Category Archives: Aiken County Government

Aiken County, Aiken County Government, April 2023, Development Issues, Wastewater, Water Usage

Question: Is Google Coming to Aiken County? Answer: Aiken County Council Can’t Say.

5 Comments

by Don Moniak

April 19, 2023

At its Tuesday, April 18th public meeting, Aiken County Council approved the third reading of two different ordinances related to Project Sabal and its undisclosed representative Starskey LLC—a project in Graniteville being touted as a $900 million investment with fifty new jobs: 

  • One ordinance to “Authorize The Execution And Delivery Of A Fee In Lieu Of Tax (1) (FILOT) And Incentive Agreement By And Between Aiken County, South Carolina And A Company Identified For The Time Being As Project Sabal (The “Company”).” (Pages 9-11 of Agenda Packet)
  • The other ordinance “to Develop A Jointly Owned and Operated Industrial/Business Park in Conjunction With Edgefield County.” The industrial park is described in an attachment, but Exhibit A which shows the property is left blank. (Pages 13-15 of Agenda Packet)

The ordinance states the project creates no financial liability for the county and that “the benefits of the Project are greater than the costs;” but no costs in the form of resource or environmental impacts are identified. Only the jobs and investment benefits are listed in the ordinance.

At the last public hearing on the matter four weeks ago, Chairman Gary Bunker declined to answer any questions about costs or even identify the industry involved.

For the final public hearing this week, Aiken-Edgefield Economic Development Partnership Director Will Williams was summoned to answer questions; and informed Council that the Project Sabal “Company,” Starskey LLC, represents a data collection company that is “still doing due diligence on whether they have enough (electrical) power” to establish a new facility in the Sage Mill Industrial Park area. 

So it could be Google, Meta/Facebook, Microsoft, or another major data collection company with nearly a billion dollars to spend. But a nondisclosure agreement prohibits Council from divulging the real company’s name at this time.

Starskey LLC’s agent is Corporation Service Company of Columbia (2), and its legal representative is Nexsen-Pruet of Columbia, a powerful firm which recently merged with Maynard Cooper and Gale to form one of the largest law companies in the Southeast. 

Starskey LLC, via Nexsen-Pruet,  purchased ~560 acres of land from Wyatt Real Estate Investment, LLC (Agent: Weldon Wyatt) in 2022 for $19,299,555.   The property consists of four contiguous parcels adjacent to Bridgestone’s Giant Tire plant to the east and Bettis Academy Road to the west; near the Edgefield County line in the Graniteville area.

Properties purchased by Starskey LLC in 2022

When asked how much electrical power is required, and how much water is necessary for the data collection center, Williams responded that 200 megawatts of electric capacity was needed, and that Aiken Electric Cooperative is working with the company to provide its power needs. 

As for the water issue, Williams did not offer hard data, stating only that “the company continues to reduce their water usage over time. In the process they have relocated a water line” in the Breezy Hill Water and Sewer District.

Because of the massive water demands at data centers, Google and other major tech companies are working to reduce water usage at their water-intensive data centers.  At their Douglas Georgia data center Google boasts “we’ve designed an innovative reuse water system to use recycled water for 100% of our cooling needs.” And at their Berkeley County, South Carolina data center rainwater is reportedly collected as a water source for their cooling system.  Williams provided no details of any water conservation measures being proposed at this site.

Aiken County’s deal has similarities to the investments Google has made at its sprawling Berkeley County, South Carolina data center operations since 2007.  For example, Google’s $500 million investment in Berkeley County in 2014 involved: 

  • A great deal of secrecy including nondisclosure agreements for elected officials. 
  • A holding company called Maguro Enterprises, whose agent was also Corporation Service Company of Columbia; and who paid $17 million for property in Berkeley County.

The latter by itself might not mean much, as Corporation Service Company (2) is the listed agent for dozens of South Carolina LLCs. And it could be purely coincidental that Nexsen Pruit hired Berkeley County’s Attorney Nicole Ewing  in 2014, who had extensive experience navigating that county’s deal with Google.

But the nondisclosure agreement was a contributing cause to Councilman Kelly Mobley opting to vote no on the final reading, as he explained that:

“There is a non disclosure agreement. It is not fair for elected officials to not be able to tell our constituents who this is we are voting on.” 

Mobley had, minutes before, offered the opinions that:

  • “We can’t ignore the positive in the economic development, but with that said, we’re being asked to give and approve an unknown. What do we have? A real estate holding company that bought the property, rerouted a water main on Breezy Hill, but are still not willing to tell us who they are?” 
  • “I am concerned about the water, we do not know what percentage taken is going to be for water treatment , and we don’t know what the water usage is going to be.” 

Newly elected Councilman Mike Kellums also voted no, saying that “Council should know by the Third Reading what the project is by that time. I will be voting no tonight as well.” 

The final vote was 7-2, with Councilmembers in the majority offering some of the following supporting arguments: 

  • Phil Napier: “You can be assured that Breezy Hill (Water) has the capacity for water and sewer capacity if they say they do…These large corporations do not publicize their names while they are negotiating. This county needs more jobs. We can pull the plug if something comes up.”
  • Andrew Siders: “Aiken County is not putting one dollar towards this.” 
  • Gary Bunker: “This does not commit Aiken County to any costs. It is a Fee in Lieu of Taxes and not a liability.” 
  • Sandy Haskell: “They don’t want their competitors to know what they are up to.”

Councilmen Ron Felder, Willar Hightower, and Danny Feagin all voted yes without offering any insights into their vote.

Every Council member supported the project, but only two did not support the continued level of secrecy. The contradictory message from supporters of continued secrecy is that county taxpayers should rest assured there is ample water for the plant, and the county’s wastewater system can handle the outflow; yet nobody can say how much water is necessary and how much impact on county infrastructure there will be. 

Likewise, the “special source credits” mentioned 165 times in the 48-page Project Sabal FILOT agreement are never defined because they remain to be negotiated. While there is no liability incurred by Aiken County, the caveat for the special source credits is that future FILOT payments could be returned to the company, which could deprive the county of expected revenue. This stipulation is listed in capital letters on Page 12:

“THE NEGOTIATED FILOT SPECIAL SOURCE CREDITS AUTHORIZED HEREIN SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A GENERAL OBLIGATION OF THE COUNTY, BUT SHALL BE A LIMITED OBLIGATION OF THE COUNTY PAYABLE SOLELY FROM THE NEGOTIATED FILOT PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE COUNTY HEREUNDER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT.”

The real details of the project’s costs and incentives might never be known. The Post and Courier reported in 2020 that in Berkeley County, the county keeps the financial incentives a tightly guarded secret. Google, and other tech companies, is also “very protective” of its water usage and has applied twice to increase the amount of water it pulls from nearby aquifers to supplement, if necessary, the four million gallons a day it uses to cool its data collection machines.

(Update: The data center is being built by META).

Footnotes: 

(1) Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT)

The South Carolina Department of Revenue summarizes FILOT as:

“Industries that invest at least $2.5 million in South Carolina may negotiate for a fee-in-lieu of property taxes. This can result in a savings of about 40% on property taxes otherwise due for a project. Certain large investments may be able to further reduce their liability by negotiating the assessment ratio from 10.5% down to 6%. For large investments, the assessment ratio can be reduced down to 4%. The county and the industry may agree to either set the millage rate for the entire agreement period or have the millage change every five years in step with the average millage rate for the area where the project is located. Any personal property subject to the fee in lieu of property taxes depreciates in accordance with South Carolina law, while the real property is either set at cost for the life of the agreement or can be appraised every five years.

A fee in lieu of property taxes is granted by, and at the discretion of, the county where the project is located. The industry must make the $2.5 million investment over a five-year period to qualify. Large investment projects have eight years to meet their increased investment requirements. During this period, all property that is placed in service pursuant to the agreement is subject to a fee instead of ad valorem property taxes. A county may give the industry an additional five years to complete the project and place new property in service subject to the fee. A single piece of property can be subject to the fee for up to 40 years with the county’s consent. The total project can be subject to the fee for up to 50 years with the county’s consent.”

The FILOT rate for Project Sabal is listed as four percent.

In between his terms on County Council and his election as County Council Chairman, Gary Bunker was a popular columnist for the Aiken Standard. in his columns he routinely described Fee in Lieu of Taxes as an industrial tax incentives. In 2013 he wrote that South Carolina’s tax structure: 

“Encourages retirees to settle here, who benefit from low property taxes. Their limited retirement income isn’t greatly penalized by the high income tax.  Conversely, this tax structure is hard on businesses and manufacturing. It encourages fee-in-lieu of tax agreements and special source revenue credits to get around high property tax rates on large industrial developments. In essence, the left hand must undo the damage caused by the right.” 

(2) In a typical loop for shell companies, Corporation Service Company’s listed agent is United States Corporation Company; and the latter’s listed agent is Corporation Service Company. 

Starskey LLC was registered as an LLC in Delaware on March 7, 2021, and in South Carolina on October 24, 2022 prior to its December 7, 2022 property purchase. All that is public are the names of the registered agent:

Aiken County Government, Editorials

Obscuring the Present

1 Comment

Aiken County Council’s continued failure to record recent history.

by Don Moniak
March 22, 2023

Nearly ninety percent of Aiken County Council’s February 21, 2023, public meeting involved discussions on topics brought to Council’s attention by four Aiken County citizens. During the “informal meeting of the whole,” the two longest discussions regarding wetlands degradation and road damage from stormwater runoff, and the status of the Nicholson Village Community Center, collectively lasted nearly thirty minutes.

The discussions were lively and productive. Council member Kelly Mobley of North Augusta maintained his status as the most persistent and inquisitive Council member on the record, as he tried to dissect jurisdictional issues, and at one point asking whether a county decision had negatively impacted a property owner.

Council Chair Gary Bunker continued to avoid loose ends, and wrapped up both segments by tasking Council members and county staff with appropriate followup.

On March 7, 2023, Council approved the February 23rd meeting minutes which inexplicably reduced thirty minutes of serious discussion involving several decisions to a single sentence; and referred any interested parties to a recording kept on the third floor of the decade -old County administration building that looms above University Parkway.

“Council heard from Dwayne Gamm, Vickie Simons, Don Moniak, and Victoria Patterson on various topics. If verbatim transcript is needed for future reference, all statements are recorded on file with the Council Clerk.”

Aiken County Council records its sessions, but does not broadcast them or archive the recordings online. Although government bodies in South Carolina are not mandated to broadcast their proceedings, a bill currently in the General Assembly would require School Districts to televise School Board meetings.

Aiken County Council meeting minutes have been minimalistic for years, mostly, but not always, complying with the letter of South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act, but routinely failing to meet the spirit of the law. SECTION 30-4-90, Minutes of meetings of public bodies, requires

“All public bodies shall keep written minutes of all of their public meetings. Such minutes shall include but need not be limited to:

(1) The date, time and place of the meeting.

(2) The members of the public body recorded as either present or absent.

(3) The substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided and, at the request of any member, a record, by an individual member, of any votes taken.

(4) Any other information that any member of the public body requests be included or reflected in the minutes.”

Anybody seeking information as to what concerns are raised during the “informal meeting of the whole” agenda portion of each meeting would end up nearly empty handed. Anybody wishing to learn what present-day matters are of such concern to compel people to travel 15-30 minutes one-way to petition their elected officials for redress of grievances or to offer solutions can only learn by attending meetings and waiting for the public comment period prior to adjournment.

At best, the substance of matters discussed is routinely reduced to a few words, such as the documentation on a discussion about fences two weeks ago:

“Anita Straway spoke to Council about her concerns of the current fence ordinance, and asked Council to please consider amending the ordinance.”

Last night two county residents raised concerns regarding management of Boyd Pond Park and the dusty, unpaved road leading to the county’s new trash transfer station off Connector Road in the Graniteville zip code area. I also challenged Council to follow the spirit of state FOIA law and document the substantive issues brought forward and any decisions made to address those issues.

The next Council meeting is April 18, 2023; providing Council staff four weeks to document the substance of those discussions. Aiken County would do well do live up to its motto by documenting present day concerns raised in the very recent past.


Aiken County, Aiken County Government, February 2023

“Gun Violence Survivors Awareness Week”

3 Comments

Aiken County Council to Honor Survivors After Awareness Week Ends?

by Don Moniak
February 7, 2023.

Aiken County Council is scheduled to approve a ”Resolution to Declare February 1-7, 2023 as Gun Violence Survivors Awareness Week in Aiken County, South Carolina” at its tonite’s public meeting. The resolution is part of Council’s regular “consent agenda,” a long list of items not requiring a public hearing that is approved as a single agenda item. In the absence of an amendment to the consent agenda, the resolution will be approved.

The vote on the resolution declaring Aiken County’s “commitment to reduce gun violence in our communities” is planned for the waning moments of the “awareness week.”

Aiken County Council resolution, on Page 24 of the Agenda Packet.


No Gun Owners of America Disinformation This Time

Tonight’s vote will take place nearly a year after a more memorable discussion of firearms during a County Council meeting, provoked in large part from a disinformation campaign by the Washington, D.C. based advocacy group Gun Owners of America (GOA). On February 9, 2022, GOA issued an alert to its membership: “SC: STOP THE PRIVATE PROPERTY SHOOTING BAN IN AIKEN COUNTY!”

The issue originated with a County resident suffering a gunshot wound on her arm from a reportedly errant round of target shooting by a neighbor. During the public comment period at the end of Council’s January 18, 2022, meeting, the victim voiced their concern that law enforcement had no legal means to cite the shooter.

In the ensuing discussion, Council Chair Gary Bunker indicated that other county residents were voicing concern about similar situations, while Councilmember Phil Napier cited a recent event in a high density residential area (Trolley Line Station) and stated, “I am pro Second Amendment, but I am also pro-safety.” Council agreed to have legal counsel investigate the matter, but did not commit to any action.

On February 9th, GOA issued its false alarm describing a nonexistent proposal by County Council, along with a ludicrous insinuation that even a prohibition on hunting was on the table:

“Aiken County Council members are planning to propose a county-wide ordinance that could effectively end the right to shoot on one’s own property. Such a proposal could include minimum acreage requirements, berms subject to inspection, and perhaps a prohibition on hunting.”

Gun Owners of America February 9, 2022 Alert.



The group urged its members to “make plans to attend the County Council Meeting to oppose any restrictions on shooting on private property,” turning a public safety discussion into a Second Amendment Rights rallying cry.

The news release did contain the factual statement that “State law already prohibits discharging firearms at structures.” South Carolina law states:

“It is unlawful for a person to discharge or cause to be discharged unlawfully firearms at or into a dwelling house, other building, structure, or enclosure regularly occupied by persons. A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” ( SC 16-23-440 (A))

It is also unlawful to shoot at “any vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, or other conveyance, device, or equipment while it is occupied.” If these laws are enforced literally, however, it is not clearly unlawful to shoot onto adjacent private property where people are outside enjoying their private property rights. Aiken County Sheriff Department deputies with experience witnessing lawyers find loopholes in the law are unlikely to take action when the law has an obvious loophole.

The Judicial and Safety Committee Briefing

Following GOA’s alert, Aiken County Council was inundated with calls and comments from constituents. Vice Chair Andrew Siders posted a notice on social media denying all of the allegations in the alert. The level of disinformation was later described as an “internet frenzy.”

During the period between meetings, Aiken County Attorney Brad Farrar investigated the public safety issue, as requested, and prepared a 55-slide power point educational presentation for Council’s Judicial and Public Safety Committee public work session held at 5:30 P.M., ninety minutes prior to the regular council meeting. The presentation reviewed both state firearms laws and the county nuisance ordinance in an open manner—and Council chose not to retreat to a closed-door Executive Session to accept legal advice, as allowable by state open meetings laws.

Farrar presented the case that firearms regulation remains solely the purview of the state legislature, explaining in a subsequent February 16, 2022, memo that “the area firearms regulation in South Carolina is “completely preempted by state law,” and that even ordinances or resolutions that are “verbatim reaffirmances of State and federal law, are preempted” by existing state law. (1)

He also argued that, while case-specific, the existing nuisance law covered most complaints pertaining to target-shooting. There was no recommendation for Council to advise the legislature of any need to close the loophole. Following his presentation, Councilman Sandy Haskell called the GOA alert a “prime example of fake news” and stated “the county has no intention of passing any laws or regulations because the state won’t allow it and we don’t want to.”

County Chair Gary Bunker summarized the message by saying, “This is a civil issue. If a target shooter negligently  shoots at you on your property, go find yourself a lawyer. Case closed.”

At 7 p.m. the Council chambers filled up to a nearly standing-room only status.

6:58 P.M. February 15, 2022, Aiken County Council Chambers.


Following the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance, Chairman Gary Bunker went off-agenda to announce to “all the people who are here because of a social media post,” that there was nothing there to hear:

“There was no such thing as a shooting ban on private property ever proposed, no such thing was ever contemplated, no such thing was on the agenda tonight, and no such thing will be voted on by Council tonite. For some people who spent time on social media, such item was not on the agenda. We did take legal advice regarding a very narrow issue involving a target shooting accident during the safety committee meeting, and decided to take no further action.”

At that point, more than fifty people left the room and the meeting followed its published agenda. Nobody has been shot by an errant target shooter since the meeting.

7:05 p.m. Feburary 15, 2022, Aiken County Council Chambers.


Footnote:

(1) Farrar did not discuss the fact that most large municipalities, including the cities of Aiken and North Augusta, have ordinances on the books regulating the discharging of firearms that pre-date existing state law. Section 22-4 of Aiken City Code still reads, for example, in part:

“(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge any firearm, air rifle, or other weapon within the corporate limits of the city. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to apply to persons discharging firearms in protection of their life or property; to peace officers in the actual discharge of their duties as such; to members of the United States Armed Forces, National Guard, or Reserve when in the performance of their duties.

(b) Landowners discharging a firearm on that landowner’s property to protect the landowner’s family, employees, the general public, or the landowner’s property from animals that the landowner reasonably believes pose a direct threat or danger to the landowner’s property, people on the landowner’s property, or the general public commit no violation of this section nor commit any unlawful act under the Aiken City Code by doing so.”


















23-31-400,

B) It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance to use a firearm in this State.

(C) A person who violates the provisions of subsection (B) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than two thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than two years.

(D) This article does not apply to persons lawfully defending themselves or their property.

Aiken County Government, In the Courts, November 2022, Public health and safety

A Verdict of Gross Negligence

8 Comments

$150,000 Jury Award in Owens vs Sheriff Michael Hunt et al.

by Don Moniak

November 30, 2022

The first general provision of Title 24 of South Carolina law—Corrections, Jails, Probations, Paroles, and Pardons—pertains to a Sheriff’s responsibility for managing county jails:

“The sheriff shall have custody of the jail in his county and, if he appoints a jailer to keep it, the sheriff shall be liable for such jailer and the sheriff or jailer shall receive and safely keep in prison any person delivered or committed to either of them, according to law.”

On November 4, 2022, an Aiken County jury in the Second Circuit Court of South Carolina returned a verdict finding Aiken County Sheriff Michael Hunt and three local government agencies grossly negligent in their supervision and confinement” of Aiken Detention Center inmate Otis Owens in January, 2017. The jury awarded $150,000 in damages.

Owens has a criminal record dating back to the late 1990’s for convictions ranging from receiving stolen goods and grand larceny to a variety of illegal drug possession charges. According to court records, at the time of the incident he was in pre-trial detention.

Sheriff Hunt was first elected in 2003, and since then has easily won five re-elections. Captain Nick Gallum is presently the Jail Administrator for the Aiken County Detention Center, but was not named in the lawsuit. The jail also has chronic understaffing issues—job openings for underpaid detention center officers are a fixture in the county’s jobs listings.

According to the sheriff’s office , the average daily population at the facility is 407 inmates. Around the time of the incident the jail reported to the Aiken Standard that it had exceeded its official capacity—317 inmates at the time—sixteen times in 2016.

The case was filed in June, 2017; and the subsequent five years of litigation featured:

  • Sheriff Hunt and Aiken County declining an offer to settle, in 2018, for $75,000; and again in 2021 for $100,000. 
  • Defense lawyers unsuccessfully preventing Sheriff Mike Hunt from being deposed. 
  • Allegations emerging of pervasive mistreatment of inmates at Aiken County Detention Center; including another personal injury lawsuit in 2022.
  • The Aiken County Sheriff’s Office being accused of “gamemanship” and “nefariously colluding” to force a trial without Owens present.
Figure 1: Jury Verdict form, November 4, 2022.

Timeline of Owens vs Sheriff Michael Hunt et al (1)

June 20, 2017:  On behalf of Otis Owens of Warrenville, SC, Greenville, SC Attorney Joshua Hawkins  files a lawsuit  against Sheriff Michael Hunt, the Aiken County Sheriff’s Office, the Aiken County Detention Center, and Aiken County, claiming:

“”On or about January 27, 2017, when the plaintiff was going in from the recreation yard, an Aiken County Detention Center corrections guard, in searching the plaintiff, probed the plaintiff’s belly button, ran his hands up the inside of the plaintiff’s legs, and grabbed and squeezed the plaintiff’s testicles. The guard maliciously and aggressively assaulted the plaintiff, going beyond anything necessary to search the plaintiff. The guard, while acting for the governmental defendants, acted in disregard for the plaintiff’s rights, and acted in a way that could only be construed as at least reckless and grossly negligent.”

The complaint went on to state that Owens requested and was denied medical treatment; but a month after the assault “ a sonogram revealed that the plaintiff had sustained injuries to his groin and that fluid had accumulated around his testicles, and was treated with Tylenol and antibiotics for ten days for the injuries he sustained as a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ tortious acts.”

The complaint asserted that “all governmental and non-governmental entities condoned and ratified the actions of guards, officers, employees, and agents acting on their behalf during the events related to this action.”

July 25, 2017: Attorney William Davidson, representing Sheriff Hunt, the Sheriff’s Office, and Aiken County, answers the complaint by denying all charges and claiming immunity for his clients.

June 15, 2018; Judge Keesley orders mediation, to be completed by October 1, 2018. The deadline is later extended to June 2019.

October 23, 2018: Owens offers to settle for $75,000, and defense declines offer.

October 23, 2019. Owens attorney Joshua Hawkins files a second lawsuit against individual Aiken County detention center guards. The complaint alleges that before assaulting Owens, Deputy Timothy Gibson “accused the plaintiff and other inmates of playing dice,” that no dice were ever found, and that Gibson had “violated another prisoner’s rights in the same way.” (2)

August 12, 2020: Following a separate incident, three Aiken County Detention Center guards are fired after an internal investigation into the beating of an inmate. (3)

February 5, 2021: An Alternative Dispute Mediation results in an impasse.

August, 2021: Owens offers to settle for $100,000.

December 21, 2021: Parties agree to a trial date the week of February 21, 2022.

February 5, 2022: “Due to unique circumstances,” the court orders a 90-day continuance of the case and the jury trial is postponed.

March 1, 2022: Attorney Hawkins files a Motion for Costs (4) describing the twist in the case leading to postponement. Before the trial date, Owens violated parole during house arrest and could not be located. Hawkins alleged that the Aiken County Sheriff’s office knew where Owens was located, chose not to apprehend him, and “nefariously colluded, deceived opposing counsel, and wasted the Court’s time for the purpose of attempting to force the trial without Owens present.

April 4, 2022:  Attorney Davidson files a motion to quash to prevent Sheriff Hunt from being deposed, arguing that he had no firsthand knowledge and his position involves many responsibilities, and that being deposed would only serve to embarrass him:

“This witness, who is Sheriff of Aiken County, has little or no firsthand knowledge about the facts of this case. Any information he does have that is even arguably relevant can be gathered from other sources without burdening Sheriff Hunt for a deposition. Because of the demands of his position and the absence of any firsthand knowledge relevant to this case, requiring him to appear for a deposition would be a needless imposition on Sheriff Hunt and his many responsibilities and can only amount to an effort to harass, embarrass or cause undue burden on him in violation of the rules.” 

An affidavit from Sheriff Hunt was also filed, in which he swore he was unaware of the facts in the case—even though the case also involved his overall management of the jail.

April 4, 2022 Affidavit of Aiken County Sheriff Michael Hunt.



May 4, 2022: Judge Keesley orders a jury trial to begin October 31, 2022.

June 20, 2022: Circuit court judge William P. Keesley denies Davidson’s motion to quash the deposition of Sheriff Hunt, writing that because the allegations were part of a pattern in the Sheriff’s Department, that he could be deposed under oath:

“The Sheriff has filed an affidavit stating that he knows nothing about any issues related to this lawsuit, aside from what he has learned from staff. He argues that taking his deposition is a waste of time and that the Apex Doctrine prevents his being required to sit for a deposition because he is merely the head of the Department. The court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to depose Sheriff H. Without limiting the scope of the examination, there appears to be an ability to conduct this deposition based on the assertion that this alleged misconduct was a pattern in which members of the Sheriff’s Department engaged.”

Sheriff Hunt was deposed under oath and the deposition was entered into the court record. (5)

October 31 to November 4, 2022. After three previously schedule trials were postponed, a five day jury trial is held. Thirteen witnesses were listed for the Plaintiff, while the Defense called no additional witnesses.

The jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff that, based on the preponderance of evidence, the defendants were grossly negligent.

November 14, 2022.  On behalf of the defense, attorneys Davidson and Andrew Lindemann file a motion for a new trial and to dismiss Aiken County from the case, arguing that: 

  • The Sheriff is solely responsible for the management of the Aiken County Detention Center. 
  • The Sheriff is a state officer and not a County officer; therefore Detention Center officers are employees of the Sheriff’s Office and not County employees, and therefore, “Aiken County is not liable under state law for any acts or omissions by an employee of the Sheriff working at the Detention Center.” 
  • The verdict is “grossly excessive.” 
  • There was no expert medical witness testimony. 
  • The plaintiff failed to prove gross negligence in the hiring of employees. 
  • The plaintiff should have filed a charge of assault instead of, or in addition to, gross negligence, against the guards. 

In regard to the latter contention, Davidson and Lindemann argued that: 

“ The gross negligence standard is not applicable to the intentional tort of assault and battery or any vicarious liability claim based on a sexual assault or sexual misconduct committed by Deputy Gibson. In other words, if the Plaintiff intended to bring a tort claim for the sexual misconduct alleged against Deputy Gibson, the proper cause of action would be for assault and battery – not for gross negligence.”

No date has been set to hear the motion for a new trial.

For another story on a larger jury award for gross negligence, see
Another Verdict of Gross Negligence



Footnotes

(1) Information was obtained primarily from court records available at https://publicindex.sccourts.org/Aiken/PublicIndex/
and through the PACER federal court records system available at
https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/csologin/login.jsf

(2) Hawkins moved to consolidate the cases two months later, but it was instead transferred to federal court. On April 26, 2022, U.S. Magistrate Judge Molly Cherry granted a motion for summary judgement that dismissed all defendants in that case with the exception of detention Timothy Gibson. The case against Gibson is pending.

(3) The case was turned over to South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), which filed charges of “misconduct in office” against the three officers on January 15, 2021. Court records show a dismissal in one case; and the Aiken Standard reported the cases were diverted to alternative disposition routes.

On July 20, 2022 Neil Alger and Austin Crosby filed a civil suit against the Aiken County Sheriff’s Department on behalf of Clifford Beaudin, alleging gross negligence and claiming, in part, that:

“Additionally, ACSO has a practice and history of allowing violations of policies and procedures by employees pertaining to excessive force and the improper treatment of inmates.”

The case is pending.

(4) Three weeks after the case was continued for 90 days, Hawkins filed the March 1, 2022, Motion for Costs, which reads as follows:

“The plaintiff filed a motion for a day certain in this case, and this case was set for February 21, 2022. While preparing for trial, the undersigned learned that the plaintiff violated the terms of his parole and could not be located. Because the undersigned was unable to contact the plaintiff, the undersigned reached out to the defendants and indicated the plaintiff would resolve the case for the defendants’ last offer. The defendants instructed the undersigned to send power of attorney documents proving that the plaintiff’s mother had authority to settle the case, which the undersigned did. Then the defendants refused to settle the case.

When the defendants refused resolve the case for their last offer, the undersigned asked the defendants if they would agree to a strike the case pursuant to SCRCP 40(j) so that the undersigned could attempt to locate the plaintiff. The defendants refused. The undersigned then had to file a motion with the Court, which the defendants opposed and continued to oppose at a hearing on February 1, 2022.

After February 21, 2022, passed, Otis Owens was immediately arrested. A deputy told Owens that the Sheriff’s Office had known where Owens was for some time, but that Defendant Michael Hunt instructed deputies not to pick Owens up until after the trial date passed. This means that the defendants nefariously colluded, deceived opposing counsel, and wasted the Court’s time for the purpose of attempting to force the trial without Owens present. The defendants should have arrested Owens when they knew where he was instead of attempting to pull a fast one with the Court. Worse, is that the defendants are public servants and instead of doing the job tax dollars compensate them for, they engaged in gamesmanship, wasting tax payor resources with an unnecessary hearing in the process.

Based upon the conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order the defendants to pay costs and fees associated with the previously filed Rule 40(j) motion and this motion.”

The motion to pay costs and fees was denied in the same order denying the defense motion to quash the deposition of Sheriff Hunt.

(5) The depositions of Sheriff Hunt, other ACSO officials, Owens, and other detention center inmates are not publicly available at sccourts.org because they are not scannable. At least one is a video deposition. The depositions have been requested from the Aiken County Clerk of Courts.

On May 22, 2022, during the same period an effort was made to prevent Sheriff Hunt from being deposed, The Aiken Standard publishes a major investigative story by reporter Alexandra Koch detailing a pattern of late night to early morning, warrantless searches on passenger buses on the Aiken County and Lexington County line. The only significant arrest for drug possession during years of routine, warrantless searches was later dismissed by the courts after a judge ruled there was no probable cause for the search, passenger civil rights were violated, and the pretext for the stop was not verified by dashcam video. Sheriff Hunt declined to comment on the issues or the story.