Disturbing News About Deputy involved in break-in

I've just learned the worst news I've heard yet about the new Sheriff's Administration. EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS!! There was a break-in after hours in the new courthouse a few weeks ago. The alarm sounded and the Clerk of Superior Court was notified that the alarm was coming from her office. She was told shortly there-after not to worry about it, a Sheriff's Deputy had called in and said it was him and to forget about it. He was just doing a security check of her office. Clerk Studdard wanted to know why a deputy is doing a security check in her office at 2:00 a.m. when that had never been done before. Even worse, it was a deputy who doesn't usually work at 2:00 a.m. and doesn't work in the courthouse at all. He was there because he had recently had a law suit filed against him by a family member and had entered the clerks office in the middle of the night to gather information about this pending law suit. The Clerk of Court was said to be upset about the late night entry. Sheriff Hannah's response is said to have been that his deputies were in charge of security there and could be there any time they wanted. The deputy in question was {{{{{{{DELETED for violation of terms of service}}}}}}}} is allegedly currently being sued by his own mother over money he is accused of taking from her and spending. {{{{{{{DELETED for violation of terms of service}}}}}}} Most people who work in the courthouse believe there was alot of wrongdoing going on that night in the courthouse. So much so that most believe the only proper thing is to allow the Grand Jury to investigate this. This will be another large test of your administration Sheriff Hannah. Please do the right thing and not leave a stink hanging in the air over this incident.

Why then

Submitted by SickNTired09 on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 2:33pm.

does this same officer have jurisdiction over the court house? why was he back over there days after the alleged incident?

login to post comments

Censorship

Submitted by Gene61 on Fri, 01/15/2010 - 1:36pm.

No, in my opinion it does smack of censorship..If the suit is indeed valid, his name is a matter of public record, therefore the name should have been printed. If we're going to start down this path, then no name of anyone arrested should be posted in the "Cops Report" section of this part as well..

Just deleted it out and post on this date this crime occured and someone was arrested. Today a bank was robbed and (((( Deleted ))) was arrested and charged..

Just my opinion..

login to post comments

Gene61

Submitted by jevank on Fri, 01/15/2010 - 2:19pm.

I think the key words are "IF the suit is valid." There was a very serious accusation in the above post without anything to back it up.

If there is an accurate account of what was stated, I'm sure we will be free to discuss names here.

login to post comments

{{{{{{{DELETED for violation of terms of service}}}}}}}}

Submitted by Gene61 on Fri, 01/15/2010 - 10:13am.

Okay wait a minute.. Suits are a matter of public record, this deputy name can be posted and sorry this smacks of pure censorship. Given the newly lected sheriff has commented on it, then the issue is truthful on its face.

Dirty law enformcement officals are a CONCERN to all citizens. I couldn't disagree more with the line that has been drawn in the sand concerning this information. I smell favor for favor somewhere..

login to post comments

Censorship?

Submitted by Spyglass on Fri, 01/15/2010 - 11:17am.

You're joking, I hope..

This is not the Govt....this is a privately owned website...the owners can delete things at their will....again, I hope you're joking.

login to post comments

So your saying {{{{DELETED for violating terms of service}}}}}

Submitted by mbest on Fri, 01/15/2010 - 2:52am.

That does stink. I don't think we can rely on the new Sheriff to look into this one. I think this might be over his head. Someone needs to find out if all of the truth is being told. Think how unfair that is to the person who is trying to sue that deputy. That don't have a chance in hell with these shananagans going on.

login to post comments

Okay then. At least we know the boundries. Certain high

Submitted by mbest on Fri, 01/15/2010 - 9:13am.

ranking Sheriff's Officials, even though they are public officials and a matter of public record, shall not be mentioned on the Citizen web page. Where will this policy go if this does end up in front of the Grand Jury? These officials can't be protected forever.
I guess these deletions do serve to dilude the effectivness of stirring the publics interest. Not sure if I've seen the Citizen serve that function before.

login to post comments

That's the way it goes

Submitted by NUK_1 on Fri, 01/15/2010 - 1:40pm.

If it's a "public official" they are fair game for every slur in the book as I've seen several PTC elected types accused of alcoholism, corruption and other criminal acts, etc., but a cop seemingly gets a free pass? OK. It's perfectly acceptable to call the Mayor a drunk because he may or may not have been seen at the Y-Knot but mentioning a deputy sheriff by name who is being sued isn't?

It's NOT censorship, but it is BS. Having the same standard for all on the govt payroll or just don't allow the muck-raking to begin with.

login to post comments

Agreed, it is BS

Submitted by Spyglass on Fri, 01/15/2010 - 2:21pm.

and as you say it's not censorship, in any fashion.

login to post comments