SALT LAKE CITY — Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill had some choice words for the officers and medical examiner who stood and watched as a rookie officer was coaxed into using a boxcutter to slice through the skin of a dead homeless man last August.
The officers are seen on video laughing about it after the fact.
“To be candid? It was really unprofessional,” Gill said. “Unprofessional, childish, even stupid, but our question is: Is it criminal? ... We don’t have laws to prosecute stupid. We have laws to prosecute unlawful conduct, and that’s what we have to look at.”
Jason Lloyd was 47 years old.
According to Lloyd’s family, the Salt Lake City Police Department spent approximately six months choosing not to notify them of the misconduct.
“He was important to us. He mattered,” said his sister Heather Fisher. “I have to wonder if he wasn’t homeless, would this have happened?”
Officers first reported the misconduct to FOX 13 News in August, shortly after the incident.
The department spent months denying access to records related to the case.
FOX 13 News filed a lawsuit seeking access to the public records. In response, reports and bodycam video were released by SLCPD shortly thereafter.
Gill said he first learned about the case from FOX 13 News’ reporting in August.
“I commend those officers for speaking up,” Gill said.
The case resulted in multiple investigations.
Dakota Smigel, an officer in training, was found to have been a victim of “hazing.” According to SLCPD, he violated one policy. The department said it did not have any written record of discipline available for release.
The department said Officers Mark Keep and Paul Mullenax pranked Smigel by getting him to use a box cutter to slice open blisters on Lloyd’s body.
Keep was found to have violated eight department policies. He resigned in lieu of discipline.
Mullenax was found to have violated four department policies. He received a three-day suspension.
Officer Michelle Peterson was found to have violated two department policies. She received a warning. Bodycam video shows her making inappropriate or otherwise insensitive statements about the cutting of Lloyd’s body.
Court records show Keep and Mullenax have pending lawsuits for use of force against homeless individuals. In one case, a homeless man died. In another case, a homeless woman had her leg amputated.
Desecration of a body
The Utah Attorney General’s Office opened a criminal investigation, which focused primarily on the Office of the Medical Examiner (OME).
“That rookie (Smigel) was working under the direction and the supervision of the medical examiner,” Gill said. “The charge that we were looking at was the potential desecration of a body.”
So far, police have only identified the medical examiner on scene by her first name: Shannon.
Investigators determined Shannon was most responsible for securing the scene and ensuring the safety of Lloyd’s body.
As the rookie officer was being hazed, a man tasked with transporting the body asked Shannon for permission.
“Do you mind if we just do like some controlled popping?” he asked.
“Yeah,” Shannon responded. “Go ahead.”
The transport worker is then seen on video handing the box cutter to Smigel and providing instruction on how to cut open the blisters on Lloyd’s body.
He was employed by a company called Care Center of Utah Mortuary Services, which contracts with OME. The transport worker reportedly wanted the blisters to be popped prior to transport in order to prevent the blisters from popping during transport.
According to the OME, this is not an approved procedure.
“OME does not have a specific policy about using box cutters to cut blisters as it has never even been considered a possibility that such action would occur,” wrote an investigator with the AG’s Office.
As investigators conducted interviews, at least one OME employee stated they had never heard of the term “controlled popping.”
Some transporters told investigators that had popped blisters on dead bodies before, but only with permission from the medical examiner on site – in this case, Shannon.
Shannon was placed on administrative leave by OME, but she was not disciplined.
Investigators asked for the screening of criminal charges against her because she approved the cutting of Lloyd’s skin.
Video shows Shannon standing and watching as the officer uses the box cutter, not intervening.
Documents from the criminal investigation show Shannon declined to be interviewed by the Utah AG’s Office. However, she turned in a written statement, which indicated she did not know what “controlled popping” meant at the time. She also wrote that she scolded the senior officers for pranking the rookie.
“I hesitantly agreed,” Shannon wrote. “I wanted to mitigate any personnel getting exposed to biological materials”
Shannon did not document the incident in her OME report, which investigators found odd.
In one interview, an OME employee described Shannon’s actions as “understandable, but not correct.” The employee stated it “was not a standard or accepted practice nor a protocol which they teach or endorse.”
In another interview, an OME employee stated she “would never train or allow [controlling popping] to happen.”
Investigators documented that OME was “currently revising their policies.”
“I asked if controlled popping would be one of the approved actions,” an investigator wrote. “(Redacted) said no.”
OME has not explained why Shannon was not disciplined despite telling investigators she acted inappropriately.
“The internal investigation found no wrong-doing on (Shannon’s) part, and so she was not disciplined,” wrote Danielle Reschke-Conlon, a spokesperson for the office. “The OME still uses the contracted transport company, Care Center, that was involved in this incident. To our knowledge, the Care Center employee involved in this incident no longer works for them... Sometimes, it may be necessary to lance blisters before transport to prevent accidental contact with fluids. But it’s never a joke to do so.”
Gill said it would be difficult to prosecute Shannon because the statute governing “desecration of a dead human body” lists exceptions for OME employees.
He also said the “tragic misstep” was likely a policy violation, not an intentional act of criminal behavior.
“Did people make some stupid mistakes? Absolutely,” Gill said. “That goes back to the policy and training issues rather than an intent to criminally violate the law... Can a prosecutor’s office file charges? Of course they can. That may temporarily make us feel good, but those would be empty promises if they’re not supported by the evidence or the law.”