What Should Have Happened
- Investigation should focus on policy compliance, not 'loyalty'
- External oversight should be engaged for Sheriff-related cases
- Consistent procedures should apply to all officers under investigation
- Investigation outcomes should not be influenced by relationship to leadership
What Actually Happened
- Investigation framed around 'Loyalty' rather than policy compliance
- Sheriff who has no external reporting authority oversaw matter involving his brother
- Charges prepared for Marc King but not for Scott Jones despite parallel investigations
- No external accountability existed for investigation decisions
People Involved
Event Details
Overview
Four days after Marc King ’s OWI arrest, Matthew Pohl and command staff began planning the internal interview of Scott Jones . This planning phase reveals how the Sheriff’s Office structured its internal investigation—and the distinction between HR-related interviews and formal investigative interviews.
The Investigation Process
Dual Interview Approach
Matthew Pohl ’s deposition reveals that Scott Jones was interviewed in two separate settings:
AThe – if you want to call it the investigative interview, but it was the second interview I had with Jones. The first was the HR setting; this would be the one with Business Agent Sellers present.
This two-phase approach indicates:
- HR interview - Initial meeting without union representation
- Investigative interview - Formal interview with Steve Sellers (union) present
Scope of Investigation
The investigation examined Scott Jones ’s conduct following the arrest:
AIt came to light that he had been displaying some questionable behavior. We looked into it. We interviewed fellow deputies that were present. Looked into policies, what might – may have been violated.
Key Investigation Details
Investigation Number and Focus
The formal investigation was designated Internal Investigation 22-11, focusing on Jones and Chad Cronkright :
QI have something entitled, Internal Investigation, number 22-11, Scott Jones/Chad Cronkright Loyalty. You’ve looked at that recently, I assume?
The investigation title—“Loyalty”—is notable, suggesting the focus was on whether Jones and Cronkright improperly disclosed information about the arrest.
Pohl’s Role vs. Outcome
While Matthew Pohl participated in the investigation, he was not involved in the actual disciplinary hearing:
AI just want to say, however I was never involved into the disciplinary hearing with Scott Jones, so I never –
And critically, unlike the parallel investigation of Marc King , no statement of charges was ever prepared for Jones:
AWhen we mete out discipline, so there was – I never prepared a statement of charges for Scott Jones. For Marcus King I did and I was involved in both investigations.
The Sheriff’s Accountability Structure
Deposition testimony also revealed the unique position of the Sheriff as an elected official:
ARight. He would appear at county commissioner meetings, department head meetings, maybe any ad hoc meeting that would arise that would necessitate his presence. But, no, you’re correct, as an elected official he wouldn’t report to anyone, per se, I don’t think.
This structure means disciplinary decisions ultimately rest with Mat King himself, with no external oversight authority.
Timeline Context
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Nov 6, 2022 | Marc King OWI arrest |
| Nov 6, 2022 | Scott Jones notifies command |
| Nov 9, 2022 | Union representative contacted |
| Nov 10, 2022 | Planning for Jones internal interview |
| Nov 11, 2022 | Internal interview conducted |
Why This Matters
1. Investigation Naming
The investigation title “Loyalty” frames the issue as a question of allegiance rather than procedural compliance, potentially influencing how findings were interpreted.
2. Parallel but Unequal Treatment
The contrast between how King and Jones investigations were handled—formal charges for one, none for the other—raises questions about consistent application of disciplinary standards.
3. No External Accountability
The Sheriff’s position as an elected official with no reporting requirement means internal investigations operate without external oversight.
Open Questions
- What specific policies were examined in the “Loyalty” investigation?
- Why was Jones’ investigation framed around “loyalty” rather than policy compliance?
- What happened to the investigation after Jones’ retirement?
- Were the outcomes for King and Jones consistent with how similar cases were handled previously?
Related Documentation Needs
- Internal Investigation 22-11 complete file
- Interview preparation notes
- Policies examined during the investigation
- Comparative analysis of King vs. Jones investigation procedures