We are not law enforcement, We are just your everyday people. After reviewing the Police Report, We spotted some issues in a few seconds.
An approved incident report from the Webster Parish Sheriff’s Office documents a direct electronic contact by Cotton Valley Police Chief William “Bill” Ingersoll with a woman protected by a valid court-issued Temporary Protective Order. The report confirms the contact occurred while the order was active and identifies the sender. Yet no arrest was made. No summons was issued. No enforcement action followed.
The failure to act has since been quietly justified—explicitly or implicitly—by reference to discretion. But a closer reading of the report itself, combined with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, raises a harder question: Was this inaction lawful discretion, or selective non-enforcement driven by institutional relationships?
What the Report Actually Says
The Sheriff’s Office report states that a valid Order of Protection was in effect, the protected party received a direct text message from Chief Ingersoll’s personal phone, the number was saved in her phone as “Bill Ingersoll Cotton Valley Police,” there were no prior or subsequent text messages between the parties, and there were no recently deleted messages on either phone. The Chief claimed the message—a thumbs-up emoji—was sent “by accident.” The case was closed with “no charges at this time.”
Those facts matter, because the same report that accepts the “accidental” explanation also confirms there was no existing conversation or message thread. That detail eliminates the possibility of an automated or passive interaction. The contact could only have occurred through an affirmative action.
Importantly, Louisiana law does not require intent for a protective order violation. The contact itself is the violation.
Police Report
Enter the Supreme Court: Castle Rock v. Gonzales
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Castle Rock v. Gonzales, a case often cited by law-enforcement agencies when questioned about failures to enforce protective orders.
The Court held that victims do not have a federal constitutional right to compel police to enforce a protective order. In other words, failure to arrest does not automatically create federal liability under the Due Process Clause.
But Castle Rock is frequently misunderstood—or misused.
The decision does not say police may ignore violations without consequence, that protective orders are optional, that law enforcement is immune from state law or ethics rules, or that sheriffs may selectively enforce orders involving fellow officers.
What Castle Rock actually says is narrow: federal constitutional law does not force an arrest. It does not excuse failure under state law, department policy, judicial authority, or public accountability obligations.
What Didn’t Happen in Webster Parish
Despite a documented violation, no arrest was made, no summons was issued, no probable cause affidavit was filed, no referral for prosecution is noted, and no supervisory override is explained.
Most notably, Sheriff Jason Parker took no visible action—not even the minimal step of issuing a summons or ordering separation pending review.
That matters. A summons is not an arrest. It is the lowest-impact enforcement tool available. The absence of even that response raises questions about unequal enforcement, particularly when the alleged violator is a sitting police chief.
Discretion or Deference?
Discretion exists to serve justice—not to shield colleagues.
When law enforcement declines to act against another law-enforcement officer despite a valid court order, documented contact, admitted conduct, and no legal exception, it creates the appearance that professional relationships are being prioritized over public safety.
The public is left to ask whether the outcome would have been the same if the sender were not a police chief.
Why Castle Rock Doesn’t End This Discussion
Invoking Castle Rock v. Gonzales may shield an agency from a specific type of federal lawsuit. It does not shield it from state-law scrutiny, ethics investigations, judicial review, public accountability, or media examination.
Nor does it absolve a sheriff of leadership responsibility.
A protective order is a court command, not a suggestion. When law enforcement documents a violation and then does nothing, the court’s authority is diminished and public confidence erodes.
The Bigger Issue
This case is no longer just about one message or one report. It is about whether the law is applied evenly, or whether a separate standard exists for those inside the system.
Sheriff Parker did not have to make an arrest. He did not have to hold a press conference. But doing nothing—not even issuing a summons—was a choice.
And that choice is now part of the public record.
What Comes Next
Louisiana State Police have confirmed an active review of related matters. The Louisiana Board of Ethics has scheduled proceedings involving Chief Ingersoll on Tuesday January 8th and Wednesday January 9th. The court continues to supervise the protective order. Louisiana Ethics Administration Program
This outlet will continue reporting on developments and will seek formal responses from all named officials.
All individuals are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. This article is based on official records, sworn statements, and publicly available court documents.
Comments 1