A 17th Circuit Court of Mississippi grand jury has chosen not to indict Kosciusko Police Department investigator Greg Collins for sexual battery.

The grand jury’s reasoning for not pursuing the case was that there wasn’t enough evidence to move the case to trial.

Olive Branch police arrested Collins in December after a woman claimed to have been assaulted in Collins’ hotel room.

Collins has been suspended from the Kosciusko Police Department ever since the charges were filed.

Chief of Police Herbert Dew and the Kosciusko Board of Aldermen are expected to discuss Collins’ suspension at a future meeting.


2-7-2019:  The sexual battery case against Kosciusko Police Department investigator Greg Collins has been sent to the Desoto County District Attorney’s Office.

Collins’ initial court date was set for Jan. 8, but that hearing was postponed until Feb. 5. However, the hearing was not held on that date either.

The case is expected to be brought before an upcoming session of the 17th Circuit Court of the Mississippi grand jury.

Collins was arrested in Olive Branch Saturday, Dec. 8 on sexual battery charges stemming from an incident at a local hotel room.

He has been suspended without pay from the Kosciusko Police Department throughout the remainder of the investigation and criminal case.


12-10-2018: Kosciusko Police Investigator Greg Collins was arrested in Olive Branch over the weekend on sexual battery charges.

The Olive Branch Police Department released the following statement to the media.

“​On Saturday, December 8, 2018 Olive Branch Police received information in regards to an assault that had taken place involving an off duty Kosciusko, Mississippi police officer.

It is alleged that the female victim had met her assailant at a local establishment during an evening of socializing. The parties then left the establishment and met up again at the off duty officer’s hotel room. The victim alleges that after further talking and socializing in the hotel room, she went into the bathroom where she reports she was the victim of an assault of a sexual nature. Immediately after the incident took place, the victim was able to leave the hotel, and reported the incident to police a short time later.

The off duty officer was located shortly after the report and subsequently taken into custody. Based on the information provided in a signed affidavit he was charged with Sexual Battery. A bond was set at $22,222.22 and a court date set for January 8, 2019 at the Olive Branch Municipal Court.”

Following a special meeting of the Kosciusko Board of Aldermen, the board confirmed the officer as Investigator Greg Collins.

The board voted to suspend Collins without pay indefinitely until the Olive Branch Police Department completes its investigation.

Continue to monitor Breezynews.com for more information.

  1. SERIOUSLY says:

    I’m sorry…but I smell a rat…Did she think she was going back to his hotel room to hold his hand and chat? SERIOUSLY! He may be a married man, but however immoral, that is not illegal. If I go to a man’s hotel room after a night of “socializing”, I am pretty sure I know why I am going…

  2. Not adding up says:

    A person is innocent until proven. To suspend without pay seems early in the investigation. If what I’m reading is correct after a evening at local establishment socializing they both decided to leave and proceed to her assailants motel room with more socializing. Kavenough had more evidence against him, he’s a Justice for The Supreme Court, the highest in The United States of America.

  3. THall says:

    He might be a Justice for the Spureme court but he did wrong . Just because he the Justice of the Supreme doesn’t that mean his action should go unnoticed.. That’s the problem with people Today . People think that just because someone is in a higher position they action shouldn’t be accounted for …

  4. Bill Johnson says:

    No matter ones opinion on the legal issues, there was enough evidence to arrest. As far as innocent until proven guilty I totally agree. But no matter the outcome there, if it can be proved she was in his room it is “conduct unbecoming an officer” and a termination is warranted.

  5. Brandy says:

    So she went to his room possibly with the intent to sleep with him? So what! If she changed her mind and said she didn’t want to then SHE STILL SAID NO!!! That is sexual assault no questions asked…

    • Tax paying citizen says:

      1st, he wasn’t charged with sexual assault! 2nd, sexual assault does not line up with your scenario! People often want to jump in & give their 2 cents but don’t even have a clue to whatever the issue may be!

  6. Gail says:

    She obviously went to his room on her own Will, ? What did she think was going to happen? She left in her own free will as the reporting says, so she wasn’t coered not held against her will. I’m not defending anyone but she should have never gone to his room.. just my opinion.

  7. Greg says:

    1. It’s a sad situation ether way, a rape has occurred or an innocent man has been locked up.
    2. Law enforcement MOST of the time only charge someone when enough evidence is provided for a case.
    3. This is America & we all have the right to change our minds anytime we deem fit.
    4. it doesn’t matter where anyone is, hotel room drinking or not, no means no.
    5. For the ones commenting she was in a hotel what did she expect… NOT TO GET RAPPED, and the comments pertaining to that are basically saying it’s ok to get rapped in a hotel room.. really

    • Tax paying citizen says:

      Rape is your speculation, probably. Or have you read or have knowledge of a rape being commited there? I’m only aware of a sexual battery charge. Sexual battery can range from a touch without consent , as well.

      • Greg says:

        You are totally correct, but police are not just gonna arrest someone on account of someone saying he grabbed me. Evidence evidence evidence. Unless he left hand prints somewhere it’s probably a little more serious.

    • Brandy says:

      Thank you sir. That was the point I was trying to make… I don’t see much difference between sexual “battery” and sexual “assault”! Neither one is ok!

  8. Jus Sayin says:

    “Any person who touches an intimate part of another person while that person is unlawfully restrained by the accused or an accomplice, and if the touching is against the will of the person touched and is for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of sexual battery.”

  9. Peaches says:

    Whoever she may been went to his room are whatever may been prostitute and thought she was going get money out the deal and didn’t get anything from him and then oh she called the police on him

  10. Phyllis kennan says:

    Sounds like to me she’s looking for attention. As I teach my daughters, don’t put yourself in situations you have no business in. Sexual assault? She went to his room. What did she think? I guess she thought they were going to “socialize” more? When you go to a mans room socializing becomes sexualing and unless you are a pure idiot you know it. She’s an embarrassment to herself and family because this will follow her all the days and she will be a joke in the courtroom.

  11. Jim says:

    At least 8 police officers have resigned from the Police Department in Olive Branch, Mississippi, after being accused of having sex on the job, including in patrol cars and at the fire station, according to WHBQ-TV.

    >> Read more trending news
    This wasn’t that long ago and I looked into it and it’s where our officers where accused to did wrong, is there a connection who knows but it made me think before I judge someone! Just saying.

  12. Michael says:

    There are two issues here, it’s best not to conflate the two. First is related to Officer Collins conduct and public trust. He has a right to and deserves due process like anyone else. Nevertheless, he was in a position of trust. There should be no problem at all with that position being taken away temporally, even permanently, due to on-duty or off-duty conduct. At the very least, there is no dispute in the basic fact that there was an illustration of poor judgement at a job-related function. That is, even if the ‘event’ in question took place afterward, there is still a nexus to being at a job function; presumably while being paid a public salary to be there.
    The fact that there was also an arrest reinforces this point. I doubt that there would have been an arrest of a fellow officer without there being some issue of guilt being in dispute in local law enforcement’s mind. That does not mean we (you and I) need to speculate on the facts here in this forum, it’s not our call until called to jury duty. In this case, a jury looked at this dispute of facts and chose not to make it a criminal matter. In my case, I make no speculation on Officer Collies actual accused criminal conduct, because it is not needed. My point is, fair or not, like it or not, no one is in entitled to hold a position of public trust. It is an earned measure, and innocence nor guilt needs to be known when a loss of confidence is reason enough for termination or change of duties. Not being prosecuted is not the same as an exoneration, although this fact seems to also miss many on a national scale also. A loss of confidence means that a person can no longer effectively do that public-trust related job. A change of venue or duties might also be a solution.
    As for the second point and the other person in question, there is no question. Her reason for being in that room does not matter. This relates to the first point; she was in the room with member of the community that is in the public trust. She is member of the public too and should be entitled to give that trust to the same person regardless of the situation or circumstances. We can not have it both ways, we cannot put someone in public trust then to shift a burden to someone else for ‘putting herself into that situation.’ It does not work that way.
    Likewise, I don’t have to speculate on the conduct here to address some of the appalling shaming comments on this forum.
    Any person should be able to say no regardless, because everyone is entitled to revoke consent– at any moment. Read that again for it seems not to sink in for some. Reputation, money on the table, drunk, nude, promise or whatever the situation, this consent can be revoked, period.
    Along that line, consent never can be gained from someone not able to give a thought-out consent. Any impairment or lack of reasoning then consent cannot be given. Again, no one ever puts his or herself in a situation that automatically grants consent. Finally, consent can only be obtained in an affirmed manner. That is, regardless of the thoughts or situation, only yes means yes and there is no other way to look at this. Looking at it in a different light can cause anyone to lose public confidence, or worse.

  13. Bill says:

    Michael- While I do appreciate your opinion on the matter and concern for public trust, I do have to disagree with you. In the USA, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and in most cases, by his or her peers. In this case, his peers did not feel there was enough evidence to convict him of any crime. Just remember, in our justice system, the defendant does not need to prove they are innocent, the court must prove their guilt. You made a point about how guilt or not was not the issue but public trust was yet you circled the wagons and went back to teach us about consent which makes your arguement feel more about your disagreement with the outcome of the Grand Jury. Well, my peers (who have heard and seen the evidence against Mr Collins) do not think there was a crime or he would be headed for trial. That is good enough for me.
    As for public trust, what has he lost? Yours? Is that because you convicted him on your own?
    I don’t know if you are aware but people are wrongfully accused and convicted everyday because people make false accusations. Sometimes people don’t get their way or are upset about a decision they made and twist the story so they are a victim. In the military, this happens all the time and good people lose everything based on a false accusation.
    If I wanted to question public trust on behalf of Mr Collins, I would look at all he has done for our community. He has serverd Kosciusko well for a long time. I would have no problem with him returning to full service as soon as possible if that is indeed what he wants to do. I wouldn’t blame him if he decided to move on either.
    Oh, and lastly- If you feel like it was not becoming of him to be engaged in anything with another woman, that is a family matter. Whatever may or may not have happened is between Husband, Wife, and God.
    Good day,

    • Michael says:

      Bill, thank you for your polite response. I did consider the good points you make, and will give them more thought. I will clarify my statements also.

      I broke my long-winded thoughts into two parts. The first, public service,public trust, loss of confidence and the second was about consent in general.

      The latter was addressed to those, that frankly, had a scary view of what consent is and I wanted to make the point that someones poorly thought-out conduct does not give others free rein to violate them. This was meant in a more general sense, not necessarily applied to the news above.

      As for the other, I’ve met Mr. Collins a few times and every encounter has been polite and professional. I can think of nothing in our interactions I could report as poorly done. I also recognize the good work and dedication he’s given to the community. Yet, his job goes beyond that.

      The more subtle point I was trying to make was that a loss of confidence when it comes to a public trust job is a tricky thing. As you mentioned the military, when it comes to command suffering a loss of confidence, it is a disqualifying factor —regardless of how that lost of confidence came about. [I would have italicized that last part if I could on here.] It now makes their job impossible. Thus, they are generally assigned other duties. Do you see what I’m getting at? Regardless of the circumstances, this can have a direct effect on the job of someone place into trust. Someone in the public might not want him to be the one that should investigate a crime of similar conduct toward their family member of the same type of crime he was accused of, regardless of the outcome of Mr. Collins’ case. As you can see in the above postings, there are strong feelings on the matter.

      For example, the next time Mr. Collins is Officer Collins and in an official capacity has to be a witness in someone trial, what do you think the first question might be from a defense attorney? “Officer Collins, you mentioned during the investigation of my client he performed certain actions, have you ever been arrested Officer Collins?” Some of the reasons we hold those in public trust at a higher standard are prosaic.

      Do you see the point I’m trying to make? It’s nothing personal and it’s not trying to change an outcome, it is unfortunately what has come about. To paraphrase Greg from above, there are no winners here. Like I said, I read over your reply and was glad of your questions and thinking point.

      The last point being that the only way for a community to heal is via understanding of each other’s point, not via some statements that lack probity in facts I’ve seen in a couple of postings. I do hope everyone involved can also heal. I hope that everyone is given the chance to carry on, and if that turns out to be restored to full service for Mr. Collins, I hope it does work out. Along that line, I doubt I will comment more on the topic regardless if you chose to reply. For I hope that others will see our interaction and can understand that we are not that far apart nor that polarized. I know that I’ve been given chances I’ve not deserved. I’m not saying that is the case here, for using the words second chance is most likely a disservice to the salutation, but I’m saying I can understand that is important, based on my own experiences.

      • Bill says:

        Michael- Thank you for your insight on this matter. It sounds as if you have some sort of legal background. I however, do not. Well, unless defending myself in traffic court counts. In that case, I would object to the question you used in your example about asking him if he were ever arrested as it is not relevent to the case. It is not relevent because it does not comply with rules of evidence. He was not convicted.
        Per Rules of Evidence 609 (law.mc.edu). Attorney.com also speaks to this…
        A police officer with a criminal record can hamper a criminal prosecution since he or she is vulnerable to impeachment by a criminal defense attorney. Under the rules of evidence, any witness who has been convicted of a crime can be questioned about it. In a close prosecution, a jury may find it difficult to accept the testimony of an officer with a criminal record, especially if there is little or no other evidence linking the criminal defendant to the offense for which he or she is being charged.

        Police officers are not immune from having criminal records, but they are often less severe offenses, such as misdemeanors, although a record that has been expunged could include a felony charge.
        Key word being convicted.
        Again, thank you for the conversation. I have learned alot from it. This is a sticky situation for sure and I also agree that both sides need time to heal.

  14. Bill says:

    Michael- It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that you may have a legal background. I however do not. Well unless representing myself in traffic court somehow qualifies me as an expert (joke). I have learned over some painful mis-steps not to believe everything I hear, read, ect.. Those two years of being in the minority as a Right-Leaning Conservitive attending a very liberal college in the midwest and having to debate my point of view on every topic imaginable have taught me that it is ok to disagree and be adults about it. I will not change your point of view and you will not change mind but atleast we listened to each other and understand both sides of the arguement.
    I did research the example you used and found this info on Attorney.com
    A police officer with a criminal record can hamper a criminal prosecution since he or she is vulnerable to impeachment by a criminal defense attorney. Under the rules of evidence, any witness who has been convicted of a crime can be questioned about it. In a close prosecution, a jury may find it difficult to accept the testimony of an officer with a criminal record, especially if there is little or no other evidence linking the criminal defendant to the offense for which he or she is being charged.

    Police officers are not immune from having criminal records, but they are often less severe offenses, such as misdemeanors, although a record that has been expunged could include a felony charge.
    So, if I were the State’s Attorney (and I’m not), I would object to the defense attorney’s question on the base that the Officer being questioned was not convicted of a crime which is the requirement for that question to be allowed per MS Rules of Evidence I found on MC.law.edu.
    Anyway- Thank you for the conversation.

    • Michael says:

      Bill and others;
      I’m glad to see that (soon to be) Officer Collins has decided to continue to invest in our community as our community invests in him. Regardless of what position he holds, he will keep many years of experience here local to us. Given, for example, Brady disclosure rules, this reinstatement with different, but still very important duties, was a reasonable outcome. I do think it is a positive for the community. I wish him safety on the job. As for this subject on this page, it is one I don’t plan on bringing up again.

  15. Craig Moudy says:

    Wait u say he did wrong but yet he hadnt been tried yet no matter what someone’s else decides (grand jury) he didnt tell them not to pursue this case so under the constitution he is still considered innocent RIGHT or have u urself found him guilty already which would mean u dont believe that particularly part of the constitution I’m confused on this and any like it THIS GUY HAS NOT BEEN TRIED FOLKS hes just been tried by the ones that cant see because of the narrow mindedness of what society has already decided. Moudy, C

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. * Denotes required fields.

Note: All comments are held for moderation before being posted.