Bureau of Independent Review, Semi-Annual Report, January – June 2007

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 2007 SEPTEMBER 2007 STATE OF CALIFORNIA C ONTENTS FOREWORD----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 INTRODUCTION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ASSESSMENT OF THE MADRID REMEDIAL PLAN------------------------------------------------------- 3 DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT ------------------------------------------- 3 OFFICE OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS---------------------------------------------------------- 3 EMPLOYMENT ADVOCACY AND PROSECUTION TEAM------------------------------- 6 EXPLANATION OF TABLE FORMAT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 SUMMARY OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES---------------------------------------------------------------- 10 TABLE OF DISTINGUISHED CASES ----------------------------------------------------- 13 TABLE OF DEFICIENT CASES ----------------------------------------------------------- 16 TABLE OF SATISFACTORY CASES ------------------------------------------------------- 21 TABLE OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS -------------------------------------------------------73 APPENDIX A: DISCIPLINARY ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS-----------------------------------------88 F OREWORD The creation of the Bureau of Independent Review in 2004 opened a new chapter in California’s correctional reform efforts. The bureau not only provides independent oversight and monitoring of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s disciplinary process—it assures the public that internal affairs investigations and employee disciplinary actions are consistent, fair, and transparent. The department’s work is complex, and it operates under a great deal of scrutiny from a variety of stakeholders. Despite these challenges, I have found that the department and its Office of Internal Affairs and Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team are committed to achieving the federal court’s reforms. By working closely with the department, the bureau ensures that the employee disciplinary process meets a high standard of integrity and professionalism. This semi-annual report is evidence of both the bureau’s and the department’s dedication to positive change in a time of ever- increasing correctional oversight. The bureau’s success hinges on the department’s ability to meet the challenges ahead. As Inspector General, I am impressed by the constant collaboration between the bureau and the department, and my thanks goes to all bureau and department staff members who work as a team to accomplish my office’s guiding vision—Excellence in Corrections through Model Oversight. — 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 Bureau of Independent Review’s fifth semi-annual report, which documents the bureau’s case monitoring and oversight activities from January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007. During this time, the bureau has continued to actively assist the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in achieving its mandate under the Madrid Remedial Plan to reform its disciplinary process, including internal affairs investigations and employee disciplinary actions. It is also my pleasure to report that the oversight model created by the Madrid Remedial Plan is working thanks in no small part to the continued good will and spirit of cooperation between the department and the bureau. 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 monitoring work. The bureau underwent important changes during this semi-annual reporting period, hiring additional professional and support personnel to staff each of its offices. In addition, the bureau continues to develop and foster positive working relationships with the department’s Office of Internal Affairs, Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team, and hiring authorities. It is my distinct pleasure to supervise the bureau and to work closely with talented individuals who are dedicated to improving the overall integrity and efficacy of the department. They continue to perform their duties and responsibilities with the utmost professionalism and diligence. I truly appreciate their dedication to the bureau’s mission, and I thank them for their unwavering support and commitment to public service. 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, especially within the Office of Internal Affairs and the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team, whose daily cooperation and support greatly assist the bureau in conducting its operations. On behalf of the bureau’s attorneys, investigators, and support staff, I invite you to review this latest semi-annual report at www.oig.ca.gov and provide us with your feedback. — DAVID R. SHAW, CHIEF ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL, BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 2 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA A M R P SSESSMENT OF THE ADRID EMEDIAL LAN The Bureau of Independent Review’s operations under the Madrid Remedial Plan continue to have a positive impact on the timeliness, quality, and objectivity of the employee disciplinary process at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The following summary provides a general assessment of the critical components responsible for investigating, litigating, and implementing this process, specifically the department’s executive management, Office of Internal Affairs (OIA), and Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team (EAPT). A detailed assessment of the individual cases the bureau monitored during this reporting period is presented in the tables later in this report. Department Executive Management Division of Adult Institutions. The Division of Adult Institutions’ executive management continued to experience significant reorganization and turnover during this reporting period. These major personnel and structural changes had some negative impact on the effectiveness and pace of the Madrid reforms. However, the department’s executive management remains supportive of the bureau and its monitoring activities. This has been most evident in their support of the statewide training program presented by the OIA, the EAPT, and the bureau to address the Madrid Remedial Plan. Unlike other divisions, this division ensured all hiring authorities and other key management personnel attended the training. Division of Adult Parole Operations. The Division of Adult Parole Operations has not fully implemented the Madrid reforms. For instance, several critical incidents were brought to the bureau’s attention by means other than immediate and direct contact from the division. The bureau has also perceived reluctance by some regional parole offices to engage in the full process outlined in the Department Operations Manual, Article 22, as required by the Madrid Remedial Plan. During this reporting period, the Division of Adult Parole Operations’ various hiring authorities failed to regularly consult with the bureau as required. Nevertheless, in subsequent discussions between the bureau and parole management, each has expressed a commitment to develop a stronger working relationship during the next reporting period. Division of Juvenile Justice. During this reporting period, Division of Juvenile Justice officials expressed continued concern regarding full implementation of some portions of the Madrid Remedial Plan. In particular, the division questioned the application of some portions of Articles 14 and 22 of the Department Operations Manual to juvenile settings. For this reason, division management has yet to consistently apply the Madrid Remedial Plan to its operational planning or to develop a strong practice of consulting with the bureau. Further, the bureau has repeatedly reached out to hiring authorities in this division who have voiced a willingness to consult with the bureau, though sometimes the consultation was not done in a timely manner. As a result of division and bureau management working together, the division now accepts the Madrid reforms and has expressed a commitment to future cooperation with the bureau. Office of Internal Affairs Headquarters. During this reporting period, the working relationship between the bureau and the OIA has been positive and productive, in large part due to the leadership provided by the assistant BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 3 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA secretary, chief of field operations, and chief of administrative operations. The OIA has made significant progress on several major initiatives, such as reviewing a new department use-of-force policy, drafting a new deadly force investigation policy, reestablishing the deadly force review board, and implementing a new field guide with a corresponding training program. The OIA is also moving forward with creation of remote satellite offices in each of its regions, staffed with a mix of existing and newly hired special agents. Many of these new special agents will be hired from the very institutions at which the satellite offices will conduct investigations and will be working in a location remote to the regional special agent-in-charge. The bureau believes that these satellite offices will erode one of the fundamental Madrid Remedial Plan concepts because the EAPT and the bureau will not be locating staff in the OIA satellite offices. For these reasons, the bureau has expressed its opposition to the addition of these satellite offices, believing they will prove difficult to manage and be of marginal operational benefit. Nonetheless, once the satellite offices are operational, the bureau will make every effort to facilitate the best possible working relationship. Central Intake Unit. The bureau remains convinced that the central intake panel is the single most important reform implemented by the department and that it remains a vital component of the Madrid Remedial Plan. Each week, the special agents who make up the OIA’s central intake unit perform an important function by presenting new allegations to the central intake panel, which then determines whether an investigation or disciplinary action is warranted. During the six-month reporting period, the unit prepared, presented, and forwarded for investigation in a timely manner a considerable number of cases. Investigations that were opened with very little time left to complete the disciplinary process were generally the result of delayed referrals from the hiring authorities to the central intake unit, rather than a delay in the OIA central intake process. At the bureau’s recommendation, the OIA has begun to inquire of hiring authorities as to the cause of serious delays in forwarding referrals to the central intake unit. Another concern expressed by the bureau and some hiring authorities has been the central intake unit’s growing tendency to refer allegations back to the hiring authority for immediate disciplinary action without an investigation. This approach is appropriate in cases where sufficient evidence already exists to take action without an investigation; however, in a number of instances, the practice has been applied to cases that warranted full investigation. In particular, the bureau has repeatedly recommended a full investigation when an allegation involves excessive force or when the case is likely to result in dismissal of a department peace officer if the allegation is sustained. Finally, there has been a growing practice by some special agents to base their recommendations on the penalty they believe the hiring authority should select, or on what they anticipate the defense to a disciplinary action may be, rather than focusing on whether the allegations warrant an investigation. The bureau has discussed these concerns with OIA management, which attributes most of these trends to the significant amount of turnover recently experienced by the central intake unit. More importantly, OIA management expressed a strong commitment to address these concerns, and the bureau remains convinced that with training and supervision, these trends will be resolved in the near future. Northern Region. As noted in the tables that follow, all the OIA northern region investigations reported during this period substantially or partially complied with critical department policies and procedures. On the other hand, the relationship between the bureau and the OIA northern region did experience some complications during this period. Northern region supervisors and agents BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 4 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA implemented new procedures for assisting hiring authorities by conducting preliminary investigations into misconduct allegations before the matter is referred to the central intake unit. These procedures resulted in several instances of miscommunication and an inability by the bureau to adequately monitor certain categories of cases. The complications were exacerbated by personnel changes that included the retirement of several special agents, the appointment of new supervisors, and the expansion of the office with new and relatively inexperienced special agents. Despite these complications, the cooperation exhibited by the OIA northern region remained satisfactory, and overall compliance with the Madrid Remedial Plan was commendable. Central Region. As noted in the tables that follow, six of the 87 investigations conducted by the OIA central region and reported during this period were deemed by the bureau to have failed to comply with critical department policies and procedures. Each of these cases was discussed with the special agents involved, and the common justification for the deficiencies in these investigations advanced by special agents was the problem of understaffing in the region. Accordingly, the OIA central region made a strong effort to fill the many special agent vacancies that existed, hiring six new special agents during this reporting period. Some vacancies were due to retirements and special agents obtaining employment elsewhere. Three vacancies were due to the promotion of existing special agents into three of the four senior special agent positions. Currently, the central region is hiring at least six more special agents to fill additional vacancies. In the meantime, the new special agents were introduced to the bureau, and many have already begun work on monitored cases. While a learning curve is expected before the new special agents are fully trained, disruption has been limited because many of the newly hired special agents have prior investigative experience. Of importance to the success of the Madrid Remedial Plan in the central region is the willingness exhibited by the new special agents to work with the bureau on monitored cases. Southern Region. As noted in the tables that follow, the bureau found that four out of the 49 investigations conducted by the OIA southern region and reported during this period failed to comply with critical department policies and procedures. Each substandard case was discussed with the special agents involved, and OIA management in the southern region made a commitment to reduce these deficiencies in the future. Meanwhile, the relationship between the OIA southern region and the bureau continues to grow and mature in a positive way. Not only are the special agents more likely to accept the bureau’s role, but now more special agents actively seek the bureau’s input on their cases. The special agents who fail to consult with the bureau on monitored cases as required by the Madrid Remedial Plan are in a clear minority. A problem that plagued the southern region during this reporting period was completing investigations within the statute of limitations. The causes of this problem are many. In some cases, the hiring authorities delayed initiating a request for investigation. In at least one instance, the central intake panel failed to make a timely decision whether to conduct an investigation. And in rare cases, and despite bureau monitoring, some special agents simply fail to complete their investigations on time. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 5 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA One change sure to improve the conditions described above is the recent increase from three to six senior special agents assigned to supervise the special agents in the southern region. This will reduce the number of special agents reporting to each supervisor, therefore increasing the amount of time the senior special agent can devote to supervising subordinates on a daily basis. Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team During this reporting period, the department’s attorneys who provide legal representation during the disciplinary process, known as the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team (EAPT), made significant strides toward fulfilling its role as a critical component of the Madrid Remedial Plan. Overall, the attorneys communicated with bureau attorneys in a more timely manner. For the few attorneys who repeatedly failed to cooperate as required with the bureau in a meaningful way, the department took appropriate corrective action. Another important improvement during this reporting period was EAPT management’s increasing practice of assigning an attorney to most cases the bureau monitors, thus ensuring legal representation for the department in the vast majority of cases meeting certain criteria established by the Madrid Remedial Plan. Staffing. In the last report, the bureau identified the EAPT’s structure as problematic because it required the assistant chief counsel to provide direct supervision over all the EAPT attorneys and thus did not allow for effective leadership. During this reporting period, the department remedied this situation by elevating the existing assistant chief counsel position to a chief counsel position and by creating four new assistant chief counsel positions directly subordinate to the chief counsel. The assistant chief counsels now provide direct supervision to attorneys in their respective regions, and the chief counsel provides direct supervision to the assistant chief counsels. At the time of this writing, the department has appointed three of the four new assistant chief counsels, including one each for headquarters, the northern region, and the southern region. These new assistant chief counsels have already begun to provide the daily supervision and consistency within the EAPT that was previously lacking. Currently, the assistant chief counsel position in the central region remains vacant. The bureau also previously identified a significant shortfall in the number of attorneys assigned to the EAPT. This problem has plagued the department since the Madrid Remedial Plan’s beginning and has led to shortfalls in legal assistance provided to the OIA during investigations and to hiring authorities during resulting disciplinary actions. Although some attorney vacancies remain in the EAPT, the department is to be commended for making significant progress toward filling existing and new attorney positions during this reporting period. Litigation. In previous reporting periods, the bureau has expressed concern over the number of EAPT attorneys who have little or no litigation experience. Absent sufficient litigation experience, the EAPT program simply cannot provide quality legal representation to the department during disciplinary proceedings. In the past, the bureau reported that some attorneys seemingly encouraged hiring authorities to settle disciplinary cases to avoid presenting a difficult case at a hearing. However, during this reporting period, the number of such occurrences was significantly lower. The bureau has also noticed an overall improvement in the level of preparedness by attorneys at disciplinary hearings. However, it is hoped that in the future the EAPT will hire attorneys with BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 6 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA litigation experience and provide more extensive training to those hired without litigation experience in an effort to move closer to the goals envisioned for the EAPT by the Madrid Remedial Plan. Northern Region. During the early part of this reporting period, the performance of EAPT attorneys in the northern region has often been problematic. However, with the addition of new attorneys, there has been a remarkable improvement in the level of legal service provided to the department. Significantly, the northern region’s new assistant chief counsel has made substantial progress in the timely management of the region’s caseload. The personnel changes brought about by transfers, retirements, and new hires in conjunction with focused management has resulted in better service to the northern region’s special agents and hiring authorities. While a great deal remains to be improved, the progress achieved in the past six months bodes well for the future. Central Region. The EAPT in the central region has continued to be understaffed and thus unable to effectively handle the entirety of its caseload during this reporting period. There were also continued deficiencies in communication by the EAPT with the bureau, as well as a failure by some attorneys to document their activities in the case management system. The bureau raised these issues with EAPT management, who were generally receptive to addressing them. EAPT management has made a concerted effort to hire an assistant chief counsel and additional attorneys for the central region; however, this effort has not been as successful as the EAPT and the bureau had hoped. Southern Region. The EAPT in the southern region has been problematic. Due to only having a few attorneys in the southern region, attorneys in Sacramento were too often assigned to cases in the southern region. These assignments required extensive travel and delayed legal assistance to the region’s special agents and hiring authorities. Additionally, during this reporting period, the assistant chief counsel for the southern region was not yet physically located in the region. Furthermore, despite Department Operations Manual requirements, the attorneys did not appropriately involve themselves in their assigned investigations until the investigations were nearly completed. In summary, the EAPT’s progress in the southern region continues to lag substantially behind the other regions. There is still a considerable amount of work to do to bring the southern region EAPT into full compliance with the Madrid Remedial Plan. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 7 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA E T F XPLANATION OF ABLE ORMAT Semi-annual Tables Format This is the second semi-annual report published using the bureau’s revised approach to assessing the department’s employee disciplinary process. This approach focuses on the ultimate outcome, or disposition, of each case the bureau monitors. A case in which the outcome was reasonable is presented as either a distinguished case or a satisfactory case, depending on how well the department complied with its policies and procedures in handling the case. Cases in which the disposition was unreasonable are presented as deficient cases. Assessing the Disposition of Cases The disposition of each case (which includes the charges/allegations, findings, and penalty imposed, if any) is given one of the following ratings: Symbol Rating Explanation Given the totality of the circumstances, the disposition of the case was reasonable and substantially consistent with the bureau’s recommendations. In addition, the department substantially complied with critical policies and procedures applicable to the case. Given the totality of the circumstances, the disposition of the case was reasonable and substantially consistent with the bureau’s recommendations. The department, however, failed to comply with some critical policies and procedures applicable to the case. Given the totality of the circumstances, the disposition of the case was unreasonable and inconsistent with the bureau’s recommendations. The disposition of the case was initially unreasonable and inconsistent with the bureau’s recommendations but was later rectified by the department. OR The case eventually resulted in a finding that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct, which was reasonable given the totality of the circumstances. However, had actionable misconduct been found, no action could have been taken because the time for a district attorney to file charges (in a criminal case) or for the department to take disciplinary action (in an administrative case) expired before the case was resolved. The case monitored was a criminal case, so there were no administrative charges, findings, or discipline imposed by the department for the bureau to assess. The DISPO column lists the rating for the disposition of each monitored case. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 8 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Assessing the Department’s Compliance This report also provides an assessment of the department’s compliance with critical policies and procedures governing its employee disciplinary process. Three critical components make up the department’s process: investigation (INV); advocacy (ADV), which includes legal representation; and hiring authorities (HA), which consists of those determining the level, if any, of discipline imposed on an employee. Regardless of the number of persons involved in each of these critical components of the disciplinary process, the department receives one of the following ratings for its performance related to each critical component: Symbol Rating Explanation There was substantial compliance with critical policies and procedures. There was partial compliance with critical policies and procedures. There was a failure to comply with critical policies and procedures. There was insufficient data to provide an assessment or, due to the nature of the case, the individual component was not involved. The rating for each critical component appears in the INV, ADV, and HA columns for each case the bureau monitored. As mentioned above, the bureau’s monitored cases are presented in the following three categories: Distinguished cases – cases resulting in reasonable outcomes that were handled well by each critical component in the process. Satisfactory cases – cases resulting in reasonable outcomes, despite not being handled well by one or more of the critical components. Deficient cases – cases that either initially resulted in unreasonable outcomes or cases in which the applicable statutory deadline expired before the case was resolved. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 9 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA S M A UMMARY OF ONITORING CTIVITIES Case Monitoring Activities Caseload trends. The bureau determines whether to monitor a case based on the misconduct alleged, the bureau’s monitoring criteria, and other available information. Once the bureau selects a case for monitoring, bureau attorneys consult with investigators and observe investigative interviews. If the case is administrative, bureau attorneys also provide feedback on case development to the department’s attorneys and confer with the hiring authorities regarding investigatory findings and disciplinary penalties. Once the department’s disciplinary process has concluded, the bureau’s monitoring activities cease and the bureau evaluates the case in this report. During the six-month reporting period ending SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTING TREND June 30, 2007, the bureau completed the monitoring for 239 cases. When compared to the 300 239 250 last two six-month reporting periods, it is evident 206 193 200 that the bureau’s monitoring activities are 150 beginning to level out, as shown in the chart to 100 73 the right. During the January to June 2006 50 27 reporting period, the bureau reported on 193 0 cases, which increased to 206 cases during the JAN - JUN JUL - DEC JAN - JUN JUL - DEC JAN - JUN July to December 2006 reporting period. 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 Case types. Consistent with past practice, the majority of monitored investigations involved allegations of administrative misconduct, while a smaller portion involved allegations of criminal misconduct. As the chart to the right demonstrates, the bureau completed the monitoring for 183 cases that involved alleged administrative misconduct and 44 cases that involved alleged criminal misconduct. The bureau also monitored 12 additional administrative cases in which the department took disciplinary, corrective, or training action but an investigation was not necessary to take the action. This equates to 82 percent administrative cases and 18 percent criminal cases completed during this reporting period. The bureau’s emphasis on administrative misconduct is not accidental. As set forth in the Madrid Remedial Plan, the bureau’s primary responsibility is to ensure the department adequately investigates and disciplines a broad range of administrative misconduct. Allegation distribution. Cases under investigation usually include multiple allegations. The following are the top five categories of administrative allegations documented in this report: BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 10 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SESAC RIB MONITORED CASE TYPES 12 44 CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATIVE OTHER 183 1. Improper use of force Allegation Distribution 2. Dishonesty in official reports or during 300 investigative interviews 246 250 3. Failure to report misconduct committed by 200 another or oneself 150 120 119 4. Sexual misconduct 88 100 5. Overly familiar conduct between staff 42 41 50 members and those in their custody and 0 The firs c t a t r h e r ee categories of allegations are of Use of force Dishonesty Failure to Repo S rt exual Misconduct Over Fa miliarity Other particular concern to the bureau because, if proven true, serious civil rights violations may have occurred. The remaining two categories of allegations are of concern because acts of sexual misconduct and overly familiar interactions between staff members and those in their custody often compromise the overall security of correctional institutions. Because of the gravity of these allegations, the bureau focused its monitoring activities on these five categories of allegations. In fact, 62 percent of the cases completed during this reporting period included these allegations. The chart above provides an analysis of the number of cases that included each of the top five categories of allegations. Case findings. The most important step in the disciplinary process occurs when the hiring authority makes findings at the conclusion of an investigation. In an administrative case, this step involves the hiring authority reviewing the investigative report to determine if the allegations have been proven true by a preponderance of the evidence. Unfortunately, among the 183 administrative investigations the bureau completed during this reporting period, data concerning these investigative findings was only available in 107 cases. The department failed to include this data in its case management system for almost half of the reported cases. The bureau has brought this gap in data to the department’s Administrative Case Conclusion attention, and the department has made a commitment to narrow the gap in the future. In the meantime, the bureau can determine from the 64 76 107 cases for which data is available that the hiring authorities found ample evidence to sustain the allegations made against staff members in 64 Sustained 43 of those cases, which equates to 60 percent. The Not Sustained chart to the right depicts this information. Missing Data Conclusion. During this reporting period, the bureau identified 11 distinguished cases, meaning cases with a reasonable outcome and substantial compliance with department procedures. In contrast, the bureau identified 10 deficient cases, defined as cases with an unreasonable outcome. The bureau also identified 218 satisfactory cases, meaning cases that resulted in a reasonable outcome but contained procedural problems. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 11 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA In summary, perhaps the most noteworthy Case Assessments statistic for this reporting period is the number of cases in which the department reached a reasonable outcome. Specifically, the outcome was reasonable in 96 percent of all reported Distinguished Cases cases. In light of the significant number of 10 218 Deficient Cases 11 reforms the department adopted in the past 30 Satisfactory Cases months pursuant to the Madrid Remedial Plan, it is statistically significant that the department has arrived at a fair disposition in the majority of cases the bureau monitored. Critical Incidents Caseload Trends. As in each of the bureau’s previous reports, a table is included summarizing the bureau’s monitoring activities related to critical incidents that occurred during the reporting period. The most common type of critical incident the bureau selects to monitor involves a significant use of force that results in the death or serious injury of an inmate or staff member. Primarily, the bureau assists the department in responding to the incident. In addition, the bureau ensures that, if warranted, the Office of Internal Affairs initiates an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the incident. During this six-month reporting period, the Critical Incident Responses bureau concluded its monitoring activities for 48 critical incidents. When compared to the last two 70 61 61 six-month reporting periods, it is evident that the 60 48 50 bureau’s monitoring activities are beginning to 40 level out. As demonstrated in the chart to the 30 20 20 11 right, during the previous two reporting periods 10 the bureau monitored 61 critical incidents. 0 JAN - JUN JUL - DEC JAN - JUN JUL - DEC JAN - JUN However, that number decreased to 48 during 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 this current reporting period. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 12 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHED CASES Case No. 07-0001 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 23, 2007, an officer was arrested by local law enforcement authorities for raping an intoxicated person and DISPO INV ADV HA stealing $400 from the person. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office determined that there was insufficient evidence to file criminal charges against the officer. After reviewing the outside law enforcement's investigation, the Office of Internal Affairs determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a full administrative investigation. Case No. 07-0002 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 12, 2006, two lieutenants, a sergeant, and three officers allegedly extracted an inmate from a cell without DISPO INV ADV HA following department policy. During the extraction, the combative inmate injured a lieutenant. After the incident, the six involved staff members allegedly conspired with another sergeant and an additional officer to cover up the incident by filing false reports. DISPOSITION OF CASE The conspiracy and false report writing allegations were sustained against five of the six staff members involved in the incident, but not against the remaining officer. The two lieutenants were dismissed, the sergeant received a demotion to officer, and the three officers were dismissed. The sergeant who conspired with involved staff received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. Appeals are pending in all cases before the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0003 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 4, 2006, it was alleged that a lieutenant, a health care manager, and a physician conspired to fabricate an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate's medical record by back-dating medical orders to avoid a violation of a federal court order. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, no allegations were sustained against any of the subjects. Case No. 07-0004 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 25, 2006, a program technician sent a letter to an inmate suggesting that the program technician served as a DISPO INV ADV HA juror at the inmate's trial, then began a romantic relationship with the inmate while incarcerated. The program technician also allegedly visited the inmate repeatedly, gave the inmate the program technician's department-assigned telephone number to make personal collect phone calls, began personal relationships with the inmate's incarcerated associates, and was dishonest during the course of the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, but the program technician accepted a new job with another state agency before the investigation was completed. Once the investigation was completed, the other state agency declined to take disciplinary action against the employee for the misconduct. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 13 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHED CASES Case No. 07-0005 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 9, 2006, it was reported to the department that in 2004 a parole agent allegedly engaged in an overly familiar DISPO INV ADV HA relationship with a parolee. The relationship included meeting for a walk on the beach, kissing, dining out, and other similar conduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE None of the allegations were sustained. However, the parole agent was counseled about avoiding situations that might give the perception of an overly familiar relationship with a parolee. Case No. 07-0006 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 27, 2006, an officer allegedly left an armed post without authorization to confront an inmate and used DISPO INV ADV HA excessive force against the inmate. The officer also allegedly assaulted, battered, and verbally abused another officer during the confrontation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, and dismissed the officer. The officer appealed to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0007 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 1, 2005, it was alleged that an officer was trafficking narcotics and tobacco into the institution. It was DISPO INV ADV HA further alleged that the officer engaged in overly familiar conduct and was negligent by allowing an inmate to climb to the control booth and grab the mini-14 rifle by the barrel. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations of neglect of duty for endangering staff members and suspended the officer without pay for 48 days. Case No. 07-0008 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 12, 2005, a medical technical assistant allegedly battered and threatened to harm a second medical DISPO INV ADV HA technical assistant. It was also alleged that the same medical technical assistant threatened a third medical technical assistant while on duty on a prior occasion. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, and the medical technical assistant was dismissed. The medical technical assistant appealed to the State Personnel Board, and the appeal is now pending. Case No. 07-0009 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 12, 2005, a lieutenant allegedly falsified an incident report and forged an officer's name on the document. DISPO INV ADV HA The report identified several inmates involved in a riot. The inmates were found guilty of rules violations based on the report. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations of dishonesty and falsification of a report were sustained, and the lieutenant was dismissed. An appeal is pending before the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 14 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHED CASES Case No. 07-0010 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 14, 2005, numerous images of child pornography were found on a department computer shared by several DISPO INV ADV HA facility lieutenants. On September 9, 2005, federal law enforcement officers notified the department that an individual contacted an undercover agent posing as a minor child in a chat room from a department computer. It was then discovered that a lieutenant was attaching external drives to the department computer and downloading child pornography. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismiss the lieutenant. Upon being served with a notice of adverse action, the lieutenant resigned, which was noted as received under unfavorable circumstances. Case No. 07-0011 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From about May 2005 through July 2005, a control booth officer allegedly directed racial slurs, derogatory comments, DISPO INV ADV HA and other threats toward inmates; pointed his state-issued firearm at inmates for intimidation purposes; abandoned his post; and used excessive force on an inmate and failed to document the use of force. A second officer allegedly knew about the first officer's use of force and failed to report it, was engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the use of force, and moved the inmate allegedly assaulted to another institution without appropriate reason or documentation. Also, a lieutenant allegedly had knowledge of the first officer's alleged misconduct and engaged in a conspiracy to conceal the misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the control booth officer, and the officer was dismissed. The officer appealed the dismissal, and the appeal is now pending before the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority did not sustain the charges against the second officer but required that the second officer take additional training on reporting obligations and inmate rehousing procedures. The hiring authority did not sustain the charge against the lieutenant. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 15 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 07-0012 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 8, 2006, a parolee alleged that a parole agent lived with the parolee for a couple of weeks, was involved in a DISPO INV ADV HA sexual relationship with the parolee, and divulged confidential law enforcement information to the parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs was unable to locate the parolee after the parolee was released from county jail on unrelated charges. As a result, the investigation was closed without identifying the involved parole agent; therefore, allegations were not sustained. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The allegations in this case arose during an interview with the parolee on unrelated matters. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an investigation in June 2006. The assigned agent did not, however, attempt to interview the parolee regarding the allegations in this case for more than seven months. In February 2007, the parolee was identified as the subject in a subsequent burglary and absconded from parole. As a result, the parolee was never interviewed by the Office of Internal Affairs, and the identity of the involved parole agent was not revealed. Other investigative strategies to identify the parole agent were either unsuccessful or were not pursued. It is unknown whether the parole agent's identity would have been revealed had the Office of Internal Affairs been more diligent and interviewed the parolee during the seven months the department knew the parolee's location. Case No. 07-0013 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 7, 2006, during a night of drinking in an undeveloped cul-de-sac in their neighborhood, an off-duty officer DISPO INV ADV HA and neighbors discharged approximately 30 rounds from a semi-automatic handgun registered to the officer. The officer was discourteous and lied to law enforcement officers who arrived on the scene to investigate. The officer also encouraged the neighbors involved to not cooperate with the investigation into the shooting. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of reckless discharge of a firearm and dishonesty and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The officer has appealed to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Since the outside law enforcement reports adequately documented the facts of the case and the scope of the officer's misconduct, no internal affairs investigation was necessary. However, neither the hiring authority nor the department's attorney initially obtained all the relevant reports, specifically those reports that set forth the facts concerning the officer's dishonesty and attempts to prevent others from reporting the officer's misconduct. Without having obtained those reports, the hiring authority sought to suspend the officer for five to 14 days. The department's attorney agreed with that penalty. However, the hiring authority failed to charge the officer with interfering with the reporting of misconduct. Then, following the Skelly hearing, the hiring authority proposed a settlement offer whereby the officer would serve a four-month suspension and subsequently be subject to a "last chance" eight-month probationary period. The bureau disagreed with the proposed settlement and invoked executive review. On executive review, the department decided against extending the settlement offer. Accordingly, the officer was served with a notice of dismissal. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 16 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 07-0014 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 30, 2005, it was alleged that an officer was engaging in a pattern of sick leave abuse. The officer DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly routinely worked only two days a week for approximately one year by swapping shifts with other officers, working double shifts on the two work days, and inappropriately calling in sick on other work days. The officer allegedly called in sick 73 times in a 12-month period, usually on a day before or after another scheduled day off. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned during the investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department initially determined the hiring authority could take appropriate disciplinary action without an internal affairs investigation. The hiring authority and the department's attorney disagreed and requested an internal affairs investigation. After an investigation was opened, however, the department's attorney failed to provide legal counsel to the assigned internal affairs agent. The hiring authority then failed to review the completed investigative report and did not make findings as to whether the allegation should be sustained. Although the officer resigned during the investigation, the hiring authority should have made findings. Had this occurred, it is likely the allegation would have been sustained, and the misconduct would have been documented in the officer's official personnel file for reference should the officer attempt to seek employment with the department in the future. Case No. 07-0015 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 24, 2005, an inmate attacked an officer with a weapon in a dining hall and injured two other officers DISPO INV ADV HA during the incident. A control booth officer, who was allegedly overly familiar with the racial gang to which the attacker belonged, failed to take action during the incident, thus placing the other officers' safety in jeopardy. It was also alleged that the control booth officer left the housing unit officers locked inside an unsupervised dayroom area with approximately six inmates without gun coverage while the officer heated up some food. It was further alleged that about two weeks prior to the attack in the dining hall, the control booth officer pointed a rifle at another officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The control booth officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 36 months. The officer initially appealed the disciplinary action to the State Personnel Board but subsequently withdrew the appeal. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The investigation was neither thorough nor complete. Significant issues were not fully investigated, and despite the bureau's recommendations, the senior special agent limited the scope of the investigation. The institution was transitioning between several different wardens, so the lack of focus and continuity in the investigation was not addressed until after the final investigative report was submitted and action was taken. The institution failed to promptly review the report, and the approaching deadline for taking disciplinary action did not allow for further investigation. The allegations were ultimately sustained against the officer and did not properly take into account the evidence revealed by the investigation, nor were the disciplinary charges consistent with the department's disciplinary matrix. Moreover, an allegation of dishonesty against the officer that arose during the investigation was not pursued despite substantial evidence in support of the allegation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 17 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 07-0016 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 7, 2005, a lieutenant received a letter from an inmate alleging that two sergeants ordered officers to plant DISPO INV ADV HA two razor blades in the inmate's cell during a cell search conducted on October 2, 2005. The inmate's cell was searched again on October 7, 2005, and two razor blades were recovered. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations against any officer or sergeant. It is unknown whether a more diligent investigation would have revealed additional evidence sufficient to sustain any allegations. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The applicable statutory deadline for taking disciplinary action in this case expired before the investigation was completed. The bureau and the department's attorney informed the investigator that the applicable deadline was February 13, 2007. The investigator was assigned the case on September 14, 2006, but did not complete the investigation until April 2007, two months after the deadline. Had misconduct been identified, the department would have been unable to take disciplinary action. Case No. 07-0017 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 10, 2005, an inmate and a control booth officer were involved in an argument. After being relieved by DISPO INV ADV HA a second officer, the control booth officer confronted the inmate, resulting in a use of force. The second officer and a third officer both witnessed the use of force. All three officers allegedly omitted relevant facts in the incident reports they completed that day. On September 26, 2005, the control booth officer submitted a memorandum contradicting the original incident reports. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations against the control booth officer for leaving the control booth to confront the inmate, leaving the post without supervisory approval, and omitting relevant facts in an incident report. The hiring authority imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months against the control booth officer. The hiring authority sustained allegations against the second officer for relieving the control booth officer without supervisory approval and for omitting relevant facts in an incident report, for which he received a letter of reprimand. The hiring authority concluded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations against the third officer. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department did not appropriately discipline the officers. The investigation revealed sufficient evidence to sustain allegations against the control booth officer for unnecessary use of force, failing to report misconduct, dishonesty, and omitting material facts in an official law enforcement report. The investigation also revealed sufficient evidence to sustain allegations against the other two officers for dishonesty, failing to report misconduct, and omitting material facts in an official law enforcement report. The appropriate discipline for all three officers should have been significant, up to and including dismissal. However, the hiring authority sustained less serious allegations against two of the officers and did not sustain any allegations against the third officer. The deadline for taking action against the officers expired before the bureau learned of the discipline imposed. As a result, there was no opportunity for the bureau to seek executive review of the case. At the time of these events, the institution was in transition with a new hiring authority and employee relations officer. The bureau subsequently met with the institution to ensure the bureau receives timely notice of disciplinary decisions in the future. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 18 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 07-0018 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 30, 2005, a sergeant allegedly pushed an inmate into the sergeant's office, causing the inmate to hit his head DISPO INV ADV HA on the wall and scrape his leg, chest, and shoulder. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs returned the case to the institution for disciplinary action. Ultimately, the time to take action expired with no discipline being imposed against the sergeant. BUREAU ASSESSMENT In July 2005, the hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to take disciplinary action against the sergeant without an internal affairs investigation. The Office of Internal Affairs concurred in September 2005. In March 2006, the hiring authority reconsidered and requested an internal affairs investigation. The Office of Internal Affairs again determined there was sufficient evidence to take action against the sergeant without an investigation. The hiring authority failed to take action against the sergeant before the one-year deadline expired on June 29, 2006. Case No. 07-0019 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 6, 2005, a medical technical assistant was attacked by an inmate after the medical technical assistant DISPO INV ADV HA discovered an inmate-manufactured weapon hidden on the inmate. A captain responded to the alarm, observed what he believed to be unnecessary force on the inmate by three officers, and reported it to the warden. The warden placed the three officers on administrative leave before they completed their reports of the incident. A lieutenant reportedly told the captain that the issue should have stayed in the unit and that he should have talked to staff. The lieutenant then said, "Ten years ago you would have been beaten down in the parking lot area." Afterward, someone removed the captain’s portrait from its mounted frame in the institution’s lobby, and the captain reported being ostracized by staff. The warden ordered the lobby area cordoned off and processed as a crime scene. On April 14, 2005, a rat trap and an accompanying poster naming the warden and the captain were posted in a union display case. On April 18, 2005, union officials voluntarily took down the rat trap and poster and replaced it 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. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded there was sufficient evidence to sustain allegations that the officer attempted to intimidate the captain for reporting misconduct. The hiring authority suspended the officer for 60 working days without pay. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorney assigned to this case voiced an opinion that the allegations were a "high school prank" not requiring investigation. The special agent attempted to terminate the investigation without providing complete information to the agent's chain of command. Therefore, based on incomplete information, the assistant secretary of the Office of Internal Affairs approved terminating the investigation. Upon learning that the investigation was being terminated, the bureau reviewed the special agent's analysis and consulted with the Office of Internal Affairs. After consultation, another special agent was assigned to complete the investigation. As a result of the investigation, the hiring authority sustained an allegation of intimidation but did not sustain the dishonesty allegation. The bureau requested executive review as it believed the dishonesty allegation should have been sustained. The director of adult institutions concurred with the hiring authority, and the allegation of dishonesty was not sustained. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 19 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 07-0020 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 7, 2005, a doctor allegedly provided negligent medical care to an inmate by failing to approve the transfer DISPO INV ADV HA of the inmate to the emergency room for evaluation and life-sustaining treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and served the doctor with a notice of dismissal. The doctor appealed the dismissal to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority's finding was not reasonable because the investigation did not reveal sufficient evidence of negligence to warrant disciplinary action against the doctor. In support of its dismissal action, the hiring authority relied in large part on a report issued as part of a medical peer review process; that report suffered from factual inaccuracies and a lack of understanding about the correctional setting. The hiring authority also failed to consult the bureau when it made its finding and imposed discipline, thereby precluding the bureau’s ability to seek a timely review of the decision before discipline was imposed. Case No. 07-0021 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 18, 2004, it was reported that a youth correctional counselor sexually abused 10 wards over a two-year DISPO INV ADV HA period and provided them with contraband in exchange for their participation in sex acts. The youth correctional counselor also allegedly retaliated against wards who did not want to participate in sexual activity by having other wards physically attack those who refused to participate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The youth correctional counselor received an industrial disability retirement and separated from state service on August 14, 2006, while the investigation was still pending. The department later sustained some of the allegations against the youth correctional counselor. In addition, a criminal investigation into the matter was conducted and referred to the district attorney's office. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The allegations of sexual misconduct were made in February 2004. The deadline for taking disciplinary action was extended for allegations involving some of the victims because they filed a civil lawsuit. However, the deadline was not extended for victims who were not part of the lawsuit. Despite the recommendation of the bureau, the Office of Internal Affairs did not begin its administrative investigation until March 2006. Therefore, the department was prevented from taking disciplinary action with regard to some of the allegations in this case because the deadline for taking action had passed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 20 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0022 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 20, 2007, it was alleged that a cook was trafficking various contraband items and controlled substances into DISPO INV ADV HA the institution for personal gain. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an internal affairs investigation, the matter was referred to the district attorney's office. Case No. 07-0023 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 20, 2007, it was alleged that a cook was trafficking various contraband items and controlled substances into DISPO INV ADV HA the institution for personal gain. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and served the cook with a notice of dismissal. Case No. 07-0024 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 16, 2007, the investigative services unit conducted searches in the institution's hobby shop and in the DISPO INV ADV HA locked office of a materials and stores supervisor; they found two sexual devices, condoms, flavored lotion, and a heart-shaped Valentine’s lollipop. As they were conducting their search, an inmate approached the hobby shop trying to gain access. A search of the inmate's cell revealed several cards and letters that appeared to be correspondence with the materials and stores supervisor. Also discovered were two topless photographs of a female with the head portion of the photographs missing. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office. Case No. 07-0025 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 7, 2007, housing unit officers were notified of a planned search of the housing unit on February 8, 2007. DISPO INV ADV HA When the planned search revealed only a few items, non-cell areas of the housing unit were searched. A large amount of inmate contraband, labeled by the inmates, was discovered in a storage room. The next day, one of the officers admitted conducting cell searches on February 7, 2007. The officer claimed that the items could not be processed according to policy because the officer's shift ended. Additionally, it was alleged that in the past, the same officer stored inmate contraband items before a planned cell search and returned the items to the inmates after the search was completed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the officer violated cell search policy and was dishonest regarding the searches. The hiring authority imposed a 90-day suspension. The hiring authority also sustained allegations against another officer and a control booth officer for violating the cell search policy and failing to report the first officer's actions. The hiring authority imposed salary reductions of 5 percent for six months and 5 percent for 36 months, respectively. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 21 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0026 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 10, 2007, an officer was convicted of misdemeanor accessory to insurance fraud. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. Case No. 07-0027 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 28, 2006, an inmate alleged that a supervising cook was supplying tobacco and lighters to inmates on a DISPO INV ADV HA weekly basis and was engaging in a sexual relationship with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The supervising cook resigned from the department after being interviewed by the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0028 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 24, 2006, an inmate was allegedly challenged to a fight by an officer, and when the inmate refused, the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate was beaten by two officers. The inmate made the allegation a month after the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE None of the allegations were sustained; therefore, no discipline was imposed. Case No. 07-0029 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 23, 2006, an officer in the mental health unit allegedly refused the repeated requests of an inmate to DISPO INV ADV HA leave the cell light on because the inmate was hallucinating and suicidal. The officer also allegedly told the inmate to "shut up and go to sleep" and "go ahead and hang yourself." The inmate attempted suicide within the hour. The officer's partner in the unit reported the misconduct. The subject officer thereafter allegedly threatened and attempted to intimidate the reporting officer by demanding a copy of the officer's report and asking the officer if he was a "snitch," if he was "scared," and if he was "a pussy." In addition, the subject officer allegedly attempted to intimidate the inmate from accurately reporting the incident. About two weeks after the suicide attempt, the subject officer, who had been removed from the mental health unit, was seen in the unit without permission back-dating notations on the suicidal inmate's bed-card in an effort to discredit the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE Upon completion of the investigation, the officer was dismissed. Case No. 07-0030 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 22, 2006, an inmate alleged that an officer provided the inmate with a cellular phone in exchange for DISPO INV ADV HA $900. In addition, the officer allegedly provided the inmate with tobacco and marijuana in exchange for $600. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the matter was referred to the district attorney's office. A criminal complaint is pending against the officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 22 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0031 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 12, 2006, an officer was arrested after allegedly threatening to harm the officer's spouse and the DISPO INV ADV HA spouse's family. DISPOSITION OF CASE The outside law enforcement investigation did not yield sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. Accordingly, the hiring authority did not take any disciplinary action against the officer. Case No. 07-0032 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 10, 2006, the local police notified the department that an officer had been arrested and booked into DISPO INV ADV HA the county jail on felony charges related to spousal abuse, unlawful possession of a concealed weapon, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. The officer failed to report this arrest to the department in a timely manner. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer was dismissed from state service for absence without leave before the department took adverse action. Case No. 07-0033 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 1, 2006, a lieutenant accused of misconduct allegedly stated to the employee relations officer, "You DISPO INV ADV HA better not fuck with my pay and you better not fuck with my retirement," and again, "I’m warning you, you better not fuck with my retirement," followed by the comment, "Does it sound like a threat, bitch?" The lieutenant allegedly continued to make threatening and profane statements to the employee relations officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The lieutenant retired during the investigation. Case No. 07-0034 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 26, 2006, the investigative services unit received information indicating that a facility maintenance DISPO INV ADV HA employee was bringing narcotics and tobacco into the institution. During a search of the garage area, officers located approximately 12 grams of suspected narcotics. DISPOSITION OF CASE The employee resigned before the completion of the investigation. However, the investigation was completed, and a letter indicating the employee's resignation was under unfavorable circumstances was placed in the employee's personnel file. Case No. 07-0035 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 22, 2006, it was allegedly discovered that a captain, acting as treasurer for a law enforcement association, DISPO INV ADV HA embezzled funds for personal gain. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an investigation that proved the allegations to be true, the captain was dismissed. The captain appealed the dismissal, and a hearing is pending before the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 23 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0036 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 16, 2006, four inmates were found in possession of tobacco as they left a clothing room. A laundry DISPO INV ADV HA worker was seen entering the clothing room with a large bag just before the inmates came out. A search of the clothing room recovered approximately 1,365 ounces of tobacco, $550 cash, and various food products. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was insufficient evidence to identify the subject(s) responsible for providing the inmates with the tobacco. However, one of the laundry workers assigned to the area retired during the course of the investigation. Case No. 07-0037 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 16, 2006, an officer was allegedly seen masturbating while on duty. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigation into the alleged misconduct did not uncover sufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Accordingly, no referral was made to the district attorney's office. Case No. 07-0038 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 16, 2006, an officer was allegedly seen masturbating while on duty. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE After the investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegation. Case No. 07-0039 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 11, 2006, an officer was arrested for possessing images of child pornography on a personal computer, DISPO INV ADV HA and the officer failed to disclose the arrest to the hiring authority. It was also alleged that the officer was dishonest during an investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer from state service. Case No. 07-0040 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 11, 2006, during an excessive force investigation, it was alleged that a previously unidentified officer was DISPO INV ADV HA at the scene. However, the officer never submitted an incident report and was not named in reports by other officers. The officer admitted witnessing the use of force but claimed that the responding supervisor did not tell the officer to submit a report. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer failed to submit an incident report. Because of mitigating factors, including the supervisor's failure to direct the officer to write a report, the hiring authority imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. Following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority settled the matter for a two- day suspension without pay and a waiver of appeal to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 24 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0041 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In October 2006, it was alleged that an officer had been engaged in ongoing sexual contact with an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE At the conclusion of the investigation, the Office of Internal Affairs determined there was no probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. The criminal investigation was closed, and an administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau is monitoring. Case No. 07-0042 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 26, 2006, it was alleged that an officer was selling tobacco, cellular phones, and controlled substances DISPO INV ADV HA to inmates, as well as engaging in a romantic relationship with a parolee. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an investigation. On December 20, 2006, the officer appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance when she appeared for her internal affairs interview. An outside law enforcement agency responded to the institution and arrested the officer for driving while under the influence of a controlled substance, being under the influence of a controlled substance, and for possessing a controlled substance on prison grounds. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney filed charges against the officer for all three offenses based on the arrest by the outside law enforcement agency. The investigation by the Office of Internal Affairs into the allegations made on September 26, 2006, revealed insufficient evidence to warrant a referral to the district attorney's office. Case No. 07-0043 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 26, 2006, it was alleged that an officer was selling tobacco, cellular phones, and controlled substances DISPO INV ADV HA to inmates. It was also alleged that the officer was engaged in a romantic relationship with a parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned while the investigation was pending. The hiring authority later sustained the allegations against the officer. Case No. 07-0044 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 20, 2006, an officer was observed pointing a rifle at inmates from a guard tower. The officer allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA told the inmates the officer was looking for a reason to shoot them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs completed a criminal investigation, and the case was submitted to the district attorney's office, which declined to file charges. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 25 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0045 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 20, 2006, an officer was observed pointing a rifle at inmates from a guard tower. The officer allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA told the inmates the officer was looking for a reason to shoot them. During the investigation, the officer lied to investigators. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all charges, and the officer was dismissed. The officer was previously dismissed as a result of unrelated misconduct and had only recently been reinstated when this misconduct occurred. Case No. 07-0046 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 11, 2006, it was alleged that a control booth officer was negligent when releasing two single-celled DISPO INV ADV HA inmates at the same time, resulting in one inmate getting stabbed and suffering life-threatening injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office declined to prosecute the case. Subsequently, the Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau is monitoring. Case No. 07-0047 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 1, 2006, the Office of Internal Affairs initiated an investigation into allegations that a parole agent DISPO INV ADV HA sexually harassed and assaulted female parolees and their female family members. Similar allegations were brought against the agent on numerous occasions from 1996 to 2003, but the allegations were not sustained. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation and determined that there was insufficient evidence to refer the case to the district attorney's office. Case No. 07-0048 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 17, 2006, the department received a recording of a harassing telephone call left anonymously on a DISPO INV ADV HA lobbyist's voice recorder. The lobbyist had written an article regarding prison reform. The call was allegedly made on August 8, 2006, by the institution's associate warden. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation of discourteous treatment of a member of the public was sustained. The associate warden was issued an official letter of reprimand. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 26 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0049 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 6, 2006, an inmate complained of an asthma attack and banged on the cell door to get attention. An DISPO INV ADV HA officer went to the cell and allegedly told the inmate to stop banging on the door and stop "faking" an attack. A short time later, the inmate again banged on the door and requested an inhaler. The officer allegedly denied the inmate's request, said the inmate should have taken care of the medical issue on third watch, and told the inmate to go to sleep. About one hour later, medical staff arrived and gave the inmate an inhaler. It was alleged that after the inmate filed a complaint against the officer, the officer came to the inmate's cell, banged on the door, and yelled angrily. The officer stated that the complaint was untruthful and that no one would believe the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations in this case were combined with allegations against the officer in another case. The department sustained the allegations in both cases, and the officer was dismissed. Case No. 07-0050 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 5, 2006, an independent contractor psychiatrist allegedly asked a ward if the ward had "wet dreams" and DISPO INV ADV HA touched the ward between the legs while touching his penis. Both the ward and psychiatrist were clothed during the alleged incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE At the conclusion of the criminal investigation, the Office of Internal Affairs referred the matter to the district attorney's office, which declined to file criminal charges against the psychiatrist. Case No. 07-0051 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on July 31, 2006, a floor officer intentionally opened an inmate's cell door and allowed several other DISPO INV ADV HA inmates to assault him and steal his property. It is further alleged that the floor officer witnessed the assault and failed to intervene or report the officer's observations. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following the investigation, the Office of Internal Affairs determined that no probable cause existed to believe that a crime had been committed, so the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office for a filing decision. However, an administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau is monitoring. Case No. 07-0052 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 26, 2006, one inmate stabbed another inmate on the yard. In an attempt to stop the attack, two yard officers DISPO INV ADV HA discharged non-lethal rounds, and a gun post officer fired a rifle round. One rifle round went through the assailant's hand and then struck the other inmate's hand, severing a finger. Both inmates were transported to the medical treatment center. DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of misconduct were not sustained against the officers, and no disciplinary action was taken. As a result of the investigation, however, officers will receive remedial training on proper yard release procedures. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 27 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0053 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 21, 2006, it was alleged that a psychiatric technician provided tobacco and a compact disc to an inmate and DISPO INV ADV HA contacted the inmate by telephone. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the psychiatric technician with a notice of dismissal. The psychiatric technician resigned before the effective date of the dismissal. Case No. 07-0054 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 19, 2006, an escort officer allegedly violated procedure when he escorted an inmate to a patio area without DISPO INV ADV HA first notifying a supervisor. In addition, the officer documented that while attempting to place the inmate in handcuffs, the inmate pushed off a wall, causing the officer to push the inmate back toward the wall. The inmate allegedly suffered two broken teeth. It was also alleged that a control booth officer failed to make the proper announcement of the escort, which placed the escorting officer's safety in jeopardy, and a yard gun officer failed to monitor the escort to the program office. DISPOSITION OF CASE The yard gun officer faced one allegation of neglect of duty, which was not sustained. The control booth officer faced two allegations of neglect of duty, neither of which was sustained. The escort officer faced allegations of neglect of duty and unnecessary use pf force for the incident on the patio, as well as a neglect of duty allegation for the escort. Only the allegation of neglect of duty during the escort was sustained, but no disciplinary action was imposed. Instead, the escort officer received a letter of instruction regarding proper escort procedures. Case No. 07-0055 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 19, 2006, one inmate stabbed another inmate. An officer approached an investigative services unit sergeant DISPO INV ADV HA and told the sergeant that a confidential informant provided information pertaining to the incident and the identity of the assailant. The sergeant ordered the officer to submit a memorandum regarding the information numerous times, but the officer refused and walked away. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of insubordination. The officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. Case No. 07-0056 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 14, 2006, a contract medical worker allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate. It was further DISPO INV ADV HA alleged that the medical worker was in possession of marijuana inside the institution on that date. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation was referred to the district attorney's office for criminal prosecution. The district attorney's office filed a complaint charging the subject with two counts of sexual misconduct and one count of bringing a controlled substance into a prison. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 28 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0057 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 11, 2006, an academic instructor admitted that she had a relationship with an inmate, corresponded with the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate, and provided the inmate with gifts such as compact discs, stamps, and tobacco paraphernalia. The academic instructor also admitted to telling the inmate that she loved him. A second inmate learned of the situation and demanded tobacco from the instructor in exchange for returning a letter written to the first inmate. When the academic instructor refused, the second inmate demanded $1,000, which the instructor provided. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation. However, the academic instructor resigned from the department before being interviewed by an agent from the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0058 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 2, 2006, information was received indicating that a parole agent was engaging in overly familiar conduct with DISPO INV ADV HA a parolee that the agent supervised. Specifically, the agent called the parolee hundreds of times, both on and off duty, over the course of three months. DISPOSITION OF CASE All the allegations were sustained. Because the agent was already dismissed from the department in connection with another case, the completed investigation was placed in the agent's personnel file. Case No. 07-0059 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 2, 2006, a police officer arrested a gang member for being drunk in public. The gang member told the police DISPO INV ADV HA officer that a correctional officer was introducing methamphetamine into a prison for other gang members. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation. There was insufficient evidence to refer the case to the district attorney's office. Case No. 07-0060 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 30, 2006, an investigative services unit received several memorandums from a psychiatric social worker DISPO INV ADV HA alleging that the director of nurses and a supervisor of nurses ordered health care staff members to make false entries, delete information, or alter information in various patient medical records. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the director of nurses or the supervisor of nurses. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 29 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0061 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE During a June 30, 2006, incident, an officer allegedly used force to subdue an inmate to the ground, resulting in the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate needing seven sutures above his right eyebrow. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation of excessive force, but allegations of incompetence, inefficiency, and neglect of duty were sustained. The officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. An appeal is pending with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0062 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 28, 2006, an inmate was stabbed on the yard. The classification documents placing the inmate on the yard DISPO INV ADV HA had discrepancies, and it appeared that some entries were added after the fact. The documents showed the inmate to be on "walk alone" status as well as part of the general population. These are inconsistent classifications. DISPOSITION OF CASE The associate warden, who chaired the classification committee that allowed placing the inmate on the yard, received a letter of counseling and training in documentation of classification decisions. The correctional counselor who failed to note the inconsistency in the classification documents also received a letter of counseling and training. It was determined that the decision to place the inmate on the yard was appropriate; however, it was not properly documented. Case No. 07-0063 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 23, 2006, the department received information alleging that a material and stores supervisor was engaging in DISPO INV ADV HA a sexual relationship with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The employee resigned from the department before the completion of the internal affairs investigation. The investigative report was placed in the employee's personnel file. Case No. 07-0064 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 22, 2006, a parolee alleged that while incarcerated, he was forced into a sexual relationship with an officer. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE Because of insufficient evidence of criminal conduct, the Office of Internal Affairs closed the criminal investigation and did not refer the case to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau monitored. Case No. 07-0065 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 22, 2006, a parolee alleged that while incarcerated, he was forced into a sexual relationship with an officer. DISPO INV ADV HA The officer admitted that she had lived with the parolee, gave birth to the parolee's baby, and failed to notify the hiring authority that she was involved with the parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all the allegations, and the officer was dismissed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 30 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0066 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2006, an officer, who was also a union official, allegedly attempted to obtain false testimony from a DISPO INV ADV HA sergeant who witnessed another officer's misconduct. It was also alleged that the officer was dishonest during an investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE Neither allegation was sustained because of a lack of sufficient evidence. Therefore, no disciplinary action was taken. Case No. 07-0067 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 9, 2006, a person claiming to be the ex-spouse of an officer alleged that the officer had been using and selling DISPO INV ADV HA drugs for the past 10 years. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation was not sustained because of insufficient evidence, and no disciplinary action was taken. However, the subject will be monitored in the future because of excessive absences. Case No. 07-0068 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE An inmate reported engaging in sexual conduct with an officer six times between June 6, 2006, and June 15, 2006. The DISPO INV ADV HA inmate stated that the inmate performed oral sex on the officer four times and had anal sex with the officer two times, and the inmate provided the investigators with a cloth allegedly containing the officer's semen. The inmate stated that the officer gave him a television remote control, which was seized. After the inmate complained, another inmate also complained about sexual relations with the officer and provided an alleged sample of the officer's semen. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was not referred to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau is monitoring. Case No. 07-0069 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE An inmate reported engaging in sexual conduct with an officer six times between June 6, 2006, and June 15, 2006. The DISPO INV ADV HA inmate stated that the inmate performed oral sex on the officer four times and had anal sex with the officer two times, and the inmate provided the investigators with a cloth allegedly containing the officer's semen. The inmate stated that the officer gave him a television remote control, which was seized. After the inmate complained, another inmate also complained about sexual relations with the officer and provided an alleged sample of the officer's semen. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned from employment at the time of the officer's investigative interview. The officer was served with a notice stating that the resignation was under adverse circumstances. Case No. 07-0070 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 6, 2006, an officer allegedly choked an inmate, which caused the inmate to suffer an epileptic seizure and DISPO INV ADV HA unconsciousness. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an administrative investigation, the allegation against the officer was not sustained. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 31 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0071 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 4, 2006, an officer allegedly struck an inmate who had verbally taunted him. The officer later allegedly filed a DISPO INV ADV HA false report of the incident that characterized the inmate as the aggressor in the altercation. The officer was also allegedly dishonest in his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. After the officer's Skelly hearing, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which the officer stipulated to a one-year suspension without pay. Case No. 07-0072 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 3, 2006, three officers allegedly permitted unescorted inmate porters to be out of their cells during a time DISPO INV ADV HA when all inmates should have been restricted to their cells or under restrained escort. As a result, an inmate assaulted another inmate with a stabbing instrument. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain allegations against one officer. However, inexcusable neglect of duty was sustained against the two other officers. One officer received a two-day suspension, while the other officer received a letter of instruction. The officers did not file appeals with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0073 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 2, 2006, the department received information alleging that an unidentified officer was trafficking narcotics DISPO INV ADV HA and other contraband to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE An officer was identified in an undercover Office of Internal Affairs operation, and a search of the officer's house pursuant to a search warrant resulted in evidence of methamphetamine. The district attorney's office filed criminal charges, and the officer was convicted of felony methamphetamine trafficking. Case No. 07-0074 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 2, 2006, the department received information alleging that an unidentified officer was trafficking narcotics DISPO INV ADV HA and other contraband to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer was identified through an undercover Office of Internal Affairs operation and dismissed for trafficking methamphetamine into the institution. Case No. 07-0075 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 2, 2006, a nurse allegedly transported marijuana, tobacco, and hypodermic needles to inmates in the DISPO INV ADV HA institution's medical treatment facility. DISPOSITION OF CASE Only the tobacco allegations were substantiated by the criminal investigation, and the case was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 32 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0076 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 2, 2006, a nurse allegedly transported marijuana, tobacco, and hypodermic needles to inmates in the DISPO INV ADV HA institution's medical treatment facility. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation established only the transporting of tobacco. The nurse resigned prior to dismissal. Case No. 07-0077 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 2, 2006, it was alleged that an officer sprayed library books with pepper spray and discarded the books into a DISPO INV ADV HA trash can and had sprayed books with pepper spray on other occasions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were not sustained, and no disciplinary action was taken. Case No. 07-0078 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 1, 2006, an inmate alleged that a sergeant was bringing drugs into the institution, as well as delivering DISPO INV ADV HA messages and money from street gang members to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause that criminal misconduct occurred; therefore, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. Case No. 07-0079 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 1, 2006, an inmate alleged that a sergeant was bringing drugs into the institution, as well as delivering DISPO INV ADV HA messages and money from street gang members to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The employee resigned from the department before the imposition of discipline. Case No. 07-0080 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that during June and July of 2006, a radiology technician inappropriately x-rayed inmates, exposing them DISPO INV ADV HA to harmful radiation in violation of statutory regulations. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office filed 12 misdemeanor charges against the employee for improperly exposing others to radiation; these charges were later dropped when the expert witness radiologist changed his opinion. The administrative case is still pending. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 33 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0081 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 30, 2006, an officer allegedly removed his duty belt and challenged an inmate to a fight. It was also alleged DISPO INV ADV HA that a second officer observed the incident but failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation against the first officer was sustained. The officer initially received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. However, following additional information brought forth at the Skelly hearing, the penalty was reduced to a letter of instruction. The allegation against the second officer was not sustained. Case No. 07-0082 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 29, 2006, several officers allegedly used excessive force while attempting to take appliances from an inmate, DISPO INV ADV HA and other officers failed to adequately report the incident. One officer ordered the inmate to submit to handcuffs, and after the inmate refused, the officers used pepper spray on the inmate. The inmate kneeled, faced away from staff, and placed his hands behind his back. An officer ordered the inmate to back out of the cell, and the inmate refused. An officer stepped into the cell to place handcuffs on the inmate, and the inmate again resisted. An officer pulled the inmate's legs from under him, causing the inmate to fall forward. After some resistance, the officers restrained the inmate. The inmate alleged that the officers stomped the back of his head with their boots several times, causing a laceration and contusions. The officers' reports did not explain how the inmate received the injury to the back of his head. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of insubordination against one officer, who refused to be interviewed about the incident, and issued that officer a letter of instruction. No allegations were sustained against the other officers. Case No. 07-0083 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 27, 2006, a nurse allegedly removed a vial of Demerol from a medical treatment area and altered the narcotic DISPO INV ADV HA tracking sheet to hide the theft. DISPOSITION OF CASE The nurse resigned during the investigation. Case No. 07-0084 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 25, 2006, an inmate who was resisting escort by going limp and refusing to walk was dragged by officers over DISPO INV ADV HA concrete and up metal stairs. Once inside a cell, the inmate was banging on the cell door to obtain assistance and alleged that two different officers opened the cell door and sprayed the inmate with pepper spray without provocation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations of improper use of force were not sustained. However, three of the officers received letters of instruction and training regarding the need to properly document and provide supervisor notice of passive resistance by inmates. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 34 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0085 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 24, 2006, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force when the officer dispersed pepper spray on an inmate in DISPO INV ADV HA the shower without using less forceful alternatives. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and served the officer with a letter of instruction. Case No. 07-0086 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 23, 2006, information was received that an officer had taken nude photographs of a girlfriend's daughter DISPO INV ADV HA through a window without consent. During the investigation, it was alleged that the officer tried to intimidate or retaliate against a witness, was insubordinate when ordered not to contact witnesses, and used a personal cellular phone while working inside the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE As a result of the administrative investigation, the hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain charges the officer took nude photographs of the girl, was insubordinate, and possessed a cellular phone inside a secured perimeter. The officer elected to retire shortly after he was served with a notice of dismissal. Case No. 07-0087 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2006, three officers forcibly subdued an inmate. A responding sergeant alleged that the first officer DISPO INV ADV HA repeatedly stated the inmate was subdued for walking away and refusing the officer's order to stop. The sergeant said that when a second officer added that the inmate bumped the first officer, the first officer's statement changed to include the inmate's bump. The three officers submitted reports reflecting that the force was preceded by the inmate bumping into the first officer. One of the officers later accused the sergeant of lying about the conversation between the first and second officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority initially sustained allegations that the three officers used unnecessary force and were dishonest and proposed dismissal for the three officers. Following further consultation with department attorneys and the bureau, the hiring authority concluded that the allegations against the three officers could not be sustained; thus, no disciplinary action was taken. The hiring authority also concluded that the sergeant was not dishonest. Case No. 07-0088 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 18, 2006, a probation officer informed the department that according to a probationer, an officer was DISPO INV ADV HA growing marijuana in his garage, smoking it on a regular basis, and distributing it to inmates. It was also alleged that the officer had gang ties and engaged in inappropriate sexual relationships with inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation. There was insufficient evidence to refer the case to the district attorney's office for prosecution. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 35 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0089 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 16, 2006, a parolee alleged a relationship with an officer working at a community correctional facility. The DISPO INV ADV HA parolee also alleged that the officer visited the parolee at a drug treatment facility. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer was not a department employee. Instead, the officer was employed by the community correctional facility pursuant to a contract with the department. Although the department was precluded from disciplining the officer, it revoked the officer's security clearance, thus barring the officer from the institution. Case No. 07-0090 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 16, 2006, a parolee who was involved with an officer at a community correctional facility alleged that a DISPO INV ADV HA second officer mailed correspondence from the parolee to the officer that the parolee had a relationship with. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer was not a department employee. Instead, the officer was employed by the community correctional facility pursuant to a contract with the department. Although the department was precluded from disciplining the officer, it revoked the officer's security clearance, thus barring the officer from the institution. Case No. 07-0091 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 11, 2006, the department received a letter with numerous attachments from an inmate challenging a gang DISPO INV ADV HA validation. Many of the attached documents identified sources who provided information against the inmate. An officer allegedly provided the inmate with copies of the confidential documents, knew that the inmate had a photograph of the officer's daughter, and failed to report these security violations. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer for providing confidential documents to the inmate, endangering inmate sources, and failing to report the security breach. The hiring authority concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove that the officer removed confidential documents from the inmate's central file. A 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months was imposed. The officer did not appeal to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0092 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 10, 2006, the investigative services unit received information that an officer was allegedly engaging in a sexual DISPO INV ADV HA relationship with an inmate. The inmate paroled on May 13, 2006. On that date, Office of Internal Affairs agents observed institution staff transport the parolee to a bus depot and followed the parolee's bus until the parolee got off the bus. The parolee then entered a vehicle. The agents immediately converged on the vehicle and identified the driver as a uniformed officer. The parolee admitted to a sexual relationship with the officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was investigated by the Office of Internal Affairs and referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute the case. An administrative investigation was also conducted, which the bureau monitored. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 36 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0093 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 10, 2006, the investigative services unit received information that an officer was allegedly engaging in a sexual DISPO INV ADV HA relationship with an inmate. The inmate paroled on May 13, 2006. On that date, Office of Internal Affairs agents observed institution staff transport the parolee to a bus depot and followed the parolee's bus until the parolee got off the bus. The parolee then entered a vehicle. The agents immediately converged on the vehicle and identified the driver as a uniformed officer. The parolee admitted to a sexual relationship with the officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation. The hiring authority sustained the allegations and decided to dismiss the officer from employment. The officer resigned before the dismissal became effective. Case No. 07-0094 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 8, 2006, an officer alleged that an inmate attempted to throw an unknown liquid substance on the officer. To DISPO INV ADV HA stop the inmate's behavior, the officer documented giving verbal orders to the inmate to "get down," spraying the inmate with pepper spray, retrieving additional pepper spray, and again pepper spraying the inmate. After an administrative review of the incident, it was determined that the officer's use of pepper spray was excessive and unnecessary. Furthermore, the officer was allegedly dishonest in the submitted report concerning the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office filed a felony criminal complaint against the officer for unnecessary and excessive use of force. Case No. 07-0095 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between May 2006 and July 2006, a captain and a lieutenant allegedly changed dormitory assignments to benefit two DISPO INV ADV HA incarcerated sons of a sergeant who personally contacted the captain requesting the sons be moved. The captain agreed to move the sons and requested the lieutenant's assistance. The dormitory changes were inconsistent with normal operating procedures and led to the appearance of over-familiarity. It was further alleged that the captain was dishonest during the investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the captain and initially sought dismissal. While the disciplinary process was pending, the captain was removed from the limited captain's term and returned to the position of lieutenant. The matter was subsequently settled with a letter of reprimand and the stipulation that the subject not be eligible for a captain's position for 36 months. Furthermore, the dishonesty allegations were dismissed. The allegations against the lieutenant were not sustained because of insufficient evidence. Case No. 07-0096 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In May 2006, an inmate alleged that he was involved in a tobacco smuggling ring with an officer. When questioned, DISPO INV ADV HA the officer admitted bringing tobacco into the institution for personal use but denied providing tobacco to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of inefficiency, inexcusable neglect of duty, willful disobedience, and other failure of good behavior were sustained, and the officer was suspended for 18 days. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 37 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0097 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 1, 2006, an officer allegedly exposed his genitals to an inmate, and the inmate then masturbated the officer DISPO INV ADV HA for several minutes because the officer promised to clear the inmate's rules violation report. It was also alleged that the officer provided cigarette lighters, candy bars, chips, and sandwiches to the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation. There was insufficient evidence to refer the case to the district attorney's office. Case No. 07-0098 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 1, 2006, an officer allegedly exposed his genitals to an inmate, and the inmate then masturbated the officer DISPO INV ADV HA for several minutes because the officer promised to clear the inmate's rules violation report. It was also alleged that the officer provided cigarette lighters, candy bars, chips, and sandwiches to the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegation. Case No. 07-0099 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 28, 2006, an inmate filed a complaint alleging that on April 12, 2006, a lieutenant used unnecessary force by DISPO INV ADV HA tackling the inmate to the ground. DISPOSITION OF CASE Because of insufficient evidence, the hiring authority did not sustain any of the allegations against the lieutenant. Case No. 07-0100 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 27, 2006, the hiring authority decided to dismiss a parole agent for misconduct. However, the paperwork DISPO INV ADV HA necessary for dismissing the parole agent did not get to the person who prepared the dismissals in a timely manner. The time period in which the department could take disciplinary action against the parole agent expired before the paperwork was found. The department initiated an investigation to determine who held or lost the paperwork until after the time to impose dismissal passed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation did not identify a subject responsible for holding or losing the paperwork; therefore, no action could be taken. Case No. 07-0101 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 25, 2006, it was alleged that an officer sold tobacco, heroin, and methamphetamine to inmates. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation did not reveal sufficient evidence to support a referral to the district attorney's office. The officer resigned during the investigation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 38 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0102 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 23, 2006, an inmate alleged that an officer ordered the inmate to walk on his knees into a holding cell while DISPO INV ADV HA in leg restraints; the officer then stood on the leg restraint chain and pushed the inmate. As a result of the push, the inmate fell forward and struck his face on the back of the holding cage, resulting in a laceration above his right eye. It was further alleged that the officer failed to report the use of force and was dishonest. In addition, a sergeant allegedly neglected his supervision duties related to the incident, and a second officer allegedly made false entries in the holding cell log sheet. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation against the second officer for false entries was deemed unfounded by the hiring authority. The allegations of incompetence, neglect of duty resulting in injury, and other failure of good behavior were sustained against the sergeant, and he was demoted from sergeant to officer. As for the initial officer, allegations were sustained for unreasonable use of force, neglect of duty resulting in an injury, and discourteous treatment. However, the dishonesty charge was not sustained. He received a 48-day suspension. The initial officer and the sergeant filed appeals, which are pending with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0103 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 23, 2006, an inmate alleged that an officer assaulted the inmate in an office following a verbal confrontation. DISPO INV ADV HA The officer's report stated that the inmate assaulted the officer. A second officer admitted to being in the office during the incident but did not see what precipitated the use of force because the second officer's back was turned. A third officer admitted witnessing the force but failing to write a report. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations of unnecessary force and dishonesty against the initial officer and the officers who assisted in taking the inmate into custody. There was also insufficient evidence to sustain allegations of failing to report the force witnessed by the other officers. No action was taken against the officer who admitted failing to write an incident report because the hiring authority concluded that the Peace Officers' Bill of Rights was violated when questioning the officer. Case No. 07-0104 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 21, 2006, a letter from a consulate general's office indicated that a foreign-born inmate alleged that officers DISPO INV ADV HA confiscated $6,000 cash, a cellular phone, and personal electronics during a cell search. It was also alleged that officers interfered with the inmate's mailing privileges and assaulted the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found the allegations to be unfounded based on the facts provided in the Office of Internal Affairs investigation. Therefore, no disciplinary action was taken. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 39 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0105 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 21, 2006, an inmate sat down on the floor and refused to move in response to a first officer's direction. A DISPO INV ADV HA second officer entered the housing unit and allegedly emptied a can of pepper spray onto the inmate when the inmate refused to move in response to the second officer's request. Shortly thereafter, a captain entered the housing unit and noticed a puddle of pepper spray on the floor. The first and second officer provided accounts of the event that differed from the inmate's allegations and were not supported by the captain's observation. The control booth officer in the housing unit saw the second officer use pepper spray on the inmate and allegedly failed to accurately report the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the initial officer was dishonest in the incident report and during the interview with the Office of Internal Affairs. The hiring authority also sustained allegations that the second officer used unnecessary force, and was dishonest in the incident report as well as during the interview with the Office of Internal Affairs. Both officers were dismissed. The hiring authority further concluded that the control booth officer failed to report the use of force and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months. Case No. 07-0106 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 21, 2006, an inmate filed a grievance against an officer and a sergeant alleging that on April 18, 2006, the DISPO INV ADV HA officer threatened to place the inmate on a "blast." The inmate explained that a "blast" is when an officer takes away group privileges, confiscates or destroys inmate personal property, or has inmates assault inmates of the same ethnic group. The inmate alleged that the ritual of a "blast" has been conducted by the officer and the sergeant on numerous occasions, with most of the incidents happening during the months of March and April of 2006. DISPOSITION OF CASE The sergeant was removed as a subject before completion of the investigation. The officer received a two-day suspension without pay for sustained allegations of neglect of duty and discourteous treatment of an inmate. The remaining allegations were not sustained. Case No. 07-0107 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 16, 2006, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force by shoving an inmate in the chest while simultaneously DISPO INV ADV HA uttering a disrespectful comment. Another officer witnessed the incident, yet neither officer reported the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed both officers for neglect of duty and dishonesty. Case No. 07-0108 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 14, 2006, an officer allegedly removed his duty belt, entered a cell, and struck an inmate several times in the DISPO INV ADV HA upper torso. Afterward, the officer allegedly secured the cell and failed to report the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of neglect of duty for engaging in inappropriate physical contact with an inmate and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for four months. The officer did not appeal the discipline. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 40 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0109 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 11, 2006, an inmate alleged that an officer was involved in trafficking narcotics into the institution with other DISPO INV ADV HA officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office because there was insufficient evidence of criminal misconduct. Case No. 07-0110 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 11, 2006, an inmate alleged that a second officer was involved in trafficking narcotics into the institution DISPO INV ADV HA with other officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office because there was insufficient evidence of criminal misconduct. Case No. 07-0111 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 11, 2006, an inmate alleged that a third officer was involved in trafficking narcotics into the institution with DISPO INV ADV HA other officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office because there was insufficient evidence of criminal misconduct. Case No. 07-0112 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 10, 2006, an administrative law judge found that an officer was dishonest both during an investigative DISPO INV ADV HA interview and at a State Personnel Board hearing regarding the officer's conduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation was sustained, and the officer was dismissed based on the administrative law judge's opinion. The officer appealed the decision to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0113 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 10, 2006, three officers allegedly violated procedure by escorting two lockdown-status inmates without DISPO INV ADV HA physical restraints. Subsequently, the two inmates engaged in mutual combat, requiring the officers to use force. Immediately following the inmates' fight, a large steel-blade weapon measuring nine inches long and one-half inch wide was discovered in the area of the incident. It was also alleged that the three officers, a sergeant, and a lieutenant failed to write reports on the day of the incident and were dishonest in their eventual reports. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation of neglect of duty against the lieutenant. The allegation of neglect of duty was sustained with respect to the sergeant, and he received a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. The allegations of neglect of duty, insubordination, and discourteous treatment against the three officers were also sustained, and each received a 5 percent salary reduction for 24 months. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 41 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0114 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 1, 2006, an off-duty officer allegedly entered the home of a person with whom the officer was personally DISPO INV ADV HA involved. There was a confrontation, and the officer damaged phone lines. The officer was subsequently arrested by local law enforcement officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months as discipline for the misconduct. The officer did not appeal the disciplinary action. Case No. 07-0115 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In April 2006, while in the capacity of acting warden, the chief deputy warden instructed the investigative services unit DISPO INV ADV HA lieutenant to omit information from a request for investigation submitted to the Office of Internal Affairs. The information concerned the construction of a hidden room in a vocational warehouse on institution grounds. DISPOSITION OF CASE The chief deputy warden retired before the completion of the investigation. The investigation was completed, and the allegations were sustained. However, because the chief deputy warden was no longer a department employee, no adverse action was initiated. Case No. 07-0116 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 30, 2006, a sergeant and a correctional counselor were interviewing an inmate who twice stood up to leave DISPO INV ADV HA the interview. The correctional counselor used force to place the inmate back in the chair. The sergeant and correctional counselor did not write official reports regarding the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation of failure to report a use of force was sustained against both staff members. The correctional counselor received a letter of instruction, and the sergeant received a letter of reprimand. Case No. 07-0117 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 29, 2006, the Office of Internal Affairs received information that a medical technical assistant, who at that DISPO INV ADV HA time was facing disciplinary action, solicited several other medical technical assistants to remove confidential inmate medical records from the institution. The medical technical assistant had already received some confidential medical information from another medical technical assistant. The medical technical assistant apparently intended to use the documents in her State Personnel Board hearing to defend herself against pending disciplinary action or in a subsequent civil action against the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation. The medical technical assistant received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months for improperly accessing confidential information. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 42 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0118 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 28, 2006, an inmate committed suicide by hanging. During the investigation of the suicide, it was alleged DISPO INV ADV HA that the control booth officer, floor officer, and two suicide watch officers committed acts of inexcusable neglect of duty and dishonesty. Most of the allegations were not related to the inmate's suicide, but rather to separate acts of misconduct occurring during the shift when the suicide occurred, such as abandoning a post and failure to follow proper count procedures. DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of inexcusable neglect of duty against the two suicide watch officers were sustained for leaving their assigned posts without supervisor approval. Both officers received remedial training and a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. Allegations of neglect of duty and falsification of count slips were sustained against the floor officer. A settlement agreement was negotiated whereby the floor officer agreed to accept a 10 percent salary reduction for 36 months. Allegations of neglect of duty against the control booth officer were also sustained, and a settlement agreement was negotiated whereby the officer agreed to accept a 10 percent salary reduction for 36 months. Case No. 07-0119 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 28, 2006, it was alleged that an officer was bringing methamphetamine into the institution and smoking it DISPO INV ADV HA with inmates. It was also alleged that the officer was bringing marijuana into the institution and selling it to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was insufficient evidence to establish that the officer was bringing drugs into the institution. However, the officer was issued a letter of instruction for failure to report that an inmate had solicited the officer to bring drugs into the institution. Case No. 07-0120 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 28, 2006, an officer pled no contest to a misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment stemming from a DISPO INV ADV HA domestic violence incident. On September 12, 2006, the court modified the protective order prohibiting the officer from possessing a firearm. On September 22, 2006, the officer pled no contest to misdemeanor cruelty to a child arising from a separate incident that occurred in June 2005. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations arising from the officer's convictions and dismissed the officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 43 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0121 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 27, 2006, an inmate was allegedly assaulted by other inmates for agreeing to masturbate in front of a DISPO INV ADV HA control booth officer in exchange for tobacco. Two additional inmates admitted masturbating for the same officer in exchange for tobacco. All three inmates stated the officer used binoculars from the control booth to observe the acts. Although the officer denied supplying tobacco in exchange for watching inmates masturbating, the officer admitted to using binoculars in the control booth and gave inconsistent answers during the investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer was overly familiar with the three inmates by supplying tobacco in exchange for watching them masturbate and that the officer was dishonest during the investigative interview. The officer resigned immediately upon being served with a notice for dismissal. The resignation was accepted and noted as received under unfavorable circumstances. Case No. 07-0122 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE An inmate alleged that on March 22, 2006, a control booth officer intentionally opened a cell door so three other DISPO INV ADV HA inmates could enter and attack the inmate. The next day, the inmate stated that the multiple facial fractures were caused by a fall onto a table. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs concluded there was insufficient evidence to refer the criminal investigation to the district attorney's office. Case No. 07-0123 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE An inmate alleged that on March 22, 2006, a control booth officer intentionally opened a cell door so three other DISPO INV ADV HA inmates could enter and attack the inmate. The next day, the inmate stated that the multiple facial fractures were caused by a fall onto a table. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded that none of the allegations against the control booth officer could be sustained. Case No. 07-0124 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 22, 2006, it was alleged that a sergeant violated institutional procedures by removing inmates from their DISPO INV ADV HA cells to verbally counsel them without the approval of the watch commander. It was further alleged that during these incidents the sergeant treated the inmates discourteously. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant and demoted the sergeant to the position of officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 44 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0125 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 19, 2006, it was learned from the broadcast of a program called "Inside Supermax" that an officer DISPO INV ADV HA discussed conducting a cell search to get an inmate to correct his "bad attitude." The officer described mistreating the inmate's belongings and stated that the inmate "will get my message." The program also depicted a second officer discussing sexual misconduct among inmates. The second officer used profanity to describe the force necessary to "break a penis." A lieutenant assigned as the public information officer during the filming failed to stop or report the officers' misconduct. In addition, a second lieutenant appeared on the program and discussed the games "we play" to make the inmates think the officers will do something and thus coerce good behavior. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against the two lieutenants were not sustained. The allegations against the two officers were sustained. The first officer who conducted the retaliatory cell search received a salary reduction of 10 percent for six months. The second officer who neglected her duties received a salary reduction of 5 percent for three months. Case No. 07-0126 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 17, 2006, an informal inquiry was initiated regarding an officer's former spouse's allegations that the officer DISPO INV ADV HA is a habitual drug user and was abusive during their marriage. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the investigation was complete and sustained the allegations. A penalty of dismissal from state service was initially recommended. Following the Skelly hearing, additional information was considered by the hiring authority. As a result of a settlement agreement, the officer was demoted to a non-sworn position and required to complete an approved substance abuse treatment program. Case No. 07-0127 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on March 16, 2006, April 13, 2006, and July 7, 2006, substantial amounts of unlabeled medication DISPO INV ADV HA were found in a locked medical clinic drawer labeled "Medication Cards" along with numerous signed, blank doctor order forms. It was alleged that the unlabeled medication was hoarded by a medical technical assistant who was issuing medication to inmates without a doctor’s approval. DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of over-familiarity and neglect of duty by the medical technical assistant were sustained; however, an allegation of dishonesty was not sustained. A settlement agreement was negotiated where the allegation of dishonesty was removed, and the employee agreed to a 5 percent salary reduction for 36 months and a prohibition from returning to any position where the employee would be dispensing medication to inmates. Case No. 07-0128 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 14, 2006, a federal law enforcement agency provided information indicating that a department employee DISPO INV ADV HA had purchased controlled substances from a known drug dealer for the employee's personal use. DISPOSITION OF CASE The subject retired prior to the initiation of the Office of Internal Affairs' administrative investigation. However, the investigation was completed in case the subject tries to return in the future. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 45 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0129 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 12, 2006, an officer allegedly grabbed an inmate by the neck with both hands, choked him, and slammed DISPO INV ADV HA him against a wall without justification. It is alleged that the incident occurred in the presence of two other officers who failed to report the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer who used force was dismissed from the department. The investigation did not reveal any wrongdoing by the officers who allegedly witnessed the attack; therefore, no disciplinary action was taken against them. Case No. 07-0130 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 12, 2006, an officer reported witnessing another officer grab an inmate's neck with both hands, choke and DISPO INV ADV HA slam the inmate against a wall, and verbally threaten the inmate. The officer later asked the reporting officer not to report the wrongdoing. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation. The district attorney's office decided there was insufficient evidence to file charges against the officer. Case No. 07-0131 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 12, 2006, an officer reported witnessing another officer grab an inmate's neck with both hands, choke and DISPO INV ADV HA slam the inmate against a wall, and verbally threaten the inmate. The officer later asked the reporting officer not to report the wrongdoing. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation. The hiring authority sustained the allegations and decided to dismiss the officer from employment; however, the officer resigned before the dismissal became effective. Case No. 07-0132 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 9, 2006, an officer allegedly refused to participate in a scheduled witness interview with the Office of DISPO INV ADV HA Internal Affairs after being ordered to participate. The officer also allegedly slammed the door in the faces of the investigators who notified the officer of the interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation, and the department dismissed the officer from employment. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The officer ultimately resigned. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 46 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0133 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 3, 2006, two officers were allegedly escorting an inmate when one officer told the other officer that the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate had kicked him. They did not stop the escort immediately but proceeded outside of the housing unit. As the escort continued, one of the officers believed that the inmate spit in the officer's direction, thus the officers took the inmate to the ground. The inmate admitted that he spit, but indicated that he spit toward the ground. The yard observation tape showed that the inmate did not spit in the officers' direction. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation which did not reveal misconduct that would merit disciplinary action. The allegations were not sustained against the officers. The hiring authority, however, concluded that there was certain conduct by the officers during the incident that necessitated training. Both officers received letters of instruction and training on use of force, emergency alarm response, and report writing. Case No. 07-0134 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 3, 2006, an inmate physically assaulted an officer. Several days later, a second officer reported that before DISPO INV ADV HA the attack, the officer who was allegedly assaulted removed his duty belt and challenged the inmate to fight during an argument. The second officer pulled the first officer away from the inmate, but neither officer mentioned the incident in their reports. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against both officers. The officer who engaged in the fight was dismissed from state service but resigned before the effective date of the discipline. The officer who failed to report the incident received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months as discipline for the misconduct. Case No. 07-0135 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 2, 2006, investigative services unit officers received information alleging that a recycling crew supervisor DISPO INV ADV HA sold tobacco to inmates on institution grounds. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations; however, the recycling crew supervisor resigned before disciplinary action could be taken. Case No. 07-0136 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 2, 2006, an employee relations officer allegedly sought to influence a pending disciplinary action involving a DISPO INV ADV HA relative by participating in the hiring authority's deliberations regarding the matter and signing a settlement agreement. DISPOSITION OF CASE Evidence produced during the investigation revealed that the employee relations officer did not participate in the matter nor sign the form. The hiring authority exonerated the employee. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 47 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0137 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 23, 2006, an officer allegedly contacted an inmate on the yard, pushed the inmate into a wall, and then DISPO INV ADV HA punched the inmate. The officer allegedly made false and misleading statements in the report regarding the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigation was not conducted because the department failed to send the case to the Office of Internal Affairs until the statute of limitations had almost expired. Instead, the department took immediate disciplinary action based on the report, and the officer was suspended for 10 days. Case No. 07-0138 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 23, 2006, it was alleged that an officer used excessive force on an inmate, causing the inmate to fall out DISPO INV ADV HA of a wheelchair. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of excessive force. Case No. 07-0139 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 22, 2006, a lieutenant, a medical technical assistant, and two officers allegedly used excessive force DISPO INV ADV HA during a counseling session with an inmate and failed to document the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE One of the two officers and the medical technical assistant had no allegations sustained against them. The second officer and the lieutenant both had allegations sustained against them. The lieutenant received a letter of instruction, and the officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. Case No. 07-0140 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 17, 2006, a medical technical assistant allegedly failed to respond to a medical emergency with DISPO INV ADV HA appropriate life-saving equipment for an unconscious inmate. As a result, an additional portable defibrillator and a gurney were not available for about five minutes. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation because at the time it did not have a policy in place requiring the defibrillator to be taken to every emergency. The policy now requires the device be taken to every medical emergency. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation but has provided additional training to the medical technical assistant, who was not fully aware of the inmate's condition at the time of response. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 48 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0141 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 15, 2006, while conducting a security check in a mental health crisis unit, two officers entered a cell DISPO INV ADV HA occupied by one inmate. One of the officers allegedly struck the inmate in the head while the other officer applied handcuffs. The officer who applied handcuffs then allegedly falsified documents by stating that they entered the cell and placed the inmate in handcuffs without incident. It is also alleged that one of the officers harassed a nurse who witnessed the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained two allegations of misconduct against the officer who handcuffed the inmate, and three allegations of misconduct against the officer who used force. The officer who handcuffed the inmate received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The officer who used force received a suspension without pay for 60 working days. Case No. 07-0142 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 13, 2006, a sergeant allegedly argued with an inmate, escorted the inmate to an office in handcuffs, and DISPO INV ADV HA assaulted the inmate while another officer watched. The inmate also alleged that a third officer used unnecessary force on the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant and the two officers. Case No. 07-0143 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 12, 2006, an inmate began to complain loudly through an open food port. When an officer went to close DISPO INV ADV HA the food port, the inmate threatened to stab the officer, took control of the open food port, and spit on the officer twice. When the inmate attempted to grab the officer through the food port, the officer struck the inmate's outstretched arm once with a baton. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded that the officer's conduct was within policy. After the incident, the institution created a policy on the seizure of an open food port to prevent similar incidents in the future. Case No. 07-0144 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 10, 2006, it was alleged that a parole agent was involved in a sexual relationship with a parolee. The DISPO INV ADV HA relationship began in December 2003 while both were assigned to a fire camp. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation resulted in the agent's dismissal from the department for having an overly familiar relationship with a parolee, abusing the position of parole agent, and dishonesty. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 49 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0145 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 9, 2006, an inmate alerted officers that another inmate was having problems breathing. The inmate was DISPO INV ADV HA transported to a medical clinic, where the inmate's condition deteriorated, and the inmate was pronounced dead. The incident was treated as a death by unknown cause. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an investigation because of inconsistencies in some of the responding staff reports and allegations of potential misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE One of the responding officers was issued a letter of instruction and received training for failing to maintain observation of the inmate during a medical emergency. An allegation of dishonesty was not sustained against that officer. A second officer received no formal discipline for allegations of neglect of duty and discourteous treatment but did receive training. A third officer was allegedly inaccurate in his report. This allegation was not sustained, and no discipline was imposed. A medical technical assistant who was allegedly dishonest left service with the department before the conclusion of the investigation. Case No. 07-0146 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 7, 2006, a sergeant ordered an inmate in a cell to submit to handcuffs. When the inmate refused, the DISPO INV ADV HA sergeant immediately ordered the cell door opened and entered the cell with two officers, resulting in a use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the sergeant failed to follow policy in ordering the cell door opened and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The hiring authority concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the sergeant and two officers used unnecessary force. Case No. 07-0147 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 7, 2006, an officer allegedly interfered with an attempt to report staff misconduct by intercepting written DISPO INV ADV HA allegations by several inmates and then questioning the inmates about the allegations. The officer subsequently provided three different versions of the events to department supervisors. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigative services unit conducted an investigation, and the department dismissed the officer from employment. Case No. 07-0148 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 6, 2006, a fight occurred between two inmates because one of the inmates was allegedly placed in the DISPO INV ADV HA wrong cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation was not able to determine who placed the inmate in the wrong cell, so disciplinary action could not be pursued. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 50 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0149 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on or about February 5, 2006, a control booth officer opened a cell door while the known enemy of DISPO INV ADV HA an inmate was nearby within a security housing unit, which resulted in a physical altercation between the two inmates. It is further alleged that the officer was dishonest during the inquiry regarding this incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE A negotiated settlement was entered into where the officer agreed to a 90-day suspension and restriction of "post and bid" rights for 24 months. The officer will not be permitted to work in a control booth for that period of time. In consideration for the stipulated settlement, the department agreed to drop the dishonesty allegation, and the officer agreed to waive any appeal to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0150 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 1, 2006, an inmate allegedly disrespected an officer. The inmate alleged three officers later came to the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate's cell as retaliation, resulting in an unnecessary use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain any allegations against the three officers. Case No. 07-0151 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In February 2006, it was alleged that an inmate repeatedly visited a correctional counselor, who was not the inmate's DISPO INV ADV HA assigned counselor, for 30 minutes to one hour at a time. The correctional counselor showed a special interest in the inmate by allowing the inmate to use the correctional counselor's telephone to make personal calls, thus circumventing the monitored telephone system. The correctional counselor also allegedly influenced various staff members to prevent them from disciplining the inmate and prevent the inmate from being moved to another housing location within the institution. In addition, the correctional counselor allegedly attempted to dissuade others from reporting these acts once the investigation began. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation, and the department dismissed the correctional counselor from employment. Case No. 07-0152 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 31, 2006, the department received information that an officer allegedly switched license plates on his car DISPO INV ADV HA in an attempt to deceive a peace officer and avoid compliance with the registration of his vehicle; the officer allegedly failed to report the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months for neglect of duty, dishonesty, and failure to report an off-duty incident. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 51 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0153 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 31, 2006, it was alleged that an officer was bringing tobacco, heroin, and methamphetamine into the DISPO INV ADV HA institution for sale to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned during the investigation. The hiring authority later sustained an allegation of over-familiarity against the officer. Case No. 07-0154 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 29, 2006, it was alleged that a lieutenant was providing inmates with privileges not enjoyed by other DISPO INV ADV HA inmates and engaged in sexual misconduct with inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE A criminal investigation was completed and submitted to the district attorney's office, but no criminal charges were filed. The department then began an administrative investigation, which the bureau is not monitoring. Case No. 07-0155 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 25, 2006, a parole agent was involved in a shooting while trying to apprehend an armed parolee in a DISPO INV ADV HA residence. Outside law enforcement was also involved, and a special weapons and tactics team eventually entered the residence and found the parolee dead from what the autopsy revealed was a self-inflicted gunshot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was presented to a deadly force review board, which determined the parole agent did not commit any policy violations. Case No. 07-0156 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 25, 2006, a former parolee alleged that, while on parole and for six months after discharge from parole, DISPO INV ADV HA the assigned parole agent engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with the parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The agent retired before completion of the investigation. However, the investigation was completed, and a letter indicating that the agent retired under unfavorable circumstances was placed in the agent's personnel file. Case No. 07-0157 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 23, 2006, an inmate refused to enter a cell as ordered by an officer. A second officer responded and DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly struck the inmate's arm with a baton. Both officers allegedly pushed the inmate into the cell. The inmate stated that after being pushed inside the cell, the second officer entered the cell and again struck him in the shin with a baton. Two days later, the inmate showed another officer injuries to his arm and shin. The inmate further alleged that a sergeant and another officer threatened him with a rules violation if he pursued the matter. None of the officers involved reported a use of force or any injury to the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not believe there was sufficient evidence to sustain any of the allegations; therefore, no discipline was imposed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 52 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0158 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 23, 2006, an officer was informed that an inmate had collapsed on the sidewalk outside a housing unit. DISPO INV ADV HA Although the officer responded immediately to the inmate, there was a delay before medical personnel were summoned to the scene of the medical emergency. It was alleged that the officer failed to activate his personal alarm to summon immediate medical care. The inmate later died. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation resulted in the hiring authority bringing discipline against the officer for failing to follow policy. The officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. Case No. 07-0159 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 21, 2006, it was alleged that a sergeant assigned to a community correctional facility used personal DISPO INV ADV HA computer equipment inside the secure perimeter of the custody facility. The investigation revealed the sergeant's unauthorized Internet access and sale of wireless connections. During the investigation, the sergeant was allegedly dishonest; the sergeant also had a prior discipline record. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against the sergeant were sustained. The sergeant was dismissed on the basis of dishonesty, insubordination, and the prior discipline record. Case No. 07-0160 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 17, 2006, it was alleged that a plumber sold controlled substances to inmates. On September 11, 2006, the DISPO INV ADV HA plumber was seen sharing a lunch with inmates. On September 25, 2006, the plumber violated institution procedures by visiting the same inmates in administrative segregation without signing in or out. Finally, the plumber was allegedly dishonest during an investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained each of the allegations against the plumber except for the allegation concerning the sale of controlled substances. The plumber was served with a notice of dismissal. The parties later reached a settlement agreement whereby the plumber admitted the truth of the remaining allegations, agreed to a 10 percent salary reduction for one year, and waived appellate rights in exchange for a stay of the dismissal. Pursuant to the agreement, if the plumber commits additional acts of dishonesty or over-familiarity within a one-year period, the plumber will be immediately dismissed. Case No. 07-0161 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 13, 2006, an officer allegedly told an inmate that the inmate was attractive. The inmate also alleged that DISPO INV ADV HA the officer showed the inmate a picture of his erect penis on his cellular phone and stated that the last time they talked he got an erection and took a picture of himself. The officer also allegedly told the inmate that he fantasized about taking showers with the inmate and provided the inmate with personal information. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department decided to dismiss the officer; however, the officer resigned before the dismissal became effective. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 53 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0162 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 13, 2006, the investigative services unit searched an officer's vehicle that was parked on the institution's DISPO INV ADV HA grounds. The search revealed firearms ammunition, including .22 caliber shotgun shells. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department decided to dismiss the officer from employment; however, the officer resigned before the dismissal became effective. Case No. 07-0163 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 10, 2006, an inmate alleged that a lieutenant threatened and harassed inmates who filed grievances by DISPO INV ADV HA imposing extra physical training and removing them from the forestry program. During the investigation, it was discovered that the lieutenant falsified a legal document to unjustifiably remove an inmate from forestry camp and failed to report allegations of staff members' sexual misconduct. The lieutenant also allegedly shared confidential inmate information with other inmates, mentally and physically abused inmates, and continually undermined the warden's authority in front of inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The lieutenant retired during the investigation, so no disciplinary action could be taken. All allegations were sustained, and the hiring authority determined that the lieutenant would have been dismissed had he remained employed by the department. The proposed disciplinary action was placed in the lieutenant's personnel file. Case No. 07-0164 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 8, 2006, an officer allegedly failed to accurately report a fight among three inmates. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed insufficient evidence to suggest the officer dishonestly reported the incident. Accordingly, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegation. Case No. 07-0165 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 6, 2006, an inmate began kicking another inmate who had attacked the inmate earlier. An officer DISPO INV ADV HA forcefully took the inmate to the ground, causing the inmate to hit his head. A second officer stepped in, and after several attempts, stood the inmate up and escorted him to the medical treatment area. After the incident, a responding sergeant made allegations that the two officers used excessive force on the inmate and that a lieutenant instructed the sergeant not to report the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department concluded that the Office of Internal Affairs investigation did not contain sufficient evidence to establish misconduct by the two officers and the lieutenant. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 54 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0166 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 6, 2006, an officer allegedly took hold of an inmate's wrist until the inmate sustained a spiral fracture to DISPO INV ADV HA the left arm. It was also alleged that after the inmate complained about the officer, a second officer conducted a retaliatory search of the inmate's cell and stated, "You mess with my people, I mess with yours." DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegation was not sustained against the officer who allegedly used excessive force. The allegation against the second officer was sustained for failing to document the cell search. The second officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months but has filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0167 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 5, 2006, an officer allegedly activated an alarm and then used pepper spray twice on an inmate's face while DISPO INV ADV HA the inmate was seated on the ground and posed no immediate threat. It is also alleged that the officer and a control booth officer were dishonest in their reports, which were inconsistent with their verbal statements to a sergeant on the date of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation against the control booth officer for dishonesty in a written report was not sustained, and no adverse action was taken. The use-of-force and dishonesty allegations against the officer who used pepper spray were sustained, and a penalty of dismissal was imposed. The dismissed officer initially filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board, but the officer subsequently agreed to resign and withdraw the appeal. Case No. 07-0168 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 5, 2006, the Office of Internal Affairs served a lieutenant with a notice to be interviewed as a subject. The DISPO INV ADV HA Office of Internal Affairs was unaware that the institution completed a parallel investigation into the same allegations but had not yet made findings and closed that case. The institution's office technician told the special agent that the lieutenant asked the office technician to work on closing the institution's investigation, despite knowing that the Office of Internal Affairs investigation was ongoing. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following the death of the lieutenant, the request for investigation was withdrawn and the investigation closed. Case No. 07-0169 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In January 2006, a lieutenant allegedly encouraged an incarcerated nephew to violate institution regulations to receive DISPO INV ADV HA medical attention. The lieutenant also failed to report that the nephew was involved in a physical confrontation and potentially exposed another inmate to bloodborne pathogens. Further, the lieutenant failed to inform the hiring authority of a phone call the lieutenant received from an unknown inmate, attempted to use the lieutenant's position to gain favorable treatment for the nephew, and lied during the investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE Upon completion of the investigation, the hiring authority sustained all the allegations, and the lieutenant was dismissed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 55 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0170 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 1, 2006, an inmate was discovered unconscious in a dormitory shower. It is alleged that responding staff DISPO INV ADV HA members failed to immediately initiate life-saving measures before the arrival of medical staff. The inmate was pronounced dead by responding outside medical staff. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain any allegations against the staff members. Case No. 07-0171 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 1, 2006, after being told that an inmate was going to assault another inmate, a sergeant and an officer DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly failed to prevent the assault from occurring. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against the officer were not sustained, but the officer received a letter of instruction for failing to report another employee's misconduct. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The case was settled prior to appeal, and the penalty was modified to a 5 percent salary reduction for 36 months. Case No. 07-0172 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From December 30, 2005, through March 9, 2006, it is alleged that a correctional counselor inappropriately touched DISPO INV ADV HA an inmate on several occasions, including one instance when the counselor pinned the inmate in a secluded corner, attempted to kiss the inmate, and exposed his erect penis to the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE After the initial interview, the inmate chose not to pursue the allegations against the counselor and refused to give further statements, complaining that the department took too long in investigating the matter. Given the lack of testimony, the department did not sustain the allegations. Case No. 07-0173 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 29, 2005, an officer allegedly removed an inmate from a cell to perform a clothed body search. During DISPO INV ADV HA the search, the officer forced the inmate against the wall, causing a laceration on the inmate's left eyebrow. DISPOSITION OF CASE No allegations of misconduct were sustained against the officer; therefore, no discipline was imposed. Case No. 07-0174 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 26, 2005, an inmate was discovered non-responsive in a hospital unit cell, then pronounced dead DISPO INV ADV HA shortly thereafter. Custodial and medical staff members allegedly failed to provide required medical treatment before and during the discovery that the inmate was non-responsive. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, no allegations were sustained against any custody staff members. Determinations regarding medical staff members are still pending. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 56 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0175 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 23, 2005, a sergeant and officers allegedly used unnecessary force on an inmate that resulted in a DISPO INV ADV HA dislocated and broken wrist. The officers also allegedly failed to report the use of force and intimidated other staff members to dissuade them from writing reports. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate admitted to dislocating and breaking the wrist while intoxicated by attempting to pry off handcuffs with a metal shelf. Therefore, the allegations against the officers were unfounded. Case No. 07-0176 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 20, 2005, an inmate assaulted and killed a cellmate. Subsequent investigation gave rise to allegations DISPO INV ADV HA that staff members knew of escalating problems between the cellmates earlier that day and failed to act. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of neglect of duty against the staff members. Case No. 07-0177 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 20, 2005, an inmate murdered another inmate in their cell. Subsequent investigation revealed that both DISPO INV ADV HA inmates had extensive and serious disciplinary histories, including violence. It was alleged that the warden failed to ensure full compliance with the department’s policies and procedures for housing inmates together in one cell. In addition, other employees allegedly failed to complete forms designed to keep incompatible inmates from being housed together. Two correctional counselors also allegedly failed to properly review the inmates' central files prior to the inmates being placed in a cell together. DISPOSITION OF CASE The warden admitted that the inmate housing policies were not followed. However, the warden retired before conclusion of the investigation. An associate warden and captain who were involved received letters of instruction for neglect of duty. The department instituted a new policy as a result of this case, requiring better documentation for use in housing inmates together. Case No. 07-0178 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 20, 2005, it was alleged that an officer rented a home to a parolee and accepted methamphetamine as DISPO INV ADV HA payment for rent. DISPOSITION OF CASE The criminal investigation failed to yield sufficient evidence to support a referral to the district attorney's office. Case No. 07-0179 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 20, 2005, it was alleged that an officer rented a home to a parolee and accepted methamphetamine as DISPO INV ADV HA payment for rent. It was also alleged that the officer made false statements to a peace officer during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 57 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0180 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 20, 2005, an inmate refused a control booth officer's order to return to the inmate's cell. A floor officer DISPO INV ADV HA began talking with the inmate to resolve the issue. Without warning, the control booth officer discharged a non-lethal round at the inmate, missing the inmate and striking a second uninvolved inmate in the chest. Another floor officer responded; however, the control booth officer discharged a second non-lethal round at the inmate, striking the inmate in the head and upper body. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office declined to prosecute the control booth officer. The bureau is monitoring the administrative investigation. Case No. 07-0181 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 15, 2005, it was alleged that a cook was involved in an inappropriate relationship with an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA During the investigation, it was determined the cook lied about the relationship. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the charges and dismissed the employee. Case No. 07-0182 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 5, 2005, it was alleged that a supervising cook filed false pay claims based upon fraudulent physician's DISPO INV ADV HA notes and was subsequently dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The supervising cook was dismissed for dishonesty. Case No. 07-0183 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In late December 2005, information was received that an officer was exchanging cash and drugs with an inmate's DISPO INV ADV HA sister for heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana, pornographic magazines, compact discs, and money, which the officer then smuggled into the institution. On November 9, 2006, the department intercepted a phone call between the inmate and the sister suggesting that a delivery of drugs would be made to the officer that weekend. Special agents from the Office of Internal Affairs conducted surveillance of the off-duty officer and observed the inmate's sister give the officer an object. When the special agents approached the officer, they observed the officer throw a sealed cigarette package out of the car window. When interviewed, the officer admitted being involved in a drug smuggling operation with the inmate and the inmate's sister on at least one prior occasion. Cash and drugs intended as payment to the officer were recovered from the car. The cigarette package contained 25 balloons of methamphetamine and five balloons of marijuana. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned from the department on November 17, 2006. The department accepted the resignation, but noted it was received under unfavorable circumstances. The matter was also referred to the district attorney's office. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 58 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0184 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 1, 2005, a new officer found a cellular phone and charger in a ward's cell. The officer allegedly took the DISPO INV ADV HA phone and charger to a senior counselor who told the officer to place the items in the senior counselor's desk drawer, which the officer did. About a week later, the senior counselor told the officer that the items were missing and not to talk to anyone about the incident so that they could avoid getting into trouble. Despite this warning, the officer reported the missing items to superiors. DISPOSITION OF CASE The senior counselor was dismissed from employment and has appealed the dismissal to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0185 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 26, 2005, it was alleged that an officer treated inmates in a discourteous manner, threatened inmates, DISPO INV ADV HA directed one inmate to batter another inmate, failed to report the battery, and failed to report another officer's role in the battery. It was also alleged that the officer was dishonest during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The hiring authority later reached a settlement agreement with the officer in which the officer agreed to a nine-month suspension without pay followed by a probationary period. Case No. 07-0186 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 7, 2005, an officer allegedly asked an inmate to type an affidavit using a handwritten confidential DISPO INV ADV HA memo alleging staff misconduct by a fellow officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for three months as discipline for the misconduct. The officer did not appeal the disciplinary action. Case No. 07-0187 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 18, 2005, it was alleged that officers were trafficking narcotics and tobacco into the institution. It was DISPO INV ADV HA further alleged that the officers allowed inmates to enter other inmates' cells to extort, intimidate, or assault those inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of over-familiarity and neglect of duty. One officer was dismissed for dishonesty, another received a one-year suspension, and the third received a 36-day suspension. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 59 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0188 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 7, 2005, the investigative services unit received information that a teacher and an inmate were having a DISPO INV ADV HA sexual relationship in a classroom storage room. Video surveillance of the area revealed the inmate and the teacher engaging in sexual activity. Two investigators interviewed the teacher, who admitted to a romantic relationship with the inmate since June 2005 and claimed that they were married. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded that sufficient evidence existed to sustain allegations against the teacher of sexual misconduct with an inmate, over-familiarity with an inmate, dishonesty, and other failure of good behavior. The hiring authority concluded that dismissal was the appropriate discipline. The teacher did not respond to the notice of adverse action, and the dismissal became final. Case No. 07-0189 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 5, 2005, a medical technical assistant allegedly attempted to obtain unauthorized prescription medication DISPO INV ADV HA from the institution's pharmacy. DISPOSITION OF CASE A criminal investigation was completed and submitted to the district attorney's office, which chose not to file charges. Case No. 07-0190 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 29, 2005, an officer allegedly destroyed personal property in the cell of white inmates, called the DISPO INV ADV HA inmates "race traitors," and told them he was going to allow general population inmates into the cell to "fuck them up." The officer also allegedly called one inmate a "baby rapist" in front of other inmates and, while hitting him on the head, said, "That’s right, little bitch, go to the bubble," a comment viewed as threatening and demeaning. A few days later, the officer allegedly told the inmate, "I see you moved out of the bubble; we’ll just have to see what we can do about getting you back over there," an alleged additional threat to the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months for sustained allegations of discourteous treatment and neglect of duty. Case No. 07-0191 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 26, 2005, the department became aware that a sergeant had a personal relationship with the wife of a DISPO INV ADV HA parolee, failed to maintain control over a personal handgun, failed to maintain a current address on file with the department, and lied during his interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation resulted in the department sustaining charges against the sergeant, who received a salary reduction of 5 percent for 13 months. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 60 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0192 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 26, 2005, a doctor was observed sleeping while on duty at the institution. The doctor was in a traffic DISPO INV ADV HA accident earlier that day. During a medical evaluation, it was revealed that the doctor used cocaine in the days before the accident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The doctor resigned from the department during the State Personnel Board hearing. Case No. 07-0193 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 23, 2005, the department received information that an officer was bringing contraband into the DISPO INV ADV HA institution. The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an undercover operation, and the officer was arrested with narcotics. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned when served with his notice of dismissal. Case No. 07-0194 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 21, 2005, an officer allegedly confronted a second officer and called him a "rat" for reporting that the DISPO INV ADV HA first officer failed to remove confidential documents from a transport van occupied by inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and settled the case. The officer was issued a letter of reprimand. Case No. 07-0195 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 20, 2005, it was alleged that officers pushed an inmate against a wall, unnecessarily used pepper spray DISPO INV ADV HA against the inmate, and shoved the inmate into a holding cell. It was also alleged that the officers were dishonest in documenting their actions. DISPOSITION OF CASE Use-of-force allegations were sustained against all three officers. One officer received a penalty of a 5 percent salary reduction for six months, the second officer received a letter of reprimand, and the third officer received a letter of instruction. The allegations of dishonesty were not sustained. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 61 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0196 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 20, 2005, a lieutenant reported that a facility captain was not properly conducting and completing DISPO INV ADV HA administrative reviews and hearings for inmates recently placed in the administrative segregation housing unit. These reviews require the inmate to be present at a hearing unless the inmate waives the right to attend. It was alleged that the captain signed the forms as if the hearings were conducted with the inmates present and signed inmates' waiver forms. The captain also reportedly had various lieutenants, some inexperienced and without proper training, complete the hearings in the captain's absence. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, and the captain was demoted to officer. However, the case was subsequently settled to demotion to correctional counselor, and the dishonesty allegation was removed from the disciplinary action. Case No. 07-0197 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 19, 2005, it was alleged that a sergeant and five officers used or witnessed the use of both unnecessary DISPO INV ADV HA and excessive force on an inmate and failed to accurately report the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the allegations could not be sustained against the five officers. Therefore, no disciplinary action was taken. Although an allegation of failure to report a use of force was initially sustained against the sergeant, following the Skelly hearing it was determined that the allegation could no longer be sustained, and the disciplinary action was withdrawn. Case No. 07-0198 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 15, 2005, an officer refused to release an inmate from a cell, and when the inmate asked why, the DISPO INV ADV HA officer responded, "Because you are ugly." The inmate also alleged that the officer smiled and nodded his head when asked, "Do you think this is funny?" It was further alleged that the officer lied regarding the incident, stating that the inmate threatened to kill the officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of misconduct, and the officer was dismissed from state service. The officer subsequently agreed to resign before the State Personnel Board hearing on his appeal. Case No. 07-0199 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 6, 2005, during the 1200 hours count of inmates, an inmate was discovered non-responsive in a cell. DISPO INV ADV HA CPR was initiated, but the inmate was pronounced dead. The coroner's office determined that the inmate was killed at approximately 2130 hours on September 4, 2005. The inmate's cellmate confessed to the murder. Despite 11 inmate counts, staff members did not discover the body for two days. DISPOSITION OF CASE Seven officers received discipline ranging from a 5 percent salary reduction for three months to a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months. All seven officers have appealed their adverse actions to the State Personnel Board. The appeals are currently pending. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 62 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0200 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE An officer allegedly brought narcotics, tobacco, matches, stainless steel balls, and other contraband into the institution DISPO INV ADV HA between August 26 and September 28, 2005. It was also alleged that the officer allowed inmates to enter other inmates' cells to extort, intimidate, or do physical harm. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations of dishonesty, over-familiarity, neglect of duty, and bringing contraband into the institution were sustained by the hiring authority, and the officer was dismissed. The officer appealed the decision to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0201 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE An officer allegedly brought narcotics, tobacco, matches, stainless steel balls, and other contraband into the institution DISPO INV ADV HA between August 26 and September 28, 2005. It was also alleged that the officer allowed inmates to enter other inmates' cells to extort, intimidate, or do physical harm. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, and criminal charges were filed. Case No. 07-0202 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 18, 2005, a riot involving hundreds of inmates and more than one hundred staff members resulted in DISPO INV ADV HA numerous injuries to staff and inmates. Several inmates alleged that one inmate was handcuffed in a prone position and possibly unconscious from a head injury when two officers struck the inmate with a baton, kicked the inmate, and pulled the inmate's T-shirt over the inmate's head. The officers reported using force on the inmate during the riot and handcuffing the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers. Case No. 07-0203 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 11, 2005, an inmate alleged that a department mechanic conspired with another inmate to bring DISPO INV ADV HA contraband into the institution and sell it to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed insufficient evidence to refer the case to the district attorney's office; however, the mechanic resigned from the department. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 63 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0204 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 8, 2005, an officer allegedly yelled at an inmate for taking cookies from the kitchen staff office and then DISPO INV ADV HA grabbed and pushed the inmate against a wall. The officer later searched the inmate in a rough manner. Two days later, the officer approached a cook who witnessed the incident and attempted to persuade the cook to support the officer's version of events. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's investigative services unit conducted an investigation. The allegations against the officer were sustained. The department dismissed the officer from employment. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The officer ultimately resigned. Case No. 07-0205 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between August 2005 and May 2006, an officer consistently called in sick or reported that a family member was sick DISPO INV ADV HA on the first two days of each week. Due in part to an accounting error that was not discovered until several months later, the officer was fraudulently credited for being at work and accrued leave credit while not at work. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation. The hiring authority sustained all the allegations, and the officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. Case No. 07-0206 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Following a violent disturbance between inmates on July 15, 2005, a sergeant was accused of allowing inmates to DISPO INV ADV HA remain on a yard and resume activities, in violation of policy. A second disturbance occurred on the same yard a short time later, during which an inmate was seriously injured. It was also alleged that the sergeant allowed an inmate who was an attacker during the first disturbance on the yard against policy and that two gates were opened at the same time, which permitted inmates to pass unrestricted. It was further alleged that a lieutenant was intentionally deceptive in a report by implying that the non-involved inmates during the first disturbance were removed from the yard when the second disturbance occurred, when in truth they were allowed to remain on the yard and resume activities. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation against the lieutenant was sustained, and the lieutenant was demoted. The allegations against the sergeant were also sustained, and the sergeant was initially suspended for 10 days. After the sergeant appealed to the State Personnel Board, the penalty was reduced to a 5 percent salary reduction for three months pursuant to a settlement agreement between the department and the sergeant. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 64 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0207 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 14, 2005, numerous images of child pornography were found on a department computer shared by several DISPO INV ADV HA facility lieutenants. On September 9, 2005, federal law enforcement officers notified the department that an individual contacted an undercover agent posing as a minor child in a chat room from a department computer. It was then discovered that a lieutenant was attaching external drives to the department computer and downloading child pornography. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office filed nine felony counts of distributing child pornography and two misdemeanor counts of possession of child pornography against the lieutenant. Case No. 07-0208 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 9, 2005, an officer allegedly unnecessarily used chemical agents and physical force to subdue an inmate to the DISPO INV ADV HA ground and failed to accurately report the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer, and the officer was dismissed. Case No. 07-0209 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 17, 2005, a control booth officer allegedly released an inmate from a cell while unaware that another section DISPO INV ADV HA door was open. As a result, the inmate assaulted another officer. In addition, the control booth officer attempted to minimize responsibility by stating that the light that indicated the door was open did not work. The light was tested the same day and found to be operational. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation, and the officer received a 10-day suspension. The officer did not appeal the adverse action to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0210 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 17, 2005, an officer was arrested by an outside law enforcement officer for battery, leaving the scene of an DISPO INV ADV HA accident, and driving under the influence of alcohol. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer was convicted of driving under the influence and resisting arrest. The officer was administratively charged with insubordination, dishonesty, discourteous treatment, willful disobedience, and other failure of good behavior. All the allegations were sustained, and the officer's employment was terminated. The officer's appeal to the State Personnel Board is pending. Case No. 07-0211 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 8, 2005, it was alleged that an officer called an inmate a derogatory term and later battered the inmate. It was DISPO INV ADV HA also alleged that the officer was dishonest when reporting the incident to a supervisor. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 65 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0212 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 18, 2004, it was reported that a youth correctional counselor sexually abused 10 wards over a two-year DISPO INV ADV HA period and provided them with contraband in exchange for their participation in sex acts. The youth correctional counselor also allegedly retaliated against wards who did not want to participate in sexual activity by having other wards physically attack those who refused to participate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the local district attorney's office following numerous interviews and execution of a search warrant. The district attorney's office declined to prosecute the matter because of insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Case No. 07-0213 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 25, 2005, it was alleged that a Muslim volunteer was providing money and gifts to wards in exchange for DISPO INV ADV HA sexual acts. During the investigation, a ward was caught passing a love note to the volunteer during services. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was not forwarded to the district attorney's office because of insufficient evidence of criminal conduct. Case No. 07-0214 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that an inmate died from starvation as a result of neglect by two registered nurses during the four DISPO INV ADV HA months preceding his death. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained against the two registered nurses. Allegations against one registered nurse were combined with additional allegations from another investigation, resulting in the registered nurse being served with a notice of dismissal. The registered nurse retired before the dismissal took effect. Allegations of neglect of duty were sustained against the other registered nurse, for which a 5 percent salary reduction for 36 months was initially imposed. The penalty was later reduced to a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. Case No. 07-0215 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 23, 2005, an officer allegedly sprayed an inmate with pepper spray unnecessarily to get the inmate to DISPO INV ADV HA relinquish a food tray. The officer allegedly lied about the incident by claiming the inmate was using the tray to try to break the cell window; if true, this would have justified the use of pepper spray. Two other officers were accused of witnessing the unnecessary use of force and failing to accurately report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against one officer who allegedly witnessed the force but did not report it. The allegations against the officer who used force and one officer who witnessed the force but failed to report it were sustained, and these two officers were dismissed. The State Personnel Board upheld the dismissals on April 3, 2007. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 66 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0216 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 16, 2005, an inmate was found unconscious in a hospital cell and could not be resuscitated. It was alleged that DISPO INV ADV HA an officer improperly counted the inmate as alive when the inmate was actually dead. It was also alleged that nursing personnel failed to properly monitor the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE Discipline was sustained against the officer for failure to observe within the scope of training and against a nurse for neglect of duty. The officer received a letter of instruction. The nurse received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. Case No. 07-0217 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 10, 2005, a parole agent allegedly failed to report large amounts of cash and drugs in the possession of one of DISPO INV ADV HA the parolees under his supervision. An investigation also revealed evidence that the parole agent failed to impose special conditions of parole, falsified department forms, and lied during an internal affairs interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, and the parole agent was dismissed. Case No. 07-0218 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 14, 2005, it was alleged that an officer filed a false stolen vehicle report. A parolee was found asleep in the DISPO INV ADV HA vehicle with no forced entry. The officer's cellular and home phone numbers were found in the parolee's wallet. The officer initially denied knowing the parolee; however, the officer later admitted that the parolee was the brother of a good friend and had been at the officer's house earlier that evening. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer received a letter of reprimand for making a misleading statement when asked if the parolee was someone the officer knew. Case No. 07-0219 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 8, 2005, a captain was randomly selected to report for drug testing. The captain arrived at the test facility but DISPO INV ADV HA failed to submit a sample. The captain later reported that there were irregularities with the testing procedures and claimed to have provided a sample. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the captain from state service. The captain appealed the action. The State Personnel Board sustained the allegations but modified the dismissal to a six-month suspension without pay and a demotion to sergeant. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 67 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0220 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 22, 2006, it was allegedly discovered that a captain, acting as treasurer for a law enforcement association, DISPO INV ADV HA embezzled funds for personal gain. DISPOSITION OF CASE At the conclusion of the criminal investigation, the matter was referred to the district attorney's office. The captain accepted a diversion program in lieu of conviction. Case No. 07-0221 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 2, 2005, an officer allegedly assaulted fellow officers assigned to the administrative segregation unit and DISPO INV ADV HA failed to report the incident to superiors. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer received a letter of instruction for discourteous treatment to fellow officers. Case No. 07-0222 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between February 28, 2005, and April 18, 2005, officers allegedly participated in or witnessed acts of intimidation, DISPO INV ADV HA threats, or assault toward other officers of the department. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were not sustained with respect to two officers but were sustained with respect to two other officers. One officer received a letter of instruction for discourteous treatment of fellow officers. The other officer was initially dismissed for dishonesty, neglect of duty, and discourteous treatment, but the officer ultimately received a one-year suspension as the result of a settlement agreement reached during the State Personnel Board hearing. Case No. 07-0223 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 16, 2005, an officer accused another officer of sexual assault while off duty. The district attorney's office DISPO INV ADV HA filed felony charges including rape, assault with intent to commit rape, sexual battery, and false imprisonment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of battery on a member of the department and decided to dismiss the employee. The Skelly officer upheld the dismissal. The employee appealed the matter to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0224 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 9, 2005, it was alleged that a janitorial supervisor was operating an unlawful bail bonds business and failed DISPO INV ADV HA to report his arrest for multiple felony charges. DISPOSITION OF CASE When served with the disciplinary action, the subject retired and did not appeal the dismissal. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 68 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0225 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 30, 2004, an inmate began displaying bizarre behavior on the yard and was ordered to get down. The DISPO INV ADV HA inmate instead ran to the opposite side of the yard where the inmate was confronted by two officers who attempted to restrain him. The inmate resisted, but the officers, now numbering six, physically subdued him. The inmate died a short time later. Initially, it was assumed the inmate’s death was the result of an overdose and therefore the institution did not recommend the matter be investigated. However, during an autopsy it was learned that a significant factor in the inmate's death was a fractured larynx, which may have occurred during the altercation with the officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation of excessive force based on the investigative report. However, the hiring authority did find that all six officers neglected their duties by failing to accurately observe the application of force on the inmate. The hiring authority issued letters of reprimand to all six officers, who have appealed to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0226 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 30, 2004, an inmate began displaying bizarre behavior on the yard and was ordered to get down. The DISPO INV ADV HA inmate instead ran to the opposite side of the yard where the inmate was confronted by two officers who attempted to restrain him. The inmate resisted, but the officers physically subdued him. It was alleged that three additional officers observed the altercation, including the use of force, but failed to report the incident as required. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the three officers who failed to report the use of force. The officers received penalties ranging from a 5 percent salary reduction for six months to a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months. Case No. 07-0227 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 2, 2004, an officer was involved in a domestic disturbance at home. The officer called law enforcement DISPO INV ADV HA and when law enforcement arrived, the officer became belligerent and was arrested. The officer's significant other alleged battery by the officer. It was also alleged that the officer acted unprofessionally and discourteously and that he was dishonest in his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. The officer appealed to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0228 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From November 2, 2004, through November 11, 2004, a mechanic allegedly touched an inmate's breasts and vaginal DISPO INV ADV HA area, as well as provided the inmate with gifts, including a locker, tobacco, and lighters. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation and determined that there was insufficient evidence to submit the case to the district attorney's office. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 69 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0229 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between November 2 and November 11, 2004, a mechanic allegedly touched an inmate's breasts and vaginal area, as DISPO INV ADV HA well as provided the inmate with gifts, including a locker, tobacco, and lighters. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain any of the allegations. Case No. 07-0230 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In November 2004, it was discovered that a non-sworn employee submitted fraudulent military orders throughout DISPO INV ADV HA 2004 to obtain compensation in excess of $7,000. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office originally filed felony theft charges. The charges were conditionally dismissed, however, when the employee agreed to make full restitution to the state. An administrative investigation was opened, and the bureau is monitoring it. Case No. 07-0231 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 11, 2004, an inmate slashed his own testicles, requiring transport to an area hospital for emergency care. DISPO INV ADV HA Several days after his return, the inmate was transferred to another institution. Upon arrival, staff members noticed a severe infection from the inmate's wound. Medical records allegedly indicate that the chief medical officer at the sending institution failed to ensure adequate medical care for the inmate's wound following his return from the hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The chief medical officer was demoted to surgeon and retired from state service pursuant to a stipulated agreement. Case No. 07-0232 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 9, 2004, the department received information that a non-sworn employee allegedly had sexual contact DISPO INV ADV HA with an inmate. A separate inmate alleged the same employee gave the inmate contraband, including cigarettes. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation. The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the employee. Case No. 07-0233 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 19, 2004, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force on an inmate, failed to report the incident until after DISPO INV ADV HA other officers reported it, and provided false information during an investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer was dismissed from employment. The State Personnel Board upheld the dismissal. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 70 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0234 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 8, 2004, an inmate died. The medical chart did not accurately set forth events before and after the death. At DISPO INV ADV HA the time of the registered nurse's interview, it was determined the nurse still possessed an original note that had been removed from the medical chart. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation confirmed that the nurse neglected her duties, falsified a medical chart, and altered evidence. The subject was dismissed from employment. Case No. 07-0235 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 26, 2004, an inmate was transferred from one institution to another. A medical examination conducted DISPO INV ADV HA by the receiving institution revealed that the inmate was severely malnourished, and the inmate's medical condition deteriorated to a point that it became life-threatening. It was alleged that the chief medical officer of the sending institution failed to ensure proper care of the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The subject retired from state service before any disciplinary action. Case No. 07-0236 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In November 2004, it was discovered that a non-sworn employee submitted fraudulent military orders throughout DISPO INV ADV HA 2004 to obtain compensation in excess of $7,000. DISPOSITION OF CASE The employee entered into a stipulated settlement of the case, receiving a 10 percent pay reduction for 30 months and requiring full restitution of the improper compensation paid. Case No. 07-0237 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE During 2004 and 2005, an officer allegedly submitted fraudulent active-duty military orders to obtain unearned DISPO INV ADV HA compensation in excess of $7,000. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office originally filed felony charges, then later dismissed the case. The officer has since resigned. Case No. 07-0238 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE During 2004, an officer allegedly submitted fraudulent military orders to obtain unearned compensation in excess of DISPO INV ADV HA $10,000. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office filed felony criminal fraud charges against the officer; those charges are currently pending. A disciplinary case is also pending. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 71 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 07-0239 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE During 2004, an officer allegedly submitted fraudulent military orders to obtain unearned compensation in excess of DISPO INV ADV HA $10,000. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of fraud and dismissed the officer. An appeal to the State Personnel Board is pending. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 72 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0240 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 19, 2007, an inmate collapsed while playing basketball. Despite resuscitation attempts, the inmate was later pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate had a history of heart problems and died of natural causes. Therefore, no internal affairs investigation was opened. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 07-0241 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 8, 2007, an inmate hung himself with a bedsheet in an administrative segregation cell. Staff members responded immediately and cut the bedsheet. Medical staff members were in the building at the time and initiated CPR. The inmate was taken to an outside hospital and recovered. DISPOSITION OF CASE The involved staff members handled the incident appropriately. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 07-0242 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 3, 2007, the institution attempted to allow different racial gang members on the same yard. Subsequently, an inmate was rendered unconscious after being assaulted by another inmate. An officer shot the attacker in the arm with a rifle to stop the assault. DISPOSITION OF CASE Based on a review of the incident reports, the institution followed the appropriate policies and procedures in response to the incident. The Office of Internal Affairs opened both criminal and administrative investigations. The bureau is monitoring these investigations. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department neglected to inform the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 07-0243 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 24, 2007, an inmate vomiting large amounts of a red substance was moved to the institution's medical unit. Medical staff members initially refused to treat the inmate until other licensed medical staff arrived. About 21 hours later, the inmate was transported to a local hospital and died of natural causes. DISPOSITION OF CASE At the hiring authority's request, the Office of Internal Affairs opened an investigation into the medical staff's refusal to treat the inmate. The bureau is not monitoring that investigation. As a result of this incident, the hiring authority is coordinating with the health care services division to develop policies and procedures to address future medical emergencies. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 73 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0244 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 22, 2007, the Office of Internal Affairs conducted surveillance on the home of a department cook who was suspected of trafficking contraband into the institution. Investigators followed the cook to work, detained the cook, and searched the cook's vehicle. They found over 30 cellular phones, several video and music players, numerous CDs and DVDs, tobacco packaged in a gallon plastic bag, and alcohol contained in a plastic water bottle. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs opened a criminal investigation into the matter, which the bureau is monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs accepted the hiring authority's referral, and the bureau concurred with the response. Case No. 07-0245 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 21, 2007, an officer attempted to remove an inmate's handcuffs through the cell door port. The inmate spun toward the officer after one cuff was removed and still attached to the officer's duty belt by a lanyard. The inmate pulled the officer toward the port, reached through the port, and slashed the officer across the cheek with an inmate-manufactured weapon. DISPOSITION OF CASE No investigation was initiated as a result of this incident because there was no staff misconduct. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department did not adequately notify and consult with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 07-0246 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 13, 2007, officers conducting an inmate count found a single-celled inmate hanging between the top and bottom bunks. Staff members cut down the inmate and performed CPR, but the inmate was later pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy was performed, and the coroner determined the inmate committed suicide by hanging. No staff misconduct or negligence was identified, and there was no subsequent investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0247 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 11, 2007, a sergeant allegedly failed to properly secure cells in the administrative segregation unit, resulting in the escape of several inmates from their cells. The escaped inmates ran across the tier, opened the unlocked cell doors of two inmates, and proceeded to batter them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority intends to take disciplinary action against the sergeant without further investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's recommendation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 74 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0248 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 9, 2007, a protective custody inmate was found hanging in a cell he occupied alone. Responding custody and medical staff failed to initiate CPR until after the inmate was moved to the infirmary. Attending medical staff subsequently pronounced the inmate dead at the scene. DISPOSITION OF CASE At the hiring authority's request, the Office of Internal Affairs opened an investigation concerning the staff's failure to promptly initiate CPR. The bureau is not monitoring this investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 07-0249 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 8, 2007, a combative inmate who attempted to spit on officers was subdued and received a skull fracture. The inmate was transported to a local hospital. An officer involved in subduing the inmate admitted striking the inmate in the face two times to prevent the inmate from spitting on staff members. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution referred the use-of-force case to the Office of Internal Affairs. A criminal investigation was opened, which the bureau is monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. Case No. 07-0250 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 5, 2007, it was alleged that three inmates raped another inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigative services unit conducted a thorough criminal investigation and submitted it to the district attorney's office. The district attorney's office declined to file charges due to insufficient evidence and because the alleged victim recanted his statements. There was no evidence of staff misconduct. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide adequate notification, but adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 75 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0251 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 5, 2007, an officer observed two inmates attacking a third inmate with weapons. The officer fired one rifle round at the first inmate who was stabbing the third inmate. The round struck and killed the attacking inmate. The third inmate was seriously injured in the attack due to multiple stab wounds. The second inmate was not injured and is being criminally prosecuted for attempted murder. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs concluded there was no reason to believe the officer who fired the fatal shot acted criminally. Because deadly force was used, an administrative investigation was initiated, which the bureau is monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs addressed the hiring authority's referral, and the bureau concurred with the hiring authority’s response. Case No. 07-0252 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 2, 2007, two inmates engaged in a fight that left one inmate with a broken jaw. On March 3, 2007, the injured inmate received treatment at an outside hospital. On March 12, 2007, the injured inmate began exhibiting cardiorespiratory problems and was transported to an outside hospital, where the inmate died the next day. DISPOSITION OF CASE The outside hospital determined that the inmate died of cardiac arrest unrelated to the fight. The district attorney's office was notified of the incident. No internal affairs investigation was opened. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide adequate notification, but adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0253 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 21, 2007, a single-celled inmate was found dead with a plastic bag over his head, secured by a ligature around the neck. The inmate's hands were bound at his sides with a ligature using slipknots. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy report revealed the inmate died of suffocation with no evidence of traumatic injury. It was determined that the inmate fashioned the ligature and knots tying his hands to his sides. No staff misconduct was identified. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 76 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0254 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 10, 2007, a parole agent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and for possessing methamphetamine. The parole agent was driving a state vehicle with a duty weapon in the trunk. DISPOSITION OF CASE The bureau did not monitor the criminal investigation conducted by an outside law enforcement agency. The department opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau is monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's recommendation. Case No. 07-0255 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 4, 2007, while on suicide watch, an inmate died two weeks after being assaulted by another inmate. It was alleged that the physician did not properly treat the inmate's condition before his death and that a nurse failed to perform 15-minute welfare checks on the inmate as required while on suicide watch. DISPOSITION OF CASE An administrative investigation was opened concerning the conduct of the physician and the nurse. The bureau is monitoring that investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 07-0256 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 22, 2007, an inmate was found hanging in a reception center cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate was alone in the cell, and there was no sign of staff misconduct. As a result, no internal affairs investigation was requested. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0257 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 17, 2007, an officer, a medical technical assistant and the medical technical assistant's daughter were found deceased at the residence where they lived together. The local police department investigated the matter. DISPOSITION OF CASE The police department's investigation revealed that the officer shot the medical technical assistant and the medical technical assistant's daughter before committing suicide with the gun. The investigation did not link the killings to any issues involving the officer's employment with the department. Accordingly, no internal affairs investigation was initiated. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 77 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0258 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 16, 2007, two inmates began striking and kicking a third inmate in the head and torso as the inmate lay on the ground. Two officers fired a total of three warning shots but failed to stop the attack. Three other responding officers used expandable batons, physical force, and pepper spray to stop the attack. It was later discovered that one of the assailants had an inmate-manufactured weapon. DISPOSITION OF CASE The attacked inmate received medical treatment for lacerations. After a criminal investigation, the case was forwarded to the district attorney's office for prosecution of the attacking inmates. No staff misconduct or negligence was identified to warrant an internal affairs investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0259 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 31, 2006, staff members observed two inmates fighting. The inmates ignored commands to stop fighting and only stopped after staff members deployed pepper spray. Because of the fight, one inmate suffered serious internal bleeding in the head. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department found the officers' use of pepper spray appropriate under the circumstances. Therefore, no internal affairs investigation was opened. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide adequate notification, but adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0260 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 31, 2006, a large-scale disturbance erupted in a dormitory involving inmates of different races. Inmates assaulted one another with broken glass from shattered windows, broken broom handles, razor blades, and other weapons. Several inmates were bleeding profusely, and staff members used pepper spray and less-than-lethal force to quell the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE Some inmates were transported to outside hospitals for sutures, and the remaining involved inmates were treated at the institution for various injuries. Eighteen inmates were placed in the administrative segregation unit. One staff member was treated for pepper spray exposure and returned to duty. Inmates received appropriate rules violations, but no internal affairs investigation was opened. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 78 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0261 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 28, 2006, a large-scale disturbance erupted at the institution involving inmates of different races. Less-than-lethal force was used to quell the riot. One inmate weapon, sharpened to a point with six barbs cut into the shank, was discovered in the incident area. DISPOSITION OF CASE Two inmates were taken to outside hospitals for fractures, and one staff member was battered. All the involved inmates were medically cleared, placed on administrative segregation status, and given rules violation reports. No internal affairs investigation was opened as a result of the disturbance. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department failed to provide adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 07-0262 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 21, 2006, four inmates belonging to a racial gang used razor blades concealed on their bodies to attack four other inmates belonging to another racial gang. Staff members ended the attack by using pepper spray and by firing one wooden baton round and one direct impact round at the attacking inmates. Two of the attacked inmates were seriously injured. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution of the attacking inmates. The department did not deem it necessary to open an administrative investigation into staff conduct. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. Case No. 07-0263 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 14, 2006, an inmate died at 1130 hours while in the prison infirmary on administrative segregation status. The pathologist who performed the autopsy concluded the inmate died of natural causes. Medical staff expressed concern, however, that no one may have checked on the inmate for 22 hours before he died. A review of video surveillance shows medical staff sitting the nude inmate in his own feces. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs is investigating the incident. The bureau is monitoring the investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's recommendation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 79 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0264 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 11, 2006, an inmate informed officers he was assaulted by other inmates. The inmate sustained internal injuries necessitating the removal of his spleen. DISPOSITION OF CASE Two inmates identified as having committed the assault received rules violations. A criminal investigation was conducted, but the department has not yet determined whether to refer the matter to the district attorney's office. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0265 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 4, 2006, two inmates physically attacked another inmate on the exercise yard. Three officers unsuccessfully attempted to stop the attack with non-lethal force. The tower officer then fired a warning shot from a rifle, but the attack continued. Additional staff members formed a skirmish line and fired multiple non-lethal rounds, which finally stopped the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE It was determined that the warning shot was justified. However, it was also determined that two officers fired non-lethal rounds outside the effective range of their weapons, and other officers who fired non-lethal rounds did so unnecessarily; therefore, training was provided. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0266 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 30, 2006, an inmate became disruptive and refused staff orders to submit to handcuffs. Officers used pepper spray followed by a single baton strike on the inmate's leg to gain compliance. The inmate sustained a fracture to his leg, which received prompt medical attention. The inmate was not interviewed immediately after the incident as required. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct or negligence was identified; therefore, no investigation was requested. Administrative staff members received training on completing inmate interviews in a timely manner. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 07-0267 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 21, 2006, an inmate was discovered dead in a cell during a security check. The other inmate in the cell was suspected of homicide. DISPOSITION OF CASE The cause of death was determined to be homicide by manual strangulation. Outside law enforcement is conducting a homicide investigation. The department is conducting an administrative investigation related to the discovery of the body, which the bureau is monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's recommendation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 80 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0268 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 16, 2006, an inmate died from a head injury after falling off a scaffold. Upon review, it was learned that the inmate was supposed to be restricted from climbing or working at heights. DISPOSITION OF CASE No specific person was identified as having committed misconduct., but as a result of the incident the bureau identified a significant policy flaw that was corrected department wide. In this matter, the inmate signed a form indicating he would notify his work supervisor of any physical restrictions. However, the inmate did not because he wanted to keep the job assignment. The institution had no other procedures in place at the time of this incident to ensure that work supervisors received work restriction information other than from the inmate. Procedures have now been established to guarantee all work supervisors receive a written record when an inmate is given job restrictions by medical staff. The record is to be routed to the assignment lieutenant who must personally ensure notification to the work supervisor. A department memo was issued outlining the revised procedure for inmate duty limitation notifications. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 07-0269 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 11, 2006, an inmate was sent to a local hospital for coughing and chest pain, and then returned to the institution. It was alleged that the inmate did not receive his prescribed medication after returning to the institution. The inmate was transported back to the hospital on December 6, 2006, and again on December 8, 2006, because of deteriorating health. The inmate died on December 26, 2006. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy was not performed because the inmate's lungs were infected with valley fever, which the coroner alleged would pose a risk to the coroner's staff. An internal affairs investigation was opened to determine whether department staff members were negligent. The bureau is monitoring that investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs accepted the hiring authority's referral, and the bureau concurred with the response. Case No. 07-0270 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 15, 2006, an officer found an inmate hanging in a cell with his wrists bound to his waist. Another inmate was also present in the cell. Responding staff members cut the bonds tying the wrists without preserving or adequately documenting the condition of the inmate's wrists or the bindings. The deceased inmate previously attempted suicide at the county jail. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified. However, the bureau recommended training for custody staff in crime preservation techniques. The district attorney's office declined to file charges of assisted suicide against the other inmate due to a lack of evidence. There was no evidence to suggest homicide. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 81 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0271 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 13, 2006, an officer observed an inmate disoriented and physically shaking. Responding officers found empty medication packets and a suicide note in the inmate's cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE The incident was treated as a suicide attempt. Accordingly, no internal affairs investigation was opened. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0272 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 1, 2006, an inmate reported being sexually assaulted by an unidentified person while asleep in a dormitory. Staff members searched the bed area but found no evidence of an assault. There was a small amount of blood observed on the inmate's underwear, and the inmate was transported to an outside hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE Medical results were inconclusive regarding the sexual assault, and it was discovered that the inmate suffers from a medical condition that could explain the appearance of blood. There was no evidence of staff misconduct; therefore, no investigation was opened. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 07-0273 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 20, 2006, an officer assigned to a watch tower allegedly pointed a loaded rifle at numerous inmates and verbally threatened them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation, which the bureau monitored. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 82 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0274 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 19, 2006, officers responded to a cell with two inmates and observed one of the inmates standing near a bunk. Moments later, the inmate collapsed to the floor. The inmate was assisted out of the cell and received medical attention. The other inmate was observed lying unresponsive on the other bunk. Medical staff members initiated CPR, but the other inmate was later pronounced dead at the scene by the attending physician. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner's office responded to the scene along with an investigator from the district attorney's office. There was no evidence of staff misconduct involved in the incident. According to the coroner's report, the cellmate's death was ruled a homicide by strangulation. The case is under review by the district attorney's office. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 07-0275 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 9, 2006, an officer witnessed an inmate kicking the cell door of another inmate. The officer discovered the inmate inside the cell was unresponsive on the floor. The officer activated the alarm and pulled the inmate out of the cell with the assistance of other officers. CPR was initiated, and the inmate was transported to a local hospital where the inmate was pronounced dead five hours later. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy report revealed the inmate died of natural causes, specifically pneumonia. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0276 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 6, 2006, an inmate collapsed, hitting his head against the cell door as he fell. The inmate subsequently died. A search of the inmate's cell revealed drug paraphenalia consistent with heroin use. DISPOSITION OF CASE It was ultimately determined that the inmate died of a morphine overdose and that no staff misconduct occurred. Accordingly, no internal affairs investigation was opened. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide sufficient notification. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 83 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0277 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 26, 2006, one inmate stabbed another inmate on the exercise yard. An officer used lethal force in an attempt to stop the attack. The round initially penetrated the assailant's hand and then struck the other inmate's hand, severing a finger. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs initiated criminal and administrative investigations into the use of deadly force, which the bureau monitored. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's recommendation. Case No. 07-0278 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 25, 2006, an inmate transferred to the institution from the county jail. The inmate appeared jaundiced, was sent to an outside hospital, and died later that day. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified. Therefore, no subsequent investigation was conducted. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0279 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 20, 2006, an inmate alleged that officers were smuggling cell phones and other contraband into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The initial interview of inmates led the Office of Internal Affairs to open an investigation, which the bureau monitored. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 07-0280 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 16, 2006, an inmate was found lying on the floor of a cell and appeared to have been physically assaulted. Shortly before the inmate was discovered, the inmate had requested a bed move because of incompatibility with the other inmate in the cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution conducted a criminal investigation of the assault. The district attorney's office is reviewing the matter for possible criminal prosecution against the other inmate in the cell. The institution requested an investigation into the failure of staff members to change the inmate's cell assignment. The central intake unit decided there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a full investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide sufficient notification. The hiring authority chose to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. The Office of Internal Affairs accepted the hiring authority's referral, and the bureau concurred with the response. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 84 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0281 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 1, 2006, an inmate was found hanging in his cell and was pronounced dead shortly after arriving at a local hospital. An officer alleged that a responding nurse appeared to lack training in using a defibrillator and failed to take command of the medical emergency pursuant to policy and procedure. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner's report found the cause of death to be asphyxia due to hanging. The hiring authority referred the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and an administrative investigation was opened. The bureau is not monitoring the investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs accepted the hiring authority's referral, and the bureau concurred with the response. Case No. 07-0282 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 27, 2006, an inmate was found unresponsive in a dormitory. Upon discovering that the inmate had a temperature of 107.4 degrees Fahrenheit, rapid pulse rate, and low blood pressure, medical staff covered the inmate with ice, started intravenous fluids, and administered oxygen. The inmate was transported to an outside hospital by ambulance. Although the inmate's vital signs improved initially, he went into cardiac arrest shortly after arriving at the hospital. Life-saving efforts were unsuccessful, and the inmate was pronounced dead. The inmate was on medication that required monitoring for heat-related illness. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined that the cause of death was an overdose of antipsychotic prescription medicine. The Office of Internal Affairs is investigating the cause of the overdose. The bureau is not monitoring that investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide sufficient notification. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 07-0283 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 25, 2006, a fight between two inmates resulted in one inmate being stabbed 20 to 30 times with an inmate-manufactured weapon. Two officers discharged three rifle rounds in an attempt to quell the incident. No inmates or staff members were struck by the warning shots. DISPOSITION OF CASE The bureau monitored the investigation and the use-of-force committee action. The institution identified areas for additional training; however, no staff misconduct was identified and no further action was taken. BUREAU ASSESSMENT With the exception of some of the reports being incomplete, the department's overall response to the incident was sufficient. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau was notified more than three hours after the shots were fired. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed after a thorough review of the case that no misconduct or negligence occurred on behalf of the staff. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 85 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0284 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 5, 2006, an inmate went to the medical clinic after his surgically implanted defibrillator began shocking him. The inmate was seen by medical staff, and an electrocardiogram was administered, which showed an abnormal result. It was also determined that the inmate did not have all his prescribed medication. He was given most of his medication and returned to his cell. On June 6, 2006, staff members responded to the cell because the inmate was kicking the door. Medical staff were able to restore a heartbeat, but the inmate died within an hour of being transported to an outside hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigation was initiated for negligent care by a physician and a medical technical assistant. The bureau is monitoring that case. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response to the critical incident was inadequate. The clinical assessment on June 5, 2006, indicated the need for urgent medical care; however, the inmate was returned to his cell without all his prescribed medication and subsequently died the following day. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority in this case was the chief medical officer and later the health care manager, who chose to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs only at the bureau's urging. The death occurred on June 6, 2006, and the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs until February 14, 2007. Case No. 07-0285 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 14, 2006, an inmate provided reliable information alleging drug trafficking by three officers. All three officers are believed to have acted independent of each other and delivered large amounts of drugs into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department opened criminal investigations of the three officers, which the bureau monitored. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 07-0286 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 20, 2006, two inmates assaulted another inmate in the dining hall. Two officers used pepper spray on all three inmates, striking them in the face and upper torso. Another officer fired one foam round, inadvertently striking one of the aggressor inmates in the head. The latter inmate received a laceration to the top of his head. One inmate alleged that an officer threatened the inmate to drop the inmate's complaint regarding the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE A fact-finding inquiry concluded that the use of force and decontamination were appropriate. In addition, the inmate was unable to identify the officer who allegedly threatened him. No internal affairs investigation was initiated into the incident. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau’s findings confirm that the department's response was satisfactory except that the hiring authority initially disregarded the inmate's allegations of use of excessive force and evidence suggesting that the inmate may not have been properly decontaminated. At the bureau's urging, the hiring authority conducted a fact-finding inquiry to answer unresolved questions regarding the incident. The fact-finding inquiry revealed deficiencies in the reports on the decontamination, which were addressed with corrective action. Although the department adequately notified the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate consultation. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 86 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0287 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 16, 2005, staff members broke up a fight between two inmates. One inmate appeared to have trouble breathing and died. A subsequent investigation revealed a conspiracy between two inmates to have the deceased inmate beaten as retribution for a drug debt. DISPOSITION OF CASE A local law enforcement agency completed an incident report. The autopsy report identified the cause of death to be a heart attack due to altercation-induced stress. The institution completed an investigation identifying three suspects and referred the matter to the district attorney's office for prosecution. All three suspects accepted plea bargains for involuntary manslaughter to be served consecutive to their current terms. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau’s findings confirm that the department's response was satisfactory except that the institution's custody staff and investigative services unit failed to adequately preserve the crime scene and evidence. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 87 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPENDIX A DISCIPLINARY ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS JANUARY 1, 2007 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 The following table contains a list of the department’s disciplinary allegations and findings in each case the bureau monitored during this reporting period. The table is organized in the same numerical order as the distinguished, deficient, and satisfactory tables found in the main body of this report. The information included in this table is derived directly from the department’s case management system database. Information absent from the database is indicated with an asterisk. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 88 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0001 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0002 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Sergeant Use of force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (8) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes (9) Registered Nurse Use of force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 07-0003 (North Region) (1) *Other HCSD * (2) Chief Physician & Surgeon * (3) Correctional Lieutenant * (4) Health Care Manager * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 89 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0004 (Headquarters) (1) Program Technician I * 07-0005 (Central Region) (1) Parole Agent I Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes Misuse of state equip. or property Not Sustained Yes 07-0006 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Assault Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0007 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes GC19572 (d) Inexcusable Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer * 07-0008 (Central Region) (1) Medical Technical Assistant * 07-0009 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * 07-0010 (South Region) (1) Correctional Captain * 07-0011 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Sergeant * 07-0012 (Central Region) (1) Unknown GC19572 (d) Inexcusable Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes GC19572 (o) Willful Disobedience Not Sustained Yes GC19572 (t) Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes 07-0013 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Weapons Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0014 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0015 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Misuse of state equip. or property Not Sustained No BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 90 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0015 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes 07-0016 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant * (2) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0017 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 07-0018 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0019 (South Region) (1) *Other Peace Officer * (2) Correctional Lieutenant * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Office Assistant General * (6) Warden * 07-0020 (North Region) (1) Physician & Surgeon * 07-0021 (Central Region) (1) Youth Correctional Counselor * 07-0022 (North Region) (1) Cook I * 07-0023 (North Region) (1) Cook I Contraband Sustained Yes 07-0024 (North Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I * 07-0025 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0026 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0027 (North Region) (1) Cook I Contraband Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 91 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0027 (North Region) (1) Cook I Contraband Sustained Yes 07-0028 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 07-0029 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Retaliation Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 07-0030 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0031 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes 07-0032 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0033 (North Region) (1) Lieutenant Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes 07-0034 (North Region) (1) Automobile Mechanic * 07-0035 (North Region) (1) Facility Captain * 07-0036 (North Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I * (2) Materials And Stores Supv I * 07-0037 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0038 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes 07-0039 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0040 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes 07-0041 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0042 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 92 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0043 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes Intoxication Not Sustained Yes Controlled Substances Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes 07-0044 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0045 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes Weapons Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0046 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0047 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I * 07-0048 (North Region) (1) Associate Warden * 07-0049 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0050 (Headquarters) (1) Psychiatrist * 07-0051 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0052 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes 07-0053 (North Region) (1) Psychiatric Technician Contraband Not Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Controlled Substances Sustained Yes 07-0054 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer * 07-0055 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes 07-0056 (North Region) (1) *UNKNOWN * 07-0057 (Central Region) (1) *UNKNOWN * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 93 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0058 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I * 07-0059 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0060 (Central Region) (1) Registered Nurse * (2) Supervising Registered Nurse II * 07-0061 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer * GC19572 (f) Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes GC19572 (o) Willful Disobedience Not Sustained Yes GC19572 (t) Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer * 07-0062 (Central Region) (1) Associate Warden Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Counselor I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Counselor II Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 07-0063 (North Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I * 07-0064 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0065 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0066 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 07-0067 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Not Sustained Yes 07-0068 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 94 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0068 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0069 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0070 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0071 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes 07-0072 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 07-0073 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0074 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes Controlled Substances Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes 07-0075 (North Region) (1) *Other HCSD * 07-0076 (North Region) (1) *Other HCSD * 07-0077 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0078 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0079 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Sergeant Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 95 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0079 (North Region) (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0080 (Central Region) (1) Senior Radiological Technologist * 07-0081 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes 07-0082 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Sergeant Use of force Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes 07-0083 (North Region) (1) Registered Nurse * 07-0084 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes 07-0085 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes 07-0086 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes 07-0087 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 96 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0087 (South Region) (4) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 07-0088 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0089 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0090 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0091 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Confidential Information Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes 07-0092 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0093 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0094 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0095 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * (2) Facility Captain * 07-0096 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes 07-0097 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0098 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained No 07-0099 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * 07-0100 (Headquarters) (1) Unknown * 07-0101 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0102 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 97 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0102 (Central Region) (3) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0103 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * 07-0104 (North Region) (1) Unknown * 07-0105 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 07-0106 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0107 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0108 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer GC19572 (d) Inexcusable Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0109 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0110 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0111 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0112 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0113 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 98 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0113 (North Region) (3) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0114 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes 07-0115 (North Region) (1) Chief Deputy Warden * 07-0116 (North Region) (1) Correctional Counselor I Use of force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 07-0117 (Central Region) (1) Medical Technical Assistant * Sustained 07-0118 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 99 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0118 (Central Region) (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 07-0119 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0120 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Criminal Act Sustained Yes Other Criminal Act Sustained Yes 07-0121 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0122 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0123 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0124 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0125 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0126 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Sustained Yes Attendance Sustained Yes 07-0127 (Central Region) (1) Medical Technical Assistant Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0128 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent III * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 100 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0129 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 07-0130 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0131 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 07-0132 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes 07-0133 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes 07-0134 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0135 (Central Region) (1) *Other non-Peace Officer * 07-0136 (Headquarters) (1) Labor Relations Analyst * 07-0137 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0138 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes 07-0139 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (4) Medical Technical Assistant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 07-0140 (Central Region) (1) Medical Technical Assistant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 07-0141 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 101 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0141 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Battery Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 07-0142 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0143 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0144 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I * 07-0145 (Central Region) (1) *Other HCSD * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Medical Technical Assistant * 07-0146 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Sergeant * (4) Medical Technical Assistant * 07-0147 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0148 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 07-0149 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 102 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0150 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 07-0151 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Counselor I * 07-0152 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0153 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0154 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * 07-0155 (Central Region) (1) Parole Agent I * 07-0156 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I * 07-0157 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Sergeant Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes 07-0158 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0159 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0160 (North Region) (1) Plumber I Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Controlled Substances Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0161 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0162 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0163 (South Region) (1) Lieutenant * 07-0164 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0165 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * (2) Correctional Officer * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 103 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0165 (South Region) (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0166 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0167 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0168 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * 07-0169 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * (2) Correctional Lieutenant Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Lieutenant * 07-0170 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0171 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0172 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Counselor II * 07-0173 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 07-0174 (North Region) (1) *Other HCSD * (2) *Other non-Peace Officer * (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 104 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0174 (North Region) (5) Medical Doctor * (6) Medical Technical Assistant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (7) Medical Technical Assistant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (8) Physician & Surgeon * (9) Registered Nurse * (10) Registered Nurse * (11) Registered Nurse * (12) Registered Nurse * 07-0175 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0176 (Central Region) (1) Unknown * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Correctional Officer * (6) Correctional Officer * (7) Registered Nurse * 07-0177 (Central Region) (1) Associate Warden * (2) Correctional Administrator * (3) Correctional Counselor I * (4) Correctional Counselor II * (5) Facility Captain * (6) Warden * 07-0178 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0179 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0180 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0181 (South Region) (1) Supervising Cook I Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0182 (North Region) (1) Supervising Cook I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 105 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0182 (North Region) (1) Supervising Cook I Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0183 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0184 (Headquarters) (1) Youth Correctional Counselor * 07-0185 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 07-0186 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0187 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity Sustained Yes 07-0188 (South Region) (1) Teacher - High School Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes 07-0189 (South Region) (1) Medical Technical Assistant * 07-0190 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0191 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Misuse of state equip. or property Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 07-0192 (North Region) (1) Physician & Surgeon * 07-0193 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 106 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0193 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity Sustained Yes 07-0194 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0195 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer * 07-0196 (North Region) (1) Facility Captain * 07-0197 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Sergeant Use of force Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes 07-0198 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0199 (North Region) (1) Unknown * 07-0200 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 107 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0201 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0202 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0203 (Central Region) (1) Maintenance Mechanic * 07-0204 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes 07-0205 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0206 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * (2) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0207 (South Region) (1) Correctional Captain * 07-0208 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0209 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 07-0210 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Battery Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0211 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Failure to Report Sustained Use of force Sustained Failure to Report Sustained (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Sustained BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 108 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0211 (North Region) (3) Correctional Sergeant Use of force Sustained Failure to Report Sustained 07-0213 (Headquarters) (1) *Other non-Peace Officer * 07-0214 (Headquarters) (1) Unknown * 07-0215 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes 07-0216 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Registered Nurse Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (4) Registered Nurse Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0217 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I * 07-0218 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Counselor II * 07-0219 (North Region) (1) Facility Captain * 07-0220 (North Region) (1) Facility Captain * 07-0221 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0222 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 109 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0222 (North Region) (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0223 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Battery Sustained Yes 07-0224 (South Region) (1) Janitor Supervisor I Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Other Criminal Act Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes 07-0225 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Correctional Officer * (6) Correctional Officer * (7) Correctional Officer * (8) Correctional Officer * (9) Correctional Officer * (10) Correctional Officer * (11) Correctional Officer * (12) Warden * 07-0226 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * 07-0227 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0228 (Central Region) (1) Maintenance Mechanic * 07-0229 (Central Region) (1) Maintenance Mechanic * 07-0230 (Central Region) (1) Supervising Cook I * 07-0231 (North Region) (1) Health Care Manager * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 110 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0231 (North Region) (2) Physician & Surgeon * (3) Physician & Surgeon * (4) Registered Nurse * 07-0232 (Central Region) (1) Lead Groundskeeper * 07-0233 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0234 (South Region) (1) Registered Nurse Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0235 (North Region) (1) Chief Psychiatrist * (2) Chief Psychiatrist & Surgeon * (3) Health Care Manager * (4) Medical Doctor * (5) Medical Doctor * (6) Physician & Surgeon * (7) Physician & Surgeon * (8) Physician & Surgeon * (9) Psychologist * (10) Psychologist * (11) Psychologist * (12) Psychologist * 07-0236 (Central Region) (1) Supervising Cook I * 07-0237 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0238 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0239 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 111 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA