Substitute Teacher Charged After Allegedly Triggering False Active Shooter Alerts at Five Schools
Lytonja Barfield, 58, has been charged in connection with allegedly using the district's emergency management system to report active shooters at five schools. The case remains undecided.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 20, 2026, 9:05 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 20, 2026, 9:05 p.m. ETFirst report
Substitute Teacher Charged After Allegedly Triggering False Active Shooter Alerts at Five Schools
A substitute teacher has been charged in connection with false active shooter alerts at five schools, according to the Caddo Parish Sheriff's Office, as reported by Fox 10 Phoenix.
Lytonja Barfield, 58, allegedly used the district's emergency management system to report active shooters at the schools, the sheriff's office said. The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; no court decision has been made, and the allegations remain undecided.
The investigation is ongoing, and the full circumstances have not been determined.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 121 Aug 2026, 01:22current
First published.
- Version 121 Aug 2026, 01:05current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.