Louisiana State Police (LSP) Lt. James Jefferson III embraces his attorney, Jill Craft, after his Motion for Summary Disposition was granted by the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) on Thursday, February 12, 2026.
On February 6, 2025, LSP Lt. James Jefferson III was arrested by Baton Rouge City Police on allegations of domestic abuse with child endangerment, to wit:
2/6/25 WAFB Feature on Jefferson’s Arrest
On April 15, 2025, DA Hillar Moore formally announced that he would not be pursuing charges against Jefferson, to wit:
4/15/25 WAFB Feature on DA Moore’s announcement of no prosecution of Jefferson
It should be noted that this March 26, 2025 WAFB feature essentially served as a prelude 20 days before Moore’s just-linked announcement. From that feature:
Based off of reviews of evidence and reports, District Attorney Hillar Moore told the I-TEAM Wednesday the charges are likely to be dismissed against James Jefferson.
Jefferson was arrested for one count of domestic abuse battery with child endangerment last month. Officers who responded say they observed fresh scratches on Jefferson’s hand. But now, we’ve learned prosecutors are reviewing the case and there are serious questions about whether there was even probable cause to arrest Jefferson.
The arresting officer who put Jefferson in handcuffs was placed on administrative leave following Jefferson’s arrest. Baton Rouge Police said the officer was placed on leave on February 27th. He was moved to desk duty on March 11, which restricts him from driving a unit or working extra duty.
At an LSPC meeting of Thursday, February 12, 2026, LSP Col. Robert Hodges explained why he and his Disciplinary Review Committee imposed a 48-hour suspension on Jefferson notwithstanding DA Hillar Moore’s declining to pursue criminal charges:
2/12/26 LSP Col. Robert Hodges explains why he imposed a 48-hour suspension against Jefferson notwithstanding DA Moore’s decision to drop criminal charges.
The LSPC spent a total of 85 minutes (not including another 30-40 in Executive Session) hearing oral arguments by Jill Craft, Jefferson’s attorney, on her contention that no hearing for Jefferson was necessary and why his 48-hour suspension should be summarily dismissed. We will be providing a link for the entirety of the oral arguments for that summary disposition; however, let us provide a sort of quick and fast overview of Jefferson’s contentions vs. LSP Col. Robert Hodges’ contentions:
=== Both sides agreed that the internal investigation of Jefferson, which by LSPC rules must wrap up within 60 days, concluded on April 9, 2025. Craft, arguing on behalf of Jefferson, asserted that the investigation began on February 6, 2025, which meant that it lasted 62 days, two (2) days longer than permitted by LSPC Rules. Hodges, on the other hand, was very adamant that the investigation did not commence until February 13, 2025 (even reading into the record a communication from LSP Chief of Staff Frank Besson that the investigation “commenced on February 13, 2025”) and therefore concluded in 55 days, five (5) days before the deadline.
=== While LSP admitted to a “procedural error” in not providing Jefferson with a Loudermill letter until May 15, 2025 (weeks after Jefferson’s suspension had been established by Hodges and the suspension even served), Hodges and LSP attorneys argued that the “error” was correctable by refunding Jefferson his pay for the suspension served, and proceeding with a redo of the whole matter. Craft asserted that LSP failed miserably to “fix” any “error” and that correspondence to her in mid to late July of 2025 in no way constituted a Loudermill letter. LSP admitted that no second Loudermill letter was sent after May 15, 2025 and admitted that Jefferson should have been afforded an opportunity to respond, in writing, to present “his side of the story” prior to any discipline being handed down to Jefferson. Nevertheless, Jefferson, after a Disciplinary Review Committee meeting on or around August 6, 2025, received another formal 48-hour suspension, which he served for a second time. The initial suspension, served during the week of April 20, 2025 through April 24, 2025, dates chosen by Jefferson as an accommodation while his children were on Spring break, had been refunded to him by LSP.
That’s the summation, but we do want to present a video of the oral arguments in their entireties and draw specific attention to Hodges’ portion of the hearing, which transpires from the 29:00 – 1:08:15 mark. Here is that video:
2/12/26: James Jefferson III’s oral arguments regarding his Motion for Summary Disposition with particular focus on LSP Col. Robert Hodges testimony transpiring from the 29:00 – 1:08:15 mark.
The only commentary we’re going to make about Hodges’ testimony is twofold:
#1) Craft easily frustrates him on numerous occasions even though she appeared to be exerting no effort at all on her part to do so, and
#2) Hodges, in our opinion at least (but viewers can watch the video and draw their own conclusions), seems to be very emphatic that a “hearing next month” entailing Jefferson would transpire, which could happen only if the LSPC denied Jefferson’s Motion for Summary Disposition.
Regarding point #2) above, Hodges would be disappointed because the LSPC, led by Member Michael “Mickey” DuBos, Granted the Motion for Summary Disposition and awarded Jefferson $1,500 in attorney fees to Craft:
LSPC Grants Jefferson’s Motion for Summary Disposition and awards him $1,500 in attorney fees.
While the above presentation concludes this feature, we reserve the right to supplement (a favorite word of Billy Broussard) this feature in the future based on any findings from our public records request to Baton Rouge Police for the incident report and any body camera footage applicable for Lt. Jefferson’s arrest and/or our public records request of the LSPC for all material provided to the LSPC Commissioners for Jefferson’s Motion for Summary Disposition and/or our our public records request of LSP for the investigative file for Lt. Jefferson.



