Wayne County board reviews body‑camera footage after sheriff's office reprimand in apartment dispute

Wayne County board members reviewed body‑worn camera footage and related documents during a meeting after the sheriff’s department investigated an incident at an apartment complex and issued discipline to an officer, the board heard.

Board members had requested the materials following an earlier hearing; a board member said the sheriff’s office provided video and investigative reports and that the department concluded its internal review and “Officer Anderson was reprimanded,” adding, “I have viewed it. It’s a bit disturbing.” The same board member said the footage does not violate the county ethics code: “However, it does not violate the ethics code.”

The video appears to show a custody dispute outside an apartment complex. Participants in the footage discussed documents described as court orders; law enforcement on scene told the parties the documents were not signed or sealed. A law enforcement officer in the footage identified as “Sergeant Jay Jones” and another identified as “Lieutenant Anderson” appear in the recording; a man identified in the recording as the child’s father is also shown. One officer on the recording told the father, “If you can show me the signed and sealed order, we will take that.”

A board member asked whether the video was available for review during the meeting; a staff member answered, “At this time, we’ll review the video if that’s what the board wants.” The board proceeded to play the footage for members in the room. Meeting discussion included repeated references that the documents presented at the scene were not signed, sealed or otherwise sufficient to authorize immediate removal of the child.

Members noted that the sheriff’s department had provided investigative reports and that the internal discipline was complete. The transcript indicates the sheriff’s department concluded its investigation and issued a reprimand to Officer Anderson; the board did not record a separate formal vote on discipline during the meeting.

The meeting record includes exchanges in which officers and bystanders on the recording debated whether a purported court order entitled the father to take the child; officers on scene told those involved the documents would need to be presented in court before they could be enforced. The board’s review focused on the body‑worn footage and accompanying reports rather than taking new disciplinary action.

No additional formal actions were recorded by the board at that time. The sheriff’s department’s internal findings and reprimand were described to the board as the concluding steps taken by the department.