A decision on whether to fire suspended Warren County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Mark Heyungs was not made at the end of a two-day administrative hearing Thursday.

Heyungs, who has filed to run for sheriff against current Warren County Sheriff Brett Hightower, is currently suspended without pay.

WCSO Chief Deputy Maj. Kevin Wiles testified Wednesday that Heyungs was suspended and recommended for termination on Dec. 12 after a series of infractions over a period of several months last year, some of which violated written department policies.

Under procedures set out in state law, Heyungs could have either accepted termination when he was given notice, offered to resign or contested the termination notice through an administrative hearing, in which the sheriff sits as ruling authority.

At the end of Thursday’s proceedings at the Warren County Justice Center, Hightower directed Warren County Attorney Amy Chandler and Heyungs’ attorney, David Agnew, to submit written summations of their respective arguments by Feb. 23, and the sheriff would go over them during a 48-hour period before issuing his ruling.

Chandler argued for Heyungs to be terminated, relying on Wiles’ testimony to support her case.

“The sheriff’s office operates on accountability, consistency and public confidence,” Chandler said during her closing statement Thursday. “If that foundation is compromised, action becomes necessary.”

Agnew, who supports Heyungs’ reinstatement as sergeant, maintained that his client has done nothing wrong to warrant being fired, and that Heyungs was a victim of retaliation after complaining to Wiles about a hostile work environment in 2024.

“The issue is that the culture at the Warren County Sheriff’s Office has become toxic, resulting in a high turnover rate among sheriff’s deputies, it’s a permissive culture where misconduct is ignored or swept under the rug and officers like Deputy Heyungs who are brave enough to come forward to point out inappropriate conduct in the workplace, they get ostracized and they get retaliated against,” Agnew said after the hearing.

Agnew called five witnesses, including Heyungs, to make his case.

Heyungs joined the WCSO in 2021 after a career in the U.S. army as a military police officer and detective.

After starting out as a patrol deputy, Heyungs was transferred to criminal investigations as a detective and was then promoted in rank to sergeant at the end of 2024, before multiple infractions led to his demotion back to deputy and eventual unpaid suspension.

Heyungs will face Hightower in the Republican primary this May.

Chief deputy lists blemishes

Wiles said that Heyungs’ actions that reflected poorly against him included not staying in radio contact while running after a suspect, failing to secure the crime scene after a deadly shooting, refusing to leave a Glen Lily Road property after being asked to do so when he stopped to investigate a yard sale and taking the cell phone of a motorist he had pulled over despite lacking probable cause to seize the phone.

Heyungs was not formally disciplined for some of the matters brought up by Wiles, but the chief deputy said each incident ultimately contributed to the decision to recommend Heyungs’ firing, which Hightower supported.

“It was becoming apparent to me that any further retention of him would be negligent,” Wiles said Wednesday. “I can only suppose that when (Heyungs) was promoted to sergeant, the job itself was more than his capabilities could handle … these were significant failures that didn’t show up prior to his promotion.”

Wiles said Heyungs’ candidacy did not figure into the decision to suspend him without pay.

In July 2024, Heyungs spoke with Wiles about what the deputy said was a hostile work environment in the criminal investigations division, marked by a lack of communication and a sense of mistrust among employees.

Later, Hightower sent a questionnaire to all detectives that ultimately led to the production of a document that set out rules and expectations for the detectives and articulated rules of office etiquette detectives were expected to follow.

Heyungs testified he felt it was necessary to share his concerns about the workplace, but added that nothing changed after written guidance was issued.

“There was a lot of work not getting done, a lot of horseplay going on,” Heyungs said. “The horseplay and theft of time was causing a problem … I just wanted to do my job and set an example and hoped it would be good enough but it wasn’t. I didn’t want to formally complain about it, but something had to happen.”

Agnew said that his client “endured harassment and inappropriate sexual jokes” for reporting his concerns.

Yard sale causes headache

Wiles said the office received significant fallout after a May 17 incident in which Heyungs investigated a yard sale on Glen Lily Road and video footage of the incident “became quite a social point of interest” when it was posted online.

Heyungs testified that he was on patrol when he stopped at the home after noticing that the products out for sale — mostly detergents and other household items but also multiple kiddie pools — were still in their original packaging.

“The city has a big problem with shoplifting, it’s a daily occurrence,” Heyungs said, adding that he stopped at the home after receiving information from a Bowling Green Police Department officer that “more than just shoplifting” was happening at the address and consulting with another contact in retail security about shoplifting issues.

The man at the residence, who recorded the exchange with Heyungs on his cell phone as they stood on the front porch, refused to identify himself. Heyungs informed the man that he was being detained.

After about 40 minutes, the man’s girlfriend arrived at the house with more products and told Heyungs she was a couponer who bought goods that she stocked for yard sales, providing receipts.

Wiles said that Heyungs called on another deputy while there, and that a BGPD officer also came to the scene, but no one was charged with a crime.

Wiles said that had Heyungs had “no legal justification” to remain on the property after being told by the man there to leave.

After the video was posted online as what was described as an example of police abuse of power, sworn officers and dispatchers fielded hundreds of angry calls and emails about the incident, and deputies were given remedial training on Constitutional law, Wiles said.

“We do not want deputies on a regular basis going to yard sales to investigate the products that are being sold,” Wiles said. “When the gentleman said ‘get off my property,’ (Heyungs) should have left the property, period. It was a violation of that gentleman’s Constitutional rights.”

During cross-examination, Chandler asked Heyungs if the incident could have been handled better.

“Monday morning quarterbacking is a dangerous road,” Heyungs said. “I’m not perfect, we do the best we can … I think we could do things better, but I don’t think there’s any way that gentleman was going to be nice.”

Chase raises concerns

On March 21, then-Sgt. Heyungs arrested a man following a foot pursuit.

Shortly after the pursuit began, Wiles said Heyungs informed dispatchers over police radio that he was running after a suspect in the area of Russellville Road and Dishman Lane.

That location turned out to be inaccurate — the pursuit was in the area of Russellville Road and Emmett Avenue, and Wiles said that Heyungs did not respond to officials during the pursuit with other information, such as a description of the suspect or updated location.

“I get on the radio and ask Mark why are we chasing this person,” Wiles said. “He doesn’t respond, so everybody’s very concerned. If there’s no information forwarded, these first responders are going to think that deputy is in a fight for their life.”

Wiles said Heyungs “missed the mark” with his actions during the pursuit, and he was instructed on improving his communications.

Heyungs testified that he attempted to communicate during the pursuit, but there was too much radio traffic for him to get through.

“When the chief deputy tried to call me, I was literally hands-on with the suspect…putting him in handcuffs,” Heyungs said.

Shooting highlighted

Heyungs’ response to a Sept. 13 homicide investigation on Eastern Heights Avenue crystallized for Wiles his primary concern about Heyungs.

Wiles testified that Heyungs failed to secure the scene and establish control, and that it required Hightower personally driving out to Eastern Heights to secure the scene himself some 40 minutes later.

“I began to formulate the recommendation (for demotion),” Wiles said. “It appeared he is out of his depth and this is beyond his capabilities.”

Heyungs testified that the crime scene covered a massive amount of ground at an apartment complex and that he was also working to identify a vehicle that reportedly left the scene just after the shooting and interview witnesses while two or three other deputies were present in the early stages of the investigation.

About 28 minutes after Heyungs arrived, WCSO Captain Brian Kitchens came to the scene, and Heyungs said that from there the crime scene was under Kitchens’ control.

“I briefed him on what was going on and we worked as a team the best we could,” Heyungs said.

Traffic stop leads to termination papers

Heyungs stopped a motorist on Dec. 7 in the area of Scottsville Road and Three Springs Road for a pair of moving violations.

During the stop, Heyungs was notified that a criminal summons was out against the driver that charged him with attempted video voyeurism, a case investigated by the Western Kentucky University Police Department.

The driver was served with the summons, and Heyungs asked the man for his cell phone, as seen in police body camera footage.

After contacting a dispatcher about the phone, Heyungs brought it to WKUPD headquarters and gave it to WKUPD Chief Mitch Walker.

“I expected (WKUPD) to attempt to get a search warrant for it,” Heyungs said of the phone.

The phone was returned to its owner the next day, uninspected.

Wiles said that Heyungs had “no justification at all” to seize the phone, saying that the criminal summons did not contain enough information to support the deputy seizing the phone and that Heyungs did not contact the WKUPD officer who wrote the summons.

“There was no justification for the seizure of the phone based on very limited information in the criminal summons nine months after the (attempted voyeurism) incident occurred,” Wiles said.

Walker testified that the department had largely completed its investigation into the attempted voyeurism allegations and had previously seized a phone for evidence.

Heyungs said the summons mentioned that a second cell phone was alleged to have been used, he had reasonable suspicion to believe that the phone he seized was “potential evidence” of a crime and that the owner consented to giving the phone, while Walker also testified that it was “very possible” that the phone he received may have been the second phone mentioned in the summons.