Racine Sheriff: Off the Books

ACTIVE INVESTIGATION — RECORDS OUTSTANDING

How documented warnings about a Racine County deputy were handled informally, left untracked, and followed by unanswered questions about supervision, internal relationships, and withheld public records.

Featured question

When government officials keep serious complaints informal, is the misconduct undocumented—or the accountability?

The crime — and what this investigation asks

Preston Kite was employed as a Racine County Sheriff’s deputy. After a citizen reported seeing his marked patrol vehicle and contacting law enforcement in February 2024, investigators found child sexual abuse material on his devices. On February 28, 2025, Kite was sentenced to 65 years in prison. His criminal conduct is established through the criminal proceedings.

This H.O.T. investigation focuses on a different question: What did Racine County officials know before the arrest, how did they respond, and what did they place—or fail to place—on the official record?

The warnings

Racine County Sheriff’s Office Internal File No. 25DC20 identifies Captain Cary Madrigal as Kite’s supervisor and states that direct complaints concerning Kite’s behavior were received in June 2023 and November 2023—months before the arrest.

Those matters were reportedly handled informally: no written report, no formal investigation, while Kite remained on active duty. The department’s own disciplinary finding described the institutional consequence:

“When you keep it informal, you neutralize the department’s ability to track predatory behavior on paper.”

Racine County Sheriff’s Office Internal File No. 25DC20

Known to supervisors — missing from the paper trail

When a Kenosha County detective investigated Kite’s criminal case, Racine County supervisors reportedly told the outside investigator that complaints involving Kite already existed. That creates a contradiction: the concerns were known well enough to describe to another county’s investigator, yet no written internal complaint or formal investigation appears to have been created when the concerns were first reported.

Open-court allegations that went unanswered

At sentencing, Kite made a statement in open court alleging sexual relationships involving people connected to law enforcement, including two other deputies, a supervisor in his department, and an assistant district attorney from a neighboring county. He also claimed he had reached out to supervisors as his condition deteriorated and received no meaningful follow-up.

Those statements are allegations. They do not prove misconduct by every person referenced. They do raise questions that ordinarily warrant examination—who was identified, who was interviewed, whether conflicts of interest were assessed, and whether any referral was made to the Wisconsin Department of Justice or the FBI. According to the available public record assembled for this case, no broader public investigation followed and the individuals were not publicly identified.

The supervisor–landlord question

Internal investigation materials reportedly included hearsay that Kite rented his residence from Capt. Madrigal. The investigator did not pursue the issue. Racine County District Attorney Patricia Hanson later told H.O.T. that county records showed the allegation was untrue. H.O.T. then reviewed Racine County Register of Deeds records for the Union Grove duplex where Kite lived.

Those deeds show Nancy K. Mueller retained a life estate—legal authority to occupy, control, and collect rent during Kite’s residence. Mueller’s published obituary lists Cary Madrigal among surviving grandchildren. The records do not establish personal ownership or rent collection by Madrigal. They do identify a family connection to the life-estate holder and raise why the possible relationship was not examined with documentary follow-up during the county’s internal investigation.

District Attorney response

In a June 18, 2026 written response, DA Hanson confirmed that her office did not handle Kite’s criminal case and made no referrals to the FBI or Wisconsin DOJ concerning the deputies, supervisor, or neighboring-county prosecutor referenced at sentencing.

Records still outstanding

On June 8, 2026, H.O.T. submitted public-records requests to the Racine County Sheriff’s Office, Human Resources, and Corporation Counsel seeking HR files, complaint records, the scope of the internal investigation, and related correspondence. As of publication, the Sheriff’s Office had not produced a substantive response; Corporation Counsel (July 22, 2026) hoped to fulfill requests within about three weeks without a firm date or statutory exemption. H.O.T. may pursue court action if records continue to be withheld.

Key findings

• Supervisors received direct complaints before Kite’s arrest (June and November 2023, per Internal File No. 25DC20).
• Complaints were handled informally—no formal report or investigation at the time.
• The department’s own disciplinary findings acknowledge that informal handling prevented institutional tracking.
• Supervisors later disclosed the existence of prior complaints to Kenosha investigators.
• Kite made serious open-court allegations; the available record does not show a broader public inquiry.
• A possible supervisor–housing connection was noted as hearsay and not fully investigated; deeds and an obituary later identified a family life-estate connection.
• The District Attorney’s Office reported no outside referrals on the sentencing allegations.
• Important county records remain outstanding.

Evidence library (documents sought / cited)

• Racine County Sheriff’s Office Internal File No. 25DC20
• Kenosha County Sheriff’s Department Field Case Report No. 2024-00304801
• State v. Kite sentencing transcript — Racine County Circuit Court Nos. 2024CF000164 and 2024CF000247
• Racine County Register of Deeds Nos. 2191400, 2191401, 2685746, 2688814
• Nancy Mueller obituary
• District Attorney Patricia Hanson letter (June 18, 2026)
• Public-records correspondence (June 8–July 22, 2026)

H.O.T. Government’s position

H.O.T. characterizes the pattern in these records as institutional concealment in practice: informal complaints, no written tracking, a narrowly scoped internal investigation, courtroom allegations left unexplored, questions closed without full documentary review, and delayed records. That is H.O.T.’s interpretation of the evidence—not a judicial finding.

“Off the books. Every time.” Readers should review the source documents and reach their own conclusions.

Editorial and legal note

This investigation concerns institutional conduct, supervision, documentation, and government accountability. Unless supported by a conviction or formal adjudication, allegations involving unnamed deputies, supervisors, prosecutors, or other individuals remain clearly labeled as allegations. No person should be described as having committed a crime solely because Kite named or referenced them. All persons named are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise in court. Separate campaign-conduct issues connected to the 2026 sheriff’s race are handled as a different H.O.T. investigation.