He said investigators intercepted Paulson at the start of his next shift on March 17.
“We moved pretty darn fast on this,” Essick said. “An allegation of sex between a correctional deputy and an inmate, that’s a big deal.”
The internal affairs investigation would ultimately conclude that on or about March 13, Paulson had violated department policies barring sexual contact of any kind with inmates and voyeurism. And it found the deputy didn’t report his misconduct to superiors.
Paulson admitted to investigators that he used a closet door in the jail to conceal his location while he stood at the entry to the woman’s cell.
“Paulson stated he probably began touching (redacted name’s) ‘breast’ to her ‘butt,’” records recounted.
Paulson asked her to take her clothes off while he watched, and she did, according to the records. Paulson told investigators he also looked the inmate up on Facebook and one of the jail database systems.
Another guard at the jail reported to investigators that the woman showed concern for Paulson and didn’t want to get him in trouble.
“She said inmates were making rumors because she said Correctional Deputy Paulson was ‘Hot,’” the report says. “(The woman) said she was not a victim of a sexual assault and did not need an advocate.”
The woman was interviewed twice, on March 16 and March 22, and stated that she had initiated the contact with Paulson and did not want him to get into trouble. She also threatened to sue the county if that happened or if she was moved in the jail.
“Frankly, it doesn’t matter,” Essick said when asked last week about whether the inmate consented to the behavior. “A correctional deputy is not to have a relationship with an inmate, period.”
Transcripts of investigators’ interviews with Paulson and the woman were not included in the released records.
By May 22, Ravitch’s office had made the decision that it would not pursue charges, citing a “lack of victim cooperation,” according to the records.
The woman had previously declined to speak to an investigator from the office because she wanted her attorney present, said Schwaiger. He advised the District Attorney’s Office in a May 5 letter that he was representing the woman. The next time he heard from prosecutors was May 23, after the decision had been made to drop the case, according to the records.
On June 15 — a week before the Sheriff’s Office served Paulson with a notice of termination, signed by then-Sheriff Steve Freitas — the woman had her only substantive interview with an investigator from the District Attorney’s Office, Schwaiger said.
“She answered every single question, and the district attorney investigator took the report back to the district attorney and the district attorney determined that no crime had been committed,” Schwaiger said. “That might be the correct determination, it might be, but that was because that’s what the DA decided, not because my client did not cooperate.”
Ravitch refused an interview request Saturday. In a text response to a phone call, she said Schwaiger could call her office with additional information. She declined further comment.
Paulson initially appealed the firing notice, but records show he resigned two months later, in August 2017.
A search of his name in the Sonoma County Superior Court website showed no criminal or civil cases.
An Army spokeswoman said applicant screening includes an extensive background check and interviews “to determine if applicants have a history of conduct that shows they have questionable moral character or that they hold views that are inconsistent with Army values.”
Essick said Paulson’s was the only case of sexual misconduct he is aware of involving a correctional deputy and an inmate in the Sonoma County jail.
Public disclosure of the case comes less than a year after Sonoma County agreed to pay $1.7 million to settle a lawsuit filed by former inmates at the jail who said they were physically and verbally abused by correctional deputies in 2015 as part of a formal “yard counseling” policy.
The suit prompted the office to retrain jail employees on use‐of‐force procedures. The jail deputies, who number over 200, are slated to begin using body‐worn cameras in May, said Sgt. Spencer Crum, a Sheriff’s Office spokesman.
Essick said he’s committed to improving jail video surveillance, which currently covers only a third of all cell blocks. He needs roughly an additional $3 million in county funds do so, he said.
Sonoma County’s correctional deputies undergo mandatory sex assault and abuse prevention training when they are hired and every two years thereafter. Paulson’s training came when he joined the department in 2016, documents show.
Essick said he was surprised to learn the District Attorney’s Office did not have all records in the Sheriff’s Office case against Paulson when it made the decision not to pursue charges.
Essick said it was a good thing that prosecutors now have all the relevant files.
“Maybe there’s information there that would help them take a second look at this case,” he said.
