One Word. No Explanation. Sheriff's Office Closes Investigation

July 02, 2026 | Freeport, IL

When Fighting4Freeport first reported that Freeport resident Markus Signer had filed a formal citizen complaint against Stephenson County Sheriff Steve Stovall, we made two promises to our readers.

First, we would allow the process to play out before drawing conclusions. Second, we would report the outcome—whatever that outcome happened to be.

Today, that investigation is officially complete.

The Sheriff's Office concluded that the allegations against Sheriff Steve Stovall were "UNFOUNDED."

There is nothing inherently wrong with that conclusion if the evidence supports it. The problem is that after more than a month of investigation, interviews, evidence collection, regular status updates, and a formal disposition, the Sheriff's Office never explains how it reached that conclusion.

For many readers, that may be the most troubling part of this entire case.

How We Got Here

On May 18, 2026, Markus Signer filed a formal citizen complaint alleging misconduct by Sheriff Steve Stovall. The complaint described two separate incidents that allegedly occurred on May 12.

The first involved Signer's claim that Sheriff Stovall followed him while driving through Freeport, causing him to fear the sheriff was attempting to determine where he lived.

The second—and arguably far more significant—occurred later that morning inside the Stephenson County Courthouse. According to the complaint, Signer entered the courthouse intending to file a citizen complaint against Sheriff Stovall and request information regarding a possible no-trespass order.

While waiting for paperwork, Signer alleges he overheard an investigator telephone Sheriff Stovall and say:

"Steve, Markus Signer is here to file a complaint against you."

According to the complaint, the investigator then escorted Signer downstairs, instructed him to leave the courthouse, and told him not to return inside.

Signer further alleges that he remained outside and contacted the Stephenson County State's Attorney's Office seeking assistance. Representatives from that office allegedly came downstairs, met with Signer, and ultimately escorted him back into the courthouse so he could obtain the paperwork he had originally requested.

During that same interaction, Signer further alleges the investigator informed an Assistant State's Attorney that Sheriff Stovall had directed that Signer was not permitted back inside the courthouse.

Those allegations became a central part of the citizen complaint.

An Investigation That Initially Inspired Confidence

To Chief Deputy Andy Schroeder's credit, much of the investigative process appeared organized, professional, and responsive.

Within hours of receiving the complaint, Schroeder formally acknowledged receipt. He requested the complete, unedited video referenced in the complaint and utilized Axon's secure Community Request system to preserve the evidence.

After the video was submitted, Schroeder confirmed receipt in writing and advised that it had been preserved as part of the investigative file. When he was scheduled to be out of the office, he informed Signer that the investigation would temporarily pause before resuming upon his return.

After returning to work, Schroeder scheduled an in-person recorded interview. Later, when Signer requested additional time to determine whether any additional evidence or witnesses existed, Schroeder granted that request.

Throughout the investigation, regular status updates were provided explaining where the investigation stood and when a final determination could be expected.

Quite frankly, that level of communication deserves recognition.

Too often, citizens file complaints with government agencies and hear nothing for weeks or months. That was not the case here.

Chief Deputy Schroeder remained professional, courteous, and communicative throughout the investigative process. Those are positive things, and they should be acknowledged.

Then Came the Final Disposition

On June 24, 2026, the Sheriff's Office issued its final determination.

The investigation was over.

The allegations were determined to be "UNFOUNDED."

The accompanying letter stated investigators had reviewed reports, recordings, video evidence, dispatch records, witness statements, and other relevant materials before reaching that conclusion.

Then...

It stopped.

No explanation.

No findings.

No discussion of the evidence.

No analysis of the allegations.

Simply a conclusion.

The Question That Still Has No Answer

The allegation that Sheriff Stovall followed Markus Signer is certainly important.

But Fighting4Freeport believes another allegation deserved even greater attention.

According to the complaint, a citizen walked into a public courthouse to file a complaint against the county's highest-ranking law enforcement official.

According to that same complaint, he was escorted out of the building before he could obtain the paperwork he requested.

Only after contacting the Stephenson County State's Attorney's Office did he allegedly receive assistance and ultimately gain access to the paperwork he originally entered the courthouse to obtain.

Think about that for a moment.

Whether readers believe Markus Signer or not is almost beside the point.

If those events occurred exactly as alleged, they raise significant questions about whether citizens can freely file complaints against powerful public officials without interference.

If those events did not occur as alleged, then the public deserves to understand what investigators found instead.

The Sheriff's Office answers neither question.

What We Still Don't Know

Even after completing its investigation, the Sheriff's Office never tells the public:

• Was Sheriff Stovall interviewed?

• Were courthouse employees interviewed?

• Was the investigator accused of removing Signer interviewed?

• Were representatives from the State's Attorney's Office interviewed?

• Did investigators confirm whether the alleged phone call occurred?

• Was courthouse surveillance footage reviewed?

• Was GPS data from Sheriff's Office vehicles examined?

• If Signer was removed from the courthouse, who made that decision?

• If Sheriff Stovall directed his removal, was that action consistent with department policy?

• If he did not, what evidence established that fact?

Instead, after reviewing reports, witness statements, recordings, dispatch records, and other materials, the Sheriff's Office simply concluded the allegations were "unfounded."

That may very well be the correct conclusion.

But the public is never told why.

Transparency Requires More Than a Verdict

Government agencies are not required to publicly release every investigative note or every witness statement.

Nor should confidential personnel information necessarily become public.

However, there is a significant difference between protecting confidential information and providing virtually no explanation at all.

Imagine a judge issuing a criminal verdict that simply read:

Not Guilty.

No findings. No reasoning. No discussion of the evidence.

Most people would naturally ask how that decision was reached.

Internal investigations involving public officials should inspire confidence—not simply ask for it.

Could Sheriff Stovall Have Been Justified?

Absolutely.

That possibility should not be ignored.

Perhaps investigators determined Sheriff Stovall was simply traveling the same route as Signer. Perhaps GPS data contradicted portions of the complaint. Perhaps courthouse surveillance showed events differently. Perhaps witnesses disputed what Signer alleged occurred. Perhaps investigators concluded Sheriff Stovall never directed anyone to remove Signer from the courthouse.

Any of those explanations could have supported the Sheriff's Office's conclusion.

The problem is that the public never learns whether any of those things actually happened.

The Sheriff's Office simply asks the public to accept its conclusion without understanding the reasoning behind it.

Chairman's Analysis | Joshua T. Atkinson

When Fighting4Freeport first learned of and helped Mr. Signer file this complaint, we understood the likelihood of the outcome. Internal investigations rarely end with findings against the head of the very agency conducting the investigation.

That reality alone did not concern us.

What concerned us was whether the investigation would provide the public with confidence that every allegation had been carefully examined and thoughtfully explained.

To Chief Deputy Andy Schroeder's credit, much of the investigative process reflected professionalism. Communication was excellent. Evidence was requested promptly. Video files were preserved. A formal interview was conducted. Status updates were provided throughout the investigation.

That level of communication should be commended.

Unfortunately, the final disposition did not match the professionalism shown throughout the investigation.

After weeks of investigative work, the Sheriff's Office provided the public with no explanation for how it reached its conclusion.

In our view, the most significant allegation was never truly addressed.

A citizen alleges he walked into a public courthouse to file a complaint against the elected Sheriff. He alleges that before he could even obtain the paperwork, the Sheriff was notified he was there. He alleges he was escorted from the building and told not to return. He alleges he ultimately had to contact the Stephenson County State's Attorney's Office for assistance in exercising what most people would consider a fundamental right—to file a complaint against a public official.

Those are serious allegations.

If investigators determined those events never happened, explain why.

If investigators determined they did happen but were justified under department policy, explain that.

If witness statements contradicted portions of the complaint, tell the public.

If surveillance footage disproved the allegations, say so.

Transparency is not simply announcing a verdict. Transparency is explaining the facts that produced it.

At the end of the day, the Sheriff's Office may have reached the correct conclusion.

We simply do not know. Because after more than a month of investigation, the public was given the answer—but not the explanation.

The Sheriff's Office spent more than a month investigating this complaint. It spent less than a paragraph explaining the result.

Public trust is not earned by asking citizens to accept a conclusion. It is earned by showing them how that conclusion was reached.

That, perhaps more than anything else, is the missed opportunity in this investigation and truly helps explain why things are exactly what they are in Freeport and surrounding areas.