Former Sheriff Found Guilty of Violating Prisoner’s Constitutional Rights

Former Carroll County sheriff Chuck Medford has been found to have violated a prisoner’s constitutional rights for “excessive and unreasonable” use of a restraint chair, in a Harrison District Court Magistrate’s report and recommendation filed April 4, 2008.

A restraint chair is used to hold down violent prisoners, or those who pose a threat to themselves (suicide) or others. It has belts and cuffs that keep a prisoner’s arms, legs, and torsos from moving.

A significant number of court cases on impermissible use of the chair have established the conditions under which the chair may be used, and the length of time an inmate may be held in it. It is widely known by prisoners’ advocates that use of the chair has been abused.

According to an article written in 2000 in The Progressive, jail and prison employees call it the “strap-o-lounger,” the “barcalounger,” the “we care chair,” and the “be sweet chair.”

Inmates and their lawyers have other names for the device: “torture chair,” “slave chair,” and “devil’s chair.”

Medford Testifies He Is Unfamiliar with Rules on Use of the Chair

In spite of significant nationwide publicity over use of the restraint chair by prisoner advocates, Medford’s testimony assumed he knew nothing about the chair or its use.

Medford testified, “I wasn’t trained in the use of the chair. I’m not familiar with the rules that govern use of the chair.”

He said, “I wasn’t aware of the existence of the restraint chair manual until this lawsuit came up.”

Length of Time Constrained Was Impermissible

Ignorance was no excuse. The Magistrate found Medford had engaged in “impermissible punishment” based on “continued use of the chair for an extended period of time.”

Not only was Griffis not taken out of the chair every two hours for a break of ten to fifteen minutes. His confinement “far exceeded the maximum ten hour recommended by the manufacturer of the chair,” the Magistrate said.

The Magistrate pointed out that Medford had himself testified that “it was his original intent to allow Griffis to remain in the restraint chair until the stitches were due to be removed, fourteen days after he was first put in.” The only thing that kept Medford from sticking to his original plan, the Magistrate said, was a doctor’s order, that Griffis needed to elevate an infected leg, which he could not do in the chair.

Chair, Food, Used for Punishment

A second issue in the case was whether or not the chair had been used to punish Griffis, or– as would have been permissible– to keep him from doing harm to himself.

Medford testified that he had restrained Griffis to keep him from doing harm to himself, a permissible use of the chair. Griffis had tried to commit suicide more than once, the Sheriff said, and the chair was the best way to protect him. The Magistrate agreed that Griffis’ “initial placement in the chair… did not amount the impermissible punishment.”

However, confinement after that point suggested that although Griffis had the opportunity to injure himself when he was taken to the doctor, to the dentist, and– twice– to see his attorney, “there is no indication that he made… attempts to injure himself.”

Nor was there any indication that Griffis was violent, according to the Magistrate:

… all jailers testified that Griffis had been cooperative, had not caused any disciplinary problems, was not fighting, or in any way being combative or destructive.

Finding confinement in the chair was used to punish Griffis, the Magistrate also said that the “bologna shakes” Griffis was fed constituted punishment. “Shakes” were made of “the drink of the day along with the sandwich of the day,” according to Medford’s testimony. They were given to people on lock-up– for punishment– and not to other prisoners on suicide watch, the Magistrate said.

Other Issues

Other issues came up that the Magistrate did not rule on. One, outside of the scope of this case, was the failure to provide psychiatric evaluation and help to Griffis. Although a need for a referral seemed clear to several of the jailers, they did not have the authority to make one, they said.

Failure to provide psychiatric evaluation and treatment has long been a major issue prisoners have against prisons, with cases of death following.

There were also foul jail conditions, several inmates said. There was mold, flooding from faulty plumbing, and perpetual dampness in at least one cell Griffis had been confined to. There were also rodents, Medford testified, and mice which crawled over Griffis while he was in the chair.

Records Destroyed?

Another of the disturbing aspects of the case were the blank video tapes– or large blank portions of the tapes– that would ordinarily have shown Griffis during the time he was in the chair. According to the testimony of Steven Davis, “during most of the tapes nothing happened.” He added:

My primary purpose in viewing the tapes was to look to see if Griffis was in the restraint chair. The chair appears on the tapes once. Griffis was not in the chair.

Yet Medford and other testified Griffis was in the chair. Jail logs showed that he was. What were the conditions under which Griffis was laboring when he was in that chair.

Do we have our very own Rosemary Woods right here in Arkansas?

Another Disappearance Is Strange

Almost as disturbing is the total lack of media coverage of this incident until now. We have absolutely no idea why our monopoly papers– all owned by the Rust Corporation– let this issue disappear.

Relief

The Magistrate recommended “judgment be entered in Griffis\ favor in the amount of $7207 against Former Sheriff C.E. ‘Chuck’ Medford. The recommendation was based on $7 nominal damages for days spent in lock-down and $600 per day for the twelve days spent in the restraint chair.”

A letter from defense attorney Jeremy McNabb informs Medford and other parties initially sued that he assumes Griffis will appeal.