Internal memos shed new light on the numerous instances of alleged misconduct by a candidate for Deschutes County Sheriff and two other department employees.
The instances are related to events surrounding the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office SWAT apprehension of Paul Akehurst in Sunriver on Feb. 25.
On June 6, Det. Lt. James “Mac” McLaughlin announced that he was one of the DCSO employees Interim Sheriff Ty Rupert placed on paid administrative leave, pending an internal investigation, the Source reported. McLaughlin called the placement the same, “systemic political theater” that has plagued the department during each sheriff election cycle. Rupert is the only other candidate for sheriff in the November election.
The internal investigation, which is being administered by a third party selected by Sheriff Rupert, stems from an April 22 complaint made by Paul’s mother, Lorena Akehurst and Kelli Hayes, a family friend whose Sunriver home was raided by DCSO SWAT members during Akehurst’s Feb. 25 arrest.
In looking into the complaint, Lt. Blair Barkhurst, the DCSO professional standards unit manager, noted about a dozen concerns worth investigating, according to a partially redacted May 27 memo he sent to Rupert, which the Source requested and reviewed.
The concerns include body camera footage of a DCSO sergeant apologizing to Akehurst for a SWAT member allegedly placing a gun in Akehurst’s back while he was in handcuffs during his Feb. 25 arrest.
Barkhurst also recommended looking into whether SWAT members went beyond the scope of the search warrant of Hayes’ home. Barkhurst also notes that DCSO employees may have improperly interfered with Akehurst’s custody battle for his two children.
Barkhurst also recommended the department investigate two deputies’ alleged threats of sending Akehurst to solitary confinement once in jail.
As noted in the memo, Akehurst’s mother and Hayes told jail authorities that Akehurst shouldn’t be in solitary confinement, where he spent a total of 60 days, owing to a history of traumatic brain injuries and a degenerative spinal condition, yet jail officials said that his behavior warranted the isolation. Paul Akehurst, Senior, later told DCSO patrol deputies that placing his son in solitary confinement might violate his Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment.
During the April 2 apology to Akehurst for putting a gun to his back, the unnamed DCSO sergeant characterized Akehurst’s crimes as “administrative in nature” and the “new crimes were not serious and bullshit,” according to the memo.
Barkhurst also mentioned an additional allegation that McLaughlin entered the Deschutes County Adult Jail to speak with Akehurst about the Ring camera footage captured during the raid.
Reached for comment via text message, McLaughlin said he never visited Akehurst in jail and that the conversation never happened.
The Source initially reported on the content of that footage on June 16. In it, McLaughlin, who’s the SWAT commander, lauded Deputy Michael Mangin for his alleged boundless vindictiveness, while the two stood near Hayes’ front porch during the Feb. 25 raid.
In response to a question about whether holding a gun to the back of an apprehended suspect is normal operating procedure, McLaughlin said he can’t comment because of the active investigation.
“Standard law enforcement protocol strictly prohibits me from commenting on specific allegations, evidentiary claims, or the actions of other personnel,” McLaughlin said. “I welcome a full review of all the facts through the proper, objective channels. I will continue to respect the integrity of that process and wait for the investigation to conclude before commenting on specifics.”
On June 1, Akehurst, 41, pleaded guilty to aggravated identity theft and two counts of driving while suspended, all of which are felonies. Akehurst was sentenced to 30 months in prison. He’s presently at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, awaiting transfer.
On June 5, DCSO suspended its SWAT operations while resuming training according to records the Source requested and reviewed. In the meantime, the Central Oregon Emergency Response Team, operated by the Bend and Redmond police departments, will provide tactical resources for incidents within DCSO’s jurisdiction.
Reached by phone, Hayes told the Source she’s frustrated by the Sheriff’s Office’s lack of transparency and accountability that shields department employees who are still getting paid while under investigation.
Hayes says that while Akehurst should pay for his crimes, ultimately, he’s wrapped up in the country’s mental health crisis.
“The crisis isn’t going anywhere. It’s going to worsen. It is worsening,” Hayes said. “Our policies and procedures and taxpayer spending needs to be wise. We continue to invest in a system not built to handle mental health, and if we continue to stuff prisons on taxpayer dollars with the recidivism rate what it currently is, we’re not going to get any healthier as a society and we’ll be broke.”
The Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office has declined numerous emails and phone calls seeking comment regarding the internal investigation.
This article appears in the Source June 25, 2026.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
So he can comment about the investigation saying he didn’t visit Akehurst in jail, but all of a sudden he cant comment about one of his employees sticking a gun in the back of a cuffed subject because “Standard law enforcement protocol strictly prohibits me from commenting on specific allegations, evidentiary claims, or the actions of other personnel…” I call BS.
Continued good reporting by Mr. Madsen.
A few observations –
Releasing the memorandum while an IA is underway is generally considered unethical. Further, doing so provides the basis for a legal challenge to have the IA dismissed as its contents in the public forum can contaminate a fair and impartial IA as well as any criminal trial that might result from the IA.
Per DCSO policy 3.43 which covers the utilization of the SWAT team it is the Sheriff or his designee who, upon an initial meeting and then mission planning meeting, both of which are reviewed by the Sheriff, gives final authorization for the team to be utilized. Only at this time is the operation turned over to the SWAT commander (Lt McLaughlin). In short, Sheriff Rupert / Captain Sundberg own the operation from start to finish.
If Lt. McLaughlin did indeed visit Mr. Akehurst at the jail after his arrest this should be easy to support. Per DCSO jail policy all visitors to include law enforcement and all meetings with inmates are video-taped, time stamped and dates. This allegation should be easy to affirm or deny based on the jail’s own policy and procedures and video records.
Ms. Haley’s sincere unhappiness, along with the parents of Mr. Akehurst, with the solitary confinement issue is best directed to the Oregon Department of Corrections. DCSO Corrections follows their policies and procedures and in Oregon inmates with disabilities in conjunction with perhaps documented behaviors or vulnerabilities from previous incarcerations can be so confined.
Mr. Madsen’s success in obtaining the allegations memorandum might be duplicated should he PRR DCSO for the required documentation and final mission preparation planning document for the raid. Who, What, Where, Why, and When will then be answered as well as who signed off the authorization to use SWAT (Sheriff Rupert? CPT Sundberg?).
The more we learn – the more we learn.
With the PRR release of the Barkhurst memorandum to Sheriff Rupert the question of transparency on DCSO’s part is raised regarding who is conducting the independently contracted IA on behalf of Sheriff Rupert.
That contractor appears to be Jim Band Investigations, at least for the other two employees involved. Although DCSO Command staff has told Lt. McLaughlin they would be contacting him regarding which contractor is responsible for his investigation…apparently that has yet to occur. According to DCSO policy “The official Complaint Review Policy 3.01 does not specify an exact number of days for this notification. Instead, the written notification of an outside investigator’s assignment is generally provided to the subject member around the same time the investigator is officially retained to conduct the administrative or criminal.”
Why is one contractor already investigating the two deputies and not, as it is the same IA case, investigating McLaughlin as well?
And why are taxpayer dollars being spent in a search for a second contractor when that contractor will necessarily want to cross talk with Jim Band Investigations as to what he learns / determines regarding the incident?
Finally, why is it taking this long to select a second contractor in the first place? Is McLaughlin being investigated administratively or criminally?
If, under Garrity v. New Jersey, if administrative and criminal investigations overlap, compelled statements cannot be shared. Separate investigators help maintain a “firewall” to protect an officer’s rights while ensuring policy violations are still investigated. Which takes Sheriff Rupert’s reported meeting with the DA’s Office prior to any of this becoming formal and asking the DA to look at potential criminal charges an interesting aspect of this matter. The DA’s response was that Rupert seek an independent IA investigator as it is DCSO’s IA, not the DA’s.
The optics of all this continue to worsen given DCSO’s history of political agendas masquerading as Due Diligence when it comes to election time.
Much speculation is being made regarding the SWAT deputy who placed his duty weapon in the suspect’s back after the suspect was handcuffed and taken into custody on a valid warrant in a SWAT operation overseen and authorized by Sheriff Rupert / CPT Sundberg per DCSO SWAT policy and procedure…and then apologizing to the suspect.
Given doctrine and legal decisions the following holds true.
When a SWAT officer secures a historically violent criminal under a valid warrant, pressing a duty weapon into the suspect’s back is a standard, legally defensible tactic to maintain lethal force coverage during a high-risk arrest.
Once the handcuffs are securely applied, the immediate tactical threat ends, and the officer’s objective instantly shifts from physical subjugation to custody management. “The Tactical Purpose of a post-arrest apology is an example of psychological de-escalation.
Violent suspects experience a massive adrenaline spike during a SWAT takedown. A sudden, calm apology (e.g., “Sorry about that, man, we had to be sure”) radically shifts the energy of the encounter, disarming the suspect’s defensive hostility. Establishing “The apology reframes the intense physical force as “just business” rather than a personal vendetta. This builds rapport, making the suspect significantly more cooperative during transport. Historically violent offenders are highly sensitive to perceived disrespect. By offering a minor, polite apology for the extreme force used, the officer preserves the suspect’s dignity, drastically reducing the likelihood of a sudden physical outburst or assault while being transported.
Because the arrest of Mr. Akehurst, whose extensive criminal record was reviewed by the Sheriff and CPT Sundberg during the mandated planning and mission preparation phases per policy, was executed under a valid warrant and the force used was objectively reasonable given the suspect’s violent history, an apology does not create legal liability. It cannot negatively affect the lawfulness of the issued arrest warrant.
It is information such as this which should be coming out in the two separate IAs Sheriff Rupert has contracted to be conducted – but it is also information a competent senior administrator should already be aware of and had confirmed by the appropriate legal resource (i.e. DPSST) before engaging in an IA administrative or criminal action.
Body and dash camera footage / audio as well as documentation directly associated and influencing the authorization of the SWAT team being utilized by Sheriff Rupert, as well as video taped jail records footage, will play a determining role in how this matter is resolved.