What Was Sheriff Bob Johnson Thinking?

I have been blogging about the organized fleecing of Dorothy Rogers for years. Scott Haines is at the helm but others allowed him to stay employed–namely Sheriff Bob Johnson. To say that Haines is anything less than a sexually deviant cancer within the SRSO, would understate the situation. I recently requested all the IA’s for Haines. I was provided 3. In further prodding, it has come to light that there are 10 Supervisory Inquiries (SI’s), which is a way to sidestep official investigations.

Supervisory inquiries, according to Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s General Order J-003 Disciplinary Guidelines and Standards, are done when a complaint on an officer comes in and a supervisor does a mini-investigation to determine the validity of the complaint. I am told by other officers, that it also can be used to dispense discipline in the case of a minor infraction, like in the case of a written coaching or written warning. The offense and the discipline tend to be lesser and does not rise to the level to open an Internal Affairs case. If the complaint alleges criminal activity, an IA must be opened, but not in Santa Rosa.

Now at least 2 of these SI’s are serious allegations that should have triggered IA’s but Sheriffs Hall & Johnson decided to basically dismiss the complaints without real investigations, despite the severity of the claims. The first of the ones I knew about, was in 2012. William Sumner, a former cop, submitted a complaint, commonly referred to as “repo nights”. Sumner claimed Haines used NCIC/FCIC to repossess cars and used the SRSO impound lot to store cars. He would cannibalize cars held there to put on other vehicles. Sumner claimed Haines used other officers log in info to avoid detection. The complaint was dropped and found to be “unfounded” after Sumner avoided speaking to those investigating his complaint. It is my understanding he was aware of or participated in other illegal activities that an interview would uncover. That is the speculative understanding of his reluctance to talk to colleagues of Haines.

This is a typical deflection used to bypass investigating crimes reported. For instance, let’s go back to Naomi Jones’s mother going to ECSO to report her daughter missing and being arrested for a warrant for welfare fraud without the ECSO immediately looking into the missing child. I would have been suspicious of this myself, had I been Sumner. When these agencies, specifically ECSO & SRSO, do not want to give credence to a report given to them, they turn on the messenger who comes to them in good faith. It is common practice. People wonder why there is no relationship between law enforcement and many communities in the Panhandle.

The second SI complaint was filed in 2015 regarding the exploitation of Dorothy Rogers. Matt Groelinger submitted the complaint to Chris Watson regarding the pilfering by Haines of the irrevocable trust, Haines convinced Rogers to revoke in order to make him executer.

An investigator working for Marie Mattox, the attorney representing Groelinger, documented the following:

“It should be noted that Watson made no documented effort to interview any other family members or independent witnesses.

Watson ignored Groelingers request to have Haines cease any business relationship
with Eastgate Mobile Home Park even though Groelinger provided documents proving
his authority in Skirpan Properties LLC…..Watson documents his recommendation as, This case is to be closed and classified as UNFOUNDED.
There is no credible evidence or information of any kind proving that any unethical or
illegal acts or policy violations have been committed by Lt. Haines.

Again this isn’t surprising. If you don’t do an investigation or talk to people, then you reserve plausible deniability. It is better to be seen as incompetent than to open Pandora’s box.

Here is a list of the SI’s provided:

I have requested the documents associated with these SI’s. But doesn’t that look like a lot of issues? 9 since 2012 & 2 formal IA’s (2011 & 2019). Why was this cop kept around? I am reminded of an article in the Santa Rosa Gazette on 2018. The following quote by Bob Johnson was made, in reference to Rich Aloy’s assertion that “There is nothing more damaging than a bad cop”:

So if somebody wants to complain on an officer and I’m out of town, the chief deputy, the major over law enforcement, the captain over law enforcement, can take that complaint,” Johnson said. “You don’t have to give your name but we do need enough information so we can contact you back and let you know the status of your complaint against the officer.….Whatever punishment is due we deal it out all the way up to termination,” Johnson said. “We take it seriously, and if they’re not performing their job as they’re supposed to, that’s a bad reflection on law enforcement (and) the sheriff’s office in general, and we’re not going to tolerate that.”

Santa rosa gazette, Feb. 2018

Everything having to do with Scott Haines is completely contrary to this statement. I would have to say, besides a bad cop, the more damaging thing is to have admin cover up for that bad cop. Those are the people who should know better and bear the burden on insuring the safety of the public. Since this cover-up is not a duty of any officer or elected official, those actions occur outside their official roles, thereby taking on professional liability and personal liability. This is the one exception to the immunity provided to protect such officials in the course of their duties within their positioning. Once they step outside the scope of that duty and act upon that, the immunity is waived.

It seems Bob has joined the ranks of some of his Escambia County counterparts. What a shame! He was thought to be a more honest Sheriff. It appears those do not exist after all.

  8 comments for “What Was Sheriff Bob Johnson Thinking?

  1. September 21, 2021 at 2:32 pm

    Just curious as to why someone would file a complaint about repossessing cars unless there was evidence. it would be foolish to do so on that person’s part. That complaint seems credible enough to investigate. And I do believe that no one who gets multiple complaints against them from different people should be investigated.

    Like

    • September 22, 2021 at 9:43 am

      Here’s the deal. There was evidence in the security cameras at the impound lot. There was ncic records. The issue was them acknowledging that. Sumner may have been implicated by Scott in other activity.

      Like

      • Bill Sumner
        September 25, 2021 at 5:22 pm

        I’m NO criminal. Freedom of speech I know. Please don’t make disparaging comments about me. Thank you thank you thank you

        Like

      • September 25, 2021 at 8:44 pm

        Apologize. I overgeneralized. I assumed something I wasn’t told.

        Like

    • Bill Sumner
      September 25, 2021 at 5:19 pm

      My friend just said this to me. I am the person that filed that complaint. I would really like to speak with the author of this. The sheriff’s office never called me back, never made an attempt to get in touch with me, and never came to my house.

      In fact when I filed the complaint the investigator that I filed a complaint with told me as I was leaving “I know Scott and I just don’t see him doing this. I just don’t think that I believe he could do this. I’ll be in touch”

      I’ve never met Haynes before. I do not live in Santa Rosa county. How am I just going to pull a name out of the hat. Yes there was documentation there was a trail a mile long. There was enough evidence to meet the criteria for probable cause and I feel confident they could have gotten a conviction have they done their job.

      At the end of the day I’m glad that the elderly woman and grandson was able to get some justice. And that makes me happy

      Like

      • September 25, 2021 at 8:53 pm

        I dont disagree with you about the details. There is no justice had here. Scott hasn’t seen a by real consequence. I apologize for the implication of you being criminal. I have never seen a response after the complaint. I realize absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. With only I follow up comment would typically mean you failed to respond when you were contacted. But Santa Rosa like Escambia tend to be lazy/inept or dirty/corrupt. I apologize for taking that for granted.

        Like

  2. ANON
    October 7, 2021 at 2:26 am

    I know multiple teenagers who have been in Scott’s home while his wife was away. (During their marriage, that is), Under the age of 18, 17, 16.. list goes on.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: