What Should Have Happened
- Findings of policy violations should result in statement of charges
- Disciplinary process should proceed to conclusion regardless of employment status
- Consistent treatment should apply to all officers with similar findings
- Investigation should be completed before retirement negotiations begin
What Actually Happened
- Findings made but no statement of charges ever prepared for Jones
- Investigation culminated in retirement rather than formal discipline
- Differential treatment visible: charges for King, none for Jones
- Pohl was excluded from disciplinary hearing phase
People Involved
Event Details
Overview
Five days after Marc King ’s OWI arrest, Scott Jones sat for his formal internal investigative interview. Steve Sellers , the POAM Business Agent, was present as union representation. This interview was the culmination of Internal Investigation 22-11 and would shape Jones’ employment future with the Sheriff’s Office.
The Interview Process
Two Separate Interviews
Matthew Pohl ’s deposition clarifies that Jones went through two distinct interview processes:
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.
The distinction matters:
- First interview (HR setting) - Likely without union representation, potentially addressing administrative matters
- Second interview (Investigative) - With Steve Sellers present, formal investigation under Garrity protections
Garrity Rights and Procedure
In internal investigations, officers receive Garrity warnings—a protection derived from Garrity v. New Jersey (1967). Matthew Pohl described the standard procedure:
AThat goes to – so I would read that verbatim and then we give a copy to the deputy who’s involved and then his union representation.
This means both Jones and Steve Sellers would have received copies of the Garrity warning and any related documentation.
What Was Investigated
The “Loyalty” Investigation
The investigation, designated 22-11, focused on Scott Jones and Chad Cronkright , with “Loyalty” as the subject:
QI have something entitled, Internal Investigation, number 22-11, Scott Jones/Chad Cronkright Loyalty. You’ve looked at that recently, I assume?
“Questionable Behavior” Examined
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.
The investigation examined whether Jones violated department policies in how he handled information about the Marc King arrest.
Findings and Outcome
Conclusions Made, No Charges Filed
Matthew Pohl made conclusions in his investigation:
QOkay. Well, you have – you have statements in Scott Jones’s – your memo or your investigation as to rule violations where you made findings.
A– for the Scott Jones, where I made a conclusion at the very end –
Yet despite these findings, no formal charges were prepared:
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.
Pohl’s Limited Role
Pohl clarified his involvement stopped short of the disciplinary phase:
AI just want to say, however I was never involved into the disciplinary hearing with Scott Jones, so I never –
Jones’ Background and Job Description
The deposition established Jones’ role within the department:
QMy client, Scott Jones, has a job description; is that accurate?
QOkay. Next is, Implements, coordinates and supervises crime prevention programs which are presented to the community as a means of educating citizens. I think that probably speaks for itself.
Jones’ public-facing role in community education would later become relevant to questions about his conduct.
Timeline Context
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Nov 6, 2022 | Marc King OWI arrest; Jones notifies command |
| Nov 9, 2022 | Union representative Steve Sellers contacted |
| Nov 10, 2022 | Internal interview planned |
| Nov 11, 2022 | Internal interview of Jones conducted (Sellers present) |
| Late 2022 | Investigation concludes with findings |
| Early 2023 | Retirement negotiations |
Why This Matters
1. Formal Process With Limited Consequence
Despite a formal investigation with findings of policy violations, no statement of charges was ever filed. The investigation culminated in retirement rather than discipline.
2. Union Protection in Action
Steve Sellers ’s presence ensured Jones had contractual protections throughout the investigative interview. Union involvement would continue through the retirement negotiation process.
3. Differential Treatment Visible
The contrast between Jones (investigated, findings made, no charges, retirement) and Marc King (investigated, charges prepared) raises questions about how similarly-situated officers are treated.
4. Documentation Created
This interview would have generated documentation—interview transcripts, notes, findings—that should be part of the investigative file.
Open Questions
- What specific questions were asked during the November 11 interview?
- What findings did Pohl make regarding policy violations?
- Why were charges prepared for Marc King but not Scott Jones?
- What role did the “Loyalty” framing play in how the investigation concluded?
- Was there any discussion of Jones’ potential retirement during this interview?
Related Documentation Needs
- Internal Investigation 22-11 interview transcript
- Garrity warning documentation
- Pohl’s investigative memo with findings
- Any written statements from Jones
- Comparison of Jones and King investigation procedures and outcomes