Category Archives: Public health and safety

Aiken County, Forests, June 2024, Public health and safety

How Dry is It?

2 Comments

Short answer: The woods are very dry

by Don Moniak
June 27, 2024
(Updates: July 5, 2024: Latest national drought map shows that in the past week most of Aiken County has regressed into moderate drought and the rest of the county is “abnormally dry.” See new map below Figures 1 and 2. The KBDI index remains in the 500-600 range. August 13, 2024: Since July 5th, the area has received 12-16 inches of rain. Bush Field in Augusta measured 9.5 inches in July alone, and the rain from Tropical Storm Debbie brought anywhere from 2 to 6 inches to the Aiken area.).

On Monday, June 24th, the Graniteville-Warrenville-Vaucluse (GVW) Volunteer Fire Department responded to a wildfire near Old Sudlow Lake Road and adjacent to Hunter’s Glen subdivision, that originated from an escaped campfire.

The proximity of the fire to Hunter’s Glen subdivision further prompted a request for South Carolina Forestry Commission crews, who brought two tractors that were used to contain the fire at two acres.

What was unusual about this fire was not so much a neglected campfire next to a large subdivision, it was the response time of 4:30 a.m, a time of day characterized by higher humidity—and obviously no solar heating. Any fire activity during this time of day is a powerful indication of how dry the woods are across Aiken County.

National Weather Service data shows only one day with more than a half inch of precipation (June 17) in the past three weeks, and no rain in the past ten days. Temperatures have steadily risen from the low 90’s to above 100 degrees and relative humidity has steadily declined towards the thirty percent, which is low for this region. Add to this the desiccation of vegetation further caused by intense solar radiation during the longest days of the year, and the net result is high wildfire danger.

The current pattern is similar to the period of May 17 to June 7, 2019, which featured 24 days without rain, nineteen consecutive days over 90 degrees, and several record setting days exceeding 100 degrees. Relative humidities dropped as low as the teens. Overall, the extremely dry conditions were later determined to constitute a “flash drought,” which the National Integrated Drought Information System defines as “the rapid onset or intensification of drought, set in motion by lower-than-normal rates of precipitation, accompanied by abnormally high temperatures, winds, and radiation.”

The key difference during the 2019 flash drought were high winds, which further dried out vegetation; helping to turn normally green fields brown and create an unusually high level of pine needlecast that was described as unprecedented in recent times.*

A significant event during that flash drought period was the 200-acre Gateway Fire along Interstate 20, a fire that spotted across the highway and burned actively during nighttime hours. The Gateway Fire triggered the closure of I-20 for more than a day and the evacuation of dozens of homes.

Long-term Drought Indices

Like 2019, the current level of drought is not well indicated by long-term drought indices. Last week’s U.S. Drought Monitoring Map (Figure 1) showed our area as normal, but not far from counties with “drier than normal” conditions. However, this week’s map (Figure 2) shows Aiken County as “drier than normal,” and not far from counties in moderate drought. This does provide some indication that a flash drought is developing or already in place, but in this case it is a rapid onset of drought rather than an intensification of existing drought.

The latter conclusion is supported by another long-term drought index, the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), which is “based on a simplified soil water balance and estimates relative soil moisture conditions.” The current PDSI actually shows moist soil conditions in this region (Figure 3).

Figure 1: Drought Monitor Maps for the past two weeks.

Figures 1 and 2. June 20 and 27th Drought Monitoring Maps. (Click to enlarge.)

Update: July 5, 2024 map showing moderate drought status for most of Aiken County and much of the surrounding region.

Screenshot
Figure 3: Current Palmer Drought Severity Index. From drought.gov (click to enlarge)



A Short-Term Drought Index

One drought index that better reflects short-term drought conditions and the possibility or presence of a flash drought is the Keetch-Byram Drought Index (KBDI), which is widely utilized as an indicator of potential wildfire spread and intensity. The index best measures the moisture levels of the finest forest fuels, the litter and duff layers.

The South Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC), which relies upon this index to monitor potential fire activity, describes KBDI as follows:

“The Keetch–Byram Drought Index (KBDI) is used to assess and predict wildfire potential and severity. Calculated once a day based on rainfall, air temperature and other meteorological factors, KBDI values represent the net effect of evapotranspiration and precipitation relating to the flammability of organic material in the ground. The index ranges from zero, the point of no moisture deficiency, to 800, the maximum drought that is possible. The higher the number, the greater potential of wildfires igniting easily and spreading rapidly.”

The Forestry Commission provides daily KBDI mapping updates and measurements from individual weather stations from across the state. In the past week, the KBDI has risen to a level showing the strong potential for dangerous and erratic wildfire behavior. While the fire risk has been somewhat mitigated by the absence of high winds, that could temporarily change with an approaching cold front or other unstable weather system.

The current map shows values in the 500-600 range. The National Wildland Fire Assessment System (WFAS) describes KBDI values of 400 to 600 as “Typical of late summer and early fall conditions. Lower litter and duff layers actively contribute to fire intensity and will burn actively.”

According to the WFAS, KBDI values of 600 – 800 are “Often associated with more severe drought with increased wildfire occurrence. Intense, deep burning fires with significant downwind spotting can be expected. Live fuels can also be expected to burn actively at these levels.” 

In the past day alone, an area of greater than 600 KBDI has emerged in the Columbia area, and a KBDI measurement at one of our closest weather stations, on the Southeast portion of Savannah River Site, increased from 564 to 591 (Figures 4 and 5).

This region is approaching KBDI values of 600, and Forestry Commission Firewise and Prevention Coordinator Andy Johnson is certain that “there are localized  areas with more pronounced drought conditions,” with KBDI values in excess of 600.

Figures 4 and 5: KBDI Index, June 26 and 27. (Click to enlarge)

With the Fourth of July and its associated fireworks festivities arriving next week, this dryness and the associated fire danger looms a little larger. Although weather forecasters are predicting increased humidity and a more normal pattern of a chance of scattered thunderstorms, no widespread rain is currently predicted.

The current level of dryness is contributing to the flaring of 25-30 wildfires a day (Figure 5), many of them escaped debris burns, which is putting a strain on SCFC firefighter resources, thus increasing the likelihood of firefighter injuries** during any fire as well as extensive property damage from larger fires.

Figure 5: June 27, 2024, South Carolina Forestry Commission may showing wildfire activity across South Carolina.
Smoke at dawn from a two-acre wildfire adjacent to Hunter’s Glen subdivision off Old Sudlow Lake Road in the Graniteville zip code area. From the GVW Facebook page.


Footnote

* Needlecast is the phenomenon in which older pine tree needles turn brown and drop to the ground. It is most notable in Longleaf Pine.

Needlecast is a natural response to dry conditions, and functions to conserve water. New growth of brighter green needles is more visible during needlecast. As such, it also provides an indication of live fuel moisture levels are somewhat reflected by the degree of observed pine needlecast; particularly Longleaf Pine.

This is more of a Fall phenomenom, but also occurs in response to drought conditions in late Spring and early Summer. 

In a 2021 article, SC DNR biologist Johnny Stowe wrote that, since the mid-2000’s he has “seen healthy longleaf pines drop needles before the summer solstice only once.” That was in 2019, when significant needlecast dotted the countryside. The dry sandy ridges found across Aiken County.

During this period, the drier sandy ridges of Aiken County developed a fall-like tannish hue, with patches of browner shades dotting the landscape.

When Longleaf Pine drops its needles, it provides a flashy fuel bed that will persist until there is significant rainfall.

** On April 4, 2024 U.S. Forest Service/Savannah River Site firefighter sustained second degree burns during a prescribed burn. The Occurrence Report for the accident stated that the firefighter “received second degree burns to approximately two percent of his body while attempting to clear a fire line around a dead tree within the boundary of Savannah River Site.”

Below: Example of Longleaf Pine needlecast. Note the proliferation of fresh green needles above the brown needles that will fall during strong winds or heavy rain.



DHEC, Government regulation, Public health and safety

Insects, Toxins, Warm Fish, and Unsanitary Hands

2 Comments

How an “A” Food Grade Is Not Always A Compliment. 

by Don Moniak*

February 10, 2024 

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) conducts routine, annual to quarterly, inspections of food service establishments that include restaurants, food trucks, school cafeterias, and grocery stores. The 56-part inspections are titled “Foodborne Illness Risk Factors & Interventions and Good Retail Practices.”**

The primary aim of the inspection program is to prevent food-born illnesses and ensure clean, sanitary dining environments for customers. The basis for, and details of, the inspection process are within DHEC Regulation 61-25; whose purpose it to “safeguard public health and provide to consumers food that is safe, unadulterated, and honestly presented.” 

DHEC’s inspections are only one small food safety monitoring method. While the prospect of an inspection might induce some establishments to maintain good practices, most do so out of professional pride.

DHEC has thus far reported inspections of 42 Aiken-area restaurants and other food service establishments in 2024.  Five of these were pre-opening inspections required for the issuance of food permits.  

Of the 37 operational establishments*** subjected to routine inspections, all but one received an “A” grade that can be proudly displayed to assure customers that the food within is safe. Fortunately, not a single establishment was issued a “priority violation” citation resulting from chronic violations of foodborne illness risk factors; although numerous one-time “priority violations” were found that were subsequently corrected. (Figure 1)

Figure 1: Example of a “Priority Violation”

Not all “A” grades are equal, and a grade is not a score. While more than half of those inspected received excellent scores of 98-100 pct, involving less than two violations, five establishments with “A” grades also received multiple violations resulting in scores of only of 84-89 percent; and 9 of the 37 A-grade establishments had enough violations to require followup inspections to ensure compliance with more critical food safety measures. Nearly all of these followup inspections resulted in scores of 98-100, and every priority violation was rectified. 

These measures include, but not are limited to, the following: 

  • Proper hot food and/or cold food storage temperatures and thawing techniques. 
  • Availability and use of dedicated hand-washing sinks. Specifically, employees are required to wash their hands before returning to the workplace, and “handwashing sinks shall be accessible at all times for employee use and that handwashing sinks shall not be used for purposes other than handwashing.” 
  • Separation of raw meats and seafood from other foods to prevent cross contamination. 
  • Presence of a supervisor whose qualifications to monitor the premises include a Food Safety Certificate. 
  • Absence of toxic materials in or near food storage and prep areas.
  • Basic good housekeeping such as clean food preparation surfaces, absence of food containers on floors, clean floors, absence of grease buildup on hoods and other equipment. (While DHEC does not conduct fire prevention inspections, its inspections do serve to prevent the buildup of flammable materials and substances).
  • Absence of insects and rodents. 

The violations of A-grade establishments collectively included violations involving all of the above practices. Some of the violations were documented with photos, others with harsh words. 

Handwashing Violations

Inspectors seldom observe employees not washing their hands. They do often detect evidence of improper hand washing or even the lack of hand-washing. Two of the most common violations involve blocking of dedicated hand-washing sinks (Figure 1), and washing in sinks dedicated to cleaning and sanitizing equipment. Most A-Graders with sub-90 scores had hand-washing violations, but no A-Graders with scores of 98-100 had observed hand-washing deficiencies. Other violations include leaving or even cleaning cooking and prep equipment in the dedicated sinks, the absence of soap or hand towels, and/or insufficient hot water. 

Figure 1: Blocked hand washing sink unlikely to be used as designed.

Toxins Near Food

Nobody wants inorganic toxic substances anywhere near their food. Yet, some of the nine A-Grade establishments requiring followup visits were found to have violations such as: 

  • “A chemical container stored next to hotdogs in prep area.”
  • “Multiple chemical spray bottles stored with liquid soda, side of bread, and on prep surface.”

    Good Housekeeping Deficiencies and Fire Hazards

Some A-Grade establishments sometimes do not do a good job of basic housekeeping. One common violation is excess grease on hood vents, a serious fire hazard. Others include dirty back rooms and floors, dust and other particles in prep areas, food stored on the floor, and unsanitary bathrooms. Some recent findings included: 

  • “Hood vents holding excessive grease, back wall circular fan holding excessive dust, grease buildup and trash thoughout kitchen floors and behind equipment.”
  • “Observed floors upstairs covered in refuse throughout. Observed organic white growth in cooler. Observed accumulation of dust on walls in back kitchen. Observed back hallway covered in leaves and debris.”
  • “Observed bin of rice sitting directly on the floor. Observed plastic bag of spices sitting directly on the floor.” 
  • Buildup of “black material” was found in the ice machines of three establishments 

Food Storage Deficiencies

Keeping temperature sensitive foods cold or hot enough is a constant challenge in restaurants and stores with food bars. Some of the recent violations included: 

  • Fresh fish in a display cooler kept at 56F
  • “Prep cooler: beef 44 F, mozzarella 52 F, corn beef hash 50 F, black eye peas 49 F.” 
  • “Advised (person in charge) that refrigerated, ready-to-eat, TCS foods prepared and held for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the use by, sold or discarded date, not to exceed 7 days.”
  • Walk-in cooler/cooked rice: tub #1 51F, tub#2 55F, tub 49F. Per conversation with employees rice was cooked prior day.

Insects and Rodents. 

In the semi-good news department, only one A-Grade establishment had signs of rodent infestation—“observed rodent droppings in storage” (Figure 3)— and the only other observations in this category involved unsealed entrances or other access points. 

Figure 3: Signs of rodent infestation at one A-Grade Establishment

Footnotes

* The author’s Food Safety Manager qualifications have expired.


**DHEC readily provides documentation of food inspections, but not complaints. Complaints can be filed at https://apps.dhec.sc.gov/FoodSafety/FileAComplaint/

***Individual establishments are not named in this article. Since the inspection reports are searchable at this DHEC internet webpage, individuals with a desire to know the status of any individual establishments can search for the most recent inspection, or all inspections in any given time period.

The standard approach by some media outlets of selecting some establishments for criticism and others for praise is inherently unfair and generally lacking in context. The absence of recent inspections is not evidence of safe or unsafe ongoing practices. Reporting on individual establishments can provide an unfair advantage to their competitors. For example, four fast food establishments in a single block can be inspected in four different months. One bad day can lead consumers to, sometimes irrationally, choose to patronize a similar establishment that had a worse grade four months previously.  An establishment that has been warned is not an establishment that has been cited and subject to penalties.

Other reasons for not naming names include:

  • Inspection quality is variable. Some inspectors inspire fear in their subjects, others are more prone to an easier approach. The absence of violations only means violations were not detected or observed; not that they do not exist. Two different inspectors can easily arrive at two different sets of conclusions. 
  • Although all inspectors use the same form, not all inspectors are equally diligent or comprehensive. More intense inspections can be triggered simply by the outward appearance of an establishment. If anything is messy at the entrance, a more rigorous inspection can follow. Thus, the work habits of non-food workers can create bias in the inspection of food handling, storage, and preparation practices. 
  • Routine inspections represent a single point in time, and not necessarily chronic work practices. A single day with unsafe practices(s) can lead to foodborne illness or discomfort. 
  • Most grocery stores and franchise establishments are also subject to even more stringent corporate rules and in-house inspections; these are generally not recognized in DHEC’s inspection process. Owner-operated establishments could be subjected to daily inspections without acknowledgement by DHEC.
  • Some food establishment operations are simpler and can more easily pass inspections. Establishments that do not handle hot foods are not inspected for hot food holding temperatures, those with fish or shellfish on the menu face deeper levels of inspection, etc. Inspecting a coffee shop is generally much easier than inspecting a steak and seafood restaurant. 
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.