A police officer’s account of an April 7, 2025 domestic disturbance became a point of dispute in the Miami-Dade civil trial between Lakeeta Vaccaro Hill and her estranged husband, Tyreek Hill. The case involves assault-and-battery and divorce claims.
Sunny Isles Beach Police Officer Sebastian Cuellar testified on October 12, 2026 that Vaccaro Hill did not report being battered during his investigation. He also acknowledged seeing a mark on her chest. Defense questioning emphasized the absence of a reported physical assault, while cross-examination challenged his experience, documentation and investigative decisions.
Tyreek Hill denies physical abuse and has admitted verbal abuse. He faces no criminal charges in connection with these allegations. Cuellar’s testimony concerns what police were told and observed during one response, not a determination of the disputed civil claims.
The Officer’s Background and Role in the Response
Cuellar testified that he had worked for the city’s police department for nearly 15 years, first in its ocean rescue division and later as a sworn patrol officer. His ocean rescue work included preparing reports about water-related incidents. He also described attending a police academy for approximately six months, where he received training in report writing and investigations.
During cross-examination, Vaccaro Hill’s counsel drew a distinction between his years in ocean rescue and his experience conducting police investigations. Cuellar acknowledged that, at the time of the April 2025 response, he had been released to work independently as a patrol officer only that week.
Cuellar was one of approximately five or six officers who responded to the residence. As the primary officer, he was responsible for preparing the incident report. He said he typed it after the response, using information gathered during the investigation and information from other officers.
When asked whether the report was complete and accurate, Cuellar said it was and that he had not needed to make changes or amendments.
What Prompted the 911 Call
Cuellar recalled being dispatched to an assault-in-progress call. He explained that the circumstances officers encounter can differ from the initial dispatch information, requiring them to assess the situation after arriving.
According to his testimony, Vaccaro Hill’s mother made the 911 call because she was concerned about her daughter’s safety. He said she told police she had been living with the couple since November of the previous year, when their baby was born, and that arguments between them were becoming more frequent.
Cuellar testified that the mother described Hill as sometimes becoming aggressive during changes in his mood. She reported seeing him take the baby and move through the apartment toward the balcony, which prompted her call.
The questioning also addressed dispatch notes recording the caller’s fear that Hill might throw the baby over the railing. That was a reported fear, not an established threat or act. Cuellar testified that Vaccaro Hill did not tell him she believed her husband was going to throw the baby over the railing, and that Hill did not tell police he intended to do so.
On cross-examination, Cuellar also acknowledged that the dispatch information included a report of battery to the daughter and arguing audible over an open phone line. Vaccaro Hill’s counsel used those entries to emphasize the seriousness of the information available to responding officers.
What Cuellar Said the Family Told Police
When officers entered the residence, Cuellar said, Vaccaro Hill was sitting in a chair holding the baby near a desk or computer area. Hill was sitting opposite her. Officers separated the parties for interviews, which Cuellar described as their standard practice.
According to Cuellar, Vaccaro Hill described ongoing relationship problems and attempts to address them through couples therapy. He said she reported that therapy was not working and that Hill became irritated when she tried to discuss issues, including whether he was sufficiently involved with their daughter. She also described him throwing objects when angry.
The defense then questioned Cuellar about whether either Vaccaro Hill or her mother had reported specific physical acts. He testified that the mother did not tell him Hill had:
- Wrestled or tackled Vaccaro Hill.
- Thrown her onto a desk.
- Grabbed or injured her breasts.
- Hit, struck, punched or spat at her.
Cuellar also testified that he saw no scratches on Vaccaro Hill’s legs. Asked hypothetically whether he would have arrested Hill if he had observed scratches and been told they resulted from tackling or wrestling, Cuellar said he would have.
Most importantly for the defense, Cuellar testified that Vaccaro Hill agreed the argument had not become physical. He said her mother likewise did not report a physical confrontation between the couple.
Cuellar spoke only briefly with Hill himself. Another officer conducted most of Hill’s interview. Cuellar testified that the information relayed from that interview did not give him probable cause to believe Hill had committed battery against Vaccaro Hill.
The Computer, the Eggs and the Limits of the Scene Evidence
Cuellar described seeing a computer on the floor near the area where the couple had been sitting. He could not remember whether it was a monitor or a laptop, and he did not know whether it had been thrown or placed there.
He also saw a plate of eggs on the floor, with eggs scattered around it. He said it appeared the plate had either been thrown or had fallen. Vaccaro Hill did not explain to him how it ended up there.
Those observations had limits. Cuellar said he had not been present during the argument and could not determine whether a wrestling-type struggle had occurred or who had put the computer on the floor.
On cross-examination, Vaccaro Hill’s counsel pointed out that the property section of his report was blank. Cuellar acknowledged that he had not asked whether video footage existed and had not seen any video of the incident.
The distinction was between what the officer observed after arriving and what he could establish about the events before his arrival. His testimony identified objects on the floor without resolving how they got there.
The Chest Mark and the Disputed “Without Malice” Wording
Both sides questioned Cuellar about a mark on Vaccaro Hill’s chest. During defense questioning, it was described as slight redness. During cross-examination, counsel referred to it as a bruise.
Cuellar testified that Vaccaro Hill did not describe the mark as resulting from an intentional battery. In response to defense questions, he agreed that she conveyed uncertainty about whether Hill caused it and that, if it happened while the baby was being transferred, it was not intentional.
Cross-examination challenged how Cuellar recorded that explanation. His report used the wording “without malice,” but he acknowledged that Vaccaro Hill had not used the word “malice.” He said it was his own wording, based on his understanding of the circumstances and the parties’ statements that the argument had not become physical.
Vaccaro Hill’s counsel pressed the distinction between a person’s actual statement and an officer’s interpretation of it. Cuellar also acknowledged that, in an earlier deposition, he had said he could not explain how taking a baby from someone would cause a bruise.
During his testimony, Cuellar suggested that the baby’s head resting against Vaccaro Hill’s chest could account for a mark. He nevertheless acknowledged that he had not been present when the mark occurred. His testimony did not establish its cause.
Cuellar said Vaccaro Hill declined photographs and a written statement. Consequently, he took no photographs of the chest mark.
Why No Arrest Was Made
According to Cuellar, officers documented the incident as a domestic disturbance because the parties told police that the argument had not become physical. He testified that no arrest was made and no referral to the state attorney’s office followed. No criminal charges were filed in connection with these allegations.
The defense also asked about the report’s “domestic” classification. Cuellar explained that it reflected the parties’ family relationship: they were married, lived together and had a child. He agreed that the classification did not, by itself, establish domestic violence.
Cuellar recalled Hill asserting that he had the same right as the mother to spend time with their daughter. He also testified that Hill cooperated by leaving the residence to prevent further arguing.
Questions about possible preferential treatment arose as well. Cuellar said he did not follow football, was not a fan of Hill and did not recognize him when he first entered the apartment. He testified that a person’s celebrity status would not cause him to omit information or refrain from making an arrest if the evidence warranted one.
That testimony addressed a disputed issue in the case. Vaccaro Hill had previously testified that police often protected Hill. Cuellar’s account offered his response to questions about whether Hill’s status affected this investigation.
Cross-Examination Challenges the Investigation’s Completeness
Vaccaro Hill’s counsel challenged more than the conclusions in Cuellar’s report. The questioning focused on whether officers had gathered enough information to support those conclusions.
Other People in the Residence
Cuellar initially described obtaining information from the couple and Vaccaro Hill’s mother. On cross-examination, he acknowledged that Hill’s parents were also present, bringing the number of adults discussed to five.
He acknowledged that he did not mention Hill’s parents in his report and did not take statements from them. Counsel also pointed out that the report’s “others involved” section listed only two people.
The Mother’s Opportunity to Provide a Written Statement
Cuellar testified that Vaccaro Hill’s mother did not provide a written statement. When pressed, he initially said she had been asked, although that was not documented.
Counsel then directed him to his earlier deposition, where he had said he did not recall whether she declined a written statement or whether she was offered the opportunity to provide one. Cuellar explained that another officer had spoken with her and that he did not remember whether he had confirmed that detail with the officer.
Questions About Prior Conduct and Safety
Counsel asked whether Cuellar had questioned Vaccaro Hill about alleged prior choking, control over her daily activities or other concerns about her safety. He acknowledged that he had not asked some of those questions and did not recall asking others.
Cuellar maintained that he tailored his investigation to the circumstances. He said the parties’ statements that the argument had not become physical informed his decision not to pursue further questions about physical abuse or threats.
Counsel contrasted that explanation with Cuellar’s deposition testimony, in which he had agreed that such safety questions were part of the process when responding to a domestic battery call. Cuellar acknowledged the earlier answer after reviewing it.
What the Testimony Establishes, and What Remains Disputed
The defense emphasized Cuellar’s testimony that Vaccaro Hill did not report being battered during the April 7 response, that her mother did not describe a physical assault and that officers made no arrest.
Vaccaro Hill’s counsel emphasized the chest mark, the alarming dispatch information, Cuellar’s limited independent patrol experience and gaps in the investigation. Cross-examination also established that the report’s “without malice” wording was Cuellar’s interpretation rather than Vaccaro Hill’s own phrase.
Those are competing ways of assessing the same police response. The officer’s account describes the information he said he received and the decisions he made. The challenges to that account concern its completeness, accuracy and the weight it should receive in the civil case.
The absence of an arrest does not itself resolve the assault-and-battery or divorce claims. The abuse allegations remain disputed, and this testimony should not be treated as a finding that they were either proven or disproven.
Source footage: Law&Crime Trials.
Be the first to comment