Findings Of Prosecutor Review Of The Investigation Into The Incident During Office Hours of Scott County Elected Official

This written report serves as The Scott County Prosecuting Attorney’s findings regarding the incident that occurred on February 21, 2025, during office hours of a Scott County elected official.

Procedural Background

On Fridays, a Scott County elected official holds office hours where citizens of the community and county employees can come in and speak to him about a wide range of issues or topics. These office hours are conducted in the front lobby of the 911 center and are conducted from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

On Friday, February 21, 2025, Indiana State Police was contacted by an employee of the Scott County 911 Center advising that the elected official had reported that while in the front lobby of the 911 center, a jailer from the Scott County Jail had threatened him.

It is also known that a lawsuit exists between the Scott County Sheriff’s Office and the Scott County Council regarding a dispute over the budget for the Sheriff’s Office. The dispute has led to hostility and tension between members of the Scott County Council, the Scott County Commissioners, employees of the Scott County Sheriff’s Office, and citizens within the community.

Investigation

A detective with the Indiana State Police responded to the Scott County 911 Center and began his investigation into the matter. As part of the investigation, a video recording of the incident was obtained along with video footage of the jailer leaving the Scott County Sheriff’s Office and approaching the 911 Center. The video footage does not contain audio.

The Indiana State Police Detective conducted interviews of the elected official, the jailer, another member of the community that was in the front room of the 911 Center for the entirety of this incident, and several other employees of the Scott County Sheriff’s Office and/or Jail who work with the jailer.

The investigation discovered, and the video shows, that the jailer approached the locked, outside door to the 911 Center and rang the doorbell. The elected official got up out of his seat and opened the door for the jailer. The jailer placed his left hand on the shoulder of the elected official and said something to him. The jailer then walked away, exited the 911 Center, and returned to the Scott County Jail. The video shows that the jailer was in the 911 Center with the elected official for about twenty (20) seconds in total and his left hand was on the right shoulder of the elected official for approximately eight (8) seconds while speaking to him.

The investigation discovered that, although the video footage contains no audio, all three (3) of the people present for the incident are in agreement as to what was said by the jailer. The witnesses told the detective that the jailer said he was sorry about the elected official’s house in Canada, that the Muskogees know where he’s at, and stated that the jailer said the elected official knew what he was talking about.

The witnesses also advised that the jailer had his hand on the shoulder of the elected official while speaking with him.

During an interview of the jailer by the Indiana State Police Detective, the jailer advised that he had seen a documentary on television about an individual in Canada whose house was intentionally burned by a Canadian crime family. During the course of his interview, the jailer advised that he believed the elected official was the same person whose house was intentionally burned in Canada, and that he was warning the elected official that if the jailer saw the show and recognized the elected official, that other people would too, including the people responsible for the incident in Canada.

From the investigation, it is not believed that the elected official is the same person that was involved in the incident in Canada, however from the people interviewed who are familiar with the jailer, it appears that the jailer is convinced that he is.

Meeting with Indiana State Police Detective The Scott County Prosecutor has met with the Indiana State Police Detective multiple times since February 21, 2025, to discuss the investigation, its findings, and further steps in the investigatory process.

At this time, the Indiana State Police has indicated that their investigation is complete and that no further action is being taken by them. The Indiana State Police Detective is not recommending that criminal charges be filed.

Analysis of Events as Possible Crimes

A duty of a Prosecuting Attorney is to review investigations to determine what criminal laws might have been violated and to evaluate the facts determined by the investigation to see if those criminal laws were, in fact, violated. If a criminal act is committed, the prosecuting attorney then looks to see if evidence exists to charge a specific person with committing the crime(s). To file a criminal charge, a prosecutor must have probable cause, supported by sufficient evidence, that a crime has been committed and that the accused committed it. A prosecuting attorney must refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.

The Scott County Prosecutor’s Office consists of the elected Prosecuting Attorney and four (4) Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys, for a total of five (5) attorneys within the office. The five (5) attorneys within the Scott County Prosecutor’s Office have a combined total of sixty-seven (67) years of experience in criminal law.

As part of the screening of this matter, each attorney within the Prosecutor’s Office did an independent review of the Indiana State Police’s case report and watched the applicable video evidence. The case was discussed during an attorney staff meeting. During this meeting, each attorney stated the criminal laws that should be considered when making this charging decision, their decision on whether or not charges should be filed for this matter, and their analysis as to why or why not.

The criminal statutes under which these facts were evaluated are Intimidation and Battery. Indiana Code section 35-45-2-1 provides, in relevant part, “a person who communicates a threat with the intent:

(1) that another person engage in conduct against the other person’s will; or (2) that another person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act … commits intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor.”

Indiana Code section 35-45-2-1(d) defines a “Threat” as an expression, by words or action, of an intention to:

(1) unlawfully injure the person threatened or another person, or damage property;

(2) unlawfully subject a person to physical confinement or restraint;

(3) commit a crime;

(4) unlawfully withhold official action, or cause such withholding;

(5) unlawfully withhold testimony or information with respect to another person's legal claim or defense, except for a reasonable claim for witness fees or expenses;

(6) expose the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule;

(7) falsely harm the credit or business reputation of the person threatened; or

(8) cause the evacuation of a dwelling, a building, another structure, or a vehicle.

It was the unanimous decision of the attorneys that the statement made by the jailer to the elected official, although odd, did not meet the definition of “threat” pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-45-2-1(d), nor was the intent of the statement to cause the elected official to engage in conduct against their will or to place the elected official in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act. Therefore, no criminal charges are appropriate for Intimidation.

Indiana Code section 35-42-2-1 provides, in relevant part, that “a person who knowingly or intentionally: (1) touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner… commits battery, a Class B misdemeanor.” Although the battery statute does not separately define “rude, insolent, or angry manner,” these disjunctive terms of art have plain and ordinary meanings. (see In re Hill, 144 N.E.3d 184, 188 (Ind. 2020) (per curium) defining “rude” in part as “lacking refinement or delicacy,” “inelegant, uncouth,” or “offensive in manner or action: discourteous”; defining “insolent” as “insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct: overbearing” or “exhibiting boldness or effrontery: imprudent.”)

It was also the unanimous decision of the attorneys that the placing of the left hand of the jailer on the right shoulder of the elected official while speaking to him could not be proven to be “rude, insolent, or angry” as required for the criminal offense of Battery. Therefore, no criminal charge should be filed for Battery.

Discussion With Elected Official

On March 6, 2025, a meeting was held between the Prosecutor’s Office and the elected official in which many of the findings of this report were discussed. In addition to these findings, the possibility of convening a grand jury and presenting the evidence, witnesses, and investigation to the grand jury to decide whether or not an indictment should be issued for this matter was also discussed. However, shortly after the meeting, the elected official contacted the Prosecuting Attorney wanting to know if the grand jurors could be pulled from outside of Scott County and stated that he felt that having Scott County citizens as grand jurors would be a conflict because Scott County citizens think highly of the current Sheriff.

Given this, the Prosecutor’s Office decided to move forward with the unanimous decision of its attorneys and to forego the convening of the grand jury.

Prosecutor Findings

The Office of the Scott County Prosecuting Attorney finds that probable cause does not exist to support the filing of a criminal charge against the jailer related to the incident that occurred on February 21, 2025, during the elected official’s office hours, and thus no charges will be filed.

Respectfully,

Chris A. Owens

Prosecuting Attorney, 6th Judicial Circuit

Scott County, Indiana

NOTE: A link to the video has been sent to the media outlets contemporaneously with the issuance of this report.