Santa Barbara Sheriff Rejects Independent Review in In-Custody Death Case
Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown has rejected the recommendation for an independent review and investigation into the in-custody death of Jonathan Paul Thomas. The Sheriff disagreed with this summer’s Grand Jury report, which called on Brown and District Attorney John Savrnoch to submit the case to the California Attorney General for independent review. Brown stated that the recommendation will not be implemented.
Thomas, a morbidly obese man with a history of drug abuse and mental health challenges, died of a heart attack shortly after being booked into the county jail on January 11, 2022. He had vigorously resisted custody deputies who attempted to place him in an isolated safety cell, ultimately leading to his death. Sheriff Brown cited his own forensic pathologist’s findings, which identified obesity, acute methamphetamine toxicity, an enlarged heart, and the stress caused by Thomas’s resistance as contributing factors. The coroner’s report concluded that excessive force was not used and deemed the death accidental.
However, the Grand Jury reached a different conclusion, suggesting that Thomas might still be alive if the custody deputies had utilized de-escalation skills during the incident. They recommended advanced 40-hour crisis intervention training for all custody officers to prevent such situations. Two external forensic and cardiac medical experts interviewed by the Grand Jury also believed that the restraint applied by the deputies and Thomas’s resistance caused his cardiac arrest. They even labeled his death as a homicide on the death certificate.
The Grand Jury’s report focused on the overall mental health care provided to inmates at the county jail. It highlighted various shortcomings in the process leading up to Thomas’s death, including missed opportunities to address his mental health issues. For instance, Thomas had expressed suicidal thoughts to arresting officers, and his partner had reported his suicidal intentions prior to his arrest. However, this information did not reach the treating physicians or intake nurse at the jail due to lack of communication and inadequate staffing regarding mental health services.
Among the Grand Jury’s recommendations was the presence of mental health professionals at the county jail 24/7, similar to the practice in Ventura County Jail. Sheriff Brown disagreed with this proposal, stating that a private consulting firm found no need for additional mental health coverage. He also opposed the requirement for all custody deputies, regardless of their hiring date, to receive crisis intervention training, citing scheduling and cost challenges. While he partially agreed on improving information sharing among relevant stakeholders, he maintained that training for WellPath staff had no causal relationship to Thomas’s death.
The Grand Jury’s report shed light on the increasing number of inmates dealing with serious mental illness in county jails, emphasizing the need for better mental health care. However, concrete statistics on the volume of such cases in Santa Barbara County Jail were not available, hindering a comprehensive assessment.
In summary, Sheriff Bill Brown’s rejection of an independent review and investigation in the in-custody death case of Jonathan Paul Thomas has sparked controversy. The Grand Jury’s report raised concerns about the lack of proper mental health care protocols, missed opportunities to address Thomas’s mental health issues, and the need for enhanced training and staffing in the county jail. The differing perspectives on the incident and its aftermath highlight the ongoing discussions surrounding law enforcement practices and the provision of adequate mental health support for inmates.
Please note: This article explores a specific case and its implications within Santa Barbara County. The views expressed do not represent a single viewpoint but rather offer an overview of the different perspectives involved.
