Use of Force Analysis

related to the death of

Jamal Sutherland
in the

Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center

Charleston County Sheriff’s Office

Charleston, South Carolina

July 24, 2021

July 24, 2021

Solicitor Scarlett Wilson

Ninth Circuit Solicitor’s Office
Charleston, South Carolina

Solicitor Wilson:

You have asked for opinions on generally accepted jail practices as they pertain to the tragic death
of Jamal Sutherland. There was ample evidence in this case for me to confidently form those
opinions and reach conclusions as to whether the actions, policy, training, supervision and general
practice of the Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center (SACDC), and its employees, conformed to
standards and generally accepted jail policy, training and practices regarding the death of Jamal
Sutherland. Additionally, there was ample evidence regarding the effect of these matters on the
involved deputies.

I have relied upon my education, training and experience to form these opinions, which includes:

• 31 years in a career with the Ada County Sheriff’s Office in Boise, Idaho where the jail
was similarly sized to the SACDC.
• 10 years as the elected sheriff Ada County, Idaho.
• 7 years serving as a US Attorney General’s appointment to the National Institute of
Corrections – the leading federal agency in corrections policy and practice.
• Appointments by two federal courts to monitor Consent Decrees in jails regarding the
unreasonable use of force.
• Master’s degree in criminal justice administration from Boise State University
• Graduate of the FBI National Academy, FBI National Executive Institute, FBI Law
Enforcement Education and Development Seminar, FBI Command College, Northwestern
University School of Police Staff & Command, National Sheriffs Institute and others.
• Analysis and review of over 50 controversial incidents across the United States, mostly
involving the use of force and in-custody deaths.

2
 Summary of Major Conclusions

Fickett and Houle’s actions contributed to the death of Sutherland. However, the SACDC customs,
practices, training, and lack of policy and capable supervision were significantly responsible for
the situation itself and the actions the deputies took. The most tragic finding is that this event was
unnecessary and only happened because of the failures of leadership in the SACDC.

Specific findings:

1. The SACDC had adopted dangerous and unproven tactics for cell extractions.
2. The SACDC failed to adequately train staff in mental health awareness and practices.
3. The SACDC failed to provide a sufficient number of deputies to safely conduct a cell
extraction.
4. The SACDC failed to train and reinforce de-escalation techniques to avoid the use of force.
5. The SACDC commander ordered Sutherland to be forcibly taken to Bond Court without
cause and in violation of SACDC policy.
6. The SACDC failed to adequately train staff on waiting periods after the use of OC.
7. The SACDC failed to adequately train staff on limiting the number of TASER deployments
by a single individual and precautions against simultaneous deployments.
8. The SACDC failed to adequately train staff on the precautions against compressional and
positional asphyxia.
9. The SACDC had an unreasonable custom and practice of always putting a spit hood over
the head of someone who had been the subject of force.
10. The SACDC ranking staff failed to adequately supervise the line staff, allowing customs
and practices that were dangerous and in violation of SACDC policies.
11. The SACDC failed to establish proper policies that governed weapons and uses of force.