Client Outcomes

Correctional Officer Reinstated without Discipline after almost
Two Years of Administrative Leave

San Joaquin County Correctional Officer Terry MacDougall was allowed to return to work with the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department after almost two years on administrative leave.  The Department will take no disciplinary action against Officer MacDougall.
 
Officer MacDougall’s case started when he was involved in a use of force situation in the San Joaquin County Jail with an inmate on July 15, 2005.   Officer MacDougall was working in the booking area of the jail.  One of his duties was to process new inmates who recently arrived.  The trouble began when an inmate, who recently arrived from state prison, refused to cooperate in the dress-out process. The inmate refused to give up his basketball shoes for the jail issued footwear.  Officer MacDougall made every effort to talk to and reason with the inmate about him giving up his shoes.  As Officer MacDougall tried to persuade the inmate to give up his shoes the inmate became increasingly angry and agitated.  Officer MacDougall ordered the inmate to give up his shoes on several occasions.  At one point, while the inmate was particularly angry, he began to lunge out of his chair toward Officer MacDougall.  Officer MacDougall put his hands on the neck and shoulder area of the inmate an attempted to hold the 6' 2" 250 lbs., inmate in the chair. The inmate forced his way out of chair and Officer MacDougall hit the inmate in the face with two or three distractionary blows. Un-phased, the inmate struck Officer MacDougall in the face, knocking him back and across the room.  Several other officers immediately came to Officer MacDougall’s aid.  From there, a two to three minute struggle ensued where Officer MacDougall and several other officers attempted to gain control of the inmate.  The officers were eventually able to get the inmate cuffed and he was then taken to the administrative segregation section of the jail.  The inmate suffered no serious injuries in the incident.  
 
Both an Internal Affairs and criminal investigation were immediately commenced.  The investigation revealed conflicting testimony between the involved officers as to whether the inmate acted aggressively toward Officer MacDougall just prior to Officer MacDougall using force.  Shortly after the start of the investigation Officer MacDougall was placed on administrative leave.  On approximately October 7, 2005, criminal charges were filed against Officer MacDougall for misdemeanor violation of Penal Code §149. MacDougall was represented by Paul Q. Goyette, of Goyette & Associates, Inc at trial.  The jury trial was conducted in September 2006, and after a lengthy deliberation, the jury deadlocked at 7 jurors for acquittal and 5 jurors for conviction.   The District Attorney thereafter dismissed the case in the interest of justice.
 
Officer MacDougall’s worries were not yet over. While the criminal case was pending, the Department’s Internal Affairs Division had suspended its investigation. Now with the criminal case dismissed the Department’s Internal Affairs Division resumed its investigation. Officer MacDougall went through a lengthy Internal Affairs interview were he explained, as he had done at trial, exactly his observations and decision-making process that led him to use force on the inmate.  Finally, after a lengthy investigation, the Department decided to not proceed with any form of disciplinary action against Officer MacDougall.  He was returned to full duty on approximately April, 2007.  
 
Officer MacDougall’s case is unique in that his Department placed him on paid administrative leave throughout the duration of the criminal proceedings.  At times it was very frustrating for Officer MacDougall to be on administrative leave and not able to perform his full duties and responsibilities. However, Officer MacDougall was still a member of the Department and was receiving his full pay and benefits.  This was obviously a significant benefit to Officer MacDougall.  The Department’s Internal Affairs Division carefully examined the evidence that came out at the criminal trial.  As is common in police use of force cases, the evidence at trial showed that the witnesses to the use of force incident only observed pieces of the event.  Many of the witnesses had different perceptions of what occurred based on upon their location and their particular focus on the inmate’s activities. Officer MacDougall contended from the start that he only used force on the inmate when he saw the inmate make initial movements to lunge at him from his chair.  Officer MacDougall felt that his use of force was reasonable, if not minimal, under the circumstances considering the size, strength and aggressive behavior of the inmate.  In the end, the Department agreed and returned Officer MacDougall back to work after 18 months of administrative leave.  
 
Officer MacDougall was happy to return to work. “I am happy to return to work. I never felt like I did anything wrong.  It was frustrating for me to get prosecuted for a crime for simply doing my job,” he said. Officer MacDougall continued by saying “I am happy the Department saw this event from my perspective.”
 
Paul Q. Goyette is the managing partner of Goyette & Associates, Inc., which specializes in the representation of public safety employees and their associations in numerous types of legal matters.