A recent case involving inmate John Riles at the DeSoto County Adult Detention Facility offers an opportunity to examine correctional response procedures.
Following an incident on November 14, 2024, where Riles obtained a detention officer’s TASER during a confrontation, he was subsequently convicted of simple assault on a law enforcement officer. While the officer sustained only minor injuries, the incident — captured on surveillance footage — provides valuable insights for correctional staff training and procedural review. Riles, who had been in custody for a probation violation related to a forgery charge, received a five-year sentence, the maximum for this offense.
Incident overview: Missed protocols in inmate interaction
The surveillance footage shows one of the living areas inside the DeSoto County Adult Detention Facility. Though the video lacks audio, it appears that inmate Riles was attempting to be moved from his assigned living area, as evidenced by his folding of his mattress and gathering his belongings when the detention officer entered the housing unit.
The detention officer appeared to direct Riles to return his mattress to his assigned bunk. In response, Riles refused but then turned around, placing his hands behind his back in an apparent surrender posture for handcuffing.
A critical security lapse in this scenario is that this interaction occurs in an open dormitory setting where other inmates remain in close proximity to the developing situation. At no point did it appear that other inmates were instructed to return to their bunks or create distance before the detention officer initiated the handcuffing procedure. In dormitory-style housing units, standard protocol dictates that all uninvolved inmates should be directed to their individual bunk areas during any potential conflict or intervention.
Despite the absence of individual cells in this living arrangement, maintaining control and distance is essential — inmates should never be permitted to congregate, especially near an officer who is engaged in restraining, searching, or attempting to de-escalate a situation with another inmate. The presence of bystander inmates creates multiple risk factors: they may distract the officer, further agitate the subject inmate, or potentially escalate the situation by becoming actively involved.
The correctional best practice in such circumstances would involve first establishing control by ordering all uninvolved inmates to their assigned bunks and then escorting the noncompliant inmate to a more controlled environment without an audience. This approach provides both privacy and a more confined space should a use-of-force situation develop, thereby minimizing risks to all parties involved.
Use-of-force failure and equipment control lapse
Riles initially appeared compliant as a second officer entered the area. Unfortunately, there is a several-second break in the surveillance footage at a critical moment when two significant events occur: Riles begins resisting the hinge-style handcuffs, and the second officer draws his TASER and aims it at Riles. Following what appears to be a brief verbal exchange between Riles and the initial officer, the first officer attempts to force Riles to the ground by maintaining his grip on the cuffs secured to Riles’ left wrist while simultaneously applying downward pressure against the back of Riles’ neck with his right hand. This tactic proved ineffective, and the officer failed to establish physical control.
Observing the unsuccessful takedown attempt, the second officer felt compelled to intervene. However, instead of properly securing his TASER by re-holstering it, he placed the weapon on the ground before physically engaging with Riles. During the ensuing struggle, Riles managed to obtain the unsecured TASER from the floor and deployed it against the initial officer who had attempted to restrain him.
Upon closer examination of the footage, it appears the second detention officer was hesitant to deploy the TASER because the first officer maintained physical contact with the inmate in a bear-hug-style restraint. The visible laser sight from the TASER indicates the officer was targeting lower on Riles’ body, presumably to avoid hitting his colleague’s arms. It should be emphasized that once the TASER was drawn — indicating a tactical decision that less-lethal force was justified — proper protocol would have dictated that the initial officer disengage from the inmate, creating distance to allow the second officer to safely deploy the device or, depending on the inmate’s response, issue clear verbal commands to achieve voluntary compliance. At this juncture, with handcuffs secured to only one wrist, these restraints should have been recognized as a potential weapon rather than an effective control measure.
While any analysis of officer-involved incidents through video review inevitably misses situational factors and cannot fully account for the split-second decisions made under stress, such reviews serve a valuable purpose in identifying missed opportunities to implement best practices.
Training takeaways for correctional personnel
For corrections professionals, a review of this video underscores several critical recommended procedures:
- Maintain consistent communication with inmates during normal operations, not just during emergencies. Clear expectations should be established that during any incident, uninvolved inmates must immediately return to their cells or bunks in open dormitory settings and remain there until officially released by the officer in charge.
- Maintain tactical control of interactions with inmates. Never allow an inmate to dictate the timing or circumstances of engagement or restraint procedures. While de-escalation techniques should always be the primary approach, when an inmate becomes agitated, they should be promptly removed from areas containing other inmates.
- Never permit inmates to gather around officers who are engaged in restraining, searching, or de-escalating a situation with another inmate. Such congregations create opportunities for instigation or coordinated resistance.
- When transitioning from physical control techniques to less-lethal force options, exercise extreme caution about reverting to hands-on control methods. Such transitions should only occur with adequate staffing present and when inmate compliance has been established.
- Equipment control is essential in correctional environments. Whether it’s a TASER, handcuffs, keys, or flashlight, officers must never place any equipment where inmates can access or potentially weaponize it against staff.
By revisiting these core procedures in roll call briefings and scenario-based training, agencies can reinforce the habits that keep officers and inmates safer during dynamic incidents.
Finally, I commend the officer for his survival mindset that allowed him to stay in the fight despite experiencing the effects of a TASER. He recovered and continued to assist in controlling the inmate.
I also applaud the DeSoto County Prosecutor’s Office. Their work ensured that an inmate who used violence against correctional staff was prosecuted and sentenced for his actions. This type of support is extremely important to the correctional community as a whole.
