Jarod Stacy : “Innocent SC Man Struggles with Crime Costs”

A man from South Carolina is still grappling with the repercussions of being wrongly implicated as an arsonist in crimes he had no involvement in, more than a month after the incident occurred.

The individual, identified as Jarod Stacy, was taken into custody by Columbia Police on March 25 under false pretences of setting fire to local Walmarts.

However, Stacy provided authorities with a fake name, “Hunter A. Laycock,” leading to his erroneous booking at the county detention centre under the incorrect identity.

Despite the prompt correction by law enforcement, Laycock remains unsettled by the ordeal and is apprehensive that the situation may not be fully resolved.

Reflecting on the chaotic aftermath of the wrongful accusation, Laycock described a frantic eight-hour period on March 26, wherein he realised his name had been wrongly associated with the arsons.

The ensuing confusion and uncertainty left Laycock feeling vulnerable and anxious, with concerns looming about potential future repercussions.

In the aftermath of the incident, Laycock was surprised to receive a puzzling medical bill from Prisma Health for a procedure he claims he never underwent in late March.

Resolving to prevent any negative impact on his credit score, Laycock chose to pay the bill, albeit with a sense of resignation regarding the lack of control he has over unforeseen consequences.

Seeking clarity on the events that transpired, WIS News 10 attempted to obtain booking documents and phone call records related to Stacy’s incarceration, only to be met with a steep fee of over $500 for their release.

Despite legal provisions stipulating that fees should not be charged for document review to determine disclosure eligibility, Richland County cited the need for extensive redaction by legal counsel as justification for the substantial cost.

Critics, including media law attorney Jay Bender, have raised concerns about the exorbitant fee, viewing it as a deterrent to public access to government records.

While county attorney Patrick Wright defended the fee as necessary to safeguard individuals’ privacy, Bender emphasised that public agencies are protected by law when releasing information in the public interest.

Addressing the fee disparity between the county and city levels, Wright clarified that the specialised nature of redaction work necessitated the involvement of legal experts, contributing to the higher cost.

Expressing his desire for enhanced protocols to prevent similar mix-ups in the future, Laycock called for the implementation of advanced identification technologies in law enforcement procedures to ensure accurate suspect identification.

Despite the call for improved practices, Columbia Police indicated that no policy revisions were being contemplated in response to the incident.