What would possess a paraprofessional working in a Jones County Pre-K classroom to take a picture of a child in the bathroom and share it is not clear, but that decision was the reason for an investigation by law enforcement that led to the employee’s arrest and uncovered troubling behavior by those whose first priority should be protecting children.
Amber Nicole Griffin, 36, was arrested Sept. 9, 2024, for the charge of unlawful eavesdropping or surveillance. She was indicted by a Jones County Grand Jury June 3 for two counts of invasion of privacy, which are felony offenses. The case came to the attention of law enforcement through an unusual path. It is usual for law enforcement to take a case to the District Attorney’s office, but in this instance, it was the District Attorney’s office that brought the photograph to the attention of the Gray Police Department.
An attorney in a divorce case came across the photo of the child sitting on the toilet. It was in a text sent to her client and included comments from Griffin, the sender. The attorney turned it over to the DA’s office.
A report of Griffin’s arrest written by GPD Investigator Maj. Mark Robinson, states the photograph was sent to Maj. Chris Williams Aug. 29, 2024, by ADA Cara Fiore with a request to follow up with an investigation of the picture and the circumstances surrounding it. He said the picture was of a child 4-5 years old.
“The head and torso could be seen, and it appeared the child was in the bathroom. The wall next to the toilet appeared to have fecal matter on it, and the communication indicated frustration at the situation.”
Robinson said he and Chief Adam Lowe were shown the photo. He said all three went to the Jones County Board of Education and met with Superintendent Charles Lundy, HR Director Laura Rackley and James Burton, head of school security.
The major said the meeting lasted about 30 minutes, and all the appeared shocked at the photo but agreed none of the child’s unclothed body could be seen. He said the school system representatives were informed the GPD would be opening a criminal investigation, the child would be identified and the child’s parents notified.
They were also informed criminal charges might be forthcoming.
Robinson said he attempted to meet with Burton and the Pre-K principal the following day. When they arrived at the school, he and Burton were told the principal was meeting with Rackley. They went to Rackley’s office and joined the meeting.
The investigator asked the principal to identify the child in the picture and provide him with contact information for the parents. He was told they were planning to call the parents, and Rackley actually placed the call.
The mother of the child answered and was informed of who was present in the room and the purpose of the call. The mother was told by Rackley the date of the photograph was 2023, which was news to Robinson.
The mother asked why she was being alerted now to an incident that happened last year and was told by Rackley they had just found out about it. The investigator said the mother asked who took the picture, and Rackley said she could not disclose that.
Robinson said the mother became agitated, and he assured her he would be speaking with her personally to answer her questions.
The investigator then interviewed the principal alone. From that interview, he discovered that Griffin did not work Aug. 27 but did meet with the principal. She showed her the picture and explained it came out during divorce proceedings.
The principal said she called Rackley that same day and explained the situation. Robinson interviewed Rackley again the next day. The director told the investigator she had talked with Griffin Aug. 28 in her office and had taken extensive notes. She said Griffin told her the picture was used as blackmail by her husband.
Robinson said he confirmed with Rackley that when she, Lundy and Burton met with the officer Aug. 29, they already knew all about Griffin and the photo of the child.
“Rackley stated it was Lundy’s call not to inform us,” he said.
Robinson said he met with the victim’s parents Aug. 30 and explained how they got the picture. The parents confirmed the child had behavioral issues the previous year. The mother said he did not want to go to school and he said “Ms. Griffin was mean to him.”
At that point, Griffin’s identity had not been disclosed to the parents.
The investigator found out the child was no longer having behavioral issues in school. He informed the family that the person who took the picture had been identified, and law enforcement would be reaching out to the person.
Robinson secured warrants for Griffin’s arrest Sept. 5 and got a warrant to search Rackley’s office for possible evidence in the case. He said Griffin was arrested the same day, and they took possession of her phone.
The investigator said he and GPD Officer Josh Josey conducted a recorded interview with Rackley in her office at noon the same day. That interview went over the facts and timeline of the investigation. Robinson said he asked for her notes from the meetings with Lundy, Griffin and the Pre-K principal, but she denied having notes.
He said he advised Rackley that Griffin had been arrested and the nature of the charges. He asked for all communications with and concerning Griffin. He said Rackley admitted that she and Lundy had not been forthcoming. The director said administration had planned to address the situation as a professional standards violation, which was why it had not been referred to law enforcement.
Rackley said she did not know why after they were informed of the criminal investigation, she and Lundy did not disclose their knowledge of the matter.
“She indicated she simply deferred to the superintendent’s decision,” Robinson said.
Rackley then turned over all the relevant information to the investigator.
It seems important to note that Griffin was not terminated by the school system until her Sept. 5 arrest. Robinson said up to that point her only discipline action was a requirement to watch online video addressing the “professional standards violation.”
The major’s report ends with follow-up update with the child’s parents and current teachers. He also stated last week that the investigation definitely remains ongoing.
