Following a strange sequence of events several hours earlier, at approximately 6:30 p.m., October 12, 2003, officers ordered a Housing Unit ("POD") at the Shasta County Jail hereinafter ("JAIL") locked-down for no obvious reason. A few minutes later, three officers rushed in the main POD door, with two more officers a few seconds behind them, all of them ran up the stairs to the second tier converging on cell number four. Additional officers simultaneously rushed in through the second tier access doors, with a total of nine or ten officers meeting at cell four, which housed Inmate Michael Figueroa. Then came a great deal of screaming, yelling, and banging, with Figueroa heard yelling. "You're attacking me over a bath towel!"

Exactly what happened is somewhat unclear, but several inmate witnesses state that officers rushed in and assaulted and beat-up Figueroa. He was obviously beaten, and he obviously attempted to defend himself; but as to who struck the first blow, was it justified, the exact sequence of events--this depends on who is telling the story--the officers or the witnesses. Although exactly who did what to whom, and when, is unclear; what is clear and factual is that certain officers involved had recently had grievances filed against them by Figueroa. A few minutes after removing Figueroa, officers returned and removed Inmate Denver Bowen, both going to "The Hole" (Administrative Segregation).

Notwithstanding the confusion, several questions arise: Since there was no emergency or immediate security threat from an inmate who was locked inside a cell by himself, and was sitting quietly or sleeping, why the multi-officer forceful response? Why didn't staff instead utilize the established written disciplinary procedures? This incident outwardly appears to be an exaggerated response, especially when using the established disciplinary system would most likely have avoided the violence. Perhaps a thorough, independent, and impartial investigation is called for, and the above questions as well as others will be answered. Such as: Where is the line between reasonable and unreasonable in determining justification for violent physical force? What probable cause is necessary? Who must authorize such physical force? Is a policy and procedure that allows physical force against an inmate sitting quietly in his cell in a non-emergency, reasonable? What would constitute excessive force under the described circumstances?

After witnessing this incident, other peaceful, quiet, inmates are living in terror. They also fear being bum-rushed by violent police who for some reason don't like them, are having a bad day, or myriad other illegitimate reasons. They wonder why sworn peace officers do not have to follow the written procedures of the established disciplinary system, when the inmates must follow even the most picayunish of unwritten rules and demands.

Recent articles in the Redding Searchlight have also questioned excessive police force, specifically referring to several suspects being recently shot by northstate law enforcement, and letters to the editor have called for the establishment of a "Citizens' Review Board."  Because the normal review process has police officers who are accused of wrong doing then being investigated by co-workers--other police officers--it is claimed the internal review process doesn't work. It simply is not independent and impartial. However, not only shootings should be investigated by a fair, impartial and independent entity, but all serious allegations of police misconduct--such as excessive force and beatings. If they did nothing wrong, they should have nothing to fear.

More information is necessary to understand why the outward appearances of the October 12 incident makes one want an independent investigation. First, there were at least nine JAIL officers involved in the initial response, a sizeable percentage of uniformed JAIL staff. For other JAIL officers or officials to find fault would be to decimate their own ranks. The collateral damage throughout the Sheriff's Department would be huge. Second, the witnesses already heard statements from officers they know to be lies, this based on the witnesses own eyesight. And finally, protectionism within the police fraternity inherently will not allow a fair and impartial investigation by one's peers and coworkers. The officers' actions may very well have been justified, but based on what they saw, witnesses would not accept such a finding unless the investigation was independent.

Both Figueroa and Bowen are highly disliked by JAIL staff, and both have in the recent past filed complaints of misconduct against a couple of the involved officers. This was properly done through the JAIL's established internal "Grievance System," a right guaranteed by statutory law and both the State and Federal Constitutions. And officers are prohibited by law from retaliating against those who have used this process. Yet, the sequence of events surrounding the October 12 incident raises serious questions of retaliation with excessive force, and thus, whether the officers had probable cause for their actions. Considering that Figueroa is a pre-trial detainee, not yet convicted of a crime, and therefore, not yet subject to punishment without due process. The outward appearances do not produce a logical or reasonable justification, instead, a summary of earlier events makes the incident appear to have been mishandled with the resulting violence unnecessary.

Remembering that in the recent past Figueroa had filed complaints against the involved officers. On the morning of October 12, as they do many mornings, Figueroa and two other inmates had hung their towels on the second tier safety railing to dry after taking showers. When so hung, the towels are usually left only until dry, then taken down. However, on this day Figueroa forgot his towel was hanging on the railing. The towels are small so they do not block or cause obvious security problems. They simply appear untidy. Some officers tolerate the practice openly, some tacitly; while others do not, and direct the inmates to remove the towels with little ado. It is quite subjective and arbitrary, but never before considered serious.

On October 12, the regular POD officer, also called a "Prowler," had been through the POD going from door inspecting the POD approximately hourly since 8:00 a.m., and at no time did he object to the towels hanging from the railing. These towels had been hanging there within inches of where he past during several of his inspections, and should appear in the video surveillance tapes of the POD for that day. Later, not too long after lunch, a female officer, (one of those against whom Figueroa had filed a complaint), came into the POD searching for extra mattresses, a common occurrence, all the while screaming rude disrespectful profanities at the inmates. She singled out Figueroa and placed him on immediate lockdown status because his towel was hanging on the railing, also confiscating the towel. He protested her actions and pointed out that the regular Prowler had seen the towel several times and not objected. She then went down the stairs to the first tier, continuing her tirade of verbal abuse. At this time, Denver Bowen objected to her verbal abuse, stating, "Why do you talk to us like that? If we disrespected you like that, you would write-us-up!" She rudely retorted, "You're God Damn right I would," and stomped out the door. This was the only apparent thing Bowen did "wrong" this day.

Shortly thereafter, the regular Prowler entered the POD angry that Figueroa had involved him. He accused Figueroa of lying, and categorically denied that which most of the 32 POD inmates had seen themselves, and thereby know to be true--there had been towels hanging on the railing that he had ignored. He, in fact, was the one who lied according to the inmate witnesses. Check the video surveillance tape!

In the midst of the female officer's rude, profane, verbal tirade, another inmate had been on the telephone to his wife, who heard the whole episode over the telephone. She complained to her husband that this was the second time they had been on the phone when this same officer had come into the POD cursing at the inmates, and that she [the wife] was highly offended. Later, the irate wife telephoned the JAIL "Watch Commander," who identified herself as Sergeant Ashmun, to complain. However, the wife refused to identify herself, citing to the Sergeant a fear of retaliation against her husband.

Nevertheless, identification would have been easy as the husband's earlier call to his wife was monitored and recorded. Whether it was related or not is unknown at this time, but, one of the initial responding officers to the Figueroa incident was the regular POD Prowler on October 14, 2003, and he placed the husband of the woman who had made the phone complaint, on immediate lockdown status without due process. This happened at the dinner meal when the inmate [husband], who receives special medical diet, was in the meal line and asked the officer if he would please bring in some Commissary Slips later. The officer rudely shooed him off, wanting only those receiving medical diets in line. The Inmate informed the officer he does get a special diet. The officer lost his temper, along with any hint of professional behavior, and yelled at the five inmates waiting for special diets, "You sick, lame, and lazy bastards just make my job harder!" Walking away the other direction, the Inmate mumbled, "Then you should get a different job." The officer heard this, and immediately placed him on lockdown status, even though this incident was initiated by the officer when violating policies, practices, procedures, and laws, requiring him to treat inmates with dignity and respect, which was not done by calling them "sick, lame, and lazy bastards."

Just after the female officer cussed at the inmates on October 12, Denver Bowen initiated, and several inmates signed and filed a "Group Grievance" protesting her behavior. Figueroa verbally protested to the Prowler about being placed on lockdown status, over a towel, and this without due process, something normally required in the absence of an emergency situation or immediate security threat.

Little did he know of the portentous effects of towel hanging. That this was evidently so serious as to required immediate lockdown status, and also to justify the entire POD to be locked down several hours later, followed by the multi-officer rush of his call that culminated in a violent procedure known as a "cell extraction." After violently removing Figueroa, as he verbally protested about all of this being over hanging up a towel to dry, he was probably then placed in Administrative Segregation. The only outwardly apparent reason for Bowen's removal is his objecting to an officer's rude behavior, and then filing a Group Grievance, although what creative justification appears on the paperwork should prove interesting. Many of the other inmates were not unhappy to see them go, as they were considered disruptive; but the method is questionable, and none of the other inmates approved of that.

Any reasonable person can see something is horribly wrong with a multi-officer violent response to a hanging towel that had been removed some four hours previously. A fair, impartial, independent, investigation should be done, as the sequence of events defy simple logic, and do not support the events being rational or justified.

Inmate Tom Watson