A San Antonio Police Department detective has agreed to a 30-day unpaid suspension after an internal investigation concluded he repeatedly visited a private residence while on duty and delayed responding to calls for service. The investigation began after a San Antonio resident reported seeing a marked police vehicle parked near the 100 block of Dublin Avenue on multiple occasions between March and August 2025. According to disciplinary records, the resident also provided photographs and reported seeing the detective interacting with a female resident at the home. The complaint alleged that during one of the encounters the detective appeared to be “kissing” the resident.

According to the disciplinary agreement, the officer involved is Detective Aaron J. Jolley. Records show Jolley was initially served with notice of a contemplated indefinite suspension on December 18, 2025. After being given an opportunity to respond to the allegations before Police Chief William P. McManus, the discipline was reduced through an agreed suspension between Jolley and the department. The agreement imposes a 30-day suspension without pay beginning February 2, 2026, and ending March 3, 2026, and states that Jolley waived any right to appeal the disciplinary action. 

Repeated visits during work hours

The Internal Affairs investigation included a review of location records from Jolley’s assigned police vehicle. According to the disciplinary document, those records showed the vehicle traveled to the Dublin Avenue area numerous times while Jolley was scheduled to work daytime shifts between March and August 2025. Investigators determined that on several occasions he remained assigned to calls for service while traveling to or staying near the residence rather than immediately returning to service after completing calls.

The review identified approximately 27 instances in which Jolley remained assigned to calls while traveling to or remaining near the residence. Investigators also found roughly 45 occasions when he did not immediately respond to calls for service while his vehicle was near the Dublin Avenue location.

Detective acknowledged relationship

During the investigation, Jolley acknowledged that he knew the resident and had visited the home while on duty. In a written response to investigators, Jolley stated, “I befriended the resident [redacted] years ago, I have spent time at the location while on duty.” He also told investigators that the two spoke about personal and professional matters during those visits.

Jolley also acknowledged helping with minor tasks at the residence. In the same written response, he stated, “Both of us talk to each other about personal and professional issues,” and “I have assisted with fixing small items around the house.” Investigators concluded that those activities occurred during work hours and were unrelated to his assigned police duties.

Use of patrol vehicle and delayed call response

Investigators also reviewed how Jolley used his assigned patrol vehicle during the same period. According to the disciplinary order, location records showed he returned to the Dublin Avenue location near the end of his shift approximately 22 times and logged off duty from that area while still operating the marked police vehicle.

In his response to investigators, Jolley acknowledged visiting the residence while still in the patrol vehicle after his shift had ended. He wrote, “Yes, I have visited with her after my shift ended while in the patrol car.”

Delayed response to burglary call

One of the incidents cited in the disciplinary order involved a burglary of a vehicle call assigned to Jolley on June 11, 2025. According to the disciplinary document, the call was assigned at approximately 1:07 p.m., but Jolley did not respond until about 2:02 p.m. Vehicle location records indicated he remained near the Dublin Avenue location for approximately 55 minutes before responding to the call. The records also show Jolley later submitted an overtime card for time spent completing the call after his shift ended. 

Investigators concluded that the overtime may not have been necessary if the call had been handled when it was first assigned.

---

---

Disclaimer

The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented. 

Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing about a Texas judge filing a lawsuit over same-sex wedding refusals.

Or you may find our publishing on a TABC agent receiving a stipend for a degree he didn’t hold, of interest. 

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News

---