System gaps left accused cop killer's PO unaware of DUI

The man accused of killing a Danville police officer in January was arrested and jailed for drunken driving last fall, but his parole officer didn't learn of that crime until after the shooting.

The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s investigative report into Herschel Jones III’s supervision by parole officer William Baer found Baer had followed policy and even made more contacts with Jones than required.

However, it also revealed holes in a system that largely requires a person under probation or parole to report all contacts with police, including arrests, to their parole officer. Those holes, coupled with a delay in Jones’ DUI being added to the state’s law enforcement database, led to a downgrading of Jones’ supervision level in October just days after he was involved in a drunken driving crash.

Slain Danville officer remembered for smile, passion for helping others

Jones’ drunken driving conviction — considered a “high severity violation” of parole — could have changed Baer’s actions with the 32-year-old before he allegedly went out to target police Jan. 17 and fatally shot 34-year-old Danville Police Officer Thomas Cottrell Jr.

But Baer was not notified when Jones was charged with drunken driving by the Ohio Highway Patrol after a head-on crash Sept. 24.

He wasn’t notified when a Mount Vernon Municipal Court judge placed Jones on probation Nov. 23.

He wasn’t notified when Jones spent his three-day jail sentence in the Knox County Jail — the county where Baer works — which was completed Nov. 30.

And Baer’s required check of the statewide law enforcement gateway Oct. 8 as part of Jones' annual reassessment failed to show Jones’ charge. The Nov. 23 conviction was uploaded Nov. 30, nearly two months after Jones was charged. The delay was "in large part because Jones was never booked into the county jail" when he was charged, according to the investigation.

The only person required to notify Baer was Jones — the man he was supervising.

According to Knox County Sheriff’s Capt. Jay Sheffer, law enforcement might not even know when a person they come in contact with, or even arrest, is under supervision unless the person tells them. While sometimes that information might be in the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway, a statewide database created for law enforcement to share criminal information, that isn't always the case and even more unlikely for misdemeanor probation, he said.

There is no requirement that parole information be uploaded, according to the Ohio Attorney General's Office. Ohio Highway Patrol Lt. Craig Cvetan said officers are most interested in knowing if there are any warrants for arrest and a person's criminal or driving history, so they check national databases rather than the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway while in the field.

"It could be useful (to know if a person is on probation or parole) depending on what the situation is ... but it's not really going to change what we do," Sheffer said.

But it could change what a parole or probation officer does.

In Sheffer's experience, there are times, particularly with people who are well-known to law enforcement, when they know who is under supervision and they might call the parole or probation officer. Such a call could result in a holder being placed on the person, meaning they are kept in jail, or the person is instructed to report to his officer the next day,

But they're not required to make the contact and neither is the Knox County Jail.

"Having to call everyone's probation officer every time someone is booked could be cumbersome," Sheffer said.

It's unclear whether the probation team at Mount Vernon Municipal Court was aware Jones was under parole supervision. A pre-sentencing investigation would have revealed the information, but misdemeanor cases don't always require one be performed. Chief Probation Officer Lisa Shaw said Friday she was looking into questions posed to her by Gannett Ohio about the case.

What is clear from the state's investigation is on Oct. 8, Baer had no knowledge Jones had just been charged in a drunken driving crash. As a result, when he conducted a required reassessment of Jones' risk for re-offending, the statewide tool he used determined he was no longer a high risk offender, but low risk.

If he had known, policy would have required the involvement of a supervisor to review the violation, said JoEllen Smith, a spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

"A determination of the appropriate response is then made based on factors and circumstances related to the individual offender, including whether or not previous sanctions had been imposed," Smith said.

Jones' re-assessment took place before felony allegations of sexual assault and a report from Jones' sister, which didn't make its way to Baer, that he was violating terms of his parole.

When Jones' then-girlfriend recanted her report to police in October, the prosecutor dropped the charges and Baer was left without the evidence needed to pursue a high-severity violation on Jones. He did administer a "unit level sanction,” which involved orders that Jones complete a substance abuse program, to not contact his then-girlfriend, and to not return to her home, Smith said.

Although a review of policy happens when there is a "serious incident," Smith said having parole officers check the state database more frequently "would not reveal incidents that were not entered into the system."