Bureau of Independent Review, Semi-Annual Report, January – June 2006

O I G FFICE OF THE NSPECTOR ENERAL MATTHEW L. CATE, INSPECTOR GENERAL BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW DAVID R. SHAW CHIEF ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL ROBERT A. BARTON STEPHEN MILLER HOWARD E. MOSELEY TIM L. RIEGER SENIOR ASSISTANT INSPECTORS GENERAL SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY - JUNE 2006 DECEMBER 2006 STATE OF CALIFORNIA C ONTENTS FOREWORD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 INTRODUCTION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 OPERATIONS OF THE BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW------------------------------------------ 3 SELECTED CASES OF SIGNIFICANCE---------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 INMATE STARVATION CASE-------------------------------------------------------------- 6 THE RAT TRAP CASE---------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 ASSESSMENT OF THE MADRID V. WOODFORD REFORMS --------------------------------------------- 9 EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT-------------------------------------------------------------- 9 OFFICE OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS--------------------------------------------------------- 10 EMPLOYMENT ADVOCACY AND PROSECUTION TEAM------------------------------ 12 HIRING AUTHORITIES ------------------------------------------------------------------ 14 IMPACT OF THE BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW ON CORRECTIONAL POLICY ------------- 15 THE DEATH REVIEW COMMITTEE---------------------------------------------------- 15 BUREAU EFFORTS TO REMOVE INVESTIGATIVE IMPEDIMENTS------------------ 15 REVIEW OF REFORMS BY THE STATE PERSONNEL BOARD------------------------ 16 CRITICAL INCIDENTS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT ACTIVITIES, JANUARY - JUNE 2006 ---------- 17 TABLE OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS ------------------------------------------------------- 19 CASE MONITORING----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------36 SUMMARY OF CASE MONITORING ACTIVITIES, JANUARY - JUNE 2006-----------36 TABLE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS -----------------------------------------------39 TABLE OF ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS --------------------------------------62 APPENDIX A: STAFF BIOGRAPHIES ---------------------------------------------------------------------135 APPENDIX B: ORGANIZATION CHART -----------------------------------------------------------------139 F OREWORD T he Bureau of Independent Review was established inside the Office of the Inspector General in 2004 as a linchpin in the reforms set out by the federal court to address the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s internal affairs and employee disciplinary processes. Created to closely oversee internal affairs investigations within state correctional entities, the bureau underwent rapid development in its first six months, setting up offices, hiring and training an expert staff of attorneys and investigators, and participating in the development of key policies and procedures affecting the department’s internal affairs and employee disciplinary systems. By the end of the current semi-annual reporting period—after its first full year of operations—the bureau has not only proven its value as an able independent monitor of those processes, but through its work has also amply demonstrated the need for continued vigilance to ensure that internal affairs investigations are carried out with a high degree of integrity and that the discipline meted out is sound, consistent, and just. Although the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s executive management and the management of the Office of Internal Affairs are genuinely committed to achieving reforms, the experience of the past months illustrates that without the bureau’s oversight and intervention, some of the cases monitored would not have been thoroughly investigated—and, in some instances, might not have been investigated at all. Overall, during the six-month reporting period ended June 30, 2006, the bureau monitored 221 internal affairs investigations—46 percent of the internal affairs investigations opened by the department—with 63 percent of the cases involving allegations of administrative misconduct, 19 percent involving allegations of criminal misconduct, and 18 percent involving other allegations. In addition to its monitoring role, the bureau has been a key participant in the department’s central intake panel, which processes all requests for internal affairs investigations and disciplinary action, and in that capacity, has helped to develop the department’s intake procedures. The bureau has also been actively involved in addressing other policy issues affecting the department, including the inmate death review process; access to in-prison records during criminal investigations; and inefficiencies in the State Personnel Board’s disciplinary hearing process. As Inspector General, I fully support the mission of the Bureau of Independent Review and welcome its integration into the Office of the Inspector General’s correctional oversight responsibilities. — MATTHEW L. CATE, INSPECTOR GENERAL BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 1 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA I NTRODUCTION I am pleased to present the third semi-annual report of the Bureau of Independent Review, which documents the bureau’s case monitoring and oversight activities from January 1, through June 30, 2006. During this time, the bureau has actively assisted the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in achieving its mandate to reform its employee investigative and disciplinary processes. The bureau’s primary goals are to promote integrity, accountability, and transparency in the department’s processes while complying with applicable privacy laws. Consistent with that purpose, Penal Code section 6133 calls for the bureau to publish semi-annual reports detailing its work. The bureau underwent important changes during the third semi-annual period, relocating its headquarters and northern regional office into a new facility, which is adjacent to the department’s Office of Internal Affairs, and hiring additional professional and support personnel to staff each of its offices. In the meantime, the bureau has continued to develop and foster positive working relationships with the department’s Office of Internal Affairs, Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team, and hiring authorities. I would like to thank a number of individuals for their support of the bureau. As always, the bureau has enjoyed the continued support of the Inspector General and his executive staff, who have made the bureau a top priority in the administration of the Office of the Inspector General. I would also like to thank my counterparts at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, whose daily cooperation and support greatly assist the bureau in conducting its operations. The contributions of the federal court have been invaluable to the bureau’s success. It is my pleasure to supervise the bureau and to work closely with colleagues dedicated to improving the overall integrity of the department. They have undertaken this role in earnest and carry out their responsibilities with the utmost professionalism. I truly appreciate their dedication to the bureau’s mission and thank them for their public service. On behalf of the attorneys, investigators, and support staff of the bureau, I invite you to review this third semi-annual report at www.oig.ca.gov and provide us with your feedback. — DAVID SHAW, CHIEF ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL, BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 2 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA OPERATIONS OF THE BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW This report is presented in accordance with the provisions of California Penal Code section 6133, which mandates reporting by the Bureau of Independent Review on a semi-annual basis. The bureau’s attorneys and investigators1 are committed to improving the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s efforts in the prevention and discipline of employee misconduct by promoting integrity and fairness in the entire department and thus maintaining public trust in California’s government. This report offers all interested stakeholders, including the public, an independent analysis of the department’s employee disciplinary system and outlines a series of professional checks and balances on that system. At this writing the department holds jurisdiction over approximately 170,500 adult inmates in custody, 116,500 adult offenders under parole supervision, and 8,000 juvenile offenders in custody and under parole supervision. To manage this sizeable and complex system, the department employs approximately 56,500 employees, including more than 35,000 sworn peace officers. The Office of Internal Affairs is responsible for conducting investigations into serious misconduct by the department’s peace officers and non-peace officer staff. The Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team consists of department staff attorneys who advise the department on internal affairs and employee disciplinary matters and litigate employee appeals of disciplinary actions. The bureau works closely with both the Office of Internal Affairs and the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team to ensure that internal investigations and any resulting employee disciplinary cases are conducted in a thorough, timely, and unbiased manner. During this reporting period, even though it was not yet fully staffed, the bureau fulfilled its statutory mandate to monitor the quality and timeliness of each internal affairs investigation meeting specified bureau criteria, and any resulting disciplinary actions. In fulfilling this mandate, the bureau made recommendations in each monitored case related to investigative strategy and techniques, whether the evidence supported the allegations, the decision whether to impose discipline and the appropriate discipline. In addition to monitoring internal affairs investigations, the bureau assessed the performance of the staff attorneys of the department’s Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team. The bureau assessed the disposition of each case, the level of discipline actually imposed, any settlement agreement, and the final outcome of the appellate process. This analysis is reflected in the selected cases of significance and the tables of monitored cases included in this report. Although evaluation of the vertical advocacy process used by the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team had originally been envisioned by the federal court as a primary bureau function, significant monitoring of the team was not fully launched until this reporting period. This was due largely to the team’s limited staff and consequent inability to assign staff attorneys to cases. Moreover, the team has been challenged in asserting its position as a vital component in the disciplinary system, particularly in the investigative process. Although the team is still developing, it has made measurable strides in representing the department in the majority of bureau-monitored cases and is becoming a fundamental resource for the department. 1 See Appendix A for biographies of the attorneys and investigators employed by the bureau and Appendix B for the bureau’s organization chart. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 3 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA MAJOR PROJECTS OF THE BUREAU Central intake. Now in its second year, the central intake unit processes all requests from the department’s hiring authorities for internal affairs investigations and direct disciplinary action. The central intake panel is comprised of internal affairs special agents and management staff, department management, and hiring authorities. The panel meets weekly to discuss all requests. Cases are then accepted for investigation, approved for direct action by the hiring authorities, or returned to the hiring authorities without investigation or approval to take action against named staff. The bureau’s continued attendance at the central intake panel meetings has yielded quantifiable benefits for the department, as well as provided the bureau with a benchmark for measuring its impact on the department’s disciplinary process. As a key participant in the formation of the central intake process, the bureau has been influential in helping to shape intake procedures and processes. This ground-floor insight has enabled the bureau to gauge trends, assess friction points, and determine whether specific institutions or hiring authorities are complying with the department regulations. Contributing an independent voice concerning the department’s intake decisions has also enhanced the bureau’s efforts to identify at-risk or problem employees. Federal court review. To enhance its own performance and provide suggestions to the special master in Madrid v. Woodford, the bureau is participating in a peer review conducted by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department’s Office of Independent Review that began in June 2006. The bureau embraces this process and any resulting suggestions that will assist in executing the bureau’s statutory mandates in a comprehensive and efficient manner. The peer review process began with the bureau’s central region office in Bakersfield. The Office of Independent Review reviewed a representative group of bureau-monitored cases, including administrative and criminal investigations, as well as critical incidents. The bureau supplied case information and a complete activity description for each case. The Office of Independent Review interviewed bureau staff members assigned to specific cases relative to their individual duties and overall understanding of the bureau’s mission. The Office of Independent Review observed bureau staff perform monitoring activities as they interacted with a range of department staff members, including correctional officers, hiring authorities, staff attorneys, and employee relations officers. The Office of Independent Review also interviewed a sampling of special agents, wardens, staff attorneys, other department staff, and third parties who maintain regular contact with bureau staff members. During the upcoming reporting period, the Office of Independent Review will turn to the bureau’s northern and southern regional offices to complete its peer review. Monitoring medical issues. At the request of the federal court, the bureau has engaged in limited monitoring of two components of the department’s health care system that relate to safety and security issues: its statewide emergency medical care system and the death review committee process. After the Office of the Inspector General published its Special Review into the Death of Correctional Officer Manuel A. Gonzalez, Jr. on January 10, 2005, at the California Institution for Men, the department adopted a corrective action plan that included creating a medical emergency response capabilities focus improvement team. The team was launched in the fall of 2005 and the bureau has overseen its BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 4 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA functions since inception. Over the course of this monitoring, the bureau has identified and made recommendations to remedy numerous shortfalls within the department’s current emergency medical system. A summary of the major issues is addressed in a separate report. In December 2005, the court’s expert in Plata v. Schwarzenegger requested that the bureau monitor the operations of the department’s newly created death review committee. Beginning January 1, 2006, the committee was assigned to review every in-custody death, including the quality of health care provided prior to death. As a result of the bureau’s involvement in the death review process, significant problems and trends have been more readily detected. Further discussion of this committee is presented later in this report. Outreach. During this reporting period, the bureau met frequently with wardens, superintendents, executive management, internal affairs supervisory and investigative staff, legal office personnel, and parole staff. The bureau also worked to bring the Division of Juvenile Justice, formerly the California Youth Authority, into the key investigative and employment law processes mandated by the department’s operations manual. The bureau has continued to meet with key external stakeholders, such as the California District Attorneys Association, the California Sheriffs’ Association, the Prison Law Office, community advocacy groups, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies in all jurisdictions where the department’s institutions are located. In addition, the Inspector General continues to discuss the bureau’s activities with the Governor’s Office, labor organizations, and the courts. Through these liaison efforts, the bureau has facilitated outside law enforcement agencies’ criminal investigations. The road ahead. As the bureau moves into the fourth reporting period, it will focus on enhancing communications with the department’s hiring authorities within the Divisions of Correctional Health Care, Juvenile Justice, and Adult Parole Operations, where contact with bureau staff has thus far been minimal. The bureau’s overarching goal remains to work with the department in minimizing employee misconduct by improving the quality of the employee disciplinary process. The bureau looks forward to continuing its positive monitoring relationship with the department to ensure that its employee disciplinary process is thorough, unbiased, and transparent. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 5 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SELECTED CASES OF SIGNIFICANCE The two cases described below demonstrate that although the department has significantly improved its investigatory and disciplinary processes, there are still important matters requiring the bureau’s oversight. This continued vigilance is necessary to ensure that critical investigations are handled in a professional and timely manner and that employees are held accountable for their misconduct. In the first case, an inmate died of starvation without appropriate medical attention despite staff’s awareness of his deteriorating condition over a prolonged period of time. The second case – the so-called “rat trap” case - involves what is referred to as the code of silence; a practice in which employees fail to report misconduct or deter others from reporting it, thus adversely affecting department investigations. INMATE STARVATION CASE In this case, an elderly inmate died from starvation even though members of the department’s medical and custody staff were aware he had refused meals over a prolonged period of time and despite department policy requirements to take specific action in response to such behavior. The deceased inmate was a priest who spoke only Punjabi. He had been incarcerated since August 14, 2001, at which time he weighed 110 pounds and was confined to a wheelchair because of a deformed leg. Beginning one month after his incarceration and continuing until death, department medical, mental health, and custody staff observed and documented that he was regularly refusing meals and sometimes not eating for long periods of time. The inmate’s refusal to eat appeared to stem from his religious beliefs, which restricted him to a vegetarian diet. During the four months preceding the inmate’s death, medical and custody staff repeatedly noticed and documented the inmate’s refusal to eat and attempted to have him seen at the medical clinic. The inmate also was routinely failing to appear for clinic appointments. Members of the custody and mental health staff reported the inmate’s deteriorating condition to the yard physician and the supervising physician, and requested that he be seen at the living unit. Neither of the physicians took action, each refusing to evaluate the inmate unless he came to the clinic. It is not clear whether the inmate refused to go to the medical clinic or if he failed to understand he had medical appointments because he spoke only Punjabi. Two months before his death, custody staff documented that the inmate’s refusal to eat was becoming more frequent and that he “looked very feeble.” The department’s records reflect he refused 24 meals during the month of December 2003. On December 20, 2003, the custody staff submitted a psychiatric referral. Three days later, medical technical assistants, registered nurses and a psychologist reported the inmate’s condition to the yard physician; the psychologist personally asked the yard physician to examine the inmate at the living unit. The yard physician did not do so, but instead simply stopped placing the inmate on the medical appointment list. A medical technical assistant then appealed to the supervising physician to examine the inmate and the supervising physician agreed to do so, but only if the inmate came to the clinic. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 6 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA In January 2004, department records reflect the inmate refused to eat another 33 meals and fasted for up to 84 hours on four occasions. He began a 5½ day fast on February 4, 2004, and a 60-hour fast on February 11, 2004. The inmate was found unconscious in his cell on February 14, 2004, and died on February 16, 2004. Under department policy, the inmate should have been examined by a physician at least three times between December 7, 2003, and his death. He also should have been seen and assessed by a registered nurse at least 13 times. Instead, he was last examined by a physician on May 2, 2003, and his last visit to the medical clinic, when he was assessed by a registered nurse, took place on October 13, 2003. A nine-month criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the inmate’s death was conducted by the Office of Internal Affairs and the case was referred to the district attorney’s office in November 2004. In February 2005, the district attorney’s office concluded there was not enough evidence to support criminal charges against department physicians. An administrative investigation was subsequently conducted and completed in May 2005, which is when the bureau began monitoring the case. The bureau met with department officials to discuss this case at least 13 times between July 2005 and March 2006, which is when department legal staff completed an analysis of the case and made recommendations for disciplinary action. Specifically, in early January 2006, the bureau met with the staff attorney and hiring authority representatives to discuss the sufficiency of evidence to support allegations and disciplinary action against specific members of the medical staff. In February 2006, the bureau staff conferred again with the staff attorney to discuss progress on crafting disciplinary actions. However, the staff attorney did not present draft case findings and recommended disciplinary actions to the bureau until March 7, 2006, 287 days after completion of the administrative investigation. During a case conference on August 7, 2006, hiring authority representatives advised the bureau that disciplinary action against one of the registered nurses involved had been agreed upon, but that the yard physician had resigned and the department was no longer considering disciplinary action against the supervising physician. At this writing, hiring authority representatives have advised the bureau that disciplinary action against another of the registered nurses involved is pending. The three-year statutory deadline for disciplinary action against medical staff, including the supervising physician, expires on February 28, 2007. The bureau continues to monitor this case and advocate for a final and fair disposition of this case by the department within the statutory timeframe. The bureau will report on the final outcome of the case when it is concluded. THE RAT TRAP CASE On April 6, 2005, a medical technical assistant was assaulted by an African American inmate. After the inmate was brought under control and was lying face down on the floor, the medical technical assistant allegedly kicked him. The inmate was then escorted to a holding cell where an officer and a sergeant also allegedly kicked him and pressed his face into a wall as he resisted being searched. A facility captain who witnessed the incident reported staff’s use of force to the warden and all three staff involved were placed on administrative leave pending investigation. That evening, a labor union BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 7 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA official employed at the institution criticized the warden’s decision and made disparaging remarks about the captain, suggesting he was biased in favor of African American inmates and otherwise not credible. The next day a staff member criticized the captain for reporting the incident and allegedly told the captain that in the past he would have been beaten in the parking lot for it. Other staff members avoided the captain and excluded him from conversations and then, on April 8, 2005, the captain’s official management photo was stolen from the lobby of administration building. A week later, while the captain and the warden were both on vacation, the same labor union official mounted a rat trap on the union’s bulletin board in the institution lobby, along with a statement reading: ATTENTION ALL [UNION] MEMBERS The . . . Chapter Representatives have been trying to locate [the warden and the captain] to attempt to talk to them about their inappropriate actions, threats and false allegations; however, we have been unable to locate them to discuss the matters. Since they appear to be on the run, . . .[the union] will attempt [sic] catch them so that we can confront them about these issues. (Note: If you see any traps like the one below, please avoid them as they can be dangerous.) Before the above message was posted, the labor union official showed it to the institution’s employee relations officer and the public information officer, as required by the labor agreement, but neither prevented him from posting it. It was removed four days later but only after a special agent from the Office of Internal Affairs indicated the posting could deter witnesses from cooperating with investigators (because department employees use the term “rat” as a synonym for “snitch”). In its place, the labor union official posted a memorandum encouraging members to cooperate in general with investigations involving use of force. Soon thereafter, the assistant secretary for the Office of Internal Affairs requested an investigation of the labor union official for posting the rat trap message. The case was opened, but languished for months and was almost closed prematurely on two occasions based on a misapprehension of both department policy and the applicable legal standards. On both occasions, the bureau intervened and convinced the department that based on applicable laws and the department’s own policies the matter required a full investigation. The Office of Internal Affairs eventually reassigned the investigation to another special agent and the investigation was completed. During the course of the case additional allegations surfaced against other staff for attempting to impede the investigation. The other staff were subsequently investigated for their alleged misconduct. The allegations against the labor union official were ultimately sustained and he was suspended without pay for 60 days. The matter is presently on appeal and the bureau will continue to monitor the case and report on its final outcome. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 8 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT OF THE MADRID V. WOODFORD REFORMS At the close of the first 18 months of the Bureau of Independent Review’s operations, the Madrid v. Woodford2 reforms continue to have a positive impact on the quality and fairness of the employee discipline process at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As with any reform implemented at a complex bureaucracy, some components of the system have adapted more quickly than others. The following summary provides a general assessment of the key entities involved in investigating, prosecuting and implementing the employee disciplinary process. The tables presented later in this report provide a more detailed assessment of the individual cases monitored by the bureau during this reporting period. Department executive management. The department’s executive management staff has willingly integrated the bureau’s monitoring activities into the employee disciplinary process. The department’s executive management, and in particular the management of the Division of Adult Operations, has continued to enhance its working relationship with the bureau as it performs its mandated duties. During this reporting period, the department underwent significant executive and senior staff changes at all levels, from headquarters to the institutions. These changes, some due to retirements, planned or otherwise; some due to the new warden vetting process; and some due to disciplinary actions and other factors; have created a shortfall of senior personnel intimately familiar with the Madrid v. Woodford court orders and the bureau’s oversight role. As a result, the bureau continues to expend considerable effort training the department’s executive management staff on the reforms to the employee disciplinary process and the requirements of bureau monitoring. Office of Internal Affairs. The professional relationship between the bureau and the department’s Office of Internal Affairs continues to mature at both the headquarters and the regional levels. The Office of Internal Affairs management team continues to actively support the bureau’s monitoring and oversight role and has repeatedly voiced this support to the supervisors and special agents in the field. Communication and cooperation between the bureau and the Office of Internal Affairs at the executive and senior staff levels is excellent. The bureau commends the executive and senior staff of the Office of Internal Affairs. Without their continued support and good will, the cooperative relationship between the bureau and the Office of Internal Affairs would not be possible. The bureau also has found that a majority of the Office of Internal Affairs special agents consider the bureau to have a positive influence on the employee disciplinary process. As required by the department’s policy and the federal court, many special agents now regularly confer with bureau attorneys in both criminal and administrative investigations to ensure that they are conducted in a lawful, procedurally correct, and timely manner. When disagreements arise between bureau attorneys and special agents, they most frequently involve the following: the thoroughness of each investigation; the adequacy of preparation for subject and witness interviews; the proper techniques employed to question individuals during interviews; the reliance on hearsay evidence when documentary evidence is available; and the failure to make timely notification of key case events to bureau attorneys. In general, however, the bureau attorneys and 2 Please refer to the bureau’s first semi-annual report (January – June 2005) at www.oig.ca.gov for a full discussion of the Madrid v. Woodford litigation (now referred to as Madrid v. Tilton), including a synopsis of the court’s ruling. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 9 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA special agents usually find common ground and reach consensus on case-specific issues. When they are unable resolve such issues, the matters are elevated to management and are typically resolved at that level. Office of Internal Affairs, Northern Region. The relationship between the bureau and the Office of Internal Affairs, northern region, was mostly positive during this reporting period. The special agent-in-charge, supervisors, and special agents routinely notify the bureau in a timely manner of critical incidents and important events in bureau-monitored cases. Also, the special agents routinely consulted with the bureau concerning key aspects of monitored investigations and completed their cases within the applicable statute of limitations. Furthermore, special agents in the northern region have significantly improved their working relationships with outside law enforcement agencies, including sheriff’s departments, district attorney’s offices, and the California Department of Justice. Consequently, investigations into illegal activities such as narcotics trafficking on prison grounds are typically well coordinated with outside peace officers and prosecutors. Cooperation and collaboration with outside law enforcement agencies before the service of search warrants and during the arrest of criminal suspects has also greatly improved in the past six months. During this reporting period, the bureau’s attorneys and the special agents in the northern region moved into a new office building with adjacent offices, which allows for easy face-to- face communication and case consultation. In sum, compliance with the reforms set forth in Madrid v. Woodford and outlined in the Department Operations Manual, Article 22 is improving and the bureau is optimistic there will be even greater compliance in the future. Office of Internal Affairs, Central Region. Overall, cooperation and communication between the bureau and the Office of Internal Affairs, central region, was good during this reporting period. The special agents routinely consulted with the bureau concerning key aspects of monitored investigations and typically completed their cases within the applicable statute of limitations. In some areas, including flow of information, the working relationship has significantly improved from the last reporting period. In a few instances, internal affairs supervisors in the central region were required to intervene with certain special agents in relation to particular issues. One such issue was the need to remind special agents of their responsibility to provide the bureau with timely notification of significant case events. Another such issue concerned resistance on the part of a special agent and supervisor to bureau monitoring. These issues were resolved satisfactorily at the regional level between the senior assistant inspector general and the special agent in-charge. Subsequently, and in the vast majority of cases, the special agents in the central region have maintained a cooperative relationship with the bureau. During this reporting period, the bureau’s office relocated into an office suite in the same building as the Office of Internal Affairs, thus allowing bureau attorneys and special agents greater interaction on monitored cases. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 10 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Office of Internal Affairs, Southern Region. Despite some early difficulties, the Office of Internal Affairs, southern region, has made steady progress toward compliance with the requirements of the Department’s Operations Manual, Article 22. During this reporting period the bureau saw real improvements by most special agents in the areas of case consultation with the bureau, timely notification of interviews, and timely referral of completed investigative reports. The special agent in-charge, southern region, is working cooperatively with the bureau to remedy any persistent problems. One remedy proposed by the southern region, in consultation with the bureau, has been the adoption of a new procedure in which the Office of Internal Affairs will interview all complainants and victims in a case within 30 days of a new case assignment to better assess the investigative resources needed to complete the case in a timely manner. The bureau will report on the impact of this new procedure at the conclusion of the next semi-annual period. One recurring problem in the southern region has been the timely completion of investigations, with too many cases completed near the expiration of the statute of limitations. The failure to complete investigations in a timely manner often results in witnesses failing to recall critical information due to the passage of time, the wasting of valuable resources expended trying to locate witnesses who have moved or been reassigned since the incident occurred, and the resulting inability of bureau attorneys to provide meaningful monitoring of the case. The difficulty of the southern region to complete investigations in a timely manner also compromises the ability of the department’s staff attorneys and hiring authorities to adequately evaluate the investigative file and take appropriate disciplinary action. To its credit, the southern region, in consultation with the bureau, has proposed a remedy for this issue in which special agents will meet with their supervisors and bureau attorneys 60 days and 30 days before the expiration of the statute of limitations in all pending cases. During these status meetings the special agents, in consultation with their supervisors, will determine by what means the investigation will be concluded in an expeditious manner. While these procedures will certainly be helpful in focusing attention on the need to expedite untimely investigations, the bureau strongly recommends that the southern region improve its case management practices by holding accountable special agents and supervisors who fail to complete their investigations in a timely manner. The bureau will report on the impact of this new procedure and the overall timeliness of investigations in the southern region at the conclusion of the next semi-annual period. Finally, substantive improvements are still needed in the quality of investigations conducted by a number of special agents in the southern region. For example, best investigative practices include the gathering of all basic documentary evidence before conducting critical interviews; the establishment of a timeline of events during the questioning of witnesses; the use of open- ended, follow-up and appropriate foundational questions during interviews; the proper identification of exhibits; avoiding leading questions; and the confrontation of witnesses and subjects with contradictory evidence. Several special agents in the southern region fail to regularly practice these basic investigative skills, and the bureau recommends that the issue be addressed promptly through a comprehensive training program. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 11 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team, Office of Legal Affairs. In the last semi-annual report the bureau reported that the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team’s vertical advocacy model was still in its infancy and had had little interaction with the bureau to date. The bureau, therefore, did not comment upon the effectiveness of this unit or its cooperation with the bureau’s oversight role. This is the bureau’s first review of department’s vertical advocacy model and the work of the staff attorneys assigned to the team. In summary, the Department Operations Manual, Article 22, mandates that the staff attorneys play a key role in the investigation and prosecution of employee discipline cases. During this reporting period, the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team assigned a staff attorney to almost all of the cases the bureau accepted for monitoring. However, despite considerable effort by the team's leader staff attorneys performed only some of their mandated duties as described in Article 22 and did not do so on a consistent basis. The issues identified below remain problematic. Structure of the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team. The existing structure of the team requires that the assistant general counsel provide direct supervision over too many staff attorneys to provide effective leadership. Instead of having a full complement of supervisory attorneys to manage all subordinate counsel, more than half the staff attorneys directly report to the assistant general counsel. This management structure likely overtaxes the assistant general counsel, who currently attends every policy meeting, executive review, and central intake panel meeting because she has no senior management staff with authority to respond for the team. It should be noted that the department is working on establishing a different supervisory model for the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team, which, if implemented, should address most of these issues. Staff shortages. Since its inception in 2005, the team has suffered from a significant shortage of staff attorneys with which to conduct its mission. This shortage has created a situation in which existing staff attorneys, although assigned to most bureau-monitored cases at the outset of an investigation, frequently begin working on cases only when the investigation is concluded and reaches a Skelly or a State Personnel Board hearing. In many cases the department's staff attorneys therefore have not provided legal advice to the department during critical phases of the investigation as intended. By entering the process only after the investigation is complete, some staff attorneys are not fully prepared to represent the department during the formal disciplinary process. The reasons for the shortage appear to be multi-fold, but include the difficulty of recruiting qualified attorneys with litigation experience under the department's existing pay-scale and the difficulty of keeping those attorneys from leaving to take other legal positions with more favorable work assignments within the department. It should be noted that the department is now actively working to fill existing and new staff attorney vacancies to address the shortfall identified above. Cooperation with the bureau. The level of cooperation exhibited by staff attorneys toward the bureau has been largely dependent upon the individual staff attorney involved and the circumstances of each case. While in some cases staff attorneys cooperate fully with bureau staff and do so in a timely and productive manner, it is not uncommon for other staff attorneys and even some supervisors to fail to make and maintain contact with the bureau in monitored cases, despite their affirmative duty to do so at all key stages of bureau-monitored BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 12 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA cases. In some isolated instances, certain staff attorneys have refused to consult with bureau attorneys or have done so in a manner wholly contrary to the requirements of the Madrid v. Woodford remedial plan. Thus far, attempts by the department and the bureau to address such shortcomings with the staff attorneys have not proven effective in correcting this type of conduct. Recently, however, the executive staff of the Division of Legal Affairs has expressed a renewed commitment to solving these problems. Litigation experience and training. While having an adequate number of staff attorneys is of key importance to the success of the Madrid v. Woodford remedial plan, just as important is the need to have experienced litigators representing the department in contentious and complex disciplinary cases. Many of the initial group of staff attorneys were drawn from within the department’s Office of Legal Affairs and were seasoned employment law litigators. Unfortunately, many of the staff attorneys hired by the department in the last year have lacked experience in preparing and presenting cases to a judge or jury. This lack of experience puts the department at a disadvantage, especially when staff attorneys eventually face more experienced legal counsel employed by union organizations representing the employee to be disciplined. Of course, the bureau understands the department's difficulty in hiring experienced litigators into state service when the State is frequently outpaced in salary and benefits by even federal and local agencies. However, while hiring experienced litigators certainly presents many obvious advantages, the next best option for the department is to develop and implement a rigorous training program for staff attorneys. The team unfortunately does not currently have a structured training program to fill this gap. Instead, new staff attorneys seem to be largely left on their own to acquire the skills necessary to effectively represent the department. It is therefore recommended that new department staff attorneys receive training similar to what new prosecutors and public defenders receive from courses offered by the California District Attorneys Association, the California Public Defenders Association or the National Institute of Trial Advocacy. It is also recommended that the department send its new staff attorneys to participate in visiting attorney programs with local district attorney offices in order to gain litigation experience by conducting preliminary hearings and jury trials. Through the hiring of experienced litigators and the training programs for new staff attorneys outlined above, the bureau believes the team can become a vital and successful organization that will effectively represent the department and the state in employee misconduct cases. Litigation avoidance. A recurring problem the bureau encounters with some department staff attorneys is a reluctance to litigate disciplinary cases before the State Personnel Board hearing. Instead, it appears that some staff attorneys routinely encourage hiring authorities to settle disciplinary cases in order to avoid those that may involve difficult litigation. When cases do reach the State Personnel Board, some staff attorneys encourage settlement of the case on the spot rather than litigate the case through to a final decision. In these instances, the cases are invariably settled for considerably less than what is recommended for the misconduct as outlined in the department’s disciplinary matrix. Ironically, these same staff attorneys typically cite evidentiary problems as the reason to settle the case, yet lack familiarity with the case because they failed to become involved at the investigative phase as required by Article 22. Further adding to the problem is the recurring failure of some staff attorneys and hiring authorities to insist that settlement agreements always contain an employee waiver of any BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 13 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA appeal of the agreed-upon discipline. This flaw frequently propels the case into litigation anyway, and in many cases renders the settlement agreement meaningless. Hiring authorities. Bureau interaction with the department’s hiring authorities on a statewide basis is proceeding in a positive direction and at a relatively timely pace. As the hiring authorities within the department become more familiar with the bureau’s oversight role and appreciate the assistance the bureau can provide, they are now regularly contacting the bureau when critical incidents occur and when significant events arise during the employee disciplinary process. During this reporting period, however, some hiring authorities again engaged in significant departures from the Madrid v. Woodford remedial plan, in particular the disciplinary matrix found in the Department Operations Manual, Article 22. The most significant departures occur when hiring authorities intentionally subvert the disciplinary matrix to achieve a substantially different result than the department intended for the misconduct. In most of these situations, the hiring authority’s motive for the downward departure on the disciplinary matrix appears to be the perception that employee in question is deserving of a “break” for a variety of spoken or unspoken reasons. To provide such a break to the employee, some hiring authorities attempt to abandon a more serious allegation in favor of a lesser one that carries a lesser penalty. For example, rather than sustain an allegation concerning an intentionally false statement in an official report, the hiring authority may instead sustain an allegation concerning an intentionally misleading statement to a supervisor, which has a lesser penalty, even though the evidence clearly supports the more serious charge. The result of this practice is to undermine the department’s effort to bring consistency and overall fairness to the employee disciplinary process statewide. It also unintentionally undermines employee morale by breeding contempt among employees who are not beneficiaries of the same favorable treatment by the same or different hiring authorities. Therefore, the bureau recommends continued training for all hiring authorities regarding the procedures, requirements, and the purpose behind the employee disciplinary process, especially the disciplinary matrix. In addition, when hiring authorities intentionally subvert the disciplinary process, the bureau recommends that the action be investigated. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 14 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA IMPACT OF THE BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW ON CORRECTIONAL POLICY In addition to its monitoring activities, the Bureau of Independent Review has been actively involved in addressing policy issues affecting the operations of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In the most recent reporting period, those efforts included monitoring the department’s Death Review Committee; addressing statutory impediments to obtaining in-prison medical records in criminal investigations; and making recommendations concerning inefficiencies in the State Personnel Board disciplinary hearing process. The death review committee. The bureau began monitoring the department’s newly created death review committee in January 2006 at the request of the court’s expert in Plata v. Schwarzenegger. The committee reviews every in-custody death, including the quality of health care provided before death, during its meetings. In conducting its duties, the committee reviews medical charts and incident reports; tracks the handling of certain death incidents; and issues periodic reports. The bureau has been participating in those meetings and has examined more than 140 deaths occurring over the first six months of 2006 and selected cases from 2005. The bureau initially found a number of deficiencies in the death review process, including inadequate staff support, failure of some institutions to provide essential documents, and too few physicians involved in reviewing deaths. The bureau also found that in numerous cases, critical medical issues related to physician care were not identified and that nursing care issues often were not carefully examined. With bureau input, the department has significantly improved the death review process by assigning a larger number of physicians to assist in the review, conducting more substantive discussion of critical issues affecting the quality of medical care, and other improvements. Problems identified by the death review committee related to death incidents include deficiencies in basic nursing, patient assessments, diagnostic issues, medication management, the treatment of common medical problems like asthma, emergency medical care, and documentation. One critical deficiency is staff’s failure to call 911 in a timely manner, particularly in light of the department’s own limited level of emergency services. In numerous cases, patients in obvious need of a high level of care are taken to a clinic where cardiopulmonary resuscitation or other basic care is administered while an extended time passes staff calls 911. In some instances, staff members further delay by calling a physician who is not at the institution to secure permission before calling 911. The result is a failure to call 911 soon enough. BUREAU EFFORTS TO REMOVE INVESTIGATIVE IMPEDIMENTS The Bureau of Independent Review served a key role in the newly revived California District Attorneys Association’s Prison Crimes Committee, which addresses issues related to crimes committed in state prisons and juvenile facilities. Among the recent issues addressed by the committee was law enforcement access to medical records of inmates who have been victims or perpetrators of a crime. Medical records are relevant to establishing or ruling out criminal conduct when force has been used by an inmate or staff member to identify resulting injuries, determine whether the wounds are consistent with the alleged force, and establish the veracity of claims or defenses concerning the use of force. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 15 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA The specific issue addressed by the committee is that Penal Code section 1543 currently prevents the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from providing district attorneys, district attorney investigators, sheriff’s detectives, and the Attorney General with these medical records. Ironically, under existing law, when the basis of an investigation pertains to Medi-Cal fraud, insurance fraud, or workers’ compensation fraud, law enforcement is allowed full access to medical records. The committee therefore proposed an amendment to the statute to permit law enforcement to have access to medical records in a very limited circumstance—a felony committed by or against a person within the physical custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Such an amendment would benefit law enforcement, as well as staff, inmate victims, and families of victims, by preventing delay in the investigation and prosecution of these serious crimes. A swift response to crimes involving inmates or wards, especially homicides, would allow authorities to rule out criminal conduct early in an investigation—important in a prison environment where unfounded rumors can result in violent disturbances, and even riots. The amendment would also conform state law to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the federal law protecting the privacy of healthcare information that can be used to identify an individual. The California Medical Association initially objected to the amendment on the grounds that it would compromise the confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship, but after discussions between the committee, the California Medical Association, and the association’s legal counsel, all differences were resolved and the modifications were sent to the Assembly Public Safety Committee. Despite the agreement between law enforcement and medical professionals, however, the Assembly Public Safety Committee attorney assigned to brief the bill, sided with other non-medical civil rights opponents and the bill was rejected. The bureau believes amending the statute is important to efficient investigation and prosecution of prison crimes and will continue to support the efforts of the department and the California District Attorneys Association in this regard. REVIEW OF REFORMS BY THE STATE PERSONNEL BOARD In monitoring the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s employee disciplinary process, the Bureau of Independent Review noted that the State Personnel Board’s hearing process often caused disciplinary actions to be litigated in a disjointed manner. Under existing State Personnel Board disciplinary hearing procedures, a half or whole day is initially set for hearing, and if more time is needed, additional hearing days are set, sometimes months apart. The discontinuity is a hardship for the administrative law judges, attorneys, and union representatives handling the cases, and the interruptions and delays impede swift resolution of disciplinary matters, presenting a disservice to the employees being disciplined. In an effort to create a more time-efficient and cost-saving hearing process, the Bureau of Independent Review brought together the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s legal team responsible for litigating disciplinary actions with representatives from the State Personnel Board. As a result of the discussions, the State Personnel Board’s new calendaring plan was expanded to include the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Pre-hearing issues will be ruled on, and if the case does not resolve, the matter will be set for additional days beginning the Monday of the following week until the case is completed. The new plan is expected to be implemented in 2007. While the plan may require modification, the change is expected to generally benefit all participants. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 16 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Critical incidents are high-risk incidents occurring within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s institutions. Typically, these incidents involve the significant use of force or other events that result in the death or serious injury of an inmate or staff member. Officers are trained and authorized to use force, including deadly force, to protect staff and inmates, prevent escape, and control riots, among other things. While not all critical incidents require a subsequent criminal or administrative investigation, it is the mission of the bureau to ensure that high-risk incidents are properly handled from inception and that an investigation is initiated by the Office of Internal Affairs if warranted by the facts and surrounding circumstances. During the six-month period beginning January 2006, the bureau monitored 61 critical incidents, physically responding to the scene of 12 of the incidents and monitoring 49 others remotely by consulting with institution staff by phone in the immediate aftermath to ensure that department policies and procedures were correctly followed. In contrast, during the last reporting period the bureau monitored 35 critical incidents by physically responding to the scene of 19 and remotely monitoring 16. The increase in the number of critical incidents monitored by the bureau is due in large part to the bureau’s increasing practice of remotely monitoring such incidents. Although the bureau’s physical presence is still a priority for the more severe incidents, cooperative relationships between the bureau and institution staff allows the bureau to remotely monitor far more critical incidents than it could respond to in person. Unfortunately, there were still numerous instances during this reporting period in which the bureau was denied the opportunity to respond to critical incidents because the department failed to provide the bureau with timely notification. The bureau identified 18 incidents during this reporting period, in which timely physical response by the bureau was not feasible because prompt notification did not occur. Bureau attorneys continue to develop relationships with institution staff to assist in reducing the number of delayed notifications. In addition, the bureau has developed a redundant notification process, whereby the bureau is notified of critical incidents by both the affected institution and the department’s administrative officer of the day, thus helping to ensure that the bureau is notified of every critical incident. Although the bureau was not notified of every critical incident that occurred during this reporting period, the table below lists by region the number of critical incidents for which the bureau did receive notification. CRITICAL INCIDENTS Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total Northern Region 0 0 2 1 3 3 9 Central Region 2 10 8 5 6 12 43 Southern Region 1 0 0 3 2 2 8 Headquarters 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Bureau Totals 3 10 10 9 12 17 61 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 17 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA The following table provides more detail regarding the critical incidents monitored by the bureau and closed during this reporting period. Some of the cases originated in the previous reporting period but were excluded from earlier reporting because of ongoing activities. Pursuant to California Penal Code section 6133, the tables also include an assessment of the department’s response to each incident. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 18 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS — JANUARY-JUNE 2006 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0001 (Central Region) The department notified the The department promptly notified the Criminal charges for murder were Bureau of Independent Review bureau of the incident. The department’s filed against the suspect inmate. early the next day. The bureau response to the incident was sufficient and The district attorney’s office On March 20, 2005, an inmate in the custody responded to the institution and timely. The reports resulting from the sought assistance from the of the California Department of Corrections met with investigators from the incident were adequate. Consultation with bureau to obtain the institution’s and Rehabilitation allegedly kicked his district attorney’s office. The the bureau regarding the incident was inmate medical files by search cellmate to death after both had been bureau reviewed inmate central sufficient. The hiring authority did not warrant in this case. There has drinking inmate manufactured alcohol, and medical files and worked request an internal affairs investigation since been significant commonly referred to as pruno. with the institution to clarify the related to the incident; the bureau concurred. cooperation between the procedure for releasing relevant department and the local district documents to the district attorney’s office regarding this attorney’s office. issue. Case No. 06-0002 (Central Region) The bureau reminded department The department did not provide timely The district attorney’s office staff that they are required to notification to the bureau of the incident. confirmed that the inmate died of provide timely notification to the The department’s response to the incident natural causes per the autopsy An inmate collapsed on April 7, 2005, and bureau of all inmate deaths from was timely and adequate. The reports report. The inmate apparently the cause of death was not readily apparent. unknown causes, even if a natural resulting from the incident were adequate. had pre-existing heart disease. Life sustaining efforts proved unsuccessful. cause is suspected. The bureau The investigative services unit’s involvement discussed the case with the was adequate. The hiring authority did not investigator from the district request an internal affairs investigation attorney’s office, who responded related to the incident; the bureau concurred. to the institution and reviewed institution reports concerning the incident. Case No. 06-0003 (Central Region) The bureau was initially notified The department did not provide timely The attack was determined to be hours after the incident and notification to the bureau of the incident. unprovoked and unplanned. It therefore did not respond to the The department’s response to the incident was the opinion of the On April 15, 2005, two officers were stabbed institution. The bureau advised was timely and sufficient. The officers investigating officer that the by an inmate. During release to the yard, the the institution of the need to involved received prompt medical attention. inmate intended to get the inmate was discovered to be in possession of provide more timely notice of The reports resulting from the incident and weapon onto the yard in order to a stabbing instrument. He advanced on one critical incidents. The bureau was the institution’s investigative services unit’s attack another inmate and when officer and stabbed him in the forehead and BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 19 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES stabbed another officer in the bicep before consulted regarding investigative involvement were adequate. Consultation he was caught by staff he reacted he was subdued by batons and through the steps already taken. The bureau with the bureau regarding the incident and out of desperation by assaulting use pepper spray. The attack was maintained contact with the the use-of-force review were sufficient. The them. The institution filed the unprovoked. incident investigators, reviewed hiring authority did not request an internal case with the district attorney’s all reports related to the incident, affairs investigation related to the incident; office. There was no evidence of and subsequently obtained the the bureau concurred. staff misconduct. The bureau results of the use-of-force review. found the responding officers The bureau spoke to the warden showed considerable restraint in and offered assistance in subduing the inmate under the presenting the case to the district circumstances. attorney’s office. Case No. 06-0004 (South Region) The bureau reviewed the medical The department promptly notified the Before this case, no Emergency charts and related reports, bureau of the incident. The response to the Response Review Committee autopsy reports, and the incident by the department was timely, but meetings had been held for On May 16, 2005, an inmate was found coroner’s investigation materials. the department’s response to the incident months at this institution to unresponsive in his cell in the institution’s The bureau also attended the was insufficient. The reports resulting from review emergency medical issues. hospital facility. Staff members were not Emergency Response Review the incident were inadequate. Consultation The Emergency Response successful in resuscitating the inmate. Committee meeting and viewed with the bureau regarding the incident was Review Committee in this case the scene of the death. sufficient. The hiring authority requested an determined the medical internal affairs investigation and the bureau documentation concerning the concurred. Documentation from responding resuscitation attempt was medical staff is inconsistent with the autopsy incomplete. An internal affairs report. The autopsy report states the inmate’s investigation was not initiated by trachea was completely blocked by a large the institution until after the wad of paper. However, documentation from Emergency Response Review medical staff does not suggest difficulty Committee meeting. administering CPR. In addition, reports and Investigations concerning records suggest the inmate was alive as late as custody staff have been 2400 hours but was said to be experiencing completed and are underway for rigor mortis when found 15 minutes later. healthcare staff. Case No. 06-0005 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the incident The department promptly notified the The inmate suffered from reports and the autopsy report. bureau of the incident. The department’s numerous medical conditions. response to the incident was sufficient and The autopsy revealed death to On May 23, 2005, an inmate was found timely. The reports resulting from the have been caused by coronary unresponsive in his cell. CPR was initiated, incident were adequate. Consultation with atherosclerosis with contributing BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 20 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES and the inmate was transported to the the bureau regarding the incident was causes of dyslipidemia, chronic institution's hospital. Efforts to revive him sufficient. The investigative services unit’s obstructive pulmonary disease, were unsuccessful, and the inmate was involvement was adequate. An autopsy was and tobacco abuse. No evidence pronounced dead. performed. The hiring authority did not was found to indicate that the request an internal affairs investigation manner of this inmate's death related to the incident and the bureau was other than natural. concurred. Case No. 06-0006 (Central Region) The bureau consulted with the The department promptly notified the The toxicology results confirm sheriff's department’s homicide bureau of the incident. The department’s the decedent overdosed from investigators, and reviewed the response to the incident was sufficient and heroin. The physical evidence On June 12, 2005, an inmate was found medical records, reports from the timely. The reports resulting from the indicated that the overdose was unresponsive in his cell. Cardiopulmonary sheriff's department, and incident were adequate. Consultation with self-administered. The sheriff's resuscitation was initiated, and the inmate toxicology reports. the bureau regarding the incident was department closed its was transported to the emergency room. sufficient. The investigation was promptly investigation, indicating the death Further life-saving measures were turned over to the local sheriff's department. was an overdose, and there was unsuccessful, and the inmate was The hiring authority did not request an no referral for prosecution. No pronounced dead. The decedent’s cellmate internal affairs investigation related to the evidence revealed the source of stated that the decedent died of a self- incident; the bureau concurred. the heroin. administered overdose of drugs, which the inmate received from a visitor. Case No. 06-0007 (Central Region) The bureau was notified by The department did not promptly notify the There were no suspicious phone the following morning bureau of the incident. The department’s circumstances discovered during and, therefore, did not go to the response to the incident was sufficient and investigation. The autopsy On June 13, 2005, an inmate was found in his scene. The bureau contacted the timely. Reports resulting from the incident revealed respiratory ailments. The cell with his cellmate administering CPR. The investigative services unit and were adequate. Consultation with the bureau death was due to chronic cellmate and staff were unsuccessful in was consulted on the regarding the incident was sufficient. The obstructive pulmonary disease. attempting to resuscitate him. Staff suspected investigation. The bureau investigative services unit’s involvement was a suicide by heroin overdose. requested and reviewed reports adequate. The hiring authority did not regarding the incident. The request an internal affairs investigation bureau reviewed the autopsy and related to the incident; the bureau concurred. toxicology reports. Case No. 06-0008 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the incident The department promptly notified the All available evidence suggests reports, the toxicology report, the bureau of the incident. The department’s that the inmate's death was a autopsy report, and what response to the incident was sufficient and BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 21 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES appeared to be a suicide letter. timely. The reports resulting from the suicide by hanging. On June 17, 2005, an inmate was discovered incident were adequate. Consultation with in his cell hanging by a bed sheet. CPR was the bureau regarding the incident was initiated immediately, and the inmate was sufficient. The investigative services unit’s transported to the medical clinic, but life- involvement was adequate. The hiring saving efforts were unsuccessful. The inmate authority did not request an internal affairs did not have a cellmate and an apparent investigation related to the incident; the suicide note was found. bureau concurred. Case No. 06-009 (Central Region) The bureau learned of the The department did not promptly notify the The inmate died from self- incident from the department’s bureau of the incident. The department’s administered dose of heroin. daily report. The bureau advised response to the incident was timely and There was no indication the On June 27, 2005, an inmate was found the department that it is required sufficient. The reports resulting from the death was a suicide or homicide. unresponsive at approximately 0100 hours. to promptly notify the bureau of incident were adequate. Consultation with Life-saving measures were promptly all critical incidents. The bureau the bureau regarding the incident was undertaken by staff, but were unsuccessful. contacted the lieutenant in charge sufficient. The investigative services unit’s According to the deceased inmate’s cellmate, of the investigation and reviewed involvement was adequate. The hiring both inmates injected heroin at about 1900 all available reports of the authority did not request an internal affairs hours the evening before. incident, including the autopsy investigation related to the incident; the and toxicology reports. bureau concurred. Case No. 06-0010 (Central Region) The bureau did not respond to The department promptly notified the The initial cause of death was the scene. The bureau reviewed bureau of the incident. The department’s found to be respiratory failure. incident, medical, coroner, and response to the incident was timely and The coroner did not perform an On July 23, 2005, an inmate was pronounced ambulance trip reports. The sufficient. The reports resulting from the autopsy based on the medical dead after an emergency transport to a reasons for the delay in incident were inadequate. Consultation with history of the inmate and regional medical center. transporting the inmate were the bureau regarding the incident was information available. The death originally unclear. The timeline sufficient. The hiring authority requested an was determined to be of natural was later clarified as a result of internal affairs investigation related to the causes. An internal affairs questions from the bureau. incident and the sufficiency of the medical investigation has been opened to response; the bureau concurred. The determine whether medical investigation request was timely. employees were negligent. Case No. 06-0011 (Central Region) The bureau did not respond to The department promptly notified the The cause of death was the scene. The bureau was bureau of the incident. The department’s determined to be a heart attack as assured that proper investigative response to the incident was timely and a result of blood clots in the lung On August 30, 2005 at 0240 hours, an inmate BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 22 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES was found unresponsive in his cell. The steps were being taken. The sufficient. The reports resulting from the originating from blood clots in inmate had a history of medical problems and bureau reviewed the incident incident were adequate. Consultation with the inmate’s right leg. There was was included in the mental health delivery package and the coroner report, the bureau regarding the incident was no evidence of staff misconduct. system. and discussed the case with sufficient. The investigative services unit’s The cellmate was initially institution staff. involvement was adequate. The hiring evaluated as a homicide suspect. authority did not request an internal affairs The bureau concurs that no investigation related to the incident; the criminal charges were warranted bureau concurred. against the cellmate. No subsequent investigation was conducted. Case No. 06-0012 (Central Region) The bureau did not respond to The department did not promptly notify the Disciplinary action was taken the scene. The bureau obtained bureau of the incident. The department’s against the medical technical reports, reviewed medical response to the incident was timely and assistant who had seen the On September 3, 2005, at approximately records, and monitored and sufficient. The reports resulting from the inmate shortly before his death. 0640 hours, an inmate was found assessed the case and the incident were adequate. Consultation with The bureau monitored the unresponsive in his cell in an administrative institution’s response. the bureau regarding the incident was subsequent administrative segregated housing unit. The inmate was sufficient. The investigative services unit’s investigation and concurred transported to a local hospital after he was involvement was adequate. The hiring with the proposed discipline of found to have no pulse or respiration. He authority requested an internal affairs dismissal from service. The was pronounced dead at 0746. The cause of investigation related to possible negligence, subject resigned prior to being death appeared to be natural causes. substandard care, and inadequate dismissed by the hiring documentation of the contact by the authority. responding medical staff member. The bureau concurred. The investigation request was timely. Case No. 06-0013 (North Region) Following the discovery of the The department promptly notified the The investigation was laundry cart, the bureau bureau of the incident. The department’s subsequently closed due to recommended that the Office of response to the incident was sufficient and insufficient evidence; the bureau On September 15, 2005, an officer reported Internal Affairs initiate an timely. The reports resulting from the concurred. finding a laundry cart with the words investigation because the incident were adequate. Consultation with “GREEN WALL” scrawled across it. The markings on the cart referenced a the bureau regarding the incident was cart was located in the sally port area of the previous incident involving sufficient. The investigative services unit’s institution. The officer had previously several officers who allegedly involvement was adequate. The hiring testified in a whistle blower retaliation case engaged in misconduct. authority requested an internal affairs filed by a former officer. It was rumored that investigation related to the incident; the BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 23 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES his testimony hurt the former officer’s case bureau concurred. The investigation request against the state. The officer suspected that was timely, and the Office of Internal Affairs someone sympathetic toward the former opened an investigation. officer was attempting to threaten and intimidate him. Case No. 06-0014 (Central Region) The bureau was not required to The department’s response to the incident The investigation and use-of- be notified because the injury to was timely and sufficient. The reports force committee determined no the inmate was not life resulting from the incident were adequate. staff misconduct had occurred; On September 15, 2005, two inmates threatening. However, under the Consultation with the bureau regarding the the bureau concurs. There attacked another inmate. The aggressor circumstances, the bureau opened incident was sufficient. The investigative appears to be no link between the inmates were repeatedly ordered to get down, a case to monitor the services unit’s involvement was adequate and two shootings of this inmate but failed to comply. The control booth investigation. The bureau the use-of-force review was sufficient. The other than his continued officer discharged one 40mm direct-impact conferred with the employee hiring authority did not request an internal involvement in violent activities. round, striking one of the aggressor inmates relations officer regarding the affairs investigation related to the incident; In both cases the officers were on the top of the head. The same inmate was status of the use-of-force the bureau concurred. not aiming for the inmate's head previously struck in the head by a direct- committee hearing and the but he was struck because of the impact round as a result of his involvement investigating agent. The bureau movement of the inmates in a large-scale disturbance on August 2, reviewed all reports regarding the involved and his failure to 2005. incident. The bureau attended comply with commands to desist and monitored the results of the and assume a prone position. use-of-force committee hearing. Case No. 06-0015 (Central Region) The bureau did not respond to The department promptly notified the The inmate was admitted to a the scene. The bureau reviewed bureau of the inmate's death. The community hospital on January the incident package, medical department’s response to the incident was 28, 2005, and died on September An inmate was pronounced dead by a reports, and Offender Based timely and sufficient. The reports resulting 15, 2005. There was no indication physician due to respiratory failure on Information System data on the from the incident were adequate. of misconduct by department September 15, 2005, at 1806 hours. The inmate to determine previous Consultation with the bureau regarding the staff. circumstances of the inmate’s death were housing and medical care. incident was sufficient. The hiring authority initially unclear. did not request an internal affairs investigation related to the incident; the bureau concurred. Case No. 06-00016 (South Region) The bureau arrived while the The department promptly notified the There was no evidence of staff medical staff person was still bureau of the incident. The response to the BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 24 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES barricaded in the pharmacy and incident by the department was timely. The misconduct. On September 22, 2005, a riot occurred remained at the institution until department’s response to the incident was involving approximately 270 inmates. An staff had the incident under sufficient. The reports resulting from the officer was extracted through the roof hatch control. The bureau monitored incident were adequate. Consultation with of a housing unit and a tactical team the incident and the department’s the bureau regarding the incident was extracted a medical staff person from the response to the incident from the sufficient. The investigative services unit’s pharmacy. Emergency cell extractions were warden's office. The bureau was involvement was adequate. The use-of-force performed. Eight inmates were injured by not able to view the actual scene review was sufficient. The hiring authority other inmates and were transported to of the incident at the time of the did not request an internal affairs outside hospitals. Additional inmates were riot, but returned the next day investigation related to the incident; the treated at the institution. and toured the yard and housing bureau concurred. unit where the incident occurred. Case No. 06-0017 (Central Region) The bureau did not respond to The department promptly notified the The inmate died of blood clots in the scene. The bureau reviewed bureau of the incident. The department’s his legs, which resulted in blood the incident package and autopsy response to the incident was timely and clots in his lungs, causing An inmate collapsed on September 28, 2005, report. The bureau reviewed and sufficient. The reports resulting from the respiratory arrest. There were no at approximately 0744 hours. Medical staff assessed the inmate health incident were adequate. Consultation with unusual circumstances leading to was summoned. The inmate was first record. the bureau regarding the incident was his death and there was no transported to the triage unit, then to a local sufficient. The investigative services unit’s indication of staff misconduct or hospital, where he was pronounced dead at involvement was adequate. The hiring negligence. 0930 hours. authority did not request an internal affairs investigation related to the incident; the bureau concurred. Case No. 06-0018 (South Region) The bureau responded to the The department promptly notified the Investigation by the department institution and was briefed by the bureau of the incident. The department’s resulted in the capture of the warden. The bureau monitored response to the incident was sufficient and inmate on October 15, 2005. The On October 11, 2005, at approximately 1310 the implementation of the escape timely. The reports resulting from the inmate told the department he hours, an officer assigned to an outside work plan and remained with the incident were adequate. Consultation with had escaped at approximately crew office reported an inmate was missing at investigative services unit the bureau regarding the incident was 0900, which conflicts with the the 1230 hours count. At approximately 1345 lieutenant. sufficient. The investigative services unit’s statement from the officer hours, another officer discovered that he had involvement was adequate. The hiring assigned to the work crew office, lost his personal vehicle keys. When the authority requested an internal affairs who said the inmate was present parking lot was checked, the second officer’s investigation related to the incident because at the 1045 hours count. When personal vehicle was missing. Based on this its initial inquiry suggested that the work the stolen vehicle was recovered, information, the institution initiated escape crew officer had been untruthful in reporting two hitchhikers, who were picked BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 25 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES procedures. his counts of the work crew before the up by the escaping inmate, escape; the bureau concurred. The independently confirmed the investigation request was timely. inmate's account. The office of internal affairs opened an investigation, which the bureau is monitoring. Case No. 06-0019 (North Region) The bureau conferred with the The department promptly notified the The Office of Internal Affairs Office of Internal Affairs bureau of the incident. The department’s opened an investigation. This regarding case strategy and response to the incident was sufficient and matter was addressed in a On November 9, 2005, the bureau received attended the witness interviews. timely. The reports resulting from the separate ongoing investigation information from a chief deputy warden of incident were adequate. Consultation with involving one of the officers, reports that a group of officers were allegedly the bureau regarding the incident was which the bureau is monitoring. calling themselves “The Raza” and sufficient. The hiring authority requested an intimidating inmates and staff. The inmates internal affairs investigation related to the referred to these officers as the “Brown incident; the bureau concurred. The Wall.” investigation request was timely. Case No. 06-0020 (South Region) The bureau responded to the The department did not notify the bureau of The institution determined that institution after being notified of the incident. The department’s response to the five mini-14 warning shots the incident by a union attorney the incident was timely and sufficient. The fired toward 60 to 70 inmates on On December 29, 2005, a fight between two during a meeting. The bureau was reports resulting from the incident were the yard, who were assaulting 10 inmates escalated into a riot. A code three given an overview of the adequate. Consultation with the bureau to 20 inmates, complied with alarm response, requiring all personnel to situation, reviewed the incident regarding the incident was sufficient. The department policy. The respond, was activated. An observation package, and reviewed the results investigative services unit’s involvement was institution determined that the officer saw multiple fights between inmates of the institution’s use-of-force adequate. The use-of-force review was mini-14 round fired in the on the yard and shot three warning rounds review. sufficient. The hiring authority did not housing unit did not strictly from his mini-14 after less lethal rounds request an internal affairs investigation comply with department policy. failed to stop them. A control booth officer related to the incident; the bureau concurred. However, because of the severity witnessing the same incident fired an of the assault in progress and the additional two warning shots from her mini- fact that the warning round was 14. An additional mini-14 round was fired directly into a shower stall discharged as a warning shot in a housing to preclude the possibility of a unit where inmates were kicking an ricochet, the warning shot was unconscious inmate in the head and upper deemed justified under the torso. circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 26 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0021 (South Region) The bureau was notified and The department promptly notified the Institution personnel secured the immediately responded to the bureau of the incident. The department’s crime scene and the victim's scene. response to the incident was timely and body. The sheriff's department On January 2, 2006, at approximately 0200 sufficient. The reports resulting from the handled the criminal homicide hours, an inmate was found dead in his cell incident were inadequate. The investigative investigation. The Office of on the sensitive needs yard. He was services unit’s involvement was adequate. Internal Affairs is investigating discovered during a security check when an The hiring authority requested an internal the incident. The bureau is officer saw blood seeping under the cell door. affairs investigation related to the incident; monitoring the investigation. The inmate was found on the floor with his the bureau concurred. The investigation hands and feet bound and his head wrapped request was timely. in sheets and a towel. Case No. 06-0022 (Central Region) The bureau did not respond to The department did not promptly notify the The Office of Internal Affairs the scene because the bureau did bureau of the incident. The department’s opened an investigation. The not receive notice of the incident response to the incident was timely once it bureau is monitoring that An inmate was found hanging in his cell on until several hours after it was discovered. The department’s overall investigation. January 10, 2006, at approximately 1622 occurred. The bureau addressed response to the incident was not sufficient. hours. Life-saving measures were attempted the delayed notification directly The reports resulting from the incident were until the inmate was declared dead by a with institution staff and the inadequate. It was unclear whether previous physician. The inmate had been housed in warden. The bureau reviewed all counts failed to note the condition of the the acute care hospital under psychiatric related documents, including inmate. Consultation with the bureau observation until the previous day. Records inmate monitoring records. The regarding the incident was insufficient in that indicate he was not in the hospital for suicidal bureau conferred with the district it was delayed. The investigative services reasons and had been seen by two members attorney's office and reviewed its unit’s involvement was inadequate. The of the psychiatric staff on the morning of his report. The bureau conferred hiring authority requested an internal affairs death. with the institution as to the investigation related to the incident; the issuance of any investigative bureau concurred. The investigation request requests and reviewed the was not timely. inmate’s letters in which he had threatened suicide. Case No. 06-0023 (Central Region) The bureau responded to the The department promptly notified the The autopsy reports concluded institution because the death was bureau of the incident. The department’s that death was due to natural reported as suspicious. The response to the incident was timely and causes, a rare heart disease. No On January 14, 2006, an inmate was found bureau observed and consulted sufficient. The reports resulting from the staff misconduct was identified. unresponsive by his cellmate. CPR was with investigative staff. The incident were adequate. Consultation with performed by responding staff. The inmate BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 27 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES was transported to the hospital where he was bureau observed the preservation the bureau regarding the incident was pronounced dead. of the cell as a potential crime sufficient. The investigative services unit’s scene and subsequent search involvement was adequate. The hiring protocols. The bureau made authority did not request an internal affairs suggestions regarding interviews investigation related to the incident; the of former cellmates of both the bureau concurred. The institution’s deceased inmate and his cellmate. investigative staff conducted a thorough and The bureau observed the timely inquiry into the circumstances of the interrogation of the cellmate of death. the deceased. The bureau reviewed copies of autopsy and investigative reports. Case No. 06-0024 (Central Region) Upon notification, the bureau The department promptly notified the The inmate died because she verified that scene was sealed and bureau of the incident. The department’s drowned from her own vomit. all potential witnesses response to the incident was timely and Allegations of neglect of duty On February 7, 2006, at approximately 2150, interviewed. The bureau elected sufficient. The reports resulting from the were made against five an inmate alerted staff that she could not not to respond to the scene. The incident were adequate. Consultation with department employees. The breathe. She was transported to medical clinic bureau reviewed the incident the bureau regarding the incident was Office of Internal Affairs opened and her condition deteriorated. She was report and discussed the decision sufficient. The investigative services unit’s an investigation and the bureau is pronounced dead at 2230. The incident was not to perform an autopsy with involvement was adequate. The hiring monitoring the investigation. treated as a death from an unknown cause. the coroner's office. The bureau authority requested an internal affairs reviewed the scope of the internal investigation after allegations of staff affairs investigation and informed misconduct were levied; the bureau the investigator that no autopsy concurred. The investigation request was was performed because the timely. institution physician told the coroner he would sign off on the death certificate. The bureau recommended that the investigation include the medical care provided to the deceased inmate. Case No. 06-0025 (Central Region) The bureau did not respond to The department did not promptly notify the An autopsy of the decedent the scene because notification of bureau of the incident. The department’s confirmed strangulation as the the incident was received about response to the incident was timely and cause of death. No evidence of BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 28 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES four hours after the incident. The sufficient. The reports resulting from the staff misconduct was noted. All An inmate was found hanging in his cell on bureau received a telephone incident were adequate. Consultation with available evidence in the case February 18, 2006, at 0817 hours. The inmate contact from the institution and the bureau regarding the incident was supported the conclusion that was 43 years-old and was included in the discussed the investigative steps sufficient. The investigative services unit’s death was by suicide. mental health treatment population, but had being taken. The bureau reviewed involvement was adequate. The hiring no record of prior suicidal ideation. A note the incident package and the authority did not request an internal affairs written by the deceased was found, asking coroner's reports. investigation related to the incident; the that his sister and mother be notified. bureau concurred. Case No. 06-0026 (Central Region) The bureau did not respond to The department did not promptly notify the The autopsy confirmed that the the scene. The bureau received a bureau of the incident. The department’s death was a suicide by means of complete verbal briefing, during response to the incident was timely and strangulation. The decedent On February 21, 2006, an inmate was found which no information was sufficient. The reports resulting from the inmate did not have a cellmate hanging in his cell. The death was an disclosed that would indicate the incident were adequate. Consultation with and homicide was not suspected. apparent suicide. He was included in the inmate’s death was a homicide or the bureau regarding the incident was No evidence of staff misconduct mental health treatment population. resulted from staff misconduct. sufficient. The investigative services unit’s was noted. The bureau was assured that involvement was adequate. The hiring proper investigative steps were authority did not request an internal affairs being taken. The bureau reviewed investigation related to the incident; the the incident package and the bureau concurred. coroner's reports. Case No. 06-0027 (Central Region) The bureau did not respond to The department promptly notified the An autopsy confirmed death was the scene. The bureau received bureau of the incident. The department’s due to respiratory arrest caused telephone contact from the response to the incident was timely and by a self-administered heroin On February 22, 2006, a 56-year-old inmate institution and discussed the sufficient. The reports resulting from the overdose. There was no suicide was found unresponsive in his cell. A drug investigative plan. The bureau incident were adequate. Consultation with note or evidence to suggest a overdose was suspected because investigators reviewed the incident package the bureau regarding the incident was suicide occurred. There was no recovered black-tar heroin residue in his cell. and the coroner reports. sufficient. The investigative services unit’s evidence of staff misconduct and Staff attempted CPR, but life-saving attempts involvement was adequate. The hiring no evidence to suggest the death were unsuccessful and the inmate was authority did not request an internal affairs was a homicide. pronounced dead. investigation related to the incident; the bureau concurred. Case No. 06-0028 (Central Region) The bureau did not respond to The department promptly notified the The Office of Internal Affairs the scene. The bureau ensured bureau of the incident. The department’s opened an administrative BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 29 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES that proper investigative response to the incident was timely and investigation. The bureau is On March 1, 2006, an inmate told staff that protocols were followed and any sufficient. The reports resulting from the monitoring that investigation. he had been raped by his cellmate the appropriate staff negligence was incident were adequate. Consultation with previous night. The initial assessment considered. The bureau advised the bureau regarding the incident was indicated the rape did occur. A forensic exam the institution to contact the sufficient. The investigative services unit’s was performed. The victim was an inmate county lab for processing the involvement was adequate. The hiring parole offender and the suspect was a life rape kit. authority requested an internal affairs inmate without the possibility of parole. Both investigation because policy may have been inmates were included in the mental health violated when the two inmates were housed treatment population, but at different levels together; the bureau concurred. The of care. investigation request was timely. Case No. 06-0029 (Central Region) The bureau responded to the The department promptly notified the The decedent was included in the scene before evidence collection bureau of the incident. The department’s mental health treatment had begun and offered input into response to the incident was timely and population, but it does not On March 2, 2006, a 198-pound inmate the processing of the scene. The sufficient. The reports resulting from the appear his attack on the other physically attacked a 253-pound inmate from bureau observed the processing incident were adequate. Consultation with inmate could have been foreseen, behind without apparent provocation inside a of the inmate witness. The the bureau regarding the incident was prevented, or mitigated by staff. locked television room. In the ensuing fight, bureau also observed the sufficient. The investigative services unit’s On June 15, 2006, the district the heavier inmate got the attacker in a interview of the suspect via live involvement was adequate. The hiring attorney’s office declined to headlock and pinned him to the floor. The closed circuit television and authority did not request an internal affairs prosecute this case, noting the attacker died of respiratory arrest due to consulted with the investigators investigation related to the incident; the suspect had a strong self-defense traumatic asphyxia caused by external chest conducting the interview. bureau concurred. Inmate witnesses were argument and did not appear to pressure. appropriately segregated and treated have intended to kill the courteously by staff. The administration and decedent. the investigative services unit were fully cooperative with the bureau's monitoring activities. Case No. 06-0030 (North Region) The department’s prompt The department promptly notified the An autopsy result revealed that notification and timely updates bureau of the incident. The department’s the inmate died of natural causes provided the bureau with the response to the incident was sufficient and resulting from a fast-acting form On March 11, 2006, an inmate was found opportunity to monitor the steps timely. The reports resulting from the of pneumonia. unresponsive in his cell. Staff initiated CPR. taken by the institution to incident were adequate. Consultation with The inmate was transported to the triage preserve the integrity of the the bureau regarding the incident was treatment area, where staff continued to investigation and to ensure sufficient. The investigative services unit’s perform CPR. The local paramedic unit protocols were being followed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 30 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES ambulance was called for assistance and The bureau reviewed incident involvement was adequate. responded to the institution. Resuscitation documents, including the efforts were not successful. The inmate was coroner's report, and consulted pronounced dead by a physician at the local with the institution regarding the hospital. investigation. Case No. 06- 0031 (Central Region) The bureau responded to the The department promptly notified the The Office of Internal Affairs scene upon being notified of a bureau of the incident. The department’s opened an investigation, which suspicious death. The bureau response to the incident was timely. The the bureau monitored. The On March 13, 2006, an inmate was found in monitored the investigation by investigative services unit’s response to the investigation concluded that the his bed covered in blood and in respiratory the investigative services unit. incident was sufficient. The reports resulting inmate’s death was a suicide; the distress. Staff immediately called for medical The bureau made several from the incident were adequate. bureau concurred. There were no aid and a medical technician assistant suggestions in the investigation, Consultation with the bureau regarding the marks on the deceased inmate’s responded. She was unable to identify the including freezing the outgoing incident was sufficient. The hiring authority cellmate and no other signs of source of the bleeding and provided no inmate mail, which subsequently requested an internal affairs investigation trauma on the deceased other medical aid. The inmate was alive but was yielded correspondence related to the incident, specifically regarding than a puncture wound on his having difficulty speaking and breathing. indicating a suicidal intent by the the lack of appropriate medical care given to arm, which was determined to be Staff called for the fire team to respond for deceased. The bureau also the inmate in a timely fashion; the bureau self-inflicted. Subsequent medical transport; however the call was delayed due facilitated contact with the concurred. The investigation request was review revealed neglect on the to radio malfunctions. The fire team arrived county crime lab, which timely. part of medical personnel and in and transported the inmate to the institution responded to process the scene. the response to the incident. The treatment center. The inmate stopped The bureau monitored the search medical technical assistant breathing during transport. The staff of the cell and the interview of resigned with pending attempted CPR unsuccessfully and the the cellmate. The bureau disciplinary action. inmate died. Suicide correspondence from reviewed all other investigative the deceased was found in his cell and mail. reports, photos, the coroner’s report and the autopsy report. Case No. 06-0032 (Central Region) The bureau did not respond to The department did not promptly notify the The coroner conducted a visual the scene. The bureau received bureau of the incident. The response to the exam and a review of medical notice of the inmate's death incident by the department was timely and records. The cause of death was On March 19, 2006, an inmate was found approximately three hours after sufficient. The reports resulting from the determined to be natural. The unresponsive in his housing unit at 0715 he was pronounced dead. The incident were adequate. Consultation with head injury from the fall was hours. Medical staff was called to the scene. institution was directed to adhere the bureau regarding the incident was determined to not be the cause of The inmate was transported to a hospital to the notice requirements for the sufficient. The investigative services unit’s death. A stroke was listed as the where he died at 0948 hours. Previously, at bureau on inmate deaths from involvement was adequate. The hiring cause of death. Homicide was 0315 hours that morning, the inmate had suspicious circumstances in the authority did not request an internal affairs ruled out. There was no evidence BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 31 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES rolled off his lower tier bunk in a dormitory future. The bureau conferred investigation related to the incident; the of staff misconduct or housing unit and struck his head on the floor. with investigators at the bureau concurred. negligence. He was evaluated by medical staff after the institution and reviewed the fall and sent back to the housing unit, where incident package and coroner's he was later found unresponsive. report. The bureau noted a discrepancy between the coroner’s report and the institution’s investigative report, but that did not affect the findings in the case. Case No. 06-0033 (South Region) The bureau monitored the Office The department promptly notified the The bureau is monitoring the of Internal Affairs’ interviews of bureau of the incident. The department’s Office of Internal Affairs department employees. The response to the incident was sufficient and investigation. On April 5, 2006, an inmate was transported bureau also monitored the timely. The reports resulting from the from an institution in the northern region to interview of the inmate at a incident were adequate. Consultation with a parole office in the southern region. When nursing care facility. the bureau regarding the incident was the inmate arrived at parole office, he had sufficient. The Office of Internal Affairs obvious injuries to his face and head, requested an internal affairs investigation including severe swelling to his eyes and related to the incident; the bureau concurred. mouth. The investigation request was timely. Case No. 06-0034 (Central Region) The bureau did not respond to The department did not promptly notify the The coroner determined that the the scene. The bureau was not bureau of the incident. The department’s inmate died of natural causes. notified until almost eight hours response to the incident was timely and There was no evidence of staff On April 9, 2006, a 43-year-old inmate lost after the death occurred. The sufficient. The initial reports resulting from misconduct associated with this consciousness and collapsed while playing bureau instructed staff at the the incident were not adequate. Consultation incident. basketball. He went into cardiac arrest and institution to provide notification with the bureau regarding the incident was later died. as soon as possible following an sufficient. The investigative services unit’s in custody death. The bureau involvement was adequate. The hiring conferred with institution authority did not request an internal affairs investigators and reviewed investigation related to the incident; the incident reports, medical records bureau concurred. of the deceased inmate, and the BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 32 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES coroner's report. The bureau recommended a supplemental report be completed documenting the identities of the inmate witnesses and their statements. The institution agreed and completed the report. Case No. 06-0035 (South Region) On April 11, 2006, the bureau The department did not promptly notify the The hiring authority conducted read a union bulletin board entry bureau of the incident. The department’s training to ensure staff is aware referring to this incident. This response to the incident was not timely. The of when to initiate a crime scene On April 10, 2006, at 1905 hours, two was the first notice to the bureau department’s response to the incident was and when to notify the inmates staggered to the program office to of the incident. After contacting insufficient. Despite the severity of the investigative services unit of a report they had been assaulted by other the institution to confirm the incident, no crime scene was established and critical incident. The hiring inmates in the housing unit. Responding staff incident, the bureau responded to the investigative services unit was not authority has conducted concluded that the inmates were repeatedly the institution on April 12, 2006 notified. The reports resulting from the appropriate training to ensure the assaulted by groups of four to five inmates at for a briefing. While on grounds, incident were adequate. Consultation with bureau is notified of similar a time in a cubicle area and on the dayroom the bureau observed a vehicle the bureau regarding the incident was incidents. Training was also floor over at least a half an hour period. Lack parked directly to the rear of the insufficient. The investigative services unit’s conducted regarding overall of supervision for 30 minutes in a minimum facility loading dock where the involvement was adequate. The hiring security concerns to the security housing facility is not uncommon. incident occurred and an authority did not request an internal affairs minimum security housing One inmate sustained serious head trauma unlocked door leading into the investigation related to the incident; the facility. and was life-flighted to an outside trauma kitchen area, both of which are bureau concurred. The investigation request center for emergency treatment. violations of policy. The was timely. institution conducted an in-depth review of the incident and advised the bureau of the results of that review. Case No. 06-0036 (Central Region) The bureau did not respond to The department promptly notified the Upon receipt of the hiring the scene. The bureau reviewed bureau of the incident. The department’s authority’s request for the incident package, the fact- response to the incident was timely and investigation, the Office of An inmate was found unresponsive on the finding investigation, and the sufficient. The reports resulting from the Internal Affairs determined that morning of April 11, 2006. He was request for an internal affairs incident were adequate. Consultation with the matter should be referred to transported to the local rural hospital, BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 33 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES stabilized, and was then sent to a better- investigation. the bureau regarding the incident was the department’s Health Care equipped community hospital. The inmate sufficient. The investigative services unit’s Services Division for resolution. went into respiratory arrest shortly after involvement was adequate. The hiring departure and the ambulance stopped at a authority requested an internal affairs nearby fire station for assistance. The inmate investigation of the medical care provided to was then transported back to the local rural the inmate; the bureau concurred. The hospital where he was pronounced dead. investigation request was timely. Case No. 06-0037 (South Region) The bureau responded to the The investigative services unit responded There were no allegations of staff scene and arrived as the inmates promptly and searched the yard and all the misconduct in this incident. were being returned to their inmates. The hiring authority did not request On April 14, 2006, approximately 19 inmates housing unit. an internal affairs investigation related to the physically attacked staff members, apparently incident; the bureau concurred. over a misunderstanding about their access to religious services. Responding staff members used pepper spray, expandable batons, and physical force to gain control of the incident. Seven officers were injured and treated and released from an outside hospital. One inmate received minor injuries. Case No. 06-0038 (South Region) The bureau was notified at 0415 The department promptly notified the The investigation revealed that hours and responded to the bureau of the incident. The response to the the inmate collapsed, possibly scene. A crime scene was incident by the department was timely. The from a heart attack, and hit his At approximately 0110 hours on May 6, established early. The bureau department response to the incident was head on a sink in the bathroom. 2006, an inmate was found unresponsive. obtained additional information sufficient. The incident commander’s report The initial reports were that the inmate was upon arrival and after the was not completed in a timely manner. found on the floor of the shower with a investigation was completed. Consultation with the bureau regarding the wound to the back of his head. It was later incident was sufficient. The hiring authority determined the injury occurred in the did not request an internal affairs bathroom. The inmate was transported to an investigation related to the incident; the outside hospital where he died. bureau concurred. Case No. 06-0039 (Central Region) The bureau did not respond to The department did not promptly notify the The coroner found no evidence the scene. The bureau was never bureau of the incident. The department’s of homicide. The coroner directly notified of this incident response to the incident was timely. The reported the inmate died from On May 27, 2006, a 47 year-old inmate by the institution. Three days reports resulting from the incident were natural causes, specifically from BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 34 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRITICAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTIONS BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES collapsed in a shower. The inmate was after the inmate died, the event adequate. Consultation with the bureau an acute myocardial infarction unconscious, but still breathing. His was reported in the department’s regarding the incident was insufficient in that caused by coronary condition deteriorated and life-saving efforts daily reports. The bureau it was so delayed. The investigative services arteriosclerosis. None of the were initiated, but were unsuccessful. The obtained and reviewed the unit’s involvement was adequate. The hiring witnesses stated that the victim inmate had been playing soccer earlier and incident package and coroner's authority did not request an internal affairs attempted to seek medical care. had complained of chest pains to other report. The need for prompt investigation related to the incident; the There was no evidence of staff inmates. notification to the bureau was bureau concurred. misconduct. emphasized to the institution staff. Case No. 06-0040 (South Region) The bureau was notified at Notification to the bureau was not timely. The institution determined there approximately 2030 hours. The The department’s response to the incident were issues concerning initiation bureau requested and received a was sufficient and timely. The reports of the crime scene, the request On June 1, 2006, at 1715 hours, an inmate briefing of the incident and resulting from the incident were adequate. for an outside ambulance, and was seen walking in the opposite direction of reviewed the incident package. Consultation with the bureau regarding the notice to outside law other inmates with blood on his neck. An incident was sufficient. The investigative enforcement. However, the alarm was sounded and it was discovered that services unit’s involvement was adequate. conduct did not rise to the level the inmate had been stabbed in the neck. The Homicide detectives from the sheriff’s of misconduct and was addressed inmate was transported to the treatment and department assumed control of the homicide through training and counseling. triage area and an outside ambulance was investigation. The hiring authority did not requested. The ambulance arrived at 1756 request an internal affairs investigation hours. A life-flight helicopter was requested related to the incident; the bureau concurred. and arrived at 1802 hours, but the inmate was pronounced dead at 1810 hours. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 35 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Caseload Trends 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 JAN 1, 2005 - JUN 30, 2005 JUL 1, 2005 - DEC 31, 2006 JAN 1, 2006 - JUN 30, 2006 Semi Annual Reporting Periods BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 36 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA ffatS rep sesaC Average Staff Caseload Average New Cases Open Case Trend 600 531 474 500 400 300 184 200 100 0 June 30, 2005 December 31, 2005 June 30, 2006 Semi Annual Date sesaC fo rebmuN CASE MONITORING ACTIVITIES Caseload trends. The Bureau of Independent Review continues to monitor a significant number of internal affairs investigations conducted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. During the six-month reporting period ending June 30, 2006, the bureau selected 221 internal affairs investigations for monitoring, which reflected 46 percent of all internal affairs investigations opened by the department. While the number of new cases accepted by the bureau during this reporting period was fewer than in the previous reporting period, the average caseload for each bureau attorney fell by just three cases. The dip in new cases is not unexpected, given that the bureau opened so many cases at its inception and now must monitor each case to its conclusion. Thus, although the bureau attorneys were assigned an average of only 17 new cases each during the reporting period, they maintained an average of more than 41 active cases. Due to the extended length of time involved in resolving each of the department’s disciplinary cases, the number of cases closed by the bureau was relatively small compared to the number of new cases. The bureau closed 166 cases during this reporting period compared to a total of just 89 for the previous two reporting periods combined. At the end of this reporting period, the bureau had 531 open cases, an increase of 57 from the number of cases open at the end of the previous reporting period. The chart below compares the number of bureau cases open at the end of the last three reporting periods. Case types. Office of Internal Affairs cases generally fall into one of two broad categories: criminal or administrative. Cases that do not fall neatly into either of these classifications, because they may be pending, involve direct action or inquiries, or constitute rejected or returned cases, are classified as other. The department opened 394 criminal and administrative internal affairs investigations during this reporting period, and as stated above, the bureau selected 221 of those cases for monitoring. The cases monitored were comprised of 41 criminal, 140 administrative, and 40 cases designated as other. Consequently, the bureau monitored 46 percent of the criminal and administrative cases opened by the Office of Internal Affairs during the current reporting period. INVESTIGATIONS The largest group of cases monitored by the bureau —63 Administrative (63%) percent—involved allegations of administrative misconduct that Criminal (19%) could lead to disciplinary action. The allegations in these cases ranged from misuse of state resources to actions of dishonesty Other (18%) during a criminal investigation. Often these cases encompassed the same factual allegations included in criminal cases, but proceeded independently of any criminal investigation. 40 Administrative proceedings associated with criminal activity 41 typically commence at the conclusion of a criminal investigation. 140 The second largest group of cases monitored by the bureau involved allegations of criminal misconduct. Considered the most serious of bureau-monitored cases, these cases represented 41 of the 221 cases monitored or 19 percent of the total number ALLEGATIONS of cases monitored. The remaining 18 percent of the cases monitored by the bureau during this period consisted of direct employee action requests, inquiries, pending evaluations, and Administrative (77%) cases returned to the hiring authorities with no misconduct identified. These cases generally involve less severe allegations or Criminal (11%) require no investigative resources to proceed. Nonetheless, the Other (12%) bureau monitors these cases to ensure fairness within the employee disciplinary process. 73 Cases under investigation usually include multiple factual 69 allegations. The number of allegations investigated in bureau- monitored cases this period totaled 617, averaging roughly two 475 allegations per investigation. The majority of cases the bureau monitored involved sworn peace officers, such as correctional officers and their supervisors, who make up approximately 61 percent of SUBJECTS department employees. Because the inherent nature of the correctional environment places officers in situations that may Sworn Staff (82%) require the use of force, misuse of force is one of the most Non-Sworn Staff (18%) common allegations under investigation and monitored by the bureau. 68 Also, it is worth noting that the case management system used 318 by the Office of Internal Affairs defines each case by incident even if the incident involves multiple subjects. Likewise, bureau cases may reflect more than one subject. Thus, the 221 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 37 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA monitoring cases opened by the bureau during the six-month period ending June 30, 2006, involved 386 subject employees. Conclusion. The bureau usually becomes involved in a case from the time a request for investigation is initially considered by the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau determines whether to monitor the case based on the factual allegations, the bureau’s monitoring criteria, and other available information. Once it is selected, bureau attorneys monitor the case by observing witness and subject interviews, providing feedback on case development, and consulting with the investigating special agents, hiring authorities, and staff attorneys. Although it is the bureau’s overarching goal to report on every case in a timely manner, exceptional circumstances may preclude such reporting. For example, the bureau includes a criminal investigation in its public reports only after the district attorney’s office has reviewed the case. Similarly, it publicly discloses an administrative investigation only after the hiring authority has determined the case findings. In broad terms, the bureau retains the discretion to delay reporting of a given investigation to avoid jeopardizing the investigation and any resulting disciplinary or criminal action, as well as to avert the potential of placing inmates or staff at risk. Accordingly, the tables below summarize the criminal and administrative cases that were deemed appropriate for public reporting during this period. Pursuant to California Penal Code section 6133, the tables include an assessment of whether the quality of the investigation was adequate or inadequate. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 38 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS — JANUARY-JUNE 2006 SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0041 (Central Region) The Bureau of Independent The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The Office of Internal Affairs Review had many conferences with the bureau during the investigation was determined there was insufficient with the special agent. The adequate. The investigation was timely and evidence to refer the case to the It is alleged that on or about June 28, 2002, a bureau researched applicable adequate. The Office of Internal Affairs district attorney’s office. An California Department of Corrections and statutes of limitations and adequately consulted with the bureau administrative investigation was Rehabilitation office assistant provided an determined the criminal statute regarding the decision not to refer the case to started, which the bureau is inmate with methamphetamine. It is further had likely expired. The bureau the district attorney’s office; the bureau monitoring. alleged that between approximately June discussed the possibility of using concurred. 2002 and July 2005 the office assistant the inmate to re-establish contact engaged in a sexual relationship with the with the subject to obtain more inmate, and received cash and personal evidence, conferred regarding a checks from the inmate and inmate's family. search warrant, reviewed the final report, and was consulted concerning the sufficiency of evidence. Case No. 06-0042 (North Region) The bureau did not monitor the The investigation was timely and adequate. The criminal case was rejected by initial investigation of the use of The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation the district attorney's office on unnecessary force. However, the with the bureau was timely and adequate. The November 18, 2004, due to On January 19, 2004, officers were allegedly bureau monitored the second case was referred to the district attorney’s insufficient evidence. As a result observed using unnecessary force on an investigation related to office for prosecution; the bureau concurred. of the initial investigation, one inmate, who had thrown bodily fluids on an dishonesty and code of silence officer was dismissed. The officer officer. Several officers took turns assaulting conspiracy. The bureau observed who came forward and gave an a handcuffed inmate housed in a secured witness and subject interviews, honest, but belated, account of holding cell. The incident was investigated consulted with the department the incident was transferred to and resulted in dismissal actions against two throughout the investigation, and another institution. This case was officers. At the dismissal hearing, one of the reviewed investigative addressed by the hiring authority officers made a voluntary statement of documents. in a separate administrative honesty in exchange for reinstatement with investigation, which the bureau is the department. The officer's statement monitoring. resulted in a second investigation of three additional officers for dishonesty and BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 39 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES engaging in a code of silence conspiracy. Case No. 06-0043 (North Region) The investigation was already The investigation was timely and adequate. On July 26, 2004, the psychiatric completed when the case was The case was referred to the district social worker resigned while assigned for bureau monitoring. attorney’s office; the bureau concurred. under criminal investigation. On June 7, 2004, parole administrators The bureau reviewed case Thereafter, the district attorney’s received information that a psychiatric social materials and Office of Internal office filed felony charges against worker furnished methamphetamine and Affairs’ reports. him. The employee entered into a marijuana to a parolee, engaged in a sexual plea agreement on November 14, relationship with her, and threatened to use 2005, in which he pled no contest his position to return her to prison if she did to a violation of Penal Code not comply with his demands to clean his section 289.6, engaging in sexual apartment and submit to his sexual advances. activity with an adult confined in When the parolee met with department an institution. An administrative representatives, she brought the psychiatric investigation was also conducted, social worker’s personal vehicle as proof of which the bureau monitored. their relationship. Case No. 06-00044 (Central Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject is no longer an active lieutenant who made the initial with the bureau during the investigation was or reserve member of the discovery, the special agent in adequate. The investigation was timely and military. The subject pled guilty A correctional officer who was also in the charge of the investigation and adequate. The case was referred to the to a misdemeanor theft in United States Army Reserves and other state his supervisors, and the district district attorney’s office; the bureau exchange for full restitution and employees in her military unit falsified orders attorney’s office’s regarding the concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs testimony against three other and turned them in to the department for case. The bureau observed promptly and adequately consulted with the subjects in criminal and/or monetary gain. The fraud was discovered on strategy meetings with the bureau regarding the referral to the district administrative hearings. The September 16, 2004. The loss was greater military’s criminal investigative attorney’s office. The Office of Internal subject resigned. Actions are still than $13,000. A joint investigation was division and observed the Affairs audited records of all department pending against the other three initiated with the Office of Internal Affairs interview of the subject. The employees from that reserve unit and subjects. The department also and the military's criminal investigative bureau suggested the department identified others involved. opened an administrative division. obtain additional documentation investigation, which the bureau is from the military. The bureau monitoring. was present when the case was presented to the district attorney’s office and monitored the criminal prosecution. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 40 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0045 (South Region) The bureau monitored the An investigation was not requested until The department did not refer the criminal investigation at every more than four months after the report; thus case to the district attorney’s level, including consulting with the request was not timely. The special agent office. The inmate was initially An inmate initially reported being the victim the special agent and reviewing to whom this matter was assigned was unable to identify the officer he of excessive force in an appeal form the investigative and medical responsive in consulting with the bureau and claimed hit him and gave two submitted to the department on December 5, records. did so in a timely manner. The criminal inconsistent descriptions of the 2004. He stated that the incident occurred on investigation was timely and was completed officer. Medical reports showed November 30, 2004, when three officers in less than three months. At the time the there were no rib fractures or threw him up against a fence and one of the criminal case was closed, the matter was other abnormalities. The officers hit him in the chest with a baton. He returned to the institution for an institution was informed of the claimed to have suffered three fractured ribs administrative investigation. The bureau need to pursue the case as a result of being hit by the baton. Initially, concurred with the department’s decision not administratively. the inmate could not specifically identify the to refer this case to the district attorney’s officers. office. Case No. 06-0046 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation After reviewing the report, the investigative file, investigative with the bureau during the investigation was district attorney’s office plan, and draft final investigative inadequate. The special agent was not expressed the need for further On December 8, 2004, an inmate alleged he report, attended witness forthcoming with information regarding investigation. Ultimately, the was severely beaten by four officers during a interviews, and sought periodic investigative plans, proceeded mostly without district attorney's office did not housing transfer, and was then denied updates from the special agent. the bureau’s knowledge, and failed to provide file criminal charges. medical aid. It is further alleged that the use The bureau conferred with the the final report to the bureau before of force was not reported by staff as special agent and staff attorney submission to the district attorney’s office. required. regarding the statute of The investigation was delayed, but was limitations. The bureau discussed completed prior to the expiration of the the evidentiary development of statute of limitations. Several deficiencies this case with the vertical were noted in the report; it was only advocate. The bureau conferred marginally complete. The case was referred with the district attorney’s office to the district attorney’s office; the bureau and reviewed a memorandum concurred, but was not consulted prior to the reflecting their decision to not referral. file charges. Case No. 06-0047 (North Region) The bureau conferred with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation On November 8, 2005, the investigator and discussed with the bureau was adequate. The special agent reported the district investigative strategies. The investigation was timely and adequate. The attorney’s office declined to file On January 8, 2005, an inmate struck two BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 41 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES officers and an alarm was sounded. A bureau reviewed reports and case was referred to the district attorney’s charges against the subjects. An sergeant responded and saw one of the conferred with the district office; the bureau concurred with the referral. administrative investigation was officers striking the inmate repeatedly with attorney’s investigator. The Office of Internal Affairs adequately initiated by the hiring authority, his fists. The inmate was not resisting and consulted with the bureau regarding the which the bureau is monitoring. appeared to be covering himself from being referral to the district attorney’s office and hit. The inmate claimed the officer who the consultation was timely. struck him initiated the confrontation by displaying his middle finger in a gesture of disrespect. When he responded in kind, the officer allegedly grabbed him and hit him. One of the officers and a control booth officer failed to adequately report the incident. Case No. 06-0048 (South Region) This bureau actively and The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The final criminal investigative continuously monitored this case with the bureau during the investigation was report was submitted to the because it involved significant adequate. The investigation was timely and district attorney’s office on On February 11, 2005, an officer allegedly allegations of a code of silence. adequate. The Office of Internal Affairs October 25, 2005. The district used unnecessary force on an inmate by The bureau expressed concern consulted with the bureau in a timely and attorney’s office declined to file punching him several times on the back of about the safety of the reporting adequate manner regarding the referral to the criminal charges on January 17, his head. The officer did not report the employees to the hiring authority district attorney’s office. The case was 2006. An administrative punches; neither did three other officers who as a result of the threatening referred to the district attorney’s office; the investigation also was also were present. Inmates and other officers who statements attributed to the bureau concurred. The hiring authority initiated by the hiring authority, witnessed the incident, however, submitted subject; the subject was advised the off-duty van occupants to obtain which the bureau is monitoring. statements supporting the allegations. Later, counseled. The subject was a restraining order, as the hiring authority did the subject officer allegedly stated he was transferred to a neighboring not believe action could be taken. The bureau going to “red tag” the staff members who prison but was later seen on and the Office of Internal Affairs disagreed reported him, which was interpreted to mean institution grounds again. The with the hiring authority and convened a cause harm from inmates. He allegedly bureau recommended the subject meeting, which resulted in a transfer to a intimidated one of the reporting officers by be ordered to stay off institution neighboring prison. The hiring authority telling him he did not like rats and would grounds; the institution counseled the subject and ordered the subject take care of them, and by waiting at the staff eventually issued the order. The to stay off institution grounds in response to entrance on several occasions to walk silently bureau expressed concern and the bureau’s concerns. next to the officer as he left. The subject also attended a meeting regarding the allegedly drove his truck at extremely slow van incident. The bureau speeds in front of a vanpool carrying three monitored the presentation to officers who reported the punches, and twice the district attorney’s office. accelerated to block the van’s attempt to BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 42 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES pass. Case No. 06-0049 (Central Region) The bureau met and consulted The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation Felony charges were filed against with the assigned special agent with the bureau during the investigation was the subject, but the case was and his supervisor. The bureau adequate. The investigation was timely and reduced to a misdemeanor. The On February 14, 2005, the department reviewed search warrants, all adequate. The case was referred to the subject pled guilty, was placed on discovered that an officer was allegedly reports, and interviews. The district attorney’s office; the bureau probation, and was ordered to having a sexual relationship with an inmate. bureau assisted in urging the concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs serve 300 hours of community Letters between the two were discovered, as district attorney’s office to file consulted with the bureau in a timely and service. The bureau formally was the fake mail drop they used to felony charges. The bureau adequate manner regarding the referral. complained to the district correspond with one another. attempted to monitor the district attorney’s office. The district attorney’s case, but the case was attorney’s office issued an reassigned five times and the apology for how the case was district attorney’s office did not handled. The bureau has since communicate with the Office of facilitated meetings between the Internal Affairs or the bureau. district attorney’s office and the Office of Internal Affairs’ management. Case No. 06-0050 (South Region) The bureau discussed The criminal investigation was not requested The criminal investigation was investigation strategies with the until April 5, 2005, and the investigation was completed without obtaining special agent and provided not completed until the end of November sufficient evidence of a crime On February 15, 2005, an attorney numerous recommendations, 2005. This significantly reduced the time having been committed. representing a parole violator appeared at an such as contacting the law available to complete a timely administrative Following the conclusion of the institution to obtain his client’s property. The enforcement agencies that investigation. The parole violator would not criminal case, an administrative inmate and his attorney claimed a piece of arrested, booked, and transported agree to be interviewed and the agent did not investigation was opened. jewelry valued at $200,000 was missing. At the parolee to determine if there seek written documentation from him the time of his arrest, the parole violator said were photographs or other concerning the value and the description of the jewelry was valued at $95,000. evidence of the jewelry. The the jewelry. The agent and the bureau bureau also suggested obtaining regularly discussed the case, but some information from the inmate interviews were conducted without adequate concerning the value and notice to the bureau. The bureau was description of the jewelry. provided a copy of the final investigation report before it was submitted for approval. Case No. 06-0051 (North Region) The bureau reviewed The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject was placed on BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 43 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES investigation documents and met with the bureau during the investigation was administrative leave. On On April 1, 2005, it was alleged that a with the assigned agent to discuss adequate. The investigation was timely and December 16, 2005, the subject medical technical assistant was smuggling investigative strategies. The adequate. The subject was interviewed and submitted his resignation from tobacco into the institution and was receiving bureau accompanied agents on made admissions. The case was not referred the department. A report will be heroin as payment from inmates. surveillance; however, the subject to the district attorney’s office; the bureau completed and maintained in the did not stop to pick up money as concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs subject’s personnel file. planned, but instead proceeded consulted with the bureau regarding the directly to work. referral in a timely and adequate manner. Case No. 06-0052 (South Region) The bureau conferred with the Two special agents were assigned to this case. The case was presented to the assigned special agents, met with The first special agent’s consultation with the district attorney’s office on the warden and the regional bureau during the investigation was December 28, 2005. The district On April 6, 2005, a medical technical administrator, and discussed inadequate. The special agent failed to attorney’s office decided on assistant was attacked by an inmate after the investigative strategy and consult with the bureau as requested and January 24, 2006 not to file medical technical assistant discovered an potential legal issues. The bureau conducted interviews without notifying the charges in this case. The inmate-manufactured weapon hidden on the discussed the case with the bureau. The agent did little work on the case department also pursued an inmate. A captain responded to the alarm, assigned staff attorney and Office for six months, in part because he also was administrative investigation, observed what he believed to be unnecessary of Internal Affairs executive assigned as the lead investigator in an officer- which the bureau monitored. force on the inmate by three officers, and management. The bureau involved shooting. The special agent actively reported it to the warden. The warden placed discussed the possibility of sought to terminate the investigation the three officers on administrative leave criminal charges if the posting prematurely. The Office of Internal Affairs before they completed their reports of the was intended to discourage initially decided to terminate the investigation incident. A lieutenant reportedly told the witnesses from cooperating with based on incomplete facts from the special captain that the issue should have stayed in the use-of-force investigation. agent. The decision was later reversed, but the unit and that he should have talked to The bureau expressed concerns the investigator remained assigned to the staff. The lieutenant then said, “ten years ago about the objectivity of the case. The case was reassigned after the you would have been beaten down in the special agent initially assigned to special agent’s conduct was reported to the parking lot area.” Afterward, someone the case and presented those special master. The second special agent’s removed the captain’s portrait from its concerns to the special master. consultation was adequate. The investigation mounted frame in the institution’s lobby and was timely. The case was referred to the the captain reported being ostracized by staff. district attorney’s office; the bureau The warden ordered the lobby area cordoned concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs off and processed as a crime scene. On April consulted adequately with the bureau 14, 2005, a rat trap and an accompanying regarding the referral to the district attorney’s poster naming the warden and the captain office. were posted in a union display case. On April 18, 2005, union officials voluntarily took down the rat trap and poster and replaced it BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 44 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES with a memorandum from the union asking members to cooperate with the Office of Internal Affairs. The case proceeded with the union chapter president being investigated for his conduct in posting the rat trap and poster. Case No. 06-0053 (Central Region) The bureau obtained all reports The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The investigation uncovered for review. The bureau contacted with the bureau during the investigation was evidence that the reporting and consulted with the special adequate. The investigation was untimely. It inmate was not credible. The On April 11, 2005, as officer was accused of agent assigned to investigation. took more than nine months to complete. It inmate was uncooperative and a having an overly familiar relationship with an The bureau also contacted other is unknown if a more timely investigation voice stress analysis exam inmate and the inmate's girlfriend. He also department employees. The would have produced a different result. The indicated he was deceptive. There was alleged to be involved in smuggling investigation was delayed; the agent made three unsuccessful attempts to was no corroboration by any narcotics into the institution. bureau repeatedly urged the agent contact and interview the inmate’s girlfriend, other source and several to proceed. The bureau reviewed who was uncooperative. The case was not witnesses contradicted the the final investigative report and referred to the district attorney’s office; the inmate. The Office of Internal was consulted on the final bureau concurred based on the state of the Affairs determined there was decision regarding referral to case at the time. The Office of Internal insufficient evidence to present district attorney’s office. Affairs consulted with the bureau in a timely the case to the district attorney’s and adequate manner regarding the referral office or upon which to open an to the district attorney’s office. The administrative investigation. department decided not to proceed with an administrative investigation; the bureau concurred since it would have not produced a better result. Case No. 06-0054 (North Region) The bureau discussed The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation During the course of the investigative strategies with the with the bureau during the investigation was investigation, inmates provided special agent and reviewed adequate. The investigation was timely and inconsistent and contradictory On April 28, 2005, custody staff discovered reports. adequate. The case was not referred to the statements to the investigator. several items of contraband, including a district attorney’s office; the bureau Overall, they denied personally DVD player and narcotics, hidden inside an concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs witnessing any staff members inmate’s television. As a result of the adequately consulted with the bureau engaging in misconduct and discovery, a facility-wide search was regarding the referral decision. The maintained that their statements conducted in which two additional televisions contraband confiscated from facility-wide were based on hearsay from were found to contain portable DVD players, search enhanced the safety and security of other unknown inmates. On BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 45 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES numerous DVD movies, Nintendo video the institution. As a consequence, however, January 12, 2006, the warden games, remote controls, and other individuals responsible for smuggling the found that there was insufficient contraband. Inmates claimed several officers contraband into the institution were on evidence of staff misconduct. An routinely brought in contraband and notice of the discoveries. administrative investigation was delivered it to purported inmate gang initiated, which the bureau members. monitored. Case No. 06-0055 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed documents The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The case was not submitted to contained in the investigative file with the bureau during the investigation was the district attorney’s office for and conferred with the adequate. The investigation was timely and criminal prosecution. The draft On May 18, 2005, an investigative services investigator. The bureau adequate. The investigation progressed slowly investigative report presented a unit received confidential information that an conducted extensive legal because the inmates’ facility was in a locked clear foundation for disciplinary officer was allegedly engaged in ongoing research into a wiretap and down status, which restricted the inmates’ action, but the evidence was overly familiar relationships with inmates and discussed wiretap issues with the ability to make phone calls. A wiretap insufficient to support a criminal had trafficked controlled substances and special agent in charge. The generated some evidence; the bureau action. The department pursued other contraband to inmates. bureau monitored the progress of disagreed with the department regarding the an administrative case, which the the investigation and reviewed a admissibility of the evidence. The case was bureau monitored. draft of the final investigative not referred to the district attorney’s office. report. The bureau's involvement The bureau concurred with the referral resulted in a review of the decision, but was not consulted about it. department’s policy governing wiretap of institution phones. Case No. 06-0056 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the original The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The case was not referred to the allegation with the senior special with the bureau was adequate. Deficiencies in district attorney’s office. An agent and reviewed documents the investigation were identified, but after administrative investigation was It was alleged that on May 18, 2005, an contained in investigative file. consultation with the agent, it was opened, which the bureau also officer battered another officer in line at the The bureau conferred with the determined pursuing them would not have monitored. institution’s cafeteria. assigned special agent and changed the outcome of the investigation. suggested an investigative The investigation was timely and adequate. approach. The bureau reviewed The case was not referred to the district the progress of the investigation, attorney’s office; the bureau concurred. The audio tapes of investigative Office of Internal Affairs consulted with the interviews, and the final bureau regarding the referral to the district investigative report. attorney’s office in an adequate and timely manner. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 46 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0057 (North Region) The bureau met with the Office The investigation was timely and thorough. There was insufficient evidence of Internal Affairs and discussed The bureau concurred with the decision to gathered in this investigation to the case. The bureau met with close the criminal investigation. There was, sustain a criminal case. The On May 24, 2005, a parolee reported that a the regional administrator and however, a lack of documentation by parole Office of Internal Affairs parole agent had engaged in inappropriate lower-level managers concerning supervisors and administrators concerning recommended the criminal case sexual relationships with other parolees on the apparent failure to respond reports or complaints of staff misconduct. be closed and opened an his caseload and may have impregnated one to, or address, potential There were multiple prior complaints against administrative investigation into of them. She also claimed she and other misconduct perpetrated by parole the subject alleging over-familiarity with the matter. The bureau is parolees were fearful of retaliation if they agents. parolees that were handled informally, with monitoring the administrative came forward with this information. little or no documentation. In addition, none investigation. of the prior allegations were forwarded to the Office of Internal Affairs for review. Case No. 06-0058 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority did not documentation and interviews with the bureau during the investigation was sustain the allegations because completed by the special agent. inadequate. No action was taken for the first there was insufficient evidence. An inmate alleged that on May 25, 2005, his The bureau contacted the hiring month of the investigation, except scheduling The subject submitted to a full supervisor on a work crew, who was a non- authority regarding concerns a voice stress analysis on the complainant interview during the criminal sworn employee, committed sexual acts upon about the subject having one-on- inmate. The investigation took almost nine investigation. The bureau the inmate. The inmate alleged that no one supervision of inmates. The months to complete. The Office of Internal concurred that no additional physical force was involved, but he was subject was redirected to another Affairs stated it had intended to set up a evidence would be derived from induced to participate in the sexual act assignment. The bureau surreptitious sting effort, but no such plan opening an administrative case, because of possible retaliation or loss of his conferred with the special agent. was communicated to the bureau or the and the state of the evidence job. The bureau reviewed the final hiring authority. The investigation was from the criminal investigation investigative report and discussed adequate in that all relevant persons were was insufficient to sustain any it with the hiring authority and identified and interviewed; however, there administrative findings. the employee relations officer. was no viable effort to forensically examine the vehicle in which the alleged acts took place. The case was not referred to the district attorney’s office; the bureau concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs consulted with the bureau in an adequate and timely manner regarding the referral decision. Case No. 06-0059 (Central Region) The bureau examined the field The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The district attorney’s office reports, viewed the videotape of with the bureau during the investigation was declined to file criminal charges BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 47 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES the interview of the inmate adequate. The investigation was timely and due to insufficient evidence of On June 3, 2005, an inmate refused to leave involved, and reviewed the draft thorough. The case was referred to the criminal misconduct. An her seat on a bench in the program office and final investigative report. The district attorney’s office; the bureau administrative investigation was be locked up. It was alleged that a sergeant bureau consulted with the Office concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs also initiated by the hiring and an officer pried the inmate's hands from Internal Affairs regarding the consulted with the bureau in an adequate and authority, which the bureau the bench and forcibly applied mechanical investigative plan. The bureau timely manner regarding the referral to the monitored. restraints. This alleged use of force was not also communicated with the district attorney’s office. documented. An officer alleged that the Office of Internal Affairs and the inmate kicked him as she was being escorted department’s legal office to her housing unit. The inmate alleges that concerning a grievance filed by an officer took her to the ground and injured the union alleging a failure to her through an inappropriate use of force. provide discovery prior to subject The inmate sustained bruises and abrasions interviews. on her forehead, eye, and face. Case No. 06-0060 (Central Region) The bureau maintained ongoing The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The Office of Internal Affairs consultation with the assigned with the bureau during the investigation was determined there was insufficient special agent. The bureau adequate. The investigation was timely and evidence to refer the case to the On June 7, 2005, it was alleged that officers recommended a criminal thorough. The case was originally opened as district attorney’s office. A report assaulted an inmate while transporting him investigation be initiated due to an administrative investigation, but was authored by one of the officers from an appointment. The inmate alleged an the nature of the charges. The changed to a criminal investigation; the on the day of the incident clearly officer slammed his head against the side of a bureau reviewed all reports and bureau concurred. The case was not referred described threats by the inmate van, another punched him in the ribs, and interviews and made suggestions to the district attorney’s office; the bureau to fabricate charges against the that a third twisted his thumb unnecessarily. regarding the investigation. concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs transporting officers for Later, when the inmate requested a medical consulted with the bureau in an adequate and disallowing the inmate to obtain examination, he had a minor injury on the timely manner regarding the referral to the contraband. No other staff on inside of his lip that was not accounted for by district attorney’s office. duty, including medical staff, any use-of-force report. No other injuries observed the injury that showed were noted. up later on the inmate. The inmate delayed reporting the injury. No other witnesses corroborated the inmate. The officers’ statements were all consistent. An administrative investigation was also initiated by the hiring authority and monitored by the bureau. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 48 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0061 (Central Region) The bureau noted that the case The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The Office of Internal Affairs summary stated the wrong statute with the bureau during the investigation was found there was insufficient of limitations date and alerted the adequate. The investigation was timely and evidence to sustain criminal On June 8, 2005, staff discovered Office of Internal Affairs to this adequate. The case was not referred to the charges or open an administrative handwritten names and driver's license error. The bureau met with the district attorney; the bureau concurred. The investigation. numbers in the subject's desk, along with special agent and made Office of Internal Affairs consulted with the confidential law enforcement database investigative recommendations bureau in a timely and adequate manner printouts for three individuals and other related to the subject’s desk. The regarding the referral to the district attorney. sensitive documents containing personal bureau reviewed the draft final information about employees, inmates, and investigative report and other persons. conferred with the Office of Internal Affairs regarding the decision to not seek criminal prosecution. Case No. 06-0062 (Central Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The warden sent out a assigned special agent throughout with the bureau during the investigation was memorandum to all management the investigation. The bureau adequate. The investigation was timely and staff reminding them of the On June 13, 2005, it was alleged that one reviewed the all reports and thorough. The case was referred to the requirement to use uninvolved officer struck an inmate after exchanging interviews, discussed the case district attorney’s office; the bureau staff in inmate interviews. The insults, causing a bump on the inmate's head. with the staff attorney, and concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs lieutenant who conducted the The officer's report failed to account for the viewed the video-taped interview consulted with the bureau in a timely and interview received training. The inmate's injury. Other officers were alleged to of the inmate. The bureau adequate manner regarding the referral to the district attorney’s office declined have witnessed the event and failed to report conferred with the department district attorney’s office. to file charges because the it. A separate issue developed when an regarding the three-month delay inmate's injury was minor and the involved officer was present during the in referring the case for evidence was insufficient to inmate interview. investigation and the presence of prove criminal charges beyond a the involved officer in the inmate reasonable doubt. An interview. administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau is monitoring. Case No. 06-0063 (South Region) The bureau was prevented from The investigation was timely and adequate. The district attorney’s office filed closely monitoring this case The case was originally opened as an criminal charges against the because the agent failed to administrative investigation. The Office of lieutenant, which are pending. It was alleged that a lieutenant slapped an provide adequate advance notice Internal Affairs then appropriately changed it The lieutenant also was the inmate in the face after she was ordered to BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 49 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES present her hands for cuffing on July 3, 2005. of his work before performing it. to a criminal investigation. The Office of subject of an administrative The incident allegedly occurred in front of Internal Affairs’ consultation with the bureau investigation. three officers, two of whom were then during the investigation was inadequate. The ordered into a separate room by the lack of consultation in this case is exemplified lieutenant who is said to have apologized and by the special agent giving the bureau notice asked them if they had his “back.” It is also of a critical interview 30 minutes before it alleged the lieutenant failed to document his started. The bureau has had similar use-of-force, did not have the inmate experience with this agent on numerous medically evaluated, and attempted to entice other cases. Once the investigation was the inmate to remain silent in exchange for completed the case was referred to the free phone calls. district attorney’s office; the bureau concurred but was not adequately consulted regarding the decision. Case No. 06-0064 (North Region) The bureau reviewed The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation There is insufficient evidence to investigation documents. The with the bureau during the investigation was prove a fraud crime. Witnesses bureau met with the agent, and adequate. The investigation was timely and did not corroborate the allegation On July 6, 2005, an officer responded to an discussed the investigative plan adequate. The case was not referred to the contained in the initial request inmate fight. The officer claimed he slipped and strategy for interviews. The district attorney’s office; the bureau for investigation. and fell while subduing the combatants and bureau reviewed the final concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs complained of extreme pain to his right side. investigative report and attended consulted with the bureau in an adequate and The officer filed a workers’ compensation several meetings regarding the timely manner regarding the decision to not claim regarding the incident. Several staff sufficiency of the evidence to refer the case to the district attorney’s office. stated the officer was complaining of a rib support criminal charges for injury he sustained the day before from fraud. falling off a ladder at his residence. Case No. 06-0065 (South Region) The bureau monitored the The Office of Internal Affairs performed a The district attorney’s office investigation. The bureau also timely investigation, although the agent did declined to file charges. The provided information and not consistently keep the bureau advised of hiring authority and the Office of It was alleged that a medical technical suggestions concerning the scope interviews and progress in a timely manner. Internal Affairs then pursued an assistant was called to assist an inmate on of the questions to be asked of The case was referred to the district administrative investigation. three occasions who was complaining of the witnesses. attorney’s office. chest pain on July 13, 2005, and allegedly failed to provide the inmate with needed medical care. It is alleged that an officer made an entry into the logbook directing others to ignore the inmate’s complaints of BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 50 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES chest pain, and officers ignored the inmate’s calls for help or accused the inmate of faking. The inmate died later that night. Case No. 06-0066 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the The Internal Affairs' consultation with the The subject resigned from state allegations and the statute of bureau during the investigation was adequate, service and refused to be limitations date, and all reports and the investigation was adequate under the interviewed. A records search on On July 26, 2005, a former inmate, called an and interviews. The bureau also circumstances. Subsequent to her initial the subject's cell phone showed investigative services unit and reported that conferred with the assigned agent report, the former inmate could not be found over 250 phone calls to the during her incarceration beginning in late and made suggestions as to for an interview. The case was not referred to inmate while she was on parole, 2002, she and a lieutenant engaged in sexual investigative strategy. The bureau the district attorney’s office for prosecution, clearly showing a relationship acts within the institution. She also alleged inquired into a possible conflict due to insufficiency of the evidence; the existed. However, absent the she and the lieutenant engaged in sexual of interest between the agent and bureau concurred. There was no evidence, ability to locate and have the intercourse at his house while she was on the subject due to the fact that and the bureau does not believe, that the complainant testify, there was parole from July 18, 2003, to July 18, 2004, they had worked together agent in this particular case acted in a biased insufficient evidence to prove the and that the sexual activity allegedly previously. The bureau reviewed manner. sexual conduct. continued once she was discharged from and discussed with the Office of parole. Internal Affairs’ some concerns regarding its policy for addressing agents’ conflicts of interest. The bureau conferred with the agent regarding decision not to refer to the district attorney’s office. Case No. 06-0067 (North Region) The bureau reviewed reports and The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The department rejected the viewed the video- taped interview with the bureau during the investigation was hiring authority’s request to open of the inmate. adequate. The investigation was timely and a criminal or administrative On July 28, 2005, it was alleged an officer adequate. After reviewing the reports and investigation into the matter. In forcefully struck an inmate’s testicles while viewing the complaining inmate’s video- his interview, the inmate performing a clothed body search and taped interview, the bureau concurred with motioned that the officer slid his pushed the inmate against a bunk causing the department's decision to reject the hiring hand, open palm, perpendicular him to hit his chest on the bed frame. The authority’s request to open an investigation to his thigh when he was struck officer thereafter failed to report the alleged into the matter. The case was not referred to in his groin area. The inmate did use-of-force. the district attorney’s office; the bureau not allege excessive force; merely concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs that he was struck as the officer consulted with the bureau in an adequate and proceeded to conduct the clothed timely manner regarding the referral to the body search. There were no BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 51 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES district attorney’s office. independent witnesses to corroborate that the inmate was pushed onto his bed. The warden subsequently referred the matter for use as a training issue. Case No. 06-0068 (Central Region) The bureau discussed the case The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The agent provided the with the special agent, attended a with the bureau during the investigation was institution and the bureau a case conference, made adequate. The agent was thorough, memorandum detailing the Between August 2005 and April 2006, an recommendations as to communicative, and amenable to the bureau's reasons why the investigation institution allegedly paid about $670 to $680 investigative strategy, and concerns and recommendations. The could not be completed and in reimbursements to inmates because repeatedly discussed with the bureau's suggestion for a meeting with staff identified deficiencies in the although money orders intended for deposit special agent the institution's to clarify the records needed to fully institution's accounting into inmate trust accounts were delivered to inability to provide necessary investigate the allegations was followed. The procedures. The hiring authority custody staff, they never arrived at the documents to identify those investigation was timely and adequate. gave assurances that the accounting office to be credited to the trust employees who may have been Although the institution was cooperative, deficiencies will be remedied so accounts. There was concern the funds may involved in the alleged diversion their records system was so inadequate that as to prevent a recurrence. The have been improperly diverted by unknown of funds. The bureau reviewed retrieval of pertinent information was bureau concurred with the staff member(s) because delivery of the the institution's procedure for impossible. The agent pursued these records closure of this investigation due money orders to the institution was well processing money orders, and diligently. The bureau's recommendation to to an inability to prosecute. documented. accounting records and reports. the hiring authority that the institution's The bureau met with the special processes and procedures be evaluated and agent, the complaining party and improved to prevent a repetition of these the associate warden for business events was followed. services. The bureau reviewed the closure memo from the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau conferred with the hiring authority to ensure processes are revised for the receipt of funds to prevent a repetition of these events. Case No. 06-0069 (Central Region) The bureau evaluated the statute The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The criminal case was closed of limitations date and with the bureau during the investigation was without a referral to the district allegations. The bureau consulted adequate. The investigation was timely and attorney’s office. The evidence On August 2, 2005, an officer was accused of with the special agent on adequate. The case was not referred to the did not appear to be strong BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 52 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES excessive force and potential dishonesty in investigative plan and the district attorney’s office; the bureau enough to prove beyond a reporting a use-of-force incident. progress of the investigation. The concurred. The bureau was adequately reasonable doubt. An bureau consulted regarding the consulted on the decision. administrative case was opened, decision to convert the which the bureau is monitoring. investigation from criminal to administrative, without a referral to the district attorney’s office. Case No. 06-0070 (North Region) On September 16, 2005, the Consultation with bureau during the The criminal case was turned into bureau reviewed the request for investigation was inadequate, but based upon an administrative investigation. investigation and the case the reports and files, the investigation The subject resigned at her On August 18, 2005, information was summary. On November 17, appeared adequate. The case was not referred administrative interview. received that an officer was allegedly 2005, the bureau met with the to the district attorney’s office for involved in over-familiar activity with warden, the employee relations prosecution. parolees. The officer allegedly associated on a officer and the investigative regular basis with several individuals who services unit to discuss the facts were either on probation or parole. It was of the investigation. On January alleged one parolee, who was on parole for 11, 2006, the bureau discovered possession and sale of narcotics, lived at the the investigation had been closed. officer’s residence. Case No. 06-0071 (North Region) The bureau reviewed reports and The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The case was not referred to the discussed investigative strategies with the bureau during the investigation was district attorney’s office. The with the Office of Internal adequate. The investigation was timely and department pursued an On August 23, 2005, two parole agents Affairs. adequate. During the course of the administrative action, which the entered an institution’s sally-port driving a investigation, it was determined the agents bureau monitored. state-issued vehicle. During two routine rarely seized contraband in the field and were searches of the trunk, officers found a small both unaware of departmental policies baggie containing 1.6 grams of suspected concerning evidence collection and marijuana, two boxes of ammunition, two preservation methods. The case was not knives, and cigarette rolling paper. referred to the district attorney’s office; the bureau concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs consulted with the bureau in an adequate and timely manner regarding the referral to the district attorney’s office. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 53 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0072 (Central Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The Office of Internal Affairs special agent and his supervisor, with the bureau during the investigation was determined there was insufficient as well as staff attorney assigned adequate. The investigation was timely and evidence to refer the case to the It is alleged that on September 8, 2005, an to the underlying case. The adequate. The case was not referred to the district attorney’s office. An officer attempted to persuade a witness in bureau discussed the situation district attorney’s office; the bureau administrative investigation was another pending administrative case to with the hiring authority who concurred with the decision. The bureau was started, which the bureau is change his testimony. initiated the investigation. The consulted on the decision to not refer the monitoring. bureau obtained and reviewed all case to the district attorney’s office. reports and interviews and the final investigative report. The bureau emphasized the need to handle the case expeditiously due to the nature of the complaint and its potential impact on another case. Case No. 06-0073 (South Region) The bureau concurred with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The case was not pursued either Office of Internal Affairs' initial with the bureau during the investigation was criminally or administratively assessment that the allegations adequate. The investigation was timely and because all of the allegations, On September 15, 2005, a female parolee against the parole agent were adequate. even if proven, were barred by notified a parole unit supervisor that she had barred by the statute of the statute of limitations. been involved in a relationship with her limitations. The bureau suggested parole agent of record as far back as February the parolee be interviewed in 1999 and that the parole agent falsified anti- order to determine if any narcotic testing records for her. additional acts occurred within the statute of limitations. The agent interviewed the parolee but she could not identify any actionable misconduct. Case No. 06-0074 (North Region) The bureau responded to the Consultation with bureau during the The case was referred to the scene and participated in initial investigation and the investigation itself was district attorney for prosecution. investigative plan and interviews. timely and adequate. The case was referred to The district attorney’s office On September 29, 2005, a correctional The bureau review of reports and the district attorney for prosecution; the rejected the case because there counselor conducted an interview with a evidence, the final investigative bureau concurred. The bureau disagreed with was insufficient evidence. This confidential inmate informant (CI). During report, the hiring authority’s the hiring authority’s decision to immediately case was addressed by the hiring the interview, the CI made allegations that an BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 54 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES officer had trafficked illicit drugs into the determination documents, and place the employee on administrative leave. authority under a separate adjustment center on at least four occasions. the notice of disciplinary action The warden's decision in this case to place administrative investigation, The CI identified three inmates who he prior to resignation of employee. the subject on administrative time off, which the bureau monitored. The claimed were in possession of the drugs despite the Office of Internal Affairs’ employee has resigned. brought in by the officer. A subsequent insistence that such action be delayed, was a search revealed drugs in the property and/or mistake in that it prevented a sting operation on the person of two of the three inmates which could have developed more evidence identified. The quantities of drugs were as in both the administrative and criminal cases. follows: 78.27 grams of marijuana, 58.51 Fortunately, enough evidence was obtained grams of methamphetamine, and 45.9 grams through the seizure of phone records to of heroin. establish that the subject was indeed over- familiar with inmate family members and was in fact bringing drugs into the institution. Unfortunately, the lack of more information which could have been established through a successful sting operation prohibited a criminal filing in this case. Case No. 06-0075 (South Region) The bureau was consulted during The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The investigation failed to the investigation; including the with the bureau during the investigation was uncover any evidence to decision not to submit the case to adequate. The investigation was timely and corroborate the allegations of the On October 3, 2005, an inmate submitted a the district attorney’s office and adequate. The case was not referred to the complainant. The complainant's written complaint that a female industry and handle it as administratively. The district attorney’s office; the bureau allegations were refuted by the warehouse supervisor had engaged in sexual bureau reviewed the final concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs five other inmates named by the relationships with himself and five other investigative report. consulted with the bureau in an adequate and complainant and voice stress inmates in the shoe factory at various times. timely manner regarding the referral to the analysis indicated the district attorney’s office. complainant was deceptive. The case was not referred to the district attorney’s office. The hiring authority also pursued an administrative case which the bureau monitored. Case No. 06-0076 (South Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation It was determined that the Office of Internal Affairs with the bureau during the investigation was criminal elements of this case throughout the investigation, adequate. The investigation was timely and were unfounded. No evidence On or about October 10, 2005, a supervising although the majority of the adequate. The case was not referred to the existed to substantiate the drug BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 55 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES cook was allegedly seen kissing an inmate on interviews had already been district attorney’s office; the bureau charges and the alleged sexual the mouth and found in the back areas of the conducted by the investigative concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs misconduct did not meet the culinary acting in an unusual manner with the services unit at the institution. consulted with the bureau in an adequate and requirements of a crime. An inmate. It is also alleged that the supervising timely manner regarding the referral to the administrative investigation is cook was introducing contraband such as district attorney’s office. being pursued, which the bureau candy, tobacco, lighters, and possibly drugs is monitoring into the institution. Additionally, the subject allegedly allowed inmates to leave the culinary area without being searched by custody staff. Case No. 06-0077 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the initial The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation It became evident as a result of allegations. The bureau discussed with the bureau during the investigation was the investigative work the investigative plan and adequate. The investigation was timely and accomplished that the charges It is alleged between October 15, and consulted with the special agent thorough. The bureau concurred with this were not sustainable. The special October 18, 2005, a nurse fondled an as the investigation progressed. course of action as any additional agent terminated the inmate's breast and made sexual statements The bureau discussed terminating investigation would have been a wasted effort investigation and sent a closure to her, while she was in the crisis cell. The the investigation upon learning given the uncontraverted evidence that the letter to the hiring authority inmate stated the subject offered her presents that the subject was not subject was not present on the days in explaining his rationale. The in exchange for sexual requests. The inmate physically present on the days the question. The Office of Internal Affairs department opened an alleged that the subject continued to act was alleged to have occurred. consulted with the bureau in a timely and administrative investigation, proposition her for sexual acts until she was The bureau reviewed the special adequate manner regarding the referral to the which the bureau monitored. discharged from the crisis unit. agent's closure letter. The bureau district attorney’s office. consulted with the employee relations officer at the institution. The bureau agreed that cameras in the hall areas to document staff activity would be a good idea to prevent false claims against staff and to produce evidence of alleged wrongdoing. Case No. 06-0078 (Central Region) The initial involvement of the The Office of Internal Affairs consulted The case was submitted to the bureau involved the review of a extensively with the bureau during the district attorney’s office, and the conditional search warrant investigation. The investigation was timely subject was charged with two On October 26, 2005, a non-sworn employee application related to this subject. and adequate, although the Office of Internal counts of violating of Health and was accused of possessing heroin, cocaine, The warrant was obtained, but Affairs disregarded the bureau's concerns Safety Code section 11351, one BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 56 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES and marijuana for the purpose of sale. never served. Instead, the Office regarding Miranda and Fourth Amendment count of violating Health and Recorded inmate telephone calls revealed an of Internal Affairs conducted a issues. The case was referred to the district Safety Code section 11359, and inmate making arrangements for a cash warrantless search of the attorney’s office. While the bureau agreed one count of violating Penal payment for illegal substances to be mailed to subject's vehicle, interviewed the with the referral decision, it expressed Code section 4570. The subject the employee's home address. The subject while she was detained, concern with the report’s accuracy regarding pled no contest to one count of employee's residence was searched and and then searched her house the subject’s detention. The Office of violating Health and Safety Code heroin, cocaine, marijuana and other pursuant to a purported consent. Internal Affairs consulted with the bureau in section 11351 and one count of contraband was found. The bureau was briefed on the an adequate and timely manner regarding the violating of Health and Safety facts and reviewed Miranda and referral to the district attorney’s office. The Code section 11357(a). The Fourth Amendment issues. The employee was placed on administrative leave; subject was sentenced to 36 bureau made recommendations the bureau concurred with this decision. months probation with an initial based on that review. The bureau term of incarceration of six reviewed the draft final months in county jail. An investigative report, prior to its administrative investigation was submission to the district also initiated by the hiring attorney’s office. authority, which the bureau is monitoring. Case No. 06-0079 (South Region) The bureau discussed criminal The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The district attorney’s office filed investigation options with the with the bureau during the investigation was criminal charges. The officer agent, including obtaining a adequate. The investigation was timely and entered into a plea agreement. He On October 26, 2005, an officer received criminal search warrant to seize mostly adequate. The Office of Internal pled guilty to two misdemeanor information from a private citizen indicating evidence of lewd acts against a Affairs served the search warrant at the counts of unlawful sexual that another officer had been involved in a minor. The bureau reviewed and suspect officer's residence and discovered the intercourse and was placed on sexual relationship with a minor female since commented on the agent's draft underage female living with him along with summary probation for 36 December 2003. search warrant affidavit. The evidence supporting the existence of a long- months. An administrative bureau was not provided an term sexual relationship. The Office of investigation was also initiated by opportunity to review the final Internal Affairs conducted an interview of the hiring authority, which the investigative report prior to it the suspect and upon obtaining a waiver, bureau monitored. being submitted to the district obtained a full confession from the officer. attorney’s office, but reviewed it After leaving the officer’s residence, local law after the fact. enforcement encouraged the Office of Internal Affairs to return to the officer’s residence and arrest him for felony sex crimes without a warrant. The investigative report did not adequately document this warrantless entry. The bureau recommended the Office of Internal Affairs submit a BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 57 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES supplemental report to rectify the deficiency; which it did. The case was referred to the district attorney; the bureau concurred with the referral decision. The Office of Internal Affairs consulted with the bureau in an adequate and timely manner regarding the referral to the district attorney. Case No. 06-0080 (South Region) The bureau suggested various The Office of Internal Affairs consulted with There was insufficient evidence methods of investigation. the bureau in a timely and adequate manner. of criminal activity. The officer and inmates were transferred to On November 8, 2005, an inmate alleged other locations in the institution by its that an officer provided him and two other custodial staff before the Office of Internal inmates with tobacco over a period of two Affairs investigation began, making and one-half months in exchange for surveillance of their activities difficult. approximately $1,500. Case No. 06-0081 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the request The bureau noted that the scope of the The Office of Internal Affairs for investigation and the statute request for investigation did not include referred the case to the district of limitations. The bureau staff’s failure to notice a life-term inmate had attorney’s office. The district On December 9, 2005, it was discovered that reviewed the initial file materials, become pregnant until shortly before the attorney’s office filed criminal an inmate, who had been incarcerated for met with the special agent, and baby was born The Office of Internal Affairs’ charges against the employee, the several years on a life sentence, was pregnant. discussed the investigative plan. consultation with the bureau during the suspected father of the child. An She delivered a child shortly thereafter. It was The bureau reviewed the birth investigation was adequate. The investigation administrative investigation also alleged that a staff member had unlawfully certificate, an application for a was timely and adequate. The case was was opened, which the bureau engaged in acts of sexual intercourse with the search warrant seeking DNA referred to the district attorney’s office; the monitored. The subject resigned. inmate. from the suspect, the DNA bureau concurred. The Office of Internal analysis, and a draft of the final Affairs consulted with the bureau in an investigative report. adequate and timely manner regarding the referral to the district attorney’s office. Case No. 06-0082 (North Region) The bureau met with the Office The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The district attorney’s office did of Internal Affairs and learned with the bureau during the investigation was not file criminal charges, due to a the subject had resigned. The adequate. The investigation was timely and lack of corroborating evidence. On December 9, 2005, a nurse admitted to Office of Internal Affairs adequate. The case was referred to the An administrative investigation having an inappropriate relationship with an continued its investigation and district attorney’s office; the bureau was initiated by the hiring inmate and his family. She also disclosed that concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs authority. The employee resigned BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 58 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES she brought marijuana and tobacco into the consulted with the bureau. consulted with the bureau in an adequate and on December 13, 2005, within institution for an inmate. timely manner regarding the referral to the four days of the discovery of the district attorney’s office. misconduct. Case No. 06-0083 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the statute The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The Office of Internal Affairs of limitations date and the with the bureau during the investigation was concluded that there was not allegations, and recommended adequate. The investigation was timely and sufficient probable cause to On December 29, 2005, it was alleged by an changes. The bureau conferred adequate. The video surveillance did not believe that criminal activity inmate that a non-sworn staff member with the special agent and reveal any misconduct by the subject. The occurred as alleged. Accordingly, engaged in illegal sexual misconduct in the reviewed all file documents. The surveillance was terminated, with the bureau's the file was not referred to the back store room area of the canteen with bureau conferred with the senior concurrence, following seven full days of district attorney’s office for inmate workers. special agent, the staff attorney, monitoring. The case was not referred to the criminal prosecution. The Office and the special agent to expedite district attorney’s office; the bureau of Internal affairs determined the video surveillance plan. The concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs that insufficient evidence of bureau encouraged the special consulted with the bureau in an adequate and misconduct existed to open an agent to meet with the timely manner regarding the referral to the administrative investigation; the confidential informant who district attorney’s office. bureau concurred. initially reported the alleged misconduct to determine if any deliberate falsehoods were presented. The bureau reviewed and commented upon the final investigation report and recommended clarifications, which were incorporated. Case No. 06-0084 (South Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The district attorney rejected the special agent throughout the with the bureau during the investigation was case for prosecution “in the investigation. The bureau adequate. The investigation was timely, but interest of justice” because the On April 17, 2006, an inmate was observed reviewed the final criminal inadequate. The case was referred to the department was seeking seated with his head between the legs of a investigative report and raised district attorney’s office; the bureau administrative sanctions. An teacher who had her pants pulled down. A questions about the various concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs administrative investigation was search of the inmate's cell resulted in the issues, including the money the consulted with the bureau in an adequate and also initiated by the hiring discovery of a cell phone. The inmate teacher deposited into the timely manner regarding the referral. The authority, which the bureau is admitted to prior sexual acts with the teacher inmate's trust account and the bureau concurred with the hiring authority's monitoring. dating back to October 2005 and admitted phone calls made by the teacher decision to place the employee on that the teacher had provided him with the to the inmate. The bureau administrative time off because of severity of BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 59 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES cell phone. The teacher stated that she had recommended supplemental the allegations and the threat to the fallen in love with the inmate, had been investigation regarding the phone institution's safety and security posed by the sending money to his trust account and that records but the Office of Internal teacher. they had engaged in sexual behavior Affairs declined to conduct the numerous times since November 2005. She follow up investigation relating to denied furnishing him the cell phone but phone records because, in their admitted to knowing its existence and calling view, that information was him on it. unnecessary for the criminal report. Case No. 06-0085 (Central Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation No criminal trafficking of agent and the senior special agent with the bureau during the investigation was narcotics was discovered. An on the case. The bureau reviewed adequate. The investigation was timely and administrative investigation was A prison industry authority supervisor all reports and the video adequate. The case was not referred to the initiated by the hiring employee, allegedly trafficked tobacco and narcotics to evidence. The bureau conferred district attorney; the bureau concurred. The which the bureau is monitoring. inmates in April 2006. with the Office of Internal Office of Internal Affairs adequately The employee subsequently Affairs regarding the decision to consulted with the bureau regarding the resigned prior to the completion not refer the case to the district referral to the district attorney’s office. of the administrative attorney’s office. investigation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 60 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA TThhiiss ppaaggee lleefftt iinntteennttiioonnaallllyy bbllaannkk.. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 61 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS — JANUARY-JUNE 2006 SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No.06-0086 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the draft The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The department concluded that and final reports of investigation with the bureau during the investigation was the administrative investigation and the investigative file. The adequate. The investigation was timely and failed to present sufficient It was alleged that on December 3, 2002, a bureau consulted with the adequate. The Office of Internal Affairs evidence to support any parole agent gave false information at a assigned special agent suggesting considered and pursued avenues of disciplinary action against the parole hearing that resulted in the denial of areas for further investigation investigation suggested by the bureau. The parole agent. parole to an inmate. Although the inmate and investigative avenues. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's filed a written complaint, he refused to speak bureau consulted with the hiring findings. The hiring authority consulted with about his allegations or identify the subject authority and the staff attorney the bureau in a timely and adequate manner during his incarceration. On June 21, 2004 regarding the sufficiency of the regarding the investigative findings. The staff after his release, the complainant spoke with evidence to support a disciplinary attorney consulted with the bureau in a a department investigator and provided the action, and reviewed the hiring timely and adequate manner. The overall details of his allegations, including the authority's closing letter. quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was identity of the subject, and an investigation adequate. ensued. Case No. 06-0087 (Central Region) The bureau began monitoring the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The Office of Internal Affairs’ investigation after it began and with the bureau during the investigation was retaliation analysis concluded that reviewed multiple draft inadequate. The investigation of this matter the complainant did not engage On May 6, 2003, an allegation of nepotism investigative reports and was not conducted in a timely or adequate in protected activity and was not was made against a warden in that his wife voluminous investigative manner. The final report submitted by subjected to adverse employment was hired into an administrative position at materials. The bureau met with internal affairs was incomplete, lacked action. The bureau disagrees that the same institution, in violation of the the assigned special agent and objectivity, and was unfairly biased. The the complainant did not engage department anti-nepotism policy and without offered suggestions, as well as Office of Internal Affairs disregarded the in protected activity. The hiring appropriate permission of his immediate recommended additional bureau’s numerous suggestions for revision authority concluded that the supervisor. It was also alleged that favoritism investigation. A memo critical of and additional investigation, failed to submit investigation was sufficient to was shown toward the warden's wife in the the hiring process and the draft final report for bureau review and warrant dismissal upon an manner in which she obtained approval to telecommuting decision in this failed to provide critical requested allegation of work at home. It was further alleged that the case was referred to in the draft documents to the bureau. But for the nepotism/preferential treatment, complainant in this matter was subjected to report. The bureau pursued involvement of the bureau, the investigation but insufficient to warrant action retaliation by the warden. obtaining this document from the would have concluded with the submission upon an allegation of retaliation; Office of Internal Affairs, but it of an incomplete and biased report that the bureau concurred. Because was never received. The bureau would most likely have resulted in a finding the statute of limitations has was forced to obtain the report that no misconduct had occurred, either in expired and the warden retired, through other means. The senior the hiring of the warden's wife or in allowing disciplinary action is moot. The special agent failed to submit the her to telecommute. Without the bureau's hiring authority has declined the BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 62 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES final draft for review as involvement, the fact that the warden's wife bureau's suggestion that notice be requested. The bureau appears to have had advance knowledge of given to the warden. It was the participated in a telephonic the true nature of the job opening, when consensus of all parties present conference that was conducted to none of the other candidates had such that the allegations against the apprise the hiring authority of the knowledge, would not have come to light. acting chief deputy warden, also bureau’s position on the quality The bureau concurred with the hiring implicated in this matter, could of the investigative report. The authority's findings. The hiring authority not be sustained by the bureau attended a meeting at the adequately consulted with the bureau investigation, such as it is. department to discuss the regarding the investigative findings, but the investigation, which involved the consultation was not timely. The hiring department administrators and authority’s forms for its findings and penalty the head of internal affairs. The were not completed and executed until bureau presented its analysis of almost six months after the decision was the internal affairs investigation. made that disciplinary action was warranted. The bureau met with the hiring authority and the staff attorney. The bureau also reviewed the retaliation claim analysis completed by the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 06-0088 (North Region) The bureau met with the warden, The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation Discipline was taken against the employee relations officer, and with the bureau during the investigation was acting sergeant. The initial penalty the staff attorney and agreed with adequate. The investigation was timely and sought was a dismissal that was On August 14, 2003, an inmate was observed their recommendation not to adequate. The hiring authority consulted with later modified to a 30 day alone in his cell with what appeared to be pursue action against the sergeant the bureau in a timely and adequate manner suspension. The control booth serious injuries to his face and head area. It working overtime. regarding the investigative findings. The officer, the principal wrongdoer was later determined that a control booth bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s in the case, resigned prior to the officer allowed four inmates to enter his cell decision not to sustain the allegations against effective date of his dismissal to assault him. The acting sergeant the sergeant working overtime. The incident from state service. The district responsible for the facility where the assault was initially reported to an acting sergeant attorney’s office filed criminal took place was informed of the observations who was directly responsible for the facility charges against the control booth regarding the inmate’s face and head area. where the incident took place, assumed officer. Although there was Another sergeant, who was working overtime command and took initial action in evidence that the sergeant but not in charge of the facility, reportedly responding to the incident. There was no working overtime was present overheard the report of the observations to evidence that the overtime sergeant engaged when the acting sergeant was the acting sergeant. The inmate reportedly in conduct intended to conceal the source of informed of the inmate’s injuries, did not receive medical attention for several the inmate’s injuries. the acting sergeant expressly hours after the discovery of his injuries. assumed responsibility over the BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 63 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES matter and acted accordingly. Thus, no discipline was imposed on the sergeant working overtime. Case No. 06-0089 (Central Region) The bureau alerted the Office of The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The administrative investigation Internal Affairs that the case with the bureau during the investigation was was resolved via a settlement summary stated the wrong statute adequate. The investigation was timely and agreement in which the subject On or about December 22, 2003, pursuant to of limitations date as the subject adequate. The hiring authority did not resigned and agreed not to seek the Plata court decision, an independent was not a peace officer. The adequately consult with the bureau in a reinstatement. physician reviewed complaints lodged against bureau reviewed the medical timely manner. A settlement agreement was a department physician. The independent report, the medical records for negotiated without input or consultation with physician concluded that the department each alleged victim, the subject’s the bureau and before any findings were physician failed to provide adequate care to personnel file, all reports made from this investigation. The settlement two separate inmates, resulting in the death documenting the health care agreement addressed allegations of similar of one of the inmates. services division’s determination misconduct which arose after the dates of that no disciplinary action could alleged misconduct in this investigation. The be sustained, and the executed settlement between the hiring authority and settlement agreement. The employee was appropriate in that the bureau met with the special employee resigned from state service, will agent, commented on the draft not seek to have the resignation set aside and investigative report, and made will not seek reemployment with the recommendations for the department in the future. The employee subject’s interview and attended relations officer adequately consulted with the same. The bureau inquired the bureau. The bureau concurred with the with the regional health services hiring authority’s decision to place the manager regarding the status of employee on administrative time off. review. Case No. 06-0090 (South Region) The bureau repeatedly attempted The special agent to whom this case was The final report failed to set forth to consult with the agent about assigned failed to perform any investigative sufficient evidence upon which the case. The agent kept work for the first nine months after the hiring authority could pursue It was alleged that on unspecified dates in indicating she was busy with assignment. The special agent failed to disciplinary action. The subject in 2004 a lieutenant had been overly familiar other cases. Once the agent consult with the bureau and continued to this case was dismissed as a result with and had shown favoritism toward finally began the investigation she pursue investigative work after telling the of a separate investigation in inmates, intimidated inmates into having failed to provide prior notice of bureau another agent would take over the another case. sexual relations with him, and allowed inmate her work, which prevented investigation. The special agent engaged in assaults to occur. effective monitoring. similar conduct toward the bureau in at least BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 64 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES one other monitored case brought to the attention of the special master. The investigative report was approved and sent to the hiring authority eight days before the expiration of the one year statute of limitations without the bureau having been consulted. The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau before deciding the charges could not be sustained. Case No. 06-0091 (North Region) The bureau was not involved in Consultation with bureau during the The department imposed a the initial case that resulted in secondary investigation was adequate, termination for one officer and dismissal actions against two appropriate allegations were sustained, and six month suspensions for two On January 19, 2004, it was alleged that officers. While the disciplinary the investigation was adequate. The bureau other officers for code of silence officers were observed using unnecessary actions were pending, one of the was consulted about the charges of participation. The State Personnel force on an inmate. Several officers officers made a voluntary misconduct in the second case and the Board upheld the penalty of approached an inmate who was handcuffed “statement of honesty” in penalty. The penalty was adequate. The dismissal when it was appealed. and secured in a holding cell after an earlier exchange for reinstatement with quality of the employee disciplinary process incident in which the inmate gassed one of the department. The officer's was adequate. the officers. The officers took turns statement resulted in a new assaulting the inmate until they were investigation of three additional observed by non-sworn staff. officers for dishonesty and engaging in a code of silence conspiracy. The bureau observed the interviews and consulted with the department in the new case and consulted in the resulting, additional cases. Case No. 06-0092 (North Region) The bureau reviewed the initial The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject retired prior to the case summary and investigative with the bureau during the investigation was completion of the investigation. plan. The bureau recommended timely and adequate. The hiring authority The investigation was completed It was alleged that on January 28, 2004, a that the case be fully investigated consulted with the bureau in a timely and and maintained by the institution medical physician did not provide an inmate despite the fact that the subject adequate manner regarding the investigation in the event the subject attempts with a timely diagnosis and did not provide retired from state service. in light of the subject’s resignation. to return to state service. adequate medical care. The inmate died from an abdominal mass. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 65 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0093 (South Region) The bureau began monitoring The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The department concluded that this case to determine why a with the bureau during the investigation was the statute of limitations had complete investigation had not inadequate in that the bureau had to make passed for this case, thereby It was alleged that in February 2004, a parole been completed resulting in a several requests for an initial case conference. precluding any potential agent telephoned a parolee after the parolee’s case closure. After several Once the bureau reviewed the file, it disciplinary action. boyfriend was arrested. The parole agent had attempts to contact the assigned concluded that the investigation was rented a motel room and asked the parolee to special agent, the bureau was untimely and inadequate. Several interviews meet him there to have sex. When the finally able to have an initial case that the agent alleged he had conducted parolee arrived at the motel, the parole agent conference. The bureau reviewed during the initial case conference were not in was naked. The conduct was discovered on the case file and discovered fact documented in the investigative file or in March 11, 2004. numerous areas of concern, the computerized record. After the applicable including the fact that the case one year statute of limitations, the case was agent had failed to conduct a reassigned from the original agent to a new timely and thorough investigation agent, who completed the investigation. during the time that he had been assigned the case. Case No. 06-0094 (Central Region) The majority of the investigation The investigation of the underlying A consensus was formed that was conducted before the bureau allegations was adequate and likely to have disciplinary action based on the became involved. The bureau resulted in serious discipline, if the allegations arising from the acting On April 15, 2004, an employee entered a reviewed the investigative reports investigation had been timely. In view of the warden’s precipitous issuance of locked, darkened room within the institution, and analyzed the statute of statute of limitations problem with the letters of instruction, which and observed an employee attempting to limitations issues. The bureau underlying allegations, and the fact that precluded further investigation hide behind a chair and a pair of underwear, pursued a resolution of the critical evidence relating to the dishonesty and serious disciplinary actions an officer’s uniform and an officer’s question of who would act as the allegation was missing, the bureau concurred against the employees, was barred equipment belt on the floor. Upon reporting hiring authority. The bureau with the hiring authority’s findings. The by operation of the statute of this to management, the acting warden spoke conferred with the hiring hiring authority consulted with the bureau in limitations. The hiring authority with the warden by telephone and, without authority, the head of Internal a timely and adequate manner regarding the indicated he would demote the any investigation, issued letters of instruction Affairs and an assistant chief investigative findings. The assistant chief acting warden to an associate to the assistant employee relations officer counsel. The bureau has been counsel and staff attorney consulted with the warden position and assure that and the union chapter president, the persistent in scrutinizing this case bureau in a timely and adequate manner. The this individual is not promoted employees alleged to have engaged in sexual and another case against the overall quality of the assistant chief counsel’s above the associate warden again. misconduct. An investigation was conducted warden that also involved and staff attorney’s advocacy was adequate. The department and bureau of management’s actions. It was also alleged allegations of abuse of authority While it initially appeared that the statute of agreed that the allegations of that the acting warden committed dishonesty and retaliation. limitations had expired by the time the dishonesty cannot be established by intentionally misrepresenting known facts investigation of the initial allegations in this against the acting warden or willfully omitting facts. It was also alleged matter was submitted, persistence by the sufficient to warrant disciplinary that the reporting party suffered retaliation bureau and staff attorney resulted in further BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 66 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES from the warden and acting warden. investigation into alleged dishonesty, within action. the statute of limitations. Case No. 06-0095 (South Region) The bureau conferred with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority concluded agent several times concerning with the bureau during the investigation was that no charges could be the status of the investigation. inadequate. The Office of Internal Affairs sustained against the sergeant On April 27, 2004, a painter’s supervisor The bureau attended the agent failed to notify the bureau of a because the one year statute of discovered that the painter had claimed he interview of the painter. The significant interview. Only by chance was the limitations had lapsed for the was serving as a member of the county grand bureau advised the special agent bureau present because the bureau attorney sergeant. Due to the longer jury on days when he was not and that the that the date of discovery may be happened to be at the institution on an statute of limitations for non- painter had also been paid by the state for earlier if the department had unrelated matter. The investigation was sworn employees, the those same days. During the course of received notice of the sergeant's untimely and inadequate because the initial investigation against the painter is investigating the conduct of the painter, the potential misconduct during the date of discovery was incorrect and the still in progress. The bureau is special agent discovered similar misconduct investigation of the painter. investigation was completed after the statute still monitoring that investigation. may have been engaged in by a sergeant, who When the bureau received a draft of limitations had lapsed. The bureau served on the same grand jury. The special copy of the agent's final previously reported a case by the same agent determined that the date of discovery investigative report and noted special agent in which the agent as to the sergeant was May 16, 2005, when that the report contained miscalculated the date of discovery. The the special agent determined that the sergeant information that arguably placed bureau concurred with the hiring authority's received state pay for three days that could the department on notice of the findings. The hiring authority consulted with not be accounted for by the records of the sergeant’s potential misconduct the bureau in a timely and adequate manner county grand jury. before May 16, 2005, the bureau regarding the investigative findings. discussed the issue with the special agent. The bureau consulted with the employee relations officer and the warden. Case No. 06-0096 (North Region) The bureau reviewed the The bureau did not begin monitoring this Following a thorough discussion investigation and all supporting case until the disciplinary phase, so there was of the merits of the case and the documentation, including the no consultation during the investigation. The statute of limitations, the Attached to a letter received by the federal complaint from the special bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s department concluded that a court’s special master about Methicillin master. The bureau attended an findings. The hiring authority consulted with work improvement discussion Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) executive review of the case. the bureau in a timely and adequate manner. would be most appropriate in this issues in the department was a memo dated The resolution selected by the hiring case. May 18, 2004, in which an officer addressed authority was appropriate. issues raised in prior discussions about MRSA. The court found the officer knew that the statement he made to the special master was important and had no factual BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 67 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES basis; the officer’s conduct was deemed reckless and was made with an improper purpose. It was alleged that the officer intentionally provided false information and failed to make attempts to corroborate the information before it was provided. Case No. 06-0097 (Central Region) Initially, the bureau monitored The consultation with the bureau was Discipline in the form of a five the related criminal investigation extremely inadequate. The bureau was not percent salary reduction for 12 and undertook efforts to aid the contacted or consulted by the hiring months was imposed. The It was alleged that on July 6, 2004, a parole Office of Internal Affairs in authority or the staff attorney with regard to employee withdrew his appeal on agent, by means of deception, caused an presenting the matter to the the appropriate level of discipline, the eve of the State Personnel office assistant to print a criminal history district attorney’s office. When it notwithstanding expression of concern by Board hearing. report on a parolee using a restricted was discovered that an the bureau that the penalty was too lenient. database. It is further alleged that the agent administrative case had also been The Skelly hearing was conducted, without then passed the criminal history to a personal opened, the bureau reviewed the notice to the bureau. It appeared to the acquaintance for use in a family law dispute final report and tracked the bureau that, with regard to this discipline between the acquaintance’s daughter and the progress of the administrative matter, the hiring authority was in disarray parolee. case. The bureau made frequent and failed to designate an individual to act as efforts to make contact with the their employee relations officer. hiring authority. Case No. 06-0098 (Central Region) The bureau met with the Office The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority concluded of Internal Affairs agent and with the bureau during the investigation was that the investigations were reviewed the file reports. The adequate. The investigation however was complete but there was An inmate alleged that on August 7, 2004, bureau attempted to discover untimely and inadequate. The investigation insufficient evidence to sustain officers beat up an inmate, while another why there was a delay of five and was intermittently pursued due to competing any allegation of misconduct officer acted as a lookout. The inmate further one-half months between the workload priorities of the special agent. against the subjects. However, alleged that one of the officers initiated a discovery date and request for Insufficient time was left for the hiring corrective action was taken as to fight between two inmates. Another investigation. The bureau authority to fully consider the investigation; the admitted activity of the allegation was made by the inmate that the attended the interview of a the determination that there was not subjects’ which was not in officers enlisted the aid of two inmates to subject, conferred with the sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations compliance with policy. A threaten inmates who were allegedly special agent as to additional was made on the last day of the statutory criminal case was not pursued by cooperating in an ongoing investigation. areas of inquiry for all subjects, period. The bureau concurred with the hiring the Office of Internal Affairs due Finally, the inmate alleged that the officers and commented on the draft authority’s findings. The hiring authority to lack of resources and a engaged in wrestling matches with inmates. administrative reports. The adequately consulted with the bureau. perception of weak evidence; the bureau reminded the employee However, the consultation was not timely. bureau believed that the district relations officer of an The staff attorney consulted with the bureau attorney’s office should have BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 68 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES approaching statute of limitations in a timely and adequate manner during the made that decision. date. The bureau conferred with disciplinary process. The overall quality of the employee relations officer the staff attorney’s advocacy was adequate. and hiring authority as to the sufficiency of the investigation and the action to be taken, if any. Case No. 06-0099 (Central Region) The bureau checked the accuracy The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject admitted he lied of the allegations and statute of with the bureau during the investigation was during his compelled statement limitations date, and advised that adequate. The investigation was timely and concerning overly-familiar acts Allegations were made that from August 11 a statute of limitations date adequate. The bureau concurred with the with the inmate. The department to September 9, 2004, an officer was needed to be listed. The bureau hiring authority’s findings. The hiring and bureau all deemed dismissal involved in a sexual relationship with a made contact with the case agent authority consulted with the bureau in a to be appropriate. The subject female inmate during her incarceration. It is and reviewed all reports and timely and adequate manner. The penalty resigned pending disciplinary further alleged that the officer was also interviews. The bureau consulted selected by the hiring authority was action and his personnel file was involved in a sexual relationship with the with the employee relations appropriate. The staff attorney consulted so noted. parolee after her incarceration. officer and staff attorney. The with the bureau in a timely and adequate bureau insured the subject’s manner. The overall quality of the staff resignation pending disciplinary attorney’s advocacy was adequate. action was noted in his personnel file. Case No. 06-100 (South Region) On April 6, 2005, the bureau The institution’s initiation of the request for Upon completion of the requested an initial case investigation was untimely. The Office of executive review, the members conference with the Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation with the bureau concluded that the department On August 30, 2004, an inmate complaint Internal Affairs. That request was during the investigation was untimely and could not sustain the allegations dated August 11 was received alleging that a not honored until June 1, 2005. inadequate. The special agent investigated the against the sergeant. The sergeant used excessive force against the The bureau inquired about case without advising the bureau and delayed department withdrew its inmate in the summer of 2003, after the several points of the case, scheduling the initial case conference. The termination action against the inmate made a derogatory remark to another including the date of discovery special agent’s investigation was inadequate sergeant in its entirety. Similar officer. The sergeant allegedly threatened the and avenues of further inquiry. as she failed to follow up on obvious leads, actions were rescinded against the inmate, grabbing his right arm and pulling it The agent did not allow the contact identified witnesses, accurately other subjects. The special agent upward behind his back, resulting in a bureau to review the file until synopsize interviews, inquire about or was issued a letter of reprimand fractured arm. The inmate alleged that he June 10, 2005. The bureau include in her report inconsistencies in because the completion of her asked for medical treatment and was told by concluded that the majority of statements and evidence, and include report had been delayed as a the sergeant to return to his cell. On substantive work had already relevant and significant facts in her report. result of her having gone on September 23, 2004, an associate warden been done with the exception of The investigation was untimely. The special vacation, and the special agent recommended that a request for investigation the subject officer’s interviews agent completed the final interview close to transferred out of the Office of be completed but it was forwarded to the BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 69 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES wrong office. Thus, the warden did not sign and that monitoring the case the statute of limitations expiration date. In Internal Affairs. In light of all of the request until January 3, 2005. On would be unproductive. The the 93 days between the initial case the other deficiencies in the February 11, 2005, the Office of Internal special agent represented that she conference with the bureau and the date the special agent’s performance, the Affairs assigned the case to a special agent as was working only on this case report was sent to the hiring authority, the bureau recommended that the a high priority excessive force investigation and would complete it as soon as special agent’s case activity entries reveal that department investigate the special with a short deadline. possible. The bureau had no minimal tasks were completed. The report agent’s handling of the reason to believe that the was so delayed that the hiring authority had investigation. The department investigation would not be only a short time to act before the statute of however did not initiate an completed in advance of the one limitations expired. The bureau did not investigation into the special year time period; thus, the bureau concur with the hiring authority’s initial agent’s conduct. terminated monitoring. On findings and penalty. However, the penalty September 8, 2005, the bureau was modified at a later date; the bureau discovered that the Office of concurred. The hiring authority consulted Internal Affairs’ investigation had with the bureau in a timely and adequate been completed very close to the manner regarding the modification. The staff end of the statutory period. The attorney consulted with the bureau in a bureau resumed its monitoring of timely and adequate manner. The overall the case and reviewed the quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was investigation in detail. The adequate. bureau was advised of the Skelly hearing results and participated in an executive review. The bureau brought issues related to the investigation to the attention of the special agent’s regional supervisors, the Office of Internal Affairs executive management, and the special master. The bureau continued to inquire about what action, if any, the department intended to take about the special agent’s actions. Case No. 06-101 (Central Region) The bureau began monitoring The bureau began to monitor this case after The department concluded that this case after expiration of the the statute date expired. The bureau did not case could not be proven by a statute of limitations, and alerted receive the investigative report in time to preponderance of evidence On September 2, 2004, allegations were the department to this issue. The have further investigation completed. The against any subject because the made that multiple officers allowed inmates bureau met with the employee investigative report was not complete. The three victims’ stories contradicted to haze other inmates, including allowing acts relations officer, hiring authority bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s one another in important details. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 70 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES of sexual battery. and special agent. The bureau findings and decision not to impose No disciplinary action was reviewed the hiring authority’s disciplinary action. imposed by the department. review of investigation and the justification of penalty for all subjects, and noted that the statute of limitations date needed correction. Case No. 06-102 (South Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs adequately The hiring authority did not Office of Internal Affairs consulted with the bureau. The investigation sustain the allegations. Hence, throughout the investigation. The was adequate and timely. The hiring authority there was no disciplinary action On October 8, 2004, an inmate died bureau reviewed the final report consulted with the bureau in a timely taken as a result of the following an unprovoked assault by the before it was submitted to the manner. The bureau concurred with the investigation. inmate against an officer. A captain requested hiring authority and consulted hiring authority’s decision not to sustain the to see any operational procedures in place at with the hiring authority. allegations. The employee relations officer’s the institution at the time of the incident consultation was adequate and timely. related to the use of spit hoods or masks. It was alleged that the operational procedure was developed after the incident and backdated to appear as if it had been in place and staff training had been completed before the incident. Case No. 06-103 (North Region) The bureau monitored the inmate The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation There was insufficient evidence and principal witness interviews. with the bureau during the investigation was to sustain the allegations in this A union attorney essentially adequate. The initiation of the investigation case. Given the fact the On October 26, 2004, a lieutenant allegedly frustrated the inexperienced was untimely as the hiring authority did not institution’s gang investigator is used his position as the institution’s gang special agent’s attempts to request an investigation until nearly eight also a high ranking union investigator to conduct an interview of an interview two witnesses by months after the incident. Once initiated, the representative, it was difficult to inmate who was a potential witness in a interjecting irrelevant objections investigation was timely and adequate. The refute his assertions that his separate use-of-force incident involving an and asking questions throughout hiring authority did not consult with the actions were motivated by his officer. He allegedly interviewed the inmate the interview, causing one bureau in a timely or adequate manner. The concerns about possible labor as a labor union representative in an attempt interview to be prematurely hiring authority failed to notify the bureau of contract violations, rather than an to influence an ongoing use-of-force terminated. The bureau its decision to not sustain the allegations. effort to intervene in an investigation against the officer. recommended that the special However, the bureau concurred with the investigation. Therefore, no agent’s supervisor and a staff findings due to insufficient evidence. The disciplinary action was initiated attorney attend future interviews staff attorney consulted with the bureau in a by the department. to assist the special agent. timely and adequate manner. The overall quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 71 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES adequate. Case No. 06-104 (North Region) The bureau began monitoring the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation Disciplinary action could not be case approximately seven months with the bureau during the investigation was taken against the suspect because after the investigation was inadequate. The investigation was untimely. the statute of limitations lapsed. On November 5, 2004, the division of opened when the bureau was The initial special agent took no substantive A memo by the hiring authority juvenile justice discovered that a parolee had reorganized. Given the short time action for nearly seven months before the indicated that, if the investigation been implicated in a double homicide in frame to complete the case was reassigned. The report was not had been timely, the allegation for October 2004 and determined that the investigation, the bureau notified completed within the statutory time. Despite failure to detain the ward would parolee should have been detained on May the Office of Internal Affairs assurances that the investigation could be have been sustained, but the 14, 2004. It appeared the supervising parole about the case and the need to completed on time, the new special agent allegation for submitting a late agent unilaterally decided not to issue a expedite the review for contacted the hiring authority approximately report would not have been warrant for this offender as required by disciplinary action if appropriate. one week before the expiration date to report sustained. At the bureau’s policy, culminating in his possible The bureau consulted with the that he would not be able to complete his suggestion, the hiring authority participation in a double homicide and Office of Internal Affairs and the investigation, but that his preliminary agreed to implement a plan to subsequent absconding from parole. hiring authority. findings revealed no evidence of misconduct. ensure that proper office The hiring authority acquiesced to the protocols are in place to prevent additional time to complete his investigation; such policy violations in the the bureau did not concur. The investigation future. was otherwise adequate. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s findings. The hiring authority consulted with the bureau in a timely and adequate manner. Case No. 06-105 (Central Region) The bureau conferred with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation No disciplinary action was assigned special agent to discuss with the bureau during the investigation was imposed. The reason given for all the parameters of the inadequate as no opportunity to review and subjects was that the allegations On December 8, 2004, it was alleged that administrative investigation and comment upon the draft investigation report were unfounded as the inmate’s officers used excessive force upon an inmate. reviewed the report, which was was afforded to the bureau. The investigation injuries were determined to be transmitted to the institution was untimely due to a corresponding criminal self-inflicted based solely upon an prior to the bureau being investigation and inadequate as there was no unsubstantiated claim asserted by afforded the opportunity to opportunity afforded for the bureau to all the subjects. However, there review and comment. This suggest additional investigation. The bureau was no evidence presented that deficiency was discussed with the was initially informed that the allegations the inmate injured himself from agent and has not been repeated. were not sustained as there were no the time he was placed in his independent witnesses and the inmate did single-cell to the time he present with physical injuries which were presented with injuries. consistent with his allegations of force. The BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 72 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES bureau does not concur with the determination that the allegations are unfounded. The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau in a timely or adequate manner. The employee relations officer did not consult with the bureau in a timely or adequate manner. The bureau was frequently informed after-the-fact of decisions made, rather than consulted prior to the implementation of the decision. The overall quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was inadequate. Case No. 06-106 (Central Region) The bureau began monitoring Initially, the hiring authority and staff The acting warden issued a after the investigation was attorney disagreed with the bureau’s closure letter to the subject completed by the Office of assessment of the statute date. The hiring indicating he would have It was alleged that during an interview on Internal Affairs because the authority was reassigned and the acting sustained an allegation of December 8, 2004, an officer made false subject claimed retaliation. The warden took over the process on this case dishonesty, but due to the passing statements to investigators. He was a bureau met and conferred with and agreed that the statute of limitations date of the statute, no disciplinary complainant in the underlying investigation. the special agent assigned to the had already passed. The bureau concurred action would be served. case regarding the false that the statute of limitations date had Subsequent to this investigation, statements. The bureau obtained passed. In the bureau’s opinion the charge of the subject sought a medical and reviewed all reports on this dishonesty could not be sustained because retirement. case and the underlying many of the statements made by the subject investigation that led to this case. during the investigation, while erroneous or The bureau conferred with the exaggerated, were matters of opinion. hiring authority, staff attorney, Nevertheless, if allegations were to be and acting warden, who replaced sustained, the department was negligent in the original hiring authority in the not acting before the statute of limitations process. date. Case No. 06-107 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The allegation was sustained. The investigative file, contacted the with the bureau during the investigation was subject received a 10 percent employee relations officer and adequate. The investigative report was salary reduction for 13 months. An officer was arrested by law enforcement district attorney's office. The revised and resubmitted based on bureau for spousal abuse and child endangerment on bureau attended the Skelly recommendations. The investigation was December 15, 2004. Additionally, it is alleged hearing, reviewed the hearing timely and adequate. The bureau concurred that he did not report his arrest to the hiring officer's report, and provided with the hiring authority's findings. The BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 73 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES authority in a timely manner. recommendations to the staff Skelly officer recommended a modification of attorney and warden. penalty and the bureau disagreed; the hiring authority did not modify the penalty. The hiring authority consulted with the bureau in a timely and adequate manner. The penalty selected by the hiring authority was appropriate. The employee relations officer consulted with the bureau in a timely and adequate manner. The overall quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was adequate. Case No. 06-108 (South Region) The bureau reviewed the 2002 The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority concluded investigations related to the with the bureau during the investigation was that no charges against the sexual assault and noted that inadequate. The bureau attempted to initiate sergeant or the officer could be On December 20, 2004, the Office of Internal Affairs re-interviewed a former reports documented the inmate’s an informal discussion with the special agent sustained because the statute of inmate who was the victim of a sexual claims that he had told the about the date of discovery. Instead, the limitations had lapsed. investigative services unit’s bureau received no reply or even an assault, which had been administratively and sergeant and officer about the acknowledgment of its contact, causing the criminally investigated in 2002. During this assault. On July 5, 2005, the bureau to contact a supervisor. With the interview, the victim alleged that in January bureau conveyed its concerns to exception of one phone call from the case 2002 he informed a sergeant and an officer the special agent and pursued a agent approximately two weeks after the assigned to the investigative services unit that response from the Office of bureau’s initial contact during which the he had been sexual assaulted by an officer Internal Affairs for more than special agent said he would respond back to and that they ignored his claims. Using the two months. On September 12, the bureau, the Office of Internal Affairs date of this interview as the date of 2005, the bureau reviewed the apparently took no action to determine the discovery, the Office of Internal Affairs case activity entries in the Office validity of the date of discovery for almost opened a new administrative investigation of Internal Affairs’ database two months. Only after additional inquiries against both the investigative services unit system, which revealed that did the Office of Internal Affairs submit the sergeant and the officer for failing to report nothing had been done on the matter to a supervising staff attorney in misconduct. case by the special agent since October 2005. The Office of Internal July 5, 2005. Affairs’ refusal to discuss this issue delayed this determination approximately 100 days. Case No. 06-109 (North Region) The bureau reviewed the case The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The department decided that the summary. The bureau with the bureau during the investigation was investigation did not support participated in investigative and adequate. The investigation was timely and evidence to sustain formal action On December 23, 2004, a lieutenant utilized interview strategy discussions adequate. The bureau concurred with the and the case was referred to the force on a non-compliant inmate and with the assigned special agent. hiring authority’s findings. The hiring captain for informal action. provided a verbal report to the associate BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 74 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES warden. The next day, the lieutenant The bureau attended witness authority and staff attorney did not consult submitted a written report that contradicted interviews and reviewed the final adequately with the bureau as they requested his original statement. It is alleged that the report. additional investigation in this case, but did lieutenant was dishonest regarding the reason not notify the bureau of the request. for use-of-force. The case was expanded to Consultation was not timely as the hiring include an allegation that the lieutenant authority did not notify the bureau of its neglected his duty by putting himself in a findings or penalty prior to its decision in the compromising position with inmates, and case. The resolution selected by the hiring neglected his duty by removing his assigned authority was appropriate. key from the watch office against policy. Case No. 06-110 (North Region) The bureau met with the Office The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority did not of Internal Affairs to discuss the with the bureau during the investigation was sustain any allegation against the investigative plan and review adequate. The investigation was timely and officer; the bureau concurred. It was alleged that on December 25, 2004, an evidence. The bureau discussed adequate. It was a thorough investigation in The only staff witness to the officer discharged one non-lethal round at an the case with the warden. which all potential witnesses were incident was not in a position to inmate who was on the ground in the prone interviewed. The bureau concurred with the determine if the inmates position following a disturbance. In addition, hiring authority’s findings. The hiring attempted to get up after they the officer allegedly falsified his report by authority adequately consulted with the were ordered to the ground. stating that the inmate attempted to get up bureau. Consultation by the staff attorney from the prone position, and that the officer was not timely as the final report was sent in yelled “get down” prior to discharging the October and there was no consultation by round. Finally, it is alleged that the officer the staff attorney with the bureau until was insubordinate when he released the December 16, 2005, nine days prior to the inmates into the dayroom against orders. statute of limitations date. The hiring authority’s decision not to sustain any allegation was supported by the evidence. Case No. 06-0111 (North Region) The bureau attended the subject The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The investigation revealed that interviews, reviewed the reports with the bureau during the investigation was the use of force was appropriate and files and consulted with the adequate. The investigation was timely and under the circumstances of the On January 9, 2005, an inmate was institution staff and the hiring adequate. The hiring authority consulted with inmate’s behavior and the pronounced deceased at a local hospital with authority. the bureau in a timely and adequate manner inmate’s injuries were only fatal the preliminary cause of death listed as regarding the investigative findings. because he was in such poor physical trauma sustained by blunt force to health. The coroner ultimately the head with contributing factors of liver stated the inmate died from an and heart disease. On December 29, 2004, infection. the inmate had been involved in battery on a peace officer, resulting in the use of force by BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 75 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES staff, and was taken to an emergency room at the local hospital for treatment. Case No. 06-0112 (Central Region) The bureau conferred with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The disciplinary action alleged special agent, attended the with the bureau during the investigation was dishonest acts and statements by subject interview, made adequate. The report was thorough, timely the subject. However, due to It is alleged that on January 13, 2005, a suggestions regarding and complete. The bureau concurred with evidentiary problems and the vocational instructor submitted a fraudulent interrogation strategy and the hiring authority’s findings but the hiring absence of any prior disciplinary travel expense claim form claiming reviewed the investigation authority did not consult in a timely or history, the penalty imposed by reimbursement for mileage to and from reports. The bureau discovered adequate manner with the bureau. The nature the hiring authority was a 50 training when in fact the subject received a an erroneous statute of and extent of the disciplinary action imposed working day suspension. The ride from a co-worker. limitations date and held were not discussed with the bureau prior to penalty just below dismissal, meetings with the employee service of the notice of disciplinary action. which is demotion, could not be relations officer, hiring authority The bureau was informed as to the penalty applied to a person in a and staff attorney to discuss upon receipt of a copy of the disciplinary vocational instructor position. disciplinary action. The bureau action packet. The penalty selected by the The subject pled no contest to a reviewed the disciplinary action hiring authority was reasonable. However, misdemeanor violation Penal package and attended the Skelly the bureau recommended dismissal. The Code section 484(a) and made hearing. The bureau has employee relations officer did not consult reimbursement to the conferred with the employee adequately with the bureau during the department. relations officer and hiring disciplinary process. Consultation with the authority as to the need to give staff attorney was not timely and the overall advance, timely notice to the quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was bureau regarding proposed action inadequate. The bureau concurred with the on monitored cases so that the hiring authority’s decision to place the required consultation can be had employee on administrative time off. prior to final determination. Case No. 06-0113 (South Region) The bureau met with the hiring The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject was dismissed from authority. The bureau disagreed with the bureau during the investigation was state service. The dismissal has with the discipline initially adequate. The investigation was timely and been appealed to the State On January 15, 2005, a parole agent used his proposed and requested an adequate. The hiring authority consulted with Personnel Board. state-issued vehicle to attend a party on the executive review of the case. The the bureau in an adequate and timely manner way home from work. He drank alcohol at bureau participated in the regarding the penalty. The staff attorney the party and afterwards was involved in a executive review and the subject consulted with the bureau in a timely manner single-car accident while driving the state was dismissed from state service. but the overall quality of the staff attorney’s vehicle. The parole agent used his police The bureau reviewed disciplinary advocacy was inadequate. The bureau did not radio to summon assistance for a “disabled documents and attended the concur with the hiring authority’s initial vehicle.” He also made a series of phone calls BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 76 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES to his immediate supervisor, who responded Skelly hearing. The bureau recommended penalty, which was less than to the scene. Local law enforcement arrived disagreed with the Skelly officer’s dismissal. The hiring authority stated that the on the scene and arrested the agent for recommendation to reduce the incident possibly occurred because the agent driving under the influence of alcohol; his penalty. The bureau attended a was affected by a shooting incident, for blood alcohol level was allegedly twice the second executive review of the which the department had not provided legal limit. The agent was booked and case, after which the hiring post-trauma counseling; as a result, the agent subsequently released to the custody of his authority rejected the Skelly was depressed, which led to his drinking. The supervisor. During the course of his arrest, officer’s recommendation and hiring authority recommended discipline the agent repeatedly told local law upheld the subject’s dismissal short of a dismissal. The bureau’s assessment enforcement that he had observed a wanted from state service. was that the agent should be dismissed from fugitive in a specific vehicle and had crashed state service. After an executive review, while chasing the fugitive. dismissal was selected as the appropriate penalty. Case No. 06-0114 (South Region) The bureau met with the staff The Office of Internal Affairs was timely and The officer offered to resign if attorney, institution staff and the cooperative in its consultation. The hiring the institution would not forward Office of Internal Affairs to fully authority should not have entered into an the matter to the local district On January 18, 2005, a supervisor walked discuss the significance of the agreement precluding a referral to the district attorney’s office. The warden into a barbershop area and saw an officer numerous issues involved. The attorney’s office. accepted the offer, not realizing standing next to five bags of tobacco and a bureau expressed concern that that by entering into such an cell phone. Inmates were also in the area. legal guidance was not agreement any further criminal The investigative services unit determined immediately available to prosecution would be impossible. that a search of the officer’s vehicle was institutions concerning searches The warden mistakenly thought warranted. The officer later indicated that he of inmates, visitors and the Office of Internal Affairs did not have a vehicle on the premises, but a employees. could refer the matter to the key in his possession unlocked the door of a district attorney for prosecution vehicle on the premises. Staff at the after an investigation. institution made numerous calls to the department’s legal office to determine if they could search the vehicle; the legal office could not or would not indicate it was legal to search the vehicle. The staff proceeded to search the vehicle based on a sign at the entrance to the facility indicating all vehicles are subject to search. The search was initiated in the presence of the officer and his union attorney, without express consent having been obtained from the officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 77 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0115 (South Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs did not Medical records were obtained Office of Internal Affairs provide adequate notice of some interviews, during the course of the throughout the investigation and but overall, its consultation with the bureau investigation; the inmate had An inmate reported that on January 19, 2005, expressed concerns about the was adequate. The investigation was not been examined on the night the he told three officers that he and his cellmate statute of limitations timely. It is likely the investigation could have fight occurred. There was had been involved in a fight. The inmate said determination by the Office of been more focused had the complainant insufficient evidence for pursuing he requested to be separated from his Internal Affairs. Originally, the been interviewed earlier. The consultation disciplinary action. cellmate and provided medical care. The department believed the first with the hiring authority was timely and inmate was not separated and alleged that he notice of the incident was appropriate. was not provided medical care at that time. received on March 28, 2005, The inmate claimed that he has had two when the inmate filed a written surgeries since January 19, 2005, due the complaint. The bureau expressed injuries he received in the fight with his concern about the possibility that cellmate. the inmate may have made a complaint earlier. Case No. 06-0116 (North Region) The bureau reviewed The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The case was sent back to the investigative documents and met with the bureau during the investigation was hiring authority for training and with various departmental staff, adequate. The investigation was timely. The informal corrective action against On January 21, 2005, officers and sergeants including the employee relations bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s staff for not following proper failed to document a use-of-force incident in officer, investigative services findings. The hiring authority consulted with reporting procedures. Letters of the infirmary. unit’s lieutenant, and staff the bureau in an adequate and timely manner. instruction were issued to all attorney. The penalty imposed was appropriate. subjects on January 6, 2006. Case No. 06-0117 (North Region) The bureau reviewed this case The investigation was timely, complete, and Witness staff statements indicate after the investigation was thorough with all involved staff and wards that the ward was not struck with completed. The bureau reviewed being identified and interviewed. In addition, the pepper spray canister. Despite A ward alleged a senior youth counselor the final investigative report and all wards were given polygraph examinations. no allegations being sustained, a struck him in the back of the head during an supporting documentation before The hiring authority did not consult with the work improvement discussion incident on January 25, 2005. Another ward the case was forwarded to the bureau in a timely or adequate manner letter was issued to the subject. also alleged the same senior youth counselor hiring authority. regarding the investigative findings. struck a ward in the back of the head with a pepper spray canister after the pepper spray had already been applied. Case No. 06-0118 (South Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority concluded special agent assigned to the with the bureau during the investigation was there was insufficient evidence to BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 78 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES investigation, as well as the adequate. The investigation was timely and sustain the allegations and no On March 29, 2005, the Office of Internal special agent’s supervisor. The adequate. The bureau concurred with the discipline was imposed. The Affairs received notice that an officer and a bureau reviewed the investigative hiring authority’s findings. The hiring subject told the investigative lieutenant working in an investigative services documents, including the files in authority consulted with the bureau in an services unit that she was being unit disclosed confidential law enforcement the underlying case related to this adequate and timely manner regarding the stalked and threatened by a information to another officer, who was later matter. investigative findings. The employee relations parolee. The unit did not know arrested, knowing that she was the subject of officer consulted with the bureau in an that the arrested officer was a federal criminal investigation. adequate and timely manner during the involved in criminal activity and disciplinary process. The overall quality of treated her request for the staff attorney’s advocacy was adequate. information appropriately. The disclosure occurred prior to the officer’s arrest; there was no reason to suspect her of wrongdoing at the time. Case No. 06-0119 (South Region) The bureau recommended the The Office of Internal Affairs declined to Two officers and the sergeant investigation be opened; the investigate this case. The hiring authority received letters of instruction. Office of Internal Affairs agreed. asked for reconsideration; the bureau The use-of-force allegations were On January 31, 2005, two inmates were The bureau consulted with the concurred. Once the investigation was not sustained. engaged in a verbal altercation. Responding special agent throughout the initiated, the Office of Internal Affairs’ staff separated the inmates. As one inmate investigation, but the report was consultation with the bureau during the was being escorted away, the other was untimely so the bureau did not investigation was adequate. The investigation sprayed in the face with pepper spray. A have adequate time to thoroughly was untimely. The case was not assigned to sergeant responded but did not remain. Both review it. The bureau an agent until approximately five months inmates were medically evaluated. The recommended the conduct of the after the incident and the special agent did inmate who was sprayed in the face was officer who failed to properly not submit his final report until three days placed in an unlocked shower and left secure the inmates following the before the expiration of the statute of unattended while the escorting officer first incident be examined for limitations. The investigation was adequate. retrieved a set of clean clothes and delivered possible discipline. The bureau concurred with the hiring the inmate’s identification card to the authority’s findings. The hiring authority supervisor. The other inmate was consulted with the bureau in an adequate and decontaminated and left unrestrained and timely manner regarding the investigative unsupervised at a table near the shower. The findings. The hiring authority consulted with inmates further argued and physically fought. the bureau in an adequate and timely manner Both inmates were sprayed with pepper spray regarding the penalty. and allegedly a responding staff member unnecessarily struck them with a baton to stop the fight. The use of a baton was not reported by staff. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 79 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0120 (Central Region) The bureau conferred with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority sustained the assigned special agent and with the bureau during the investigation was allegation that the subject obtained and reviewed reports adequate. The investigation was timely and deviated from the feeding policy, It was alleged that on February 2, 2005, a and progress updates from the adequate. The bureau concurred with the but did not sustain any other sergeant inappropriately deviated from an investigator. The bureau reviewed hiring authority’s findings. The hiring allegations. The sergeant was established feeding program, resulting in a the final report and consulted authority consulted with the bureau in an issued a letter of instruction. need to use force and the improper use of with the employee relations adequate and timely manner. The penalty spit hoods on inmates exposed to pepper officer and the hiring authority. selected by the hiring authority was spray. The bureau reviewed the letter of appropriate. The employee relations officer instruction issued to the subject. consulted with the bureau in an adequate and timely manner during the disciplinary process. Case No. 06-0121 (North Region) The bureau attended witness and The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The allegations were not subject interviews, reviewed the with the bureau during the investigation was sustained due to a lack of case and associated files, and adequate. The investigation was timely and evidence that the inmate was left It was alleged that on February 4, 2005, an consulted with the hiring adequate. The hiring authority consulted with unattended or that the subject officer failed to follow proper procedures by authority and staff. the bureau in an adequate and timely manner was involved in an altercation leaving an inmate unattended in handcuffs in regarding the investigative findings which with another officer. Thus, no an administrative segregation yard sallyport. were supported by the evidence. disciplinary action was imposed. It was also alleged that the officer had an altercation with another officer during the time the inmate was left unattended. Case No. 06-0122 (North Region) The bureau attended witness and The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority found the subject interviews, reviewed the with the bureau during the investigation was allegations to be unfounded case and files and consulted with adequate. The investigation was timely and based on the facts provided in It was alleged that on February 4, 2005, the hiring authority and staff. adequate. The hiring authority consulted with the Office of Internal Affairs during a heated discussion, a sergeant threw a the bureau in an adequate and timely manner investigation. Therefore, pair of handcuffs at an officer, striking him regarding the investigative findings, with disciplinary action was not in the wrist. The complainant also alleged the which the bureau concurred. appropriate. sergeant was disrespectful and berated the officer. Case No. 06-0123 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation Disciplinary action was initially investigation documents and with the bureau during the investigation was imposed as a 5 percent pay identified an error affecting the adequate. The investigation was timely and reduction for 12 months. The On February 7, 2005, while driving off-duty, calculation of the statute of adequate. The bureau concurred with the disciplinary action was settled, BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 80 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES an officer allegedly exhibited a firearm and limitations and notified the hiring authority’s findings. The hiring with the subject agreeing to a 5 his badge to the occupants of another vehicle Office of Internal Affairs. The authority, staff attorney and employee percent pay reduction for 6 on the highway to intimidate them. He was bureau met with the agent and relations officer did not adequately consult months, which was approved and also allegedly driving aggressively and made suggestions about with the bureau regarding the penalty or the finalized by the State Personnel disobeying traffic laws. investigative strategy. The bureau settlement between the hiring authority and Board on March 6, 2006. The reviewed all police and Office of employee. The end result was appropriate district attorney’s office dismissed Internal Affairs’ reports. The given the state of the evidence at the the criminal case. bureau discussed the case with conclusion of the investigation. the hiring authority and staff attorney. Case No. 06-0124 (North Region) The bureau reviewed the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject resigned from state investigation request and case with the bureau during the investigation was service on September 5, 2005, summary. The bureau traveled to adequate. prior to the completion of the On February 9, 2005, an inmate became the institution and met with the investigation. acutely ill and was transferred to the hospital warden and staff to discuss an with a diagnosis of septic cholecystitis. The investigative plan. The bureau inmate refused surgery and his condition, also discussed the case with the which was complicated by severe respiratory Office of Internal Affairs special failure, continued to deteriorate. The inmate agent and reviewed investigative was transferred to another hospital to receive documents. a higher level of pulmonary care and died on March 8, 2005. An investigation was initiated to review the care a physician provided to the inmate at the institution. Case No. 06-0125 (South Region) The bureau suggested this case be The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority concluded reassigned to the same with the bureau during the investigation was that the investigation did not investigator handling the officers’ adequate. The investigation was timely and contain information sufficient to On February 11, 2005, a sergeant allegedly criminal and administrative adequate. The bureau concurred with the sustain the allegations; no failed to report an officer’s plan to “take a investigations, which the Office hiring authority’s findings. The hiring discipline was imposed. yard down” and assault a particular inmate. of Internal Affairs appropriately authority consulted with the bureau in an Later that day, the officer allegedly “took the did after the district attorney’s adequate and timely manner regarding the yard down,” forced the previously identified office declined to file criminal investigative findings. The employee relations inmate to the ground, and punched the charges. officer consulted with the bureau in an inmate in the back of his head. The officer adequate and timely manner during the and two witnessing officers failed to report disciplinary process. The overall quality of the punches in their incident reports and the staff attorney’s advocacy was adequate. were the subjects in separate criminal and BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 81 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES administrative investigations. Case No. 06-0126 (South Region) This bureau actively and The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority served three continuously monitored this case, with the bureau during the investigation was officers with dismissal notices, as well as the companion criminal adequate. The investigation was timely and but did not sustain allegations On February 11, 2005, an officer allegedly case. Throughout this case, the adequate. The bureau and the Office of against the sergeant or other used unnecessary force on an inmate by bureau consulted with the Office Internal Affairs continually collaborated officer. After consultation with punching him several times on the back of of Internal Affairs, the district about investigative alternatives and avenues. the bureau, the hiring authority his head. The officer did not report the attorney’s office and the staff Because the administrative investigations concluded that the investigation punches; neither did three other officers who attorney to ensure that the were delayed until the criminal investigation contained sufficient information were present. Inmates and other officers who separation between the criminal was concluded, the time for completion of to sustain specific allegations witnessed the incident, however, submitted and administrative cases was the administrative investigation was against three officers and a statements supporting the allegations. Later, respected. The bureau reviewed extremely tight. By working with the sergeant. The three officers have the subject officer allegedly stated he was and discussed the final institution, the Office of Internal Affairs and appealed their dismissals to the going to “red tag” the staff members who administrative report with the the staff attorney, all of the subjects with State Personnel Board and those reported him, which was interpreted to mean Office of Internal Affairs prior to sustained allegations were served in a timely hearings are in progress. cause harm from inmates. He allegedly its submission to the hiring manner. The bureau consulted with the intimidated one of the reporting officers by authority. The bureau strongly hiring authority during the investigation telling him he did not like rats and would suggested that the Office of about the code of silence aspects and the take care of them, and by waiting at the staff Internal Affairs employ video safety of the employees who had come entrance on several occasions to walk silently reenactments during their forward. Ultimately, the hiring authority next to the officer as he left. The subject also interviews of officers to support decided to move the officer to a nearby allegedly drove his truck at extremely slow that they were standing in a institution, but did not place the employee speeds in front of a vanpool carrying three position where they saw or on administrative time off and instead served officers who reported the punches, and twice should have seen the use of him with a written order stating that he could accelerated to block the van’s attempt to force. The bureau urged both the not come back on grounds without pass. Office of Internal Affairs and the permission. The hiring authority consulted employee relations officer to with the bureau regarding its findings and the involve a staff attorney vertical penalty. The bureau concurred with the advocate. Eventually a staff hiring authority’s findings and the penalty attorney was assigned. Upon selected was appropriate. The staff attorney learning the disciplinary notices did not consult adequately with the bureau were served without bureau during the disciplinary process and the initial consultation, the bureau consultation with the staff attorney was not responded to the institution to timely. The staff attorney and the former speak with the hiring authority. employee relations officer met, formulated When the bureau arrived, it notices of disciplinary action and served four learned that the Skelly hearings employees without consulting the bureau. for three officers had just been Upon review, the bureau concluded that two BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 82 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES held. Upon meeting with the of the four notices were insufficient to current employee relations support dismissal because the facts alleged in officer, the bureau reviewed the notices were not proven in the copies of all four of the investigation. The bureau was not notified of disciplinary notices, informed the Skelly hearings. department of deficiencies, and attended a meeting related to such. The bureau is continuing to monitor the appeal hearing. Case No. 06-0127 (Central Region) The bureau met and consulted The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority did not with the special agent, the agent’s with the bureau during the investigation was sustain allegations, thus, supervisor, and the staff attorney adequate. The investigation was timely and disciplinary action was not An officer was accused of using force on an regarding the investigative plan. adequate. The bureau concurred with the warranted. The complainant was inmate on February 13, 2005 and failing to The bureau reviewed all hiring authority’s findings. The hiring found to not be credible and report it. It was also alleged that the officer investigation reports and authority consulted with the bureau in an there was no other corroborating may have solicited other inmates to assault interviews. The bureau consulted adequate and timely manner regarding the evidence. the same inmate. with the agent during the investigative findings. The staff attorney investigation and reviewed the consulted with the bureau in an adequate and final report. The bureau timely manner during the disciplinary consulted with the hiring process. The overall quality of the staff authority and employee relations attorney’s advocacy was adequate. officer regarding the allegations. Case No. 06-0128 (North Region) The bureau reviewed the case The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The department issued letters of summary and request for with the bureau during the investigation was reprimand to the subjects as a investigation. The bureau met inadequate. The final report prepared by the result of the investigation. On February 15, 2005, an officer engaged in with the special agent to discuss Office of Internal Affairs was not provided an unauthorized extraction of an inmate the investigative strategy and for the bureau’s review prior to being sent to from an exercise yard. Rather than notify the plan. The bureau researched and the hiring authority. The investigation was supervisor, officers opened the yard door confirmed that officers are timely and adequate. The bureau concurred and physically restrained and cuffed the required to submit reports with the hiring authority’s findings. The inmate who was refusing to leave the yard. immediately following an incident hiring authority did not consult with the The lieutenant was advised of the incident or prior to concluding their shift. bureau in an adequate or timely manner the same day, but allegedly failed to collect regarding the investigative findings or the completed reports within 24 hours. A review penalty. The penalty was appropriate. of the reports and clarification reports that were later submitted indicated several BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 83 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES inconsistencies. Case No. 06-0129 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The allegations related to the appropriateness of the allegations with the bureau during the investigation was battery were sustained, and the and the statute of limitations adequate. The investigation was timely and subject was suspended without On February 18, 2005, a captain allegedly date. The bureau also attended thorough. The bureau concurred with the pay for 15 days. physically assaulted a lieutenant while both witness and subject interviews. hiring authority’s findings. The hiring were on duty. The lieutenant claims the The bureau reviewed the final authority consulted with the bureau in an captain punched his arm and “karate” Office of Internal Affairs’ report. adequate and timely manner regarding the chopped his forearm, resulting in bruises and The bureau met with the investigative findings. The penalty selected numbness in his fingers. employee relations officer and by the hiring authority was appropriate. The the staff attorney. The bureau hiring authority consulted with the bureau in conferred with the hiring an adequate and timely manner regarding the authority and the employee penalty. The staff attorney consulted with the relations officer concerning the bureau in an adequate and timely manner findings of fact, the appropriate during the disciplinary process. The overall discipline, and the Skelly hearing. quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was adequate. Case No. 06-0130 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed preliminary The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The allegations of breach of investigation documents and the with the bureau during the investigation was confidentiality and retaliation statute of limitations. The bureau adequate. The investigation was complete, were not sustained by the hiring A captain allegedly interfered in an Office of attended witness interviews and thorough and timely. The bureau concurred authority. Hence, no disciplinary Internal Affairs’ investigation by allowing a reviewed the final report. The with the hiring authority’s findings. The action was imposed. union representative access to confidential bureau conferred with the hiring authority did not consult with the documents relating to a witness. The assigned special agent and made bureau in an adequate or timely manner underlying investigation involved claims by suggestions regarding the regarding the investigative findings or the the captain that he was physically assaulted investigative strategy. The bureau penalty. The penalty selected by the hiring by a lieutenant on February 24, 2005. met with the employee relations authority, however, was appropriate. The officer, the staff attorney, and the bureau was informed of the decision after it hiring authority to discuss the was made. The employee relations officer did disciplinary action. The bureau’s not consult with the bureau in an adequate or ability to consult with the timely manner during the disciplinary department was limited due to process. Consultation with the employee untimely notice of meetings and relations officer was not timely. The overall other developments in the case. quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was inadequate. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 84 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0131 (South Region) This case began as an inquiry and The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority concluded the bureau recommended that it with the bureau during the investigation was that the allegations against the become an official investigation, adequate. The investigation was untimely officer were not sustained by the It was alleged an officer had been involved in which it did. The bureau because it was submitted to the hiring investigation. As a result, no an overly familiar relationship with an inmate consulted with the Office of authority less than 30 days before the statute disciplinary action was taken by since March 2005. Allegedly the officer went Internal Affairs throughout the of limitations expired. The investigation was the department. into the shower area while the inmate was investigation. The bureau adequate. The bureau concurred with the naked to give the inmate soap and shampoo; recommended conducting several hiring authority’s findings. The hiring stood outside the inmate’s cell at night and investigative interviews; the authority did not consult with the bureau allowed the inmate to show his naked body; Office of Internal Affairs regarding the investigative findings. The staff asked the inmate to share sexual fantasies, disagreed and did not conduct attorney did not consult adequately with the offered the inmate assistance when he was the additional interviews. The bureau during the disciplinary process. The released on parole; and engaged in sexual bureau reviewed the final report overall quality of the staff attorney’s misconduct with the inmate. During the before it was submitted to the advocacy, however, was adequate. course of the investigation another inmate hiring authority. made similar allegations about this officer. Case No. 06-0132 (Central Region) The bureau checked the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject was first demoted appropriateness of the with the bureau during the investigation was based on unrelated driving under investigation request and the inadequate. The agent did not maintain the influence charges. The subject On March 1, 2005, a lieutenant was arrested statute of limitations. The bureau timely communication with the bureau. The was later separated from service and charged with felony spousal and child reviewed the police reports and investigation was timely but inadequate. The on January 3, 2006, for being abuse. the video of the subject’s bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s absent without leave before interview with the police. The findings. The hiring authority consulted with disciplinary action could be taken bureau also monitored the the bureau in an adequate and timely manner. based on the allegations in this outcome of a court trial charging The penalty selected by the hiring authority case. In the criminal case, the the employee with separate was appropriate. The employee relations employee pled to misdemeanor driving under the influence officer was newly appointed and did not charges for child abuse and for charges, for which the subject consult with the bureau in an adequate or allowing a child access to a was demoted. timely manner during the disciplinary firearm; the spousal abuse process. Disciplinary action was taken prior charges were dismissed. to consultation with the bureau. The overall quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was inadequate. Case No. 06-0133 (Central Region) The bureau confirmed the The investigation was not timely, thorough The allegation was not sustained allegations and determination of or complete. The Office of Internal Affairs’ by the hiring authority, who the statute of limitations. The consultation with the bureau during the concluded that the sick leave was On March 1, 2005, a lieutenant was accused BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 85 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES of falsifying time sheets during the period of bureau conferred with the special investigation was adequate. The bureau did not used to cover the lieutenant’s March to April, 2005. The subject called in agent, staff attorney, employee not concur with the hiring authority’s absence to attend class. However, sick on several occasions. The subject then relations officer and hiring findings. A pattern of abuse of sick leave the hiring authority did direct attended college classes after the subject’s authority. The bureau emerged from the limited investigation that corrective action in the form of usual work hours on the dates sick leave was recommended that the subject’s was performed. The hiring authority remedial training on used. interview be taken, the subject’s adequately consulted with the bureau and the documentation of sick leave attendance records be obtained, consultation was timely. The staff attorney absences for the lieutenant’s and additional questions be adequately consulted with the bureau and the department as an unusual pattern incorporated into the subject’s consultation was timely. The overall quality of use of sick leave was disclosed interview as it progressed. The of the staff attorney’s advocacy was adequate. and the required supervisory bureau attended the subject oversight procedure for a interview. The bureau potential abuse of sick leave was commented on the draft not initiated. administrative report. The bureau discussed State Personnel Board precedential decisions with the institution. Case No. 06-0134 (North Region) The bureau attended witness and The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority did not subject interviews, reviewed the with the bureau during the investigation was sustain any allegations in the case. case and files, and consulted with adequate. The investigation was timely and No disciplinary action was It was alleged on March 2, 2005, a sergeant the hiring authority and staff. adequate. The hiring authority consulted with initiated. assigned to an administrative segregation unit the bureau in an adequate and timely manner saw officers in the unit pushing and grabbing regarding the investigative findings. each other and failed to intervene or attempt to stop the misconduct. It was also alleged the sergeant intentionally failed to report the misconduct and that he was aware of prior threatening and intimidating conduct toward other officers, but failed to intervene or report it. Case No. 06-0135 (Central Region) The bureau attended briefings at Consultation between the hiring authority, The warden and employee the institution regarding the the staff attorney, and the bureau resulted in relations officer reduced the initial investigation and helped consensus on the proper level of discipline. officer’s pay by 10 percent for 12 On March 3, 2005, staff observed an officer facilitate submission of this The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation months. The subject has a long, in possession of a personal cellular telephone investigation to the Office of with the bureau during the investigation was unblemished record of service, so inside the institution’s secured perimeter. Internal Affairs. The bureau adequate. The investigation was timely and the penalty was appropriate. The The officer allegedly acknowledged having a conferred with the hiring adequate. The bureau concurred with the subject appealed the disciplinary BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 86 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES cell phone, but denied using it. During the authority regarding the hiring authority’s findings. The hiring action to the State Personnel resulting investigation, it is alleged the officer sufficiency of the evidence, the authority consulted with the bureau in an Board, but then agreed to the repeatedly gave investigators false and allegations, and the appropriate adequate and timely manner regarding the proposed discipline at the time of misleading information. This investigation level of discipline. The bureau investigative findings. The hiring authority hearing. was opened to address the officer’s alleged reviewed the disciplinary action consulted with the bureau in an adequate and dishonest conduct. Ultimately, the officer package and the report of the timely manner regarding the penalty. The admitted bringing two different cellular Skelly hearing officer. The bureau bureau was not given notice of the Skelly telephones into the institution, using them consulted with the employee hearing. The settlement between the hiring for personal calls, and lying to conceal and relations officer prior to the authority and employee was appropriate. The minimize his misconduct. scheduled State Personnel Board hiring authority consulted with the bureau in hearing. The bureau reviewed the an adequate and timely manner regarding the proposed settlement agreement. settlement. Case No. 06-0136 (South Region) The bureau monitored the The request to initiate an investigation was The investigation confirmed the investigation. The bureau met timely; however, an investigation was not registered nurse was engaging in with the special agent, reviewed authorized and an agent was not assigned for improper conduct with inmates On March 4, 2005, it was alleged a registered documents, and consulted with over two months. The investigative work and providing inmates with nurse was overly familiar with an inmate and the hiring authority. began three months later, after the subject contraband. The nurse was had provided alcohol and other contraband resigned from her position. The special agent advised the charges of having to inmates. tried numerous times to interview the engaged in overly familiar registered nurse, but the subject was conduct were sustained, and that uncooperative. Once initiated, the disciplinary action would be investigation was and adequate completed in initiated should she reapply for a timely manner, as was consultation. The employment with the bureau concurred with the hiring authority's department. findings. The hiring authority adequately consulted with the bureau in a timely manner. Case No. 06-0137 (Central Region) The bureau began monitoring the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject was given a 10 case after the criminal case was with the bureau during the investigation was percent salary reduction for 13 rejected by the district attorney’s adequate. The investigation was timely, months. No appeal was filed. On March 6, 2005, a lieutenant was arrested office. The bureau met with the thorough and complete. The bureau for domestic violence and for preventing his case agent, made suggestions concurred with the hiring authority’s wife from using the telephone to call the about investigative strategy, and findings. The hiring authority adequately police. reviewed the draft and final consulted with the bureau regarding the reports. The bureau met with the investigative findings, but the consultation employee relations officer and was not timely. The penalty selected by the BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 87 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES the staff attorney several times to hiring authority was appropriate given the discuss the disciplinary action. severity of the misconduct and the evidence The bureau attended the Skelly available. However, the hiring authority did hearing. The bureau also not consult with the bureau in an adequate or conferred with the hiring timely manner regarding the penalty. The authority and the employee employee relations officer consulted with the relations officers regarding the bureau in an adequate and timely manner sufficiency of the investigation during the disciplinary process. The overall and the proposed action. The quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was bureau suggested a recalculation adequate. of the applicable statute of limitations date. Case No. 06-0138 (South Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The allegations against both Office of Internal Affairs with the bureau during the investigation was subjects were not sustained and throughout the investigation. The adequate. The investigation was timely and no disciplinary action was A ward alleged that on March, 7, 2005, he bureau reviewed the final report adequate. The bureau concurred with the imposed. was handcuffed and being escorted by two and consulted with the hiring hiring authority’s findings. The hiring officers, when one officer attempted to authority and the employee authority consulted with the bureau in an deliberately guide him into the other officer. disciplinary unit about the adequate and timely manner regarding the When the ward questioned the officer’s sufficiency of the investigation, investigative findings. The agent adequately actions, the other officer allegedly pushed the appropriate charges, and the consulted with the bureau during the him hard, knocking him to the ground and level of discipline. disciplinary process, and consultation with slamming him into a wall, causing his eye to the employee relations officer was timely. swell. Case No. 06- 0139 (North Region) The bureau reviewed the This investigation was untimely; it was not No allegations were sustained and evidence, reports, and files. The completed and delivered to the hiring no disciplinary action was taken bureau pushed for a timely authority until the day before the statute of by the hiring authority. On March 9, 2005, an anonymous review and consideration of the limitations expired. The investigation was complainant alleged that unknown staff were case. inadequate; the original team of five using inmates for peacekeeping. experienced internal affairs agents was Peacekeeping is an inappropriate method of ordered off of the case by senior enforcing discipline and maintaining order in management and replaced by a single, a yard or institution by having one group of inexperienced and overworked agent. The inmates exert pressure or force over other hiring authority adequately consulted with inmates. In return, the enforcing inmates the bureau regarding the investigative receive special, unauthorized privileges and findings, but the consultation was untimely avoid disciplinary actions taken against them because it did not occur until several months BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 88 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES for misconduct. after the findings were made moot due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Case No. 06-0140 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the request The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation There was insufficient evidence for investigation and the with the bureau during the investigation was to sustain any of the allegations. applicable statute of limitations. adequate. The investigation was timely and The complaining inmates were On March 9, 2005, an inmate alleged an The bureau recommended an adequate. The bureau concurred with the not credible. Their statements officer sent two inmates to physically alternative statute of limitations hiring authority's findings. The hiring were inconsistent and threaten him because of his testimony against date. The bureau reviewed draft authority consulted with the bureau in an contradictory. Thus, disciplinary officers in another investigation. Another investigative reports and adequate and timely manner regarding the action against the subjects was inmate alleged the same two inmates were recommended additional investigative findings. The employee relations not warranted. the officer’s wrestling buddies and that staff investigation. The bureau officer consulted with the bureau in an engaged in wrestling matches in the rotunda consulted with the employee adequate and timely manner during the or the staff restroom The inmate also relations officer and the hiring disciplinary process. The overall quality of claimed a sergeant acted as the point man authority regarding the the staff attorney’s advocacy was adequate. and wielded a bat just in case the wrestling sufficiency of the investigation got out of hand. and the disciplinary action proposed. Case No. 06-0141 (Central Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The victim denied sexual activity special agent during course of with the bureau during the investigation was with subject, as did the subject. investigation and made adequate. The investigation was timely and However the subject admitted to On March 10, 2005, an officer allegedly suggestions for the investigation. adequate. The employee resigned prior to the over familiarity. The officer asked for a female inmate’s contact The bureau reviewed police case going to the hiring authority. resigned during the administrative information prior to her being paroled and reports regarding the inmate’s use investigation. The officer’s then contacted her after she was released of the officer’s vehicle and the personnel file reflects he resigned from custody. She subsequently resided with Office of Internal Affairs’ during a pending investigation. him at his hotel room and borrowed his investigative report. After vehicle. She was arrested for driving while learning of the officer’s under the influence of alcohol, driving on a resignation, the bureau verified suspended license, and running a red light in that his employment file reflects the officer’s vehicle. that his resignation was tendered pending investigation. Case No. 06-0142 (Central Region) The bureau monitored the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The sergeant resigned before the investigation, read the reports with the bureau during the investigation was imposition of any disciplinary regarding the case, and conferred adequate. The investigation was timely and action and his employment file A report dated March 14, 2005, from a adequate. The employee resigned before the reflects his resignation was BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 89 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES medical review officer alleged that a sergeant with the hiring authority. investigative interview began. received during a pending tested positive for amphetamines and investigation. methamphetamines. Case No. 06-0143 (North Region) The bureau attended the subject The bureau consulted with the Office of The officer resigned in lieu of interviews, reviewed the reports Internal Affairs and recommended a more being dismissed. and files, and consulted with thorough criminal investigation for A special agent received a phone call on institution staff, the staff distribution of child pornography. The hiring March 15, 2005, from the former landlord of attorney, and the hiring authority. authority became impatient with the delay in two officers. According to the landlord, a the investigation by the Federal Bureau of new tenant discovered a homemade compact Investigation. The hiring authority moved disk containing child pornography inside the forward without additional evidence and the residence. A review of the disk confirmed officer resigned in lieu of being dismissed. there were pictures of what appeared to be of young, pre-pubescent, unclothed girls. Also included in the many photographs were what appeared to be candid family photographs. Case No. 06-0144 (North Region) The bureau read and reviewed all The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation No allegations were sustained due documents related to the with the bureau during the investigation was to insufficient evidence. The investigation. adequate. The investigation was timely and allegations were made only after On March 17, 2005, a parole agent went to a adequate. The hiring authority did not the parole agent revoked the female parolee’s residence to obtain a urine consult adequately with the bureau regarding complainant’s parole in part sample for drug testing. During this contact, the investigative findings; however, the because she refused to submit to the parolee reported the parole agent bureau concurred with them. drug testing after disclosing she allegedly exposed his erect penis and stated, had used methamphetamine. The “I can make sure you discharge [from parole] parolee subsequently violated the in July.” The parolee did not report the conditions of her parole again incident until 60 days later when she was and absconded from parole arrested for a parole violation. during the investigation. The agent was unable to interview her as part of his investigation. Case No. 06-0145 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the request The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subjects received letters of for investigation and the case with the bureau during the investigation was instruction and were provided summary. The bureau conferred adequate. The investigation was thorough, with remedial training. The Inmates were allegedly housed with the special agent about the timely and complete. The bureau concurred institution is revising its intake inappropriately and in violation of policy scope of the investigation and the with the hiring authority’s findings due to procedures to ensure such an resulting in an in-cell assault by one inmate BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 90 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES against another on March 21, 2005. interview schedule. The bureau mitigating factors and institution procedures event does not reoccur and reviewed all file materials and in place at the time. The hiring authority agreed to initiate a request for reports. The bureau conferred consulted with the bureau in an adequate and review of related departmental with the special agent concerning timely manner regarding the investigative policies. additional interviews of possible findings. The employee relations officer did subjects and witnesses. The not consult with the bureau in an adequate or bureau reviewed the investigative timely manner during the disciplinary report and discussed it with the process; disciplinary actions were proposed special agent. The bureau without bureau consultation. The overall attended an interview of one of quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was the subjects. The bureau inadequate. discussed possibly revising the statute of limitations date. The bureau conferred with the hiring authority and employee relations officers regarding the proposed corrective action, and reviewed related documents. Case No. 06-0146 (South Region) The bureau reviewed the files and Overall, the Office of Internal Affairs’ The hiring authority concluded met with the special agent. The consultation with the bureau during the there was sufficient evidence to Office of Internal Affairs investigation was inadequate. The Office of sustain the allegations of over On March 22, 2005, an officer disclosed she reassigned the case twice. The Internal Affairs delayed meeting with the familiarity, introducing had exchanged notes with an inmate after the bureau had meaningful and bureau and failed to provide the file for contraband into the institution, inmate threatened to expose her misconduct. frequent consultations with a review for two months. Once the case was and dishonesty. The hiring The inmate was interviewed and alleged the third special agent to whom this assigned to the third special agent, however, authority proposed dismissing the officer revealed confidential information case was assigned. The bureau consultation with the bureau was adequate. officer. The officer resigned in about his case factors to other inmates. The reviewed drafts of the final Overall, the investigation was untimely. The lieu of dismissal. inmate also alleged that he had exchanged investigative report and provided bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s letters with the officer and that the officer feedback. The bureau consulted findings. The hiring authority consulted with had given him a lighter. The inmate with the hiring authority and the the bureau in an adequate and timely manner. produced the letters and revealed employee relations officer The penalty selected by the hiring authority confidential personal information about the regarding the adjudication and was appropriate. The employee relations officer that he claimed she had revealed to appropriate discipline. The officer consulted with the bureau in an him. The officer also was alleged to have bureau reviewed drafts of the adequate and timely manner during the made false and misleading statements to the disciplinary action and provided disciplinary process. The overall quality of Office of Internal Affairs during the feedback. the staff attorney’s advocacy was adequate. investigation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 91 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0147 (North Region) The bureau reviewed documents The central intake panel returned this case to The matter was handled locally and conferred with the hiring the hiring authority for direct action without by the institution. The institution authority. an investigation, as it was determined that an conducted training for all custody On April 5, 2005, an inmate reported that investigation was not needed to take action. staff including medical technical two officers and a nurse were verbally The hiring authority consulted with the assistants related to inmate-staff disrespectful and harassed another inmate, bureau regarding its proposed action. The relations. causing the inmate to suffer shortness of bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s breath. decision to pursue direct corrective action against the staff involved in the incident. Case No. 06-0148 (South Region) The bureau conferred with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation As to the sergeant and officer, the Office of Internal Affairs and the with the bureau during the investigation was hiring authority exonerated both staff attorney. The bureau adequate. The investigation was timely and officers. As to the medical On April 6, 2005, a medical technical expressed concern about the adequate. The bureau concurred with the technical assistant, the hiring assistant in a clinic allegedly felt a possible three subjects remaining on hiring authority’s findings. The hiring authority did not sustain the weapon in an inmate’s waistband. The inmate administrative leave, even after authority consulted with the bureau in an allegations. The captain’s hit the medical technical assistant in the head inconsistencies in the captain’s adequate and timely manner regarding the credibility was brought into and body and a fight ensued. The fight statements were discovered. investigative findings. The staff attorney question after inconsistencies in spilled out onto the yard, where another consulted with the bureau in an adequate and his written and verbal statements officer saw it, sounded the alarm, and timely manner during the disciplinary were discovered. The captain’s dropped pepper spray. The inmate fought off process. The overall quality of the staff statements were also found to be staff and crawled into the clinic. The first attorney’s advocacy was adequate. inconsistent with other witnesses’ responding staff member was a captain who statements. Therefore, the bureau controlled the inmate. The captain alleged questioned whether the captain’s the medical technical assistant came into the conduct should be investigated. clinic and kicked the inmate in the chest, and The hiring authority did not that a sergeant and officer, who escorted the request such an investigation. inmate to the program office, used excessive force on the inmate. Case No. 06-0149 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the statute The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The staff attorney was unable to of limitations and allegations. with the bureau during the investigation was convince the victim to testify The bureau met with the special adequate. The investigation was timely and against the subject. As a result, An officer was arrested off-duty for alleged agent and made suggestions adequate. The bureau concurred with the the officer received a letter of spousal and child abuse on April 8, 2005. regarding investigative strategy, hiring authority's findings. The hiring reprimand. The officer agreed to attended witness interviews, and authority consulted with the bureau in an not appeal the disciplinary action. reviewed the final report. The adequate and timely manner. The penalty The district attorney’s office also bureau met with the employee selected by the hiring authority was filed criminal charges against the BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 92 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES relations officer, staff attorney, appropriate. The settlement between the officer and he pled guilty to and hiring authority to discuss hiring authority and the officer was misdemeanor charges of charges and reviewed the appropriate. The staff attorney consulted disturbing the peace. The terms disciplinary action. The bureau with the bureau in an adequate and timely of his probation included obtained the Skelly hearing manner during the disciplinary process. The parenting and anger management recommendation and reviewed overall quality of the staff attorney’s classes. the stipulated settlement. advocacy was adequate. Case No. 06-0150 (North Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The investigation revealed special agent and reviewed with the bureau during the investigation was insufficient evidence of investigation reports. A meeting adequate. The investigation was timely and wrongdoing. There was On April 8, 2005 an inmate allegedly exposed occurred between the bureau, adequate. The investigative report was insufficient evidence to sustain himself to a female officer. Later that day, a warden, employee relations complete and timely. The hiring authority allegations of misconduct and lieutenant ordered two officers to remove the officers and special agent consulted with the bureau in an adequate and warrant the imposition of inmate from his cell in handcuffs and escort regarding the findings. The timely manner regarding the investigative disciplinary action. him to his office. The inmate claimed that bureau recommended that the findings. The hiring authority found the while he was in the office, the lieutenant statute of limitations date be applicable policy governing the release of intimidated, harassed, and attempted to corrected and the operating inmates from handcuffs while being moved provoke him to fight. Thereafter, the procedures be clarified to comply was somewhat vague, although custom and lieutenant ordered the removal of the with the custom and practice practice had been to handcuff inmates at all restraints and told the inmate to sign a already followed by staff, which times whenever they were moved from a behavior report. When he refused, the inmate requires the handcuffing of all secure area or when in proximity to others. claimed he was physically assaulted by the administrative segregation The bureau concurred with the hiring lieutenant and the escorting officers, who inmates at all times, except authority’s findings and decision not to punched and kicked him. during emergency situations. impose disciplinary action against the officers. Case No. 06-0151 (South Region) The bureau recommended the The institution’s consultation with the The hiring authority concluded investigation of the officer’s use bureau during the investigation was adequate. there was sufficient evidence to of force be handled by the Office The investigation was timely and adequate. sustain the allegations against the On April 19, 2005, an officer ordered an of Internal Affairs because the The bureau concurred with the hiring officer. The officer received a 10 inmate not to enter the shower. The inmate request for investigation stated authority’s findings. The hiring authority percent salary reduction for 24 ignored the officer, asking, “What are you that unidentified parties told the consulted with the bureau in an adequate and months, based on the officer’s going to do, spray me?” The officer ordered officer to falsify his report and timely manner regarding the investigative acceptance of responsibility and the inmate to return to his cell. The inmate thus suggested the possible findings. The penalty selected by the hiring truthfulness during the ignored the order. The officer used pepper existence of a code of silence. authority was appropriate. The hiring investigation. The hiring spray on the inmate and activated an alarm. The case was, however, not authority consulted with the bureau in an authority initiated a separate The officer briefed responding supervisors handled by the Office of Internal adequate and timely manner regarding the request for investigation to about the incident and submitted a report. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 93 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES The report was returned to the officer for Affairs, but referred to the penalty. The penalty was later modified; the identify who told the officer to corrections after a discussion in which the institution instead. The bureau bureau was consulted and concurred with the include the false information in sergeant and lieutenant questioned his use of monitored the institution’s modification. The employee relations officer his second report. pepper spray. Prior to resubmitting his investigation. The bureau consulted with the bureau in an adequate and report, the officer was contacted by reviewed the draft investigative timely manner during the disciplinary numerous employees, including two union report. process. The overall quality of the staff job stewards. The officer resubmitted his attorney’s advocacy was adequate. report, in which he alleged the inmate made a threatening move toward him, a fact omitted from his prior briefing and report. When asked about the discrepancy, the officer stated “they told me to put it in.” The officer took back his report and instead filed a corrected report consistent with his original one. Case No. 06-0152 (South Region) The bureau researched the The hiring authority’s initiation of the The hiring authority concluded applicable statute of limitations request for investigation was untimely. It was that based on the investigation; date and discussed with the submitted just two months before the statute there was insufficient evidence to An officer alleged that on April 19, 2005, two Office of Internal Affairs the of limitations expired. The 10 month delay sustain the allegations. Hence union job stewards told him to falsify his applicable statute of limitation. by the hiring authority in submitting the disciplinary action was not use-of-force report. Specifically, the union The bureau participated in an request for investigation severely hampered warranted against the subjects. job stewards allegedly told the officer to say initial case conference with the the Office of Internal Affairs’ ability to that an inmate took a threatening stance in Office of Internal Affairs and a investigate this case. The bureau disagreed order to justify the officer’s use of pepper staff attorney. with the department’s opinion regarding the spray. It was confirmed that two phones, date of discovery and the department’s where the union job stewards were assigned, inability to investigate the union job steward were used to telephone the officer as he was for merely telling the officer to do preparing his report. something. Once the investigation was opened, it was completed in a timely manner and was adequate, given the short time frame. Under the circumstances, the bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s findings. The hiring authority consulted with the bureau in an adequate and timely manner regarding the investigative findings. The staff attorney consulted with the bureau in an adequate and timely manner. The overall quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 94 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES adequate. Case No. 06-0153 (Central Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority did not assigned special agent and with the bureau during the investigation was sustain the allegations. The reviewed all underlying reports. adequate. The agent assigned was diligent in investigation revealed no medical It is alleged that on April 24, 2005, an inmate The bureau attended the advising the bureau of his progress. The emergency existed until after the was required to submit a random urine complainant's and the subject's investigation was timely and adequate. The subject had gone off-shift. In sample to the substance abuse program and interviews and read transcripts of agent went to great lengths to locate and addition, due to facts revealed in could not produce one. The officer issued all other interviews. The bureau interview potential inmate witnesses, even the investigation, it was the inmate a rules violation. Later that day, reviewed the subject's those who were no longer on parole. The determined the officer's belief cellmates advised the officer that the inmate employment file and hiring authority consulted with the bureau in that the inmate was being was ill. Despite the information indicating complainant's central file. The an adequate and timely manner regarding the manipulative may have been well- potential illness, the officer failed to check on bureau reviewed the final investigative findings, with which the bureau founded. Therefore, no the welfare of the inmate. Subsequently, the investigative report. The bureau concurred. The staff attorney adequately disciplinary action was warranted. inmate was transported to a community consulted with the employee consulted with the bureau during the hospital intensive care unit, suffering from relations officer, staff attorney, disciplinary process and did so in a timely seizures. and hiring authority. manner. Case No. 06-0154 (Central Region) The bureau obtained and The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority did not reviewed the incident reports. with the bureau during the investigation was sustain allegations of excessive The bureau reviewed all medical adequate. The investigation was timely and force on any of the subjects. As a On April 25, 2005, an inmate was found reports. The bureau made contact adequate. The bureau concurred with the result of this case, training was disoriented and possibly having seizures in and consulted with the special hiring authority’s findings as the use of force provided on spit mask placement his cell. Staff attempted to transport him agent on a continuous basis. The did not appear to be excessive under the and decontamination using a gurney with straps that were not bureau reviewed all interviews circumstances. The hiring authority documentation. The bureau secure. The inmate became alert and either and the final investigative report. consulted with the bureau in an adequate and reviewed the training materials fell or was knocked off the gurney, striking The bureau conferred with the timely manner regarding the investigative and found them to be adequate his head on a fence and cement walkway. staff attorney and hiring findings. The staff attorney consulted with to prevent re-occurrence. The inmate became uncooperative. Several authority. The bureau raised the bureau in an adequate and timely manner staff were involved in subduing the inmate concerns about administrative during the disciplinary process. The overall and put him back on the gurney with the use issues involving spit mask quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was of pepper spray, physical force, and placement and decontamination adequate. additional restraints. The inmate received a documentation. The bureau bloody nose, abrasions, and bruises. The reviewed training material that inmate could not later recall what happened. resulted from the incident. Staff failed to properly document the inmate’s decontamination and details regarding the placement of a spit mask on BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 95 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES the inmate. Case No. 06-0155 (North Region) The bureau discussed The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation During the course of the investigative strategies with the with the bureau during the investigation was investigation, the inmates special agent and reviewed adequate. The investigation was timely and provided inconsistent and On April 28, 2005, custody staff discovered reports. adequate. The hiring authority consulted with contradictory statements to the several items of contraband including a DVD the bureau in an adequate and timely manner investigator. Overall, they denied player and narcotics hidden inside an regarding the investigative findings. There personally witnessing staff inmate’s television. As a result of the was insufficient evidence of misconduct to engaging in misconduct and discovery, a facility-wide search was proceed against the officers, and the bureau maintained that their statements conducted in which two additional concurred with the hiring authority’s were based on hearsay from other televisions were found to contain portable findings. As a result of the search, illicit items unknown inmates. The inmates’ DVD players, numerous DVD movies, were confiscated thereby enhancing the lack of cooperation hindered the Nintendo video games, remote controls, and safety and security of the institution, however investigation and no independent other contraband. Inmates claimed several as a consequence, the individuals responsible evidence of misconduct was officers routinely brought in contraband and for smuggling them into the institution were found to sustain the allegations. delivered it to purported inmate gang placed on notice of the discovery. members Case No. 06-0156 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed all of the The internal affairs investigation and The allegation of willful case reports. The bureau consultation with the bureau was timely and disobedience was not sustained. consulted with the assigned adequate. The hiring authority adequately The allegation of inexcusable It is alleged that on May 1, 2005, an officer special agent regarding the consulted with the bureau regarding the neglect of duty was sustained, provided confidential information about an investigative plan and regularly investigative findings and proposed penalty based on the officer’s failure to inmate to persons outside the institution. received updates on the progress. in a timely fashion. Later, it was learned that report inappropriate contacts. The bureau reviewed the entire the original complainant retracted her claims The subject stipulated to a investigation and final report. and admitted that part of her initial report settlement and received a letter of The bureau conferred with the was false. Nevertheless, even if the officer instruction. The officer also was employee relations officer and did not divulge inmate information, he required to obtain additional the hiring authority on the exercised poor judgment in approaching the training in the area of off-duty proposed disciplinary action. The inmate without a legitimate reason. He also contacts with families of inmates bureau attended the Skelly failed to report a contact that could have or persons requesting hearing and as a result consulted been interpreted as soliciting harm to an information about inmates. further with the hiring authority inmate; the officer conceded he should have regarding a settlement of the reported it. The hiring authority adequately case. consulted with the bureau in a timely manner regarding the settlement, with which the bureau concurred. The employee relations officer adequately consulted with the bureau BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 96 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES during the disciplinary process in a timely manner. Case No. 06- 0157 (North Region) The bureau attended interviews, The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority did not reviewed the reports, and with the bureau during the investigation was sustain any allegations in the case; assessed the case file. The bureau adequate. In the bureau’s review of the thus, no disciplinary action was In May 2005, a federal judge received a letter met with the institution staff and report and monitoring of the interviews imposed by the department. with an attachment from an inmate. The the hiring authority and was conducted by the special agent working the attachment was allegedly a flyer from the consulted regarding the case, it was concluded that he conducted a union, signed by the union’s chapter investigation and findings. through and professional investigation of the president. It purportedly urged enforcement allegations. The decision not to sustain any of the code of silence concerning an incident allegations in the case was supported by the that occurred in the administrative evidence. segregation unit. The final paragraph of the flyer was entitled “rumor control.” The inmate’s letter addressed “a recent rumor” of an inmate being choked to death while held in the administrative segregation unit. The flyer admonished staff not to be involved in the spreading of these rumors. Case No. 06-0158 (South Region) The bureau monitored the case The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation No charges were sustained throughout the investigation, with the bureau improved during the against the subject officer. Hence, which included attending the investigation and became adequate; initially disciplinary action was not An inmate alleged that on May 1, 2005, his interview of the complaining there was an issue with the special agent warranted. head was shoved into a wall, he was taken to witness and evaluating the responding to communications. The the ground, and officers intentionally placed adequacy of the final report. investigation was adequate, but untimely. The their knees against areas of his body that had initial request for an investigation was not been previously injured. submitted for over 60 days and there were many delays where work was not performed. The investigation was not provided to the hiring authority until about two weeks before the statute of limitations expired. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's findings. The hiring authority failed to consult with the bureau once it received the report. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 97 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0159 (North Region) The bureau reviewed the case The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The employee resigned prior to summary and met with the with the bureau during the investigation was receiving disciplinary action. The special agent. adequate. The investigation was timely. The investigation is documented in On May 3, 2005, a physician allegedly hiring authority consulted with the bureau in the physician’s employment file, neglected to treat a patient with lacerations in an adequate and timely manner. The for use if she should seek a timely manner. On June 1, 2005, the physician refused to be interviewed, and employment with the department physician allegedly cancelled a medical clinic could not be compelled to do so because she in the future. appointment without authorization. On June no longer works for the department. 2, 2005, the physician allegedly abandoned her post without authorization. Case No. 06-0160 (South Region) The bureau held an initial case The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority found there conference with the Office of with the bureau during the investigation was was insufficient evidence to Internal Affairs and reviewed the inadequate. The investigation was timely in sustain any allegations in this On May 3, 2005, an outside law enforcement final investigative report prior to that it was submitted to the hiring authority case. A key witness identified by agency notified the department that an submitting it to the hiring before the statute of limitations expired. the complainant failed to officer had been arrested and that during the authority. However, seven months elapsed before corroborate anything the course of the arrest, the officer disclosed that substantive work was initiated on this case. complainant alleged. Further, the a female parolee was having a sexual The bureau concurred with the hiring female parolee denied any relationship with two parole agents. authority’s findings. The hiring authority improprieties by the agents. consulted with the bureau in an adequate and timely manner regarding the investigative findings. Consultation with the hiring authority was timely. Case No. 06-0161 (South Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority decided that special agent numerous times with the bureau during the investigation was there was insufficient evidence to during the investigation. The adequate. The investigation was timely and sustain the allegations against the On May 3, 2005, an officer reported bureau reviewed the final adequate. The bureau concurred with the officer; thus, disciplinary action overhearing another officer allegedly passing investigative report. The bureau hiring authority’s findings. The hiring was not warranted. confidential information regarding one participated in discussions with authority consulted with the bureau in an inmate to another inmate. It was later alleged the hiring authority. adequate and timely manner regarding the the confidential information released may investigative findings. The employee relations have made one of the inmates the target of a officer adequately and consulted with the planned assault. bureau during the disciplinary process. The overall quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was adequate. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 98 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0162 (North Region) The bureau met with the The bureau did not begin monitoring this The subject retired from the employee relations officer and case until the disciplinary phase, so there was department prior to disciplinary staff attorney regarding case no consultation during the investigation. The action being taken. On May 6, 2005, a registered nurse failed to status. bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s take vital signs of an inmate who presented findings. The hiring authority consulted with with acute pain. the bureau in an adequate and timely manner regarding the investigative findings. Case No. 06-0163 (North Region) The bureau attended the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority did not interviews, reviewed the reports, with the bureau during the investigation was sustain any allegations and the and assessed the case file. The adequate. The investigation was timely and decision was supported by the The review of an incident log following a bureau met with the institution adequate. The hiring authority consulted with evidence from the investigation. reported use-of-force incident on May 6 staff and the hiring authority and the bureau in an adequate and timely manner Hence, disciplinary action was 2005, raised questions about a lieutenant who consulted regarding the regarding the investigative findings, which not initiated. had checked the “no force observed” box on investigation and findings. were supported by the evidence. a related form. Case No. 06-0164 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the case file The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject physician resigned, and conferred with the assigned with the bureau during the investigation was and his resignation was accepted investigator. The bureau then adequate. The investigation was timely and under unfavorable circumstances. On May 7, 2005, an inmate died after reviewed the result of the adequate. Due to the death of the presenting at a clinic several hours earlier independent medical review and pathologist, receipt of the autopsy report was with extremely elevated blood sugar, the autopsy report. The bureau delayed in this case. Independent medical hypotension, tachycardia and complaints of conferred with the assigned review was requested and an evaluation was profound weakness. These were symptoms special agent prior to the subject issued. The death review appeared thorough of a significant medical problem, and the interview. The bureau reviewed and was extremely critical of the subject treating physician was accused of providing the subject’s resignation letter physician, rating his treatment as grossly inadequate care as well as inadequate and the hiring authority’s below the standard of care in several subsequent monitoring of the patient’s acceptance of the resignation respects. The employee resigned prior to condition. under unfavorable circumstances. being interviewed in connection with the investigation, and before the matter was referred to the hiring authority. Case No. 06-0165 (Central Region) The bureau conferred with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority determined special agent on the investigation with the bureau during the investigation was not to sustain the allegation of plan. The bureau reviewed inadequate. The investigation was untimely misconduct; thus, disciplinary An inmate alleged an officer created a numerous interview tapes and the and inadequate. The investigation was rushed action was not warranted. negative work environment in the BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 99 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES administrative segregation unit from May 11 complainant inmate’s appeal. The to completion in order to avoid violating the to July 11, 2005. This included being bureau reviewed the draft statute of limitations. Given the inadequacies disrespectful to both staff and inmates; investigation reports and of the investigation, the bureau reluctantly intercepting inmate complaints and discussed them with the special concurred with the hiring authority’s preventing their proper processing; and agent. The bureau attended findings. The hiring authority adequately intimidation and threats of retaliation. It also numerous witness interviews and consulted with the bureau regarding the was alleged the officer intimidated inmates made suggestions for improving investigative findings in a timely manner. The from filing complaints. A second officer was interview and investigative employee relations officer adequately alleged to be involved in inappropriate techniques. The bureau conferred consulted with the bureau during the activities resulting in a different inmate being with the hiring authority about disciplinary process in a timely manner. The transferred to another institution shortly the sufficiency of the overall quality of the staff attorney’s before his parole. investigation and evidence to advocacy was adequate. sustain the allegations. The bureau recommended that allegations raised during an interview against a second officer be submitted to the hiring authority. Case No. 06-0166 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the statute The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject was initially of limitations and the allegations. with the bureau during the investigation was dismissed, but the penalty was The bureau conferred with the inadequate. The special agent failed to reduced pursuant to a settlement It is alleged the subject took time off for special agent regarding the interview a material witness. The special agreement to a suspension military leave for pay under false pretenses. investigative plan. The bureau agent did not respond to the bureau’s without pay for 50 working days. attended the subject interview requests for consultation or information in a and suggested numerous timely manner. The bureau concurred with questions for clarification. The the hiring authority’s findings. The hiring bureau conferred with the authority consulted with the bureau in an employee relations officer, hiring adequate and timely manner regarding the authority, staff attorney, and the investigative findings. The penalty selected institution services unit regarding by the hiring authority was appropriate. The the proposed disciplinary action. hiring authority consulted with the bureau in The bureau reviewed and an adequate and timely manner regarding the commented on the investigative penalty and settlement. The bureau report. The bureau attended the reluctantly concurred with the settlement Skelly hearing and reviewed the between the hiring authority and employee. Skelly officer’s recommendation. The employee relations officer did not The bureau conferred with the consult with the bureau in an adequate or staff attorney regarding a timely manner during the disciplinary BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 100 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES negotiated settlement agreement. process. The overall quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was inadequate. Case No. 06-0167 (Central Region) The bureau discussed the case The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject received corrective with the Office of Internal with the bureau during the investigation was counseling relative to this Affairs’ management. The bureau adequate. The investigation was timely and incident. The hiring authority also A warden is alleged to have improperly obtained and reviewed all related adequate. The bureau concurred with the provided training for all wardens interfered with an ongoing investigation. On documents and reports. The hiring authority’s findings. The hiring to ensure the incident will not May 17, 2005, the warden’s directives bureau consulted with the special authority consulted with the bureau in an reoccur. Specifically, the resulted in the removal of surveillance agent concerning the interviews adequate and timely manner regarding the department gave instruction equipment at the institution, thus and reviewed the tapes of those investigative findings and action. The penalty regarding the appropriate compromising a covert investigation into interviews. The bureau reviewed selected by the hiring authority was communication process between alleged sexual misconduct by a non-sworn the final investigative report. The appropriate. The hiring authority consulted wardens and the Office of staff member. bureau consulted with the staff with the bureau in an adequate and timely Internal Affairs. attorney and the hiring authority. manner regarding the penalty. The staff The bureau monitored attorney consulted with the bureau in an subsequent training provided to adequate and timely manner during the wardens to ensure future disciplinary process. The overall quality of investigations are not similarly the staff attorney’s advocacy was adequate. compromised. Case No. 06-0168 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the request The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation Pursuant to a stipulated for investigation with the Office with the bureau during the investigation was agreement resolving this matter, of Internal Affairs and the adequate. The investigation was timely and the subject received a five percent It was alleged that on May 18, 2005 an officer documents contained in the adequate. The bureau concurred with the salary reduction for 12 months. battered another officer at an institution investigative file. The bureau hiring authority’s findings. The hiring cafeteria. conferred with the assigned authority consulted with the bureau in an special agent and suggested an adequate and timely manner regarding the investigative approach. In light of investigative findings. The penalty selected an unusual similarity between by the hiring authority was appropriate. The memoranda submitted by two hiring authority consulted with the bureau in witnesses, the bureau proposed an adequate and timely manner regarding the questions for those witnesses. penalty. The staff attorney consulted with the The bureau reviewed the bureau in an adequate and timely manner progress of the investigation, during the disciplinary process. The overall audio tapes of investigative quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was interviews and the final adequate. The bureau concurred with the investigative report. stipulation in this case. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 101 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0169 (South Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority sustained the Office of Internal Affairs with the bureau during the investigation was allegations. No penalty was throughout the investigation and adequate. The investigation was timely but assessed because the officer had On May 18, 2005, an officer was accused of reviewed the final report before inadequate because the Office of Internal resigned from state service. sexual relations with a neighbor who was submission to the hiring Affairs did not obtain a complete trial under 18 years old. The criminal case was authority. The bureau consulted transcript because of financial resource investigated by a local sheriff's department. with the hiring authority and the issues. However, the hiring authority, staff At the trial, the officer was acquitted of some staff attorney regarding the attorney and bureau felt it necessary to charges, and the jury was unable to reach a sufficiency of the investigation. obtain the transcript in order to complete the verdict on the remaining charges. The judge The bureau recommended that a investigation. The transcript was ultimately presiding at the time of the trial dismissed letter be included in the subject’s obtained by the department. The bureau the remaining counts. The subject resigned file indicating that he resigned concurred with the hiring authority's during this investigation. while under investigation. When findings. The hiring authority consulted with the bureau learned that the hiring the bureau in an adequate and timely manner authority invited the subject to regarding the investigative findings. The reapply, the bureau brought this bureau disagreed with the warden inviting to the attention of department the subject to reapply for employment with management; the deputy director the department. then advised the subject that the prior letter did not represent the department's position and that he was ineligible for reinstatement. Case No. 06-0170 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority determined investigative file and discussed with the bureau during the investigation was that insufficient evidence existed the investigative plan with the adequate. The investigation was timely and to sustain the allegations against An inmate alleged that on May 22, 2005, a assigned special agent. The adequate. The bureau concurred with the the subjects. The inmate admitted sergeant and lieutenant verbally abused him, bureau then monitored the hiring authority’s findings. The hiring to provoking the initial use of pushed him into a door, and repeatedly investigation, reviewed the draft authority consulted with the bureau in an force, and other evidence tended punched him in the ribs, back and kidneys. final report, and consulted with adequate and timely manner regarding the to corroborate the subjects’ the hiring authority and staff investigative findings. It was the position of version of facts. The inmate did attorney prior to the hiring the bureau that the evidence was insufficient not claim that he had been authority’s decision. to support the allegations. The staff attorney assaulted when he was examined consulted with the bureau in a timely and by medical staff, or during the adequate manner during the disciplinary processing of disciplinary action process. The overall quality of the staff against the inmate. Department attorney’s advocacy was adequate. records refuted the inmate’s claim he submitted an inmate appeal BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 102 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES form regarding this alleged assault. Case No. 06-0171 (South Region) The bureau devoted substantial Except for a file review, contacting the The investigation performed did time to the monitoring of the arresting agency and minimal preliminary not support the imposition of case. The bureau expressed work, the assigned special agent did no other disciplinary action. A parolee-at-large was arrested while driving concern that the Office of work for about two months. Then, the a 2003 Mercedes Benz 500SL on May 22, Internal Affairs failed to pursue special agent and another special agent 2005. The registered owner of the car was a an investigation into the personal conducted a completely inadequate interview parole agent. The parolee-at-large and his finances of the parole agent who of the parolee that lasted less than 10 female passenger told the arresting officer was the subject of the minutes, with one agent claiming to have that he was supposed to get rid of the vehicle investigation. Initially, the spent six hours related to preparing for the so an insurance claim could be filed. The department would not permit the interview. Little meaningful work was vehicle had not been reported stolen by the special agent to pursue performed on the case before the special time of the car stop. information concerning the agent was taken off the case on November subject's financial background 30, 2005. No further work was completed and the vehicle. The bureau until after a new special agent was assigned elevated the matter to the Office on January 13, 2006. Therefore, the new of Internal Affairs headquarters special agent assigned to the case was not and to the assistant chief counsel able to complete the investigation until a few in charge of the staff attorneys. days before the statute of limitations expired. After a discussion of the issues Unlike the first special agent, the new special and law, the special agent was agent engaged in meaningful consultations given direction to pursue the with the bureau. Once the new special agent investigation recommended by was authorized to investigate the financial the bureau. background of the subject, he did so diligently. Consultation with the hiring authority and the staff attorney assigned from headquarters was adequate and helpful. Case No. 06-0172 (North Region) The bureau met with the regional The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation There was insufficient evidence administrator and other top with the bureau during the investigation was to support the allegations, thus, managers for the division of adequate. The investigation was timely and no disciplinary action was On May 24, 2005, a parolee reported that a parole regarding the apparent adequate. The bureau concurred with the appropriate. However, the parole parole agent had engaged in inappropriate lack of documentation and hiring authority's findings. The hiring agent resigned prior to the sexual relationships with other parolees on process in responding to citizen authority adequately consulted with the completion of the investigation. his caseload and may have impregnated one complaints regarding parole agent bureau regarding the investigative findings. The case was not referred to the of them. She also claimed she and other misconduct. The regional district attorney’s office. parolees were fearful of retaliation if they BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 103 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES came forward with this information. administrator agreed to address this issue at the next regional meeting with the parole agents and their supervisors. Case No. 06-0173 (South Region) The bureau actively monitored The investigating special agent’s consultation The hiring authority did not the case throughout the time it and investigation were adequate. sustain the allegation that the was open. This monitoring Consultation with the hiring authority was subject wrongfully attempted to It is alleged that on May 25, 2005, a physician activity included consultations, adequate. However, the bureau disagreed prevent the chart entry. Charges in a management position told a supervising reviewing investigative strategy with the hiring authority’s position that there relating to the other conduct registered nurse not to allow her staff to add and attending interviews. The was no attempt to wrongfully prohibit the were sustained. The hiring to an inmate’s chart that he had requested to bureau participated in an chart notation. The bureau did agree that the authority entered into an see a psychologist. Although not entered into executive review regarding its case should be settled with an agreement that agreement with the subject that the chart, arrangements were made for the disagreement with the hiring the subject leave state service so long as he resulted in the subject leaving inmate to see a psychologist as requested, but authority regarding whether a did not return. Consultation with the staff state employment and agreeing to unfortunately, he committed suicide before specific allegation should be attorney was not adequate. not seek re-employment with the the appointment. The request was added to sustained. department. Local law the chart as a late entry. It is also alleged that enforcement conducted a on June 2, 2005, the physician used his upper criminal investigation, but the chest to bump into a psychiatric technician, district attorney’s office did not struck the technician with his hand, called the file criminal charges against the technician stupid and threatened him by subject. using profanity. Case No. 06-0174 (North Region) The bureau reviewed initial case The hiring authority did not consult The department determined that summary and supporting adequately with the bureau. The bureau was additional investigation was not documentation. However, the not updated or consulted once the Office of necessary. The case was handled On May 25, 2005, an inmate allegedly rubbed Office of Internal Affairs Internal Affairs closed the investigation and as a training issue and the officer against an officer’s chest area. When he again determined that the case should returned it to the hiring authority to take was issued a letter of instruction. moved toward the officer, she allegedly be sent back to the hiring direct action. Although it was not consulted, raised her left arm in a forward motion and authority for direct action, and the bureau concurred that the penalty pushed the inmate’s shoulder to deflect the bureau was no longer appeared to be appropriate. Consultation was further physical contact. It was also alleged updated. not timely. that the officer failed to report this incident. Case No. 06-0175 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject was served with investigative file, conferred with with the bureau during the investigation was notice of disciplinary action the special agent regarding his adequate. The investigation was timely and imposing the penalty of a letter of On May 27, 2005, a sergeant ordered staff to investigative plan, monitored the adequate. The bureau concurred with the reprimand. The subject did not BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 104 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES assist him in entering the cell of an inmate to investigation, attended the hiring authority’s findings. The hiring request a Skelly hearing or appeal retrieve a food tray. It is alleged that the subject interview, and reviewed authority adequately consulted with the the discipline imposed. sergeant did not observe proper procedures, the final report. The bureau also bureau in a timely manner. The penalty used unnecessary force, and did not consulted with the employee selected by the hiring authority was accurately report the use of force. relations officer and hiring appropriate. The staff attorney consulted authority regarding discipline with the bureau in a timely and adequate prior to findings being made, and manner during the disciplinary process. The reviewed documents relating to overall quality of the staff attorney’s the discipline imposed. advocacy was adequate. Case No. 06-0176 (Central Region) This matter was referred to the The investigation into this incident was Corrective training was imposed institution from the central intake incomplete, untimely and not objective. The as to one of the officers. No panel for direct action. The bureau did not concur with the hiring action was taken on the It is alleged that on May 31, 2005, two bureau met with the employee authority’s findings. The penalty selected by allegations as to the remaining officers used unnecessary force on an inmate. relations officer, institution the hiring authority was inappropriate. three subjects. It is also alleged that a sergeant and services unit staff, the use-of- Although the evidence indicated a basis to lieutenant failed to properly supervise the force analyst and the facility take adverse or corrective action against all officers and failed to document the use of captain to clarify issues pertaining subjects, the hiring authority only took action force on the inmate. to bureau consultation on direct as to one of the subjects. The hiring action cases. The bureau authority did not adequately consult with the reviewed the use-of-force bureau. The bureau was not consulted in a committee reports. A meeting timely manner as to appropriate penalties. was held to discuss staff This discussion took place after the decision misconduct identified by the first was made and corrective action had already and second level review. Despite been taken. The employee relations officer meeting with staff, the institution did not consult adequately with the bureau as would not reconsider its response consultation did not take place as to several to the conduct. The bureau key issues and decisions. Consultation with considered seeking executive the staff attorney was not timely. The overall review, but did not because quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was action had already been taken. inadequate. The bureau was assured that if the staff members commit the same infraction within a one year time period, progressive discipline will be taken. Case No. 06-0177 (South Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The allegations for sexual assault BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 105 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Office of Internal Affairs with the bureau during the investigation was and battery against the youth In May 2005 a youth counselor allegedly throughout the investigation and adequate. The investigation was timely. counselor were not sustained. sexually assaulted a minor ward. The reviewed the final report as to the Additionally it became apparent that the Therefore, no disciplinary action institution did not report this information to sexual assault and battery policies and procedures for reporting child was imposed. The superintendent outside authorities as required by law. It was allegations. The bureau consulted abuse were unclear to the institution’s staff. implemented a training plan also alleged that the same youth counselor hit with the hiring authority and the Further, a nurse refused to provide the regarding the policies and another ward in the face. Both allegations employee discipline unit special agent with the victim ward’s medical procedures related to reporting were allegedly reported in writing and regarding the sufficiency of the records, but later provided the information in child abuse. provided to supervisors up the chain of investigation, the charges to be the interview. The hiring authority did command up to the major. The sustained and penalties to be consult in a timely and adequately manner superintendent is also alleged to have imposed. The bureau raised with the bureau regarding the investigative knowledge of the allegations. Additionally, a concerns that no investigation findings and the bureau concurred with the conversation between wards suggesting occurred into the failure to findings regarding the subject youth battery may have occurred was reported by investigate the reported counselor. The employee discipline unit staff to supervisors. An investigation into allegations. The bureau consulted with the bureau in a timely and these allegations was not initiated by questioned the hiring authority adequate manner. institution staff. about its decision not to make subjects of the persons who allegedly failed to report. Case No. 06-0178 (Central Region) The bureau repeatedly reminded The investigation of this matter was delayed. Before interviews finally the Office of Internal Affairs of According to the Office of Internal Affairs, commenced, the complaining the need to commence the its caseload prevented this matter from being witness had become On June 2, 2005, an inmate alleged that on investigation into this matter and investigated while the allegations were fresh. uncooperative. Accordingly, the 20 to 30 occasions since June 2004, an officer attempted to have the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation hiring authority found that there paid him for information regarding investigation expedited. The with the bureau during the investigation was was insufficient evidence to contraband, drug trafficking, and security bureau conferred with the adequate. The investigation was untimely and support a disciplinary action issues by giving the inmate canteen ducats assigned special agent regarding inadequate. The bureau concurred with the against the officer. and tobacco confiscated from other inmates. the interview of the complaining hiring authority’s findings. The hiring witness and investigative plan, authority consulted with the bureau in an monitored the progress of the adequate and timely manner regarding the investigation, and reviewed the investigative findings. The staff attorney final report. The bureau adequately consulted with the bureau during conferred with the assigned staff the disciplinary process. Consultation with attorney and the employee the staff attorney was timely. The overall relations officer from the quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was institution regarding the adequate. allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 106 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0179 (Central Region) The bureau obtained underlying The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority sustained an criminal reports and reviewed the with the bureau during the investigation was allegation of discourteous law enforcement investigation, adequate. The investigation was timely and treatment of a member of the An officer was accused by his ex-wife’s including 911 tapes. The bureau adequate. The bureau concurred with the public and issued the officer a boyfriend of numerous incidents of verbal consulted with the assigned hiring authority’s findings. The hiring letter of reprimand. and physical abuse toward him. In the last special agent regularly and authority consulted with the bureau in an incident, on June 3, 2005, the boyfriend suggested additional avenues of adequate and timely manner regarding the called law enforcement and reported that the investigation which were pursued investigative findings and penalty. The officer failed to leave the ex-wife’s house and by the agent. The final penalty selected by the hiring authority was had pushed him. Law enforcement investigative report was reviewed appropriate. The employee relations officer conducted an investigation which did not by the bureau and discussed with adequately consulted with the bureau during result in any criminal charges being filed. the department. The bureau the disciplinary process in a timely manner. consulted with the hiring The overall quality of the staff attorney’s authority and the employee advocacy was adequate. relations officer regarding decisions on the allegations and penalty. Case No. 06-0180 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation Upon careful review of the investigative file of this matter with the bureau during the investigation was investigation, it was determined and consulted with the special adequate. The investigation was timely and that no independent witness It was alleged that on June 3, 2005 a sergeant agent regarding his investigative adequate. The hiring authority adequately directly observed the first alleged and an officer forcefully pulled the inmate’s plan, then monitored the ensuing consulted with the bureau regarding the use of force. No credible hands from a bench, wrestled the inmate to investigation. The bureau investigative findings in a timely manner. The evidence was found in support of the ground and handcuffed him, then lifted attended one of the subject bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s the second alleged use of force. the inmate up and began escorting him to the interviews and reviewed the finding that the investigation did not produce One officer was determined not housing unit with the assistance of a second audio tape of the interview of a sufficient evidence to support any to have been involved in any officer. It was alleged after the inmate kicked critical witness. The bureau disciplinary action. The staff attorney alleged use of force. Letters of the second officer, the sergeant and the other reviewed the draft final report adequately consulted in a timely fashion with instruction were issued to the officer forcefully took the inmate to the prior to submission and the bureau during the disciplinary process. other two subjects dealing with ground, held the inmate’s face to the ground, consulted with the hiring The overall quality of the staff attorney’s the physical control techniques turned the inmate’s head and rubbed the authority and reviewed the advocacy was adequate. they employed. inmate’s face on the asphalt. It was further warden’s findings in this case. alleged that the sergeant and the first officer falsified documentation by not reporting the initial use of force on the inmate. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 107 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0181 (Central Region) The bureau previously monitored The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation No allegations were sustained the criminal investigation of this with the bureau during the investigation was against any of the subject officers matter which resulted in no adequate. The investigation was timely and and no disciplinary action was An inmate alleged that on June 7, 2005, he referral to the district attorney’s adequate. The hiring authority consulted with taken. There were no arrived back at the institution from a medical office. The bureau consulted the bureau in an adequate and timely manner corroborating injuries to the appointment and the transporting officers regularly with the assigned agent, regarding the investigative findings. The event as described by the inmate. physically assaulted him. One of the officers read all reports, reviewed all bureau concurred with the decision not to It was reported that on the day of allegedly slammed the inmate’s head against interviews and the final report. sustain allegations in large part due to a the transport the inmate made the institution van several times. An officer The bureau conferenced with the memo authored on the day of the incident efforts to extort favorable allegedly punched the inmate in the ribs, employee relations office and the that documented threats by the inmate to treatment from the officers under while another officer allegedly twisted the hiring authority. The bureau also make false claims against the officers, and the a threat of filing a false claim inmate’s thumb back. A medical report was reviewed an additional report complete absence of any corroborating against them. The minor injury to conducted of the inmate. The inmate had a written by an uninvolved staff evidence of the inmate’s claims. The his mouth was not observed until minor injury to the inside of his mouth. The member on the day of the employee relations officer adequately some time after the transport and inmate alleged that the officers believed that incident wherein it is reported consulted with the bureau during the could have easily been self- they had been disrespected during the that this inmate was going to disciplinary process. Consultation with the induced. transport. make false claims against officers. employee relations officer was timely. The overall quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was adequate. Case No. 06-0182 (Central Region) The bureau checked the accuracy The investigation was timely, thorough, The hiring authority determined of the allegations and the statute complete and objective. The Office of that the evidence uncovered by of limitations date. The bureau Internal Affairs’ consultation with the bureau the administrative investigation On June 9, 2005, staff discovered contraband met with the special agent and during the investigation was adequate. Many was insufficient to sustain any in an inmate’s cell. The inmate alleged that a attended the subject interview. of the bureau’s suggestions were allegation of misconduct made sworn staff member gave him the The bureau made suggestions incorporated by the special agent. The against the subject. Therefore, contraband. The inmate further alleged that regarding interrogation of the bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s disciplinary action was not the sworn staff member asked him to use a subject and the final investigation findings. The hiring authority consulted with warranted. contraband razor on another inmate. No report, which were incorporated. the bureau in an adequate and timely manner assault took place with the razor. The bureau reviewed and regarding the investigative findings. The commented upon the final employee relations officer adequately administrative investigation consulted with the bureau during the report. The bureau conferred disciplinary process. Consultation with the with the employee relations employee relations officer was timely. The officer and reviewed the draft overall quality of the staff attorney’s review of investigation, advocacy was adequate. justification of penalty and a BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 108 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES closure memo. Case No. 06-0183 (South Region) The bureau learned about this The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject employee simply incident from the department’s with the bureau during the investigation was ceased reporting for work and daily reports. The bureau adequate. The investigation was timely and was terminated for being absent On June 11, 2005, an officer who had just contacted the institution and adequate. The employee was terminated for without leave prior to completion completed his count asked another officer to initiated monitoring of the case. being absent without leave prior to the of the investigation. However, check his count slip for mistakes. After The bureau remained in contact completion of the investigation; however, the the investigation was completed checking the slip, the second officer with the special agent during the investigation was completed. The hiring and the hiring authority sustained informed the first officer that the count slip initial review of the files and authority decided the matter to insure a the allegations. No penalty was was off by one inmate and that he had not monitored witness interviews. record of the completed investigation was assessed or served because the accounted for an inmate in a specific cell. The bureau discussed with the included in the personnel file. The bureau employee was separated from The first officer replied that there was no employee relations officer the concurred with the hiring authority’s action state service. inmate in that cell. The second officer need to establish a record of a and findings. The hiring authority consulted immediately went to the cell and observed timely decision in the event that with the bureau in an adequate and timely the single-celled inmate hanging from a sheet the officer attempted to seek manner regarding the investigative findings. wrapped around his neck. The second reinstatement from his absence officer notified central control that assistance without leave dismissal. The was needed. The inmate was cut down and bureau recommended that the transported to central health where he was hiring authority make findings pronounced dead. before the statute of limitations lapsed and place the related documents in the employee’s file. Case No. 06-0184 (Central Region) The bureau obtained and The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation No allegations of excessive force reviewed all initial reports. The with the bureau during the investigation was or code of silence were sustained bureau conferred with the adequate. The investigative process was against any of the subjects. The On June 13, 2005, an inmate alleged that he assigned special agent throughout delayed at multiple junctures. The institution subject officer who was directly received a head injury as a result of excessive the investigation. The bureau did not request an investigation until almost involved with the inmate received force. The inmate claimed the subject officer attended and reviewed tapes of three months after the incident occurred and a letter of instruction for failing was retaliating for a prior verbal dispute interviews. The bureau conferred was discovered. The central intake panel to utilize his personal alarm and between them where they called each other with the staff attorney and opened a case 15 days after the request. The for attempting to counsel the names. The officer denied calling the inmate reviewed the final internal affairs special agent did not get the case to start the inmate in an unsafe situation any names, but did report attempting to report. The bureau consulted criminal investigation until one month later. without additional officers counsel the inmate for a racial comment with the hiring authority, The criminal investigation took providing support. The made in the unit. The officer indicated that employee relations officer, and approximately seven months and was not institution is also formulating the inmate became combative, refused to be staff attorney regarding decisions completed until May 9, 2006. Although the training for circumstances where handcuffed and was pepper sprayed. The on the allegations. administrative investigation began the next the need exists to counsel inmate claimed he was struck in the head by BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 109 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES the subject officer, while other officers day and concluded on June 6, only 10 days inmates in a safe manner for staff covered both ends of the corridor. Staff remained before the statute of limitations and the inmate. reports did not account for the injury. expired. The hiring authority took action three days before the end of the statutory period. The bureau considers this to be untimely. The hiring authority adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the investigative findings in a timely manner to avoid passing the statute date. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s findings. Case No. 06-0185 (Central Region) The bureau consulted with the The investigative services unit’s consultation No allegations were sustained senior special agent assigned to with the bureau during the investigation was against the subject. The oversee the case. The case was adequate. The investigation was adequate in circumstances were such that the On June 13, 2005, an uncuffed inmate sent back to the investigative scope and final outcome, but it took employee may have witnessed the became belligerent and resistant while being services unit at the institution to approximately eight months to complete officer in the process of keeping escorted. After utilizing pepper spray to complete the investigation; the what should have been a straightforward the inmate from reaching for a subdue the inmate who had run into a bureau conferred with the unit case. The institution experienced repeated weapon, or trying to get back to hospital clinic, an employee who witnessed supervisor and assigned turnover in the investigative services unit his feet. There was no the event alleged that the officer kicked the investigator. The bureau during that time frame and this case was corresponding injury to the inmate’s arms while he was on the ground. continually urged the staff to reassigned at least three times. The bureau inmate and the inmate did not None of the officers involved reported that complete the investigation. The continually urged the staff to complete the complain that excessive force was use of force. bureau conferenced with the investigation within the statute of limitations used. The institution did institute assigned staff attorney assigned. out of fairness to all involved. The bureau training regarding the handling of The bureau reviewed the final concurred with the hiring authority’s findings inmates under these report on the incident and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain circumstances, and dangers of attended the use-of-force review an excessive force allegation. The hiring escorting an inmate uncuffed, committee meeting on the case. authority consulted with the bureau in an which led to this situation. The bureau suggested adequate and timely manner regarding the clarification in reports be investigative findings. The staff attorney obtained from one of the adequately consulted with the bureau during involved officers; the investigator the disciplinary process. Consultation with executed the suggestion. The the staff attorney was timely. The overall bureau consulted with the hiring quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was authority regarding the adequate. appropriate decision on the case. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 110 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0186 (Central Region) The bureau conferred with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject resigned before any assigned special agent. The with the bureau during the investigation was disciplinary action notice was bureau obtained and reviewed adequate. The investigation was timely and served by the department. The On June 14, 2005, a non-sworn department police reports from both adequate. The employee resigned pending a circumstances of the employee’s employee’s daughter called the police to incidents. The bureau contacted disciplinary action prior to the hiring resignation were noted in her report her mother possessed the district attorney’s office authority making a decision related to the personnel file. The district methamphetamine for the second time. A supervisor and the sheriff’s case. attorney’s office filed criminal search of the residence produced narcotics. department regarding the case. charges, but subsequently The subject waived Miranda and admitted The criminal case was monitored dismissed the case when the use, but denied possession of drugs in the until the district attorney’s office daughter became uncooperative. house, claiming her daughter was setting her dismissed the case. The bureau up. A drug test confirmed methamphetamine reviewed the final internal affairs in the subject’s system. She was arrested. report and conferenced with hiring authority. The bureau conferred with the employee relations officer to insure the personnel file appropriately noted the circumstances of the resignation. Case No. 06-0187 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the case file The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority found and conferred with the special with the bureau during the investigation was insufficient evidence was agent regarding the investigative adequate. The investigation was timely and developed to sustain any On June 18, 2005, a sergeant and an officer plan. The bureau representative adequate. The hiring authority consulted with disciplinary action against the were accused by an inmate of humiliating the attended several key witness the bureau in an adequate and timely manner subjects. inmate by using obscene language, forcing interviews and the interview of regarding the investigative findings and the inmate to assume humiliating positions, one of the subjects. The bureau concurred with the findings. The staff sexually abusing the inmate by touching his then reviewed the final report of attorney adequately consulted with the genitals, and battering the inmate by shoving investigation and consulted with bureau during the disciplinary process in a his head into a wall and punching him in the the hiring authority and staff timely manner. The overall quality of the ribs and face. attorney. The bureau reviewed staff attorney’s advocacy was adequate. documents reflecting the hiring authority’s findings. Case No. 06-0188 (South Region) The bureau monitored the The consultations engaged in by the assigned The investigation resulted in two investigation from its inception. special agent were timely and adequate. officers receiving discipline for The bureau monitoring activity During the investigation, the special agent dereliction of duty in failing to On June 18, 2005, a patient, who had been consisted primarily of case determined there were a myriad of problems properly observe their assigned BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 111 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial, conferences with the assigned with custody procedures such as officers areas of responsibility for escaped from a Department of Mental special agent, reviewing and having uncontrolled access and use of cell possible escapes. Both received a Health hospital. The perimeter and tower strategizing about the progress of phones and reading materials while on duty. 10 percent salary reduction for 13 security officers for the hospital were the investigation. The towers have shades that can be pulled pay periods. provided by the department employees. The down and mirrored glass that prevents a evidence indicated that the patient escaped supervisor from looking in for the purpose through a gate in the perimeter fence that of insuring that tower officers are observing may have been left open, or at least the area under surveillance. The agent unlocked. appropriately expanded her investigation as she discovered new information. The investigation was not timely as it was presented to the hiring authority 10 days before the statute of limitations was set to expire. The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau about the investigative findings and penalty, however, the penalty was appropriate. The department failed to provide the bureau with notice of the Skelly hearing. Case No. 06-0189 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority found the investigative file, consulted with with the bureau during the investigation was investigation sufficient but that the special agent assigned to the adequate. The investigation was timely and no disciplinary action was It was alleged that during an escort on June case, monitored the progress of adequate. The hiring authority did not appropriate. 19, 2005, an officer used excessive force the investigation, and reviewed consult adequately with the bureau regarding against an inmate by sending the inmate to the final report. The bureau the investigative findings. The employee the floor and repeatedly slamming the attempted unsuccessfully to relations officer did not consult adequately inmate’s head on the ground. confer with the hiring authority with the bureau. Consultation with the prior to the matter being closed employee relations officer was not timely. without disciplinary action. The The bureau concurred with the hiring consultation requirements of authority’s conclusion not to impose Article 22 were explained to the disciplinary action. hiring authority. Case No. 06-0190 (Central Region) The bureau first learned of this The bureau was not notified of the incident The officer was exonerated of case several hours after the event in time for a bureau response to the scene to any misconduct; no disciplinary and after the injured inmate was be useful. The Office of Internal Affairs’ action was warranted. The On June 20, 2005, two inebriated inmates already at the hospital and the consultation with the bureau during the evidence showed that the officer were involved in a fight in their cell. They BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 112 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES disregarded all verbal commands to stop investigation was well under way. investigation was adequate. The investigation reasonably felt the cellmate was fighting. Copious amounts of pepper spray The bureau spoke to the was timely and adequate. The bureau in danger of being killed and used were put in the cell through the food port investigative services unit captain concurred with the hiring authority’s only that amount of force with no effect. The officers believed that one and obtained all of the incident findings. The hiring authority consulted with required to stop the attack. inmate was stabbing the other inmate. The reports for review. The bureau the bureau in an adequate and timely manner sergeant had the door partially open and, spoke to the hospital and regarding the investigative findings. while standing outside the cell, struck the determined the inmate’s aggressor inmate to stop the attack. condition. The bureau consulted with the special agent assigned, was updated on progress, and reviewed the final report. The bureau also made suggestions and assisted in obtaining relevant medical records of inmates involved. The bureau attended the use-of-force committee meeting. The bureau consulted with the hiring authority regarding disposition of the case. Case No. 06-0191 (South Region) The bureau responded to the Based on the crime scene officer’s statements The hiring authority issued the scene on June 23, 2005, viewed that he had not left his post and no one had crime scene officer a letter of the secured crime scene and entered the crime scene, the bureau believed instruction for neglect to duty During the late night hours of June 22, 2005, observed wet footprints which that an investigation into the officer’s without any investigation. The an inmate on inmate homicide occurred in started to evaporate. The bureau apparent false and misleading statements to hiring authority took a similar the bathroom area of a housing unit. Upon recommended the footprints be the investigative services unit lieutenant was action in response to a prior arrival at the institution, the bureau and the photographed. The bureau made warranted. Instead, the warden issued a letter incident involving serious investigative lieutenant observed wet a follow-up inquiry and was of instruction for neglect of duty to the allegations. Both actions footprints leading from a water puddle out of advised that the homicide and officer, and failed to take other more appeared to be an overt attempt the cordoned off crime scene. Because hours related issues, including the issue appropriate action for making a false by the warden to preclude more had passed since the crime scene was secured relating to crime scene integrity, statement. The bureau disagreed with the significant disciplinary action and it was over 80 degrees in the housing would be the subject of a hiring authority’s action. The hiring authority being taken against the officers unit, the investigative lieutenant asked the management review by the failed to appropriately consult with the involved in serious misconduct. officer posted at the crime scene if he had institution. When the bureau bureau before taking action. The manner in The warden was removed from left his post or whether someone had been in inquired about the results of the which the hiring authority reviewed the her position for reasons unrelated the crime scene. The officer denied that he management review, it learned underlying facts, failed to initiate a request to this incident. had left his post or that anyone had entered that no request for investigation for investigation, and disposed of the case the crime scene. During this time, the foot had been initiated, the matter had with a letter of instruction for much lesser prints began evaporating. The lieutenant not been investigated and that BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 113 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES concluded that the officer had made false the crime scene officer had been charges was inconsistent with Article 22. and misleading statements and had neglected issued a letter of instruction his security responsibilities. precluding further action. The bureau learned the warden had also issued a letter of instruction to adjudicate serious allegations in another case. The bureau was preparing to take the matter to executive review when the bureau learned that the warden had been removed for other reasons. Case No. 06-0192 (South Region) The bureau became interested in The bureau had minimal consultation with No charges were sustained by the this case because of the the special agent. The special agent hiring authority against the allegations and the fact that the proceeded to perform work without first subject. The subject was On July 19, 2005, an officer informed a lieutenant involved had been the contacting the bureau. At the end of dismissed from employment with supervisor that a lieutenant grabbed her by subject of prior investigations. November 2005, the special agent indicated the department in connection the back of the neck with one of his hands The central intake panel was to the bureau that she had nothing new to with another incident. and pushed her head down. The officer said informed of the bureau’s interest report on the case and she would not be the incident occurred on approximately June on August 29, 2005, but may not doing anything on the case until December 23, 2005. The supervisor receiving the have communicated that fact to because she was working on older cases. The complaint prepared a memo dated July 31, the south region office of internal special agent then proceeded to conduct the 2005, summarizing the reported information. affairs when a criminal case was subject’s interview in December without first initiated. Once the criminal case advising the bureau. The special agent was concluded, the special agent completed and submitted her report and the was advised that the bureau was Office of Internal Affairs closed its interested in monitoring this investigation without notifying the bureau. administrative case. The bureau’s The final report did not address certain ability to monitor the conflicts and did not address certain issues. A investigation was frustrated by written memorandum stated the victim the lack of cooperation by the reported her head was pushed down to her special agent. The bureau waist area. The victim’s verbal statement conferred with the hiring stated her head was grabbed and pushed authority. down towards the male lieutenant’s waist area. The investigative report did not resolve the conflict. The report did not fully specify the positions of people at specific times and did not clearly indicate the words spoken. It is not clear if cell phone records were sought BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 114 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES although their relevance is suggested by the investigation. Although there were several questions left unresolved by the investigation, it did not appear as though there was a sufficient basis upon which to proceed with disciplinary action. Case No. 06-0193 (North Region) The bureau reviewed the reports The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority sustained the and assessed the case file. The with the bureau during the investigation was allegations and served the bureau met with the institution adequate. The investigation was timely and psychological technician with On June 23, 2005, it was alleged that a staff and the hiring authority and adequate. The bureau concurred with the notice of dismissal. The employee psychological technician had been giving an consulted regarding the hiring authority’s findings. The hiring resigned. inmate contraband, specifically tobacco. It investigation and findings. authority consulted with the bureau in an was also alleged the employee contacted the adequate and timely manner regarding the inmate’s family telephonically and the family investigative findings. The penalty of sent the employee money for payment for dismissal selected by the hiring authority was contraband. It was alleged that the appropriate. The hiring authority adequately transactions took place on third watch when consulted with the bureau regarding the the employee was making his rounds in the penalty. Consultation was timely. administrative segregation unit. Case No. 06-0194 (North Region) The bureau attended the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority did not interviews, reviewed the reports, with the bureau during the investigation was sustain the allegations and no and assessed the case file. adequate. The investigation was timely and disciplinary action was deemed On June 25, 2005, a psychiatric technician adequate. The hiring authority did not necessary. The subject received was allegedly documenting medical consult with the bureau regarding the some additional training information related to patient care in a investigative findings. regarding confidentiality personal notebook. Confidentiality protocols. regulations and patient protocols require that such information only be annotated in the inmate’s chart or other department approved locations. It was also alleged that the psychiatric technician was being overly familiar with inmates and engaged in a code of silence with respect to his knowledge of various staff members’ conduct while performing their duties. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 115 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0195 (Central Region) The bureau had an initial case The investigative services unit’s consultation As a result of the investigation of conference with the investigator with the bureau during the investigation was the officer’s relative, it became assigned from the institution. The adequate. The investigation was timely and clear that this employee had no It is alleged that on June 25, 2005, an officer bureau monitored the adequate. The hiring authority consulted with part in any misconduct, nor became aware of serious employee investigation of the subject’s the bureau in an adequate and timely manner actual knowledge of a misconduct by a relative who was the subject relative. The bureau consulted regarding the investigative findings. The relationship between the relative of an investigation and failed to report it. It with the employee relations employee relations officer adequately and any inmates. The decision was alleged that the officer may have known officer, hiring authority, and consulted with the bureau in a timely was made by the hiring authority of a letter received by the relative employee special agent. The bureau was manner. The investigation was terminated to terminate the investigation. from an inmate. consulted regarding the decision based on information obtained in the to terminate the investigation relative’s case; the bureau concurred. before its conclusion. Case No. 06-0196 (Central Region) The bureau obtained police The investigation and consultation by the The hiring authority sustained reports, consulted with the Office of Internal Affairs were timely and inexcusable neglect of duty special agent, contacted the adequate. The bureau did not concur with allegations on this case, but did On June 26, 2005, an employee was arrested district attorney’s office and the hiring authority’s findings because the not sustain the battery allegation. by the sheriff’s department for assault with a obtained ongoing information on bureau felt the battery allegation was The criminal case against the deadly weapon because he allegedly punched the criminal case. The bureau sustainable at the level of proof required for employee was dismissed in the victim then tried to hit him with his car. advised internal affairs of the disciplinary action. The issue was rendered exchange for a guilty plea in a The employee did not immediately notify the subject’s plea. The bureau moot inasmuch as the employee was separate misdemeanor case, for institution of his arrest as required. obtained copies of other criminal dismissed based on another case in which he which he received a 45 day jail case reports and obtained the was sentenced to a jail sentence. The hiring sentence. The employee was toxicology report revealing drugs authority adequately consulted with the dismissed based on the guilty in the subject’s system, and bureau regarding the investigative findings plea. forwarded the report to special and penalty of dismissal in a timely manner. agent and the institution. The The employee relations officer adequately bureau reviewed the final internal consulted with the bureau and handled the affairs report and consulted with case during the disciplinary process in a the employee relations officer timely and adequate fashion. and hiring authority. Case No. 06-0197 (Central Region) The bureau conferred with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority did not assigned special agent as to the with the bureau during the investigation was sustain any of the charges against scope of the investigation, the inadequate due primarily to the failure to the officers. Thus, no disciplinary Several inmates complained that in June or investigation plan, and identity of provide the bureau with advance notice of action was imposed against the July 2005, a particular inmate was abused by the subjects. The bureau noted an investigatory activities. The investigation officer. several officers in a security housing unit. incorrect statute of limitations itself was timely and adequate. The bureau BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 116 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES The inmates alleged that the victim inmate date and verified that no parallel concurred with the hiring authority's was beaten, deprived of food and access to criminal case conflict existed. The findings. The bureau concurred with the medical care for more that a week, and bureau reviewed all investigation hiring authority's determination that the placed in a strip cell with no mattress or file documents. The bureau evidence was not sufficient to sustain the bedding of any kind. It was further alleged conferred with the employee charges; there was almost a complete absence that the inmate tried to file numerous appeals relations officer and the of corroborating evidence for the inmates’ and put in numerous requests to be seen by investigative services unit captain. complaints. The hiring authority adequately medical staff, but those requests were The bureau reviewed an earlier consulted with the bureau regarding the discarded by staff on the unit. internal affairs report generated investigative findings in a timely manner. The by another agent as to the employee relations officer adequately allegations which were the focus consulted with the bureau. The overall of this investigation. The bureau quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was conferred with internal affairs adequate. staff as to the need of internal affairs to give timely, advance notice of all interviews so that bureau attendance can be arranged if necessary. Case No. 06-0198 (Central Region) The bureau conferred with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The allegations against the assigned special agent and with the bureau during the investigation was subject were not sustained. reviewed the internal affairs file, inadequate as the special agent failed to give Therefore, no disciplinary action It is alleged that in July 2005, an officer stole including incident reports and the bureau notice of critical investigative was taken. canteen items from inmates and improperly interview tapes. The bureau steps. Although the investigation was redistributed the items to other inmates. conferred with the investigative completed within the statutory time period, it services lieutenant who initially was not complete. The investigation was not reported the complaint to ensure thorough as the agent did not follow through that there was no retaliation on the investigation in critical areas and was against the complaining officer. unnecessarily hostile to the complaining The bureau addressed concerns witness which affected his ability to conduct with the special agent and the a neutral, fact finding investigation. The senior special agent as to timely bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s advance notice of critical determination that the investigation was investigation steps. The bureau insufficient and that there was insufficient raised concerns with internal evidence to sustain two of the three affairs as to the objectivity of the allegations against the subject. The hiring investigation. The bureau authority consulted with the bureau in a attended the subject interview, timely and adequate manner regarding the and reviewed and commented investigative findings, even though the BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 117 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES upon the draft investigation bureau disagreed with the hiring authority’s report. The bureau conferred decision not to sustain a neglect of duty with the hiring authority and the allegation. The hiring authority adequately employment relations officer as and in a timely manner consulted with the to the insufficiency of the bureau regarding the penalty. The employee investigation and the relations officer adequately consulted with insufficiency of the evidence to the bureau during the disciplinary process sustain the charge. and the consultation was timely. The assigned staff attorney was never involved and only contacted the bureau two months after the case had been concluded. In fact, the bureau was unaware that a staff attorney had even been assigned to the case. The bureau was led to believe the matter was being handled by the employee relations officer. Case No. 06-0199 (North Region) In the initial meeting with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The investigation revealed there Office of Internal Affairs’ special with the bureau during the investigation was was no evidence of negligence or agent advised the bureau that the inadequate as there was no consultation until misconduct and therefore the On July 6, 2005, an inmate committed investigation was complete. The the investigation was complete. The hiring allegations were not sustained suicide by hanging himself. Inmates alleged bureau consulted with the hiring authority consulted with the bureau in an and no disciplinary action was that the inmate who committed suicide authority regarding its findings. adequate and timely manner regarding the imposed. screamed that he was going to kill himself. investigative findings. The hiring authority and called out to the officers that he was did not sustain any allegations; the decision suicidal. Based upon the allegations, the was supported by the evidence. The control booth and floor officers were investigation showed that there were investigated for neglect of duty and other procedural errors on the part of the attending failure of good behavior. psychiatric technician. In addition, the inmate refused his medications the night before the suicide. Case No. 06-0200 (Central Region) The bureau initially monitored a The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The allegation of over-familiarity criminal investigation involving with the bureau during the investigation was was not sustained, but allegations this same allegation and subject adequate. The investigation was timely and of neglect of duty and other On July 7, 2005, it was discovered that a non- that did not result in criminal adequate. The bureau concurred with the unprofessional conduct were sworn staff member was allegedly involved in charges being filed. The bureau hiring authority's findings. The hiring sustained. The subject received a an overly familiar and possible sexual then consulted with the special authority consulted with the bureau in an five percent salary reduction for relationship with an inmate over a period of BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 118 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES several months. It was further alleged that agent assigned to this adequate and timely manner. The penalty 12 months. she brought home love letters and various administrative case and his selected by the hiring authority was items of jewelry that were made by inmates, supervisor regarding investigative appropriate. The employee relations officer delivered mail to and from the inmates strategies. The bureau reviewed adequately consulted with the bureau during including small package items, and brought all interviews and report, as well the disciplinary process in a timely manner. food items to the institution for the inmates as consulted with the employee The overall quality of the staff attorney’s to eat. relations officer and warden advocacy was adequate. regarding disposition of case. The bureau monitored the Skelly hearing and subsequent imposition of penalty. Case No. 06-201 (Central Region) The bureau obtained and The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority sustained the reviewed all police reports. The with the bureau during the investigation was allegation that the subject had bureau conferred with the adequate. The investigation was timely and been driving while intoxicated On July 11, 2005, an officer was arrested for assigned special agent. The adequate. The bureau concurred with the and did not sustain the allegation driving under the influence of drugs or bureau contacted the district hiring authority’s findings in light of the that the subject had committed a alcohol, involvement in a hit and run attorney’s office, monitored disposition by the district attorney and battery on a member of the accident, and assault with a deadly weapon criminal proceedings and advised evidence in the case. The hiring authority public. The subject received a for almost striking a victim with her vehicle the Office of Internal Affairs of consulted with the bureau in an adequate and salary reduction of five percent as she fled the scene. The victim obtained the the outcome. The bureau timely manner. The penalty selected by the for 13 months and did not file an vehicle plate number and the subject was reviewed the Office of Internal hiring authority was appropriate. The bureau State Personnel Board appeal. arrested at her home. Affairs’ investigation and final felt this incident was aggravated by the The subject entered a plea report. The bureau consulted officer leaving the scene. The staff attorney bargain on criminal case, and was with the staff attorney, employee consulted with the bureau in an adequate and only convicted of driving under relations officer and hiring timely manner during the disciplinary the influence authority regarding appropriate process. The overall quality of the staff administrative action. attorney’s advocacy was adequate. Case No. 06-0202 (South Region) The bureau monitored the The special agent was prompt and responsive Allegations of neglect of duty investigation in this case. in consultation with the bureau. The were sustained against all four investigation was adequate. The hiring subjects. One subject received a It was alleged that a medical technical authority did not communicate with the five percent pay decrease for assistant was called to assist an inmate on bureau upon receipt of the investigation and three months, one subject three occasions who was complaining of before proceeding with findings; therefore, received a letter of instruction, chest pain on July 13, 2005, and allegedly consultation was inadequate. one subject received only failed to provide the inmate with needed additional training, and one medical care. It is alleged that an officer subject’s received a 10 percent made an entry into the logbook directing BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 119 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES others to ignore the inmate’s complaints of salary reduction for 24 months chest pain, and officers ignored the inmate’s and his appeal is currently calls for help or accused the inmate of faking. pending before the State The inmate died later that night. Personnel Board. Case No. 06-0203 (North Region) The bureau was involved in all The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation Prior to the completion of the aspects of the investigation, with the bureau during the investigation was drafting of the disciplinary action including discussions of adequate. The investigation was timely and papers, the subject retired from On July 18, 2005, it was alleged that an investigative strategy and adequate. The hiring authority consulted with the department. The disciplinary associate warden became hostile and attending several witness the bureau in an adequate and timely manner. papers will be completed by the insubordinate when he refused the warden’s interviews conducted by the The bureau concurred with the hiring staff attorney and maintained by order to assume the duties of acting warden special agent. The bureau authority’s findings. The bureau did not the department in the event the during the warden’s vacation. In addition, it reviewed the request for concur with the hiring authority’s decision to subject attempts to return to was alleged that the associate warden used investigation, case file, and draft place the employee on administrative time employment with the department profanity toward interview panel members at notice of disciplinary action. The off. in any capacity. the institution when he inappropriately appropriate penalty was discussed approached the panel members to with the staff attorney and recommend an applicant. regional administrator on multiple occasions. Case No. 06-0204 (Central Region) The bureau conferred with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority initially assigned special agent as to the with the bureau during the investigation was sought a penalty of a 10 percent investigative plan and reviewed inadequate. The special agent would not salary reduction for 12 months. An allegation was received that on or about the entire investigatory file. The adequately communicate his investigation The penalty was reduced July 22, 2005, the subject employee assaulted bureau confirmed the statute of strategy or interview schedule to the bureau. pursuant to the settlement his live-in girlfriend and destroyed her limitations date and the scope of He was hostile to any suggestions or agreement; the subject received a cellular telephone while she was summoning the allegations filed against the criticisms of his investigations. The bureau 10 percent reduction in salary for the police. subject. The bureau liaised with received and reviewed the final investigation six months and was required to the district attorney’s office report only after it was finalized and sent to complete a certified anger regarding potential criminal the hiring authority. The victim was not management course within a prosecution. The bureau interviewed because she postponed the specific period of time. conferred with the institution interview twice and the department decided services unit, employee relations that the investigation would proceed without officer and the use-of-force her, even though the statute of limitations analyst regarding the status of the date was not due to lapse for several months. disciplinary action proposed. The The investigation failed to address the bureau conferred with staff potential issue of the subject failing to report regarding the hiring authority’s his off-duty arrest for domestic violence BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 120 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES review of the investigation and which is another ground for discipline, and the proposed disciplinary action. there was no attempt to have the subject The bureau reviewed and explain why he did not report this incident if commented upon the draft he truly believed he acted in self defense. The settlement agreement. investigation was not thorough or complete. The hiring authority adequately consulted with the bureau. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s findings and identified penalty. The settlement agreement was inappropriate as a higher level disciplinary action consistent with the disciplinary matrix should have been imposed. The employee relations officer failed to consult with the bureau in an adequate or timely manner. The notice related to disciplinary action was not provided for review before service. The bureau was frequently informed of events and decisions after-the-fact without the opportunity for meaningful consultation. The overall quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was inadequate. Case No. 06-0205(Central Region) The bureau originally monitored The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject resigned under the criminal investigation that with the bureau during the investigation was unfavorable circumstances before preceded this administrative inadequate in that the final report was not the hiring authority made On July 25, 2005, it was alleged that an investigation. The bureau submitted to the bureau for review prior to findings regarding the allegations. officer had engaged in sexual relations with examined the case file and submission to the hiring authority. In all an inmate, removed confidential documents documentary evidence and other respects, the investigation was timely from the inmate’s central file, had on-duty consulted with the special agent and adequate. telephone contact with the inmate, and regarding completion of the brought tobacco into the institution for the investigation. The bureau inmate. Handwriting analysis established that reviewed the subject’s resignation personal letters in possession of the inmate letter and the institution’s were written by the subject. response. Case No. 06-0206 (North Region) The bureau reviewed the reports The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The officer admitted being related to the case. The bureau with the bureau during the investigation was present during the conversation also conferred with the special adequate. The investigation was timely, between the sergeant and the On July 25, 2005, an officer allegedly BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 121 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES overheard a conversation between a sergeant agent, staff attorney and hiring thorough and complete. The hiring authority inmate but denied that the inmate and an inmate wherein the inmate told the authority regarding this matter. consulted with the bureau in an adequate and took responsibility for the assault. sergeant that a control booth officer allowed timely manner regarding the investigative Given the lack of evidence, the inmates to enter another inmate’s cell and findings. The bureau agreed with the hiring warden did not sustain any of the assault him. The sergeant did not report or authority’s assessment that there was allegations against the sergeant. document such conversation. insufficient evidence of misconduct. Case No. 06-0207 (North Region) The bureau conferred with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject retired after the special agent to discuss with the bureau during the investigation was investigation was completed but investigative strategies, reviewed adequate. The investigation was timely and prior to the hiring authority's On July 27, 2005, a ward allegedly failed to the reports and video, and adequate. The hiring authority adequately findings arising from the follow verbal instructions and refused to be consulted with the hiring consulted with the bureau regarding the investigation. The hiring authority handcuffed. A youth counselor used a leg authority. Also, during the investigative findings. sustained the allegations of sweep to take the ward to the ground and monitoring process, the bureau unnecessary force but did not subsequently handcuffed him. The ward filed observed that there was a delay in sustain the sexual harassment a staff action grievance on August 2, 2005, assigning an agent to the case for allegation. No disciplinary action alleging that the youth counselor had used investigation. The bureau could be taken against the unnecessary physical force on him and had consulted with the Division of employee due to his retirement. sexually harassed him. An inquiry conducted Juvenile Justice management and by the treatment team supervisor revealed the Office of Internal Affairs to that the ward’s statements were consistent ensure the timely assignment of with other wards accounts and the video cases to agents. evidence of the incident. Case No. 06-0208 (Central Region) The bureau monitored the The consultation by the Office of Internal During the investigation, the investigation. Upon receiving the Affairs’ retaliation unit with the bureau inmate denied he had been special agent’s confidential during the investigation was adequate. The recruited, denied that he had On July 28, 2005, a sergeant alleged that he memorandum, the bureau sought investigation was adequate. However, there made allegations against the was the subject of retaliation for reports he clarifications from the special was an extended delay in completing the sergeant, and denied that such had previously made regarding staff agent. The memorandum stated investigation because the complainant misconduct had occurred. The misconduct. The sergeant alleged that an that a witness had recanted his requested that the investigation be deferred hiring authority found that the inmate had been recruited by a staff member story, but it was not clear that the until the State Personnel Board acted in allegations were not sustained. to bring false allegations of misconduct witness had ever given an another matter in which he was involved. Therefore, no disciplinary action against the sergeant. inconsistent statement. The was imposed on the subject. bureau also made telephonic inquiries at the institution in order to resolve this apparent ambiguity. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 122 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0209 (South Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority charged the Office of Internal Affairs during with the bureau during the investigation was subject with over-familiarity; the investigation, but the Office adequate. Although a supplemental appearing at his investigatory On July 30, 2005, an institution received a of Internal Affairs provided the investigation was necessary after the initial interview while under the telephone call from a private citizen who final report to the hiring authority report was delivered to the hiring authority, influence; and driving to his explained that her friend, a parolee, was before the bureau could review it. the investigation was otherwise adequate and investigatory interview on inside her mother’s house under the After reviewing the final report, timely. The bureau did not concur with the suspended driver license. The influence of drugs. Allegedly, the parolee had the bureau recommended the hiring authority’s findings. The hiring subject was dismissed from state been taken to her mother’s house by a Office of Internal Affairs authority made its determination based on service and has appealed the lieutenant employed at the institution. The interview other witnesses in the original report, without the benefit of the disciplinary action to the State citizen provided contact information for the connection with this case. The supplemental investigation. The bureau did Personnel Board. parolee’s mother. The institution contacted special agent accepted the not believe there was enough information at the mother and learned the parolee had a bureau’s recommendations. The the time to show the lieutenant knew the relationship with the lieutenant since she had bureau recommended that the victim was an inmate and parolee. been incarcerated at the institution. The allegation regarding the subject’s Additionally, the hiring authority parolee’s mother also alleged the lieutenant failure to be available while on inappropriately failed to pursue the allegation was supplying drugs to the parolee. The administrative time off, as that the subject was not available while on subject was placed on administrative time required by policy, be administrative time. The hiring authority did off. At this interview, the lieutenant disclosed investigated. not consult adequately with the bureau. The that his privilege to drive in California had penalty selected by the hiring authority was been suspended and he admitted that he appropriate. The staff attorney did not drove to the location of the interview his consult adequately with the bureau. The staff interview. During his interview, the Office of attorney solicited input from the bureau Internal Affairs developed a reasonable regarding disciplinary notice before the suspicion the lieutenant was under the consultation with the hiring authority and influence of a controlled substance. Together failed to provide the bureau an opportunity with personnel from the institution they for review before it was served. The compelled the lieutenant to take a drug test. consultation with the staff attorney was The test results showed the lieutenant had timely. The overall quality of the staff amphetamine and methamphetamine in his attorney’s advocacy was inadequate. The system. disciplinary notice included an allegation that the lieutenant was dishonest, but the facts to support this were not included. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s decision to place the employee on administrative time off. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 123 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES Case No. 06-0210 (North Region) The bureau attended the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation This investigation revealed no interviews, reviewed the reports, with the bureau during the investigation was staff misconduct. Therefore no and assessed the case file. The adequate. The investigation was timely and disciplinary action was required. On August 5, 2005, a homicide occurred in a bureau met with the institution adequate. The hiring authority adequately dayroom, while officers allegedly were in the staff and the hiring authority and consulted with the bureau regarding the staff office located nearby in the building consulted regarding the investigative findings. rotunda. It was alleged that officers were investigation and findings. negligent in their duties as they failed to observe the operation of the dayroom programs. Case No. 06-0211 (North Region) The bureau attended interviews, The investigation was timely and adequate. One officer received a suspension reviewed the reports, and The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation from duty for 60 days, but the assessed the case file. The bureau with the bureau during was adequate. The most culpable officer retired after On August 9, 2005, it was alleged that on or met with the institution staff and Office of Internal Affairs brought to the receiving his notice of dismissal, about June 30, 2005, officers used the hiring authority. The bureau attention of the bureau that the hiring albeit at a lower retirement rate. inappropriate force by grabbing an inmate’s also consulted with the staff authority was not taking appropriate or The notice of disciplinary action arm and dragging him up a flight of stairs attorney regarding the timely action. Initial consultation by the staff was placed in the retired officer’s with such force that the inmate lost his investigation and findings. attorney and hiring authority was not timely personnel file. shoes. During the escort, it was alleged that and only through the persistence of the an officer smashed the inmate’s head into the Office of Internal Affairs and the bureau was wall several times. The officer allegedly stated action taken and notice of disciplinary action “The next time you try to grab my keys, I’ll served in a timely manner. After settlement smash your head in.” The other officer did negotiations were rejected, the penalty of not participate in the excessive use of force, dismissal was selected by the hiring authority. but did not intervene. Other staff and The hiring authority adequately consulted inmates allegedly witnessed the incident. with the bureau regarding the proposed settlement and that consultation was timely. Case No. 06-0212 (Central Region) The bureau consulted with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject resigned during special agent and reviewed with the bureau during the investigation was pending administrative investigative reports. The bureau adequate. The investigation was timely and investigation, however the It was alleged that on August 9, 2005, an also conferred with the sheriff’s adequate. The employee relations officer circumstances under which he officer committed spousal battery. department and the district adequately consulted with the bureau resigned were noted in his attorney’s office regarding the personnel file. The district criminal case, facilitating an attorney’s office dismissed the exchange of information. criminal case because the victim BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 124 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES no longer wanted to cooperate. Case No. 06-0213 (North Region) The bureau attended the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The officer resigned during the interviews, reviewed the reports, with the bureau during the investigation was investigation when she was and assessed the case file. The adequate. The investigation was timely and confronted by the evidence On August 18, 2005, information was bureau met with the institution adequate. during her subject interview. received that an officer was allegedly staff and the hiring authority and involved in over-familiar activity with consulted regarding the parolees. The officer allegedly associated on a investigation. regular basis with several individuals who were either on probation or parole. It was alleged one parolee, who was on parole for possession and sale of narcotics, lived at the officer’s residence. Case No. 06-0214 (Central Region) The bureau consulted with the The investigative services unit’s consultation The hiring authority sustained institution’s investigative services with the bureau during the investigation was allegations of neglect of duty and unit that handled the adequate. The investigation was timely and dishonesty. The original penalty It was alleged that on August 19, 2005, a investigation. The bureau adequate. The bureau concurred with the selected by the hiring authority supervising cook provided confidential corrected the statute of hiring authority’s findings. The hiring was 45 days suspension. information from an inmate’s file to others in limitations date for the non- authority consulted with the bureau in an However, pursuant to a violation of policy and then was untruthful sworn employee. The bureau adequate and timely manner. The penalty was settlement agreement between when asked about it. consulted with the employee appropriate. The settlement agreement terms the hiring authority and the relations officer, staff attorney were appropriate. The staff attorney timely subject, a penalty of a 35 working and hiring authority. The bureau and adequately consulted with the bureau day suspension was imposed. monitored the Skelly hearing and during the disciplinary process. the settlement agreement. Case No. 06-0215 (North Region) The bureau met with the Office The investigation was timely and adequate. During the pendency of the case, of Internal Affairs and reviewed The bureau concurred with the hiring the victim relocated out of state the investigative plan. authority’s findings. The hiring authority and did not want to have any On August 19, 2005, a parole agent informed consulted with the bureau in an adequate and further contact with the his supervisor that he had been arrested for timely manner. The penalty selected by the employee. The disciplinary action an alleged domestic violence incident. The hiring authority was appropriate. Given the was modified from a 10 percent victim sustained injuries to her forehead, victim’s reluctance to cooperate with the salary reduction for 14 months to back and arms. The victim also reported that prosecution of the case, the bureau a 10 percent salary reduction for the parole agent pointed a firearm at her. concurred with the hiring authority’s decision nine months pursuant to a to settle the case so as to avoid compelling BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 125 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES the victim to appear or otherwise settlement agreement. compromise the case. The settlement between the hiring authority and employee was appropriate. The staff attorney consulted with the bureau in an adequate and timely manner during the disciplinary process. The overall quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was adequate. Case No. 06-0216 (North Region) The bureau reviewed reports and The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority did sustain discussed investigative strategies with the bureau during the investigation was allegations against the parole with the Office of Internal adequate. The administrative case was agent who was driving the vehicle On August 23, 2005, two parole agents Affairs. completed in a timely and thorough manner. and issued her a letter of entered an institution’s sally-port driving a The hiring authority did not consult with the instruction. The hiring authority state-issued vehicle. During two routine bureau regarding the findings or penalties. did not sustain the allegations searches of the trunk, officers found a small The bureau, however, concurred with the against the parole agent who was baggie containing 1.6 grams of suspected findings and the penalty imposed. The a passenger in the vehicle issued marijuana, two boxes of ammunition, two bureau recommended remedial training for to the other parole agent, who knives, and cigarette rolling paper. both parole agents. claimed that she was unaware of how or when the marijuana and ammunition were placed in the trunk. Case No. 06-0217 (South Region) The bureau remained in contact The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The investigation sustained with the Office of Internal with the bureau during the investigation was allegations that the sergeant was Affairs agent during the course of adequate. The investigation was timely and overly familiar with a parolee and On August 29, 2005, a sergeant was allegedly this investigation. The bureau adequate. The bureau concurred with the that the sergeant was dishonest seen in the company of a parolee while off- discussed the findings and hiring authority’s findings. The hiring with the department and to the duty. The sergeant was also allegedly seen in penalty with the hiring authority. authority consulted with the bureau in an internal affairs agent during the the company of the parolee at a party where adequate and timely manner. The penalty investigation. After consultation, numerous other staff members were present. selected by the hiring authority was the hiring authority determined The parolee was alleged to have been living appropriate. The employee relations officer that dismissal was appropriate. with the sergeant at the sergeant’s home. consulted with the bureau in a timely and After being served with a notice adequate manner during the disciplinary of disciplinary action, the process. The overall quality of the staff sergeant resigned. attorney’s advocacy was adequate. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s decision to place the employee on BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 126 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES administrative time off. Case No. 06-0218 (Central Region) At the time of the death, the The investigation and consultation between The hiring authority sustained the institution notified the bureau internal affairs and the bureau were adequate allegations and sought dismissal that the single celled inmate died and timely, and the appropriate allegations of the medical technical assistant. On September 3, 2005, an inmate was found from natural causes. However, were sustained by the hiring authority. The The bureau concurred with the unresponsive inside his cell and transported the review of the reports hiring authority consulted in a timely manner decision to terminate to the hospital where he was pronounced indicated that the circumstances with the bureau and the bureau concurred in employment. The employee dead. A medical technical assistant had preceding the death may have the decision to dismiss the employee. The resigned with multiple responded to the inmate’s cell approximately involved staff neglect. The employee relations officer and staff attorney disciplinary actions pending. three hours earlier because the inmate, who inmate’s family contacted the consulted with the bureau in a timely manner had a history of chest pain, complained of bureau to request an and their involvement was adequate. heart problems. According to the log, the investigation. The bureau met medical technical assistant took the inmate’s with the special agent assigned to vital signs through the food port of the cell, the investigation and reviewed all told the inmate it was only heartburn and reports and interviews. The left. Allegations of substandard care and bureau also assisted the chief inadequate documentation of the contact medical officer, who was were made. unfamiliar with the new disciplinary process, with the steps required by Article 22. The bureau consulted with the employee relations officer and hiring authority regarding appropriate discipline and made suggestions regarding procedural remedies to keep such an incident from reoccurring. The bureau was instrumental in making sure the hiring authority was aware of all of the complaints pending against the subject. Case No. 06-0219 (North Region) The bureau concurred with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation There was inconclusive evidence warden’s decision to conduct an with the bureau during the investigation was regarding the origin of the writing investigation into the matter. The adequate. The investigation was timely and and when it was written. There On September 15, 2005, an officer reported bureau conferred with the Office adequate. The hiring authority consulted with was no apparent connection finding a laundry cart with the words BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 127 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES "GREEN WALL" scrawled across it. The of Internal Affairs and consulted the bureau in an adequate and timely manner between the officer’s testimony cart was located in the sally port area of the with the hiring authority. regarding the investigative findings. The and the case. Therefore, the institution. The officer had previously bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s hiring authority did not sustain testified in a whistle blower retaliation case decision not to sustain the allegations due to the allegations of misconduct filed by a former officer. It was rumored that insufficient evidence. against any particular employee. his testimony hurt the former officer’s case against the state. The officer suspected that someone sympathetic towards the former officer was attempting to threaten and intimidate him. Case No. 06-220 (North Region) The bureau conferred with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The victim subsequently recanted Office of Internal Affairs to with the bureau during the investigation was her allegations citing that she lied review investigative strategies. adequate. The investigation was timely and to law enforcement officers. The On September 24, 2005, a parole agent was The bureau also reviewed law adequate. The bureau concurred with the only other witness to the incident arrested by the sheriff’s department for enforcement reports. The hiring hiring authority’s findings. The hiring did not report seeing any acts of domestic violence. The parole agent allegedly authority and bureau also authority consulted with the bureau in an violence other than observing grabbed his spouse by the hair and pulled her consulted. adequate and timely manner regarding the that the subject grabbed the to another area of the residence. investigative findings. victim’s arm. Consequently, there was insufficient evidence to proceed with disciplinary action against the employee. Case No. 06-0221 (North Region) The bureau responded to the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The employee resigned scene and participated in the with the bureau during the investigation was immediately following receipt of initial investigative plan and adequate. The investigation was timely and the notice of disciplinary action, On September 29, 2005, a correctional interviews. The bureau reviewed adequate. The bureau disagreed with the but prior to the effective date of counselor conducted an interview with a reports and evidence, the final hiring authority’s decision to immediately the dismissal from state service. confidential inmate informant. During the investigative report, the hiring place the employee on administrative leave. interview, the confidential informant made authority’s determination The warden's decision in this case to place allegations that an officer had trafficked illicit documents, and the notice of the subject on administrative time off, drugs into the adjustment center on at least disciplinary action prior to despite the Office of Internal Affairs’ four occasions. The confidential informant resignation of the employee. insistence that such action be temporarily identified three inmates who he claimed were delayed, was a significant mistake in that it in possession of the drugs brought in by the prevented a sting operation which could have officer. A subsequent search revealed drugs developed more evidence in both the in the property and/or on the person of two administrative and criminal cases. of the three inmates identified. The quantities Fortunately, enough evidence was obtained of drugs were as follows: 78.27 grams of BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 128 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES marijuana, 58.51 grams of through the seizure of phone records to methamphetamine, and 45.9 grams of heroin. establish that the subject was indeed overly familiar with the inmate’s family members and was in fact bringing drugs into the institution. Unfortunately, the lack of more information which could have been established through a successful sting operation prohibited a criminal filing in this case or the development of information that could have led to other involved employees. Case No. 06-0222 (North Region) The bureau reviewed the request The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject resigned from the for action and supporting with the bureau during the investigation was department prior to the documentation. Upon adequate. The investigation was timely and completion of the investigation. On October 1, 2005, a police officer notification that the subject adequate. The bureau concurred with the observed a vehicle driven by an officer make resigned from the department, hiring authority’s findings. The hiring a right hand turn without coming to a the bureau advised the employee authority consulted with the bureau in an complete stop. The police officer initiated a relations officer to place all adequate and timely manner regarding the traffic stop. During the stop, it was documentation related to this investigative findings. The bureau concurred discovered that the passenger was a parolee matter in the subject’s personnel with the hiring authority’s decision to place from the same institution to which the file. the employee on administrative time off. officer was assigned. Case No. 06-0223 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the In response to bureau concerns, the central After re-evaluating the case, the allegations and was of the intake panel took up this case again and department’s central intake panel opinion that, if true, the decided to close the investigation. The concluded that there were On October 3, 2005, a sergeant, who had allegations would not constitute bureau concurred with that decision insufficient actionable threats to been the subject of a complaint, found what actionable threats because it was warrant an investigation. he interpreted as threatening statements not directed to a specific person, Accordingly, the investigation directed toward him on a popular website. among other reasons. The bureau was terminated and the case was The postings stated that an unidentified concerns prompted the central closed. supervisor deserved “parking-lot therapy” intake panel to re-evaluate the and “… next time he passes the line, he’ll get case. a treatment from me just like he would on the streets. You know what the Irish said: Your nose begins, where my fist ends.” Case No. 06-0224 (Central Region) The bureau conferred with the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The hiring authority determined employee relations officer and with the bureau during the investigation was that dismissal was the appropriate BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 129 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES staff attorney on the draft adequate. The investigation was timely, penalty, but the subject resigned On October 11, 2005, during the course of a disciplinary package, suggesting thorough and complete. The bureau one day before the effective date narcotics investigation conducted by the corrections and clarifications. concurred with the hiring authority's of the dismissal. There is a investigative services unit, information The bureau noticed that the findings. The hiring authority consulted with concurrent criminal case pending determined that a stationary engineer administrative statute date was in the bureau in an adequate and timely manner. against the subject. allegedly was involved in the introduction of error. The bureau conferred with The penalty selected by the hiring authority narcotics into the institution. the employee relations officer was appropriate. The employee relations and staff attorney regarding the officer adequately consulted with the bureau adequacy of the subject's during the disciplinary process. The overall resignation and the response by quality of the staff attorney’s advocacy was the institution. The bureau adequate. The bureau concurred with the obtained and reviewed a copy of hiring authority's decision to place the the resignation letter and the employee on administrative time off. reply by the institution which was sent pursuant to the bureau’s recommendation. Case No. 06-0225 (North Region) The bureau attended the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation As a result of the investigation, interviews, reviewed the reports, with the bureau during the investigation was neither allegation was sustained and assessed the case file. The adequate. The investigation was timely and against the sergeant. The officer On October 14, 2005, it was alleged that an bureau met with the institution adequate. The bureau concurred with the was forthright about physically officer used force on an inmate by physically staff and the hiring authority and hiring authorities findings. The hiring controlling the inmate and controlling the inmate, then attempted to consulted regarding the authority consulted with the bureau in an received a letter of instruction for escalate the situation by stating “come on investigation and findings. adequate and timely manner. The penalty neglect of duty and failure to turn on me.” It was also alleged that a selected by the hiring authority was report a use of force. sergeant was negligent in his duties by not appropriate for the involved officer. The supervising his subordinate staff during the evidence supported that the sergeant did not volatile situation, made an inappropriate participate in a code of silence, did not fail to statement and participated in a code of properly supervise and did not make silence by not reporting the officer's conduct. inappropriate comments. Case No. 06-0226 (South Region) The bureau very closely The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject failed to report for monitored the investigation with the bureau during the investigation was work following his criminal conducted by the Office of adequate. The investigation was timely and arrest. He was dismissed from On October 26, 2005, an officer received Internal Affairs. After several adequate. The bureau concurred with the state service for being absent information from a private citizen alleging notices that he would be hiring authority’s findings. The hiring without leave, which he did not that another officer had been involved in an terminated because of his authority consulted with the bureau in an challenge. The administrative off-duty sexual relationship with a 15-year unexcused absences, the hiring adequate and timely manner regarding the investigation was completed by BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 130 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES old female since December 2003. authority dismissed the officer investigative findings. The employee relations the department. The hiring for being absent without leave. officer adequately consulted with the bureau authority concluded that there The bureau recommended that during the disciplinary process and did so in was sufficient evidence to sustain the investigation be submitted to a timely manner. The overall quality of the the allegations against the officer. the hiring authority and that the staff attorney’s advocacy was adequate. The The bureau concurred with this hiring authority decide the case officer was terminated for failing to report determination. before the statute of limitations for duty. However, the hiring authority did expired. sustain the allegations once the investigation was received and reviewed. The bureau agrees that this was the correct course of action. Case No. 06-0227 (North Region) The bureau reviewed the The Office of Internal Affairs' consultation The investigation revealed that investigation materials and with the bureau during the investigation was the subjects had engaged in over- consulted with the special agent adequate, and the investigation itself was familiarity with parolees; the On October 29, 2005, a former inmate regarding the investigative adequate. The appropriate allegations against department revoked their security alleged that two officers had engaged in strategy. The bureau also secured the subjects were sustained and the clearances. The private security sexual relationships with inmates in a a final briefing regarding the department responded appropriately. firm employer immediately privately run institution. The inmate alleged outcome of the case. terminated both subjects. that she complained over a six month period Because the employees are not to a lieutenant, assistant director, and state employees, they have no supervisor, but did not further identify them. appeal rights. Case No. 06-0228 (South Region) The initial steps of an Consultation with the investigating special Although the preliminary administrative investigation were agent was timely and adequate. The bureau information certainly suggested initiated. The bureau monitored did not oppose the decision to close the the officer had engaged in On November 8, 2005, an inmate alleged these actions and consulted with investigation in the hopes an investigation of smuggling contraband into the that an officer provided him and two other the department. more recent activity would be more fruitful. institution, there was a lack of inmates with tobacco over a period of two Therefore the hiring authority did not file sufficient evidence to consider and one-half months in exchange for disciplinary action against the subject The pursuing disciplinary action. approximately $1,500. Office of Internal Affairs and the staff attorney decided to not interview the subject in the hopes of pursuing a new investigation that could involve surveillance. Such an investigative tool could not be pursued in this case because the inmates involved and subject had all been transferred to other yards before this case was opened. The BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 131 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES bureau did not oppose the decision Case No. 06-0229 (North Region) The bureau spoke with the The investigative services unit failed to Both office technicians submitted investigative services unit adequately consult with the bureau at the their resignations effective lieutenant and the warden inception of the investigation. During the December 30, 2005, while the On or about December 7, 2005, the bureau regarding concerns about their course of this investigation, they obtained investigation was in progress. was informed that an institution’s authority to conduct the phone recordings, warrants for phone investigative services unit had begun looking investigation and a potential records and were planning to conduct video into suspected drug activities involving two conflict of interest. The bureau surveillance. These activities occurred office technicians and inmates since recommended that the Office of without consultation with or the approval of November 2005. These office technicians Internal Affairs assume primary the Office of Internal Affairs which is solely were allegedly facilitating drug transactions responsibility for conducting the authorized to conduct staff investigations. within the facility by accepting money from investigation. The bureau expressed concern that the the inmates and purchasing narcotics from institution lacked the authority under the outside sources that they later smuggled into department’s policies to conduct staff the institution. They also reportedly used investigations. Furthermore, the their positions with the institution volunteer investigative services officers lacked the program to promote their personal training and experience to adequately handle relationships with these inmates. this type of investigation, and the lieutenant leading the investigation was a union leader which posed a potential conflict of interest. At bureau’s recommendation, the Office of Internal Affairs opened a formal administrative investigation into the matter, which was completed; however no findings were made due to the employee’s resignations. Case No. 06-0230 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the file and The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation DNA comparison established the consulted with the assigned with the bureau during the investigation was subject’s paternity with a high investigator regarding his plan for adequate. The investigation was timely, degree of certainty, a finding On December 9, 2005, an inmate, who had the investigation. The bureau thorough and fair. The bureau concurred which is consistent with been incarcerated for six years without assisted in the drafting of a with the hiring authority’s findings. The statements of the victim. The conjugal visits, gave birth to a child. Custody search warrant to seize biological hiring authority adequately consulted with hiring authority concluded that staff was not previously aware of the samples from the body of the the bureau regarding the investigative the subject employee should be pregnancy. It is alleged that on or about subject for DNA comparison. findings and the penalty in a timely manner. dismissed. The subject employee March 2005, a staff member engaged in The bureau consulted with the The penalty selected by the hiring authority resigned prior to being served sexual misconduct with the inmate, resulting investigator regarding the was appropriate. The bureau concurred with with notice of the disciplinary BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 132 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES in her pregnancy. interrogation prior to the subject the hiring authority’s decision to place the action. interview and attended the employee on administrative time off. interview. The bureau reviewed the draft final report and consulted with the hiring authority regarding the notice of disciplinary action prior to the subject’s resignation. Case No. 06-0231 (North Region) The bureau attended the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The subject was exonerated of all interviews, reviewed the reports, with the bureau during the investigation was allegations. The subject was able and assessed the case file. The adequate. The investigation was timely and to provide documentation that On December 19, 2005, during a department bureau met with the institution adequate. The hiring authority consulted with she had in fact informed the investigation of a supervising cook, it was staff and the hiring authority and the bureau in an adequate and timely manner department that her husband was discovered that she was formerly employed consulted regarding the regarding the investigative findings in inmate. She also provided by the California Youth Authority. She had investigation and findings. exonerating the supervising cook. The hiring evidence that the State Personnel previously been the subject of a California authority adequately consulted with the Board had ruled that she had Youth Authority investigation which bureau regarding the findings. Consultation resigned from the California sustained allegations that the she introduced was timely. Youth Authority without fault, narcotics into an institution for her inmate thus, had been truthful in her husband. She resigned from the California application to the department. Youth Authority. Subsequent to her Therefore, the allegations of resignation from the California Youth dishonesty in her application and Authority, she was hired by the department. failure to inform the department Her application to the department stated that of her husband’s status were not she resigned from the California Youth sustained and no disciplinary Authority without fault. However, a action was taken. memorandum from a California Youth Authority official indicated that she resigned under unfavorable circumstances. Additionally, there was no evidence in her department personnel file that she had informed the department that her husband was an inmate in one of the department’s institutions. Case No. 06-0232 (North Region) The bureau attended the The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The investigation was closed. The interviews, reviewed the reports, with the bureau during the investigation was officer was referred to the and assessed the case file. The adequate. The investigation was timely and BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 133 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INCIDENT BUREAU ACTION BUREAU ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS & NOTES bureau met with the institution adequate. The hiring authority viewed the employee assistance program. On December 29, 2005, an investigative staff and the hiring authority, as employee conduct as an employee assistance services unit was notified that an officer well as with the staff attorneys referral rather than a disciplinary matter. The voluntarily disclosed to department regarding the investigation and bureau concurred with this action. management that he suffered from problems findings. related to soliciting prostitutes, and had been late to training because he had been in the company of a prostitute. Case No. 06-0233 (Central Region) The bureau reviewed the initial The Office of Internal Affairs’ consultation The allegations against the allegations, discussed the with the bureau during the investigation was subject were sustained. The hiring investigative plan with the adequate. The investigation was timely and authority served the subject with On January 5, 2006 information was received assigned special agent, and adequate; the special agent completed a a notice of disciplinary action for alleging an overly familiar relationship consulted with the agent thorough investigation very expeditiously. dismissal. Thereafter, the officer between an officer and an inmate. It was regarding interviews throughout The bureau concurred with the hiring resigned prior to the effective alleged that the officer shared personal the investigation. The bureau authority's findings. The hiring authority date of dismissal. information with the inmate, as well as sent reviewed the final report from consulted with the bureau in an adequate and letters, money, and other gifts to the inmate the agent and discussed it with timely manner. The penalty selected by the under a false name. the hiring authority, the employee hiring authority was appropriate. The relations officer and the staff employee relations officer consulted with the attorney assigned to the case. The bureau in a timely and adequate manner bureau urged the matter be expedited due to the officer being . The overall quality of the staff attorney’s put on administrative time off. advocacy was adequate. The staff attorney also acted expeditiously to have a disciplinary action prepared for service. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 134 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPENDIX A: STAFF BIOGRAPHIES HEADQUARTERS — SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA David R. Shaw was appointed chief assistant inspector general of the Bureau of Independent Review by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in July 2004. Mr. Shaw previously directed the Victims of Crime program and the Restitution and Recovery Program at the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board; served as the Executive Director of the Governor’s Office of Criminal Justice Planning; Chief Counsel to the Assembly Public Safety Committee; and as a deputy district attorney in the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office, where he was cross- designated as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of California. Mr. Shaw is a Colonel in the Unites States Army Reserve and has been a reserve police officer for over 25 years. He is also an adjunct professor of law at McGeorge School of Law. Howard E. Moseley was recently elevated by appointment to senior assistant inspector general for the Bureau of Independent Review by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger following his service as lead special assistant inspector general for the bureau since January 2005. He previously served as a deputy attorney general in the Criminal Law Division of the California Department of Justice. While at the Attorney General’s Office he was a member of the trial litigation team, was appointed the legal liaison for the California Witness Protection Program, and was the primary reviewer of criminal referrals from the California Department of Corrections. Before that, he was a linguist in military intelligence for the United States Army. Jennifer Shaffer was appointed special assistant inspector general for the Bureau of Independent review by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in June 2006. Before her appointment, Ms. Shaffer served as Assistant Secretary for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, where she was responsible for the Office of Victim and Survivor Services. She previously participated on the California Performance Review as counsel and as an analyst. Ms. Shaffer also formerly served as staff counsel and deputy executive officer for the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, where she practiced employment law and was responsible for the board’s criminal restitution program. Ms. Shaffer also has worked in the state legislature, where she was staff counsel to the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. Ms. Shaffer began her career as a public servant working on legislation and policy for the California Office of the Attorney General. Tamara M. Colson was appointed Special Assistant Inspector General for the Bureau of Independent Review by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in June 2006. Prior to her appointment, Ms. Colson served as an Administrative Law Judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings, presiding over evidentiary hearings on behalf of numerous public entities. Ms. Colson also served as a deputy attorney general for the California Department of Justice, where she represented state agencies in employment law and law enforcement record related matters. Before joining the Department of Justice, Ms. Colson worked as an attorney in the law firm of Kronick Moskovitz Teidemann & Girard, assisting school districts with employment and education law matters. Jeff Beeson was transferred as deputy inspector general to the Bureau of Independent Review in April 2006. Mr. Beeson previously served as deputy inspector general for the Bureau of Audits and Investigations where he conducted management review and special review audits, including several BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 135 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA assignments addressing correctional employee discipline processes. Mr. Beeson joined the Office of the Inspector General in 2000. He is a certified internal auditor with 20 years of governmental and private audit experience, and a certified range master for the Office of the Inspector General. NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE— RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA Tim L. Rieger was appointed senior assistant inspector general of the Bureau of Independent Review, Northern Region, by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in May 2005. Before his appointment, Mr. Rieger served as the deputy director and chief counsel for the California Attorney General’s Department of Justice Firearms Division. He also served the California Attorney General for several years as a deputy attorney general in the Criminal Division. Before he began his ten years with the Attorney General’s Office, Mr. Rieger worked as a prosecutor in the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office. Mr. Rieger is a lieutenant colonel in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, serving in the 115th Regional Support Group, United States Army National Guard. Neil Robertson was appointed special assistant inspector general for the Bureau of Independent Review by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in January 2005. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Robertson served as senior tax counsel in the General Counsel Section of the California Franchise Tax Board, where he represented the department in all aspects of public sector employment law and provided legal support to the Criminal Investigations Unit for prosecution of state tax crimes. He also served as staff counsel to the California Department of Corrections, Office of Internal Affairs, and as staff attorney representing law enforcement agents with the California Union of Safety Employees and the California Correctional Peace Officer’s Association. Abel D. Ramirez was appointed special assistant inspector general for the Bureau of Independent Review by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in January 2005. Before his appointment, Mr. Ramirez served as staff counsel for the California Youth Authority, where he represented the department in administrative hearings before the State Personnel Board. Mr. Ramirez also worked as a prosecutor for several years in the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office and as a deputy probation officer for the Sacramento County Probation Office. Lee Seale was appointed special assistant inspector general for the Bureau of Independent Review by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in June 2006. Before his appointment, Mr. Seale served as a deputy attorney general in the criminal division of the California Attorney General’s Office. While there, Mr. Seale served as an instructor in the areas of interrogation law and search and seizure law for the state commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training. Prior to joining the Attorney General’s Office, Mr. Seale taught at Arizona State University as an associate faculty member in the Department of Religious Studies. Samuel Dudkiewicz was hired as assistant inspector general for the Bureau of Independent Review in December 2005. Mr. Dudkiewicz served for 30 years in California law enforcement, including 12 years with the Richmond Police Department and 18 years with the Department of Justice, where he served in the Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, and was most recently a BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 136 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA deputy director in the Division of Gambling Control. Mr. Dudkiewicz is a colonel in the United States Army Reserve.3 CENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE—BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Robert Allen Barton was appointed senior assistant inspector general for the Bureau of Independent Review, Central Region, by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in January 2005. Mr. Barton began his career in law enforcement with the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department. After obtaining his law degree, Mr. Barton became a deputy district attorney for Kern County, where he worked in the Special Prosecutions Unit and was the supervising deputy district attorney of the Juvenile and Truancy Units, Gang Unit, and Prison Crimes Unit. Mr. Barton has been an adjunct faculty member with California State University, Bakersfield and Bakersfield College, teaching courses in public speaking, criminal law, gangs and crime, and media law. L. Gordon Isen was appointed special assistant inspector general for the Bureau of Independent Review by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in January 2005. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Isen prosecuted major felonies as a deputy district attorney in San Bernardino and as an assistant district attorney in Santa Cruz County. In addition to his criminal trial work, Mr. Isen served as lead attorney of a white-collar crime unit and as a narcotics team supervisor. Mr. Isen has also served his community as a reserve police officer and as a judge pro tem. Michael G. Allford was appointed special assistant inspector general for the Bureau of Independent Review by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in July 2005. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Allford served as a deputy city attorney for the City of Bakersfield, where he was legal advisor to the Bakersfield City Council and provided legal counsel to numerous city commissions and boards. Mr. Allford has also worked in private practice representing plaintiffs and defendants in the areas of employment law and land use. Cynthia J. Zimmer was appointed special assistant inspector general for the Bureau of Independent Review by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in May of 2006. Before her appointment, Mrs. Zimmer served as a deputy district attorney in Kern County for twenty-one years where she worked in various assignments including Major Vender Narcotics and Special Prosecutions. For nine years, Mrs. Zimmer was the supervising deputy district attorney for the Felony Trial Team. Elva Nunez was appointed special assistant inspector general for the Bureau of Independent Review by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in May 2006. Before her appointment, Ms. Nunez served as a deputy district attorney in Kern County where she prosecuted gang violence cases. Before assuming her duties as a gang prosecutor, Ms. Nunez previously prosecuted general felony and juvenile cases. In addition, Ms. Nunez also formerly practiced family law and was a staff attorney at Inland Counties Legal Services, a legal aid office. Brian Trott was transferred as deputy inspector general to the Bureau of Independent Review in 2005. Mr.Trott previously served as a deputy inspector general in the Bureau of Audits and 3 Mr. Dudkiewicz was activated by the United States Army Reserve during this reporting period and is currently deployed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 137 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Investigations, Central Valley, since 2001, where he conducted investigations and worked on special reviews and audits. Mr. Trott has over ten years of experience in correctional healthcare and the inmate classification system. SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE—RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Stephen Miller was appointed senior assistant inspector general for the Bureau of Independent Review by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in January 2005. Before his appointment, Mr. Miller worked as an attorney for 22 years in private practice, litigating cases involving police misconduct, civil rights, medical malpractice, employment law, and other torts in state and federal court. He also served as a part-time U.S. magistrate judge in the Central District of California presiding over federal criminal matters. Mr. Miller has served as a school board member for a local school district and the County of San Bernardino. He served as a reserve peace officer and continues to work as a crew chief/medic on an air rescue helicopter with a local sheriff’s department in Southern California. Sue Stengel was appointed special assistant inspector general for the Bureau of Independent Review by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in January 2005. Prior to her appointment, Ms. Stengel served as western states counsel for the Anti-Defamation League, a national civil rights organization. There she worked with law enforcement, educators, and community groups, combating hate crimes and extremism and preserving religious liberty. She also served as a deputy public defender in Los Angeles County. Ms. Stengel has worked as an instructor for the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.4 Paul Hayashida was appointed special assistant inspector general for the Bureau of Independent Review by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in January 2005. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Hayashida worked as the officer-in-charge of the Complaint Intake and Review Section for the Los Angeles Police Commission’s Office of the Inspector General, where he supervised a team that reviewed hundreds of Los Angeles Police Department internal affairs investigations. He also worked as an associate attorney with Francell, Strickland, Roberts and Lawrence, where he represented the interests of law enforcement agencies and sworn officers in federal and state litigation. Mr. Hayashida served as a sworn member of the Glendale Police Department, retiring after 20 years as a police sergeant with significant patrol, major narcotics, personnel, and internal affairs experience. Basil Richards was hired as deputy inspector general for the Bureau of Independent Review in November 2005. Mr. Richards was previously employed by the California Department of Corrections since 1989, where he held positions as a correctional officer and sergeant. Mr. Richards was also assigned as an investigative sergeant, for which he conducted internal affairs investigations at the institutional level.5 4 Ms. Stengel left the employ of the Office of the Inspector General for a supervisory position with the Los Angeles Office of Independent Review. 5 Mr. Richards transferred as deputy inspector general to the Bureau of Audits and Investigations in the Office of the Inspector General. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 138 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPENDIX B: ORGANIZATION CHART – AS OF JUNE 30, 2006 Chief Assistant Inspector General David R. Shaw Executive Assistant Myrna Causland Headquarters Northern Region Central Region Southern Region Sacramento Rancho Cordova Bakersfield Rancho Cucamonga Senior Assistant Senior Assistant Senior Assistant Inspector General Inspector General Inspector General Senior Assistant Howard E. Tim L. Rieger Robert Barton Inspector General Moseley Stephen Miller Special Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Inspectors General Inspectors General Inspectors General Inspectors General Tamara M. Colson Neil Robertson L. Gordon Isen Paul Hayashida Jennifer Shaffer Abel D. Ramirez Michael G. Allford Sue Stengel Lee Seale Cynthia J. Zimmer 2 Vacancies 1 Vacancy Elva Nunez Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Inspector General Inspector General Inspector General Inspector General Jeff Beeson 1 Vacancy Brian Trott Basil Richards Office Office Office Technician Technician Technician 1 Vacancy Irene Carillo Cheryl Campbell Valencia BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 139 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA