Officer Called by Tyreek Hill Admits She May Have Assumed the Cigar Was Lit Behind Closed Doors

The officer who made no arrest is asked why she looked for burn marks from a cigar she was told was unlit. This is Lakeeta Hill v. Tyreek Hill, the civil trial in Miami-Dade County over what Keeta Vaccaro Hill says happened behind closed doors during her 18-month marriage to the NFL star. She is the plaintiff. He is the defendant, he is not charged with a crime in this proceeding, and he denies every allegation. These are allegations, not findings. Day 5 belongs to his side, and his side called the police. Officer Laguna, retired now and testifying by video link, answered a call about the couple on January 30, 2024. Tyreek Hill's lawyer walks her to the answers the defense wants in front of the jury. Did she arrest him that day? No. Why not? "Because I could not prove that Mr. Hill committed a crime." If she had found injuries and could prove he caused them, she says, he would have been arrested. Then she tells the jury what she said to Keeta Hill outside the guest house after he left: that she "needs to love the life she lives and live the life she loves," that she had a week or ten days with him gone, and that if she chose to stay, here was a case card. "I spoke to her as if I was speaking to my kid." Then Keeta Hill's lawyer takes over, and he goes straight to the cigar. The officer agrees Keeta Hill told her a cigar was put in her face and that it was unlit. She agrees Tyreek Hill told her he only flipped it in her direction. So the lawyer asks what she was doing looking for burn marks. Her answer is the reason this clip exists: "I may have assumed that it was lit and looking for burn marks. I was looking for any marks on her that I could find." Here is why I think that matters. The defense case is the record made at the time: police came, found nothing they could prove, and made no arrest. That is a fair argument, and this officer hands it to them in plain words. But a record is only as good as the look behind it. Her answer cuts both ways. She says she checked for redness and for any mark at all. She also says she is not sure how or when she learned the cigar was unlit. And by the end of this stretch she agrees the two accounts differ on one thing only: flicked toward her, or put in her face. I'm not the jury and neither are you. Only the jurors decide what a report with no arrest is worth. What this moment puts in question is simple: when a police record says nothing was found, did anyone ask what the officer was looking for? Every Part of this case, and the full day in one piece, is on the channel. --- KEY MOMENTS 0:00 What this video is, and a preview 0:20 Video starts 0:55 The officer tells the jury why she made no arrest 2:16 The advice she gave Keeta Hill outside the guest house 5:12 Keeta Hill's lawyer takes over 7:41 Her answer on the unlit cigar 8:38 Flicked or not: the one thing the two accounts dispute --- COMPLETE CASE COVERAGE justiceisaprocess.com SUBSCRIBE for daily trial coverage. CASE BACKGROUND REPORT: Lakeeta Hill v. Tyreek Hill. A civil jury trial in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Florida, which opened on October 6, 2026. Keeta Vaccaro Hill is suing her husband, former NFL wide receiver Tyreek Hill, for money damages over eight allegations from their marriage, and he denies every one of them. This is a civil case: Tyreek Hill is not charged with any crime here, the plaintiff must prove each claim by the greater weight of the evidence, and the allegations are not findings unless the jury makes them. A full written case background report is in progress. LATEST ARTICLE: https://justiceisaprocess.com/desk-20... PLAYLISTS AND RESOURCES Website: https://justiceisaprocess.com Full Trial Live Broadcasts:    • Lakeeta Hill v. Tyreek Hill: Full Trial Li...   No Breaks Edition:    • Lakeeta Hill v. Tyreek Hill: No Breaks Edi...   Trial Analysis Podcast:    • Lakeeta Hill v. Tyreek Hill: Case Story Tr...   Key Moments and Testimony:    • Lakeeta Hill v. Tyreek Hill: Key Moments &...   Commentary:    • Lakeeta Hill v. Tyreek Hill: Commentary   Subscribe for Daily Coverage:    / @justiceisaprocess   FAIR USE AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE This content is produced under Fair Use (17 U.S.C. 107) for news reporting, criticism, and educational purposes. We provide transformative commentary on public court proceedings, advancing public understanding of the judicial process through timestamps, analysis, and educational context. #JusticeIsAProcess #TyreekHill #TyreekHillTrial