On November 19, 2024, an incarcerated man at FCI Texarkana was wrongfully taken advantage of by CO Arnold. The incident occurred in the bathroom in D3, which is open and exposed in the common hallway, so anyone can see into an open stall. The man was actively defecating—a vulnerable position—when CO Arnold demanded that he open the door and not flush. When he tried to oppose, explaining he was not finished, CO Arnold did not respect his wishes and insisted he open the stall door. After complying with the CO, the individual covered his genitals with his hands and a book. CO Arnold forced him to uncover himself and empty the pockets of his shorts and did not allow him to continue his business until after a few more seconds of staying exposed. All of this happened with others watching from the hallway.
This incident is an egregious case of a CO engaging in sexually abusive behavior that violates BOP policy. More specifically, according to Program 5324.12 Section 115.6, this incident constitutes voyeurism. CO Arnold disgustingly exploited the incarcerated individual in an extremely vulnerable state, violating his right to bodily privacy and on top of that, subjecting him to public humiliation.
The individual tried to submit a BP-8 Complaint to the acting captain but was shut down by Lt. Poindexter, who told him to submit the BP-8 to his unit team. Lt. Poindexter then flagrantly admitted that he would not even look at the complaint because he trains his officers to conduct their searches that way. After this abhorrent interaction, the individual reported the incident as a BP-10 Complaint, which requests that CO Arnold, Lt. Poindexter, and the facility as a whole are held accountable for engaging in and protecting sexual abuse.
It is imperative that visual searches be conducted appropriately in FCIs, unlike CO Arnold’s revolting approach. According to Program Statement 5521.06 (1) Section 552.11, the correct procedure involves documenting the search in the visual search log book, having a “reasonable belief that contraband may be concealed on the person,” and providing the incarcerated individual with as much privacy as possible. CO Arnold’s search was done without proper documentation, in a public space, and by sexually violating the individual’s privacy.
This incarcerated individual, as well as all Remedy Project members, requests that
The Remedy Project demands that the incarcerated individual’s requests are met. He is simply asking for some respect and decency from the facility, which is absurd, as he should not need to ask to be treated with humanity in the first place. Unfortunately, this incident is not isolated, as COs’ sexual abuse towards the incarcerated is an encouraged practice at this facility. The institutionalized degradation of bodily autonomy represents not only a violation of policy, but rather a calculated and normalized reinforcement of carceral power dynamics that must be confronted through immediate intervention, community advocacy, and systemic reform.
The individual has consented to sharing his story but not his name. On the condition of his anonymity, you cannot take direct action for him. Still, you can share his story and take action for the many others subjected to sexual abuse and denied their right to bodily autonomy and privacy.
On November 19, 2024, an incarcerated man at FCI Texarkana was wrongfully taken advantage of by CO Arnold. The incident occurred in the bathroom in D3, which is open and exposed in the common hallway, so anyone can see into an open stall. The man was actively defecating—a vulnerable position—when CO Arnold demanded that he open the door and not flush. When he tried to oppose, explaining he was not finished, CO Arnold did not respect his wishes and insisted he open the stall door. After complying with the CO, the individual covered his genitals with his hands and a book. CO Arnold forced him to uncover himself and empty the pockets of his shorts and did not allow him to continue his business until after a few more seconds of staying exposed. All of this happened with others watching from the hallway.
This incident is an egregious case of a CO engaging in sexually abusive behavior that violates BOP policy. More specifically, according to Program 5324.12 Section 115.6, this incident constitutes voyeurism. CO Arnold disgustingly exploited the incarcerated individual in an extremely vulnerable state, violating his right to bodily privacy and on top of that, subjecting him to public humiliation.
The individual tried to submit a BP-8 Complaint to the acting captain but was shut down by Lt. Poindexter, who told him to submit the BP-8 to his unit team. Lt. Poindexter then flagrantly admitted that he would not even look at the complaint because he trains his officers to conduct their searches that way. After this abhorrent interaction, the individual reported the incident as a BP-10 Complaint, which requests that CO Arnold, Lt. Poindexter, and the facility as a whole are held accountable for engaging in and protecting sexual abuse.
It is imperative that visual searches be conducted appropriately in FCIs, unlike CO Arnold’s revolting approach. According to Program Statement 5521.06 (1) Section 552.11, the correct procedure involves documenting the search in the visual search log book, having a “reasonable belief that contraband may be concealed on the person,” and providing the incarcerated individual with as much privacy as possible. CO Arnold’s search was done without proper documentation, in a public space, and by sexually violating the individual’s privacy.
This incarcerated individual, as well as all Remedy Project members, requests that
The Remedy Project demands that the incarcerated individual’s requests are met. He is simply asking for some respect and decency from the facility, which is absurd, as he should not need to ask to be treated with humanity in the first place. Unfortunately, this incident is not isolated, as COs’ sexual abuse towards the incarcerated is an encouraged practice at this facility. The institutionalized degradation of bodily autonomy represents not only a violation of policy, but rather a calculated and normalized reinforcement of carceral power dynamics that must be confronted through immediate intervention, community advocacy, and systemic reform.
The individual has consented to sharing his story but not his name. On the condition of his anonymity, you cannot take direct action for him. Still, you can share his story and take action for the many others subjected to sexual abuse and denied their right to bodily autonomy and privacy.
