Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident urges audit of probation supervision after alleged failures near daycare

Potter County Commissioners Court · January 12, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A resident asked Potter County commissioners for a full audit of Potter and Randall County probation supervision, saying active warrants went unexecuted and calling for a district-attorney summary of sexual-offense cases over five years.

During public comment, a resident the court introduced as April McKee urged the commissioners to order a full audit of Potter and Randall County probation supervision, recounting a case she said involved an individual with active warrants living near a daycare and remaining in the community for months despite law-enforcement contacts.

McKee said she was contacted on Dec. 21 by a victim's family about a person she identified as “Danny,” who had prior convictions and an outstanding warrant for failure to register. She told the court that the family located the individual and that the probation office initially declined to share reporting history, then later confirmed the person had two active warrants and said they would apprehend him the next time he reported. McKee called the response insufficient and said, "That is dangerous and unacceptable." She asked the court to request a full audit that would answer how many probationers have active warrants not being executed, whether home checks and supervision are being performed consistently, and how violations are tracked and escalated.

McKee also requested that the district attorney provide a summary of sexual-offense cases for the past five years listing counts of cases resulting in prison time, probation only, and dropped or dismissed charges without requiring a FOIA request. The court noted public-comment limits and declined to respond substantively during the meeting because it was not an agendized item.

The comments were received as part of the meeting's public-comment period; commissioners and staff did not take formal action on McKee's specific requests during the session but acknowledged hearing the concern and suggested the matter could be referred to the appropriate offices for follow-up.