Part One: The Timeline That Raises Constitutional Questions in Webster Parish
This report is based on verified documentation, sworn statements, and direct interviews with witnesses. Every claim presented has been examined, cross-checked, and supported by records that will be released alongside this publication.
What follows may be difficult for some readers to fully grasp. For years, many of these issues circulated quietly as rumor or speculation. The material now coming forward places those long-standing concerns under a clear and unavoidable spotlight.
This is not commentary.
This is a documented account of what multiple sources, under oath and on record, state has occurred.
How This Investigation Began
Heart of Webster was first contacted by a Cotton Valley resident, Jessica Sublett, who described escalating issues involving the town’s police chief. What initially appeared to be a localized dispute developed into formal action. Sublett filed an ethics complaint and later a civil lawsuit after compiling a detailed timeline supported by recorded audio, video documentation, and witness accounts.
She did so without legal representation due to financial limitations — a reality that frequently prevents individuals from challenging public institutions.
As documentation accumulated, the facts became increasingly difficult to dismiss. But the true turning point in this investigation came when events began unfolding around a key witness in the Sublett case.
That witness was David Dick.
The Employment Timeline
David Dick began working in April 2025 in two roles: with the Webster Parish Sheriff’s Office (Animal Control) and as a City Police Officer for Cotton Valley. He was also a tenant on property owned by Jessica Sublett.
On November 25, Mr. Dick underwent emergency surgery and was placed under physician-directed restrictions that prevented him from lifting more than five pounds.
On November 28 — while still under documented medical care — representatives from both the Webster Parish Sheriff’s Office and the Cotton Valley Police Department arrived at the Sublett property to inform him that he had been terminated from Cotton Valley Police.
The Cotton Valley Police Chief demanded that all issued gear be returned immediately and insisted Mr. Dick personally retrieve and return the equipment despite medical restrictions.
Under Louisiana municipal structure, termination of a municipal police officer typically requires governing authority action rather than unilateral action by an elected chief. On December 9, the Cotton Valley City Council sided with Mr. Dick, determining he could not be lawfully terminated while under documented medical care.
The matter did not end there.
On December 29, Mr. Dick was medically cleared to return to full duty. Cotton Valley Police issued another suspension. The Webster Parish Sheriff’s Office required additional medical clearance documentation before allowing him to resume work. Due to the holidays and his doctor being out, Mr. Dick was forced to wait until the Doctor was back to obtain the necessary clearance documentation.
On January 5, when Mr. Dick arrived at the Sheriff’s Office with a doctor’s release, he was directed to Internal Affairs.
He was informed that a complaint had been filed alleging he sent an inappropriate Snapchat image to a Webster Parish dispatcher. Mr. Dick denied the allegation.
According to sworn accounts, Internal Affairs investigators, including Chief Hank Hanes and Major Dustin Reynolds, demanded his personal cell phone and Apple Watch. No warrant was presented. Mr. Dick surrendered the devices but did not provide documented consent to search.
The Seizure and the Legal Line
Internal Affairs reportedly found nothing substantiating the allegation. Mr. Dick requested the return of his property.
Instead, he was informed that his devices had been turned over to criminal investigators — again, without a warrant because of the possibly of evidence that was on his phone that was being held for the above Sublett case.
At that point, the issue moved beyond employment dispute.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Modern case law recognizes that cell phones contain extensive private data and require heightened constitutional protection.
The devices allegedly contained audio and video evidence relevant to ongoing legal actions involving the Cotton Valley Police Chief and the Webster Parish Sheriff.
Investigators reportedly asked Mr. Dick whether he possessed copies of those recordings.
The implications are significant.
The “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”
There is a long-standing legal doctrine known as the fruit of the poisonous tree. The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine does not come from a specific Louisiana state statute. It comes from federal constitutional law, specifically:
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures), The federal exclusionary rule, and U.S. Supreme Court case law
The phrase itself was established by the United States Supreme Court in: Wong Sun v. United States (1963).
Because of Mapp v. Ohio, the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine apply to all states, including Louisiana. Louisiana courts follow this doctrine because it is grounded in federal constitutional protections, not because it originates from a Louisiana statute.
In constitutional law, when evidence is obtained illegally, any evidence derived from that illegal act becomes tainted. Once the “tree” — the initial unlawful action — is poisoned, anything that grows from it is also inadmissible. In this case, if they had a search warrant looking to inappropriate photos that was sent via snapchat, and found videos and audio of possible wrongdoing by the Cotton Valley Police Chief then anything that was found can’t not be used against Mr. Dick.
Therefore, If a device is seized without lawful authority, any data accessed, copied, or used as investigative leads may be excluded in court.
But the implications extend beyond courtroom admissibility.
If a device known to contain potential evidence in litigation is taken and retained without a warrant by agencies implicated in that evidence, the concern shifts from procedural error to potential:
- Evidence suppression
- Obstruction
- Witness retaliation
The seizure becomes the root event. Everything that follows is legally connected to that root.
Louisiana One-Party Consent Law
Louisiana is a one-party consent state under Louisiana Revised Statute 15:1303. This means that it is lawful to record a conversation as long as at least one party to the conversation consents to the recording. In practical terms, if an individual is part of the conversation, that individual may legally record it without informing the other participants.
This distinction matters.
If the audio and video recordings referenced in this investigation were created by a participant in those conversations, Louisiana law does not require the consent of the other parties. Allegations that such recordings were “illegal” would need to be evaluated against the state’s clear statutory framework. Any claim of illegality would require proof that the recording party was not a participant or that another specific statutory exception applied.
Understanding Louisiana’s one-party consent law is essential when evaluating both the admissibility of recorded evidence and the legitimacy of actions taken in response to those recordings.
Termination of a Key Witness
On January 9, Mr. Dick resigned from Cotton Valley Police citing constructive dismissal.
Constructive dismissal — also known as constructive discharge — occurs when an employer makes working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. While the employee technically submits a resignation, the law recognizes that the resignation was not truly voluntary.
On February 9, he was terminated from the Webster Parish Sheriff’s Office. No reason was provided.
He was informed his devices remained in the possession of investigators.
The timeline is direct:
- November 25: Emergency surgery
- November 28: Attempted termination
- December 9: City Council reversal
- December 29: Medical clearance
- January 5: Internal Affairs complaint and device seizure
- January 9: Resignation from Cotton Valley
- February 9: Termination from WPSO
Mr. Dick was a key witness in active litigation.
His device allegedly contained recorded evidence relevant to that litigation.
He lost both positions.
The device remains in law enforcement custody.
The Parker Connection
Sheriff Jason Parker has publicly emphasized maintaining strong relationships with local departments. In a June 4, 2025 statement to KSLA 12 News, he referenced having previously worked for the Cotton Valley Police Department.
Public resume records do not reflect that employment history.
The Sheriff’s Office was present during employment actions, controlled devices containing potential evidence, and later terminated a key witness tied to litigation involving Cotton Valley Police.
The relationship between agencies is no longer abstract. It is operational and documented.
The Court Proceedings
On February 12, Jessica Sublett filed an emergency motion for protective order, preservation of evidence, and judicial oversight in the 26th Judicial District Court, Webster Parish, Docket #82589.
On February 19, the proceeding moved from public docket to closed-door hearing. According to sworn accounts, Ms. Sublett was denied the opportunity to call witnesses. Her motions were denied or refused, and the case was dismissed.
No full evidentiary hearing occurred.
When combined with:
- Seizure of digital evidence without warrant
- Termination of a key witness
- Retention of devices containing alleged recordings
- Dismissal of proceedings without witness testimony
The pattern becomes difficult to ignore.
What This Means for Webster Parish
Many residents ask a simple question:
“If there were corruption, wouldn’t it be on the news?”
History repeatedly shows that institutional misconduct often surfaces only after independent documentation forces attention.
If a witness in active litigation loses employment after his evidence is seized…
If that evidence remains in the custody of agencies implicated in the dispute…
If court proceedings close without witness testimony…
Then the issue is no longer rumor.
It becomes a matter of constitutional exposure.
This is Part One.
Part Two will examine broader structural relationships, oversight failures, and the institutional mechanisms that allowed this sequence of events to unfold.
Because once constitutional lines are crossed, the consequences are not political.
They are legal.
And they do not disappear quietly.
