Inside the 40-minute jail visit that triggered a probe into a Beaufort Co. councilman
A 40-minute visit between a Beaufort County councilman and an inmate triggered a weeks-long investigation into possible criminal violations in the county jail.
Now, the 43-page police report detailing the findings of the investigation has been released to the public.
Between Aug. 25 and Oct. 3, investigators examined whether Councilman Tom Reitz or inmate Calvin “Skip” Hoagland committed crimes during an “unauthorized” visit. Ultimately, they found “insufficient evidence” for charges, but the probe uncovered a series of policy lapses, questionable decisions by jail staff and potential ethical violations.
Sheriff P.J. Tanner described the incident as a “perfect storm” of poor judgment that allowed Reitz to enter the detention center with two cell phones, walk freely through low-security areas and meet privately with Hoagland in a room reserved mostly for attorney-client visits.
Lapses at the front desk
Investigators emphasized in the report that the incident “would not have happened” if staff had followed their own policy. A corrections specialist stationed at the front desk twice asked whether Reitz’s visit was legal.
The councilman said yes and presented a county ID, though policy requires a Bar Card to verify attorney visits.
The specialist also told investigators that when he led Reitz through the metal detector, it alerted, but that it “always does.” A wand check, which was out of camera view, found nothing on the councilman, despite one of the phones being “clearly” visible in his back pocket.
The specialist, who remains employed, allowed Reitz to pass two signs stating phones were prohibited. Investigators wrote that Reitz paused to look at one of the signs. They also noted he was not allowed to take his phone into the jail during a recent council tour of the facility.
He later claimed he never saw the signs and was not told he could not take his phones in.
Inside the visit
Only attorneys, law enforcement and special mental health physicians are allowed in-person visits to the jail, and their meeting rooms are not monitored by camera or audio.
Reitz and Hoagland briefly went into one of these rooms after the councilman showed his Beaufort County ID, hanging around his neck from a lanyard, to a correctional officer.
The pair then roamed unaccompanied through the low-security portion of the jail and into Hoagland’s cell. Investigators noted that Hoagland’s cell door was left unlocked “the majority of the time,” allowing him to move freely to make calls or walk around.
Inside the cell, Reitz pulled out a phone and took five photos, including a selfie with Hoagland. The councilman asked if he could take photos of the areas where inmates shower and eat, according to the report.
One of the corrections officers told Reitz he could not be inside the cell, and the pair returned the private room for about 20 minutes. It was at this point that officers started to call the jail’s director, Col. Quandara Grant, to ask about the strange behavior.
Grant and John Robinson, one of the county’s assistant administrators, were on a conference call, but made their way to the jail after hearing a councilman was inside. Grant told investigators she did not want to “interfere” with a councilman’s visit and waited in the lobby to confront him instead.
Investigators noted several times that Reitz “used his position” as a council member to conduct an in-person visit. The councilman received an email the night before he visited the jail with instructions on how to register for a virtual visit, but decided to “do it all in person.”
Hannah Nichols, a spokesperson for the county, said no policy changes have been made since the incident, but “additional measures” are in place to ensure compliance. To maintain security, Nichols said, she could not provide additional details on what specific additional measures have been added.
When asked if any jail staff’s employment status had changed since the incident, Nichols said “no.”
Questions over pain medication
A significant portion of the investigation focused on whether Hoagland received unauthorized pain medication while incarcerated.
Families are allowed to drop off an inmate’s prescriptions, but the jail’s doctor must first approve them, per jail policy. Nurses then administer doses from the jail’s own supply, not from what the family brings.
Hoagland told investigators he takes low-dose Oxycontin for pain while awaiting a double knee-replacement surgery. Someone did drop off a bag of assorted medication for Hoagland, though the person’s name was redacted in the report.
Medical records requested by investigators showed Hoagland had not legally obtained narcotic pain medication since April, nearly four months before his detainment.
Reitz told at least four people, investigators wrote, that he went into the jail to bring Hoagland his medication. He later denied that, saying instead he wanted to learn how to get his medication approved.
Hoagland’s wife initially told police that Reitz picked up medication from their home to deliver to her husband, then later retracted the statement. Hoagland told police his wife suffers from a neurological condition that affects her memory.
After Reitz’s visit, investigators noted Hoagland complained less about his knee pain while on the phone and used his walker less often. Video review was ultimately “inconclusive” whether Hoagland ever possessed unauthorized medication.
Both men declined to take polygraph exams related to bringing or receiving pain medication inside the jail, according to the report.
Although it is unclear as to why, investigators asked if a specific nurse was still employed within the detention center following the incident. The nurse was not still employed, and had moved to another state to seek a job. Medical staff in the detention center are not managed by the county, according to Nichols.
After publication, Hoagland called to contest many of the claims made by investigators in the report, calling many of their findings “absolutely untrue and outrageous.” He said that the jail would not honor his prescriptions and that he only rarely took pain medications when his knee pain was severe enough.
Cash offers and political influence
Investigators documented several offers made by Hoagland to exchange money or information for favors. While jailed, he offered to donate to Reitz’s future campaign if the councilman visited him, later promising to fund his “entire next campaign” after the visit. Reitz told Hoagland that was not necessary.
During many of the 129 phone calls Hoagland made during his jail time, he promised “dirt” on South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson to his political opponents, including Congresswoman Nancy Mace, in exchange for his release.
During the probe, Hoagland contacted the lead investigator several times, offering to double his salary if he left his job to work for Hoagland.
Judge shuffle
Police took time to look into why Hoagland was released early from his original 15-day for trespassing. They found that even though Bluffton Municipal Court Judge Clifford Bush, the judge who signed the original order convicting Hoagland, made the decision to release him early, another judge from a different jurisdiction signed off on the discharge.
The attorney representing the Beaufort County Sheriff’s Office said it’s uncommon to reduce an already short sentence, but a judge has full authority to revise their original ruling. But it’s not usually up to a judge to modify a sentence set by another judge, he said.
Tanner found it “questionable” for one judge to sign on behalf of another, since there are jurisdictional boundaries between municipal and magistrate judges. But because the Bluffton municipal court contracts with Beaufort County to do all bond hearings, a magistrate judge can sign off on a release on another judge’s behalf, Bluffton spokesperson Debbie Szpanka wrote in an email.
Response to social media claims
Investigators addressed a social media post made by Reitz in the days following the investigation’s start. The councilman suggested that his ability to serve constituents was hindered because both of his phones had been seized by police.
Police noted that Reitz was shortly issued a replacement county phone, and that access to his email was not interrupted during the course of the probe. His phones were seized because he invoked his right to remain silent and seek legal counsel, the report said.
This story was originally published December 4, 2025 at 6:00 AM.
