysis detected 940 faulty-reasoning hits from 469 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.7% and a BS Rank of 48% (10,507 of 20,179 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.10% of the article peer group.

A Florida sheriff's deputy is facing intense internet backlash after viral body camera video captured him doubling down and ticketing a woman for using a phone in her right hand  even after she revealed her right arm stops at the elbow. 
The roadside hiccup went down in Lake Worth Beach, Florida, in February, when a Palm Beach County sheriff's deputy pulled over 36-year-old Kathleen Thomas. 
The officer insisted she was clutching a cellphone in her right hand. 
But body camera footage released this week captures the moment the deputy’s case blew up. 
As the officer began lecturing her about the dangers of distracted driving, Thomas did not even bother to argue. 
Instead, she flashed her right arm, which ends at the forearm. 
"So obviously not," Thomas said, bursting into laughter in the now viral clip. 
"So you want to just call this a day or…?" 
"I don't want to call a day. 
You had a hand manipulator," the deputy said. 
"I thought I saw your hand." 
"Well you didn't," Thomas replied. 
The deputy then appeared to backtrack, saying, "With the right hand, perhaps not," before continuing the stop. 
The unnamed officer continued to insist that he saw a phone. 
Thomas, once again, showed her right arm. 
At one point during the exchange, the officer appealed to a higher power. 
"Hand to God, you did not have your phone in your hand?" 
he was heard asking her in the video. 
"Hand to God," Thomas replied, holding up her right hand. 
"Other hand to God," the officer said, as Thomas lifted her left arm. 
The awkward interaction has since exploded online, generating millions of views across Instagram, TikTok and X as users criticized the stop and questioned why the deputy continued issuing the ticket after the apparent mistake. 
In a statement to Fox News Digital, Palm Beach Sheriff Department's Public Information Officer/Director of the Bureau of Public Affairs Terri Barbera said that the department is "committed to enforcing Florida traffic laws." 
Barbera said that Thomas' citation was ultimately dismissed. 
"In this particular case, the deputy initiated a traffic stop based upon his visual observation at the time of the incident. 
After additional review of the Florida State Statutes involved and based upon the totality of the circumstances, specifically the lack of clarity on how violations are labeled in our citation software, the decision was ultimately made to dismiss based upon the difference in wording between Florida State Statute 316.305 and 316.306," Barbera said. 
Barbera said that officers are required to make decisions "based on observations made in real time." 
"As with any enforcement action, motorists have the right to contest citations through the judicial process, where all facts and evidence can be fully evaluated." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.6%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 5.2%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 3.2%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.2%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 9.2%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic16.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 1.3%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 1.7%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 3.2%Fox Nation: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 17.5%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 8.7%Fox Nation: 12.0%Framing Effect17.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.5%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 1.4%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 3.6%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 1.0%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 28.4%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 10.3%Fox Nation: 10.9%Negativity Bias28.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 5.2%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 1.1%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error4.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.7%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.3%Fox Nation: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.3%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 16.6%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 1.2%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias16.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.5%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.6%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.8%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 15.5%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority15.8%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.7%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.4%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 11.3%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning11.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 4.3%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 3.4%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 10.7%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.6%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon10.7%This article: 5.3%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 4.1%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion5.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.5%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 1.6%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.3%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof5.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 5.5%Fox Nation: 2.3%Anecdotal13.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.7%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.8%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 3.9%Fox Nation: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 1.1%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 30.5%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 5.2%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice30.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.9%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 0.6%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Rumpf-Whitten: 2.7%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

469 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers41%attributed speech275writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageKathleen Thomas • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKathleen Thomas • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageKathleen Thomas • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKathleen Thomas • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageTerri Barbera • 33 words • 0.0% coverageTerri Barbera • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTerri Barbera • 21 words • 0.0% coverageTerri Barbera • 53 words • 0.0% coverageTerri Barbera • 16 words • 0.0% coverageTerri Barbera • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Terri Barbera

100%flagged-word coverage
156 attributed words80% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Biased Writer Voice-52.0 ptsWriter: 52.0%Terri Barbera: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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