Case Against Pair Accused of Trying to Lure Children From Mobile Gas Station Headed to Grand Jury

The case against two people accused of trying to lure two young boys out of a Mobile convenience store is moving forward after a preliminary hearing sent the charges to a grand jury. Douglas Jones faces two counts of enticing a child to enter. Tosha Slack, whom police testimony identified as Jones’s stepdaughter, is charged with two counts of enticing a child to enter and one count of sex abuse.

At Monday’s hearing, a Mobile police detective walked through surveillance footage from the convenience store on Three Notch Road, in the heart of Mobile’s Toulminville corridor, walking the court through what the camera captured frame by frame. The detective testified the video shows Jones inside the store looking at the two boys at the checkout counter, then opening the front door and waving Slack in while pointing out the children — an account that casts the two defendants as acting in coordination from the moment Slack entered the store.

Police say Slack then approached the boys and offered them candy and ice cream to get into a car, and that she inappropriately touched one of them. The detective acknowledged, however, that the video does not capture the alleged touching — a gap that became central to the defense argument during the hearing and will likely remain a point of contention as the case proceeds.

The Defense Pushes Back

Jones’s attorney argued there is no physical evidence tying his client to the crime, disputing whether the video shows what prosecutors claim. The defense position rests on the difference between what a recording shows and what the state says it means: a man opening a door and gesturing, the attorney argued, is not itself proof of a plan to entice children, and no fingerprints, statements or other physical proof connect Jones to any attempted abduction.

Slack’s lawyer questioned whether surveillance footage alone meets the standard for probable cause — the low but real threshold the state must meet at a preliminary hearing. Probable cause requires evidence sufficient to make a reasonable person believe an offense was committed and the accused likely committed it, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and judges at this stage routinely weigh whether video, standing without corroborating evidence, can carry that weight when a key allegation falls outside the camera’s view.

Judge Spiro Cheriogotis ruled the evidence sufficient to move the case forward to the grand jury. The judge also reset bond: $30,000 for Slack and $20,000 for Jones, with both ordered to have no contact with any children under 16. The no-contact condition is a standard protective measure in cases involving alleged offenses against children, barring the defendants from any contact with minors while they await the next stage of the proceedings.

What Happens Next in the Process

The grand jury now becomes the case’s next gatekeeper. In Alabama, a preliminary hearing and a grand jury review serve related but distinct purposes: the preliminary hearing tests whether the state’s evidence establishes probable cause before a district judge, while the grand jury — a panel of citizens hearing evidence in secret — decides whether to return an indictment that formally charges the defendants and sends the case to circuit court for trial. Defense attorneys do not present evidence at the grand jury stage, and defendants have no right to appear; the proceeding belongs to the prosecution and the jurors.

Enticing a child to enter a vehicle or structure for an unlawful purpose is a felony under Alabama law, and the additional sex abuse count against Slack carries its own serious penalties if proven. Because the alleged victims are young children, the case will involve special handling throughout — testimony practices designed to shield children from unnecessary trauma, and prosecutors experienced in presenting cases that often rest heavily on circumstantial evidence and witness accounts rather than direct recordings.

The case’s movement past the preliminary stage does not resolve the defense’s core objection, which will follow the case to trial if it is indicted. Questions about what the surveillance video shows, what it fails to capture, and what other evidence exists will be litigated again in motions, suppression arguments and eventually before a jury if the case reaches trial. The stakes for the defendants are severe; the stakes for the community, which expects its courts to protect children while safeguarding the rights of the accused, are equally real.

How the Case Surfaced

Incidents of attempted child luring typically reach investigators when someone — a parent, a store clerk, a bystander — reports what they saw, and store surveillance systems have become decisive evidence in cases of this kind. The video in this case gave detectives a timestamped account of who entered the store, who pointed out the children, and what happened at the counter, providing the factual skeleton on which investigators built their case.

Convenience stores along corridors like Three Notch Road operate some of the most reliable camera systems in the city, recording continuously in daylight-capable quality. That footage has transformed how cases of this kind are charged and tried, replacing he-said-she-said disputes with frame-by-frame records — though, as this hearing demonstrated, cameras capture only what they can see, and events outside the frame still require witness testimony to establish.

The investigation remains active as the case heads to the grand jury. Prosecutors will decide which charges to present, the defense will continue to press its challenges to the state’s evidence, and the alleged victims’ families will await the process that determines accountability. For now, the case moves forward on the strength of a surveillance video and the testimony of the detective who walked the court through it — enough for a judge to find probable cause, and enough to keep two defendants bound over for the grand jury’s judgment.

Understanding the Charges and the Bond Conditions

The charge of enticing a child to enter — sometimes called enticing a child for immoral purposes — is among the most serious offenses on Alabama’s books involving minors, and each count represents a separate alleged offense. The structure of the accusations against the two defendants matters: Jones faces two counts of enticing, and Slack faces both enticing counts and a sex abuse count, meaning the grand jury will weigh allegations that extend beyond a verbal invitation into a vehicle.

Bond conditions in cases involving children are typically stricter than in comparable offenses against adults, and Monday’s reset reflected that. In addition to the dollar amounts — $30,000 for Slack and $20,000 for Jones — the order that both defendants have no contact with any children under 16 reaches beyond the alleged victims to protect the community at large while the case is pending. Violating such conditions can result in bond revocation and return to custody, independent of how the underlying charges come out.

The difference in bond amounts — $10,000 between the two defendants — reflects the court’s assessment of each person’s role in the alleged offense, with the count of sex abuse pending against Slack among the factors a judge weighs in setting conditions. Bond in Alabama serves two purposes: ensuring a defendant appears for trial and protecting the public while the case is pending, and judges calibrate amounts and restrictions accordingly.

What the Community Should Take From the Case

Child safety advocates use cases like this to reinforce practical guidance for families. Children should be taught clearly that no adult — stranger or acquaintance — should ask them to leave a store, approach a car, or accept gifts without a parent’s permission, and that it is never wrong to say no, walk away and find a trusted adult. Store employees, too, are part of the safety net; clerks who notice an adult loitering near children who are not theirs are in a position to intervene early.

The alleged scenario in this case — an offer of candy and ice cream to lure children from a store — follows one of the most recognizable patterns in attempted child abduction, which is precisely why parents are urged to talk with children about it. Advocates recommend teaching children never to go anywhere with someone who is not a designated trusted adult, regardless of what is offered, and to make noise and run if anyone attempts to move them.

As the case awaits the grand jury, the two defendants remain presumed innocent of every charge, and the defense’s challenges to the surveillance evidence will get a fuller airing if the case reaches trial. What Monday’s hearing established is procedural but significant: a judge reviewed the state’s showing, found probable cause on the charges, and sent the case to the next stage — with two defendants now facing the charges under bond conditions designed to keep children out of contact with them until a jury has its say.