Court Transcript Of "Peek Squad" Agent's No-Contest Plea

We just received the court transcript detailing former Geek Squad Agent Hao Kuo Chi “no-contest” plea in the case of his alleged setting up a cameraphone while on call in a customer’s house and recording a young woman taking a shower.

Full transcript and our analysis, inside…








peeksquad8.jpgIt’s our opinion that there was a plea bargain, with heavier charges on the table being waved by Chi’s no-contest plea. Note page 1, line 22-26, as well as page 6, line 25, “In fact, Mr. Chi wanted to thank The People. They’ve given a very fair deal in this case.”

It seems like Chi really did tape the girl in the shower. Otherwise, the prosecutor would not have asked for the memory card’s destruction (note page 6, line 4 through page 7, line 3), nor again, the defense be so amenable to it.

According to girls press conference, Chi could be seen on the video setting up the camera. Without seeing it, it’s impossible to know, really. Perhaps it was a big conspiracy. The mother distracted Chi with her laptop while the young girl stole his cameraphone and set it up. Then the older sister came in and took a shower. Then they “discovered” the cameraphone, took it to a Verizon store to to retrieve the images, and called the cops on Chi.

The only thing we know for certain is that you should be careful when strange people come into your house. We’ll stake our fedora on that. — BEN POPKEN

Geek Squad Peeker Plead “No Contest” To Privacy Invasion
“Peek Squadder” Beloved By Customers, Colleagues
The Kind Of Cellphone Geek Squad Might’ve Taped Showering Customer With
Geek Squad Sued For Videoing Customer In Shower


Edit Your Comment

  1. Jason Chen says:

    All that’s missing is the video itself, which I’m still eagerly awaiting. Hop to it Popken!

  2. superlayne says:

    You just get so lonely… D:

    Shame. Why? Isn’t that always the question?

  3. LAGirl says:

    all this for what? the girl wasn’t even hot. and the sister was a fat + fugly. jeebus! if you’re gonna take secret videos, at least make sure the girl is worth it.

  4. bambino says:

    Now where are all those skeptics calling the girls harpie bitches…

  5. faust1200 says:

    Sort of a jolt to the old ego to have a video of yourself showering being declared a “nuisance” by a judge and ordered destroyed. Lol!

  6. Anonymous says:

    My favorite order of the court:

    Commit no further crimes.


  7. cindel says:

    Word bambino!

  8. G0dS4v3tehQu33n says:

    The second name, after Sarah, was blocked the first time it was mentioned, but not the second, stating a “Kelly.” A slip-up or a different person?

  9. seda says:

    Why is the name of the second person blocked out on page 4, Line 13 but not on page 5, Line 2? Doesn’t make sense.

  10. strider_mt2k says:

    Big dummy.

  11. MercuryPDX says:

    To whomever blacked out the name on page 4: You missed the mention of the same person on page 5.

  12. leep says:

    you forgot to black out what I assume was the younger sister (who is a minor) name on page 4… just fyi

  13. Paul Beardfacé says:

    Is the blacked-out name on Page 4 Line 13 the same name on Page 5 Line 2?

  14. wow the portland mercury is a commenter? where’s WW?

  15. silenuswise says:

    I’m too lazy to search the previous threads, but at least one commenter brought up the possibility that the defendant would plea bargain because, without witnesses in his favor, all the evidence was stacked against him.

    Also, the existence of the memory card is not proof that he recorded her–only that she was recorded. We knew it existed, and that it was his property, and that it was in possession of the police–but the crucial question was who recorded it. Again, as discussed in the earlier threads, the recording could have been orchestrated by the girl(s).

    I personally suspect that the dude did it, but this court decision in no way gets as any closer to the truth of the matter than we were before.

  16. RichAndFoolish says:

    He plead in a hurry.
    Was it a stupid stunt or is he in cahoots with those “lying harpies”?

    The girls are still suing, right?

  17. homerjay says:

    Okay, as a member of “The People,” I’m not ready to accept that plea. I’m just going to have to see exhibit A before I make MY ruling.

  18. spanky says:

    You mean the mom and girls DIDN’T mastermind the whole thing, somehow managing to convince the Geek Squad guy to risk is job, his career, and his freedom for a share of a potential lawsuit award that they’d all split up after Gloria Allred got her share? WHAAAA?

    @LAGirl: What the fuck would make you say things like that? Seriously.

  19. LAGirl says:

    @spanky: uh, spanky? when the Consumerist stop being the place of snark + sarcasm? seriously! i am guessing you did not follow the original posts on this.

  20. ivieso says:

    ammm…I think you were suppose to blackout the underage girl’s name. The other girl other than Sarah Vasquez. You guys did it in the beginning, then you guys got lazy and said f-it. You guys over at the consumerist are asking for it. Mind as well camera phone someone in the shower you lazy bastards. This time, as least upload it to youtube.

  21. spanky says:

    @LAGirl: Uh, no, I followed the antics of the crack internet detectives in the original posts.

    As for ‘snark’? Geesh, I hate that word, but if it means making fun of the way crime victims* look, I don’t care for the concept, either. (And I haven’t noticed that being a trend here, no.)

    * You know the “fat + fugly” sister is something like 13 years old?

  22. superlayne says:

    You know, it’s people like you who can’t capitalize all their I’s and first words of sentences, yet think they can judge other people that makes me sick. They were both decently cute girls, who were either brilliant conspirators or innocent victims.

    Enjoy LA, pretty soon you’ll all be drifting off towards the Kremlin when the tectonic plates start cracking.

  23. Whammbo says:


    I’m sure the video is already somewhere on YouTube :p

  24. Has anyone seen this video? Who the hell really knows what was on that memory card. The case didn’t even get far enough for the video to be seen.

    I think he copped a plea so they didn’t make him register as a sex offender. I hate to say it but I’d probably cop a plea too, because let’s face it there’s no way he could have won whether the truth was on his side or not.

    I work in an office full of women and I won’t go in any of their offices unless absolutely necessary. I troubleshoot Windows issues via remote desktop even if they’re 10 feet away. If it’s a hardware issue or something I can’t fix by RDP I’ll pull the machine and put in another one.

  25. EtherealStrife says:

    I’d recommend an eye exam. The older sister is downright fuggly, and she was the one taped.

    Yup. In fact I automatically side with the guys unless there’s actual *evidence* of intent. The whole innocent until proven guilty thing seems to get tossed out the door when the guy is accused of being a perv or sexual predator. In this case the guy could easily have left his phone out, and unless the camera captured him setting it up and aiming it at the shower, it seems like he got reamed by the system.
    All the sisters had to do was pull a Chewbacca Offense (against geek) and Idiot Defense (of big sis) around the camera phone + a few tears on the stand and claims of feeling violated and BAM goodbye Geek. Seems to me he made the right/only call.

    Come on youtube! Butts in gear! :P

  26. ShadowFalls says:

    One thing to note though, the conspiracy idea is a low chance due to most people carry their cellphone in a pocket or on a clip attached to them.

    Regardless, a person must know something of a phone to set it to record and know it was capable of storing it on a memory card. The news story did represent that neither the mother or older daughter understood the technology enough to know it had a memory card and how to remove it, it took the younger daughter.

    Another thing to point out, as a person who would be innocent, there wouldn’t be a likely chance he wouldn’t object to the charges, as clearly he did not.

  27. humphrmi says:


    The girls are still suing, right?

    Well, uh funny thing about that. The court just ordered the destruction of their primary piece of evidence, and the D didn’t object (in fact, they thanked them… go fig).

    If they were smart they made a legally usable copy prior to filing the police report. If not, they’re not suing anyone.

  28. Maatc says:

    Treefarm? Not sure that being around more “wood” is really what this guy needs…

  29. arieln says:

    That guy must have pretty good eyesight to be able to watch/use his camera phone after the fact.

    It ain’t the best way to view that kind of stuff.

  30. spanky says:

    @EtherealStrife: Earlier stories mentioned several times that you could see the guy setting up the camera in the footage that was shot. If that weren’t the case, he could have easily fought the charges and won.

    It’s pretty obvious that there are a lot of people who automatically side with the guy, but I haven’t heard an even remotely credible argument that he was set up or that the girls were in any way conspiring with him, as some people were speculating.

  31. shdwsclan says:

    If you really wanna be smart about it, find an item in the house and replace it with an identicle item with a camera and transmitter inside…..thats what they have in those spy stores…..

    I mean, how could you NOT see a cameraphone propped up on a toilet or sink…

  32. EtherealStrife says:


    Actually no. The lawyer for the defense + the sisters claimed that it showed the guy setting up the camera. Since the media would not be permitted to view the footage, their statement is worthless and hearsay.

    I have the biggest dick in the world! I have said it publicly, therefore it must be so. :P I even have photographic proof on this here video. Which is for my eyes only.

    If that weren’t the case, he could have easily fought the charges and won.

    Uh no again. As I’ve said on several of these, in sex crimes certain leniences are given to the prosecution to “protect” the “victim”. Look at the shitstorm the Duke players went through for a full year before the bitch finally fessed up. If she’d stuck to her story instead of changing it every 10 minutes the guys would’ve been burned at the stake.

  33. CumaeanSibyl says:

    As if it even matters what they looked like. Stalkers, voyeurs, rapists… they get their rocks off on power and control, not the victim’s looks. Otherwise, unattractive women would be totally safe from predators (which would be nice).

    Would we have this much skepticism about the case if the woman in question was really really hot? I mean, hey, it’s totally normal to want to film a hot girl in the shower, but if someone’s filming a fugly girl in the shower there must be some kind of conspiracy going on.

  34. EtherealStrife says:

    @CumaeanSibyl: I know for me the skepticism is about the placement of the camera and the reactions of the two girls. The hotness only modifies my interest in seeing the video for myself. :sleazysmile:

  35. Xtaban says:

    Anyone who still believes that these girls are conspirators are seriously missing the simplest details.

    1. There was a plea for no contest.

    2. The defendant(s) and their lawyer clearly stated that the GS employee is seen on the video setting up the camera. This completely rules out the popular “Girl steals phone and sets it up herself before she takes a shower”.

    3. Now before you say that the girl could have easily lied about the GS employee being in the video… GS employee would have nothing to fear if he didn’t do it because he would know that he definitely wouldn’t be on the video. However, this was not the case.

    GS employee is guilty. Girls are victims not only to this guy’s perverted crime but to the bashing from idiots on forums who just want a reason to flame someone.