Salinas Valley Fact Sheet State Prison Special Review – Processing Inmate Allegations of Staff Misconduct

Roy W. Wesley, Inspector General Bryan B. Beyer, Chief Deputy Inspector General OFFICE of the OIG INSPECTOR GENERAL Independent Prison Oversight Special Review of Salinas Valley State Prison’s Processing of Inmate Allegations of Staff Misconduct In January 2018, the secretary of CDCR and attorneys from the Prison Law Office requested that the OIG assess the prison’s process of handling inmate allegations of staff misconduct, “staff complaints.” The department allows local prison supervisors to conduct “staff complaint inquiries,” which are a preliminary collection of evidence pertaining to an allegation. Our review included a retrospective paper review of 61 staff complaint inquiries the prison com- pleted between December 1, 2017, and February 28, 2018, and an onsite monitoring review of 127 staff complaint inquiries the prison intiated between March 1, 2018, and May 31, 2018. This totaled 188 staff complaint inquiries, which included 268 allegations. Our review also included our assessment of nine additional complaints submitted to the department by the Prison Law Office. 104 of the 188 Inquiry Reviews (55%) Were Inadequate • Poor interviewing techniques 84 • Poor evidence collection 45% N=188 104 • Poor report writing 55% • Lack of training • Lack of independence * Display of bias * Inappropriate reviewers * Breached confidentiality Adequate Inadequate Other Notable Results » The work across all ranks of reviewers was lacking » Of the 61 reviewers, zero received meaningful in quality training in inquiry-related techniques of interview- ing, collecting evidence, or writing reports » There was at least one significant deficiency in 173 of the 188 inquiries (92%) » In 113 of the 188 inquiries (60%), the review- er worked on the same yard and shift as the » Reviewers frequently failed to ask relevant ques- subject employee tions in interviews » In five instances, the reviewer was involved in » Reviewers failed to collect relevant evidence in the incident related to the allegation 60% of relevant inquiries » Reviewers frequently compromised the confiden- » 108 of the 188 inquiry reports were incomplete, tiality of the process inaccurate, or both (57%) Fact Sheet Page 1 Office of the Inspector General Sample Allegations Number and Type of Allegations Included in the 188 Staff Complaint Inquiries We Reviewed • An officer made several derogatory comments about the appellant’s sexual identity. 53 • The officer discriminated against black inmates with N = 268 Allegations disciplinary actions. 46 • An officer planted a weapon in the appellant’s cell during a cell search. • The investigative services unit improperly housed 26 the appellant in the administrative segregation unit because he would not agree to be an informant. 23 • An officer told other inmates that the appellant was reporting their actions to authorities in an attempt to 26 19 have the appellant “assaulted, stabbed up, or killed.” 20 16 16 • A female officer told the appellant to strip naked or else he would not be released from his cell to attend 6 4 7 morning yard. 3 3 Discourteous Discrimination Dishonesty or Neglect of Retaliation Sexual Unreasonable Treatment Falsified Duty or Misconduct Use of Force • An officer shut the food port on the appellant’s hand Documentation Threats after he attempted to pick up a medication cup he Paper Review Period Onsite Review Period dropped during medication pass. He was left stuck in the food port for 15 to 30 minutes. Corrective Actions for the Five Incidents in Which Staff Were Found to Have Violated Policy Number of Days It Took Salinas Valley rarely found mis- Description to Complete Allegation of Corrective the Corrective conduct from its staff complaint Employee Type Action Action inquiries, and in the few cases Unreasonable where it determined that staff Officers 1 and 2 Training 411 Force violated policy, it did not always provide corrective action—until Officers 3 and 4 Neglect of Duty Training 240 we asked about it. The hiring Unreasonable Officer 5 Training 239 authority determined that subject Force staff did not violate policy in 183 Unidentified Neglect of Duty None – of the 188 complaint inquiries we Employee(s) reviewed (97%). Discourteous Letter of Officer 6 22 Treatment Instruction Page 2 Fact Sheet Office of the Inspector General Managers , N = 188 Adequate Inadequate including Associate 6 7 46% 54% A reviewer’s rank of service had Warden and Captain little effect on the quality of the staff complaint inquiry; we found Lieutenant 54 58 48% 52% the work across all ranks to be lacking in quality. Sergeants performed the poorest at Sergeant 12 28 30% 70% 70% inadequate. Lieutenants, the most common reviewers, Investigative 6 5 55% 45% produced inadequate inquiries Services Unit 52% of the time. Other 6 6 50% 50% Adequate Inadequate Relevant Period Assessment Question Paper Onsite For cases we found inadequate, Question 1 3 3 Was the staff complaint inquiry assigned to an appropriate reviewer? we did not conclude that staff members alleged to have Question 2 (partial) 3 3 committed misconduct actually Did the reviewer properly conduct an interview of the appellant? violated policy or were found Question 3 responsible for the alleged 5 3 Did the reviewer properly conduct an interview of the witnesses? misconduct. Rather, we found that the prison’s handling of these Question 4 5 3 Did the reviewer properly conduct an interview of the subjects? cases was inadequate because it did not rely on an adequate Question 5 3 3 process to fully support its Did the reviewer collect all relevant documentary evidence? conclusions. Question 6 3 3 Did the reviewer prepare an adequate inquiry report? 101 Incomplete Reports Staff complaint inquiry reports we 80 reviewed were often (43%) N = 188 63 38 7 incomplete, inaccurate, Incomplete Incomplete In accurate and Inaccurate 108 or both (57%) 45 Inaccurate Reports Adequate Inadequate Page 3 Fact Sheet Office of the Inspector General Deficient Interviewing Skills According to an appellant, staff at Salinas Valley had subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment as part of a use-of-force incident. The inmate’s appeal stated, in its entirety, “I Display of Bias would like to do a video interview for staff misconduct and for cruel and unusual punishment on 3-18-18. I thank you for your time.” After contacting the appellant by telephone and An appellant claimed during his interview that a female officer harassed him, calling him a advising him that the call concerned his staff complaint at Salinas Valley, the reviewer asked “bitch” and a “coward”; falsely accused him of misbehavior; and issued him an undeserved the appellant only one question: “Do you have anything else?” The appellant responded counseling memorandum. And yet, the male reviewer stated: “She is always professional by giving a lengthy statement about the incident, including the comment, “All the officers with me.” The appellant replied, in effect, that the subject officer would naturally be knew.” Instead of inquiring about this statement, the reviewer simply repeated, “Do you have professional with the reviewer because the reviewer held a higher rank and was a supervisor. anything else?” The appellant made a few additional comments, after which the reviewer The reviewer then responded: “Are you calling me a liar?” This reviewer’s interviewing concluded the interview. The appellant had not identified any of the officers by name, and technique resulted in the inmate disengaging from the interview. Report, pages 40–41 the reviewer failed to ask him obvious questions, such as whether the appellant could ................... identify any of the officers by name. The reviewer also failed to ask follow-up questions, such A reviewer commented on the subject’s professionalism, demeanor, and pride while as whether the inmate could clarify his statement or provide a general description of the concluding that no policy violation occurred. The reviewer wrote, “Through my observations officers involved in the incident. Report, page 40 [the subject] is very professional with staff and inmates. She has a no[-]nonsense demeanor about herself and takes a lot of pride in her job. Staff did not violate any policy.” The reviewer’s personal opinion in favor of his fellow coworker appeared to have been the Discounting Corroborating Evidence primary basis for the conclusion. Report, page 55 An inmate alleged that an officer made several derogatory remarks about the inmate’s sexual identity. The reviewer did not collect the employee sign-in sheet to determine Failure to Interview Appropriate Persons whether any staff witnesses were present. The reviewer interviewed an inmate witness who corroborated the appellant’s allegation, but the reviewer concluded there was no additional An inmate alleged that upon returning to his bunk, he found that staff had discarded his evidence beyond the statements of these two inmates to support the allegation. The hiring dental prosthetics during a search of his living area in the dormitory. The inmate alleged authority assigned the case to the prison’s Investigative Services Unit, but specified that the that when he spoke to the sergeant about his dental prosthetics, the sergeant responded, appellant’s witness undergo a computerized voice stress analysis test (i.e., a lie detector). The “Tough shit[.] 602 it.” We were onsite for the reviewer’s interview with this appellant, who witness, however, declined to participate once he learned of the lie detector test. With this commented to the reviewer that his dental prosthetics had been accidentally discarded approach to collecting evidence, an inmate’s statements held no value as evidence unless it and that he did not want his appeal to be a staff complaint; he was merely unhappy with was validated by a machine. Report, page 59 the sergeant’s response because the inmate wanted to get his missing prosthetics replaced as soon as possible. The inmate said he was “not looking to get anyone in trouble” and that too many officers had been present for him to be able to identify any one individual. Compromised Confidentiality The reviewer did not obtain the sign-in sheet for staff or the logbook to identify potential staff witnesses, nor did the reviewer interview any witnesses. The reviewer did obtain the A reviewer told our monitor that the subject of the appellant’s complaint was actually search receipt provided to the inmate, but it included only the inmate’s name, number, working in the control booth in the inmate’s housing unit. Nevertheless, the reviewer and assigned bunk, and no staff member had signed the receipt. We were not permitted to conducted the interview in an office located immediately beneath the control booth, with observe the reviewer’s interview of the named sergeant, but the completed staff complaint the gun port window open (the window in the ceiling), and within visual and hearing inquiry report packet noted that the reviewer asked the sergeant whether he recalled making range of the subject officer. In fact, the OIG monitor believed that the subject officer in the the statement, “Tough shit[.] 602 it,” and that the sergeant replied, “I spoke to several control booth was actively listening to the conversation. The reviewer apparently thought he inmates that night and informed them that I was not involved with the searches, [and] that appropriately addressed the matter when he told the appellant that the subject officer was they would have to 602 the Supervisor who oversaw the searches and those conducting the working in the control booth immediately over their room and would be able to overhear searches.” The reviewer concluded that because the subject sergeant was not the sergeant the interview. The reviewer then asked the appellant if the subject officer’s listening to in charge of the searches, the inmate had “misidentified the sergeant.” In fact, the reviewer the interview bothered him; the appellant replied, “No.” Notwithstanding the appellant’s noted the name of the sergeant who was actually in charge of the searches—the one who response, the interview should have taken place in a private setting, the subject officer should have been included as a subject—but did not interview him. Report, pages 33–34 should not have known the conversation was about the appeal, and the appellant should not have been asked to make that decision. Report, pages 61–63 Page 4 Fact Sheet Office of the Inspector General Recommendations The OIG recommends the department do the following: 1. Reassign the responsibility to conduct staff complaint inquiries outside the prison’s command structure; 2. Adopt a regionalized model for staffing purposes as is done with the Office of Internal Affairs; 3. Provide comprehensive and ongoing training for all staff who perform inquiries. Consider certification from the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training for those conducting inquiries. Assign inquiries only to those staff who have been trained; 4. Require audio recording of all subjects and witnesses; 5. Consider redefining an inquiry so that it is not considered a less-laborious than or an inferior process to an investigation; 6. Require all reviewers to report all evidence they uncover and prohibit them from including in reports their personal opinions or from drawing conclusions or making recommendations in the report. In other words, they should just report the facts. 7. Evaluate its notification procedures so that it promptly notifies appellants when reviewers need additional time to complete the staff complaint process beyond the regulatory time frame; and 8. Ensure that staff receive the corrective or adverse actions that are ordered by the hiring authority when policy violations occur. Routine audits should be completed and the results reported publicly. Fact Sheet Page 5 Office of the Inspector General 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110 Sacramento, California 95827 Telephone: (916) 255-1102 www.oig.ca.gov For questions concerning this report, please contact Shaun Spillane, Public Information Officer, at (916) 255-1131, or via email at: SpillaneS@oig.ca.gov