Parole revoked for Jake Dangerfield after committee finds violations including alleged domestic battery

The Committee on Parole revoked the parole of Jake Dangerfield (DLC 349445) after a hearing in Baton Rouge in which the panel found probable cause he violated parole rules 4, 7 and 10.

The board’s acting chairman, Steve Prater, opened the hearing by explaining Dangerfield faced allegations of criminal conduct tied to an arrest on Feb. 29, 2024, for second-degree domestic abuse battery and domestic abuse battery. “I find you guilty of violating rule 4, rule 7, and rule 10,” Prater said before voting to revoke Dangerfield’s parole.

The panel said it considered police interview recordings, a victim identification and video evidence provided by the Baton Rouge Police Department. Parole staff described discrepancies between Dangerfield’s statements to officers and surveillance footage; the board’s parole officer said the victim had identified Dangerfield as the assailant and that video showed him near the incident and later peeking through blinds at police activity.

Dangerfield maintained his innocence. “I did not do that at all, sir,” he told the panel, saying he found the injured woman in the hallway and that she later accused him. He acknowledged drinking and said he had given a woman access to his debit card after recently receiving disability and stimulus payments, which relatives said led to disputes about money. His sister, Tina Belden, testified that she had no direct knowledge that Dangerfield assaulted the woman and described conflicting accounts among witnesses.

Parole specialist Shauna Jones (Department of Corrections) told the panel she had reviewed the detective interviews and footage; she said she believed the identification and other evidence supported the allegation. After discussion the board voted: Steve Prater — yes (revoke); Chuck Tillis — yes (concur). The chair announced Dangerfield’s parole revoked at 09:09.

The board distinguished the criminal-court outcome from its own standard: members noted that charges dismissed in criminal court do not necessarily prevent a parole revocation and that the committee uses a lower standard to determine parole violations.

The hearing record shows the board relied on police interviews and video evidence supplied by Baton Rouge investigators and on testimony from family members and parole staff. The committee did not adopt any additional reporting conditions for Dangerfield; the formal motion to revoke was approved by the voting members present.

Dangerfield’s parole revocation returns future supervision decisions to the Department of Corrections’ procedures for handling revoked parolees.

The committee convened the hearing at the Department of Corrections’ Baton Rouge headquarters and closed the session after the vote.