6 Comments for this article

Tags: , , , , ,


WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) — Responding to a request for an interview to discuss the multiple grand jury indictments against former deputy Joseph LeBlanc, Sheriff Ed McMahon declined to go on camera but released this statement:

“In response to statements made in court yesterday regarding Joseph LeBlanc attending a drug rehabilitation facility, Sheriff McMahon stated; Neither I nor my staff have ever had any credible information that LeBlanc attended any drug rehabilitation center. Furthermore, LeBlanc was questioned by a staff member in March of 2013, in which he adamantly denied attending any drug rehabilitation. Prior to June 2013, LeBlanc never failed a drug test. He was given and passed random tests in 2011 and in 2012 in accordance with Sheriff’s Office drug policy.

“Finally, I would like to reiterate that our own internal safeguards brought this to my attention. I acted swiftly and decisively by contacting the D.A.’s Office and the S.B.I. as well as terminating LeBlanc’s employment.”

LeBlanc was indicted on more than 100 counts, including 28 counts of obtaining controlled substances by fraud, four counts of obtaining property by false pretenses, four counts of embezzlement, four counts of altering, destroying, stealing evidence, four counts of obstruction of justice, 21 counts of misdemeanor possession of Oxycodone and 43 counts of trafficking Oxycodone. He was also indicted for forging signatures from two judges more than 28 times to get drugs from the CVS Pharmacy at College and 17th.

Comment on this Story

  • malcolm

    Looking at the numerous charges against this guy, I wouldn’t be blowing my horn about your “internal safeguards” being so great Chief. Seems to me he likely was running amuck for quite a time in your hen house before you had a clue. Maybe you should have a second look at those “safeguards”.

  • Shockedandawed

    This press release is a ploy to do damage control. It was rumored throughout the department that he had gone to rehab. When he came back, he went right back to work as the assistant commander of the narcotics unit. Did the good sheriff reassign him? The answer is no he didn’t. Any good administrator would have moved him….not to punish but to avoid any future problems. The big question I hope someone asks the sheriff is why did he let an employee with a known problem with substance abuse return to the same position, overseeing the narcotics unit? He placed the fox in charge of the henhouse. The sheriff is more clueless and inept that any of you know.

  • guesty1O1

    The best drug dealers never use their own product. Also he could have paid-off the drug screeners regarding the Sheriff’s claim that he never failed a drug test. It seems there was not much that this crooked LE oifficer wouldn’t do. I suspect this goes way deeper than just one officer btw. Hopefully he’ll spill the beans in court and out the rest.

  • questions

    Acted swiftly yet 100 counts and 28 forgeries? This didn’t happen overnight and it wasn’t a one-time thing. One can understand that he may have fooled everyone for a bit, but there had to be some red flags that were either ignored or excused. Exactly how did this come to light? The story doesn’t say and I haven’t been following the case. Was it public/pharmacy exposure or did the department discover it on their own?

  • Tammy

    It is 7 months since prior to June. That does not strike me as swiftly taking action. Also I would really like to know what prompted a staff member to question the officer in March. It would seem there was a suspicion that led to that type of questioning. If he was not legally required to answer then why woud he admit to attending a rehab? .
    Obviously there was some indication of this problem to have even asked such a question. Is the pharmaceutical company not responsible for some type of reporting requirements to the sheriffs office? How is it that a single officer can accumulate such a substantial amount of drugs without any checks and balances ? It doesnt seem possible that there is not a reporting requirement in place for such activity by the sherriffs office.

  • I Care Why

    To the person who said they were slack and it took 100 indictments well its like you going out and breaking into houses and one day getting caught and they find out you broke into several others and now you have multiples. I am assuming when they caught him they looked at the records of the pharmacy and found over 100 times that he lied. So as of now I am defending the SO


Related News