Fired officer’s alleged drug use, poker acquaintances at issue

Joplin police Lt. Geoff Jones was fired this year because of alleged associations with known criminals at poker tournaments, a resultant distrust of him by the FBI in an investigation and a failure to disclose his use of prescription drugs, the city’s police chief testified Wednesday.

Chief Lane Roberts was the principal witness to testify at a Personnel Board hearing on Jones’ appeal of his firing.

The hearing was suspended after five hours of testimony, with the board yet to hear Jones’ side of the story. The board plans to reconvene the hearing at a date yet to be announced and then make its decision on his appeal.

Roberts fired Jones from his duties with the Police Department on Feb. 8. He was given a fact-finding hearing March 3 and later was given final notice by City Manager Mark Rohr of his dismissal.

Roberts told the board that Jones was fired for the following reasons:

Failure to notify the city of his use of prescription drugs that might affect his job performance, namely the narcotic methadone, the antidepressant Zoloft and the sleep aid Lunesta.

Alleged association with convicted felons through legal poker tournaments at J-Town Bar & Grill.

A distrust of Jones that developed among FBI agents and a JPD detective involved in an investigation of a criminal matter “of national scope,” in which Jones allegedly became “a person of interest” and was asked to take a polygraph examination.

A disciplinary history that included an oral reprimand by former Chief Kevin Lindsey for using a patrol car to attend poker tournaments at J-Town and a written reprimand by interim Chief Don Richardson for leaving a handgun in the glove compartment of a police car.

A lack of confidence in his leadership among Police Department staff.

Roberts said he was made aware that Jones was a person of interest in a local FBI investigation a few months after he became police chief last year. He said the issue of Jones’ prescription-drug use arose when Jones was asked by the FBI to take a polygraph exam in December.

The FBI later notified Roberts that Jones acknowledged use of the drugs during the exam. Jones had not previously informed his supervisors and the city’s Human Resources Department of such use, as required by departmental policy, the chief said.

“It is up to us to determine if a drug that may impair does in fact impair them,” Roberts said.

He said employees have an obligation to disclose the use of controlled substances, even when they are prescribed by physicians.


Roberts testified that he called Jones into his office Feb. 5 to confront him about the matter, and his purported denial to the FBI during the polygraph exam of any knowledge of gambling and bookmaking in Joplin. Roberts said he specifically asked about a departmental memo concerning gambling and bookmaking that was believed to have been circulated by Jones.

He said Jones told him that he thought his doctors had informed the city of the prescription drugs he was using. Jones also explained that he had not composed the memo but simply forwarded the information, obtained via an anonymous tip, to the rest of the Police Department, Roberts said.

Roberts said Jones also acknowledged that he knew certain convicted felons through card-playing tournaments, and acknowledged getting an inmate with a connection to a friend of Jones’ wife out of a cell at Joplin City Jail on one occasion and allowing him to use his cell phone. But he told Roberts that he had discontinued relationships with any such people from card tournaments a year earlier, and he was “adamant” that he had not lied to the FBI, Roberts said.

Roberts said he was satisfied with Jones’ explanation concerning the memo and had not yet decided to fire him, pending further inquiry. But, two days later, Roberts testified, he went to a local FBI office to see if agents still believed Jones had been dishonest with them and was engaging in some sort of criminal conduct.

Roberts said: “They told me directly: ‘We think he has been dishonest. We believe he has engaged in criminal conduct.’”

The police chief said he could not reveal what the FBI probe concerns because it is an ongoing “sensitive” and “potentially dangerous” investigation.

“I made no determination as to the truth of their suspicions, only that they in fact had those suspicions,” Roberts told the board.

He said he came away convinced that he had no choice but to fire Jones because of the position in which he had put the Police Department. He said the lieutenant’s conduct reflected poorly on the department and was disruptive to “a harmonious relationship” with another law-enforcement agency, the FBI.

Jones’ attorney, Ken Reynolds, objected to much of Roberts’ testimony as hearsay, the mere passing on of unproved accusations from unidentified FBI agents, JPD personnel and purported known criminals. Roberts acknowledged at several points of his testimony that he had no firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing on Jones’ part.

“Are you aware that as of today,” Reynolds asked Roberts, “Geoff has no clue what he is being accused of by the FBI?”

Reynolds went on to draw a comparison of his client’s situation to that of Richard Jewell, a falsely accused suspect of the FBI in the Centennial Park bombing at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta.

Roberts agreed under cross-examination that he was not present during the FBI polygraph exam. He agreed that Jones had promised in advance of his dismissal not to attend any more poker tournaments. He agreed that he had never seen Jones appear to be under the influence of any drugs or significantly impaired by any drugs.

Reynolds also questioned the police chief closely about other Police Department members’ adherence to the policy regarding prescription-drug use. Roberts acknowledged that Jones’ firing had prompted a number of written notices of such use from other members of the department and counseling of their supervisors for not having passed such previous information on to the Human Resources Department.

But the police chief maintained that there was a difference between employees who had made “good-faith efforts” to notify the city through their supervisors and a failure to notify anyone.

Jones and his attorney declined to comment after adjournment of Wednesday’s hearing, saying they wanted to wait until the hearing is completed at some future date.

the joplin globe

News Added: 19 June, 2008

Number of views : 114