Latest news with #ArkansasBoardofCorrections
NBC News
11-07-2025
- NBC News
Arkansas prison employees fired after 'Devil in the Ozarks' escape
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Two employees at an Arkansas prison where an inmate known as the ' Devil in the Ozarks ' escaped have been fired for policy violations, corrections officials said Thursday as they faced questions from lawmakers who said the escape points to deeper problems. The head of the Arkansas Board of Corrections told state lawmakers the violations allowed Grant Hardin to escape from the Calico Rock prison wearing a makeshift law enforcement uniform on May 25. But officials have said there was no evidence employees knowingly assisted Hardin's escape. One of the fired employees had allowed Hardin onto an outside kitchen dock unsupervised and the other employee worked in a tower and had opened the gate Hardin walked through without confirming his identity, Chairman Benny Magness said. 'If either one of them would have been following policy, it wouldn't have happened,' Magness told members of the Legislative Council's charitable, penal, and correctional institutions subcommittee. Hardin was captured 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) northwest of the Calico Rock prison on June 6. Authorities said he escaped by donning an outfit designed to look like a law enforcement uniform. Magness said the outfit was crafted from an inmate uniform and kitchen apron dyed black using a marker while a soup can lid and a Bible cover were fashioned to look like a badge. Lawmakers said the escape pointed to systemic problems beyond the two employees — including how Hardin was able to fashion the fake uniform without guards noticing. 'I think we've got major issues here that need to be dealt with,' said Republican Sen. Matt McKee, who co-chairs the subcommittee. Hardin, a former police chief in the small town of Gateway, near the Arkansas-Missouri border, is serving lengthy sentences for murder and rape. He was the subject of the TV documentary 'Devil in the Ozarks.' After his capture, Hardin was transferred to a maximum security prison in Varner, a small community about 65 miles (125 kilometers) southeast of Little Rock. Hardin has pleaded not guilty to an escape charge and is set to go on trial in November. Hardin held a job in the kitchen in the prison and had not had any disciplinary problems during his time there. In addition to the uniform, Hardin fashioned a ladder out of wooden pallets that were on the dock and also took peanut butter sandwiches from the prison to survive on after his escape, corrections officials told lawmakers Thursday. Hardin planned to use the ladder to scale the fence and escape if the gate wasn't opened for him, said Dexter Payne, director of the division of correction. 'There are a lot of things he did unnoticed and unaware,' Republican Sen. Ben Gilmore said during the hearing. 'I don't think you can blame just two people for that.' Members of the panel also said Hardin's escape points to the need to scrutinize a classification system that placed a convicted murderer in what's primarily a medium-security facility. Payne said a critical incident review of the escape planned later this month may determine if other employees will face firings, demotions or disciplinary actions. It also will determine what other policy changes may be needed, he said. State Police is also investigating the escape to determine whether any laws, policies or procedures were violated in the escape. Col. Mike Hagar, the head of state police and secretary of public safety, said the final report on the investigation may be completed within 30 days. Thomas Hurst, warden of the prison —formally called the North Central Unit — said State Police was not notified immediately of the escape though local police were, blaming it on a miscommunication. 'There's nobody that's more embarrassed about (the escape) than me,' Hurst said. 'It's not good. We failed, and I understand it.'
Winnipeg Free Press
11-07-2025
- Winnipeg Free Press
Arkansas prison employees fired after ‘Devil in the Ozarks' escape
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Two employees at an Arkansas prison where an inmate known as the 'Devil in the Ozarks' escaped have been fired for policy violations, corrections officials said Thursday as they faced questions from lawmakers who said the escape points to deeper problems. The head of the Arkansas Board of Corrections told state lawmakers the violations allowed Grant Hardin to escape from the Calico Rock prison wearing a makeshift law enforcement uniform on May 25. But officials have said there was no evidence employees knowingly assisted Hardin's escape. One of the fired employees had allowed Hardin onto an outside kitchen dock unsupervised and the other employee worked in a tower and had opened the gate Hardin walked through without confirming his identity, Chairman Benny Magness said. 'If either one of them would have been following policy, it wouldn't have happened,' Magness told members of the Legislative Council's charitable, penal, and correctional institutions subcommittee. Hardin was captured 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) northwest of the Calico Rock prison on June 6. Authorities said he escaped by donning an outfit designed to look like a law enforcement uniform. Magness said the outfit was crafted from an inmate uniform and kitchen apron dyed black using a marker while a soup can lid and a Bible cover were fashioned to look like a badge. Lawmakers said the escape pointed to systemic problems beyond the two employees — including how Hardin was able to fashion the fake uniform without guards noticing. 'I think we've got major issues here that need to be dealt with,' said Republican Sen. Matt McKee, who co-chairs the legislative panel that oversees corrections. Hardin, a former police chief in the small town of Gateway, near the Arkansas-Missouri border, is serving lengthy sentences for murder and rape. He was the subject of the TV documentary 'Devil in the Ozarks.' After his capture, Hardin was transferred to a maximum security prison in Varner, a small community about 65 miles (125 kilometers) southeast of Little Rock. Hardin has pleaded not guilty to an escape charge and is set to go on trial in November. Hardin held a job in the kitchen in the prison and had not had any disciplinary problems during his time there. In addition to the uniform, Hardin fashioned a ladder out of wooden pallets that were on the dock and also took peanut butter sandwiches from the prison to survive on after his escape, corrections officials told lawmakers Thursday. Hardin planned to use the ladder to scale the fence and escape if the gate wasn't opened for him, said Dexter Payne, director of the division of correction. 'There are a lot of things he did unnoticed and unaware,' Republican Sen. Ben Gilmore said during the hearing. 'I don't think you can blame just two people for that.' Members of the panel also said Hardin's escape points to the need to scrutinize a classification system that placed a convicted murderer in what's primarily a medium-security facility. Payne said a critical incident review of the escape planned later this month may determine if other employees will face firings, demotions or disciplinary actions. It also will determine what other policy changes may be needed, he said. 'There's nobody that's more embarrassed about it than me,' said Thomas Hurst, warden of the prison, formally called the North Central Unit. 'It's not good. We failed, and I understand it.'
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Audit criticizes Arkansas Board of Corrections' hiring of outside counsel in dispute with governor
Arkansas Board of Corrections member Lee Watson, right, answers questions from the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee on Friday, June 6, 2025. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate) An Arkansas legislative committee filed a report Friday detailing a requested audit into the Board of Corrections' 2023 hiring of a Little Rock attorney, a move that raised concerns from lawmakers about the board's procurement practices. The nonpartisan Arkansas Legislative Audit began the probe a year ago at the request of the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee, which heard the report Friday and continued to express frustrations about attorney Abtin Mehdizadegan's contract with the prison board. Mehdizadegan has been representing the Board of Corrections in both its legal challenge against two 2023 state laws and Attorney General Tim Griffin's suit against the board for allegedly violating the Freedom of Information Act in Mehdizadegan's hiring. Griffin's office usually represents state agencies in legal cases, but Arkansas law allows special counsel to be appointed in disputes between the attorney general and constitutional officers. Board member Lee Watson, who was the panel's secretary at the time it began working with Mehdizadegan, reiterated this to the committee Friday. Watson said the circumstances surrounding the board's November 2023 dispute with Griffin, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and then-Corrections Secretary Joe Profiri required special action. The board and the executive branch officials clashed over who has ultimate authority over Arkansas' prison system, including the expansion of facilities. Lawmakers criticize Arkansas Board of Corrections members, attorney over altered contract 'Our governor and our secretary were moving forward with moving prisoners into overcrowded facilities,' Watson said. 'Based upon our collective experience, we believed that that would endanger the people in that facility and the general public nearby.' He repeated past statements to lawmakers that Profiri's and Sanders' actions justified hiring Mehdizadegan after an executive session at a brief meeting in December 2023. The Joint Performance Review Committee spent three April 2024 meetings discussing and questioning Mehdizadegan's hiring and contract, and the panel voted to recommend that the Arkansas Legislative Council not review the contract. The audit report found that Mehdizadegan was present and spoke at several Board of Corrections meetings, but this was not reflected in the meeting minutes. The report also took issue with the board signing 'engagement agreements' with Mehdizadegan 'without establishing how the Board would pay for these services, as the Board has no appropriation or funding.' The engagement agreements also did not include the contract length or cost. Mehdizadegan's relationship with the board began when Watson informally contacted him as the board's legal liaison, Watson previously told lawmakers, but auditors 'were unable to verify' his appointment as liaison until after Mehdizadegan's hiring. Additionally, Mehdizadegan has submitted invoices totaling $230,138 to the board for his legal work, but those invoices were unpaid as of Feb. 11, the report states. Auditors recommended in the report that the Board of Corrections make the following changes: Making all board business public Amending the board's bylaws to include liaison appointments in required public business Including all relevant details in proposed contracts Consulting with state procurement officials before procuring goods or services Making sure all information submitted to state procurement officials is 'complete and accurate' BOC special audit report Mehdizadegan wrote the board's 30-page response to the audit findings, recommending that auditors revise the report 'and find that the Board acted lawfully, reasonably and appropriately in its selection of special counsel.' Sen. Jonathan Dismang, R-Searcy, said he was 'disappointed' in the board's response. 'All I was looking for in response was, 'Hey, we were in uncharted territory, we didn't know what we were doing, and you know what? We should have followed the procurement process,'' he said. Mehdizadegan and Board of Corrections Chairman Benny Magness were present at Friday's committee meeting but did not face questions from lawmakers. Less than a week after being hired, Mehdizadegan filed the board's lawsuit against Sanders, Profiri and then-Secretary of State John Thurston, challenging the constitutionality of Act 185 and Act 659 of 2023. Act 185 requires the secretary of corrections to serve at the pleasure of the governor rather than the board, while Act 659 alters the reporting structure for the directors of the Division of Correction and Division of Community Correction, requiring them to serve at the pleasure of the secretary rather than the board. The board argued the laws violate Amendment 33 of the Arkansas Constitution, which protects the power of constitutional boards like the board of corrections from the executive or legislative branches of government. Pulaski County Circuit Judge Patricia James granted a preliminary injunction in January 2024, which Griffin appealed. Arkansas Supreme Court sends AG's FOIA lawsuit against prison board back to circuit court The Arkansas Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to continue Thursday when it dismissed the state's motion to send the case back to the circuit court, order the preliminary injunction vacated and dismiss the case as moot. The high court also dismissed a motion to disqualify Mehdizadegan from further participation in proceedings before the court. Last month, the state Supreme Court reversed a lower court's dismissal of Griffin's suit against the board for allegedly violating the FOIA to hire outside counsel. Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox gave Griffin 30 days to work with the corrections board on an agreement with an outside attorney to represent it. Fox dismissed the case without prejudice in January 2024, ruling Griffin's office failed to make an effort to initiate the statutory procedure that allows special counsel to represent state officials and entities. Griffin moved to vacate the circuit court's order, arguing his office could not certify special counsel until the board asked for legal representation. The Supreme Court agreed and sent the case back to Fox. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Arkansas Corrections Board lawsuit against governor stays alive with Supreme Court ruling
Arkansas Supreme Court (Courtesy Photo) A lawsuit over who has the ultimate authority over the state prison system gained renewed life Thursday with the dismissal of a state appeal of a lower court preliminary injunction. The Arkansas Board of Corrections filed a lawsuit in Pulaski County Circuit Court on Dec. 14, 2023 against Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the secretary of state and Arkansas Department of Corrections, challenging the constitutionality of Act 185 and 659 of 2023. Act 185 requires the secretary of corrections to serve at the pleasure of the governor rather than the board, while Act 659 alters the reporting structure for the directors of the Division of Correction and Division of Community Correction, requiring them to serve at the pleasure of the secretary rather than the board. The board argued the laws violate Amendment 33 of the Arkansas Constitution, which protects the power of constitutional boards like the board of corrections from 'usurpation by the Governor or the General Assembly, or both,' according to Thursday's ruling. Arkansas judge sides with prison board in dispute with governor, corrections secretary A circuit court judge granted a preliminary injunction in January 2024, which Attorney General Tim Griffin appealed. The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday dismissed the state's motion to send the case back to the circuit court, order the preliminary injunction vacated and the case dismissed as moot. The high court also dismissed a motion to disqualify the corrections board's attorney from further participation in proceedings before the court. In its motion to remand, the state argues the controversy ended when the board fired former Corrections Secretary Joe Profiri. The firing was part of a dispute between the board and the executive branch that started in late 2023 over who controls the state's prison system. The board's refusal in November 2023 to approve a request to increase prison capacity by 500 beds prompted harsh public criticism from Griffin and Sanders. The board responded by hiring an outside attorney the following month to represent it in employment matters. Because Profiri was fired prior to the entry of the preliminary injunction, the lower court's finding of irreparable harm was erroneous, the state argued. The board said it wasn't seeking court confirmation of its right to fire Profiri, but relief from the legislation regarding the board's authority under Amendment 33. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Karen Baker said she agreed with the board's assertion that Profiri's termination doesn't resolve the ultimate question of whether the board controls the secretary or division directors, and therefore the dispute is not specific to the individual holding the secretary's office. 'The Board's complaint concerns the Challenged Legislation and the resulting changes to the Board's supervisory authority. This dispute exists notwithstanding the individual who holds the Secretary position and is not personal to Secretary Profiri,' Baker wrote. 'Further, because this case presents an existing legal controversy, it is not moot. Therefore, we deny appellants' motion to remand.' The state also filed a motion to disqualify the legal counsel obtained by the corrections board, arguing the firm was obtained illegally. The board didn't follow state law for securing outside counsel, and the board did not have the 'authority to hire special counsel because the Board is not a constitutional officer,' the attorney general's motion argued. The circuit court denied this motion, explaining that 'the Board is a constitutionally created board, making its members constitutional officers' who therefore had the legal authority to hire special counsel. The attorney general typically represents state agencies, but state law gives constitutional officers the ability to hire outside counsel when they disagree with the attorney general over a constitutional provision. In dismissing this motion, Baker notes the board correctly points out that 'an order denying a motion to disqualify adversary's counsel in a civil proceeding is not an appealable final order.' 'As a general rule, an appeal from an interlocutory decision brings up for review only the decision from which the appeal was taken, here, the granting of an injunction,' Baker wrote. The motion to disqualify the attorney is outside the scope of the Supreme Court's review of the preliminary injunction, she said. The high court majority affirmed the lower court's issuance of an injunction because its 'findings that there would be irreparable harm were not clearly erroneous.' The crux of the lawsuit, Baker wrote, is whether the board retains ultimate authority over the corrections secretary and directors or whether the challenged legislation constitutionally transfers that power to the governor and corrections secretary. 'The evidence presented to the circuit court demonstrates that, in the absence of the injunction, the dispute will be ongoing until the constitutionality of the Challenged Legislation is resolved,' Baker said. 'This, coupled with appellants' failure to even argue their likelihood of success on the merits, leaves us with little choice under our deferential standard of review. 'We hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Board demonstrated that irreparable harm would result in the absence of the requested preliminary injunction, and we affirm,' she added. Arkansas Supreme Court sends AG's FOIA lawsuit against prison board back to circuit court Special Justices Troy Braswell and Bud Cummins joined in the decision. Associate Justice Barbara Webb concurred in part and dissented in part. Associate Justice Shawn Womack dissented. Associate Justices Cody Hiland and Nicholas Bronni, both of whom were appointed by the governor, did not participate. Webb wrote that she agreed with the majority that the matter is not moot because Profiri's termination doesn't resolve the question of whether Acts 185 and 659 of 2023 are unconstitutional. She also agreed that it's not appropriate to disqualify the board's counsel at this time. However, she argues the board 'failed to demonstrate irreparable harm' and the circuit court therefore erred in enjoining the challenged acts. 'The crux of the Board's claim for irreparable harm was Secretary Profiri's alleged acts of insubordination, which were directly attributable to Act 185 requiring the Secretary to serve at the pleasure of the Governor rather than the Board,' Webb wrote. 'This harm is not irreparable…By definition, if a secretary may be terminated and his actions undone, then it cannot be said that any harm resulting therefrom is 'irreparable.'' In his dissenting opinion, Womack argues the court must vacate the preliminary injunction and dismiss the lawsuit because sovereign immunity bars the board's lawsuit against the governor, corrections secretary and Department of Corrections. Sovereign immunity, which Womack cites often in court opinions, is the legal doctrine that the state cannot be sued in its own courts. 'Even if that was not so, the Board would still lose because it failed to show irreparable harm — a necessary element to establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction,' Womack wrote 'Therefore, I also join the other dissenting opinion in this case.' Regarding the issue of the disqualification of the board's 'potentially illegally retained counsel, I again remind citizens of this state of their ability to protect themselves 'against the enforcement of any illegal exactions whatever,'' he said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Arkansas Supreme Court sends AG's FOIA lawsuit against prison board back to circuit court
The Arkansas Supreme Court building in Little Rock. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate) The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday reversed a lower court's dismissal of the attorney general's lawsuit against the state prison board for violating the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. The ruling, written by Associate Justice Rhonda Wood for the six-member majority, sends the case back to Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox for adjudication. Attorney General Tim Griffin filed the lawsuit on Dec. 15, 2023, alleging the Arkansas Board of Corrections violated the FOIA when it entered executive session during a pair of public meetings and improperly hired an outside attorney. Griffin also said the board failed to properly respond to a public records request from his office. Arkansas attorney general to appeal rulings in Board of Corrections disputes Fox gave Griffin 30 days to work with the corrections board on an agreement with an outside attorney to represent it. Fox dismissed the case without prejudice in January 2024, ruling Griffin's office failed to make an effort to initiate the statutory procedure that allows special counsel to represent state officials and entities. Griffin moved to vacate the circuit court's order, arguing his office could not certify special counsel until the board asked for legal representation, according to Thursday's order from the state Supreme Court. The attorney general typically represents state entities, but according to Thursday's order, Griffin argued his duty to represent the state corrections board depended on the board certifying its need for legal representation. 'He is correct,' Wood wrote, noting that the attorney general has no duty to represent state agencies until a certified request for services is made. '[Griffin's appeal] argues that the circuit court dismissed the action for his failure to accomplish what he legally did not have sole authority to do,' the order states. 'In response, the Board contends the circuit court had authority to dismiss the action under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Because we find the circuit court abused its discretion, we reverse and remand.' Special Justice Bud Cummins joined the decision, while Associate Justice Nicholas Bronni did not participate. The governor appointed Cummins, a former U.S. attorney, to replace Bronni, who recused himself from the case in January. Bronni served as the state's solicitor general in Griffin's office before Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders appointed him to the high court in December. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Associate Justice Shawn Womack dissented. In his dissent, Womack writes that even though the circuit court was right to dismiss Griffin's lawsuit, the dismissal should have been with prejudice and because of sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that the state cannot be sued in its own courts. The case should be reversed and dismissed, said Womack, who regularly cites sovereign immunity in court decisions. 'Obviously, in most situations when the State brings a lawsuit, sovereign immunity is not implicated because the lawsuit does not make the State a defendant,' he wrote. 'But in those rare instances when the State is both the plaintiff and the defendant—as it is here—sovereign immunity applies, and the underlying lawsuit is barred.' In a social media post, Griffin praised the high court's decision, which allows his suit to continue. 'I sued the Board of Corrections to defend our Freedom of Information Act. I am thankful for today's Arkansas Supreme Court decision, which will allow that lawsuit to go forward,' Griffin wrote. 'I take defending the FOIA seriously, and I will not tolerate those who violate it.' The lawsuit is part of a dispute between the corrections board and the executive branch that started in late 2023 over who has ultimate authority over the state's prison system. The board's refusal in November 2024 to approve a request to increase prison capacity by 500 beds prompted public criticism from Griffin and Sanders. The board responded by hiring an outside attorney the following month to represent it in employment matters. The board voted 3-2 to hire Abtin Mehdizadegan, a labor and employment lawyer with the Little Rock firm of Hall Booth Smith. The vote came with almost no discussion after a 45-minute closed-door session. Griffin quickly questioned the board's authority to hire outside counsel without obtaining his office's consent, citing state law that says the attorney general's office represents state officials and entities. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
