Diana Santiago Investigation | Richmond County Sheriff’s Office

SHIELDS OF SHAME | ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION | DEVELOPING CASE

Diana Santiago, supplied image
Diana Santiago, supplied image

It began with a middle finger. Then came the jail video calls.

The Shields of Shame investigation into former Richmond County deputy Diana Santiago began with an encounter involving Santiago and deputy William McClure. After the journalist directed an obscene hand gesture toward the deputies, he began requesting records and investigating their backgrounds. His investigation brought to light jail video communications involving Santiago and incarcerated Rahim Brown. What began as scrutiny of a street encounter became a much larger examination of internal affairs, supervision, accountability and a later criminal case.

The original encounter does not itself establish retaliation. The jail calls and the subsequent criminal charges must be evaluated as distinct matters, with the underlying records and official findings identified precisely.

Jail video calls involving Rahim Brown

Supplied image of Diana Santiago and Rahim Brown
Supplied image of Diana Santiago and Rahim Brown

Public reporting describes Santiago’s personal relationship with Brown while he was incarcerated and a 2022 internal affairs investigation that resulted in a one day suspension. WRDW later reported obtaining 27 recorded video calls, some showing Santiago in uniform or apparently working. These communications raise important questions about the handling of the earlier investigation and any operational information that may have been disclosed. A relationship, even one contrary to agency policy, should not be confused with a criminal conviction.

From internal discipline to a later criminal investigation

In October 2025, Santiago was fired and arrested following a separate investigation. Contemporary reports identified felony allegations involving violation of oath of office, controlled substances and unlawful street gang activity. Those allegations concerned a different person from Rahim Brown. The charges should not be presented as convictions, and any ultimate disposition must be confirmed from official court records.

Supplied Santiago booking photograph
Supplied Santiago booking photograph

In March 2026, WRDW reported that Santiago was granted bond. Release on bond does not resolve the underlying charges.

What did supervisors know?

The central accountability issue is not merely the later arrest. It is whether the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office documented the earlier warning signs, investigated thoroughly, preserved relevant communications and imposed appropriate safeguards. The supplied personnel file, public complaints, correspondence and jail communication records offer a foundation for examining those questions. A complaint is not proof of misconduct, and a disciplinary entry should be distinguished from a criminal finding.

The officer involved shooting and other records

Separate records supplied for this investigation include an officer involved shooting report, training records and an adult arrests by officer report. These materials require independent review before making factual claims about their individual incidents. The arrest activity report concerns arrests attributed to Santiago as an officer, not arrests of Santiago.

Original source documents

The source archive below will grow as the investigation develops. Links open in new tabs. Document filenames describe the source materials, not findings of guilt or misconduct.

Supporting photographs and exhibits

Further reporting

WRDW investigation into jail video communications

WRDW follow up on bond

Premium evidence vault: Coming soon

Members only video collection in preparation

Full jail video communications and additional source footage will be added after review. This notice does not itself restrict access. WordPress membership restrictions must be applied before protected recordings are embedded.

An investigation still unfolding

Shields of Shame will expand this case file with detailed document analysis, the original encounter, a timeline of internal affairs decisions and the full video evidence. Questions remain about supervisory decisions, the availability of interview audio and the latest court outcome. People and agencies named in the investigation are welcome to provide documentary corrections or responses.

Editorial note: All criminal defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. Allegations, agency findings and judicial outcomes are separate categories of evidence. Inclusion of an individual’s image does not imply wrongdoing.