Webster Parish, Louisiana — A troubling sequence of events involving the Webster Parish Sheriff’s Office (WPSO) has raised serious questions about professionalism, religious hostility, and compliance with Louisiana law. While the deputy’s name is not being released — as every individual remains innocent until proven guilty — the evidence submitted to Heart of Webster reveals a pattern of bias-based misconduct and significant administrative failures inside the department.

The incident began when a WPSO deputy sent a lengthy, profanity-filled message directly attacking Christianity and those who practice it. The message mocked Christian beliefs, derided churchgoers, and used inflammatory language to describe people of faith. The complainant provided the message exactly as it was received.

Deputy’s Message

Disturbed by the conduct of a sworn law enforcement officer, the complainant filed an official complaint at the Sheriff’s Office. She completed the Uniform Complaint Form and submitted a detailed written statement explaining how the deputy’s message affected her and why the conduct was inappropriate. Major Dustin Reynolds signed the complaint form acknowledging receipt. According to the complainant, both Chief Hank Hanes and Major Dustin Reynolds were the officials assigned to review and investigate the report, making them directly responsible for documenting the complaint, evaluating the deputy’s conduct, and ensuring the Sheriff’s Office complied with all legal obligations.

Complaint Form

However, the department’s handling of the complaint raised concerns far beyond the message itself.

According to the complainant, she was rushed during the process of writing her statement and told that staff “had to leave,” which limited her ability to complete the statement at her own pace. During the meeting, investigators debated whether the deputy’s behavior constituted “slander” or “hate speech,” but failed to recognize that the issue involved a written message — which falls under libel, not slander. The confusion over these basic legal distinctions raised questions about whether the Sheriff’s Office possesses the competency required to evaluate and properly classify citizen complaints.

The most significant issues emerged when the complainant later attempted to obtain a copy of the police report documenting her complaint. Under Louisiana’s Public Records Act (La. R.S. 44:1–44:36), such records must be made available, or a lawful and timely written response must be provided. Instead, the complainant received a series of open-ended, indefinite text messages that did not comply with any part of the statutory requirements.

Messages From Chief Hank Hanes

None of these replies satisfied the legal requirement for an official response under Louisiana law. No written acknowledgment was provided, no exemption was cited, and no timeline was offered. These failures represent clear violations of the Louisiana Public Records Act.

What Laws Chief Hank Hanes and Major Dustin Reynolds Violated — and Why It Matters

Both Chief Hank Hanes and Major Dustin Reynolds were directly involved in the handling and investigation of the complaint, which makes them legally responsible for ensuring compliance with Louisiana’s Public Records Act. Their actions — specifically, their failure to provide a timely, written response — violated multiple provisions of state law.

La. R.S. 44:33(A) requires that a custodian of public records respond to a request within 72 hours with either the record or a written estimate of the time needed to produce it. Neither Hanes nor Reynolds provided any lawful written response, estimate, or acknowledgment.

Similarly, La. R.S. 44:35(A) mandates that if a record is not immediately available, the custodian must provide a written certification explaining the reason for the delay and specifying how long production will take. No such certification was ever issued.

The Louisiana Attorney General’s Office has repeatedly stated that public agencies may not issue vague or open-ended responses. The replies received — “We will let y’all know when it’s complete” — match exactly what the Attorney General identifies as prohibited under the law.

Improper denial of public records can expose a law enforcement agency to civil penalties, including attorney fees, court costs, and judicial sanctions. If a court determines that an agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or in bad faith, personal liability may also attach. The failures by Hanes and Reynolds therefore pose significant legal and administrative risks to the Webster Parish Sheriff’s Office.

Given that both men were responsible for receiving the complaint, documenting it, and responding to the complainant, their lack of compliance raises questions about whether the Sheriff’s Office was attempting to delay, obscure, or avoid internal scrutiny of the deputy’s conduct.

These failures are not merely procedural errors — they represent a breakdown in transparency and undermine the public’s right to open government.

Religiously Hostile Conduct and POST Ethical Violations

The deputy’s message raises substantial concerns under Louisiana POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) requirements. POST mandates that deputies refrain from harassment, maintain professionalism, and avoid engaging in any behavior that undermines public trust. Hostile or derogatory conduct aimed at individuals based on religious beliefs is considered religious harassment, religiously hostile conduct, and bias-based misconduct under these professional standards.

While the deputy’s behavior may not meet the narrow federal definition of religious discrimination used in employment law, it clearly violates the ethical and professional standards expected of a peace officer. The message was inflammatory, hostile, and directed at a citizen because of her faith — conduct that is fundamentally incompatible with the duties of law enforcement.

In certain circumstances, Louisiana’s criminal mischief statute concerning harassing communications (R.S. 14:59) may apply to hostile electronic messages. Whether the deputy’s conduct meets that threshold would require an investigation — an investigation that WPSO has not visibly pursued.

Inconsistencies in Discipline

The Sheriff’s Office has terminated or disciplined deputies in the past for far less serious conduct, including out-of-context conversations about scientific topics, misunderstood comments, or minor social media posts. Sheriff Jason Parker has consistently emphasized strict enforcement of professional standards.

Yet in this case — involving explicit religious hostility and inflammatory language — there appears to have been no disciplinary action taken. The disparity raises concerns about inconsistent discipline, favoritism, and uneven enforcement of professional standards within the department.

Media Silence

All documentation — including the deputy’s message, the complaint form, and the text exchanges with the Sheriff’s Office — was provided to local and national media outlets. Not one responded. Their silence does not diminish the seriousness of the issues, nor does it erase the public’s right to expect accountability and transparency from law enforcement leadership.

Conclusion

The deputy’s hostile message, the mishandled complaint, the violations of Louisiana’s Public Records Act by Chief Hank Hanes and Major Dustin Reynolds, the misunderstanding of basic legal definitions, and the inconsistent disciplinary standards within the Webster Parish Sheriff’s Office reveal significant systemic problems in leadership, oversight, and compliance.

These failures deserve attention, scrutiny, and correction. Heart of Webster is releasing this information to promote transparency and uphold the community’s right to truthful and accountable government.

Heart of Webster will continue to monitor this matter and provide updates as additional information becomes available.

Written by CD.