Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Body Camera Allegation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident alleges deputies failed to activate body cameras during son's arrest
Summary
At the Nov. 21 Spencer County Fiscal Court meeting, resident Rhonda Allen alleged deputies did not have body cameras activated when her son, she said, was beaten during an arrest; the court did not record a sheriff's office response during the session.
Rhonda Allen, a Spencer County resident, used the meeting's public-comment period to raise concerns about the county sheriff's body-camera policy and an arrest involving her son.
Allen told the court the sheriff's office purchased 10 body cameras with grant funding and received one additional unit free from the vendor, "so that was a total of eleven." She said the sheriff's office had said cameras should be on at all times but alleged that an officer named Jacob Lashley did not have his body camera on when her son, Zachary Hawkins, was stopped and arrested in Spencer County.
"My son was beaten black and blue by Jacob Lashley and Brian Berry," Allen said during her three-minute comment, according to the meeting record. She added that a warrant at issue originated in Laurel County and that the Laurel County judge dismissed it; she said Judge Dutton released her son without bond there. Allen said local officers nevertheless charged her son with resisting arrest and that she planned to return to provide more information.
Allen also said the county pays about $80 per camera per month in maintenance and questioned whether cameras were being used despite the recurring cost. The meeting record does not include an on-the-record response from the sheriff's office or the deputies named; Judge Riley cut Allen's allotted time when it expired.
The Fiscal Court minutes record Allen's allegation but do not document any official finding or follow-up action from the court. The sheriff's office was not recorded in these minutes as responding during the meeting. The court may consider the matter separately if the complainant follows up or if staff refer the issue to the appropriate office for investigation.
