Cedar Rapids Woman Charged with Assaulting Officers
Jill Lampe faces charges stemming from a confrontation with police; the case has not yet been decided.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 6, 2026, 8:17 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 6, 2026, 8:22 a.m. ET
Cedar Rapids Woman Charged with Assaulting Officers and Disarming Peace Officer
Jill Lampe, 39, of Cedar Rapids, has been charged with three counts of assaulting an officer, disarming a peace officer, three counts of interference with official acts, and harassment, according to kcrg.com. The charges stem from an incident in which the government alleged Lampe aggressively approached a vehicle, refused to comply with officer commands, fought officers, grabbed an officer's holster, and accelerated her vehicle, injuring officers. Cedar Rapids Police investigated the case. As this is only a charging stage, the case has not been decided, and Lampe is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Sep 6, 2026, 8:17 a.m. ETFirst report
Cedar Rapids woman charged with assaulting officers, disarming peace officer
Jill Lampe, 39, of Cedar Rapids, has been charged with three counts of assaulting an officer, disarming a peace officer, three counts of interference with official acts, and harassment, according to KCRG.
The charges stem from an incident in which the government alleges Lampe aggressively ran up to a victim's vehicle, was confrontational, refused to comply with officer commands, fought officers when they tried to get her out of her vehicle, grabbed an officer's holster and tried to disarm him, and accelerated her vehicle causing officers to be injured, KCRG reported.
The Cedar Rapids Police are the investigating agency, according to KCRG. The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved. Lampe has not been tried, and the charges are allegations. She is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 16 Sept 2026, 12:22current
First published.
- Version 16 Sept 2026, 12:17current
First published.
- Version 16 Sept 2026, 12:54current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.