Groomer alert: Put-in-Bay school janitor cleared but 'weird'
Part 1: School district failed to act and failed them, families say
Records from the Ottawa County Sheriff’s Office reveal a disturbing cycle of complaints involving a Put-In-Bay school janitor. These aren’t just rumors; they are documented reports of a “mentor” targeting 14-year-old girls with gifts, “I Love You” notes, and private fishing trips.
PORT CLINTON — The Ottawa County Sheriff’s Office took a complaint from a family in August 2025 concerned about a school janitor “grooming” 14-year-old girls with gifts, treats and special attention.
It wasn’t investigated, however, until after StayTunedSandusky.com reported about the family’s complaint on Jan. 8, 2026. It’s unknown why Ottawa County Sheriff Steve Levorchick failed to order an investigation previously.
A deputy filed a report in August and sent it to the detective bureau for further instructions, but no instructions were forthcoming. For some families with kids enrolled in the Put-in-Bay Schools, it was obvious to them for a second time that the district favored the janitor and the status quo over protecting girls being targeted by a groomer, they said.
For the sheriff’s office, however, and more specifically, the prosecutor’s office, there simply wasn’t an applicable statute to charge the suspect. Although it could be shown he gave gifts to girls, left them notes that said “I love you,” and left treats in their cars, those incidents occurred in 2021 and 2022. There was no anti-grooming statute in Ohio at the time, and the later incident does not fit the statute: there’s no pattern.
Detectives concluded that the behavior—though deemed “weird” and inappropriate by victims—did not meet the legal threshold for criminal prosecution under the laws that existed at the time of the encounters. The Ottawa County Prosecutor’s Office declined to file any criminal charges citing a "lack of an applicable statute." Ohio’s anti-grooming law was not in effect when the 2021 and 2022 incidents occurred.
What was learned
After failing to investigate initially, sheriff’s detectives began interviewing students and families in late January and learned about the resentment in the community because the school district failed to take action four years ago, when the behavior was first reported.
That’s according to the sheriff’s report of the investigation, which concluded April 8. StayTunedSandusky.com obtained a copy of the report after making a public records request weeks ago. The report is thorough and professionally presented. It details how detectives quickly learned there had been another complaint about the same employee, in May 2022. That incident was investigated by the school district and the Put-in-Bay police and the janitor was cleared of any wrongdoing. One family member told the detectives the school district told them all school employees “love our students” so there was nothing wrong with putting it on a note to a girl.
The decisions by the school district and police back then planted the seeds of discontent among the families, they told the detectives. It’s made them distrustful, they said.
The girl was about 14 in 2021 when the problem with the school employee started, her mother told the detectives. She detailed a history of targeted attention toward her daughter and reported that the suspect began leaving anonymous “locker notes” and gifts for the girl, who was struggling with being bullied at school.
Growing closer
The situation escalated in May 2022 when the suspect gave the girl a hooded sweatshirt and wrote her a letter containing the phrase “I love you,” the report states. The mother reported this to the Put-In-Bay Police Department and the school principal, but she said felt the subsequent investigation was inadequate. The school allegedly dismissed the behavior as “normal” affection for students, she said, though they eventually required the suspect to apologize and promised to monitor his interactions.
The report lists other concerns that were raised:
The employee wanted to form “special relationships” and gifted items, such as daily snacks placed in the girl’s car.
The mother also cited rumors of an out-of-state fishing trip during a seniors school outing where the girl reportedly returned wearing different clothing, the report states.
The mother was alarmed that the suspect had been placed in charge of her daughter’s school “family” group despite the previous boundary issues.
The daughter was also interviewed and described the suspect’s behavior as “weird,” noting that he decorated her locker and provided hoodies and cupcakes. She stated that while he performed similar gestures for another student with the same birthday, she did not believe he decorated lockers for anyone else in the school.
The ‘Mentor’ defense
When confronted in 2022 about writing “I Love You” to a 14-year-old student, the suspect had a ready-made excuse: he wanted to make her “feel loved” because she was being bullied.
In a world where child safety is the priority, that should have been the end of his access to children. Instead, the system accepted his “regret” as a substitute for accountability. He was “cleared” by school authorities and Put-In-Bay Police.
Erased Heart
When the new complaint was filed in August 2025, the family provided the deputy who took the report a “thank you” note on a green sheet of paper the janitor sent to a 17-year-old. At the bottom, a “semi-erased heart” was discovered over his signature.
The heart was drawn with a different pencil than the rest of the letter. The suspect denied drawing it, and despite the 2022 history, the Sheriff’s Office effectively shrugged. The investigation was eventually downgraded from “Grooming” to “Intelligence Gathering,” the reason there was no full investigation until after that until StayTunedSandusky’s Jan. 8 news story.
‘Not With Somebody Untrained’
By January 2026, the frustration of the families boiled over. When a deputy arrived at a victim’s home to serve unrelated paperwork about a guardianship, he was met with a crying, emotional young woman and a mother who had reached her limit.
The daughter’s question was simple: “Who’s investigating him? I know what he’s done to me.”
The deputy’s response? According to his own report, he offered her his business card 29 times. He documented the mother’s outrage. He recorded the daughter slamming the door in his face after she told him she didn’t want to talk to someone “untrained.” He spent more time documenting how many times he offered a card than he did documenting the victim’s outcry.
Final Pass
On April 8, 2026, the Ottawa County Prosecutor’s Office officially closed the book: No charges. The reports show an investigation that moved in circles. It shows a suspect who was “regretful” when caught, but persistent when ignored. Most importantly, it shows a Sheriff’s Office that seems to believe a stack of business cards is an adequate substitute for a specialized investigation into the grooming of minors.
Looming Question
Why was a documented 2022 complaint treated as a “pardon” for future behavior? And why, when a victim is literally crying out for an investigator, does Ottawa County send a deputy who is dismissed by the victim as “untrained”?
If the system’s primary goal is to “refrain from contact” rather than seek justice, then the system isn’t protecting the students. It’s protecting the janitor.
Coming in Part 2: The Administrative Silence
While the Sheriff and Prosecutor have “closed the book,” the questions inside the walls of Put-In-Bay Schools remain open.
A janitor with a history of writing “I love you” to a 14-year-old was later placed in charge of a student “family” group. He allegedly took a student on a solo boat ride during a school trip. He continued to leave notes and treats in lockers and cars.
On Wednesday, Stay Tuned Sandusky filed a formal public records request with Superintendent David Mangas. We are seeking the “missing” 2022 disciplinary files, confirmation of the employee’s current status, and an explanation for why a janitor was granted unmonitored access to students after his behavior was flagged.
Is he still on the payroll? If so, why? If not, what finally forced the school’s hand?
Next: The School’s Turn to Answer
Please subscribe and read more
A/I assistant’s transcription
Below is a transcription summary of the 22-page redacted sheriff’s report filed April 8, 2026, by detectives related to their interviews with student families:
The supplemental investigative reports from Ottawa County detail a repetitive pattern of behavior by the suspect, identified by several witnesses as targeting specific female students under the guise of mentorship. One witness noted that while the suspect appeared “amazing” to some, he seemed to specifically target “the weakest link,” such as students lacking a male role model or those who were not socially accepted by their peers. Over a period of several years, this behavior manifested through anonymous notes, snacks, and “love letters” consistently signed “Love Mr. —,” often accompanied by a heart symbol.
Witnesses described a series of escalating interactions, including an incident where the suspect snuck his dog into the school to have private interactions with a student. One victim reported receiving approximately seven to eight notes over a three-year period, noting that every “love note” was accompanied by a treat. In one instance, a brownie was placed in a student’s locker with a note claiming the gesture was out of the “kindness of his heart” after she had initially refused his offer to buy her a treat during a school field trip.
The records further detail a 2024 senior spring break trip to Hawaii, where the suspect reportedly took a student on a “solo boat ride” with just the two of them. Upon returning, the student was reportedly wearing different clothes and later told her best friend that the trip was “the worst decision that she had ever made”. Despite these reports, witnesses expressed deep displeasure with the school’s response, stating that administrators treated the victims differently after they reported the behavior.
Physical evidence mentioned in the narratives includes at least two letters with hearts on them, one of which appeared to have the heart partially erased before being turned over to law enforcement. One student expressed that she now feels “scared” every time she sees the suspect at school. The reports also highlight that the suspect would go out of his way to say “hi” to specific students while not maintaining the same level of friendliness with the general student body.
Families involved in the investigation reported that the school failed to provide assistance and instead seemed to protect the suspect’s reputation. One parent noted that the suspect would make “nice comments” to students to build rapport, causing some to initially defend him by saying “he’s not like that”. However, the investigation remained pending as more victims and witnesses came forward with similar stories of “special relationships” and unmonitored access to minors.
The investigating deputy, Det. Rob Russell, concluded these interviews noting the ongoing nature of the case and the continued dissatisfaction of the public regarding how these incidents were handled by both school officials and initial responding officers. The narratives underscore a systemic failure to recognize these “mentorship” behaviors as potential grooming, even after multiple families raised concerns about inappropriate gifts, private outings, and “love letters” sent to students as young as 14.
The investigative reports from Ottawa County document a persistent pattern of behavior by a school employee, identified as a janitor, who allegedly targeted specific female students starting in 2021. According to witness statements, the suspect engaged in “mentorship” behaviors that included leaving anonymous “locker notes” and gifts for a 14-year-old student who was reportedly being bullied. These interactions escalated to include “love letters” signed “Love Mr. —” and a gifted hooded sweatshirt. Although school authorities and local police were notified in 2022, the school reportedly dismissed the behavior as “normal” and allowed the suspect to remain in his position after an apology.
New complaints surfaced in 2025 involving another student who received “thank you” notes and snacks. Deputies noted a “semi-erased heart” on one letter, which the suspect claimed he did not draw. Victims described the suspect’s behavior as “weird” and “weird with the letters,” noting that he seemed to target students he perceived as the “weakest link,” such as those lacking male role models. The reports also mention a 2024 trip to Hawaii where a student allegedly went on a solo boat ride with the suspect and later described the experience to a friend as the “worst decision” she had ever made.
The documentation highlights significant public frustration with the law enforcement and school district response. In one instance, a victim confronted a deputy, calling him “untrained” and demanding to know who was actually investigating the suspect. The deputy’s narrative states he attempted to offer his business card twenty-nine times during the emotional exchange. Families reported feeling that the school treated them differently after reporting the incidents, effectively protecting the suspect while isolating the complainants.
Ultimately, the Ottawa County Prosecutor’s Office declined to file charges on April 8, 2026, closing the grooming and importuning investigation. The files indicate that while law enforcement was aware of the suspect’s history—including admission to writing “I love you” to a minor—the behavior was consistently framed as misguided kindness rather than criminal grooming. The records reflect a pending status or case closure despite multiple families providing consistent accounts of the suspect providing unmonitored gifts, private transportation, and inappropriate correspondence to students.
The following summary details the final investigative phases of case 2025-27400, conducted by Detective Robert Russell of the Ottawa County Sheriff’s Office. These reports focus on intelligence gathering and witness interviews conducted between January and April 2026.
In late January 2026, Det. Russell coordinated an interview with a former student who had since moved to a community college. During the same period, investigators met with the Put-In-Bay school principal to review internal records. The principal stated that the school had no documentation regarding the initial 2022 incident, noting it occurred prior to his tenure.
On February 3, 2026, Det. Russell interviewed the former student at her college residence. She described her relationship with the suspect as that of a “mentor.” She recalled receiving letters from him following her boyfriend’s suicide in 2022, in which the suspect stated he was proud of her and available for support. She maintained that she did not find the correspondence or his behavior inappropriate.
Regarding the senior trip to Hawaii, the witness stated that nothing out of the ordinary occurred, though she noted the suspect once asked if she wanted to get coffee. While she denied that a fishing trip took place in Hawaii, she admitted to going on numerous solo fishing trips with the suspect on Put-In-Bay. She estimated they went ice fishing three times and spring fishing five times, during which they would listen to music and talk.
The witness confirmed that the suspect signed his notes with either “From Mr. —” or “Love Mr. —.” She also corroborated reports of the suspect providing gifts, noting he would leave dill pickle chips for her and candy canes in students’ lockers during the holidays. She expressed her belief that he provided these items to many students, not just her.
When asked why other complainants might have provided her name to the police, the witness suggested it was because they were aware of her ongoing friendship with the suspect. She confirmed that she remains in contact with him and has never witnessed him acting inappropriately with anyone.
Following these interviews and the intelligence gathering phase, the case was reviewed by the Ottawa County Prosecutor’s Office. On April 8, 2026, the investigation reached its conclusion when the prosecutor’s office officially declined to file charges.
The final report concludes with the determination that no criminal charges would be pursued regarding the incident. The documentation remains classified as confidential law enforcement investigatory records, summarizing the transition of the case from an active investigation to a closed intelligence file.