An Escondido Village couple out for a late afternoon stroll found themselves staring down the barrel of a gun in what proved to be a case of false suspicion of vandalism by campus police.

Around 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 24, a first-year Stanford graduate student, his three-month pregnant wife and their two-and-a-half year-old son were finishing a walk around the Dish, accompanied by a friend visiting from out of town.

The Daily agreed to withhold the individuals’ names since they were accused of no crime and wished to retain their privacy as a condition of being interviewed.

The couple said that their son wanted to walk down the last hill of the trail, so the student and his friend placed their bags in the child’s stroller. As the four crossed Junipero Serra onto Stanford Ave., where their car was parked, the men walked ahead while the mother lagged behind with her child.

The adults walking a stroller loaded down with bags along a busy road during rush hour aroused the suspicion of police. Stanford University Department of Public Safety (SUDPS) Public Information Officer Bill Larson said in a written statement that deputies responded to “a report of three individuals who appeared to be looking into parked vehicles.”

The Department of Public Safety is otherwise staying relatively mum about the incident, declining repeated requests for them to confirm, deny or comment on any of a series of claims made by the family. Police instead provided a statement with general Department policies on detaining suspected criminals.

Larson noted that vehicle burglaries have been on the rise.

“Before and after this incident occurred, we have continued to focus our efforts on those areas of the campus that have experienced a recent rash of vehicle burglaries and vandalisms, including that portion of Stanford Ave. where this incident originated,” Larson said. “These efforts include canvassing the area with alert fliers, increased patrols and responding to reports of suspicious persons and circumstances.”

Shortly after the family and friend began to drive down Stanford Avenue, they were signaled by a policeman to pull over. As they did so, more police cars came from the opposite direction and blockaded the party on Stanford Avenue, according to the parents.

“When I stepped out of the passenger door, I came face to face with a pistol,” the friend said in a police report, which he submitted to the Santa Clara County Internal Affairs Unit and was obtained by The Daily. “The man holding the gun . . . looked nervous. When I saw he had the gun pointed at me with both hands, I said to him, ‘What’s going on?’ We really had no idea whether we were in danger or were being accused of being dangerous. He screamed, ‘Shut up’ [and] ‘Get over there.’ Other officers were ordering us with totally unnecessary profanities even though we totally complied with their demands.”

Larson would not comment on the status of any internal investigation and did not respond to questions about the use of guns or profanity, saying only that detention of suspects may require a variety of procedures in order to protect police officers.

“Detentions may include the use of verbal commands, drawn weapons, handcuffing and restriction of movement in order to control individuals who are being detained and assure the safety of the sworn officers,” Larson said. “According to the Uniform Crime Reports, which [are] compiled each year by the FBI, law enforcement officers are injured or killed during routine traffic stops more often than virtually any other type of call.”

Once the adults were out of the car, they said, the officers instructed them to lie face down on the road with their hands behind their backs, still at gunpoint. The three adults were then handcuffed, according to the adults’ police reports.

“Deputies arrived within moments and detained the individuals until it could be determined if a burglary or vandalism had been committed, or was in the process of being committed,” Larson said.

“The manner in which deputies stop and detain individuals is based on training, past experiences, Department policies and procedures, the type of crime and other information that may have been relayed to them.” Larson continued. “Given the information that a felony burglary may have been committed, deputies would have had a heightened concern about the possibility of people fleeing from the scene either on foot or in a vehicle, as well as the potential for violence.”

The officer-in-charge soon arrived at the scene, the mother said, and he released her so she could comfort her child. Her husband and the friend were released from handcuffs and asked if they would allow their car to be searched.

Larson said those detained had not been involved with thefts or any other criminal activity.

Still, the family remains shaken up.

“The offensive language and threats with deadly force were excessive,” the mother said. “These officers thought they were arresting thieves. Theft is not a violent crime and I do not understand why so much force was used. It would have been a far lesser offense to our family to have returned from our hike to find that the car had been broken into and the radio stolen.”

Regardless of the shock, the family is not taking legal action, though all three adults submitted reports to the county for investigation.

“We’re not pressing charges against them,” the wife said. “We’re just saying this isn’t OK, and we want it to be acknowledged. There are people that, when things like this happen to them, just feel totally disempowered and don’t do anything because they’re afraid. I think it’s important for people to acknowledge what goes on with the police.”

Larson said that SUDPS has a formal complaint process to deal with such concerns.

“If a member of the community would like to complain about a negative experience that resulted from a contact with any member of the Department of Public Safety,” he said, “or a service that was provided or not, he/she is welcome to file a formal complaint by completing the proper form in person at the Department of Public Safety.”