Bodycam: NJ Woman Claims ‘Holy Water’ and Confuses Officers Before DWI Arrest in Interlaken

In a bizarre traffic stop that quickly escalated into a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) investigation, officers from the Interlaken Police Department in New Jersey found themselves dealing with confused stories and religious artifacts. On the night of January 26, 2024, Officer Jenifer Velasquez and Officer Michael Della Ragione stopped a black 2022 Land Rover SUV on Bendermere Avenue. What started as a routine motor vehicle stop turned into a viral moment when the driver, identified as 61-year-old Cathy A. Gallo, offered a bottle of “holy water” to the police instead of her credentials and struggled to explain where she was coming from. The incident, captured fully on bodycam, highlights the complexities of field sobriety testing and the unpredictable nature of nighttime patrol work.

Watch the Full Bodycam Footage

Full Chronological Narrative (Full Details)

The Initial Stop The incident began late at night when Interlaken Police initiated a motor vehicle stop on a black Land Rover SUV. The time was approximately 10:59 PM. As the officer approached the driver’s side window, he asked the standard questions regarding the driver’s license, registration, and insurance. The driver, Cathy Gallo, appeared immediately confused by the request.

When asked for her documents, Gallo responded with confusion, stating, “I’m sorry, I don’t know you. Tell me your call… I’ve never guessed that before”. The officer calmly repeated his request for her license. At this moment, the officer noticed Gallo holding a small bottle in her hand. When he asked what she was looking for or holding, Gallo replied, “Nothing, you know, going through the holy. This is holy water”.

Conflicting Stories The situation became more suspicious when the officer asked Gallo where she was driving from. This simple question led to a series of contradictory answers that raised red flags for the investigators.

First, the passenger—identified in the report as Crista M. Trovato—attempted to answer, stating they were coming from a “friend’s house down the street”. The officer instructed the passenger to let the driver speak. Gallo then claimed she was coming from her “brother’s house” in “Bowie” or “early,” before seemingly trying to say Interlaken.

When the officer pressed for clarity, asking, “You just left from there?”, Gallo confusingly replied that she was driving the passenger back to the place they just left, which she then claimed was her own house on Interlaken Drive. The officer pointed out, “That doesn’t make any sense”.

Finally, after continued questioning, the truth began to surface. The officer asked if they had been to a bar. Gallo admitted, “So we went to, We had the safari… Barco,” referring to a local establishment. When asked if she had been drinking, Gallo admitted, “I had one drink, but I’m not a drink. I’m going to help”.

The Investigation Escalates Based on the conflicting stories and the admission of consuming alcohol, the officer asked Gallo to step out of the vehicle to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs). The officer assured her, “We just want to make sure you’re okay to drive tonight”.

The first test administered was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, where the driver must follow a pen with their eyes without moving their head. Gallo struggled with instructions immediately. The officer repeatedly had to tell her, “Keep your head still… only move your eyes”.

The Walk and Turn Test Next, the officer set up the “Walk and Turn” test. He instructed Gallo to take nine heel-to-toe steps in a straight line, turn, and take nine steps back.

Gallo had significant trouble maintaining her balance during the instruction phase. She mentioned a physical issue, saying, “I have a scar… I have a slip,” referring to an injury from “two months ago”. Despite this, she attempted the test.

During the test, she failed to follow the counting instructions. Instead of stopping at nine, she continued walking. The officer noted, “I only did four… You went too much”. When she attempted to turn and come back, she again struggled to follow the specific turning instructions demonstrated by the officer.

The One-Leg Stand The final physical test was the “One-Leg Stand.” The officer instructed Gallo to raise one foot six inches off the ground and count aloud until told to stop. Gallo seemed confused by the duration, asking, “You’re going to tell me how long I have to raise it?”.

As she attempted the test, she counted erratically: “1, 2, 3, 4, 5… 16, 17” jumping numbers and failing to keep her foot elevated properly. She was unable to complete the 30-second requirement without putting her foot down or losing balance.

The Arrest Following the conclusion of the tests, the officer made his decision. He asked her to turn around and place her hands behind her back. Gallo was informed she was being arrested for “driving while intoxicated”.

Visibly upset, Gallo remarked, “I didn’t deserve this”. The officers then managed the scene, arranging for the vehicle to be towed by Bennett’s Towing and ensuring the passenger, Trovato, had a safe way home. Another officer, identified as Officer Della Ragione, transported the passenger to her residence.

The Arrest and Charges

Charges Filed Against Cathy A. Gallo

According to the official Incident Report (Case # IPD2024-000259), Cathy A. Gallo was processed and charged with the following:

• DWI (Driving While Intoxicated)
• Reckless Driving (Likely associated with DWI charges in NJ)

Legal Explanation of Charges

Export to Sheets

Why This Case is Serious While the “holy water” comment adds a bizarre element to the story, DWI is a serious offense. The officers determined that Gallo was “unfit to operate a motor vehicle”. Driving under the influence puts everyone on the road at risk. The bodycam footage serves as evidence of her impairment level, which police relied on to make the arrest decision.

Field sobriety tests can be subjective. Know exactly where you stand before getting behind the wheel with a digital breathalyzer.

BACtrack S80 Breathalyzer

Don’t Guess. Know Your Limit Instantly.

• Police-Grade Accuracy
• One-Touch Operation
• DOT & NHTSA Approved
• Fast Results

Check Price on Amazon

What Happened Before Police Arrived

Based on the dialogue in the bodycam footage and the police report, we can reconstruct the timeline leading up to the arrest:

• The Party: Gallo and her passenger, Crista Trovato, had been attending a social gathering. Gallo mentioned going to a “safari” and also specifically mentioned “Barco,” which is a local establishment.
• Alcohol Consumption: Gallo admitted to the officer that she had been drinking. While she claimed she only had “one drink,” her confusion suggests the alcohol may have had a stronger effect, or she had consumed more than she admitted.
• The Drive: Gallo was driving her black 2022 Land Rover SUV with Trovato in the passenger seat. They were allegedly traveling between the bar and a residence on Interlaken Drive.
• The 911/Patrol Initiated Stop: The police report indicates the “Call Origination” was “SELF/SELF INITIATED”. This means there was no 911 call from a witness. Instead, the officer on patrol spotted the vehicle likely committing a traffic violation (swerving, speeding, or equipment violation), prompting the stop at Bendermere Avenue and Wickapecko Drive.

Expert Opinion & Legal Analysis

ROVE R2-4K Dash Cam (Built-in WiFi GPS)

Capture Every Detail in 4K – Anil Agarwal Yourself from False Claims.

• 4K Ultra HD Recording (Clear Night Vision)
• Built-in WiFi & GPS for Instant Evidence
• Easy to Install & 24-Hour Parking Monitor

Check Price on Amazon

By the Senior Legal Analyst at Evidence Decode

Analyzing this case from a legal defense and prosecution perspective, the Interlaken Police Department followed standard operating procedures, but the defense has specific angles they might use in court.

The Legality of the Stop Under the Fourth Amendment, police must have “reasonable suspicion” that a crime or traffic violation has occurred to pull a driver over. In this case, the incident report lists the initial call type as “MVS/MOTOR VEHICLE STOPS”. Once the officer made the stop, his questioning was legal. Officers are permitted to ask, “Where are you coming from?” and “Have you had anything to drink?” to gauge the driver’s cognitive state.

Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause

• Reasonable Suspicion: The officer developed this quickly. Gallo’s inability to find her license, her bizarre comment about “holy water,” and her conflicting stories (Brother’s house vs. Friend’s house vs. Barco) gave the officer ample reason to detain her longer for investigation.
• Probable Cause: This is the higher standard needed for an arrest. The officer established this through the Field Sobriety Tests.

The Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) The defense might attack the validity of these tests based on Gallo’s medical claims.

• Medical Defense: Before the physical tests began, Gallo stated, “I have a scar… I have a slip… broken this… two months ago”. A defense lawyer will argue that her failure to balance on the “One-Leg Stand” or walk straight in the “Walk and Turn” was due to her prior injury, not alcohol.
• Officer Justification: However, the officer also used a non-physical test: the mental instruction test. Gallo failed to follow simple instructions (counting to nine, keeping her head still). These mental slips are often cited by prosecutors as evidence of cognitive impairment caused by alcohol, which is independent of leg injuries.

Procedural Correctness The officers appeared to handle the situation professionally. They:

1. Separated the driver from the vehicle to ensure safety.
2. Demonstrated the tests before asking her to perform them.
3. Arranged for the safety of the passenger (even driving her home), which shows “community caretaking” and prevents the defense from claiming the police were aggressive or unreasonable.

Conclusion on Liability The “Totality of the Circumstances”—the combination of the admission of drinking, the confusing stories, the holy water comment, and the failure of the tests—provided strong Probable Cause for the arrest. The officers acted within the scope of US law.

The Aftermath / Current Status

Following the roadside arrest, Cathy A. Gallo was transported to the Deal Police Headquarters (which services Interlaken) for processing.

• Booking: She was processed at the station. This usually involves fingerprinting, mugshots, and breathalyzer testing (though breath results are not in the provided transcript).
• Vehicle: Her 2022 Land Rover was towed and impounded by Bennett’s Towing.
• Release: The police report confirms that Gallo was “released with a returning court date”.
• Court Date: The initial court date was scheduled for February 28, 2024.

As of this report, the case appears to be moving through the New Jersey municipal court system. No final verdict has been publicly released in the provided documents.

[Download Full Police Report PDF]

Footer Disclaimer

All suspects mentioned in this article, including Cathy A. Gallo, are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This article is based on official police records (Interlaken Police Department Case IPD2024-000259) and public bodycam footage transcripts. This content is for news reporting and educational purposes only.

Arrest-Proof Yourself (Book)

Survive Police Encounters & Protect Your Rights

• Written by an Ex-Cop
• Know Your Rights
• What to Say & Do
• Avoid Common Mistakes

Check Price on Amazon