ACCPD Internal Affairs Summary Report confirms Officer Saulters violated protocol

Athens-Clarke County Police DepartmentInternal Affairs Summary ReportIncident Report ReviewA review of the incident was made, with the following notations:

• The report did not include the warrant information (type or original charge) only that a warrantexisted.
• Officer Saulters describes the use of the patrol car as a means of cutting off the path of flight ofPatmon.
• Once Patmon is on the ground and attempts are being made to handcuff him, Saulters tells Patmon that he will use the Taser if he continues to struggle.

The report seemed straight forward but did raise questions, provided below:Why was the car used?What was the warrant for?Was it confirmed?Was it served?The Use of Force report was a copy and paste of the narrative from the incident report, and did not yield any new information.All on-body camera video was reviewed prior to interviewing Officer Taylor Saulters, and the following notations were made:

• Officer Saulters gains on the foot pursuit, while operating his patrol car, on Nellie B. and steers his car up onto the sidewalk just as he passes Patmon. As the video reflects, this was in close proximity to Patmon.
• As Officer Saulters continues to drive the car back onto the road way, Patmon comes into view on the passenger side of the patrol car. Saulters is in the oncoming traffic lane and Patmon in the other.
• Officers Saulters steers right and the right front quarter panel of his patrol car makes contact withPatmon.
• Once on the ground, Officer Hunter Blackmon is able to gain enough control of Patmon that OfficerSaulters returns to his car and turns off the siren before returning to help handcuff Patmon.
• Even though Patmon continues to resist being handcuffed, both officers remained calm and continued to give verbal commands.
• Since Patmon would not put his hands behind his back, Officer Saulters warned him that if he continued to resist he would be tased; drew his Taser and activated it. Once he did this, Patmon complied and the Taser was put away. This can be heard but not visible on the video.
• Patmon was not searched at that time.
• Patmon was not searched prior to putting him into another officer’s car for transport (Officer Bond).
• On the video, Patmon tells or asks/makes a statement to Officer Saulters about hitting him with hispatrol car, to which Officer Saulters responds, “I know, I know what I did, why did you run.”

Interview with Officer Taylor Saulters

• His account of the incident was consistent with his report.
• The warrant was not verified on GCIC or through SO - only that it was on the active warrant list.
• He only knew that it was a Felony warrant for probation violation, he did not know the original charge.
• He did verify that it was Patmon by a photo.
• He only wanted to cut off the escape path of Patmon and never intended to hit Patmon.
• He stated that he was not using the vehicle as a weapon and knew that that using a vehicle would be using deadly force.
• He stated that Patmon ran into his vehicle and that he did not intentionally strike Patmon.
• He was having difficulty controlling the vehicle due to the driver’s side front tire being flat.

FACT SUMMARYBased on all of the facts and information available, the following conclusions are presented:Officer Hunter BlackmonNo policy violations or areas of concern were identified in regards to Officer Hunter Blackmon.Officer Taylor SaultersOfficer Saulters used poor judgement in using his patrol vehicle as a means to apprehend a fleeing suspect. Had the suspect committed an offense that would have warranted the use of deadly force, Officer Saulters’ actions may have been objectively reasonable and would have been evaluated under such facts. There are no facts that were uncovered that would have led to the justification for this level of use of force in this incident.Officer Saulters did use his car as a means to cut off the path of flight of Patmon.There were two vehicle encounters:In the first vehicle encounter, Officer Saulters did in fact turn his patrol vehicle into the pathof Patmon, in very close proximity of Patmon, by running up onto the sidewalk on theopposite side of the roadway.In the second vehicle encounter, Officer Saulters did in fact turn his patrol vehicle into thedirection of Patmon, who was clearly visible on the right side of the patrol car, and it is atthat point that Patmon is struck.Officer Saulters did not have any information that would justify using a patrol vehicle to affect anarrest.Officer Saulters’ use of the patrol vehicle was a seizure of Patmon through a means intentionallyapplied and was not objectively reasonable based on the information that he had at the time whenevaluated under Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).

The Excessive Use of Force is sustained on Officer Taylor.

END OF SUMMARY REPORT/FINDINGSSubmitted by:Richard OdumLieutenantOffice of Professional Standards