1 1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HEARING ON RAPE AND STAFF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT IN 2 UNITED STATES JAILS 3 BREVARD COUNTY JAIL COMPLEX 4 VOLUME I 5 Page 1 - Page 154 6 -------------------------------------------------------- 7 HEARING: Held pursuant to the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 8 9 HEARING DATE: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 Morning Session 10 11 HEARING TIME: 9:00 a.m. - 12:23 p.m. 12 HEARING VENUE: Florida A & M University 13 College of Law 201 Beggs Avenue 14 Orlando, Florida 32801 15 INTRODUCTION: STEVE MCFARLAND, Director, Task Force for Faith-Based 16 and Community Initiatives, U.S. Department of Justice 17 18 OPENING COMMENTS: CARROLL ANN ELLIS, Director, Fairfax County, Virginia, 19 Police Department Victim Services 20 21 WELCOMING REMARKS: DEAN MARKITA COOPER Florida A & M University 22 College of Law 23 REPORTED BY: Elida T. Hager, R.P.R. Notary Public 24 State of Florida at Large 25 2 1 INDEX 2 PAGE Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3 Morning Session VOLUME I 4 Introduction by Mr. McFarland.................... 03 5 Opening Remarks by Ms. Ellis..................... 04 6 Welcoming Comments by Dean Cooper................ 05 7 Examination Under Oath: 8 Lt. James Dodson, Jr..................... 07 9 Maj. Darrell Hibbs....................... 07 10 Afternoon Session VOLUME II 11 Examination Under Oath: 12 Rev. Russell Williams....................... 157 13 Continued Examination Under Oath: 14 Maj. Darrell Hibbs.......................... 164 15 Examination Under Oath: 16 Lt. Gregory Robertson....................... 166 Lt. Ronald Tomblin, Jr...................... 166 17 Cpl. Roy Foster............................. 166 18 Examination Under Oath: 19 Orville Clayton............................. 247 Christopher Bourque......................... 247 20 Cmdr. Susan M. Jeter........................ 298 21 Continued Examination Under Oath: 22 Maj. Darrell Hibbs.......................... 298 23 Court Reporter's Certificate..................... 230 24 25 * * * 3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 MR. MCFARLAND: Good morning. We're going to 3 go ahead and get started. This is a public hearing 4 pursuant to the Prison Rape Elimination Act, a 5 federal statute passed in 2003. This is a hearing 6 of the Review Panel on Prison Rape. 7 My name is Steve McFarland, and with me is 8 Co-panelist Ms. Carroll Ann Ellis. 9 This is being transcribed and videotaped, and 10 all the testimony will be public record and sworn 11 under oath. 12 Also with me is Robert Siedlecki, who is 13 Senior Legal Counsel in my office. 14 I want to welcome our witnesses. Thank you 15 for being here this morning and willing to help us 16 understand what are the common characteristics of 17 victims of sexual assault, what are the common 18 characteristics of perpetrators of sexual assault 19 in jail facilities, what are the things that have 20 been or could be done or should've been done, with 21 respect to your jail facility in Brevard County, 22 that would improve the rate or prevalence of sexual 23 assault, diminish that rate. 24 The Panel is following the rankings of the 25 Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of 4 1 Justice, which was based on a National Inmate 2 Survey taken last year. And the results that we 3 were given indicate that Brevard County Jail, with 4 228 inmates responding and an 83 percent response 5 rate, that 8.5 percent of the inmates report that 6 they have been victimized sexually; whereas, the 7 national average is 3.2 percent, so, significantly, 8 almost three times the national average. 9 The rate of injury from such sexual assaults 10 reported by the inmates was 3.1 percent; whereas, 11 the national average was .6, so over five times the 12 national average. 13 The standard of error in the survey is such 14 that 86 different facilities, jails across the 15 country, could have similar results. So that is 16 why we're here in Brevard -- here talking about 17 Brevard County. 18 We want to thank Florida A & M School of Law 19 for allowing us this beautiful venue and the 20 opportunity to explore this in such gracious 21 surroundings. 22 That's who we are and why we're here. And 23 I'll just turn it over to Ms. Ellis for any opening 24 comments. 25 MS. ELLIS: Good morning. I would like to add 5 1 my appreciation and thank you as well. And I look 2 forward to our discussions throughout the day. 3 MR. MCFARLAND: I understand that our host, 4 Florida A & M School of Law, the associate dean, 5 Ms. Markita Cooper, has joined us. And we're 6 privileged to have her, and we yield the floor to 7 her. 8 DEAN COOPER: Good morning. I don't know if I 9 need to be amplified, since I'm just giving 10 welcoming remarks. But, it looks like I do. 11 Good morning, and welcome to the Florida 12 A & M University College of Law. It is our 13 pleasure and our privilege to host this very 14 important hearing and to support the work the 15 Department of Justice and the Panel, the Review 16 Panel on Prison Rape. 17 We know that the work that all of you are 18 doing is very important. We, as a college of law 19 here in the State of Florida, it is our duty and 20 again our privilege to be able to support and to 21 provide this venue for you. 22 We hope that this important work will be 23 facilitated by being here. We want to thank all of 24 the Panel members, everyone that's here, those of 25 you who are coming to give your testimony in this 6 1 important, important work. And it is our pleasure 2 to be your partner. 3 Thank you, and welcome to Florida A & M 4 College of Law. Thank you. 5 MR. MCFARLAND: Thank you, Dean Cooper. 6 MS. ELLIS: Thank you, Dean Cooper. 7 MR. MCFARLAND: All right. We understand that 8 Sheriff Parker will not be able to join us this 9 morning. So the first panelist will be Lt. James 10 Dodson. So if Lt. Dodson could join us at the 11 table, the witness table there, please. 12 We understand that Mr. Don Reynolds of the 13 special victims unit with the sheriff's office will 14 not be able to join us. He was a late request on 15 our part, so -- 16 MAJ. HIBBS: And if I may, Mr. McFarland, if 17 you don't mind me sitting up here on this. I think 18 I have some information that I could share in 19 regards to these reports, since Agent Reynolds 20 isn't here to be with us today. 21 MR. MCFARLAND: Sure. All righty. 22 Well, gentlemen, while you're standing, would 23 you please raise your right hand. 24 (Whereupon, MAJ. DARRELL HIBBS and LT. JAMES 25 DODSON, JR., having been duly sworn to tell the truth, 7 1 the whole truth and nothing but the truth, were examined 2 and testified as follows:) 3 MR. MCFARLAND: Thank you. Welcome. Thank 4 you. 5 For the record, in addition to Lt. Dodson, we 6 have the deputy administrator of the jail, 7 Maj. Hibbs. 8 And, Lt. Dodson, if I may, do you have any 9 opening statement that you wanted to share with us 10 or shall we proceed directly to questions? 11 LT. DODSON: Proceed. 12 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. Lt. Dodson, which 13 inmates are most likely, in your opinion, to be 14 victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual assault in your 15 facility; what's the profile or the 16 characteristics? 17 LT. DODSON: It's -- it's a large 18 characteristics. I think that inmates that's 19 coming in the back door being received in the 20 facility who may be young, those who are small 21 stature, maybe they've not been to jail before, 22 it's their first incarceration, they're not 23 familiar with the cultures of the jail, the 24 manipulation that inmates can play on people. 25 MR. MCFARLAND: Lieutenant, I'm sorry, could 8 1 you move the -- and, you know, speak directly into 2 the -- Lieutenant -- the court reporter -- yes. 3 Thank you. 4 So a small stature, then -- then what? 5 LT. DODSON: Well, previous, maybe, 6 incarceration, where they have issues, have been 7 approached by predators or offenders that's 8 previously been identified. 9 I think the people that may be subject to 10 having any -- no money, maybe commissary, could be 11 approached by certain people and basically have 12 commissary -- could get into situations where if 13 they give these inmates commissary maybe in return 14 they expects favors, such as that. 15 MR. MCFARLAND: What other characteristics, in 16 addition to what you've just mentioned, would 17 you -- would make the profile of someone who is 18 more likely to become a sexual assault victim in 19 your facility? 20 LT. DODSON: The sexuality possibility, if a 21 person has a lifestyle where he engages with the 22 same sex, possibility that it could be identified 23 maybe from the other inmates in the housing units, 24 his feminine characters that he may possess as a 25 male, same as a female, if they -- 9 1 MR. MCFARLAND: Do you mean behavior or 2 physical attributes? 3 LT. DODSON: Just their -- their observation, 4 the way the person walks, talks, appears could be 5 a -- could be -- if you ask my opinion, could be a 6 characteristic that could subject someone to maybe 7 being approached by someone requesting some type of 8 sexual favor. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: So sexual orientation, either 10 real or perceived, would be a factor? 11 LT. DODSON: It could be. 12 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. What else? Anything 13 else? 14 LT. DODSON: Just off of the top of my head, 15 it's hard to think right now, I mean, but -- 16 MR. MCFARLAND: What about the nature of 17 offense that put them in there, would -- is there 18 any correlation, in your opinion or experience, 19 with -- 20 LT. DODSON: It could be. I mean, assuming 21 that a person may be arrested for sexual assault 22 or -- be his behavior. I mean, if an inmate finds 23 out that a person's there for such charges, it 24 could be -- could play a part. 25 I mean, whether that inmate is willing to give 10 1 that information up, in the general population, and 2 maybe another inmate hears that information, I 3 mean, it's assumed that it could be. 4 MR. MCFARLAND: What about the pairing? 5 I know that inmates in your facility are 6 triple bunked. Is there anything that -- about who 7 the victim or the potential victim might be paired 8 with or might be in the same cell with, 9 comparatively, you know, the comparative attributes 10 or stature of his cellmates, would that be germane 11 or, you know, is that relevant? 12 LT. DODSON: I'm not really going to cross 13 that. I know that -- I'm sure they have pairing, 14 where a smaller inmate may pair up with a 15 larger-stature inmate for safer protection. 16 It's never really brought -- been brought to 17 my attention, during my investigation, that it's 18 occurred. I mean, does it happen, I assume it 19 probably does. That's a assumption. 20 We are a pre-detention facility. We have 21 inmates, generally, that's only in there for 28 to 22 30 days. So most -- most inmates come through, 23 they go through the initial appearance court -- in 24 court -- and they go out. 25 The inmates that's in there for a longer stay 11 1 awaiting trials, it's a possibility that they get 2 into the pairing. We're obviously aware of it. 3 And we keep our eyes open in the pods -- the 4 rovers -- sorry -- if they notice any type of 5 pairing or any issues that may put a person in 6 jeopardy, you know, I'm sure it happens. 7 But just off the top of my head, I can't 8 remember an incident where I've been involved in. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: Are there any gangs in your 10 facility? 11 LT. DODSON: Yeah. I'm sure there's gangs in 12 every facility as the -- out in the streets. We 13 have -- we have protocols in place where we try to 14 identify gang members. 15 We take photos of any suspicious tattoos on 16 their arms or any information we get from the 17 officers that's fed through our -- linked to that's 18 over the gang-related activity who in turn has a 19 direct line to the gang members or the gang units 20 on the outside or with the sheriff's department, 21 the unit, do a fairly decent job. 22 I don't think we have a major issue, 23 personally. That's something that we have to look 24 at and keep track on. 25 We have a tendency to have more problems with 12 1 the younger inmates who are either from separate 2 cities, they went to school and had their little 3 gangs within the district. 4 And we keep those individuals separated just 5 to not have any problems with that. Rarely do we 6 have a problem, that I'm aware of, that was a 7 result of a gang-related incident. 8 If we do, we do investigate it. We separate 9 those who we feel are in harm's way. I'm sure we 10 have some that's listed in the Bloods, the Crips. 11 We have gang membership that largely is a -- as far 12 up as the -- I think it's the Sanford Posse. 13 And, you know, you could go on with the list 14 of membership we have that's kept tracked of by 15 the -- not only the officers but the lieutenants in 16 charge of that. 17 MR. MCFARLAND: Continuing with the issue 18 about who is more likely to become a victim of 19 sexual assault, is there any relationship, in your 20 opinion and experience, between an inmate being 21 more or less likely to be a victim if he is a 22 member of a gang or not a member of a gang? 23 LT. DODSON: I have no statistical data to 24 support anything. 25 MR. MCFARLAND: No. I realize that. But 13 1 what's been your experience; is there any relevance 2 to gang affiliation, between gang affiliation and 3 becoming more or less likely to be assaulted? 4 LT. DODSON: Well, whatever their code of 5 conduct or -- in that gang unit cell, I'm sure 6 there's some type of pecking order where some 7 violence could occur with the gang-ship or the 8 membership. 9 I haven't experienced any issues at the jail, 10 that I've been involved in, that we feel that was 11 some retaliation from one gang group to another or 12 within the unit itself, the membership. So, I'm 13 sure there is, obviously, some retaliation. 14 My understanding, they do have their chain of 15 command in any type of gang. So I'm sure there is 16 something, someone's trying to do something 17 they don't do it, there's some type of retaliation. 18 And I don't think we have a issue in Brevard 19 County Jail pertaining to any major concerns with 20 gang-related activity. It's something that we're 21 keeping a eye on. And we do investigate any 22 incidents of any criminal act within the jail. 23 MS. ELLIS: Lt. Dodson, continuing on, again, 24 with the characteristics; might race or ethnicity 25 play a part? 14 1 LT. DODSON: Can you repeat that? 2 MS. ELLIS: Would -- might race or ethnicity 3 play a part, in terms of characteristics of 4 individuals who may be vulnerable to sexual 5 assault? 6 LT. DODSON: I -- I have no information to 7 support that. I mean, we have a multitude of 8 different ethnical-background inmates in the jail, 9 probably about a 50-50 mixture. 10 I don't have the data in front of me. By I 11 have a -- I have no information to support anything 12 that the race or the tincture (sic) of a person 13 would have any results in being sexually assaulted. 14 MS. ELLIS: You mentioned appearance. Might 15 obesity be a factor, someone who is particularly 16 large to the extent that their appearance may in 17 some way suggest that they would be vulnerable to 18 sexual assault? 19 LT. DODSON: I'm sure if they -- if -- if you 20 pick a person that's allegedly overweight, obesity, 21 and he's -- I mean, if he's that -- I mean, I -- I 22 have no information to support anything. But I'm 23 just saying, he might could be sexually assaulted, 24 whether he's a beast or thin, small. 25 But I think a person that is overly obese 15 1 maybe is looked at, upon the other inmates, as 2 someone that could be sexually assaulted, I don't 3 -- I wouldn't have that information. 4 I would hope that that person would approach a 5 staff member. 'Cause we are very open at the jail, 6 approachable. And if he had an issue within in the 7 jail, that he would approach a officer, and we 8 would take immediate action if that person was at 9 risk. 10 But I don't think that, generally, the person 11 being obese would be the major significant factor 12 as a determining factor whether the person's 13 mentally ill or having issues with his charges and 14 inmates and realizing maybe he's got a charge 15 that's significant as looked at as supporting that 16 either way. 17 MR. MCFARLAND: Lieutenant, well, I didn't 18 understand what you were saying about mental 19 illness. Is a mentally ill or developmentally 20 disabled inmate more or less likely to be 21 victimized by sexually assault or is it irrelevant 22 to that? 23 LT. DODSON: Well, I think a mentally ill 24 inmate could be -- based on his mental status could 25 be placed in a -- could be subject to being 16 1 sexually assaulted more so than a -- someone that's 2 not mentally ill, if that's the question. 3 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. 4 MS. ELLIS: Lt. Dodson, would you describe for 5 me, very briefly, what your responsibilities are in 6 your job function? 7 LT. DODSON: My current responsibility as a 8 shift commander is supervising not only 67 9 employees, which includes other sergeants, 10 supervisors under me and the care and custody and 11 control of over around 1900-plus inmates in the 12 jail. 13 So that's -- that's my major function, and to 14 still assure, as a dual certified officer, I have a 15 dual role as ensuring that investigations, if 16 that -- any criminal act within the jail is act 17 upon or investigated and sent through me for the 18 approval of the report prior to sending it outside 19 to any support unit within the agency. 20 MR. MCFARLAND: What does "dual certified" 21 mean? 22 LT. DODSON: We're very proud of the dual 23 certified unit that we have in Brevard County Jail. 24 As I said, sir, I've been out throughout the state 25 in several jails doing investigations and 17 1 assessments of the facilities and, you know, you'll 2 find that the Brevard County Jail is lucky or 3 fortunate to have approximately 30 dual certified 4 officers, which means that they're certified by the 5 state corrections and law enforcement. 6 So we utilize that unit who have been trained 7 by -- certified by the FDLE law enforcement 8 officers and also in-house training to help to 9 prepare reports and further training, collecting 10 evidence and -- sorry there (sic). 11 But we have about 30, and their main task is 12 investigate any crimes that's committed within the 13 jail. And if they need to seek out further 14 assistance from support units, like major crimes, 15 special -- the special victims unit, sex crimes 16 they have that avenue and that support group to 17 reach out to. 18 MR. MCFARLAND: And you say 30 of the sworn 19 employees at the Brevard County Jail are dual -- 20 LT. DODSON: Yeah. We actually have 43. 21 MR. MCFARLAND: Forty-three? 22 LT. DODSON: Thirty of them -- I have a -- 30 23 that is routinely used more than the top four, 24 'cause we have people that's dual certified. And 25 they're in the transportation unit and other units, 18 1 so, mainly on the operations shift, I try to tend 2 to select from those dual certified officers, 3 'cause they're assigned to the shifts. 4 And the shift commanders have that support or 5 that -- probably, I'm speculating -- five to six, 6 seven dual certified people in each shift that they 7 can reach out to and assign to do investigations 8 when they have a criminal act or a complaint. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: Is it true that all of your 10 sworn officers are considered law enforcement? 11 LT. DODSON: They're under the sheriff's 12 department. But they're either unit -- either 13 corrections certified or law enforcement certified. 14 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. Well, if someone moves 15 from corrections and wants to be hired by another 16 sheriff's office, would that individual be given 17 credit for the time as a correctional officer; 18 would they be considered to've been in law 19 enforcement for the period of time that they were 20 in the corrections? 21 LT. DODSON: I think it would identify the 22 fact that the officer has experience in 23 corrections. What the other agency does, as far as 24 pay or -- it is up to the agency. But, obviously, 25 the officer would be identified that he was a prior 19 1 correctional officer with that experience. 2 MS. ELLIS: So unless they're double (sic) 3 certified their corrections officers are not 4 considered law enforcement officers for purposes of 5 tenure or experience; is that correct? 6 LT. DODSON: I could defer that question 7 to Maj. Hibbs. 8 MAJ. HIBBS: The law enforcement -- there's 9 certification by the State of Florida. You have a 10 corrections officer certification, a law 11 enforcement officer certification. 12 They're two separate, distinct. You can go to 13 school and be both. And when you go to be both, 14 you are a dual sworn officer. 15 A lot of corrections officer get the law 16 enforcement officer certification and because they 17 want to transfer out in the road and experience 18 something different as opposed to spending 25 years 19 in the jail, because there's a lot more 20 opportunities, so -- so to speak -- outside on the 21 road for them to be involved in. So whether -- 22 MR. MCFARLAND: Speak slowly. 23 MAJ. HIBBS: So when they -- I apologize for 24 that. I speak fast, normally. So I'll do my best. 25 So whenever they get dual sworn and they come 20 1 to the jail, they have arrest powers, just like any 2 deputy would on the road. They are sworn in by the 3 sheriff as a law enforcement officer, sworn in by 4 the sheriff as a corrections officer. 5 They uphold all the laws in the State of 6 Florida regarding to crime, whether inside the 7 institute and the standard of conduct outside of 8 the institution when they're off duty as well. 9 And the sheriff can use those resources at his 10 disposal however he wants to use those. 11 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. So if -- for other than 12 the 43 who are dual certified -- 13 MAJ. HIBBS: Uh-huh. 14 MR. MCFARLAND: -- at your facility, the 15 other -- the others are not -- do not have arrest 16 power offsite; is that correct? 17 MAJ. HIBBS: They don't have arrest power 18 onsite or offsite. 19 MR. MCFARLAND: Or onsite. 20 MAJ. HIBBS: That's correct. They're 21 certified corrections. 22 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. Lt. Dodson, which 23 inmates, in your opinion, are more likely to be 24 victims of staff-on-inmate sexual assault? 25 LT. DODSON: If you're asking my opinion, I 21 1 can -- I don't know if we've had an incident where 2 we had a staff-on-inmate assault. You know, that 3 would be just the -- opinionated. I -- I could 4 refer that to Maj. Hibbs, if he's got any 5 historical information on that. 6 But my opinion, I mean, if you have a inmate 7 that tried to get close to a officer, you might 8 have an issue there. 9 But, I mean, we're so closely confined in the 10 jail with the officers, and we have as the -- we 11 have four to five certified officers works down on 12 the rover position with one or two officers or 13 control tech that works in the control room; so 14 it's very difficult, in my opinion, for an inmate 15 to get that close to a officer or even go to that 16 extreme where the -- without another officer, you 17 know, maybe witnessing something that's maybe 18 inappropriate. 19 So I don't recount any issues or anything such 20 as that has occurred, not that it has. I can refer 21 that to Maj. Hibbs. 22 But because their characteristics or the -- 23 you know, it'd be hard for me to say, 'cause I 24 think it just be the individual case where the 25 inmate thought he had that rapport, that type of 22 1 rapport with an officer. 2 And why he would think he'd have that rapport 3 with that officer, a very similar (sic) -- a lot of 4 the different situation, assuming that -- that they 5 know -- knew each other prior to incarceration 6 could be a factor, whether the person knows someone 7 in that fam- -- that officer's family, he feels he 8 has that rapport with him to a point where he 9 can -- where it could subject -- subsequentially 10 get into some type of sexual relationship, if 11 that's what you're asking, it'd be hard to tell. 12 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. Let me -- 13 MAJ. HIBBS: I would add, if you'd let me -- 14 MR. MCFARLAND: I'm just going to stay with 15 Lt. Dodson for a minute here. 16 Have -- in your -- how many years have you 17 been in corrections, Lt. Dodson? 18 LT. DODSON: Over 21 years. 19 MR. MCFARLAND: And in those 21 years, on how 20 many occasions have you addressed an allegation of 21 staff-on-inmate sexual assault; how many times do 22 you run into it, whether it's true or not, just the 23 allegation? 24 LT. DODSON: It's -- I may've had one or two 25 complaints in my career that I've -- 23 1 MAJ. HIBBS: Said sexual assault. 2 LT. DODSON: Sexual assault, no sexual 3 assaults. 4 I mean, I may've had inmates complain that 5 someone may have -- you know, did a pat-down or 6 something and inadvertently touch the -- the 7 genital area, something like that, but I can't -- 8 off the top of my head I can't even -- no sexual 9 assaults, whatsoever, that it -- that I've ever 10 been involved in. 11 MR. MCFARLAND: All right. Well, then, how 12 many times have you run into an allegation of 13 unwanted touching of genital areas by a staff 14 member? 15 LT. DODSON: Like I said, maybe once in my 16 whole career, that I -- it's just nothing that -- 17 it's so prevalent that I can -- we generally don't 18 have issues like that, that I'm aware of. 19 MR. MCFARLAND: How many times have you run 20 into an instance where the they're -- the inmate is 21 feeling that the staff member was requesting sexual 22 favors or getting romantically involved with them? 23 LT. DODSON: I personally have no information. 24 MR. MCFARLAND: You've never run into that? 25 LT. DODSON: Not me personally. 24 1 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. Have you ever heard, 2 you know, rumors of somebody having -- some staff 3 member having something going on with an inmate? 4 LT. DODSON: I've heard rumors. 5 I mean, I could defer that to Maj. Hibbs, 6 but -- 7 MR. MCFARLAND: Oh, I'm just talking about 8 your 21 years and experience. 9 LT. DODSON: Yeah, I've heard rumors. Well, 10 I've had -- heard rumors. It is a correctional 11 field. Things happen. But my direct involvement 12 it's -- I -- you know, off the top of my head, I 13 can't think of anything. 14 But I have heard rumors that -- there has been 15 allegations in the past -- that maybe some 16 inappropriate relationships or something's 17 happened. But I don't have that information. You 18 know, it's just speculation. 19 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. Do you have -- based on 20 those rumors, do you have an opinion as to the type 21 of inmate that might be more likely to be involved 22 in that kind of relationship, assuming it -- 23 assuming the rumors were true? 24 LT. DODSON: Again, I would think more of a 25 inmate that's manipulative, he's manipulating the 25 1 officer somehow, whether it's to get cigarettes or 2 contraband items bought in. They are confined. 3 They are limited to what they can have. 4 We have a -- they don't have cigarettes. They 5 can't smoke. So that's a big item that a lot of 6 inmates and trustees are always trying to ask from 7 staff. 8 You know, it's got to be something that the 9 inmate would benefit, would try to seek out an 10 officer that he felt maybe he could manipulate and 11 maybe have that person try to cross the line. And 12 I'm sure it's happened in the past. 13 Like I said, you have to defer a question like 14 that to Maj. Hibbs. I think at one part -- one 15 time he was in an internal affairs. He may have 16 information on that. 17 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. Well, we'll do that. 18 LT. DODSON: Okay. 19 MR. MCFARLAND: Let me just ask, also, based 20 on the rumors that you've run into -- and I 21 understand that you -- your testimony is that you 22 have not been personally involved in any 23 investigation of those rumors of any kind of 24 staff-on-inmate sexual relationship; is that 25 correct? 26 1 LT. DODSON: I can't recall, not with a 2 correctional officer, in other words, the 3 sheriff's -- I -- I just don't recall. I mean, I'd 4 have to go back and look. 5 MR. MCFARLAND: What preparation have you had 6 a chance to do in preparation for this hearing; 7 what have you reviewed? 8 LT. DODSON: Well, I've mainly reviewed the 9 case reports that I approved for the investigation 10 process. I did have a chance to review some of the 11 questions that was asked from, I guess, the Moss 12 Group that came in. 13 We're very busy. I actually took an online 14 PREA test during this time or prepared, trying to 15 get -- further our training on Prison Rape 16 Elimination Act, trying to tighten up our belt. 17 I have been actively involved in the Prison 18 Rape Elimination Act committee that we formed. 19 MR. MCFARLAND: When did that get formed? 20 LT. DODSON: It was formed two or three weeks 21 ago. Commander had sent out a memo stating that I 22 was the chairperson of that committee. She wanted 23 us to convey and come up with some policies and 24 review our current policies as it pertained to 25 PREA. And -- 27 1 MR. MCFARLAND: Great. 2 LT. DODSON: And we had a very nice meeting 3 and come up with good ideas or suggestions, so -- 4 MR. MCFARLAND: You mentioned the Moss Group. 5 What did -- how did they help you prepare for this 6 hearing? 7 LT. DODSON: Well, they really didn't help me 8 prepare. I've just mentioned the Moss Group, 9 'cause they were having meetings. 10 You'd have to -- I refer that to Maj. Hibbs, 11 'cause I really didn't have any direct contact with 12 anybody from the Moss Group. I just know they were 13 there. 14 MR. MCFARLAND: Maj. Hibbs, how has the Moss 15 Group been involved in your preparation? 16 MAJ. HIBBS: They have a series of questions 17 that they ask regards to your policy. And you 18 answer those back to the Moss Group. I believe 19 they're through NIC, if I'm not mistaken. And then 20 they -- they review those, and then they give you 21 feedback on your current process. 22 So we went through the questions they asked 23 about our policies or these things that actually we 24 do, and do we do those well. And we do most things 25 well. Is there areas we can enhance on, we try to 28 1 pick up on those, too. 2 And we did that as a committee in a group and 3 try to sit around and brainstorm ideas on what we 4 can do to -- thing -- make things better. So 5 that's what we do with that. 6 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. 7 MS. ELLIS: Lt. Dodson, I'd like to follow-up 8 on the characteristics of staff who might become 9 involved with inmates. 10 You've talked of -- pretty much -- about the 11 characteristics that you might be associated with 12 inmates who would be drawn in or draw others into a 13 relationship. 14 What might some of the characteristics of a 15 staff person be in getting drawn in or becoming 16 involved in a relationship? 17 LT. DODSON: I guess it's a lot of different 18 factors; whether the officer feels compelled or 19 sorry for a certain person, maybe they know the 20 person from the outside, maybe -- you know, not 21 that it occurs, but maybe that person -- a staff 22 member that's a smoker feels compelled to talk to 23 someone in reference the inmate can't get 24 cigarettes. And they feel sorry for the person. 25 But as far as sexually -- activity -- I -- I 29 1 just think it's -- I -- I don't see it. If a 2 officer, I feel that I'm observing, is having 3 problems, personal problems, I try -- if I 4 can identify things from the other officers, when 5 they come to me and say, "This person's going 6 through some issues on the outside," if that person 7 wishes to talk to me, that's fine. 8 But if it's not affecting their job 9 performance, it's a personal issue, they if they're 10 willing to come to me, that's fine. But I really 11 can't pinpoint anything. 12 MS. ELLIS: Oh, so then possibly a inmate -- a 13 staff individual may be having some outside issues, 14 some personal issues, maybe low self-esteem or -- 15 or some kind of issue that might make them 16 vulnerable? 17 LT. DODSON: It could -- it could be a good 18 scenario. 19 MS. ELLIS: I see. 20 You indicated that -- that you've heard rumors 21 regarding this possible -- possibility of sexual 22 assault, sexual activity, between staff and a 23 inmate. What -- what are the source of those 24 rumors; would they necessarily come from inmates or 25 would they come from staff? 30 1 LT. DODSON: That be -- we're talking years 2 ago. I mean, even when I was the transportation 3 supervisor, I was able to transport a lot of inmate 4 to and from court, staff facilities, you heard 5 rumors, other officers talking. 6 But, I mean, I'm sure there may be some 7 incidents in the agency that was sexual in nature, 8 where a staff may've been accused or a complaint 9 was received. 10 And, like I said, that information I don't 11 have on me. But I can assure you this, if -- if I 12 have information, whether it's a rumor or not, then 13 I would investigate it to make sure that there's 14 some validity to the rumor or complaint, especially 15 as it pertains to a sexual encounter with staff or 16 inmates, which is a zero tolerance for that. 17 And it just would not be tolerated. So I can 18 assure that -- but it's -- any rumors -- or 19 rumors -- a lot of times rumors are out there. So, 20 I mean, it has no credibility. 21 But sometimes you have to look at rumors and 22 check into them, make sure there's no validity to 23 the rumor. And a sexual incident like that I would 24 investigate or at least go further to check someone 25 to see if they've been -- if it's been reported. 31 1 MR. MCFARLAND: How many of those rumors of 2 staff-on-inmate sexual involvement have you 3 personally investigated? 4 LT. DODSON: Just rumors. I mean, we're 5 talking 18 years ago as -- as -- 6 MR. MCFARLAND: Were you at Brevard County 7 Jail? 8 LT. DODSON: Yes. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. 10 LT. DODSON: And, you know, there, I probably 11 notified my supervisor at the time. I mean, you're 12 going back several years. It would've been a 13 rumor. 14 I think years ago we might've had an incident. 15 If you're -- with an officer allegedly taking some 16 type of photos on the outside of the parameter 17 fence or something. I think that was a rumor that 18 I heard. 19 And I did report that at the time. What 20 happened to that, I mean, I was a young officer, I 21 don't recall. But those are the type of rumors 22 that I'm talking about. 23 MS. ELLIS: Wasn't -- 24 MR. MCFARLAND: Sorry. Go ahead. 25 LT. DODSON: Yeah. Just I remember that 32 1 incident. The longer I sit here, I can recall 2 things. 3 But other than that, it -- I may've recalled 4 incidents or rumors where an officer may've 5 received a letter from an inmate. So that 6 information would be forwarded to the chain. And 7 they would have to investigate that. 8 'Cause we don't -- it's also zero tolerance. 9 We don't allow staff to receive correspondence from 10 inmates. So those are the types of rumors I'm 11 referring to. 12 MR. MCFARLAND: Was the correspondence 13 romantic or sexual in nature? 14 LT. DODSON: It probably would be if I 15 reported it to my supervisor. 16 It wouldn't have to be. Just the mere fact 17 that they received a letter. It's zero tolerance; 18 unless that person happened to be a family member 19 and we already got information on that. 20 MR. MCFARLAND: What about female staff, or 21 does the gender of the staff member, do you think, 22 play a part? 23 Would a female correctional officer be more or 24 less likely to be vulnerable to some kind of 25 relationship with an inmate -- your experience? 33 1 LT. DODSON: I have no -- in my experience, I 2 have no information on that, no data to support 3 that. 4 MR. MCFARLAND: So you don't have an opinion 5 or you don't -- don't have data? 6 LT. DODSON: My opinion would be, I see no 7 difference in the female that's working at the jail 8 and the males. They go through an extensive 9 background check. They're professionals. 10 I think it's hard for me to draw a division 11 that -- other than what mandate -- what we're 12 mandated by Florida Model Jail Standards (sic) and 13 other accreditation standards as applies to 14 pat-downs, strip-search with the same gender, 15 opposite sex. 16 MR. MCFARLAND: Do you have a lot of overtime 17 in your facility? 18 LT. DODSON: We're fortunate enough now that 19 we have the staff, I rarely have to use overtime. 20 Not that it -- if I need it, it's there. 21 There's never been a situation where I was 22 told not to use overtime to make sure my posts were 23 covered. 24 MR. MCFARLAND: Can your staff volunteer for 25 overtime? 34 1 LT. DODSON: Yes, they can. 2 MR. MCFARLAND: Would you be suspicious of a 3 staff member who kept volunteering to work overtime 4 in the same unit? 5 LT. DODSON: I probably would. 6 MR. MCFARLAND: And what -- what would -- 7 LT. DODSON: I don't have that -- I have never 8 had that incident happen. 9 But, like I said, we're at a situation where 10 you have the staff, you can always use more staff, 11 say that. But for the posts that we cover and the 12 staff that we utilize, I think we have the adequate 13 staff to supervise the jail, based on our current 14 layout. 15 I've never had a officer, that I'm aware, ask 16 for the same cell or same cell block or -- 17 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. Just to clarify, I want 18 to make sure -- I'm not asking for any 19 hypotheticals or speculation. I'm just asking 20 on -- you know, you indicated that you heard 21 rumors, so I'm just asking about the rumors. 22 But if you haven't -- as you just said, you've 23 never run into a situation where somebody has 24 excessively volunteered for overtime, so then -- 25 LT. DODSON: We've had a officer volunteer for 35 1 overtime, I mean, for the money, for the financial 2 reasons. 3 MR. MCFARLAND: But not for the same cell? 4 LT. DODSON: I've never -- I mean, I may've 5 had a officer ask for medical as opposed to working 6 the maximum security wing, in a overtime capacity, 7 'cause it's something they -- it's their choice. 8 But I've never had an incident where an 9 officer had routinely asked me to work in a 10 specific area of the jail on a routine basis as 11 overtime. 12 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. In your experience, are 13 female inmates more or less likely to be involved 14 in some kind of romantic or sexual relationship, 15 either with another female inmate or a male inmate 16 or with a staff member? 17 LT. DODSON: I think, as females -- I think 18 you'd have a tendency to have females more apt to 19 get into sexual relationships. 20 I think they develop closer bonds amongst 21 themselves, family units. So they have a 22 tendency -- in my opinion and based on what I've 23 read through and PREA, I think they have a tendency 24 to bond more, make a family unit. 25 MR. MCFARLAND: That's based on your 36 1 experience or just you -- 2 LT. DODSON: Well, it's in my experience, too. 3 I mean, I think that females are a little closer -- 4 relate -- bonded. Not that I'm saying there's more 5 sexual assaults and the females are touching. But 6 I think they have a tendency to be more close, more 7 ties with family units inside and outside. So -- 8 MS. ELLIS: And by "family units," you mean 9 other inmates with whom they -- they may bond, to 10 act like they're married or they're -- they're 11 spouses, is that what you -- 12 LT. DODSON: Well, I just think my 13 experience -- I think -- just my opinion on this 14 one. 15 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. 16 LT. DODSON: My experience, that females have 17 a tendency to need people around them to console 18 with more so than a male inmate. 19 When I use the word "family," family as people 20 getting together, living -- even if it's in the 21 jail -- they have a tendency to get together, talk 22 about things more openly than male inmates; 23 therefore, is there a tendency to have more sexual 24 contact, I'm sure there is. 25 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. And how does that 37 1 sexual contact with female inmates play out? 2 I mean, what would the form of that 3 relationship, in your experience, actually look 4 like; in other words, does it involve sexual 5 contact, you know, in the showers or in the cells; 6 does it involve unwanted or wanted touching; what 7 -- what does -- how does that play out, in your 8 experience? 9 LT. DODSON: Well, it's -- in my experience, 10 that we -- as long as we get a complaint and a 11 person comes to us and says that it's unwanted, and 12 we're aware of it, we do investigate it. 13 How it plays out, whether through time, you 14 know, what they've there -- being previously 15 incarcerated or they just know each other from the 16 outside and they've created that bond, it's -- 17 whether it gets to a point where it's actually 18 intentional or consensual sex, it's still zero 19 tolerance. 20 We don't condone any sexual activity of that 21 nature. But once it's reported, and if they get in 22 a situation, and a person reports that incident, it 23 will be reported or investigated. 24 MR. MCFARLAND: Does it make a difference if 25 it's consensual? 38 1 LT. DODSON: Not in our eyes. I mean, to 2 them, it may be. But to us, it's still a 3 violation. And we are -- it's a zero tolerance for 4 that. 5 And most of our officers have no qualms 6 separating these people or reporting the incident. 7 'Cause it just makes for a better-run organization, 8 a better-disciplined institution. So it's a zero 9 tolerance for that. 10 MR. MCFARLAND: When have you run into an 11 officer who did seem to make -- with whom it made a 12 difference, whether it was consensual or not? 13 I mean, you said most of your officers don't 14 have a problem writing them up; what about those 15 that do? 16 LT. DODSON: Well, let me clarify what I meant 17 by "most of our officers." All the officers are 18 mandated to report any consensual or any incidents 19 that's reported to them. You know, it's just a 20 choice of words I used. 21 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. 22 LT. DODSON: I have never ran across an 23 officer that would hesitate to report something. 24 'Cause it's in their best interests to report that, 25 to establish that we have a zero tolerance. I 39 1 mean, I've never had an issue. 2 I can assure you, if I -- if it's reported to 3 any -- any -- my supervisor or myself, it's acted 4 upon, and we do investigate. 5 MR. MCFARLAND: But you testified earlier that 6 you've heard rumors from staff that staff had 7 something going with an inmate; this was years ago 8 when you were a transportation officer. 9 LT. DODSON: I -- clarify. I've heard rumors. 10 MR. MCFARLAND: Yes. 11 LT. DODSON: Whether it's sitting there at the 12 break table, somewhere else, you hear -- or someone 13 may be under an investigation. I just don't have 14 that investigation. 15 But I you can assure you, if someone's 16 reported something to me, a significant sexual 17 assault, our involvement, I'm -- I'll be the first 18 person to report it and to make sure it is. 19 The only thing that I can think of, off the 20 top of my head, was a incident that -- I had been 21 there a few years and someone -- some officer had 22 allegedly taken photos of certain inmates from the 23 outside perimeters -- and I'm just speculating 24 here -- and I have reported that. 25 MR. MCFARLAND: Were they unclothed inmates or 40 1 something -- 2 LT. DODSON: I -- like I said, I don't know. 3 My job at that time, as an officer, was to report 4 that to my supervisor. And I'm aware that that 5 person -- I -- I believe that person was ultimately 6 terminated or suspended or either he resigned. And 7 you'd have to look back and -- 8 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. Okay. And when you say 9 "was taking photos," from -- from where, in -- 10 inside the cell? 11 LT. DODSON: He was outside of the perimeter. 12 At the time we had -- the windows was -- were not 13 frosted, and there was -- even though we had 14 perimeter fencing, it was the ordinance of the 15 county to come up to the fence, because that was a 16 security fence. 17 And I think the allegation was that he was 18 allegedly taking photos of some females that may've 19 been flashing -- 20 MR. MCFARLAND: I see. 21 LT. DODSON: -- him in the window. So he -- 22 that was the allegation. Like I said, you'd have 23 to go dig and find out if they were going to get 24 the investigation. I think that officer was 25 either -- either terminated -- I know for sure 41 1 he's -- he's not with us. The's not with the 2 agency any longer, so -- 3 MR. MCFARLAND: And when was this, was this 18 4 years ago or was it 18 months ago or -- 5 LT. DODSON: If I had to speculate, 1988, '89. 6 And I'm sure there's been other cases since then. 7 But I'm not -- I don't have that information. 8 MR. MCFARLAND: When's the most recent time 9 you've heard a rumor about a staff member having 10 something going with a inmate, sexually, on break, 11 over a beer or off duty; when did the -- when is 12 the last time? 13 LT. DODSON: I haven't heard any rumors 14 lately. I really don't drink off duty. 15 MS. ELLIS: Okay. Lt. Dodson, are you 16 familiar with the report, the BJS report? 17 LT. DODSON: Which report? 18 MS. ELLIS: The report on -- that we've been 19 talking about. 20 LT. DODSON: I'm not familiar with that. 21 MS. ELLIS: Not familiar. Have you heard 22 anything about the report, other than your 23 institution is listed here? 24 LT. DODSON: I've heard that, that's -- 25 MS. ELLIS: What's your reaction to that, sir, 42 1 as an employee? 2 LT. DODSON: As an employee, I feel -- as far 3 as why we're here or -- 4 MS. ELLIS: Yes. 5 LT. DODSON: -- why we are rated high? 6 MS. ELLIS: And -- and what the report 7 indicates about your institution. 8 LT. DODSON: Well, I'd have to read the report 9 in detail. But my understanding is that -- we have 10 listened to Steve earlier -- that we have a higher 11 incident rate of sexual assaults than the 12 institutions that were surveyed. 13 I feel that -- there's some concerns for me 14 how the survey was carried out. If you're asking 15 my opinion, I feel that it's a crucial factor where 16 the amount of morale of the officers that work at 17 the county jail, one of them being myself, that I 18 worked there 21 years, and it's -- some of it's 19 hard to take as it -- I think we do a excellent 20 job. 21 I think, if anything, from any experience as 22 an assessor and having the opportunity to assess 23 many facilities in the State of Florida and my 24 experience with accreditation standards, Florida 25 Model Jail Standards, that I feel that we're 43 1 probably not only the top county facility in the 2 State of Florida but probably in the nation. 3 And I feel that if we have issues that we're 4 all open. We're not up here to try to put up that 5 wall, that we're not open to suggestions and ideas. 6 We just feel, as the officers, the -- for the 7 morale standpoint -- that we do a good job. 8 It's somewhat, you know, sort of shocking that 9 the results came out as they did. And I think 10 there's some concerns, even by the administration. 11 And they can speak to that topic. 12 But I feel a little concern myself, based on 13 the professionalism that I know that our officers 14 possess. And I -- I just find it a little bit 15 alarming myself that the numbers could be that 16 high. 17 'Cause I think we're very approachable by 18 inmates. It's hard for me to walk in a cell block, 19 which I make rounds, I try to spend as much time as 20 I can even as a shift commander in the cell blocks; 21 and I -- I get approached by inmates just -- they 22 just, basically, overwhelm me when I walk in there 23 asking questions, this and that. 24 I think there's ample opportunities for 25 inmates to report any type of sexual misconduct, 44 1 either by just in person, talking to the officers, 2 their family members, request forms, grievance 3 forms, several different -- crime line, they have 4 access to that. They can report any crime. 5 I just -- personally, I feel that it's -- I 6 don't see it. I mean, I'm not here to think 7 that -- you know, if we do identify issues, we're 8 going to take action. 9 And so I think, from the officer's standpoint, 10 I think it's just still mind boggling to think that 11 we're the highest or we have a high rate of the 12 alleged sexual assaults. 13 MS. ELLIS: Thank you. 14 MR. MCFARLAND: Lt. Dodson, I've just given 15 you a copy of Incident Report 07-000512. And it 16 indicates that this report was approved by you. Do 17 recall this incident? 18 LT. DODSON: Yes, I do. 19 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. And you -- you were 20 involved in the investigation? 21 LT. DODSON: I was involved in the preliminary 22 investigation, as I was called down by the pod 23 officers in reference to this inmate. 24 Historically, this inmate has been a 25 behavioral issue in the jail and -- the most 45 1 part -- my opinion he's very manipulative, has 2 manipulated staff to a point to get what he -- what 3 he feels he needs inside in jail. 4 This particular case, I went down to speak to 5 this inmate in reference to a behavioral issue that 6 he was causing; couldn't get along with the other 7 inmates, wasn't listening to directions by the 8 staff. 9 I spoke to him for a long time in what we call 10 the commissary room down in the pods, in private; 11 and, unfortunately, in my opinion, on this one -- 12 but like I said, I'm just a preliminary 13 investigator -- is this was assigned to a dual 14 certified officer, subsequently to a agent on the 15 road from the sex crimes unit. 16 But it sorta felt odd to me that the guy, 17 after a long period of talking to this guy, he felt 18 that he wasn't getting what he wanted, that he 19 brought up the sexual assault to me. 20 Even though I felt he may've been manipulating 21 me, I took immediate action on this. 'Cause he did 22 report sexual assault. And I wanted to assure that 23 this was investigated. So I assigned my dual 24 certified officers to perform the investigation. 25 And, subsequently, it was sent over to -- if I 46 1 can remember the agent on this case here -- 2 Sumlin -- to do the follow-up of the actual 3 investigation into the criminal act. 4 He was separated from the alleged 5 perpetrators. He was seen by mental health. He 6 was placed on a 15-minute watch. And he was seen 7 by medical. 8 MR. MCFARLAND: Did this result in any 9 disciplinary inquiry with respect to the alleged 10 perpetrator? 11 LT. DODSON: Yeah. If I recall, I think all 12 three of these individuals probably were in 13 protective custody. 14 Based on the fact that the investigation was 15 unfounded, by the agent, we didn't feel that it was 16 necessary to actually -- I'd have to go back. But, 17 you know, I don't believe that we pursued any 18 disciplinary actions on the alleged suspects. 19 But we did take action to make sure they were 20 separated, and a keep-separate tag was placed on 21 all inmates involved so that they were not placed 22 together in any future incarcerations or while they 23 were still in jail. 24 MR. MCFARLAND: Attached to the document that 25 I've provided you, did you have something you 47 1 wanted to share? 2 LT. DODSON: Yeah. Major pointed out to me. 3 I had made some notes. I had placed on here, 4 "Inmate William was transferred to Cell 319 and 5 administrative confinement, keep-separate from." 6 So they were probably already in a PC 7 administrative confinement situation. But we -- 8 based upon the notes here -- did place Mr. 9 Williams -- if I could mention him -- sorry if I 10 mention someone's name -- put the suspect -- he was 11 placed in a administrative confinement status 12 pending the outcome of this investigation at the 13 time. 14 MR. MCFARLAND: Attached to the document is 15 Agent Sumlin's seven-page report. You see that? 16 LT. DODSON: Yes, I do. 17 MR. MCFARLAND: And on Page 4, Agent Sumlin 18 states in the third paragraph that "Lt. Dodson then 19 contacted me and advised me of the facts 20 surrounding this incident." 21 He further added that Inmate [REDACTED] has made 22 complaints against other inmates as well as staff 23 members on almost a daily basis. Do you recall 24 making that statement to Agent Sumlin? 25 LT. DODSON: I do. 48 1 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. What difference would 2 that make, in your mind, as to the validity of the 3 alleged sexual assault? 4 LT. DODSON: Well, I actually didn't do the 5 investigation. But I think, history of this 6 inmate, as far as it pertains to the -- what I 7 meant by this complaint, that it wasn't a sexual 8 complaint, it was behavioral complaints, and that's 9 the reason I was down there talking to this 10 individual. 11 He was housed in the mental health section a 12 lot, and he was continuously, on a daily basis, you 13 know, arguing with the officers, banging or tapping 14 on the windows, talking to other inmates, making 15 accusations to other inmates in the upper cells as 16 they were -- he was going to batter them, batter 17 them when they got out. He was a continuous 18 problem. 19 Did it make any -- bear -- I didn't do the 20 investigation, but I support the -- some find -- 21 findings and recommendation of Agent Sumlin, based 22 on his overall investigation, based on the evidence 23 that was presented. 24 I don't have the tapes where he may've 25 interviewed people. But I did make that statement. 49 1 That statement was basically made, on his behavior, 2 while he was incarcerated and that he had been a 3 problem. 4 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. On Page 6 of Agent 5 Sumlin's report on this incident, it states in the 6 last paragraph, "Investigation revealed that [REDACTED] 7 [REDACTED]" -- that the inmate in question reported being 8 sexually battered by a different inmate in November 9 of 2006; the details provided in that case were 10 similar in nature to this reported incident. 11 How is -- in your opinion, is that relevant to 12 whether an allegation of sexual assault is 13 well-founded or not? 14 LT. DODSON: I think it's relevant to know the 15 history of this inmate at the time. 'Cause he had 16 some behavioral issue. And if we had identified a 17 certain case report that was written prior to this, 18 well, the -- nearing the same issues in this one, I 19 think it would be relevant. 20 I think he's still -- the agent's got to base 21 his decision, whether to criminally charge someone 22 based on the evidence at hand, based on the 23 evidence that he's received by the witness, if he 24 witnessed, and the testimony of the officers. 25 I think that's up to the agent to establish 50 1 that probable cause or that -- make sure the 2 elements of the crime are there. He chose to clear 3 this, was unfounded. So I would support his -- the 4 outcome of this. 5 MR. MCFARLAND: But this is actually Agent 6 Victoria Sumlin, isn't it? 7 LT. DODSON: Yeah, Sumlin, Agent Sumlin, 8 correct. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: So it was her conclusion that 10 there -- there wasn't probable cause for a sexual 11 battery? 12 LT. DODSON: Well, she -- basically, in that 13 report she put, "Based on the lack of credibility 14 of [REDACTED], lack of any physical evidence 15 coupled with the -- and independent witness denying 16 the incident ever occurred, this case is unfounded 17 and referred to file for information purposes." 18 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah, I see that it says that. 19 My -- my question is, is an agent of the 20 sheriff's special victims unit the only person who 21 makes the determination whether probable cause is 22 there for prosecution? 23 LT. DODSON: I think the agent has got a lot 24 of resources out there at his disposal. He also 25 has to get his report approved by his supervisor, 51 1 which is on the bottom of the report. He's taken 2 all -- 3 MR. MCFARLAND: Is that Robert Gamon? 4 LT. DODSON: Correct. 5 But he's going to ultimately make the 6 responsibility -- it's his responsibility to -- if 7 he's got a case he's, obviously, going to charge 8 somebody. If he's got the element of crimes, he 9 statutorily required to do that. 10 This case, he's made the -- he cleared it, 11 unfounded, based on the credibility of [REDACTED] 12 [REDACTED], the lack of any physical evidence. 13 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. So is it normal 14 protocol, in these sorts of allegations, for the 15 special victims unit agent or investigator to not 16 consult the prosecutor or a lawyer in the county's 17 -- county attorney's office? 18 LT. DODSON: No. I think that's not a correct 19 statement. The agents, even including myself, we 20 have a lot of contact with the state attorney's 21 office and, more so, the agents do. 22 They have agents that they can call. I have 23 almost daily contact with the state attorney that 24 works out of the jail for the initial appearance 25 court. And she receives most of our packages from 52 1 inside the court. And she is very, very much eager 2 to pursue and prosecute anybody, especially of a 3 sexual crime, as this. 4 'Cause the worse thing -- you know, the 5 thing you don't -- you don't want a person in jail 6 that may be a sexual -- sexually battering people, 7 and they get released, and they sexually batter 8 people outside. 9 So we're -- we'll -- we're going to 10 investigate these incidents to the fullest. And if 11 we can make a case, we -- there's going to be a 12 case made. And we're going to pursue it or send 13 that to the state attorney. 14 And I assure you, the state attorney will 15 probably -- will prosecute based on the evidence 16 that we've given him. 17 MR. MCFARLAND: Well, talking about this, this 18 case, 512, am I reading this correctly, that the 19 case was referred not to the -- Maj. Hibbs, I'd 20 appreciate it if you just -- if you would just not 21 influence his testimony and -- and -- 22 LT. DODSON: Well, he's not. He just showed 23 me something else, make sure that I mentioned about 24 the 15-minute watch that the inmate was on. 25 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. My question is, the -- 53 1 it appears that this case was referred not to the 2 -- for further investigation by anybody in the 3 prosecutor's office but to -- "filed for 4 information purposes." 5 LT. DODSON: Well, that -- that's because the 6 agent -- I can't speak on his behalf now. But, 7 routinely, the agents are -- correlation -- they're 8 speaking with the state attorney and making sure, 9 you know, do they have enough to make a case. 10 MR. MCFARLAND: All right. I'm just talking 11 about this case. 12 LT. DODSON: That was recalled -- 13 MR. MCFARLAND: To your knowledge, this case 14 didn't go any further than Agent Victoria Sumlin, 15 is that -- 16 LT. DODSON: I have no knowledge to -- 17 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. So while you have a lot 18 of contact with a prosecutor, it is not standard 19 operating procedure for every allegation of sexual 20 battery to be referred for review by a prosecutor; 21 is that correct? 22 LT. DODSON: I -- I have no infor- -- I would 23 say that if they're charged, obviously, it's going 24 to the state attorney. I don't know if a state 25 attorney's reviewing each one of these cases 54 1 through the agents. 2 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. So you don't know. 3 Going back to the Page 1 of the incident 4 report; it states that "Lt. Dodson asked the 5 alleged victim why he waited so long to report the 6 incident." 7 Now, if I'm reading this correctly, the 8 incident is alleged to have occurred between 6:30 9 and 7:00 in the morning on February 8 of last year. 10 And the victim came, reported it at 11:00 -- 10:15 11 in the evening, that same day, to the -- to this 12 initial officer. Does -- does that seem like 13 waiting a long time? 14 LT. DODSON: None at all. What I referred to 15 in that report -- because I was actually involved 16 (sic). 17 I had spoken to [REDACTED] that morning and 18 throughout the day, and my question to him, why he 19 waited so long to report it to me when he had the 20 opportunity to report it to me, has no bearing on 21 the outcome of the case. 22 Whether he reported it two weeks later, or 23 whatever, we're still going to investigate and go 24 through their -- what I was referring to, that 25 report is that I had already spoken to this inmate 55 1 prior to me actually coming back down there; and I 2 was wondering whey he waited so long to tell me, 3 which I had already spoken to him in private; and 4 he had every opportunity to tell me. 5 It doesn't have any reflection on how I'm 6 going to pursue any investigation. You know, if he 7 said he was sexually assaulted, in my opinion, he 8 was sexual assaulted, and we're going to 9 investigate it. 10 MR. MCFARLAND: But it may not go to the 11 prosecutor? 12 LT. DODSON: It may not, based on the outcome 13 of the agent. 14 MS. ELLIS: Actually, I had that same 15 question. I was wondering what bearing that might 16 have on any outcome. 17 Was this -- was this inmate then offered any 18 kind of victim availability, in terms of talking 19 with somebody else regarding the incident? 20 LT. DODSON: Yes, he was. Mental health. We 21 would -- 22 MS. ELLIS: And what happens with that 23 process? 24 Here is a person who alleges that he's been -- 25 he's been sexually assaulted. 56 1 LT. DODSON: We notify mental health. 2 Normally, we have someone on duty. If this is 3 after hours, they'll get a copy of the report. 4 And we'll make contact with them and say that 5 we have a alleged sexual battery or an -- or 6 whether -- inappropriate contact between inmates. 7 They get that information, and they come down and 8 counsel the inmate. And they keep a file on him. 9 You can speak to the mental health director 10 more depth on that. But we do make the 11 notification. And they will speak with the -- 12 Joiner -- I think, if I can remember, Joiner was -- 13 was probably already a client of mental health. 14 So -- so they were notified. 15 MS. ELLIS: I think I read that -- or you 16 indicated that he also sought medical personnel as 17 well. 18 LT. DODSON: Correct. 19 MS. ELLIS: And how soon did that occur? 20 LT. DODSON: That would happen pretty much 21 immediately. We have a in-house medical unit. And 22 once he gets sent down to medical, they'll make a 23 determination whether he needs any further 24 treatment. If he needs to be sent out to the 25 hospital, we do so. 57 1 MS. ELLIS: So once the -- once he made the 2 initial report, then the next step was that he saw 3 someone, a medical professional? 4 LT. DODSON: Correct. 5 MS. ELLIS: I see. And from there he then saw 6 someone who addressed, perhaps, the psychological 7 issues surrounding the assault. 8 LT. DODSON: Correct. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: Lt. Dodson, is someone who's 10 been sexual assaulted more likely to be involved in 11 future sexual assaults, as a predator or as a 12 victim, in your experience, or do you have any 13 experience in that? 14 LT. DODSON: Correct. I think if -- you know, 15 I don't have the statistical data in the jail. But 16 I think, case example, [REDACTED] had a previous 17 encounter. And that's why he was in protective 18 custody, under mental health care, and he was also 19 a behavioral inmate. 20 But I think, obviously, there is a concern, if 21 you've been sexually assaulted, that we have to 22 take note of that and keep track of this person. 23 And I think he could be subject to being sexually 24 battered in the future. 25 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. So why was this 58 1 individual, who was under protective custody, was a 2 mental-health patient, why was he triple-bunked 3 with an individual who, in this case, is the 4 alleged perpetrator, is evidently related to one of 5 his sexual -- the -- the victim's a -- a victim of 6 the -- it gets confusing when we can't use the 7 names. 8 But it says that the alleged sexual assault 9 victim, this inmate, was placed in a cell with an 10 individual who forced him to perform oral sex by 11 threatening him with the fact that -- or the 12 allegation -- that the perpetrators was related to 13 the victim of an outside sexual assault by this -- 14 this complainant. 15 LT. DODSON: Well, again, that's alleged. I 16 have no information to substantiate that the person 17 had any relatives that he was related to at the 18 time. 19 This guy was under mental-health watch because 20 of the 15-minute watch that was placed on him in 21 future incarcerations. He was PC. PCs are 22 generally, based on the restraints that we have at 23 the jail, PCs are normally placed with other PCs, 24 'cause we have a zero tolerance to place the 25 inmates by themselves. We don't allow inmates to 59 1 be placed in a cell by themselves unless on direct 2 watch. 3 We have a very streamlined classification unit 4 that ensures that people -- we try to place them in 5 appropriate areas. 6 I have no information that this inmate had any 7 interaction with Williams or any prior relative 8 that he may have allegedly sexually assaulted. I 9 mean, that's -- so this was brought up during the 10 investigation. 11 And, like I said, the allegations to the 12 investigation was unfounded by the agent. And we 13 did take appropriate action once the incident 14 occurred. 15 MR. MCFARLAND: All right. What -- when you 16 heard that this inmate was alleging that there 17 was -- that one of his cellmates was related to one 18 of the victims of this -- of this outside crime, 19 what did you do about seeing if that was true? 20 LT. DODSON: Well, that would be part of the 21 investigation by Agent Sumlin. Once we have 22 information, we keep -- we do a keep-separate from. 23 If there's any issues that we feel these inmates 24 shouldn't be together, we do -- we take the 25 appropriate steps to do a keep-separate from. We 60 1 don't take any chances. 2 We had no prior knowledge or information that 3 Mr. -- the suspect here, in this case, had any 4 doings or any relationships with [REDACTED] or his 5 family members at the time. And it's still all 6 alleged information based on [REDACTED]. I'm sorry for 7 using his name. 8 MR. MCFARLAND: Lieutenant, I'm handing you 9 another incident report. This is 07-001336. Were 10 you involved in this investigation? 11 LT. DODSON: Yes, I was. 12 MR. MCFARLAND: Does this refresh your 13 recollection? 14 LT. DODSON: Yes, it does. 15 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. Did you have a chance 16 to study this before today? 17 LT. DODSON: Yes, I did. 18 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. So what was your 19 involvement in this investigation? 20 LT. DODSON: If I can recall, I was over at 21 the main unit, and one of the officers over at 22 the -- what we call the tent area had gained 23 information. 24 I guess the inmates, typically, they send out 25 request forms. That's one of their avenues to 61 1 report any issues that they may be having. 2 Is this particular case, I think it was five 3 or six inmates had sent in a request form stating 4 that this particular inmate was walking around 5 making sexual proposals towards inmates. And it 6 was alleged that that -- the one particular inmate 7 had been touched by this suspect. 8 I was -- I was notified. And I took the time 9 out of my shift to make sure this guy was brought 10 over to me, personally, in my office. So I take 11 these cases very serious, especially sexual 12 batteries or any sexual misconduct. 13 He was brought over. I spoke to this 14 gentleman for a long period of time. And I had my 15 -- one of my dual certified officer that I assigned 16 to do the investigation present. 17 If I can recall, he stated basically that the 18 inmate had a -- was watching him in the shower. He 19 related to me, at the time, there was no touching, 20 whatsoever, that he just merely wanted the guy out 21 of there; which we did do that. 22 During the investigation by Melek and myself, 23 it appeared to be a lot of inconsistency with the 24 statements that they were sending out, which 25 really -- really was hard for me to substantiate 62 1 any criminal violation or act. 2 But it was enough for me to at least take 3 immediate action and separate these individuals. 4 And we did go so far, to let these individuals talk 5 to mental health. 6 I think he was a little reluctant to speak to 7 mental health. But it's part of our protocol to do 8 that. I truly (sic) really believe that he wanted 9 to pursue any type of a criminal investigation as 10 was afraid. He didn't want to testify. 11 I said, "Well, you know, if you were sexually 12 assaulted or some -- someone inappropriately touch 13 you, we'll take that -- we will assist you, we'll 14 make sure that the person is prosecuted." And that 15 was pretty much the gist of it. 16 He was sent back. The individual was removed 17 from there. But because of the lack of the 18 evidence, physical evidence, and the inconsistency 19 of the testimonies, we technically didn't take 20 disciplinary action or the other inmate. But we 21 did have him removed. 22 And I think Officer Webster was involved here. 23 And she's also a dual certified officer. And she 24 questioned a lot of inmates who are at the tent 25 area. We could really never substantiate any 63 1 criminal act, than other than the inmate didn't like 2 him, and they wanted him out of there. 3 MR. MCFARLAND: The report indicates that the 4 alleged victim was sent to mental health. Did you 5 review the report of mental health or get any 6 information about what the inmate may have divulged 7 about the incident from mental health? 8 LT. DODSON: No. That's mostly confidential. 9 I will -- the mental health will do a special 10 security request or they will come back to us and 11 tell us if the person's okay to be housed where we 12 have them or if they were -- if they request that 13 he be transferred somewhere else, we'll look at 14 that. 15 I don't engage in any conversation, as far as 16 the person's medical -- whatever he told mental 17 health, the mental health -- but mental health, I'm 18 sure, is obligated to tell us information from a 19 security stance so we can take the appropriate 20 action or -- 21 MR. MCFARLAND: These are -- 22 LT. DODSON: -- seen by mental health. 23 MR. MCFARLAND: I'm kinda confused then. 24 Maj. Hibbs, does the mental health unit have 25 an obligation or duty to divulge any criminal 64 1 activity that may come to their attention? 2 MAJ. HIBBS: Yes, they do. 3 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. So, Lt. Dodson, did you 4 ask mental health about anything that this inmate 5 may have shared that would be relevant to the 6 investigation of whether a sexual battery -- 7 LT. DODSON: Yes, I did. 8 I guess to clarify it, I thought you were 9 talking about the mental -- the medical issues. If 10 there was any issue -- if there's any information 11 that mental health perceives of a criminal nature, 12 they do discuss that with me. 13 This particular inmate, I can't recall. I 14 believe it was a female mental-health lady that I 15 spoke to. And she did come to my office, and we 16 did have a conversation about this individual. 17 And she said he was okay to be housed where he 18 was. There was no criminal information that he 19 gave her that would suggest that I would need to 20 pursue -- aggressively pursue -- any more 21 investigations than what I had already proceeded 22 with. But -- 23 MR. MCFARLAND: What did you ask the 24 mental-health professional about her interview 25 with -- with this -- 65 1 LT. DODSON: I believe I just asked her was he 2 -- I told her what he had told us. And -- and 3 based on her -- and she did substantiate what he 4 had told me, that he was -- basically, he didn't 5 like the guy in there. 6 And he was walking around, at the time, making 7 sexual proposals. They thought he was joking. But 8 he had never acted on it, as far as -- other than 9 just watching them take a shower. And in one case, 10 I guess there was some activity around his -- on -- 11 but he was in an open dorm. 12 And -- but I do consult mental health. And 13 they are very -- we have a close relationship with 14 the mental-health people. And, like I said, any 15 criminal activity that they uncover they do report 16 to security. 17 MR. MCFARLAND: Isn't it true that there was 18 evidence that there was, in fact, more than just 19 voyeurism going on in the shower, but rather that 20 this victim had given a sworn written statement 21 that, the alleged assailant had touched his 22 genitals and made an obvious sexual advance on him? 23 LT. DODSON: That's what -- it was two or 24 three statements that he made. I think the 25 original request form stated that -- I have to go 66 1 back. 2 But based on the interrogation or the question 3 by Melek and myself, he denied that he got touched, 4 in my presence, when I interviewed him. Now, when 5 Officer Melek questioned him further, I think he 6 had a inconsistency with his statement. 7 And I think it came down to the point that he 8 just -- the inmates involved here did not want him 9 in that tent area. And we did take appropriate 10 action to remove him and -- 11 MR. MCFARLAND: "Him" being the alleged 12 assailant? 13 LT. DODSON: The alleged -- 14 MR. MCFARLAND: The alleged assailant? 15 LT. DODSON: Correct. 16 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. And the -- Deputy 17 Melek's conclusion, I have a copy of that last page 18 of the -- under disposition -- 19 LT. DODSON: Uh-huh. 20 MR. MCFARLAND: -- this is another case that 21 was closed for information only. What is an I-8 -- 22 I-8 Information Only, what does that mean, or do 23 you know? 24 LT. DODSON: It's just an information report 25 when she closed -- she cleared it, she did not 67 1 pursue any criminal charges on anyone. This report 2 would be filed up in our property section in 3 Parkway -- 4 MR. MCFARLAND: So I -- 5 LT. DODSON: -- section. 6 MR. MCFARLAND: So when it says "Closed as I-8 7 Information Only," that means it was not referred 8 for prosecution? 9 LT. DODSON: Correct. 10 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. And the next sentence 11 says, "There's not enough evidence to determine if 12 the elements of the crime, battery, exist." 13 Did you concur with that conclusion? 14 LT. DODSON: I concurred that based on my 15 questioning of the inmate. 'Cause he had told me 16 that he -- he actually didn't get touched. I think 17 she based her conclusion on the fact -- it was the 18 inconsistencies in the statement. 19 And I -- just by my conversation, inmate -- 20 the inmate did not want to pursue anything. And 21 we -- to be honest with you, when I first pulled 22 him over there, I was more of the aggressor, trying 23 to get him to actually come forth, if there was a 24 crime committed, that he needed to pursue criminal 25 prosecution. 68 1 And I assured him that we would do the case 2 report and send it to the state attorney, referred 3 to any sex unit that we had. I think the inmate 4 was more just -- his goal was to get the inmate out 5 of there. 6 Our goal was to make sure they were separated 7 so that we could get him the help that he needed, 8 the victim. And I felt, at this time, we took the 9 appropriate action. 10 The investigation was conducted by a dual 11 certified officer certified in the State of 12 Florida. She came to the conclusion that there -- 13 on a -- enough elements of the crime there for her 14 to follow a criminal prosecution. 15 And the reluctancy of the victim not wanting 16 to testify in open court, I think it does play a 17 lot in what was her -- what -- how she did her 18 disposition here. 19 So I do concur with her disposition. I concur 20 with it, based on my involvement in this case, this 21 particular case. 22 MR. MCFARLAND: Deputy Melek goes on to say, 23 "No charges were pressed. The suspected battery is 24 viewed as a mutually combative situation." 25 What difference does that make, as far as 69 1 whether to -- whether a crime of battery has 2 occurred, that it was mutually combative? 3 LT. DODSON: Well, a lot of times we have -- 4 we do have -- it may be a poor choice here. I do 5 agree that a battery's a battery. But a lot of 6 times we have inmates that engage in fights. 7 One's yelling at one. One's calling somebody 8 a name. They simultaneously start a fight in the 9 day room. That's considered a mutually combative 10 incident. It'd be hard pressed for the state to 11 prosecute something like that. 12 This particular case, based on her -- maybe 13 she has more information than what she's written 14 down based on her evidence and her witness 15 statements. 16 She put "mutually combative," meaning that 17 maybe he touched him or maybe -- I don't know. I 18 don't have those detailed facts here. I just know, 19 based on my conversation with this inmate, as I 20 previously mentioned, I do support her findings. 21 Whether she put down a "mutually combative 22 situation," maybe it was a poor choice of words to 23 use there. But her -- her -- 24 MR. MCFARLAND: Her last sentence is "There 25 was not an officer witness who witnessed the 70 1 incident." 2 Is that a prerequisite for a criminal 3 prosecution, that an officer actually see a sexual 4 assault? 5 LT. DODSON: No, sir. I think she just put 6 that down as added information. It's always 7 comforting, you know, if you go to the state 8 attorney, if we do have witnesses. From a 9 officer's standpoint, that's a good witness, a 10 credible witness. 11 It doesn't have any bearing on whether we're 12 going to charge a person with battery. That's 13 going to be based on the evidence we have, the 14 elements of the crime, victim. 15 MR. MCFARLAND: But this never got beyond the 16 -- Deputy Melek; is that correct? 17 LT. DODSON: No, sir. I'd called -- I had 18 called the agent on this one to make sure that, you 19 know, if he -- if he concurred with our findings 20 and whether -- if he wanted to take any further 21 action. He concurred with what we had came up with 22 and said it -- at the most you would probably have 23 simple battery. 24 And then based on her investigation, she ruled 25 out -- it was more of a -- just -- I really don't 71 1 know if she could even clarify that he actually got 2 touched. I think it was more that he just wanted 3 the guy out of there. 4 And it was another inmate -- the -- based on 5 another inmate that came forward and -- and 6 gave his -- giving us that -- giving us that 7 information that we were able to act on this. 8 MR. MCFARLAND: So you said that you talked to 9 the agent. Are you talking about somebody in the 10 prosecutor's office or someone in special victims 11 unit? 12 LT. DODSON: Someone from the special victims 13 unit. 14 MR. MCFARLAND: All right. So, in this case, 15 nobody consulted any -- any lawyers about whether 16 the probable cause had been reached for a sexual 17 assault? 18 LT. DODSON: No. That would be up to the 19 deputy investigating it. 20 MR. MCFARLAND: In this case, Deputy Melek? 21 LT. DODSON: Correct. 22 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. Lieutenant, I'm looking 23 at Incident 1635 and -- do you -- do you have a 24 copy of that? 25 I don't have extra copies of that one. But do 72 1 you have access to the documents that were produced 2 by the county to this Panel? 3 MAJ. HIBBS: Here we go. 4 MR. MCFARLAND: Thank you, Commander. 5 LT. DODSON: I have one. 6 MAJ. HIBBS: Oh, no. I have -- I have one. I 7 just want to make sure Lt. Dodson has it. 8 Thank you. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: Thank you. 10 Do you recall being involved in this 11 investigation, an incident on May 2nd of last year? 12 LT. DODSON: Just give me one moment to read 13 over it. 14 MR. MCFARLAND: Sure. Take your time. 15 LT. DODSON: Yes. That was a decline to 16 prosecute. 17 MR. MCFARLAND: What was your involvement in 18 this? 19 LT. DODSON: Probably -- looks like I approved 20 their initial report. I was probably the acting 21 shift commander on duty. 22 MR. MCFARLAND: Well, this initial -- the 23 narrative on Page 1 is by correctional officer 24 DuBois or DuBoise; is that right? 25 LT. DODSON: Correct. 73 1 MR. MCFARLAND: So what was your involvement? 2 Yeah, I see that it says that were to request 3 approved. Looks like N for "No" by -- by you; is 4 that correct? 5 LT. DODSON: Correct. 6 MR. MCFARLAND: And you approved 7 administrative lockdown for the alleged aggressor; 8 is that right? 9 LT. DODSON: Correct. 10 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. Did you interview any 11 of the parties? 12 LT. DODSON: I don't believe I had actually 13 interviewed anybody here. I had assigned -- my 14 dual certified officers conduct an investigation on 15 this. And I did approve their report. 16 MR. MCFARLAND: Is Officer DuBois a dual 17 certified? 18 LT. DODSON: No, she's not. 19 MR. MCFARLAND: So who was the dual certified 20 officer? 21 LT. DODSON: Let me see who I assigned here. 22 MR. MCFARLAND: Is it Sgt. Davis? 23 LT. DODSON: He's the shift supervisor. It's 24 actually Deputy Melek again that was assigned to 25 this case. 74 1 MR. MCFARLAND: From -- that's you. 2 LT. DODSON: That's by me. 3 But it -- she could've been assigned by the 4 shift -- 'cause it happened -- routinely, how it 5 works, like I previously mentioned, we have certain 6 amount of dual certified people in each shift. 7 So that shift commander or that sergeant who 8 is on duty has those support people to call from. 9 So he probably assigned her to do that report. 10 MR. MCFARLAND: What about Officer Michael 11 Hatton that's -- on the last page -- names him as 12 an officer involved, what -- 13 LT. DODSON: He's a disciplinary board member. 14 MR. MCFARLAND: Oh. 15 CMDR. JETER: So we did -- this inmate was 16 charged in-house. So he had a disciplinary 17 hearing. So the alleged aggressor, as a result of 18 this -- this complaint, was formally disciplined; 19 is that correct? 20 LT. DODSON: Correct; or he went before a 21 disciplinary hearing. It was investigated also by 22 a Disciplinary Investigator Banks. I don't know if 23 I have the results of it here. 24 But whether -- I don't have the information, 25 whether he got any time. Let me see. We'd 75 1 probably have to refer that to the classification 2 unit. 3 But he did go before a board. I don't know if 4 he was found -- I'm sure he was found guilty. I 5 don't have the information right here. But he did 6 go through the due process. And, also, we did 7 investigate it by an in-house dual certified 8 officer and an outside agent. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: "Outside," as in special 10 victims unit? 11 LT. DODSON: Special victims unit. 12 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. Outside the sheriff? 13 LT. DODSON: No. Within the sheriff 14 department. 15 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. 16 Your -- or Sgt. Davis indicates, at the bottom 17 of Page 1, that -- that Officer DuBois indicated 18 that this wasn't the first time that this alleged 19 assailant had been accused of this kind of 20 behavior; is that correct? 21 LT. DODSON: It's in the report. I mean, I 22 don't have any information. I have to go back and 23 review his file. But, you know, I don't know what 24 type of alleged complaint that she may've received 25 from him before, if it was the same one. 76 1 MR. MCFARLAND: There's a -- one of the 2 reports that the county provided us, Case Report 3 07-124298, indicates that there was an incident 4 involving a similar incident by this alleged 5 assailant a few weeks before this event. 6 Do you have that report? 7 LT. DODSON: I have -- I have copies -- came 8 off of that report. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: In this report it indicates 10 that the date of incident was about a week and a 11 half before the report date of May 3, '07, again in 12 the same tent. 13 And here, if you'll look on Page 6 of Melek's 14 investigation, the same inmate, alleged victim, 15 says that he was assaulted while sleeping; is that 16 correct? 17 LT. DODSON: Correct. 18 MR. MCFARLAND: Do you have personal knowledge 19 of or recollect this incident? 20 LT. DODSON: I can recall the incident. 21 MR. MCFARLAND: I don't see your name showing 22 up it this. So I -- 23 LT. DODSON: Well, I recall this, yeah, 'cause 24 I approved the report on the back, 'cause I read 25 all the reports when they come to me. 77 1 But, again, I mean, based -- Deputy Melek's 2 who did the investigation, based on her 3 information, she did the information only, I think. 4 MR. MCFARLAND: Well, I'm -- I -- 5 LT. DODSON: I mean, the victim himself -- I 6 mean, we concluded -- we conducted the 7 investigation. The problem is with the criminal 8 aspect of it. The inmate did not want to press 9 charges. In the paragraph in -- for whatever 10 reason. 11 But, I mean, we still investigate it. It's 12 hard pressed to criminally charge somebody when you 13 have a victim that's not willing to testify or 14 either press charges. 15 I mean, originally the complaint was brought 16 to our attention based on an incident report or a 17 complaint received. We took appropriate action 18 notifying the -- get the shift sergeant involved, 19 notifying a dual certified officer to conduct the 20 investigation portion of it, the criminal aspect of 21 it. 22 She concluded in her investigation that it was 23 information only. She didn't have enough evidence 24 to determine if the elements of the crime there 25 existed. No charges pressed. 78 1 Then, again, she put in there "No officer 2 witness," which has no bearing on the -- whether 3 charges will be filed. 4 But I think, reading the case report, it looks 5 like the inmate was very reluctant and, at one 6 point, didn't even want to press charges. So I'd 7 be hard-pressed, you know, to criminally charge a 8 guy, if he's not willing to testify. 9 We did take appropriate action, make sure 10 these people were separated. I'd have to look on 11 here. It may not be noted, but he was -- he was 12 seen by mental health. 13 MR. MCFARLAND: We're talking about the 14 April '07 incident with this -- this same inmate 15 and the same suspect. 16 LT. DODSON: Do I have the -- 17 MR. MCFARLAND: In other words, 4298; is that 18 what you're talking about? 19 LT. DODSON: Well, the one you gave me. 20 MR. MCFARLAND: Well, I've given you both 21 there. So just -- just so we're clear, Incident 22 1635 involves the same assailant, the same victim, 23 involving the same type of sexual activity two 24 weeks or three weeks apart, in the same tent, with 25 the same disposition -- 79 1 LT. DODSON: Uh-huh. 2 MR. MCFARLAND: -- as in 4298, which allegedly 3 occurred a couple -- three weeks before. 4 LT. DODSON: Okay. I -- I think -- 5 MR. MCFARLAND: My question, Lieutenant, is, 6 what does it take to get a matter referred to a 7 prosecutor for criminal assault when the same 8 thing's happened within a month involving the same 9 individuals; is it just enough to keep them 10 separate? 11 LT. DODSON: No. We do -- we do separate 12 them. We do the investigation. It's based on the 13 -- whatever developed in the investigation, the 14 evidence. The person -- this was a declined to 15 prosecute on one of them. 16 This guy was reluctant to want to press 17 charges. If the elements of the crime does not 18 fit, and the person does not want to pursue any 19 criminal charges, it's -- it's difficult to go 20 before the prosecutor and get someone prosecuted. 21 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. Well, you ever -- did 22 anyone ever consult a prosecutor in either of these 23 cases? 24 LT. DODSON: I would -- you'd have to talk to 25 the agent. I mean, we do or they do. They have 80 1 their certain protocols in place. They -- they've 2 investigated several invest- -- I mean, you're 3 looking at agents, in the most part, who are the 4 cream of the crop there. 5 It went through their system. And they've 6 selected the agents. They're applied to be agents. 7 These agents will do everything in their power to 8 make sure that if they can prosecute or have the 9 evidence to prosecute somebody, they're going to do 10 it. 11 MR. MCFARLAND: But what -- what indication do 12 you have, in Deputy Melek's eight-page report, that 13 she ever spoke with anybody in the prosecutor's 14 office about this 4298 incident? 15 LT. DODSON: Well, I don't think she would -- 16 she would be mandated to speak to the prosecution 17 at no time. 18 MR. MCFARLAND: No. Would -- would you expect 19 there to be something in the report had she talked 20 with a prosecutor about it? 21 LT. DODSON: Yes, I would. 22 MR. MCFARLAND: So, is it reasonable for the 23 Panel to conclude that there wasn't any contact 24 between your SVU unit, Deputy Melek and the 25 prosecutor, if it isn't -- doesn't show up in the 81 1 incident report? 2 LT. DODSON: Well, Deputy Melek would've been 3 the lead investigator. Whether she even referred 4 this, I'd have to go back and read it. I don't see 5 that she referred it to -- she made the conclusion 6 to -- 7 MR. MCFARLAND: Well, look at Page 7. That's 8 her disposition. Once again, "Case closed as I-8 9 Information Only," not as a -- 10 LT. DODSON: As a dual certified officer, 11 certified in the State of Florida, she made the 12 decision based on the elements of the crime that's 13 existed, the evidence that she was able to collect 14 and the testimony. 15 She made the determination to close it as 16 Information Only, which I support that, based on 17 the reluctancy of the victim, who didn't want to 18 testify or pursue any further investigation. 19 She would not have to refer to a state 20 attorney at that time. If she needed to, she 21 could. She may have referred to a special victims 22 unit. She doesn't state it here. Normally, it 23 would be stated. 24 But I think she felt confident, based on 25 probable cause and her experience and training, 82 1 that she felt that this would've been an 2 Information Only. She did not want to pursue this 3 any further, so she did not criminally charge 4 anyone. 5 MR. MCFARLAND: You now, I'm looking at 1336, 6 which was -- we've just talked about. This was the 7 -- an incident several weeks before this, April 10. 8 Remember, we were just talking about, in Incident 9 1336, one also investigated by Deputy Melek? 10 LT. DODSON: Correct. 11 MR. MCFARLAND: Take a look at Page 6, under 12 "Disposition," on 1336. 13 LT. DODSON: Well, I don't have a page which 14 -- you're looking at the case report? 15 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. The case report is 16 07-104866. That's the review copy by Roy Foster. 17 But it's relating to Incident 1336. 18 LT. DODSON: I can't find the -- what -- what 19 was the last numbers, the case report number? 20 MR. MCFARLAND: Deputy Melek's is 07-104866, 21 report date April 15. Got that? 22 LT. DODSON: I don't seem to have that report. 23 Must've misplaced it. No. That's 587. 24 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. This is the two pages 25 that I just handed out to -- 83 1 LT. DODSON: 866? 2 MR. MCFARLAND: Yes. 3 LT. DODSON: I got it. 4 MR. MCFARLAND: All right. 5 LT. DODSON: I remember. 6 MR. MCFARLAND: See the disposition, 7 Section 3, Page 6? 8 LT. DODSON: Correct. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: Compare that to Deputy Melek's 10 disposition in 4298 a couple of weeks later. 11 LT. DODSON: Okay. 12 MR. MCFARLAND: Do you notice that they are 13 word-for-word the same, with the exception of the 14 one sentence about "Mutually Combative" in 4866? 15 This -- both of them read, "This case is 16 closed as "I-8, Information Only. There is not 17 enough evidence to determine if the elements of the 18 crime, battery, exist. No charges were pressed." 19 Then in 486 -- 4866 she says the thing about 20 "Mutually Combative." Then the last sentence is 21 identical. "There was not an officer witness who 22 witnessed" any -- or "the incident." 23 LT. DODSON: That's how she -- that was her 24 disposition statement. Whether they're similar or 25 not, that's the conclusion she came up with in the 84 1 investigation. 2 MR. MCFARLAND: Did you ever talk to her as a 3 fellow dual certified investigator? 4 LT. DODSON: Yes, I do. 5 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. Did you ever talk to 6 her about her disposition in either of these cases? 7 LT. DODSON: Yes, I have. I actually approved 8 all case reports coming to the jail. And she's one 9 of my top dual certified officer. She's very 10 thorough, very energetic. 11 She has a lot of compassion for the jail 12 inmates. She -- all people would go out of her way 13 (sic) to ensure that if she could criminally charge 14 somebody, she would do so. 15 Whether the disposition are identical or the 16 same, the -- still -- conclusion is that she 17 investigated; she didn't have the elements to 18 criminally charge someone based on the evidentiary 19 items that was present. 20 So that's why she came up with her -- I wasn't 21 there when she was actually witnessing most of 22 these inmates or -- so whatever conclusion she came 23 up with I support or would have not assign -- I 24 would not've approved the report if I felt there 25 needed to be some further action taken. 85 1 MR. MCFARLAND: So it didn't trouble you that 2 the language was virtually identical involving -- 3 LT. DODSON: Not at all. The profession, law 4 enforcement, corrections, we have a tendency -- her 5 investigation's different, whether she put the same 6 disposition down, it's the same identical 7 wording -- a little bit different. 8 It's just a matter of how she performed as an 9 officer. As you can look at the -- I think the 10 incident reports are very thorough. In other 11 words, if she -- if she felt that she needed to 12 refer it to the general crimes unit or sex crime 13 unit, she would do so. So, I support her findings. 14 You know, whether I need to go back and speak 15 to her and maybe have her reword her disposition so 16 they're not identical, that is something I can look 17 at. But I don't see an issue, personally, from my 18 standpoint, whether they're the same or not. 19 It could be -- the simple disposition could be 20 that she criminally charged -- she placed charges 21 on a person based on the evidence she had and ever 22 -- all her cases similar to that could be the same. 23 So, if we're going to analyze whether her 24 disposition is exactly -- written the same, I have 25 no issue with that. 86 1 MS. ELLIS: Lt. Dodson. 2 LT. DODSON: Yes. 3 MS. ELLIS: The statement "There was not an 4 officer witness who witnessed any incident," is 5 that pretty standard on all dispositions when -- 6 when -- 7 LT. DODSON: Sometimes it is. 8 I didn't mean to cut you off. 9 MS. ELLIS: Well, and I guess what I wanted to 10 say, at that point, is when a case has been 11 unfounded, is that just kinda the routine kinda 12 statement that indicates that this was one of the 13 elements to determine whether or not the case was 14 founded or unfounded? 15 LT. DODSON: No, it's not. 16 Like I said earlier, a battery is a battery. 17 You'd have to -- an officer doesn't have to be 18 present or witness a battery. It's based on the 19 evidence that's submitted. 20 And during the investigation, I think, 21 routinely, it's good to have a officer witness, 22 something, for the state. It's not a determining 23 factor, whether the person's going to be prosecuted 24 or a criminal charge is going to get placed. 25 I think a lot of the incident reports that we 87 1 do in the jail, especially as it pertains to a 2 mutually combative fight or someone that's alleged 3 that they didn't get tray, they may say in there 4 that a officer was present and witnessed it. So, I 5 think it's just -- it has no bearing on her outcome 6 of her case or her -- 7 MS. ELLIS: Would you say -- would you say 8 that officers generally or sometimes do, in fact, 9 witness these incidents to a great extent? 10 LT. DODSON: I think a lot of the fights, most 11 definitely. We have a lot of incidents during 12 feeding that inmates, for some reason, they get 13 into altercations, and it's witnessed by the 14 officer. 15 And those are fairly easy to investigate, 16 'cause you've got an eyewitness from an officer. 17 And a lot of times it may happen where it may be 18 witnessed by a dual certified officer, when they're 19 present. 20 So it makes the case go a lot easier, when 21 you've got an officer that witnessed something. 22 But, normally, they're not witnessed by officers -- 23 has no bearing on the outcome of the case. 24 I think it's good for the victim, if an 25 officer does witness something, and if that 88 1 testimony can be heard by the officer versus the 2 inmate witness, if you have -- 3 MR. MCFARLAND: Lieutenant, looking at Page 6 4 of 4298, this is Deputy Melek's investigation of 5 the first incident involving the same suspect and 6 victim. 7 At the bottom she says that the victim, when 8 asked why he didn't test- -- or bring it up earlier 9 said, "He did not tell an officer sooner because he 10 heard from another inmate nothing would happen 11 since things like that in the jail were viewed as 12 both persons' consent." 13 LT. DODSON: Well, I -- you know, I can't -- 14 that was a statement that the inmate told her? 15 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. Does that -- does that 16 trouble you? 17 LT. DODSON: It doesn't trouble me to the fact 18 that I know that we respond anytime we get a 19 complaint from a inmate, whether that inmate is 20 saying that because of a statement that's been made 21 in another facility he's been at, I don't know the 22 history of this guy that made that statement. 23 MR. MCFARLAND: Sure. This is an anonymous 24 source, another inmate. 25 LT. DODSON: Yeah. 89 1 MR. MCFARLAND: But the point is, I'm just 2 wondering, in 4298 you have an individual who, from 3 the several sentences earlier in the investigation, 4 evidently is at least perceived to be gay and has 5 -- and is alleging that he has been propositioned 6 by the same predator and fondled by that predator. 7 And his state of mind is that if it is 8 conceived to be consensual, purportedly because he 9 is perceived to be gay, that nothing's going to 10 happen. 11 Now, what was done to dispel that myth, that 12 if it's consensual, nothing's going to happen? 13 LT. DODSON: Well, I think the inmates receive 14 their inmate handbook, which would reflect that 15 it's zero tolerance, it's -- we would -- do not 16 tolerate inmate relationships like that. 17 Did I go back to this particular inmate and -- 18 MR. MCFARLAND: Yes. 19 LT. DODSON: -- tell him anything, no. I can 20 tell you that I would've spoke to the victim. This 21 is the one that -- 22 MR. MCFARLAND: This is the same victim as in 23 -- that we were discussing earlier, in 1635, about 24 two or three weeks later, same suspect, same 25 predator, same victim, same tent, saying that 90 1 the -- 2 LT. DODSON: I think it's a separate tent. 3 MR. MCFARLAND: May be a separate tent, right. 4 LT. DODSON: The original report -- he'd been 5 separated when they did the investigation. They 6 did separate him from those people. Once this 7 incident happened, he was placed in administrative 8 confinement. 9 Why the inmate made that statement, you know, 10 it -- I can't -- I can tell you that if -- 11 especially out in the tent -- if someone reports 12 something, it's going to be immediately -- act 13 upon. 14 You know, why he made that statement, I -- I 15 can't speak for the inmate. I just -- it's the 16 culture of the jail. I know that the officers, 17 they react to any complaint of sexual nature. 18 And it is -- it's not -- it's a zero tolerance 19 for any sexual activity. And we do not condone 20 consensual sex. That's a known fact. Why this 21 inmate would make a statement like that, I have no 22 clue. 23 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. I just want to know 24 what you know. I'm not asking you -- 25 LT. DODSON: I did read that in the report. 91 1 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. I'm looking at Page 7 2 of 4298, where the crime scene in this first 3 incident was Tent 3, Bunk 1627. 4 And then I'm looking at 1635, and it appears 5 that this same victim was in Bunk 1641, in Tent 3, 6 same tent, same predator and victim, three weeks 7 apart. Am I reading that correctly, that they were 8 not, in fact, separated? 9 LT. DODSON: Yeah, they were separated. 10 MR. MCFARLAND: Well, for how long? 11 Evidently the word "Separated" at this -- 12 LT. DODSON: I -- there's one thing that 13 they -- they were going to keep-separate from, 14 unless they just made a mistake -- I have to go 15 back and read the report -- early -- 16 MR. MCFARLAND: Well, we're going to take a 17 break and -- 18 LT. DODSON: Yeah. 19 MR. MCFARLAND: If you would take that 20 occasion to read both of them thoroughly and -- and 21 just -- if it refreshes your recollection -- I 22 don't want to hear speculation. 23 But how is it that the same two individuals 24 could be in the same tent three weeks later, and 25 both times, when there is actual contact alleged, 92 1 the -- there is no disciplinary action in the first 2 instance? 3 LT. DODSON: Well, the first instance, was 4 investigated, and it was unfounded. But I'll look 5 at the report. 6 MR. MCFARLAND: And how long does a KSF, 7 keep-separate from, typically last? 8 LT. DODSON: Follows an inmate through the 9 incarceration. 10 MR. MCFARLAND: So, if you could help me 11 understand how they could still be in the same tent 12 and help me understand how -- excuse me a moment. 13 LT. DODSON: I'll read the report and see if 14 they made a mistake. 15 MR. MCFARLAND: Let me just finish. 16 It would be very helpful to the Panel to 17 understand, what does it take for something to 18 actually get past a special victim unit 19 investigator and actually get referred to a 20 prosecutor for possible prosecution when you have 21 the second incident inside a month in the same 22 place, same suspect, same perpetrator. 23 LT. DODSON: Well, I think you'd have to have 24 the elements for the crime and the willingness of 25 the victim to want to prosecute and if -- 93 1 MR. MCFARLAND: So, is that what the problem 2 is, is if the person, for whatever reason, 3 believes, as he indicated in 1635 -- or rather 4 4298 -- he believes that nothing's going to be 5 done, so why bother snitching and subjecting 6 yourself to possible repercussions -- 7 LT. DODSON: -- was done -- 8 MR. MCFARLAND: -- by a snitch? 9 I'm sorry? 10 LT. DODSON: I think something was done on the 11 re- -- when he reported it, we -- we conducted an 12 investigation and we separated them. 13 MR. MCFARLAND: Well -- 14 LT. DODSON: But why the inmate told him that, 15 that -- maybe that stigma was placed somewhere -- I 16 don't know if that -- 17 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. It'd be helpful to know 18 how you dispel -- or anybody dispelled -- you know, 19 corrected their understanding about what -- whether 20 something is perceived to be mutual -- mutually 21 consent -- consented -- that nothing's going to be 22 done or, evidently, if you're perceived to be gay, 23 nothing's going to be done, and what was done to 24 correct that misunderstanding -- if it is a 25 misunderstanding -- and how is it that in neither 94 1 case were either of these cases even put in front 2 of a prosecuting attorney. 3 LT. DODSON: I think I've -- 4 MR. MCFARLAND: So why don't you -- why don't 5 you -- 6 LT. DODSON: I think I've questioned the part 7 of the investigation that it was the investigator's 8 decision to -- based on the evidence -- to not 9 pursue any further criminal -- 10 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. Just using the 11 same language, using that standard-template 12 disposition language. 13 LT. DODSON: Well, I'm not -- you're -- if 14 you're suggesting that we have a template, that we 15 just fill in the blanks, I argue that point 16 severely. 17 I think that Officer Melek is a very thorough 18 officer. She does -- goes out of the way, makes 19 sure she's got all the evidence that she needs. So 20 just the mere fact that the disposition reads the 21 same is -- I mean, it could be easily read that 22 they were prosecuted or they were sent -- forward 23 to the state attorney, be the same language. 24 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. We'll be in recess for 25 15 minutes. Thank you. 95 1 (A brief break was had, after which the 2 proceedings continued as follows:) 3 MR. MCFARLAND: We're back on the record. 4 Lieutenant, have you had a chance to review 5 those reports? 6 LT. DODSON: Yes. First, I -- get 7 clarification, what inmate I guess you were 8 referring to that got placed back with the alleged 9 offender. 10 MR. MCFARLAND: It's the inmate in both of 11 those incidents. 12 LT. DODSON: Well, I'm looking at -- I think 13 you referred to Incident Report 1635 and Incident 14 Report 1336, correct? 15 MR. MCFARLAND: 1635 and 4298, was that it? 16 LT. DODSON: Let's see. Where is that? 17 Your case report 07-124298, report date, 18 May 3, '07. 19 MR. MCFARLAND: Yes. And we were talking 20 about the -- this is the first incident involving 21 the same alleged predator and alleged victim; the 22 victim indicates that he had heard nothing's going 23 to happen if it's deemed to be consensual, and the 24 disposition was not enough evidence, no charges 25 pressed. 96 1 LT. DODSON: No. I'm trying to clarify. You 2 made a statement that -- I guess we were talking -- 3 the original victim of the -- forward to -- the 4 incident report written on 4/10/07, that -- where 5 the inmate had came to my office, and we had 6 separated the alleged suspect into Tent 2, I 7 believe it was. 8 And you were -- I thought you were questioning 9 why the victim of this incident was later placed 10 back in with the inmate in Tent 2. 11 MR. MCFARLAND: No, Lieutenant. I was talking 12 about, as I said, Incident Report 1635, which is an 13 incident date of May 2nd, '07. 14 LT. DODSON: Correct. 15 MR. MCFARLAND: Tent 3, Bunk 1641, same -- 16 this is the same predator, same victim -- 17 LT. DODSON: Well, three was -- 18 MR. MCFARLAND: -- as in 4298, which is a 19 report date of the next day, May 3. 20 LT. DODSON: Well, I don't believe that the 21 inmate that's in 1635 was the -- initially was the 22 victim of the case report of 24298. I think the 23 victim of that was the other inmate, not to mention 24 his name. 25 He was the inmate that was moved -- on that 97 1 original report -- was moved 'cause there was five 2 or so -- some of the inmates was not even 3 identified. But the main victim was not placed 4 back in with this inmate. 5 MR. MCFARLAND: Maybe it'd be easier -- we're 6 going to mark the transcript at this point, Elida, 7 and so we will not make that -- this portion of the 8 transcript public. 9 But we're going to need to -- 'cause it's 10 getting confusing, and I -- this is an important 11 question. 12 LT. DODSON: Yeah. I think we're getting 13 confused with the fact that we had a victim in the 14 one -- first report, and we had separated that 15 victim from the offender. 16 And I guess your question is that in a later 17 report your -- your question, whether the alleged 18 victim of the first case was placed with the 19 offender. I don't see that right now in my report. 20 So we'll have to sit down and clarify that. 21 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. In 1635, the alleged 22 victim is [REDACTED]. And Sergeant or Officer Dubois 23 reports that inmate [REDACTED] went on to state that 24 inmate [REDACTED] was making sexual advances 25 toward him. 98 1 And Officer Dubois immediately moved [REDACTED] 2 to the other side of the tent -- not out of the 3 tent -- to the other side of tent, from 1641 to 4 1698, for safety. 5 This is involving an event that was a week and 6 a half prior to the reporting date of May 2nd or 7 May 3rd, if I'm not mistaken. Oh, no. I'm 8 mistaken. 9 4298 is the -- an event that happened a week 10 and a half prior to its reporting date of May 3. 11 The allegation in 1635, again by [REDACTED], is 12 that on May 2nd, the sexual advance had been made 13 toward him in Tent 3. 14 Then a week and a half later, you have the 15 incident described in 4298, in which he was -- 16 [REDACTED] says he was asleep, he was assigned on top 17 of [REDACTED] bunk. 18 This is another -- this is the same [REDACTED] 19 [REDACTED] in 1635. And this is the -- Deputy 20 Melek's report, Page 6, describes in detail what 21 inmate [REDACTED] said and that [REDACTED] thought 22 [REDACTED] was gay and "He's so pretty. I want to 23 suck your dick. The best time to do it is at 24 7:00 a.m. in the bathroom." 25 He would make remarks about him in the shower. 99 1 It says, "inmate [REDACTED] thought he was joking and 2 then finds out that maybe he wasn't, because 3 he's -- ends up finding inmate [REDACTED] with his 4 hands down [REDACTED] boxers and fondling him." 5 And then [REDACTED] indicates that he didn't 6 think anything would be done, because it was viewed 7 as consensual. 8 LT. DODSON: Yeah. I think I've clarified 9 that. My main -- I guess, trying to answer your 10 question, I don't see in the report where we had 11 put a victim in the same cell block or we located a 12 victim in the same cell block with the 13 alleged suspect or the offender. That' where I 14 guess we're getting -- 15 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. So then a week and a 16 half later, after this first event that I've just 17 described, we have Incident 1635, which allegedly 18 took place on May 2nd. 19 LT. DODSON: Now, Report 24298, also happened 20 on May 2nd -- the 3rd, that's the report the -- 21 MR. MCFARLAND: May -- May 3rd. 22 LT. DODSON: In that's in response to 1635. 23 It's the same thing. It's just a case report 24 supplementing -- it's the investigator's report to 25 1635. Those inmates were separated. So I don't -- 100 1 MR. MCFARLAND: So when 1635 indicates that 2 he'd had -- 3 LT. DODSON: If he -- oh, I'm sorry. 4 1635 is the incident report -- if we can 5 clarify it -- is an in-house jail management system 6 report. The incident reports are done by all staff 7 member. 8 The case report you're referring to, 24298, is 9 actually a case report, and it's referring to the 10 same case. 11 MR. MCFARLAND: All right. So this is the 12 same incident? 13 LT. DODSON: Same incident. 14 MR. MCFARLAND: I see. 15 LT. DODSON: So I think we're getting -- we're 16 jumping around on different cases. And I think 17 we're going to confuse ourselves. 18 And I've got a pretty good grasp on the case 19 reports and the incident report. And I think we 20 just got sidelined with a different case report. 21 And I assume you got a -- 22 MS. ELLIS: Lieutenant, do you -- 23 LT. DODSON: You've got an incident 24 informational report that would be initiated by the 25 first responder. That would be the officer working 101 1 down in the pod or the area that inmates have came 2 to them and made a accusation or complaint. 3 Once we get that information, they're mandated 4 to do a report. They're mandated to notify 5 supervision. They're mandated to separate the 6 victim from the suspect. Then we assign a dual 7 certified officer. 8 MS. ELLIS: Lieutenant, do we have a report on 9 the first incident that the victim refers to that 10 the inmate refers to? 11 LT. DODSON: I think the inmate referred -- 12 during the investigation -- made the statement that 13 he had had problems a week before, not necessarily 14 did he report that. I think -- 15 MS. ELLIS: So he didn't -- he didn't make a 16 report the first time. 17 LT. DODSON: He didn't make a report to staff. 18 I guess maybe he felt at that time it was not 19 necessary to report this incident to staff so-- 20 they could follow up and make the -- take the 21 appropriate action. 22 MS. ELLIS: So there was some follow-up on the 23 first report, once he -- 24 LT. DODSON: If he had -- 25 MS. ELLIS: Once he provided that information 102 1 there was some follow-up on that one, as well? 2 LT. DODSON: If the inmate had made a report 3 to staff, an incident report would've been 4 completed. 5 What I'm saying, in this report, the inmate 6 may have stated to the officer that he -- that it 7 happened a week before, he had an incident a 8 week before, not necessarily did he report it to a 9 staff member; and the staff member writing the 10 report referred it back to an inmate had -- 11 allegedly had a issue with this inmate a week 12 before, if that makes any sense, that it would be 13 -- if he reported to a staff member, a report 14 would've been generated. 15 MS. ELLIS: I see. Was that statement taken 16 into account with this investigation? 17 LT. DODSON: I'm sure it was. I mean, the 18 investigations concluded, the officer felt there 19 was no probable cause to -- if it's sent to the 20 state attorney, the state attorney's not going to 21 react with anything if you don't have the probable 22 cause, the elements of the crime. 23 MR. MCFARLAND: Well, Lieutenant, your 24 testimony earlier this morning was that an officer 25 doesn't have to witness an incident. 103 1 LT. DODSON: Correct. 2 MR. MCFARLAND: All right. So we know that's 3 not a prerequisite. 4 LT. DODSON: Correct. 5 MR. MCFARLAND: And you indicated that if 6 there was any consultation between the SVU 7 investigator and the prosecutor, it would show up 8 in the SVU's report, right? 9 LT. DODSON: Correct. 10 MR. MCFARLAND: So the fact that, if we don't 11 see any reference to contact with the prosecutor, 12 we have good -- we have good reason to believe 13 there wasn't such contact about the criminal 14 elements in that particular incident; is that 15 correct. 16 LT. DODSON: Correct. 17 MR. MCFARLAND: All right. 18 LT. DODSON: Not to be -- I think I've 19 clarified the investigation part with the elements 20 of the standard of the evidentiary need to have -- 21 to proceed with something, whether there's a -- 22 there's no mandate that the agent or whoever has to 23 call the state attorney. They're going to do their 24 investigation based on probable cause. 25 And we can sit here and -- and chat about 104 1 this, but I think I'm clear. I think we've done a 2 excellent job doing our investigations, reporting 3 such criminal activity, if we can -- so I -- I 4 don't know what you're asking me to tell you at 5 this point. 6 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. 1635 says that on 7 May 2nd, while assigned to Tent 3 the following 8 incident took place. So Officer Dubois is stating 9 that this sexual advance was occurring on May 2nd; 10 whereas, Deputy Melek, in 4298, is saying that the 11 incident, according to the alleged victim, occurred 12 a week and a half earlier while he was sleeping. 13 So that's somewhere -- and this was May 3 14 that -- not May 2, but May 3 -- that -- that this 15 information was learned. So how can it'd be that 16 this is the same incident? 17 LT. DODSON: It's the same incident. The 18 incident report was based on information that the 19 alleged victim gave the responder. And the 20 responder is not going to go into detail on any 21 investigation. 22 She's -- her main goal is to separate the 23 victim from the suspect, the offender, and give any 24 immediate medical attention required. 25 The investigator did their investigation, and 105 1 maybe during the investigation, the inmate went 2 further back in time, maybe she asked him, you 3 know, "Is this the first time this occurred?" 4 If you're asking if it's the same incident 5 it's -- you know, I don't know how else to explain 6 that. 7 MR. MCFARLAND: I understand. 8 So Officer Dubois was mistaken when she said 9 that the following incident occurred on May 2nd; it 10 was actually -- that's when she learned of it from 11 [REDACTED]. 12 And upon further inquiry by Deputy Melek, it 13 turns out that it didn't happen on May 2nd, but it 14 happened somewhere in mid to late April; is that 15 correct; is that your testimony? 16 LT. DODSON: The incident date is listed 5/2. 17 The report date is listed 5/3. 18 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. 19 LT. DODSON: You know, whatever the inmate 20 told the investigator, the time span, that would be 21 in the report. 22 But it was reported on the 3rd of May. The 23 initial report was, the incident occurred on 5/2. 24 And that's when the inmate proceeded to the officer 25 to give -- make his complaint. 106 1 Now, during the investigation, whatever time 2 span that the investigator came up with, talking 3 more in depth with the suspect and witnesses, 4 that's in the report. 5 So, I mean, the thing is, we took immediate 6 action, separating the victim, you know, took him 7 out of -- the offender. It's not really much, what 8 I can tell you about this case. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah, I understand. 10 Handing you incident 07-003131. And the court 11 reporter, if you'd just mark this section. We 12 moved on from the previous topic. 13 This is an incident dated August 27 of last 14 year, allegedly occurring between August 10 and 15 August 14. So, actually, the incident date was -- 16 is not correct on it but, rather, that's when it 17 was reported to Officer Ingraham. Do you have a 18 recollection of this investigation? 19 LT. DODSON: Just the knowledge of reading the 20 report. 21 MR. MCFARLAND: You've seen it before? 22 LT. DODSON: I've read it. 23 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. Have you -- you've read 24 it before today; is that right? 25 LT. DODSON: Correct. 107 1 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. All right. In this 2 case you have an inmate claiming that his rectum 3 hurts and he's still bleeding from that area and 4 that he had been taken advantage of in the 200 pod. 5 What would be the appropriate response of an 6 officer if those kinds of allegations were made by 7 an inmate? 8 LT. DODSON: The officer -- if an inmate came 9 up relating he was sexually battered and had a 10 rectal -- rectal bleeding, officer would 11 immediately seek medical attention for the 12 department, secure the crime scene, call a 13 supervisor, make sure he has any information of the 14 alleged suspect. They're identified and separated. 15 This particular case, the inmate never 16 reported to staff nor medical prior to the August 17 28th -- or 27th that he had been -- had rectal 18 bleeding. 19 This was done during the physical examination 20 by either a doctor or RN, that he'd mentioned that 21 he had rectal bleeding and mentioned to the staff 22 member, the nurse or a doctor, that he had a 23 previous sexual assault, alleged sexual assault. 24 Upon making -- upon the notification of that, 25 we took the -- followed the protocol. We notified 108 1 a dual certified officer and also an agent, who 2 went ahead with -- this was referred to an agent of 3 the sex crimes unit and the special victims unit. 4 MR. MCFARLAND: That was Mr. Reynolds? 5 LT. DODSON: That's Mr. Reynolds, Agent 6 Reynolds. 7 MR. MCFARLAND: On Page 2 of Agent Reynolds' 8 report, which is number 07-245417, the first 9 paragraph, it says "On August 8th" -- and does 10 appear to be a typo; that's August 28th? 11 LT. DODSON: Correct. 12 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. And Agent Reynolds 13 gives the bottom line, in the first paragraph, that 14 it was found unfounded as a sexual battery; is that 15 right? 16 LT. DODSON: Yeah. I think that the actual 17 date's August 27th. I don't know where the 8th is 18 coming into play in there. So that is a typo. 19 MR. MCFARLAND: On the first page of the 20 exhibit the -- Officer Ingraham says that he -- it 21 was reported to him on August 27. 22 LT. DODSON: And that's when the dual 23 certified officer was notified. 24 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. So whether it's -- 25 LT. DODSON: The sexual battery was probably 109 1 initiated -- was initiated by the sexual battery 2 victims notific- -- Reynolds -- Agent Reynolds -- 3 maybe on the 28th. But it's a typo regardless. 4 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah, yeah. Right. 5 Now, in this case you have medical evidence of 6 a sexual assault, do you not? 7 LT. DODSON: It could be. But I think the 8 time span, I think you're looking back -- what was 9 it initially -- two weeks prior to that, you know, 10 whatever, if there would've been any evidence, it 11 would've been collected. 12 But I think you're looking two weeks, inmate 13 never reported it. It is -- 14 MR. MCFARLAND: Well, it says that the -- that 15 this inmate had originally reported the incident to 16 a staff doctor. 17 Now, I believe your testimony -- and I know 18 that we'll have the medical administrator this 19 afternoon. But wouldn't that be noted in the 20 medical files, if he had -- if an inmate had 21 requested medical attention from -- 22 LT. DODSON: Correct. 23 MR. MCFARLAND: -- bleeding from a re -- 24 rectum that would -- 25 LT. DODSON: Correct. 110 1 MR. MCFARLAND: That would be noted in the 2 medical file, right? 3 LT. DODSON: Correct. 4 MR. MCFARLAND: And wouldn't that tip you off, 5 and wouldn't the medical officer be -- have an 6 obligation to inform somebody that, "Hey, rectums 7 ordinarily just don't start bleeding spontaneously 8 so something -- there may've been criminal action 9 here"? 10 LT. DODSON: Well, you're alleging the fact 11 that we've already investigated the incident. He 12 did not report it to a doctor on the date that he 13 stated. That was just a statement that the inmate 14 made to Deputy Hull. 15 We did investigate that. The only information 16 that we had that he ever reported any type of 17 rectal bleeding was on the -- I believe it was the 18 27th or 28th. 19 MR. MCFARLAND: Well, did you or Mr. -- or 20 Agent Reynolds or anybody else go to the infirmary 21 and ask to see any medical records of this inmate? 22 LT. DODSON: I have asked, and I have checked 23 with medical to confirm whether he reported any 24 rectal bleeding and whether the doctor was aware 25 that -- of this incident. 111 1 They -- there's no information in his medical 2 file that indicates he ever reported to a doctor 3 nor a medical staff or a staff that he had rectal 4 bleeding two weeks prior to this incident. 5 This was only brought up the date that he was 6 coming out for a physical, and the -- he asked the 7 doctor or the nurse or the RN, whoever was doing 8 the physical examination at the time, he mentioned 9 to her that he had rectal bleeding and that it was 10 from a previous sexual assault. 11 We again did the separations. We did the 12 notifications. The dual certified officer did his 13 investigation. It was referred to Agent Reynolds. 14 He investigated it. 15 And the outcome of this was unfounded due to 16 evidentiary probable cause that needed to be there 17 to pursue any criminal charges on any alleged 18 offender. 19 MS. ELLIS: Did the medical records show any 20 indication of tears or splits, lacerations to the 21 rectum area; do we have any information on that? 22 LT. DODSON: I have no information on that. I 23 only know that he had reported to medical during a 24 medical examination, and it occurred two weeks 25 prior. You know, whether it was from other medical 112 1 reasons, I don't know. 2 I mean, I -- we could -- I didn't see anything 3 in there that would indicate that heard from 4 medical staff that he was sexually assaulted. 5 MR. MCFARLAND: The -- Deputy Hull, on Page 2 6 of his narrative, states that he gave the inmate a 7 statement of witness form; do you see that? 8 LT. DODSON: Correct. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: Where is that statement of 10 witness form on this incident? 11 LT. DODSON: That would've been sent to the 12 state attorney's office, if not -- or either -- and 13 filed. But most of this is turned over to the 14 agent who's doing the follow-up investigation. 15 Agent Reynolds would've been -- he would've 16 collected all that as his evidence. And he 17 would've submitted a package to either -- if he's 18 going to criminally charge it may've went to the 19 state and also copies kept on file up in the 20 archives area of the department. 21 MR. MCFARLAND: Well, Agent Reynolds concluded 22 that this was unfounded, so it didn't go to the 23 state attorney or prosecutor, correct? 24 LT. DODSON: Correct. 25 MR. MCFARLAND: So what happens to the 113 1 witness's statement? 2 LT. DODSON: They're archived. 3 MR. MCFARLAND: They're archived. 4 And that was not produced to this Panel, that 5 witness statement? 6 LT. DODSON: Well, there's several. I mean, 7 when you do an investigation, it could be several 8 documentation that it no longer -- 9 MR. MCFARLAND: Would that be -- would that be 10 -- as a dual certified investigator, yourself, 11 Lieutenant, would you want to see the witness's 12 statement, the victim's own statement? 13 LT. DODSON: Well, I believe everybody -- I 14 mean, beside yourself everyone saw the witness' 15 statement or affidavit, the ones doing the 16 investigation. 17 MR. MCFARLAND: And Deputy Reynolds would not 18 ordinarily attach that to his report? 19 LT. DODSON: Yeah. We gave you a copy of the 20 incident report, not necessarily -- we give you 21 that copy of the evidentiary that was collected. 22 Most of that stuff is sent up to our main house for 23 storage or archiving. 24 MS. ELLIS: There's something very disturbing 25 about this particular case, when someone reports a 114 1 rectal bleeding. Is there any way that we can find 2 out anything about the medical records involving 3 this individual or -- 4 LT. DODSON: You'd have to refer to -- 5 MR. MCFARLAND: -- it's kind of a -- kind of 6 the end of the road with him? 7 LT. DODSON: He will -- 8 MR. MCFARLAND: We'll ask the commander and -- 9 LT. DODSON: Due to the HCFA violation, you 10 know, I'm not here to discuss anybody's medical 11 issues. I'm not trying to be -- avoid the issue, 12 but there is a HCFA issue involving me actually 13 releasing that information. So you have to talk to 14 the -- 15 MR. MCFARLAND: Sure. 16 MS. ELLIS: We're familiar with that. 17 LT. DODSON: Yeah, I understand. 18 MS. ELLIS: Yes. 19 MR. MCFARLAND: Lieutenant, let's look at 20 Page 3 of Deputy Reynolds' investigation of this 21 incident, 3131. 22 LT. DODSON: Can I interject? 23 And I know you guys are here -- you know, the 24 only thing I can tell you about the 25 investigation -- and I'll try to make this clear -- 115 1 once we do our investigation in-house and it's 2 referred to another agent, whatever the outcome of 3 that person that's assigned to do this 4 investigation that's sworn as a certified officer, 5 State of Florida, once he makes that call, he's 6 based everything on the elements of the crime and 7 probable cause got to exist, before the state 8 attorney's going to do anything with it. 9 So, I mean, I'm not trying to be -- avoid the 10 question. But we can sit here and try to analyze a 11 report -- 12 MS. ELLIS: No, no. 13 MR. MCFARLAND: I don't want you -- 14 LT. DODSON: I don't want to be offensive 15 but -- 16 MR. MCFARLAND: You're not being offensive. 17 We're just trying to -- 18 MS. ELLIS: No, no, no. We're not making 19 accusations. 20 LT. DODSON: I'm trying to answer your 21 questions, but it just feels like -- you know, I'm 22 not trying to be a armchair quarterback here, 23 trying to go back. 24 And I'm all for that. Anytime, as a 25 supervisor, I can go back and make something 116 1 better, make our investigations better. But I 2 think we stand firm with the investigations that we 3 do. I think we're more thorough than most 4 institutions would be on these cases. 5 'Cause I -- I find it hard to believe that 6 most of the facilities in the State of 7 Florida parti -- especially in Florida -- have a 8 dual certified unit that's able to come in there, 9 that's trained to do investigations. 10 And we think we do a excellent job of 11 investigating these things. We have the resources, 12 because we are part of the sheriff's department, 13 that we can reach out to the sex crimes advocacy. 14 And so we have the resources on hand that we can 15 make sure that we do a thorough investigation. 16 Whether we sit here and analyze why a agent or 17 a dual certified officer didn't have the elements 18 of the crime, the probable cause to pursue criminal 19 charges, I mean, we could be here all day doing 20 that. 21 But I'm -- I'm not trying to be disrespectful, 22 in the least, but I think you're just -- we're -- 23 we're bogged down on these investigations. And I 24 think they -- that we're -- of any place of our 25 county is very serious about sexual interaction 117 1 between inmates and staff. 2 We do not tolerate it. We will go overboard 3 to make sure a person is dealt with appropriately. 4 But, you know, I -- I just -- I can see us getting 5 bogged down here all day. 6 MR. MCFARLAND: Well, Lieutenant, thank you 7 for your patience. Thanks for your statement of 8 confidence and your compatriots' thoroughness. 9 What we're trying to do is get beyond the 10 paper and the policy. The policies read great. 11 But the best -- the real proof of the pudding is 12 what actually happens when an allegation is made. 13 So we are going to get bogged down. We are 14 going to bore in. As I believe I told you 15 yesterday in touring your facility, that we intend 16 to look at the 10 or 11 incidents in 2007 where an 17 allegation was made of sexual assault. 18 And I appreciate your patience. And if -- you 19 know, if you need a break, let me know. But as -- 20 given your status as a dual certified officer and 21 someone who has 21 years of experience, I think 22 your -- we don't -- we asked for it but couldn't 23 get Mr. Reynolds, so -- and we don't have -- we 24 didn't ask for Deputy Melek, but we just have what 25 we have. 118 1 So I'm asking not if you -- not -- I'm not 2 asking for you to speculate about what might've 3 happened in a particular case. I only want your 4 particular knowledge and your testimony, based on 5 your experience, as to what should've happened. 6 LT. DODSON: Okay. 7 MR. MCFARLAND: So I'm looking at Page 3 of 8 Agent Reynolds' report. And he says that he met 9 with the victim, and the victim indicated that he 10 was -- his mind was messed up, he didn't know if it 11 was consensual or not, it was -- this sexual act 12 that had occurred. 13 "My mind says no, but I'm uncertain. The 14 victim then requested the matter be closed and 15 stated he no longer wanted to pursue criminal 16 charges." 17 Was this victim a mental health patient? 18 LT. DODSON: I have to -- I'm sure he was 19 under mental health care, if I can recall Henry 20 (sic). If you can refer to Director Clayton to 21 verify that. 22 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. Well, again, you have a 23 situation here where the individual is saying, "I, 24 you know, I don't know if it was consensual or 25 not," as if that's relevant. Is there such a thing 119 1 as consensual sex in your facility? 2 LT. DODSON: No. It's a zero tolerance for 3 that. You might -- I may add, too, a lot of these 4 cases, especially this individual here, I guess he 5 was in Cell 304, at the time Cell 304 is the 6 same -- if you remember the tour yesterday -- is 7 the same as 500. 8 That particular cell, he'd been on a 15-minute 9 watch, more than likely. I'd have to go back and 10 research it. But more than likely, he was on a 11 15-minute watch. 12 That means he had a direct-watch officer 13 posted there in addition to a 15-minute watch 14 officer that had continuous monitoring of this -- 15 those cells. 16 So the likelihood of this inmate being 17 sexually assaulted in an area -- I'm not saying it 18 couldn't occur -- would be very limited. The fact 19 that you got a officer close in the area watching 20 the inmates as they sleep and -- you know, I -- 21 MR. MCFARLAND: Well, Lieutenant, I don't want 22 to argue with you about -- I only want to know what 23 your understanding is of the facts in this. So if 24 your understanding is limited to the same words 25 that I'm reading, then we may be getting bogged 120 1 down. 2 But isn't it true that the incident that 3 occurred in Cell 216, that was sealed off as a 4 crime scene? 5 LT. DODSON: Uh-huh. 6 MR. MCFARLAND: And the individual victim was 7 taken to the 300 pod; isn't that actually what 8 happened? 9 LT. DODSON: Yeah. It happened in 200. But 10 on the date of the incident that he reported it, 11 that -- he said it happened two weeks prior to 12 that. 13 The original incident allegedly happened in 14 200, you're correct, I have -- so he was under 15 mental health care once he came down to 200. 16 MR. MCFARLAND: You mean, once he went to the 17 300 pod, he may've gone to mental health? 18 LT. DODSON: Well, you can refer to mental 19 health. You know, whether he was -- how long he 20 was under mental health care, I have no information 21 on that. I know he was in the acute (sic) -- 22 behavior cell at one time under mental health care. 23 MR. MCFARLAND: All right. Well, again, 24 asking about what the -- what a dual certified 25 sexual victims unit -- sex victims unit 121 1 investigator should do in a case like this. 2 If you heard from the alleged victim that his 3 mind was messed up, he didn't come -- he just 4 doesn't know whether he wants to press charges 5 because he's not sure whether it was consensual or 6 not, what would you want to say to that individual? 7 LT. DODSON: I wasn't there. I would mostly 8 definitely tell him -- you know, it's traumatic, 9 you know, I can't sympathize, 'cause I've never 10 been in that position. I'm going to give him the 11 information he needs. I'm going to support him. 12 MR. MCFARLAND: What information does he need 13 to -- 14 LT. DODSON: "I'm going to support you, if you 15 were in a -- if you were set -- victimized, tell 16 me, I will assist you. We will prosecute the 17 suspect. And we'll do whatever we can on our end, 18 the sheriff department, make sure that this person 19 is brought to justice." 20 That's what I'd tell him. 21 MR. MCFARLAND: Would you tell him that 22 there's no such thing as consensual and he -- 23 whether it was consensual or not is irrelevant, 24 it's still a crime, and he would be a relevant 25 witness, to say the least, in the prosecution if he 122 1 wants to go forward? 2 LT. DODSON: Well, I don't know if consensual 3 sex -- if it's consensual, it's consensual. It's 4 against the zero tolerance in the jail, against our 5 policy. 6 Whether it's a criminal violence, you know, if 7 the guy doesn't want to pursue the charge, it's 8 going to be hard-pressed for me to -- you know, 9 consensual sex is consensual sex. 10 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. There's nothing here 11 that indicates that Agent Reynolds corrected or 12 clarified for this victim that, "Hold it, if you 13 are hesitating about pressing charges because you 14 think it you may be proved to have been consensual, 15 that's irrelevant, all you have to do is say, 'He 16 touched me' -- whether it was consensual or not -- 17 'in this way on this date,' you know, 'in these 18 circumstances,' and that may be a sexual assault." 19 There's nothing here that says that Agent 20 Reynolds disabused him of the idea that if it's 21 consensual, no harm, no foul. 22 LT. DODSON: He -- the conversation may've 23 happened. It may have happened. And I can't -- 24 MR. MCFARLAND: And you would've told him 25 that, if that was the case. 123 1 LT. DODSON: Well, I would've told him, yes, 2 if he would -- if he was a victim of a crime, yes. 3 MR. MCFARLAND: Well, that begs the question 4 as to what they know is a crime. Would you -- if 5 you're in a situation, would it be your course -- 6 your course of dealing or standard practice to 7 clarify for the complaining witness? 8 LT. DODSON: Yes, I would. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: That it doesn't matter if it's 10 consensual? 11 LT. DODSON: Correct. 12 MR. MCFARLAND: Agent Reynolds then says, 13 "During these investigations, I was able to 14 determine the victim was unable to articulate the 15 elements of a sexual battery in his statement to 16 this writer." 17 There's nothing that indicates that he 18 clarified things for this victim, nothing that 19 indicates that he -- why this individual would not 20 press charges. 21 LT. DODSON: You'd have to ask David Reynolds. 22 MR. MCFARLAND: We'd have to ask -- 23 LT. DODSON: -- the interviewer. 24 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. And there's nothing in 25 this report that indicates that Agent Reynolds got 124 1 a second opinion from a prosecutor; is that 2 correct? 3 LT. DODSON: Correct. If it's not in the 4 report, I couldn't speculate. 5 MR. MCFARLAND: No, don't speculate, no. 6 So, Lieutenant, in your 21 years, have all 21 7 been at this facility? 8 LT. DODSON: Correct. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. In your 21 years at 10 Brevard County Jail, have you ever come across an 11 alleged sexual assault that's got beyond the sexual 12 victims unit investigator and actually been 13 referred for prosecution? 14 LT. DODSON: I'm probably -- I'm sure there 15 has. I just -- you know, off the top of my head, I 16 can't remember. But I'm sure there is. 17 MR. MCFARLAND: Well, I don't want you to 18 guess. Have you any -- you know, as you recall 19 today, has there ever been an incident report that 20 has been referred for prosecution or referred for a 21 review by a independent agency, be it the 22 prosecutor or anybody else beyond the sexual 23 victims unit of the sheriff's office, in your 24 personal experience? 25 And I notice, for the record, that Maj. Hibbs 125 1 has just asked -- handed you a document. 2 LT. DODSON: Well, we could've spent -- this 3 one was unfounded, but it was referred to the state 4 attorney's office. 5 MR. MCFARLAND: What's "this one"? 6 LT. DODSON: It says 24 -- 02245417. It's in 7 the notes. 8 MR. MCFARLAND: I don't have that one. 9 LT. DODSON: Page 3, on the bottom. 10 MR. MCFARLAND: What's the date? 11 LT. DODSON: 072-45417, is the case number; 12 the date is actually 8/27/07. And it's got a 13 statement on the bottom of a -- it was -- they sent 14 it to the state attorney. 15 It was unfiled -- unfounded, where the second 16 incident resulted into a -- state attorney -- I 17 think it was a refused to prosecute. But I think 18 that it was referred to the state attorney. 19 And it -- it is hard to sit here, because of 20 the many case reports that I've -- 21 MR. MCFARLAND: Oh, I bet. 22 LT. DODSON: There've been a lot of incidents 23 where it was sent to the state attorney office. I 24 just -- it is -- it's hard to speculate now. 25 MR. MCFARLAND: Sure. No, I don't want you to 126 1 speculate and -- and I'm -- were you involved in 2 this -- this incident that you just -- 3 LT. DODSON: Yes, I was. 4 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. That was August 27 of 5 last year. 6 LT. DODSON: Correct, '07. That was actually 7 [REDACTED] incident where -- 8 MR. MCFARLAND: We talked about that 9 individual in 3131. 10 LT. DODSON: Yeah, that's it. 11 MR. MCFARLAND: That's it. Okay. Other than 12 that -- this case involving this individual that 13 you just mentioned, in your 21 years have you ever 14 been personally involved in any investigation of 15 alleged sexual assault that was referred for 16 prosecution or -- 17 LT. DODSON: I can't recall. 18 MR. MCFARLAND: Lieutenant, I'm trying to, 19 again, figure out what it would take to get -- to 20 get referred and actually be found -- be found to 21 be substantiated for purposes of prosecution, what 22 it would take to be well-founded. 23 We've seen that you don't need to have an 24 officer witness it. I think that's your testimony. 25 LT. DODSON: Correct. 127 1 MR. MCFARLAND: We've seen incidents where 2 there are -- there is alleged physical, medical 3 forensic evidence. But we don't know -- we don't 4 have the medical files. 5 We've seen that written witness or victim 6 statements can be taken, but they're not appended 7 to the investigation or the incident report. 8 In your 21 years, what more would you need to 9 get past an SVU investigator and get it into the 10 hands of the prosecutor? 11 LT. DODSON: In probable cause you've gotta 12 have the willingness of the victim to be able to go 13 forth, be willing to testify. 14 Like I say, we've answered these questions 15 over and over. But I think it's our intent of 16 the -- the utmost intent to make sure we do 17 prosecute people of this -- these types of crime. 18 'Cause the worse thing we want to do, I mean, 19 it's not in our best interests, the sheriff's 20 department and the jail, to try not to prosecute 21 and allow this person to go out, alleged -- the 22 alleged person to go out and maybe commit a crime 23 to someone else. 24 We have to have a probable cause there, 25 elements of the crime, to go forward to the state 128 1 attorney. And I'm sure there are several cases, as 2 I'm sitting here, that we've referred them to the 3 state attorney. 4 You know, I just -- it's hard for me to 5 recall. But you've gotta have the willingness of 6 the victim. 7 MS. ELLIS: So -- 8 MR. MCFARLAND: That is the -- a prerequisite 9 is the victim needs to be willing to testify; is 10 that correct? 11 MS. ELLIS: They've gotta be able to -- 12 LT. DODSON: Yeah. You don't want to pursue 13 charges, I mean, if they're not going forth and 14 testifying. 15 MS. ELLIS: My follow-up to that is, would 16 there ever be a crime so unbelievably disturbing to 17 such a degree that you would then prosecute, have a 18 victimless prosecution, because you had conclusive 19 evidence -- 20 LT. DODSON: (Inaudible.) 21 MS. ELLIS: And it was -- so you would do 22 that? 23 LT. DODSON: Yes, we would. 24 MS. ELLIS: So then that is not necessarily an 25 absolute that you have to have the cooperation of 129 1 the victim? 2 LT. DODSON: Well, I'm saying that cooperation 3 as in a normal an investigation. I mean, if you -- 4 you've gotta look at the evidence, probable cause, 5 elements of the crime. I mean, if it -- but if -- 6 you know, you gotta -- you know, I'm not going to 7 speculate but -- 8 MR. MCFARLAND: No. 9 MS. ELLIS: No. 10 LT. DODSON: -- we would pursue something we 11 felt necessary. 12 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. I'm handing you 13 Incident 07-003768. It's an incident involving a 14 female officer in the north annex on October 11, 15 '07. 16 LT. DODSON: Correct. 17 MR. MCFARLAND: The incident date is listed 18 October 11, but the third sentence indicates that 19 the alleged event was September 26; is that right? 20 LT. DODSON: Correct. 21 MR. MCFARLAND: In this case the intimate 22 complained to the nurse of bleeding from the 23 vaginal area, and she was sent to the hospital as a 24 precaution. Do you recall this investigation? 25 LT. DODSON: I just remember vaguely this. I 130 1 think the person -- Deputy Shore had been assigned 2 to do it, and I approved the report, and we 3 referred to the agent again. I do recall this 4 incident. 5 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. So how often does a 6 inmate get sent to the ER in your facility? 7 LT. DODSON: Sent to the ER? 8 MR. MCFARLAND: You know, how often does an 9 inmate get sent out of the jail to the emergency 10 room; is that a fairly routine occurrence? 11 LT. DODSON: That's up to the medical unit. 12 MR. MCFARLAND: That wasn't my question. 13 How often does it happen? 14 LT. DODSON: Oh, routinely. 15 MR. MCFARLAND: Routinely? So weekly, daily? 16 LT. DODSON: It could be weekly. It could be 17 daily. It depends on the incident, when we -- 18 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. So it's no big deal for 19 somebody to be sent to the hospital or is it? 20 LT. DODSON: Well, it's -- it's part of our 21 normal protocol. 22 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. But you remember this 23 particular incident, a woman bleeding from the 24 vaginal area being sent to the emergency room? 25 LT. DODSON: I remember the incident based on 131 1 reading the report. 2 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. And this -- this 3 occurred about 11 months ago, so it's a -- hasn't 4 been a distant memory. 5 LT. DODSON: Uh-huh. 6 MR. MCFARLAND: I'm looking at, again, Agent 7 Reynolds was the -- was assigned this 8 investigation. And he concludes in the first 9 paragraph that the matter was, "Exceptionally 10 cleared with the victim's unwillingness to 11 cooperate." What does that mean? 12 LT. DODSON: Well, I think the report, when he 13 was notified he tried to get statements and 14 questioned the victim, but she was uncooperative. 15 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. So I'm just asking -- 16 the term of art -- what does "Exceptionally 17 Cleared" mean? 18 LT. DODSON: Well, basically, there's nothing 19 there that he could substantiate and 20 it's exceptionally cleared, they're not going to do 21 any follow-up, wasn't sent -- sent to the state. 22 It's just cleared. 23 MR. MCFARLAND: All right. Why not just clear 24 it? I don't understand what "Exceptionally 25 Cleared" -- 132 1 LT. DODSON: Well, cleared the case is just 2 cleared. It's got past that level, and it's either 3 went to someone else. 4 It could be Information Only. It could be 5 exceptionally cleared, meaning that no further 6 investigation would be concluded, there's no 7 evidence, whatsoever, to support a crime did occur. 8 So -- 9 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. So what are the 10 possible dispositions as a -- because you do these 11 investigations yourself, as well, what are the 12 range of possibilities for disposition? 13 LT. DODSON: You could have a charge, inmate 14 that's criminally charged. 15 MR. MCFARLAND: All right. 16 LT. DODSON: And we refer it to another 17 agency, refer it to the state attorney's office, 18 cleared, exceptionally cleared, unfounded. I mean, 19 I'm just -- 20 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. Is there any difference 21 between cleared, exceptionally cleared and 22 unfounded? 23 LT. DODSON: When you got a clearance code, 24 it's cleared, he's already cleared this case. The 25 status of it is exceptionally cleared, he's not 133 1 going to pursue anything else on that. 2 MR. MCFARLAND: Is there any difference 3 between cleared and exceptionally cleared? 4 LT. DODSON: No. It's just, they call it -- 5 they use clearance code, cleared, that he's cleared 6 the case. 7 MR. MCFARLAND: Is there any difference 8 between cleared and unfounded? 9 LT. DODSON: Unfounded was, during their 10 investigation they unfounded it, it didn't -- the 11 limits of probable cause didn't exist, so it was 12 completely unfounded. They're saying that it 13 didn't occur based on their investigation. 14 MR. MCFARLAND: If you were writing a 15 disposition, when would you use the term "Cleared," 16 when would you use the term "Founded" or 17 "Unfounded." What's the difference? 18 LT. DODSON: "Cleared," you're getting to -- 19 the cleared -- clearance code is just cleared. 20 It's either cleared or referred. 21 And the status of it, he's exceptionally 22 cleared, he -- on the status, if you see "Referred 23 to another agency," meaning it's pending, this 24 investigation's still pending, it's referred to the 25 state attorney, it's referred to another unit, like 134 1 the sexual crimes unit, whatever. 2 So that's the difference. In the disposition, 3 normally they'll state in there, briefly, the 4 deposition of the -- disposition of a case, and 5 it's either going to say "Unfounded, Cleared" or 6 "Criminally -- Inmate was criminally charged," that 7 the person was criminally charged. So it's just 8 clearance codes. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: So there is no difference, is 10 that right? You either think that there are -- the 11 criminal elements are present and therefore refer 12 it or if you don't think that the criminal elements 13 are present, it's cleared, not referred and found 14 to be unfounded; is that right? 15 LT. DODSON: Correct. 16 MR. MCFARLAND: All right. So these are all, 17 synonymous terms? 18 LT. DODSON: Correct. 19 MR. MCFARLAND: Cleared doesn't mean anything 20 different than exceptionally cleared, which doesn't 21 mean anything different from unfounded? 22 LT. DODSON: No. There's a difference. 23 Cleared just means it's cleared, that -- 24 MR. MCFARLAND: I'm sorry. That just doesn't 25 help me. 135 1 LT. DODSON: That's -- it's in a different 2 area. Referred to, you know, you've cleared the 3 case, it's just a matter of -- of the -- the way 4 the system's set up. 5 You're computerized. It's going to give you 6 -- what do we do here. You pull -- pull a code 7 out, so I cleared it. Maybe it's pending. If you 8 clear it, it doesn't necessarily mean that you 9 haven't referred it to another agency. 10 MR. MCFARLAND: I see. So it's -- 11 LT. DODSON: It's just -- it's something for 12 the supervisor to look at. Well, this is being 13 cleared, he didn't -- you know, it's not unfounded, 14 it's not pending, he's done his investigation. 15 MR. MCFARLAND: I see. So what it means -- 16 what cleared means is that that officer's duty has 17 been discharged. It may be -- it may've been 18 referred, it may not've been referred? 19 LT. DODSON: Correct. 20 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. In this case, it was 21 not referred. This -- this female complainant, her 22 allegation was not referred beyond Agent Reynolds; 23 is that right? 24 LT. DODSON: Correct. 25 MR. MCFARLAND: And the -- and Agent Reynolds 136 1 says that upon contact with the victim -- I'm 2 looking at the fourth paragraph -- she requested an 3 attorney. And Reynolds "Informs her that she was 4 the victim of a crime and that he, Reynolds, was 5 here to help facilitate an investigation." 6 Do I take it that an attorney was not provided 7 for her? 8 LT. DODSON: If she'd requested a attorney, 9 she could have one there. But he was just trying 10 to tell her that he was the -- she was a victim. 11 She had originally made the complaint, he was there 12 to assist her. 13 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. So she never -- do you 14 know if she ever got an attorney during this 15 investigation? 16 LT. DODSON: That would be up to her. 17 MR. MCFARLAND: I understand. 18 Do you know if she ever got an attorney? 19 LT. DODSON: I don't have that information. 20 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. Mr. Reynolds then says 21 that he asked her if she was willing to testify and 22 that she "gave a lengthy dissertation to why she 23 didn't trust the criminal justice and judicial 24 systems." 25 He then asked her if she wanted to give 137 1 Reynolds a sworn statement to what had occurred. 2 And this victim complied. And, evidently, a sworn 3 statement was initiated. Is that correct? 4 Am I reading that correctly? 5 LT. DODSON: Yeah. I don't see it in -- I 6 don't see any mention in the enclosures that -- he 7 did a digital recording interview. Maybe that's 8 what he's referring to -- 9 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. 10 LT. DODSON: -- as her statement. 11 MR. MCFARLAND: And then during this -- this 12 interview, according to Agent Reynolds, she -- the 13 inmate -- mentioned being consoled by five females 14 prior to the lights going out. 15 Isn't it true that in the north annex there is 16 a -- I'm wondering what the housing situation was 17 for this victim at the time. 18 Now, in October of 2007, you hadn't moved the 19 women from the 100 block into the jail annex; is 20 that right? 21 LT. DODSON: Correct. 22 MR. MCFARLAND: All right. So, as Reynolds 23 says in the second paragraph, it was -- This 24 incident was reported to have occurred in the 100 25 block, right? 138 1 LT. DODSON: Correct. 2 MR. MCFARLAND: Now, in the 100 block, there 3 could be other females who would've witnessed this 4 alleged incident; is that right? 5 LT. DODSON: Correct. 6 MR. MCFARLAND: And, evidently, the victim 7 identified five of them, describing them as two 8 white and three black, having consoled her before 9 the lights went out. 10 Is there any indication that Agent Reynolds 11 talked to any of those five inmates? 12 LT. DODSON: I have no information on that. 13 MR. MCFARLAND: Would you have thought that to 14 be important? 15 LT. DODSON: I didn't do the investigation. I 16 think if there's anything there -- if it was a 17 probable witness, I'd probably go interview them. 18 MR. MCFARLAND: No. My question is -- 19 LT. DODSON: 'Cause all there was -- 20 MR. MCFARLAND: In your 21 years of 21 experience, would you have considered those to be 22 salient, relevant witnesses to talk to about an 23 alleged rape that resulted in vaginal bleeding that 24 was necessary to send the inmate to the hospital 25 emergency room; would you have considered that to 139 1 be -- to be -- 2 LT. DODSON: I didn't do the investigation. 3 MR. MCFARLAND: I know you didn't do this 4 investigation. So we're just taking these facts 5 and setting them hypothetically and asking your 6 opinion as to what is or should be the proper -- 7 the proper response, just -- 8 LT. DODSON: -- proper response, if I got a 9 witness that I -- I got a known witness that I can 10 determine, that I can actually get a witness 11 interview, I would. 12 And if this is the time period span here that 13 we're talking about, I don't know if Agent 14 Reynolds, I -- if he went back and did that 15 investigation, find out -- if he could find out who 16 was incarcerated during that time in the same cell 17 block and tried to do some type of investigation, I 18 can't speak on his behalf. 19 MR. MCFARLAND: Would you expect that to be 20 noted in his report, if he had talked to these -- 21 any of these five witnesses? 22 LT. DODSON: I think he had a difficult time, 23 based on the report, trying to interact when the 24 witness herself was uncooperative of the victim and 25 not -- not being able to give him any specific 140 1 information, except the fact she allegedly got 2 consoled by two or five people, which is all 3 alleged. 4 I think if -- I think he went out of his way, 5 tried to cooperate and get information from the 6 female. And I think if -- I don't have that 7 information here, but I think she's got a history 8 herself. If he took -- 9 MR. MCFARLAND: No. If you don't -- if you -- 10 do you have personal information about her history? 11 LT. DODSON: Yeah. I think I read something 12 in the contact -- that she has had some issues. 13 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. Well -- 14 LT. DODSON: Like I said, I didn't do the 15 investigation. I think he did a -- he had a -- 16 based on probable cause. Whether he went back and 17 tried the witness, I don't have that information. 18 MR. MCFARLAND: And you don't have an opinion 19 as to whether that would be a good -- 20 LT. DODSON: No. My opinion is -- 21 MR. MCFARLAND: Excuse me. 22 You don't have any information -- you don't 23 have an opinion as to whether it would be necessary 24 or proper to interview any of those five witness; 25 is that your testimony? 141 1 LT. DODSON: I think that you should be -- any 2 witness, potential witness, needs to be 3 interviewed. If you can place a person, you know 4 their name, then you can identify these alleged 5 witnesses. 6 MR. MCFARLAND: And if you -- and if you were 7 writing this report, you would note it in the 8 report that you had talked to them and they said 9 they didn't see anything or -- 10 LT. DODSON: I would. 11 MR. MCFARLAND: Yes, you would. 12 And is it -- again, applying these facts to 13 your expertise and your experience, if the victim 14 expressed reluctance in the middle of giving a 15 victim statement to proceed with and finger the -- 16 or, you know, testify against the assailant because 17 she had no confidence in the criminal justice and 18 judicial system, would you have considered that 19 just kind of the end of road; well, she won't 20 testify. It doesn't matter what the reason 21 is and -- Bingo -- unfounded, cleared and 22 exceptionally cleared, that's the end of the road? 23 LT. DODSON: Again, I don't have all the facts 24 in the case. I don't have any reports from any 25 doctor from the medical that they -- they may've 142 1 had. 2 I would try to inform her that I'm here to 3 help her, that would do -- I would do everything in 4 my power to ensure that if there is a suspect in 5 this matter that we can prosecute. But it's -- 6 she's got to be somewhat willing. You know, I 7 would attempt everything in my power to make sure 8 she understood. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: But Agent Reynolds had five 10 other witnesses that apparently he didn't talk to 11 or at least didn't note that he talked to. 12 Why on earth wouldn't you, when you have a 13 female rape victim who has presented serious enough 14 physical consequences to have to be sent to the ER, 15 there's no question that somebody has been 16 tampering with her vagina, you know -- 17 LT. DODSON: That's alleged. You -- 18 MR. MCFARLAND: Alleged? 19 LT. DODSON: She was sent to the emergency 20 room as a precautionary. 21 You say "Rape." They did the investigation. 22 They concluded the investigation sexually cleared. 23 Whether we -- he pinpointed any alleged witnesses, 24 based on her testimony, I'm not here (sic), I don't 25 know. 143 1 MR. MCFARLAND: Isn't it true that this victim 2 later attempted suicide two months later, in your 3 facility? 4 LT. DODSON: I don't have that information at 5 the time. 6 MR. MCFARLAND: Maj. Hibbs, isn't that 7 correct? 8 MAJ. HIBBS: Excuse me, sir? Sorry. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: Is it true that this victim, 10 this female victim attempted suicide in your 11 facility two months after trying to get -- after 12 reporting this incident? 13 MAJ. HIBBS: I'd have to look at the report 14 and find out. 15 MR. MCFARLAND: It's not in that report. It's 16 in the information that you provided to this Panel 17 in response to question number -- 18 MAJ. HIBBS: I believe that is true. But I 19 haven't read that report, specifically. 20 MR. MCFARLAND: I'm looking at a document, 21 July 11, 2008, from classification to Commander 22 Jeter referencing inmate suicide/attempted suicide. 23 And it lists -- the second to the last name appears 24 to be the same person that we've been talking about 25 in this sexual assault. 144 1 Commander Jeter, could -- you're not sworn, 2 but could you hand that document to Maj. Hibbs and 3 see if that refreshes his recollection. 4 CMDR. JETER: (Complying.) 5 MR. MCFARLAND: It lists four attempted 6 suicides in '07 and two successful suicides in this 7 facility. Is that the same person, in second to 8 the last? 9 MAJ. HIBBS: Yes, I believe it would be. 10 Based on the report, I believe it would be -- 11 person. 12 MR. MCFARLAND: Is attempted suicide a regular 13 occurrence in that facility? 14 MAJ. HIBBS: I would not say it's a regular 15 occurrence, no. 16 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. There are only six 17 attempts, two successful, in the whole year of 18 2007, right? 19 MAJ. HIBBS: I believe that's correct. 20 MR. MCFARLAND: So that would probably come to 21 your attention, if some -- if one of your inmates 22 attempted suicide, right? 23 MAJ. HIBBS: Absolutely. 24 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. And what would you do 25 about that? What did you do about this? 145 1 After this female who started to give a 2 statement, who went -- had vaginal bleeding or 3 allegedly had vaginal bleeding, well, you know, 4 evidently substantial enough to convince the nurse 5 to send her to the ER as a precautionary measure, 6 two months later she tries to take her life, what 7 did you do about that? 8 MAJ. HIBBS: Well, I think the follow-up -- 9 the same protocol, follow-through, from anyone who 10 attempted suicide in the facility, whether or not 11 that was correlated back to the original complaint 12 for the criminal investigation, I'm not for sure if 13 that transpired. I have no knowledge of that. 14 MR. MCFARLAND: Yeah. So what would -- what 15 did you do in this case? 16 MAJ. HIBBS: What did I do in this case, 17 personally? 18 MR. MCFARLAND: Did you do anything? 19 Do you have any knowledge about what any of 20 your staff -- and as the Number 2 in the jail, I 21 would assume you would know. This is a -- you 22 testified is a rare event, I imagine it's not a 23 badge of honor to have an attempted suicide, so it 24 probably got your attention, didn't it? 25 MAJ. HIBBS: I don't recall the attempted 146 1 suicide attempt in regards to Ms. Simmons. I do 2 not recall that. 3 MS. ELLIS: Do you normally do follow-up 4 with review on these kind of cases to determine 5 what happened? 6 MAJ. HIBBS: Yes. There is follow-up. 7 There's an overview on attempted suicides as well 8 as suicides in the facility. And I'm not part of 9 that process. 10 MS. ELLIS: Did you say there is not or there 11 is? 12 MAJ. HIBBS: There is. There is a review 13 process with mental health, medical, to make sure 14 the person's properly classified and placed -- and 15 precautions are taking place to make sure that the 16 person's not going to harm herself or harm another 17 while they're in the stay in the facility. 18 So those reviews are ongoing since the 19 incident occurred until such a time the person 20 leaves, yes. 21 MS. ELLIS: Was there a review on this case? 22 MAJ. HIBBS: I am presuming there was a 23 review on this case. But I haven't reviewed that 24 review, if that makes sense. It's standard 25 protocol to be done. But I don't have any 147 1 knowledge of it, because I haven't seen it, and I 2 wasn't involved in that review. 3 MS. ELLIS: Would this be information that 4 would necessarily be important to command staff, to 5 higher-level staff? 6 MAJ. HIBBS: Yes. It's important information 7 for command staff, that's correct. 8 MS. ELLIS: Are you a part of the command 9 staff? 10 MAJ. HIBBS: I'm a part of command staff, as 11 of last month, actually. But I was working side by 12 side with command staff for the last four years at 13 the detention center, so -- jail complex. 14 But this particular case, I -- I have no 15 knowledge of this, other than the information 16 that's written in the report. And I have no 17 recollection, going back to 2007, in regards to any 18 of the facts in regards to this case. 19 Matter of fact, if it's 11/22/07 -- was the 20 incident date -- usually I vacation, go up north 21 with the family during that time frame. I very 22 well could've been on vacation. But I can't 23 substantiate that either. I don't -- I don't know 24 those specifics -- the specific dates. So, if that 25 helps you out any. 148 1 MR. MCFARLAND: Would you expect your staff, 2 upon learning of an attempted suicide, to -- would 3 anyone be asked to review why that might've 4 happened and whether this individual had ever 5 alleged a traumatic event of recent past, like 6 an -- like a sexual assault that sent her to the 7 emergency room? 8 Would you expect that to be done or is 9 that just -- that's way, way over the line, 10 unnecessary? 11 MAJ. HIBBS: No. I -- I think that's normal 12 protocol, is to look in the person's history while 13 they're incarcerated, because you need to look at 14 that history. 15 Because you've got classification placements 16 and where are we going to house this female, and 17 everything else in regards to previous incident 18 reports, even previous incarcerations are very 19 important in these types of reviews, as well. 20 So anytime you have a suicide or attempted 21 suicide, you have to take those precautions. 22 MR. MCFARLAND: I understand that your 23 testimony is you don't recall what was last done in 24 this case, but -- 25 MAJ. HIBBS: No, I have no knowledge of the 149 1 case. 2 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. Well, I think we're 3 going to have the testimony from the mental health 4 administrator this afternoon. So we'll ask about 5 what, if anything, was done. 6 But as the deputy administrator of the jail 7 now -- 8 MAJ. HIBBS: Correct. 9 MR. MCFARLAND: -- would you want to see 10 someone on your staff take a look at this victim's 11 or a victim's past and see, "Oh, she alleged this. 12 We sent her to the emergency room. I bet maybe 13 something did happen. And the statute of 14 limitations hadn't run on the alleged rape. This 15 was only two months before she tried to take her 16 life." 17 Would you expect your staff today -- if this 18 happened today, would you expect your staff to look 19 at past grievances, past incident reports 20 investigated by the special victims unit of the 21 sheriff's office and see if that cast new light 22 that might actually be able to break the barrier of 23 the SVU investigators and actually have it seen by 24 a prosecutor? 25 Would you expect that to be done; is that what 150 1 you want to be done now? 2 MAJ. HIBBS: I think that would be due 3 diligence if that was done, if you had the 4 information in front of you, and you had the 5 knowledge of that. But I didn't have any knowledge 6 of that, so -- 7 MR. MCFARLAND: Well, speaking of due 8 diligence, then, would you expect any of your 9 staff -- are any of your staff trained -- is it 10 anybody's job to look at -- if anybody at least who 11 attempts to take their life -- to look at their 12 past, not just their mental health history, but 13 look at their past grievances and incident reports, 14 if any, and try to see if a crime that was ruled 15 cleared, unfounded, exceptionally cleared, might 16 bear a second look? 17 MAJ. HIBBS: If the case was unfounded, I 18 don't know how much bearing that would have. But 19 they need to look at all the information in the 20 past to determine how we're going to deal or manage 21 or take care of the inmate while they're in our 22 custody. I think that's very important. And we do 23 do that. 24 MR. MCFARLAND: And if somebody had taken a 25 second look at Agent Reynolds' report of 151 1 October 11, which was 40 days before she attempted 2 suicide, she would've seen -- or your staff 3 would've seen that there were five witnesses that 4 apparently weren't talked to and that the only 5 reason why the thing was dropped was because -- not 6 surprisingly -- the rape victim or alleged rape 7 victim was -- was not confident that the system 8 would bring her justice, so she didn't want to 9 exactly be -- risk her neck as a snitch in your 10 jail. 11 MAJ. HIBBS: I think if you look at it as not 12 the totality of everything that occurred, and she'd 13 mentioned the attempted suicide, if you read the 14 narrative of the report, the attempted suicide was 15 done with the roommates close by, they didn't 16 really think she was serious. 17 She -- there was folks present, from my 18 understanding, when she was going to put something 19 around her neck, and -- and it was more of a 20 suicide threat or maybe a cry for help as opposed 21 to a suicide attempt. 22 When you're saying, for the record, suicide 23 attempt, I'm afraid somebody's going to read that 24 and somebody went by and there's injuries to her, 25 and so forth. But I don't think that was the case 152 1 in this case. 2 I haven't had a chance to read that report 3 that in depth. But I'm just looking at the 4 excerpts of the report. So it's hard for me to 5 say. 6 MR. MCFARLAND: I guess I'm confused. I 7 thought you said you didn't know anything about 8 this attempted suicide, and didn't remember. But 9 now you're telling me how it happened. I don't -- 10 MAJ. HIBBS: I'm sitting here reading the 11 report now, in front of me, while we're discussing 12 it. 13 MR. MCFARLAND: Oh, you found the report. 14 MAJ. HIBBS: I got a report, yes. It was 15 handed to me. 16 MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. And this is a report by 17 whom? 18 MAJ. HIBBS: Sgt. Brian Seeley. 19 MR. MCFARLAND: Dated? 20 MAJ. HIBBS: 11/26/07. 21 MR. MCFARLAND: Four days after the attempt; 22 is that right? 23 MAJ. HIBBS: I'd have to read the report. But 24 the incident date says "11/22." The report does 25 say "11/26." 153 1 I don't know if there was follow-up on that. 2 I'm looking at the end time. Sometimes they go 3 back and add additional information in, and then 4 the report will be finalized at that point in time. 5 MR. MCFARLAND: May we have a copy of that 6 report? 7 MAJ. HIBBS: Absolutely. 8 MR. MCFARLAND: And maybe during lunch, 9 Maj. Hibbs, if you or any of your witnesses could 10 shed any light on what was done after that 11 attempted suicide to look into whether -- whether 12 there might be a connection between this rape that 13 sent her to the ER and her attempt, no matter how 14 serious -- 15 MAJ. HIBBS: Sure. Absolutely. 16 MR. MCFARLAND: -- and taking her own life. 17 MAJ. HIBBS: Absolutely. 18 MR. MCFARLAND: Great. Thank you. 19 Well, we have -- there are more incidents. 20 But it's been a long morning, so I think we'll 21 break at this point. 22 And can we commence at 1:30. That'd be about 23 an hour and a quarter. Will that be all right, 24 enough time? 25 Great. Thank you. We're in recess. 154 1 (Whereupon, at 12:23 a lunch break was taken.) 2 (Transcript Continued on Volume II.) 3 * * * 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25