From Pew to Pervert

● Tips are now live — tips@peoplevsbiloxi.com

Jerry Creel is a man of faith and dedication.

Faith enough to attend church on Sunday mornings. Dedication enough to inspect your property Sunday afternoons—right after the sermon ends.

We know this because it happened. Mr. Creel, the Building Official who wears five hats and answers to no one, has been documented conducting property inspections on Sundays. The Lord's Day. Post-church. When normal people rest, spend time with family, or reflect on the week ahead.

Not Jerry Creel. He reflects on your property. Without your permission. Without a warrant. Without a judge anywhere in sight.

The City's Own Ordinance Says He Can't Do This

Before we even get to the Constitution, let's start with Biloxi's own law.

The City's ordinance governing inspections is explicit:

Normal business hours. Not Sunday afternoon. Not after church. Normal business hours.

The ordinance provides exactly one exception: emergencies. Was there an emergency on Sunday, July 14, 2025, when Jerry Creel spent thirty minutes photographing a citizen's property while still wearing his church attire?

We know there wasn't. Because when the property owner caught Creel on video—polished Sunday clothes and all—Creel didn't act like a man responding to an emergency. He looked "extremely surprised," hastily rolled up his windows, and fled in his car.

That's not emergency response. That's a man who got caught doing something he knew he shouldn't be doing.

This wasn't an isolated incident. The pattern of Sunday surveillance is documented:

July 10, 2025 — Sunday surveillance that became the basis for criminal affidavits filed the following week.

July 14, 2025 — Creel in church attire, photographing property for 30 minutes, caught on video, fled when he noticed he was being recorded.

Is This Fair?

Before publishing a witness's description of a government official as a "creepy old man staring like a pervert," the undersigned reflected carefully. Is this characterization fair? Or is it inflammatory hyperbole?

Let's analyze what defines "peeping" or voyeuristic behavior:

Jerry Creel's Pattern Regarding One Woman:

July 14, 2025: Thirty minutes of multi-angle surveillance from his vehicle, photographing another man's wife. Fled when he realized he was being recorded. ✓

August 5, 2025: Entered a place of business without authorization and interrogated the same woman. ✓

November 3, 2025: Recorded on security cameras driving by slowly with his head out the window, trying to peek—not at the property, at the woman. The same woman he photographed in July. The same woman he interrogated in August. The same woman who, despite her unwillingness to engage in litigation, was forced to become a plaintiff in federal court because the abuse kept escalating. ✓

The witness on July 14 didn't know Jerry Creel was a Building Official. She didn't know about the federal lawsuits, the ordinance violations, or the criminal charges. She simply observed a man's behavior and described what she saw: a creepy old man, sitting in his car on a Sunday afternoon, staring at a woman for half an hour.

If it looks like a peeping tom, acts like a peeping tom, and flees like a peeping tom when caught—the witness's description wasn't inflammatory. It was accurate.

The only difference between Jerry Creel and a criminal voyeur is that Creel carries a government badge. And that badge doesn't make his behavior less creepy. It makes it more dangerous—because he can file criminal charges against the women he surveils.

Man of God. Pervert. Apparently the transformation happens somewhere between the church parking lot and Beach Boulevard.

Mr. Creel takes "Sunday confessions" to the extreme—he leaves church and goes straight to sin.

When Creel realized he was being recorded, the church clothes didn't save him—he looked exactly like what he was: a man caught doing something he knew he shouldn't be doing. He rolled up his windows and fled.

July 20, 2025 — Sunday contact with the property owner's engineer, attempting ex parte communications about the active dispute.

And it gets worse. On one occasion, while the property owner was literally preparing for eye surgery, city vehicles circled his property with personnel sounding horns in patterns meant to simulate police sirens. The harassment was timed—they knew he was about to undergo a medical procedure. They chose that moment to intimidate.

Jerry Creel isn't conducting emergency inspections. He's conducting Sunday surveillance of citizens who sued him in federal court. And his own ordinance says he can't.

The "Right of Way" Bullshit

Creel has a response prepared. In a July 7, 2025 email, he stated:

Let's be clear: this is not a defense. This is an admission.

Jerry Creel is not a private citizen. He is a government official. When he conducts surveillance of your property to gather evidence for criminal charges, he is acting under color of state law. The Fourth Amendment applies to him—not because of where he's standing, but because of who he is and what he's doing.

A random neighbor can stand on the sidewalk and look at your house. That's not a constitutional violation. But when a Building Official—the same official who will sign the criminal affidavits, the same official who controls the appeals process, the same official who has already filed charges against you—spends thirty minutes conducting multi-angle video surveillance to build evidence for prosecution? That's a government search. Period.

And where's the emergency? The ordinance requires "normal business hours" unless there's an emergency. What was the Sunday emergency? What couldn't wait until Monday when a judge might be available to review probable cause?

There was no emergency. There was a federal lawsuit Creel wanted to undermine. There was a citizen Creel wanted to punish. There was evidence Creel wanted to manufacture.

Thirty minutes. Multiple angles. Video and photographs. Of another man's wife. On a Sunday. After church. To build criminal charges. Against someone who sued him.

That's not "witnessing what was clearly visible." That's targeted governmental surveillance in retaliation for protected First Amendment activity. And standing on the sidewalk doesn't make it legal—it just means Creel knows enough to try to construct a defense.

The fact that he felt the need to preemptively claim "No Harassment" in his email tells you everything. Innocent people conducting legitimate government business don't explain why their conduct wasn't harassment. Guilty people do.

The Fourth Amendment Problem

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unambiguous:

Your home. Your property. Your constitutional right to be left alone by the government—unless they have a warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.

This isn't some technicality. This is the bedrock of American liberty. The Founders fought a revolution partly because British officials conducted warrantless searches of colonists' homes. The Fourth Amendment exists specifically to prevent government agents from entering your property whenever they feel like it.

Yet every Sunday after church, Jerry Creel feels like it.

The Sunday Strategy

Think about why Sunday matters.

On Monday through Friday, the Municipal Court is open. Judges are available. If Creel wanted to conduct an inspection and the property owner refused consent, he could—in theory—seek a warrant from a judge. That judge could ask questions. Review the evidence. Determine whether probable cause actually exists. Say no.

On Sunday? The courthouse is closed. No judges. No warrants. No oversight.

Creel inspects your property on Sunday. Documents what he claims are violations. Returns to the office Monday morning. Walks down the hall to Brooke Vanover. Swears out criminal affidavits based on his Sunday observations. Vanover administers the oath. Charges filed. You're now a criminal defendant.

No judge ever reviewed whether Creel had the right to be on your property. No judge ever determined whether probable cause existed before the search. No judge ever asked why the Building Official was conducting inspections on Sunday afternoon instead of seeking a warrant on Monday morning.

The warrant requirement exists to put a neutral magistrate between you and the government. Creel eliminated the magistrate by eliminating the weekday.

"Administrative Searches"—Or As the Prosecutor Called It...

Biloxi will likely claim that building inspections are "administrative searches" exempt from normal Fourth Amendment requirements. They're wrong—or at least, they're hiding the ball.

But even setting aside the absurdity of having to litigate for constitutional protections, the law is clear: administrative searches are not a blank check.

Yes, the Supreme Court has recognized that certain administrative inspections may be conducted under less stringent standards than criminal searches. But even administrative searches have constitutional limits.

In Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), the Supreme Court held that administrative searches of private property require either consent or a warrant. The Court rejected the argument that housing inspections are automatically exempt from the Fourth Amendment:

Translation: The government cannot search your home just because they call it an "inspection" instead of a "search."

In See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (1967), decided the same day, the Court extended this protection to commercial property: "The businessman, like the occupant of a residence, has a constitutional right to go about his business free from unreasonable official entries upon his private commercial property."

What does this mean for Jerry Creel's Sunday inspections?

• If the property owner didn't consent—Fourth Amendment violation.
• If no warrant was obtained—Fourth Amendment violation.
• If the inspection was conducted as a pretext for gathering evidence for criminal prosecution—Fourth Amendment violation.

The Post-Church Pretext

Here's what makes Creel's Sunday inspections particularly suspect: they're not random code enforcement. They're targeted.

When a Building Official has an active federal lawsuit against him—when that same citizen has filed public records requests exposing municipal corruption—when the City is paying hundreds of thousands in legal fees to defend manufactured charges—Sunday inspections aren't about public safety.

They're about building a case—or destroying one.

Building a criminal case against the citizen who dared sue them. Destroying the federal civil rights case that citizen filed against them. Same surveillance, dual purpose. Offense and defense on the same Sunday afternoon.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits pretextual searches. When the government's real purpose is to gather evidence for prosecution rather than conduct legitimate administrative oversight, the inspection becomes an unconstitutional search.

Creel leaves church. Creel drives to the property of a citizen suing him in federal court. Creel documents "violations." Creel files criminal charges Monday morning.

That's not code enforcement. That's retaliation with a clipboard.

The Warrant He Never Sought

If Jerry Creel genuinely believed violations existed on a citizen's property, he had a legal option: seek a warrant.

Mississippi law and the Fourth Amendment both provide mechanisms for obtaining judicial authorization to inspect property when the owner refuses consent. Creel could present his evidence to a judge. The judge could evaluate probable cause. If satisfied, the judge could issue an administrative warrant.

This process exists for a reason. It forces the government to justify intrusions before they happen. It creates a record. It provides accountability.

Why not?

Because a judge might say no. A judge might ask questions. A judge might notice that the "violations" are pretextual. A judge might recognize that the Building Official is targeting a citizen who sued him.

Easier to wait until Sunday. Easier to skip the judge entirely. Easier to use his own Deputy Clerk to manufacture charges based on his own warrantless observations.

The Fourth Amendment exists precisely to prevent this. Jerry Creel violates it every Sunday after church.

The Irony

There's something deeply troubling about a man who attends church Sunday morning and violates both the Constitution and his own ordinance Sunday afternoon.

The Fourth Amendment isn't just a legal technicality. It's a protection rooted in the same principles that religious liberty depends on: the idea that individuals have inherent dignity, that the government cannot intrude upon private life without justification, that power must be checked by neutral review.

Every Sunday, Jerry Creel worships in a church protected by the First Amendment. Every Sunday, Jerry Creel then ignores the Fourth Amendment that protects the homes of his neighbors—and the City ordinance that limits his own authority to "normal business hours."

The Constitution isn't a buffet. Neither is the municipal code. You don't get to take the parts you like and leave the rest.

What This Means

If you own property in Biloxi, you should know:

Jerry Creel may inspect your property on a Sunday—in violation of the City's own ordinance limiting inspections to "normal business hours." He may do this without a warrant—in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He may document what he claims are violations. He may return Monday and swear out criminal affidavits before his own Deputy Clerk. He may file criminal charges against you based on observations that were illegal twice over.

And worst of all? He may do all of that based on events that never happened.

Mr. Creel has committed four documented instances of perjury—four false affidavits swearing he personally witnessed violations at times when the accused was recovering from eye surgery. He is the subject of an active federal investigation and three federal civil rights lawsuits:

• Case No. 1:25-cv-00178-LG-RPM
• Case No. 1:25-cv-00233-LG-RPM
• Case No. 1:25-cv-00254-LG-RPM

All pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

You will never see a judge until after you've been charged. You will never have the opportunity to challenge the search until after you're a criminal defendant. You will never know whether a neutral magistrate would have authorized the intrusion—because Creel never asked one.

This is not how constitutional government works. This is not what the Founders intended. This is not what the Fourth Amendment permits. This is not even what Biloxi's own ordinances allow.

---

A Note on Transparency

Before publication, an email was sent to Jerry Creel and his attorneys inviting them to rebut any fact contained in this article.

Unlike Mr. Creel—who inspects properties without consent, files charges without warning, and operates without judicial oversight—we believe in due process. We believe people should have the opportunity to respond before accusations become official.

If they reply, their response will be posted in full, unedited.

As of publication, we have received no response.

---