Long before Thomas “Tom” Caldwell accused officials across Wilson and Comal counties of violating his civil rights, he had already spent years fighting government institutions, working within them and drawing scrutiny of his own. He was a San Antonio fire captain who spent nearly six years battling his termination, an Army Reserve officer deployed to Afghanistan, a private attorney, an elected county prosecutor and a candidate for district attorney. He was honored for helping Sutherland Springs shooting victims, criticized for hiring a controversial former police officer and later sued over actions taken by his office. Now, Caldwell is asking a federal court to decide whether public officials used government authority to punish him and one of his investigators without ever filing a criminal case.

Caldwell and former Wilson County Attorney’s Office investigator Joshua Jayme Olivarez filed the federal lawsuit on April 16, 2026. The case names elected prosecutors, sheriff’s officials, a Texas Attorney General investigator, Wilson County and Comal County. Its 117-page complaint describes what Caldwell and Olivarez characterize as a years-long progression from internal misconduct reports to criminal investigations, political conflict, interagency communications and professional damage. The filing is supported by 162 pages of exhibits, including emails, meeting transcripts, an internal personnel report, an Attorney General referral, Bee County employment records and two unusual reports explaining why no one would be prosecuted.

The accusations remain contested, and no court has determined that any official named in the case violated the law. Everyone accused of misconduct is entitled to dispute the facts, challenge Caldwell and Olivarez’s interpretation of the documents and argue that the challenged actions were lawful. The federal court is currently considering requests to dismiss the case before evidence gathering begins. That means the existing record contains serious allegations and significant documentary evidence, but not a final judgment establishing whose interpretation is correct.

At the heart of the case is a question larger than whether Caldwell, Olivarez or other Wilson County officials made mistakes during a disputed 2023 arrest. The lawsuit focuses on what government officials did after examining those mistakes and deciding not to prosecute anyone. Caldwell and Olivarez allege prosecutors created official-looking documents accusing them of criminal and ethical misconduct, distributed those reports outside a criminal case and used them through civil litigation and a State Bar grievance. They argue that the government imposed the stigma and professional consequences of prosecution while avoiding a courtroom where its accusations would have to be proven.

From Firehouse Battles to the County Courthouse

Caldwell’s public history gives that accusation an unusual personal dimension. Publicly available biographical information identifies him as a graduate of the University of Texas at San Antonio and St. Mary’s University School of Law, a longtime San Antonio firefighter and a U.S. Army Reserve officer. The State Bar of Texas shows that he became licensed in June 2013 and developed a practice involving government, employment, business, real-estate and civil litigation. He later established a Floresville-area practice and served as legal counsel for Floresville’s economic-development corporation.

The State Bar also reported that Caldwell continued serving in the Army Reserve after entering legal practice. He deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom from 2011 to 2012. His military and fire-service careers placed him inside structured public institutions long before he entered elected government. Those experiences later became part of how he approached workplace investigations, employee rights and questions involving leadership accountability.

Caldwell’s first major public confrontation with government authority began in 2015. The San Antonio Fire Department handed him two indefinite suspensions—the civil-service equivalent of termination—after accusing him of violating truthfulness rules and working as an attorney while receiving line-of-duty injury benefits. Caldwell denied committing fraud and maintained that city officials had been informed about his legal work. A Texas Department of Insurance investigation into whether he improperly received benefits closed in February 2015 without criminal charges.

An arbitrator later concluded that Caldwell violated a Fire Department restriction on outside employment while on injury leave but found termination excessive. The punishment was reduced to a 15-day suspension. The arbitrator questioned whether Caldwell’s legal practice cost the city money or affected the benefits he received, noting that his work was fee-based rather than a salaried second job. San Antonio challenged the outcome, extending the fight through additional arbitration and court proceedings.

Caldwell returned to the Fire Department in March 2021, nearly six years after being removed. KSAT reported⁠ that he was potentially owed more than $600,000 in back pay, along with restored leave and benefits, although the amount remained disputed. San Antonio City Attorney Andy Segovia continued to maintain that Caldwell’s conduct warranted termination even as the city complied with the reinstatement decision. The outcome did not erase the underlying controversy, but it demonstrated that an accusation made by a government employer does not always survive outside review.

That episode now echoes through Caldwell’s federal lawsuit. In the fire case, he was accused of misconduct, removed from a public career and forced to spend years challenging the government’s process. In the current case, he again claims public officials used allegations to damage his livelihood and professional standing. The parallel does not prove that his present claims are true, but it helps explain why the difference between accusation and adjudication occupies such a large place in the lawsuit.

Public Recognition—and Decisions That Drew Criticism

Wilson County voters elected Caldwell as county attorney in 2016, and he took office in January 2017. The position placed him in charge of misdemeanor prosecutions while also making his office a legal adviser to county government. His office handled protective orders, employment matters, civil questions and criminal cases referred by law-enforcement agencies. It also employed investigators who were licensed peace officers with authority to investigate allegations, seek warrants and make arrests.

Less than a year into his term, Caldwell became part of Wilson County’s response to the November 2017 mass shooting at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs. The State Bar of Texas⁠ later honored him for bringing members of the local legal community together to assist victims and surviving families. Caldwell served as a local resource for volunteer attorneys helping people affected by the shooting.

His time in office also produced controversy. Shortly after becoming county attorney, Caldwell hired former San Antonio police officer Matthew Martin as an investigator. SAPD had fired Martin after accusing him of altering the account of a marijuana arrest and repeatedly making untruthful statements, although an arbitrator later returned Martin to the department. The Bexar County District Attorney’s Office declined to pursue criminal charges against Martin after finding insufficient evidence to prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Caldwell, who had represented Martin during his employment dispute, defended the hiring decision. He said Martin worked for the County Attorney’s Office from January until approximately May 2017 and helped prepare criminal cases, including family-violence matters. After Martin returned to SAPD, his peace-officer commission remained with the Wilson County Sheriff’s Office in an unpaid reserve capacity at Caldwell’s request. In a 2018 written response⁠, Caldwell maintained that Martin’s Wilson County service had been honorable.

The decision drew criticism because prosecutors depend heavily on the credibility of their investigators. Former prosecutors questioned whether employing Martin could complicate criminal cases or provide material for defense attorneys to challenge his testimony. Caldwell responded that he knew Martin’s case because he had represented him and did not accept the harshest characterization of the evidence. The episode established a pattern that would reappear in Caldwell’s later controversies. One set of officials treated accusations as disqualifying, while Caldwell insisted the record was more complicated.

A Political Challenge Changes the Landscape

By late 2023, Caldwell had decided to challenge Audrey Gossett Louis for district attorney of the 81st Judicial District. Louis had served as district attorney since January 2017 and oversaw felony and public-corruption prosecutions across Atascosa, Frio, Karnes, La Salle and Wilson counties. Caldwell entered the race while an investigation involving him and members of his office was already underway. Louis subsequently asked that her office be removed from that investigation.

The March 2024, Republican primary was relatively close across the five-county district. Louis received 8,416 votes to Caldwell’s 7,186⁠, securing the nomination and another term. Caldwell’s federal lawsuit alleges that Louis became involved in efforts to investigate him months before his candidacy and that the political challenge supplied an additional motive. Louis disputes that interpretation and argues that her recusal separated her from decisions later made by Comal County officials.

Caldwell completed his term as Wilson County attorney on December 31, 2024, and Theresa Nettles now holds the office. Olivarez, who had worked as an investigator in Caldwell’s office for more than six years, also left when Caldwell’s term ended. By then, the dispute had expanded well beyond one arrest or one county department. It involved Sheriff Jim Stewart, Chief Deputy Clinton Garza, Lt. Joseph Dubs, the Texas Attorney General’s Office, the 81st District Attorney’s Office and an outside prosecution team from Comal County.

The Arrest That Set Everything in Motion

The immediate chain of events began with Alena Gutierrez-Berlanga, a former candidate for the Texas House and the operator of a no-kill animal shelter in Wilson County. Berlanga ran in the March 2022 Republican primary for House District 31 and was required to file a personal financial statement. Records summarized in the later Comal County review say she did not file the statement despite reminder notices. The Texas Ethics Commission eventually referred the matter to Wilson County for possible prosecution.

Caldwell’s office sought clarification about who would serve as the complaining witness and what documentation was needed. A Texas Ethics Commission records custodian ultimately signed an affidavit on May 30, 2023, stating that Berlanga had not filed the required statement by the deadline and still had not filed it more than a year later. Six days afterward, Olivarez presented a criminal complaint to Wilson County Justice of the Peace Jared Shaw. Shaw issued a warrant for Berlanga’s arrest.

The later Comal County review acknowledged that Berlanga failed to file the statement and concluded that evidence existed from which a jury could find her failure knowing and willful. Attorney General investigator Gregory Dickerman reached a different view. Dickerman believed Olivarez had not taken enough investigative steps to establish Berlanga’s intent before seeking an arrest warrant. Comal County rejected that portion of Dickerman’s analysis and concluded that probable cause existed for the arrest.

After obtaining the warrant, Olivarez went to the Wilson County Sheriff’s Office for assistance. According to statements later summarized by Comal County, Stewart instructed Dubs to contact Berlanga, tell her about the warrant and allow her to surrender voluntarily. Olivarez was present for the discussion and reportedly agreed with that arrangement. Berlanga later appeared at a justice of the peace office, where another investigator fingerprinted and processed her.

The controversy developed when Caldwell’s office reviewed the records documenting what happened. Those records allegedly reflected a more conventional arrest and booking process than the abbreviated surrender that had actually occurred. Caldwell and Olivarez also questioned whether fingerprints, reports and custody information had been properly recorded. Their federal filing describes the discrepancies as potential evidence of false or misleading government records rather than harmless paperwork errors.

On June 9, 2023, Olivarez emailed Dubs and asked for any supplemental reports and body-camera footage related to Berlanga’s arrest. Dubs responded that there was a report, no body-camera footage existed and Berlanga’s only law-enforcement contact had been with the investigator who fingerprinted her. Caldwell’s office later treated that response as false because Dubs had personally contacted Berlanga about the warrant. The arrest affidavit against Dubs alleged he knowingly omitted that contact with an intent to deceive an investigator.

The opposing interpretation was sharply different. Stewart and Olivarez already knew Dubs had been instructed to contact Berlanga, and another officer’s report disclosed that arrangements had been made for her surrender. Comal County later concluded that Dubs could not plausibly have intended to hide from Olivarez an action that Olivarez already knew he had been directed to perform. Its report also found that the omitted telephone call was not significant to proving whether Berlanga had violated the financial disclosure law.

Investigators from Caldwell’s office nevertheless obtained a warrant for Dubs, and he was arrested June 30, 2023. Dubs posted an $800 bond and remained employed by the Sheriff’s Office. The arrest turned a disagreement over records into a direct conflict between the county attorney and the Sheriff’s Office command staff. It also became the foundation for later accusations that Caldwell’s office knowingly pursued an unlawful arrest.

Employee Complaints Deepen the Conflict

At nearly the same time, Wilson County’s human-resources administrator received a complaint from a female Sheriff’s Office employee speaking for herself and another employee who was allegedly afraid to report internally. The reported concerns included inappropriate touching, sexualized workplace conversations, retaliation and the mishandling of earlier complaints. The federal filing says six employees ultimately reported concerns involving the agency. Some described a belief that internal reporting would expose them to humiliation or retaliation rather than protection.

An October 2023, report attached to the federal case says a human-resources committee examined the allegations. Caldwell signed the report and adopted the committee’s stated findings in his capacity as county attorney. The report concluded that four earlier complaints had not been fully investigated under accepted standards and that the employees’ confidentiality had been violated in a “reckless and very public manner.” It also said two allegations of sexual harassment or inappropriate workplace conduct reported in June 2023 were founded.

The report did not recommend firing the employees accused of the conduct. It said the individuals apparently had not previously been told that their behavior was inappropriate and that similar conduct had become sufficiently common within the agency that training and lesser discipline might prevent it from recurring. The committee recommended written reprimands or brief unpaid suspensions, along with countywide training on harassment, discrimination and retaliation. It also recommended a reporting system allowing Sheriff’s Office employees to take complaints directly to Human Resources or the county judge.

The report’s broader conclusions were more damaging to agency leadership than its recommendations against any individual employee. It said employees were likely afraid to report misconduct because they did not trust the agency to protect their confidentiality or prevent retaliation. It described a workplace where policy was poorly understood and complaint procedures were inconsistent. Caldwell concluded that very little trust existed between Sheriff’s Office employees and leadership.

Those findings were not made by a court, and the federal case does not establish that every underlying allegation was true. The report also emerged from a process in which Caldwell had already become deeply involved in disputes with Stewart, Garza and Dubs. Even so, it is a contemporaneous county record that helps explain why the conflict expanded beyond the technical legality of one arrest. Caldwell believed his office had uncovered both criminal-record irregularities and a serious workplace-management problem.

Recorded Meetings and Competing Accounts of Notice

Caldwell met with Stewart on June 15, 2023, and recorded the conversation. Excerpts attached to the federal filing show Caldwell discussing questionable custody records, missing or unclear fingerprint documentation, Dubs’ email and the developing employee complaints. Caldwell told Stewart that his office was handling an open criminal matter involving one of Stewart’s employees. He also warned that the record discrepancies could expose Wilson County to liability.

Caldwell met with Stewart and Garza again on June 19, and sent a written preservation request the following day. That notice identified Dubs as the subject of an active investigation and requested records, footage, personnel materials and witness statements. Caldwell says Stewart and Garza later minimized how much information they received during the meetings. The recording is offered as evidence that Stewart received more specific notice than Sheriff’s Office leadership allegedly acknowledged during later interviews.

The federal lawsuit says Sheriff’s Office leadership responded by directing communications through Stewart and resisting requests from Caldwell’s office. It further alleges Stewart began consulting Louis almost immediately. Caldwell viewed Louis as conflicted because his office had previously received complaints involving her office and because the Dubs investigation began as a misdemeanor matter under the county attorney’s authority. Louis disputes that characterization and says the filing does not identify a specific unconstitutional action personally attributable to her.

Tensions also appeared in Caldwell’s own communications. In a June 26, email to Stewart, he wrote that the Dubs investigation was proceeding and warned that continued interference was a “VERY bad idea.” Caldwell said his office would have an arrest warrant issued no later than the following afternoon and asked whether the Wilson County jail would accept Dubs. Comal County later relied on that email to reject the suggestion that investigator Dwayne Mercer independently decided to seek the warrant without consulting Caldwell.

Caldwell also sent a forceful message concerning a recording made by former deputy Carmen Mero. He said the recording needed to be turned over and warned that continued refusal could be considered obstruction. Caldwell ended the message with a pointed remark about never recording an attorney, “especially THIS one.” Those communications became important evidence for officials who believed Caldwell’s conduct, rather than the Sheriff’s Office response, required investigation.

An Attempt to Access Caldwell’s Communications

The lawsuit describes a separate August 2023, incident involving an effort to obtain Caldwell’s government emails and computer files. According to an email chain attached to the case, an employee of Louis’ office asked Wilson County personnel to gather information from Caldwell’s computer. The request was allegedly presented as connected to a San Antonio Express-News public-information request. Caldwell says the newspaper’s request did not justify accessing his files in the manner proposed.

Stewart was copied on parts of the email traffic, and Louis was included in the resulting discussion. Caldwell demanded an explanation and accused those involved of attempting to obtain an elected prosecutor’s communications without a warrant or subpoena. He now treats the episode as evidence that an effort to build a case against him began before the complaints later cited in Louis’ Attorney General referral. Louis argues that the filing does not adequately connect her to an unlawful search or seizure.

The timing has become one of the federal case’s factual disputes. Caldwell alleges he learned in early August 2023 that Stewart was taking information to Louis in support of a possible official oppression case against him. Dubs’ written complaint did not arrive until the middle of September, followed by another complaint from a former deputy. Caldwell argues that the investigation was not simply a neutral response to those complaints because officials were already gathering information about him.

Louis’ September 29, letter to the Texas Attorney General’s Office presented the matter as arising from two complaints. She wrote that Dubs claimed Caldwell knowingly subjected him to an unlawful arrest and that a former deputy accused Caldwell of continuing to investigate after his office had stepped away from the Dubs prosecution. Louis asked the Attorney General to investigate all potential offenses involving Caldwell and any additional county officials. She also wrote that her office was willing to prosecute any charges produced by the investigation.

The Attorney General Investigation

The Attorney General’s Office assigned Gregory Dickerman of its Special Crimes Unit to investigate. Caldwell and Olivarez allege Dickerman concentrated on whether probable cause existed to arrest Dubs while minimizing the booking discrepancies, employee complaints and other concerns they had reported. They also say Dickerman failed to examine Louis’ earlier involvement or the possibility that the investigation’s direction was established before the formal referral. Dickerman disputes the claims and has asked the court to end the case against him.

Dickerman’s report was completed in May 2024, and received supervisory approval on May 24. According to the records, he found insufficient evidence at that time to show Caldwell committed a criminal offense. However, Dickerman believed Mercer and Olivarez may have committed official oppression in connection with Dubs’ arrest. He separately concluded that Olivarez committed official oppression by arresting Berlanga without adequately establishing that her failure to file the financial statement was knowing and willful.

The subsequent Comal County review accepted some of Dickerman’s reasoning and rejected other portions. McCrary agreed that the evidence did not support the criminal allegation against Dubs and concluded Dubs had been unlawfully arrested. He also described the potential case against Olivarez arising from the Dubs arrest as the strongest criminal theory identified in the investigation. Yet McCrary rejected Dickerman’s conclusion concerning the Berlanga arrest, finding probable cause existed and Olivarez therefore did not commit official oppression in that matter.

The disagreement demonstrates that the investigative record was not as simple as one agency clearing one side and condemning the other. Dickerman’s conclusions were themselves reconsidered by the outside prosecutors assigned to review his work. Comal County found possible grounds for some accusations but declined every criminal charge. It also acknowledged that the statements included in the Dubs warrant affidavit were not demonstrably false, although the report considered the affidavit misleading because of omitted context.

Recusal After Caldwell Entered the Race

Caldwell learned in November 2023 that a grand jury investigation involving him was underway. He announced his campaign against Louis in early December. On December 8, a judge approved Louis’ request to remove her office from the investigation of Caldwell and members of his staff. Six days later, Comal County Criminal District Attorney Jennifer Tharp was appointed to handle the matter.

Caldwell argues that the recusal did not erase the preceding months. He alleges Louis participated in investigative and administrative activity, helped establish the direction of the inquiry and transferred the result to another prosecutorial office after he became her political opponent. Louis says the recusal shows that she acted appropriately when a political conflict arose. She also maintains that evaluating, initiating or transferring a possible prosecution falls within the lawful responsibilities of her office.

Tharp’s appointment gave Comal County authority to review the Attorney General investigation and determine whether anyone should be prosecuted. Chief Felony Prosecutor Sammy Mark McCrary completed the final legal analysis, while prosecutor Jessica Frazier participated in related grand-jury and State Bar matters. The review continued into 2025. By then, Caldwell was no longer county attorney and Olivarez had moved to a new law-enforcement position.

A Courtesy Call That Ended Olivarez’s Employment

Olivarez began working for the Bee County Sheriff’s Office on January 1, 2025. Sixteen days later, Bee County Chief Deputy Russell Kirk received a call from San Patricio County Sgt. Investigator Rose Ramos. According to Kirk’s written memorandum, Ramos said she had learned “in an unknown way” that Olivarez was pending criminal indictment for an incident in Wilson County. She passed the information to Bee County as a professional courtesy.

Kirk contacted Garza rather than a court clerk or Comal County’s appointed prosecutors. The Bee County memorandum says Garza discussed Olivarez’s involvement in Dubs’ arrest and told Kirk there was controversy surrounding its legality. Garza reportedly said Dickerman was handling the investigation and “change of venue.” The memorandum does not say Garza produced a case number, indictment or other charging document.

Kirk then contacted Dickerman. The memorandum says Dickerman confirmed that Olivarez was the target of a criminal investigation and stated that the case was pending grand jury indictment in Comal County. Bee County treated that statement as confirmation that Olivarez had failed to disclose his status as a criminal suspect when applying for employment. Sheriff Randy Aguirre was briefed, Olivarez was called into a meeting and he resigned on January 17.

The records attached to the federal filing show no indictment existed. They also show Dickerman’s investigative report had been completed and delivered months before the Bee County call. In a later sworn statement, Dickerman reportedly gave a narrower account of what he told Kirk and disputed portions of the Bee County memorandum. The conflict between Kirk’s contemporaneous record and Dickerman’s later account is now one of the clearest factual disputes in the case.

For Olivarez, the consequences did not depend on a formal prosecution. A representation passed among law-enforcement officials was enough to end his employment after only 17 days. He could not review or challenge an indictment because none existed. Caldwell and Olivarez now allege Garza and Dickerman used the authority of their positions to give unsupported information the appearance of an official criminal finding.

Two Reports, No Prosecution

On June 27, 2025, McCrary signed two reports explaining Comal County’s decision not to prosecute. The shorter document rejected a charge against Olivarez arising from Berlanga’s arrest. It concluded there was probable cause to believe Berlanga knowingly and willfully failed to file her personal financial statement. On that issue, the report expressly rejected Dickerman’s conclusion and cleared Olivarez of the suspected offense.

The longer report addressed potential criminal conduct arising from the arrest of Dubs. It concluded there was no probable cause to believe Dubs committed the false statement offense for which he had been arrested. It found evidence that Olivarez and Mercer participated in an arrest Comal County considered unlawful. It also stated there was probable cause to believe Caldwell abused his office, even while acknowledging Dickerman had found insufficient evidence to show Caldwell personally committed an offense.

McCrary declined to prosecute Caldwell, Olivarez or Mercer for official oppression, tampering with a government record, perjury or making a false statement to a peace officer. He explained that a case against Caldwell would be difficult because Caldwell did not sign the warrant affidavit and could point to the magistrate’s decision to issue the warrant. The report also concluded that omissions from the affidavit could make it misleading without necessarily satisfying the elements required for tampering or perjury. No person connected to either disputed arrest was ultimately prosecuted through the Comal County appointment.

The reports were not filed under existing criminal case numbers because no criminal cases had been initiated. Nevertheless, both were formatted with captions resembling criminal prosecutions by the State of Texas. One named Olivarez alone, while the other named Caldwell, Olivarez and Mercer as though the state had brought a case against them in a Wilson County court. The federal lawsuit argues that the formatting gave prosecutorial accusations the appearance of judicial findings against people who had never been formally charged.

“The Entire Electorate” Instead of a Jury

The most consequential portion of McCrary’s report was not its summary of the evidence. It was the explanation of why leaving Caldwell uncharged could be more useful than prosecuting him. McCrary wrote that any misdemeanor conviction would likely result in probation rather than incarceration. He then considered what might happen to the investigative records if Caldwell were arrested but never convicted.

McCrary reasoned that an unsuccessful prosecution could allow Caldwell to seek expunction. If no case were filed and no arrest occurred, Caldwell generally would not have the arrest required to pursue that remedy. The practical result would be that the investigative documents remained available for future use. The report therefore considered the continued availability of accusations when deciding not to file charges.

McCrary wrote that if Caldwell sought office again, voters could review the reports. “Instead of six jurors in a misdemeanor trial,” he wrote, Caldwell’s jury would be “the entire electorate.” He concluded that preserving the documents could provide more public protection than pursuing a difficult prosecution. He also identified Dubs’ civil lawsuit and possible State Bar discipline as alternative ways Caldwell could face consequences.

That reasoning now sits at the center of Caldwell’s federal claims. Prosecutors routinely document why charges are declined, and a decision not to prosecute does not mean the investigated conduct was acceptable. What makes this report unusual is the express consideration that avoiding prosecution could keep Caldwell from clearing the record and preserve the allegations for future political use. Caldwell argues that Comal County intentionally substituted public and professional punishment for a criminal case it was unwilling to prove.

A criminal case would have created safeguards for everyone involved. Prosecutors would have been required to prove an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, Caldwell’s attorneys could challenge the evidence and a judge would decide which material could be considered. By declining prosecution while issuing accusatory findings, Caldwell says Comal County retained the damaging parts of a criminal case while avoiding the process that tests them. Comal County officials maintain that the reports were legitimate exercises of prosecutorial judgment explaining why criminal charges were rejected.

The Reports Leave the Prosecutor’s Office

On July 1, 2025, Tharp sent the reports to 218th District Judge Russell Wilson, Louis and Wilson County Attorney Theresa Nettles. Her letter described the documents as “Non-Prosecution Affidavits.” Tharp wrote that her office had met with Dubs and his wife, provided them copies and intended to release other requested records not protected by grand jury secrecy. She also announced that her office would send its findings to the State Bar for review of suspected ethical violations by Caldwell.

Tharp’s letter also addressed Dubs’ credibility as a law enforcement witness. She wrote that Comal County determined Dubs did not commit the false report offense and did not believe lawyers should try to impeach him based on that arrest. Copies were sent to Louis and Nettles so their offices could update any existing disclosures concerning Dubs’ ability to testify. Caldwell characterizes that language as an attempt to influence how other prosecutors and courts treated disputed evidence.

The following day, attorneys representing Dubs attached McCrary’s 32-page report to a filing in Dubs’ civil lawsuit against Wilson County and Caldwell. That filing placed the accusations into a publicly accessible court record. McCrary’s report had already identified the Dubs lawsuit as one way Caldwell could be held accountable without criminal prosecution. Caldwell alleges that sequence shows public use of the report was not accidental or unforeseeable.

When the civil matter came before Judge Wilson on July 3, 2025, the judge stopped the hearing and recused himself. Caldwell emphasizes that Tharp had sent the judge the reports only two days earlier. He portrays the communication as an improper one-sided presentation related to litigation pending before that judge. No court in the federal case has yet determined whether the transmission was improper.

Dubs’ lawsuit sought more than $1 million and accused Caldwell of defamation and related wrongdoing. The case was later dismissed after a visiting judge granted a challenge to the court’s authority to hear the claims against Wilson County and Caldwell. That dismissal did not determine that every statement made about Dubs was true. It did mean the lawsuit ended without a judgment establishing that Caldwell defamed him.

The State Bar Becomes Another Forum

Tharp submitted a grievance against Caldwell to the State Bar later in July 2025. She alleged Caldwell may have violated professional rules by pursuing or threatening a charge unsupported by probable cause, failing to disclose important information during the warrant process and failing to properly supervise his investigators. Frazier supplied additional material in October. Those submissions created a formal professional proceeding separate from any criminal case.

Caldwell does not argue that prosecutors are categorically forbidden from reporting suspected attorney misconduct. He instead alleges the grievance republished a selectively constructed criminal narrative after Comal County chose not to file charges. He contends evidence contradicting that narrative was missing or removed from electronic folders sent to the Bar. The existing record does not establish who removed any files, why material was missing or whether a technical explanation has been ruled out.

The missing file allegation involves materials Caldwell gave Texas Ranger Bradley Freeman and FBI Special Agent Monroe Giese in November 2024. Caldwell says he delivered flash drives containing hundreds of files and approximately nine gigabytes of information concerning alleged public corruption and official misconduct. When related folders later appeared in the State Bar submissions, he claims they were dramatically smaller and lacked much of the material critical of Louis, Stewart and the Sheriff’s Office. He argues the pattern of omissions was too specific to be random.

Freeman and Giese are not named in the federal lawsuit. Caldwell says he warned both investigators not to return the referrals to Louis because some allegations involved her. He later came to believe the material nevertheless moved through law enforcement channels and reached Comal County. The existing documents do not yet establish a complete chain showing who accessed, transferred or altered the electronic files.

The Federal Case Brings the Threads Together

Caldwell and Olivarez filed the case in the Western District of Texas under federal civil rights law. The officials named include Louis, Tharp, McCrary, Frazier, Stewart, Garza, Dubs and Dickerman. Wilson County and Comal County are also named. Caldwell is serving as the attorney for himself and Olivarez, and they have requested a jury trial.

The lawsuit alleges retaliation for reporting government misconduct and, in Caldwell’s case, running for district attorney. It also alleges officials created or circulated false criminal information, damaged their ability to work without giving them a meaningful opportunity to respond and coordinated actions across several government offices. Caldwell and Olivarez seek financial compensation, an end to further reliance on the disputed materials and the retraction or removal of records they consider false. They also request additional damages intended to punish intentional misconduct if it is proven.

Caldwell claims the government generated accusations damaged his reputation as an attorney, exposed him to professional discipline and reduced his employment and political opportunities. Olivarez points to the loss of his Bee County position, lost income and damage to his ability to continue working in law enforcement. Both men say they were marked with the stigma of criminal wrongdoing without receiving a criminal case in which they could clear their names. They present the investigation, Bee County communications, public reports and State Bar submission as connected stages of the same campaign.

The case faces significant legal obstacles even if portions of the factual narrative are proven. Federal civil rights law does not automatically transform every inaccurate government statement, unfair investigation or reputational injury into a constitutional violation. Caldwell and Olivarez must connect the conduct to retaliation for protected speech, a measurable government imposed consequence or the loss of a legally protected interest. They must also establish what each named official personally did rather than relying only on the combined appearance of coordination.

Officials Ask the Court to End the Case

Everyone named in the lawsuit has asked the federal court to dismiss the case before evidence gathering begins. Comal County officials argue that reviewing an investigation, deciding whether to file charges, communicating that decision and reporting suspected attorney misconduct are protected prosecutorial functions. They also argue the complaint does not sufficiently establish that Tharp, McCrary or Frazier personally violated a constitutional right. Comal County separately disputes that the county government can be held responsible for the prosecutorial decisions described.

Louis argues that the lawsuit improperly attempts to transform legitimate prosecutorial activity into a civil rights conspiracy. Her filings say Caldwell and Olivarez do not identify specific conduct by her that directly caused their alleged injuries. She maintains that her actions are protected by the legal safeguards afforded prosecutors and other public officials. She also argues that her recusal occurred before Comal County made the challenged decisions and separates her from those later actions.

In a July 27 filing, Louis accused Caldwell and Olivarez of adding assertions in their response that were not properly included in the original complaint. She disputed Caldwell’s description of her early administrative and investigative involvement. Her filing also rejected the claim that communications among public officials are enough to prove an unlawful agreement. She has asked the court to dismiss every claim involving her.

Caldwell and Olivarez respond that the officials are trying to label every challenged action as protected prosecutorial work. They argue the case also involves administrative interference, attempts to obtain communications, unofficial statements to an employer and publication of accusations outside any pending criminal proceeding. Their position is that a prosecutorial title does not protect everything done through a government office. They want the case to reach evidence gathering so communications, file transfers and internal decisions can be examined.

A Stay Is Not a Decision

On July 21, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard B. Farrer stayed the proceedings while the court considers the dismissal requests. The order noted that everyone named in the lawsuit had asked for the case to be ended. It allows additional filings connected to those requests but pauses evidence gathering and other proceedings. The stay does not determine whether the allegations are true.

No court has ruled that Caldwell and Olivarez were targets of a coordinated retaliation campaign. No court has ruled that the prosecutorial reports were fabricated or that the communications with Bee County were intentionally false. Conversely, no ruling has cleared the challenged conduct after a full examination of evidence. The immediate question is whether federal law allows any portion of the case to proceed far enough for records to be demanded and witnesses questioned.

The existing documents tell conflicting stories. Caldwell’s office treated Dubs’ email as evidence he concealed his involvement, while Comal County concluded it could not show criminal deception. Dickerman reportedly found that Olivarez committed an offense in the Berlanga arrest, while McCrary reviewed the same matter and concluded Dickerman was wrong. Comal County found possible grounds to accuse members of Caldwell’s office but decided not to place any accusation before a jury.

Questions the Existing Record Does Not Answer

The records establish that no criminal charge was filed against Caldwell or Olivarez through the Comal County appointment. They establish that Bee County documented being told Olivarez was pending grand jury indictment when no indictment has been produced. They establish that Comal County considered the continued public availability of investigative records when deciding not to prosecute Caldwell. They also establish that the reports were provided to Dubs, entered a civil case and became part of a State Bar grievance.

The records do not yet establish whether the officials named reached an agreement to retaliate against Caldwell and Olivarez. They do not identify how the claim of a pending indictment first reached San Patricio County or who introduced it into law enforcement circulation. They do not resolve the conflict between Bee County’s memorandum and Dickerman’s later account of the conversation. They also do not establish who removed files from material sent to the State Bar or whether the missing material resulted from deliberate action.

Another unanswered question is why the Comal County reports were formatted to resemble criminal cases when no criminal cases existed. The reports also went beyond saying the evidence was insufficient and offered findings of criminal and ethical wrongdoing. Whether that presentation violated federal law remains undecided, but its public and professional impact is difficult to dismiss.

The case also leaves unresolved what ultimately happened to the Sheriff’s Office employee complaints. The October 2023, report described founded allegations, compromised confidentiality and a workplace where employees feared retaliation. Caldwell alleges those concerns were pushed aside as investigative attention shifted toward him and his office. If the case advances, one question will be whether the original employee complaints received the same institutional attention as the investigation of the officials who raised them.

When Government Declines to Charge but Still Declares Blame

There is a meaningful difference between saying evidence will not support prosecution and declaring that an uncharged person committed misconduct anyway. Prosecutors must be able to evaluate evidence honestly, protect witnesses, report suspected professional violations and reject cases that cannot be proven. At the same time, a prosecutor’s written conclusions carry authority that ordinary accusations do not. Once released publicly, those conclusions can affect employment, elections, professional licenses and civil litigation without producing a conviction.

That is what makes McCrary’s reference to the “entire electorate” more than memorable language. The report expressly compared voters to the jury Caldwell would not receive because no prosecution would be filed. It recognized that an arrest followed by failure to convict could allow Caldwell to seek expunction, while no arrest could leave the investigative material beyond that remedy. The report therefore did not merely predict reputational consequences; it discussed the continued availability of the allegations as a reason supporting its decision.

The court may ultimately decide that the challenged actions were legally protected, that the complaint attempts to stretch federal civil rights law too far or that the evidence does not support a coordinated campaign. It may instead conclude that some conduct occurred outside legitimate prosecutorial functions and requires closer examination. Either way, the existing documents have already exposed a system in which unofficial communications carried career ending force and accusations survived after charges were rejected. The enduring question is whether government can decline to prosecute someone while deliberately preserving—and distributing—the punishment of being accused.

---

---

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
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News

---