Hulstedt v Scottsdale: Cops lied; Scottsdale/MCAO still prosecuting innocence

On N0vember 7, 2008 Scottsdale cops shot, brutally dragged, and permanently paralyzed a seriously mentally ill man who called them to ask for the Attorney General to come to his home. They had a come SWAT team help him out instead of allowing his family to talk him down from an agitated, distressed state, and he was holding his baby girl in his arms who was consequently injured when he was shot. 

Sound familiar?

Another Scottsdale cop, James Peters, just retired with full disability pension after shooting and killing John Loxas while he held his grandchild in his arms...sure am glad I don't live in Scottsdale these days.

Here's the original post on David's shooting: 

PROSECUTING INNOCENCE: The shooting of David Hulstedt

A year later a grand jury returned an indictment of David, alleging he had kidnapped and abused his child himself the day the cops shot him. Unfortunately, it appears as if David is still being prosecuted for the alleged crimes that "justified" his shooting. That despite his serious mental illness (he was very delusional when the cops attacked him in his yard), and the findings yesterday by federal judge G. Murray Snow that the cops lied repeatedly in order to justify their shooting, which was all screwed up to begin with (thank god for the video of the whole thing). 

Why is David still being prosecuted? From the file I just read, the cops who shot him are the ones who should be facing prosecution.

David's guardian sued on his behalf, and yesterday was a hearing on several motions re: Hulstedt v Scottsdale. News on that front is mostly good; below are some excerpts from the court record. Read the whole thing if you can - it's fascinating and the arguments apply to not only police brutality/ excessive force cases, but also searches.

First, these are the civil claims for damages that were filed on David's behalf:

"Plaintiffs’ complaint contains nine claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seven supplemental claims under Arizona state law.3 (Doc. 28).

In Claim One, Plaintiffs allege that Officer Dorer and Officer Slavin violated David Hulstedt’s Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force against him when they shot him.

In Claim Two, they allege that Officer Fellows and Officer Garcia violated David Hulstedt’s Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force when they handcuffed him and dragged him across the asphalt, that Sgt. Dorer is liable for ordering that David be handcuffed, and that Sgt. Slavin is liable for ordering the officers to drag David to the ambulance.

Counts Three through Six, along with certain allegations in Count Seven, have already been dismissed on the pleadings by the original judge in this matter. (Doc.182).4

In the remaining portions of Claim Seven, Plaintiffs allege that officers searched the Hulstedt home in violation of the Fourth Amendment after the shooting, and that Det. Lockerby procured a search warrant for the home through judicial deception.

In Claim Eight, Plaintiffs allege that Lt. O’Halloran, Sergeant Scott Smith, Sergeant Dorer, and Sergeant Slavin bear supervisory responsibility under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for directing their subordinates to act in ways that deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights.

Claim Nine(a) argues that the City is liable based on two theories of municipal liability: a failure to train officers and a ratification of the officers’ decisions by the Chief of Police.

The remaining claims arise under Arizona state tort law.

Claim Nine(b) is for Battery against Sgt. Slavin, Sgt. Dorer, Officer Fellows, Officer Garcia, and the City.

Claim Ten is for Negligence by Sgt. Dorer, Sgt. Slavin, Det. Lockerby, and the City.

Claim Eleven is for Negligence against Operator Trott and the City of Scottsdale.

Claim Twelve is for Defamation against Officer Greene, Det. Lockerby, Officer Scritchfield, and the City.

Claim Thirteen is for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) against Sgt. Slavin, Officer Scritchfield, Officer Clark, Officer Greene, Det. Lockerby, Officer Fellows, Officer Garcia and others.

Claim Fourteen is for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress against Sgt. Slavin and Sgt. Dorer, and

Claim Fifteen is for Loss of Consortium against Sgt. Slavin and Sgt. Dorer.

Defendants move for summary judgment on every claim. (Doc. 271). Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on Claim One, Claim Two, the remaining portion of Claim Seven, Claim Nine(a), Claim Nine(b), and Claim Ten. (Doc. 265)."

Now, some remarks and observations made by the judge in reflecting on these claims (DH refers to David's 3 year old daughter): 

"One cannot pay “careful attention to the facts and circumstances of [this] particular case” and still conclude that the officers were free to fire at David and D.H. as soon the negotiators had coaxed him out of his front door. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396; (Doc. 313-2, Ex. L-1 at 6)...."

"Once the family members’ cell phones had been confiscated, Officer Antrim continued to speak to David over the telephone, stating that “we’re working on getting your brother but you do know as well as I do that this is not a real common practice to send someone into a home like that.” (Doc. 313-2, Ex. L-2 at 5). After fifteen minutes of negotiation, David apparently once again expressed concern that the police were there to shoot him. Officer Antrim continued to negotiate, and learned more about David’s anxiety and his medication. (Doc. 313-2, Ex. L-2 at 8).

Five minutes later, David told the negotiation team that he was ready to leave the house. (Doc. 313-2, Ex. L-2 at 14). When Sgt. Slavin, who was still putting on his SWAT team gear, heard over the radio that the subject was going to leave the house, he “started running down towards the command post.” (Doc. 269, Ex. PP at 144). When Sgt. Slavin reached the command post, he told the officers there that he wanted to go to the scene, obtained directions from them, and continued running towards the house. (Id.). Sgt. Slavin
had heard the previous radio transmissions, but was not aware of any operational plan, did not know how many officers were on the scene, and did not know if any officers had firearms at the ready or deployed. (Doc. 266-3, Ex. L-3 at 169–70). He made the decision to go to the scene on his own, passing through residential yards containing vegetation and cacti to reachthe house. (Id.)..."

"Neither Sgt. Slavin nor Sgt. Dorer warned David that they would shoot him if he did not comply with their commands, and both of them shot him in the back as he was walking away from them and towards the house. (Doc. 313-1, Ex. B at 57, Pospisil video). Sgt. Dorer, when asked if he ever perceived at any particular moment that David was going to “piledrive” D.H., responded, “I did not.” (Doc. 267, Ex. S at 44). Instead, he shot David “to prevent him from going back into the house.” (Id. at 43). When David was shot, he released D.H. as he collapsed and she fell forward onto the concrete walkway from a height of approximately six feet. (Pospisil video).

After David fell, officers converged on D.H. and David. (Pospisil video). Sgt. Dorer and Sgt. Slavin approached David on the ground; Sgt. Dorer ordered him handcuffed and Sgt. Slavin “ordered him to be dragged away from the scene.” (Doc. 269, Ex. PP at 145). Officer Deven Fellows and Officer Marcos Garcia handcuffed David and dragged him approximately 400 feet to where the medics were stationed. (Doc. 266-2, Ex. E at 136). The officers held David under his arms with his face pointed downward, so that his bare knees were in contact with the asphalt and gravel. The dragging resulted in “gaping wounds in David’s knees” that required extensive medical attention."

"The Ninth Circuit has written that summary judgment is rare in cases of police misconduct, because “police misconduct cases almost always turn on a jury’s credibility determinations.” Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d 846, 853 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). This case is an exception to that general caution. Almost everything the officers heard was recorded and transcribed, and the shooting itself was recorded on video. The officers fired at an unarmed man who was walking away from them. Although he had issued threats against D.H. earlier, nothing he did after walking outside would suggest to a reasonable officer that he was placing D.H. in imminent danger of suffering any more harm than falling to the ground. By shooting David, the officers caused the very harm that a reasonable officer could believe that David posed to D.H. Considering “the totality of the facts and circumstances in the particular case,” no reasonable officer could have believed that shooting David without warning, while he calmly walked back towards his house with D.H. over his head, was a proper means of protecting D.H.’s safety. Blanford, 406 F.3d at1115...."

And the judge's order: 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 265) is granted in part and denied in part.

2. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 271) is granted in part and denied in part.

3. The remaining claims are as follows:

A. On Claim One, summary judgment is entered for Plaintiffs.

B. On Claim Two, summary judgment is entered for Defendants on thehandcuffing claim and denied to both parties on the dragging claim.

C. On Claim Seven, summary judgment is entered for Plaintiffs on the warrantless search allegations. (Doc. 28 ¶¶ 290–296). Summary judgment is entered for Defendants on the judicial deception claim. (Doc. 28 ¶¶ 297–301).

D. On Claim Eight, summary judgment is entered for Defendant on the claims against Sgt. Slavin, and Lt. O’Halloran, and for Sgt. Dorer regarding the handcuffing. Summary judgment is entered for Plaintiffs against Sgt. Dorer regarding the warrantless search. Summary judgment is denied to both parties with regards to the dragging claims. Summary judgement is denied to both parties with regards to Sgt. Slavin.

E. Claim Nine(a) survives only with regards to the ratification claim (Doc. 28 ¶308) and is otherwise dismissed.

F. On Claim Nine(b), summary judgment is entered for Plaintiffs against Dorer and Slavin regarding the shooting. Summary judgment is denied to both parties regarding Officer Fellows’ and Garcia’s dragging David to the ambulance.

G. Claim Ten is dismissed.

H. Claim Eleven survives.

I. Claim Twelve survives

J. Claim Thirteen survives only with regards to Officer Greene and Sgt. Slavin, and is otherwise dismissed.

K. Claim Fourteen is dismissed.

L. Claim Fifteen survives.

4. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 333) and Motion for Certification of Issue for Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 333-34) are both denied.

DATED this 6th day of August, 2012.

-------------

If David's family is out there reading this now, please get in touch with me - I want to connect you with folks who have been advocating for the mentally ill in the criminal justice system for awhile. They want to offer your family support. My name is Peggy Plews; my number is 480-580-6807; my email is arizonaprisonwatch@gmail.com

Cop-Court Watch: Montgomery on Gerster & Keesee

"Indict Arpaio" Rally - Wells Fargo,
June 7, 2011 (Phoenix)

For those of you following the cases of the MCSO detention officers (Kevin Gerster and Alan Keesee) who assaulted their prisoners in the psychiatric unit of Lower Buckeye Jail, I'm writing to try to set the prosecutor's side of the story straight - or at least give you a piece of it. I guess it's more a clarification than a correction, so I didn't rewrite my earlier posts - just redirected folks here. I wrote to County Attorney Bill Montgomery last week because it appeared from court records as if the assault case against Alan Keesee had been dropped at the initiative of his office. My confusion, I guess. Montgomery got back to me pretty quickly asserting that the prosecution is moving forward nonetheless, and re-iterated the reason he didn't proceed with prosecuting either of those guys for abusing "vulnerable adults," as I'd been urging.

Frankly, I think if this had occurred in any other kind of institution treating psychiatric patients, the vulnerable adult statute would be invoked to raise the felony level and broaden the sentencing possibilities. But I honestly don't know the law well enough to ferret this all out myself, so I figured it was best to just let you hear the explanation straight from the county attorney.

My apologies for attributing anything less than professionalism to the folks working hard on these detention officer's prosecutions.

--email from Bill Montgomery's office, Thursday September 8, 2011--

From Bill Montgomery:

We were able to resolve the case by filing a Direct Complaint/Plea proceeding without having to go through the entire Preliminary Hearing/Trial process. So, while it looks like charges were dropped, we still proceeded with prosecution.

I can assure you that the resolution leads to the defendant no longer working in law enforcement, let alone detention.

I would also appreciate it if you would acknowledge that the goal of holding people in positions of responsibility for safely and securing handling inmates accountable when they break the law is being met. We may disagree about the best way to accomplish that but my commitment to that goal remains. Also, I previously explained to you that the basis for the crimes committed was not the mental status of the victim but the fact that he was restrained. That was the direct set of facts. If we had charged the Class 2 Felonies there is a high likelihood that we would have failed to secure convictions. It was more important to me to charge the appropriate crime so we could ensure convictions.

Thank you for your continued advocacy,

Bill Montgomery

Maricopa County Attorney

301 W. Jefferson, 8th Floor

Phoenix, AZ 85003

602-506-1260

Tough on Crime MCAO prosecutes William Franklin Hughes III.

UPDATE (10/21/11):
Gerster's Sentencing

Maricopa County Superior Court House (March 11, 2011)

Just so folks know, William Franklin Hughes III plead guilty last week to one misdemeanor charge of indecent exposure and one misdemeanor charge of criminal damage. He was originally up on 5 misdemeanors and 2 felonies, so I guess you could say that they cut him a deal. Considering that William was assaulted repeatedly in custody and has evidence of a serious mental illness, though, I think the Maricopa County Attorney's Office should have cut the guy loose after he took that beating. This stuff can accumulate on one's record and come back around again to haunt you, so it's never really a "favor" when they pursue prosecutions of people for the symptoms of their mental illness instead of divert them out of the CJ system altogether, though. They really stick it to people with a mental illness in this town, and they do it with a smile.


The folks I saw ten or fifteen years ago cycling in and out of county jails and shelters are now going to prison because they didn't get adequate public mental health care and they racked up such a record of misdemeanors living on the streets, not because they became more hardened criminals. That's how they end up doing 27 months for prostitution, like Marcia Powell, in the first place. That's pretty pathetic; hardly a sign of an evolved society.


That's $20,000 a year we're willing to put into incarcerating each mentally ill citizen - more, since we tend to put them in high security settings - but we aren't willing to invest it in keeping them from suffering from the symptoms for their illness and poverty. William was having such a rough time the night before he was even assaulted that his judge didn't think he was competent to stand trial, though - if he had been, she probably would have released him on bail at that time. I have no idea why the MCAO thinks he was criminally competent the night he was arrested; I don't think people with mental illness are really getting due process in this place.


William, if you're out there, please sue the hell out of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, or they'll keep doing to others what they did to you. I wish I had the satisfaction of at least knowing that you managed to moon the cops or something while you were being taken down, too.


Let's see if the MCAO is really "tough on crime" or just on the people: will they let MCSO Detention Officer Kevin Gerster walk with misdemeanors now, after beating Hughes up? They already let the guy slide by not charging him with class 6 felonies under ARS 13-3623, which is supposed to protect vulnerable adults. And will Alan Keesee even get charged for his assaultive behavior? As far as I know, he's still on paid leave from the MCSO.


Stay tuned...Gerster's final pre-trial management conference is May 18 at 8:45am, in front of Judge Verdin. Trial is on May 25 at 8am.

Burying Danny Rodriguez.

Outside of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office today

I'll post later on the protests of the past week at the Phoenix Police Department, as well as today's gathering at the Maricopa County Attorney's Office to thank Rick Romley for filing second degree murder charges against Danny's killer. First I wanted to get up his obituary and the info about his funeral service tomorrow; the visitation and memorial were held tonight.

This has just been so heartbreaking.

Also, there will be a car wash on Saturday, October 16, 7am-3pm, at "la Cocina" Restaurant (1550 N. 16th St. at McDowell Rd). Please come and support the family; bring your bike if you don't have a car, or take the bus and come help wash.

-------from KSAZ FOX News/Channel 10-------

Viewing, Funeral Planned for Victim of Officer-Involved Shooting

Updated: Wednesday, 13 Oct 2010, 4:32 PM MDT

Funeral Mass and Interment

Friday, October 15th, 2010

12:30PM at the First Congregational United Church of Christ

1407 N. 2nd Street, Phoenix, 85004

Rev. John Moreno, presiding

*With Interment following the service at Holy Cross Cemetery in Tolleson, AZ
10045 W. Thomas Road, Avondale, 85323

Memorial Fund

The Daniel Rodriguez Memorial Fund has been established with Bank of America. All Contributions/Donations may be made in the name of the memorial fund, at any branch

Obituary (submitted by family)

Daniel F. Rodriguez
March 15th, 1981 - October 5th, 2010

Daniel F. Rodriguez was born in Phoenix, Arizona on March 15th, 1981. In his formative years; Daniel began a lifelong involvement in the community when, as an infant, his mother carried him along with her throughout the community collecting signatures for neighborhood improvement through her organizing work for the United Farm Workers (UFW) Union.

As Daniel continued to grow, his life was forever imprinted with service to his community. In grade school, Daniel was a committed student. Growing up surrounded by loving family and friends, Daniel is remembered warmly for his devotion to family and his sense of humor. With this support he continued to educate himself, earning his GED and becoming a certified tradesman. Daniel enjoyed life.

One of his life's greatest joys was his mother, Elvira Fernandez. Together through love, devotion, and encouragement Daniel helped his injured mother come out of a wheelchair. He taught her to walk again. Daniel also loved and enjoyed his relationship with his father, Frank Rodriguez. In the prime of his youth, on October 5th of this year, Daniel died. While his life on this Earth has come to a close, his legacy and spirit continues on with and in his family, friends, and community.

He leaves behind to mourn this tragic loss his mother Elvira Fernandez, father Frank M. Rodriguez, sister Irene Bustos (Ruben), brother Armando Arvizu (Juana), sister Anita Rodriguez, sister Delilah Rodriguez Grijalva, six special uncles, an aunt, four nephews, eight nieces, and a host of extended family, friends, and community.

Free Marcia Powell...

This is sickening. Arizona "justice" at work again. My own comments (left on the PHX New Times site) are at the end.

-----------------------------

Marcia Powell's Death Unavenged: County Attorney Passes on Prosecuting Prison Staff

By Stephen Lemons,
Wed., Sep. 1 2010 @ 8:09AM

Categories: Feathered Bastard

The Maricopa County Attorney's Office has chosen not to prosecute Arizona Department of Corrections staff in the death of inmate Marcia Powell.

Powell, 48, died May 20, 2009, after being kept in a human cage in Goodyear's Perryville Prison for at least four hours in the blazing Arizona sun. This, despite a prison policy limiting such outside confinement to a maximum of two hours.

The county medical examiner found the cause of death to be due to complications from heat exposure. Her core body temperature upon examination was 108 degrees Fahrenheit. She suffered burns and blisters all over her body.

Witnesses say she was repeatedly denied water by corrections officers, though the c.o.'s deny this. The weather the day she collapsed from the heat (May 19 -- she died in the early morning hours of May 20) arched just above a 107 degree high.

According to a 3,000 page report released by the ADC, she pleaded to be taken back inside, but was ignored. Similarly, she was not allowed to use the restroom. When she was found unconscious, her body was covered with excrement from soiling herself.

Powell, who was serving a 27-month sentence for prostitution, actually expired after being transported to West Valley Hospital, where acting ADC Director Charles Ryan made the decision to have her life support suspended.

(Ryan lacked the authority to do this, but that's another story, which you can read about, here.)

ADC conducted its own criminal investigation into Powell's agonizing demise. The information I have indicates that ADC submitted its conclusions to the county attorney earlier this year. (Please see update below.) ADC was seeking charges of negligent homicide against at least seven c.o.'s, as well as related charges against other prison staff.

Why didn't the county attorney's office pursue those charges? Apparently, they didn't think they could prevail in court.

County attorney spokesman Bill Fitzgerald issued the following terse statement.

"There is insufficient evidence to go forward with a prosecution against any of the named individuals," he e-mailed me, declining to elaborate further.

Donna Hamm of the advocacy group Middle Ground Prison Reform wasn't buying it.

"Having read the bulk of those 3,000 pages of reports," she told me, "if someone in a prosecutorial position can't find a crime in those pages, they have absolutely no credibility in my opinion."

Hamm noted that guards passed Powell several times throughout her stay in the cage, and that some mocked her pleas for water. As for c.o. claims that Powell was given water, Hamm countered that Powell's eyes "were as dry as parchment," and that the autopsy results show there was no sign of hydration.

Hamm was incredulous that the county attorney couldn't find enough evidence to bring charges.

"It's just beyond comprehension," she stated. "This is the same office that has prosecuted mothers who left their babies in a couple of inches of water to go outside and take a cell phone call or look in the mail."

She also cited the case of "Buffalo Soldier" Charles Long, who was prosecuted by the MCAO for negligent homicide in the 2001 death of a kid who had enrolled in his program for troubled teens and died after being exposed to the heat and put in a bath, where he inhaled water.

The ADC did make some reforms in the wake of Powell's death. It was discovered that the cages were being used to control unruly prisoners, and the ADC claims this practice has stopped. However, Hamm says she has uncovered a case of a man in a Tucson facility who, earlier this year, was held all day and overnight in an outside cage.

Some 16 prison employees were sanctioned in one way or another as a result of the Powell incident, and some were fired. But Hamm says she believes some of those sanctioned have been reinstated.

The outdoor cages are still in use, but have been retrofitted to provide shade, misters, water stations, and benches, which, ironically, Hamm says are metal, and would thus soak up the heat. She's toured ADC facilities to see the redone cages, and admits that changes are positive, but too late to save Powell's life, obviously.

"All the retrofitting in the world is worthless if the staff doesn't follow the policy," she insisted.

Powell had been diagnosed as mentally ill, and was on more than one psychotropic drug, drugs that increased her sensitivity to heat, sunlight and lack of water. All the more reason, according to Hamm, that prison staff should be held accountable.

The only next of kin that was located for Powell was an aged, adoptive mother in California, who had not had contact with Powell for years, and did not want to take possession of the remains.

So, with the help of Hamm and others, Powell's ashes were interred last year at Phoenix's Shadow Rock Church of Christ.

Brophy College Preparatory School also dedicated a plaque to Powell on school grounds this year.

But with no one with standing to bring a federal lawsuit (Hamm says the deadline for a state lawsuit has expired), and with the MCAO unwilling to bring a case against those responsible for Powell's well-being, there looks to be no justice for the schizophrenic deceased woman.

I asked Hamm what this means for the case.

"It means they've gotten away with the most colossal example of brutality I have seen against a female prisoner in the history of the Arizona Department of Corrections," remarked Hamm, adding, "And they got off scot-free."

Update, 9/1/10 2:29 PM: ADC spokesman Barrett Marson told me today that the ADC submitted its criminal investigation to the MCAO back on August 20, 2009. He said he did not know if the ADC asked for charges on certain employees.

----------------------------------

Peggy Plews 10 minutes ago

So, the county attorney can put a mentally ill, incapacitated woman in prison for 27 months for a blow job, but can't even come up with a single misdemeanor out of the 16 people who killed her?

The women out at Perryville are still getting neglected and abused as if nothing ever happened - and some of those staff got their fucking jobs back. Here's the people responsible for those appeals - Marcia's life was worth less than this woman's job security, apparently. I think we should all converge on the next meeting these people have - if they'd post it. They just had one yesterday and the minutes or next meeting aren't up, so here's their phone # (602) 542-3888.

From the AZ State Personnel Board, June 15, 2010:

The Arizona State Personnel Board meeting was called to order by Chair Jim Thompson at 1:36 p.m. The meeting was held at 1400 West Washington Street, Suite 280, Phoenix, Arizona. Board members present were Jim Thompson, Stella Galaviz, Patrick Quinn, and Joseph Smith. Board member Mark Ziska was present telephonically. Staff members in attendance were Jeff Bernick, Counsel for the Board; Judy Henkel, Executive Director for the Board; and Laurie Barcelona, Administrative Assistant for the Board.

Mr. Thompson called for public comments. There being no comments, the board proceeded to consider the approval of the minutes from the May 19, 2010 open public meeting. Patrick Quinn moved the minutes be adopted as written. Mark Ziska and Joseph Smith simultaneously seconded the motion which carried unanimously.

The board next considered the dismissal appeal of Electra Allen versus Department of Corrections.

Martin Bihn, Attorney at Law representing Electra Allen, stated the hearing officer recommended the dismissal be reduced to an 80 hour suspension without pay. He stated there were three contacts for which Ms. Allen was allegedly dismissed. Mr. Bihn stated the first contact was when Ms. Allen was told by a CO III that Inmate Powell was on medication and should not be in the sun. He stated the hearing officer found the CO III was the responsible officer who should have taken some action. Mr. Bihn stated the second issue was when Inmate Powell yelled she wanted to talk to Dr. Kaz, Ms. Allen asked the inmate why, Inmate Powell stated she wanted to know when she was going to be transferred, Ms. Allen called on her radio, found out the transfer would occur shortly, and that was the end of the conversation. He stated the hearing officer found Ms. Allen’s version of events to be accurate and the allegation was not a basis for discipline. Mr. Bihn stated the third basis for discipline was that Ms. Allen just prior to shift change stopped by and saw Inmate Powell had defecated on herself. He stated instead of staying overtime, Ms. Allen informed the oncoming shift of what had occurred and she left for the day. Mr. Bihn stated the hearing officer felt that action warranted discipline but not termination. He stated there were many players involved in the death of the inmate, but Electra Allen was not directly responsible as the agency was attempting to make her out to be. Mr. Bihn urged the board to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and sustain the hearing officer’s recommendation of an 80 hour suspension without pay.

Dennis Carpenter, Assistant Attorney General representing the Department of Corrections, stated Electra Allen had three opportunities to intervene in Inmate Powell’s situation and possibly save her life. He stated at approximately 12:00 p.m. Ms. Allen was told by the counselor that Inmate Powell was on medication and should not be left out in the sun, yet Ms. Allen did nothing with that information. Mr. Carpenter stated a short time later Inmate Powell asked Ms. Allen if she could speak with Dr. Kaz but Ms. Allen just told Inmate Powell that she would be moved soon. Ms. Allen did not notify medical that there had been a request for the doctor to speak with the inmate. He stated at 1:50 p.m. Ms. Allen went to an area near the enclosure where Inmate Powell was being held and she noticed that Inmate Powell had defecated on herself. Mr. Carpenter stated Ms. Allen just left for the day, did nothing to clean up Inmate Powell, nor did she tell anyone Inmate Powell needed to be cleaned up. He stated the hearing officer found this action did not lead directly to the inmate’s death but the agency disagrees. Mr. Carpenter stated if Ms. Allen had at 1:50 p.m. taken Inmate Powell into the bathroom and cleaned her up, Inmate Powell probably would not have collapsed 40 minutes later and died. He stated the agency believed Ms. Allen’s actions led directly to the death of Inmate Powell and warranted termination.

There being no discussion, Joseph Smith proposed the following motion:

"I would move that we adopt the hearing officer’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as our own. I would then move that the appellant’s appeal be upheld to the extent the agency action of dismissal be modified to a suspension of 160 hours without pay, and that all back pay and benefits be restored to her save and except those during the above suspension, those equal to any unemployment benefits received since dismissal, and those received at the time of dismissal. I would further move that the appellant be returned to the same exact position she held prior to her dismissal, including the same work location, duties, job title, salary, and benefits if said position is currently available. In the event the appellant’s former position is not available, the agency shall return the appellant to substantially equivalent a position as is currently available with equivalent benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment.”

The motion was seconded by Patrick Quinn and carried with aye votes from Joseph Smith, Patrick Quinn, and Jim Thompson. Mark Ziska and Stella Galaviz voted nay.

Peggy Plews

One more comment: Those officers - agents of the law - who killed Marcia are the violent criminals, not the Arpaio 5 who they're trying to prosecute as such. The county attorney's office seems to be as screwed up as it was under Thomas. So much for protecting the People - they just protect their own. Here's their phone number too: (602) 506-3411. Please call tomorrow - don't just vent here.