Bureau of Independent Review, Semi-Annual Report, January – June 2008

O I G FFICE OF THE NSPECTOR ENERAL DAVID R. SHAW, INSPECTOR GENERAL BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW HOWARD E. MOSELEY CHIEF ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL ROBERT A. BARTON STEPHEN MILLER TIM L. RIEGER ROY W. WESLEY SENIOR ASSISTANT INSPECTORS GENERAL SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY–JUNE 2008 SEPTEMBER 2008 STATE OF CALIFORNIA C ONTENTS FOREWORD......................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................2 SUMMARY OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES........................................................................................3 EXPLANATION OF TABLE FORMAT...............................................................................................13 TABLE OF DISTINGUISHED CASES.................................................................................................16 TABLE OF DEFICIENT CASES........................................................................................................23 TABLE OF SATISFACTORY CASES.................................................................................................27 TABLE OF APPEALED CASES.........................................................................................................93 TABLE OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS.................................................................................................100 APPENDIX: DISCIPLINARY ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS..........................................................120 F OREWORD In my former role as the Bureau of Independent Review’s chief assistant inspector general, I oversaw the bureau’s creation and development as we assisted the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in implementing the state’s correctional reform efforts. In my current role as Inspector General, I continue to seek close cooperation between the department and the bureau to continue these worthwhile efforts. This ongoing cooperation will ensure the integrity of the department’s internal affairs investigations and disciplinary legal actions. As I reflect on the bureau’s four years of oversight and monitoring duties, I am pleased and encouraged by the department’s progress in carrying out reforms mandated by the federal court. During this reporting period, the department achieved reasonable outcomes for the majority of monitored cases. Further, the bureau maintained its strong working relationship with the department and outside stakeholders. I am also pleased to report that as the bureau’s monitoring duties have expanded in scope and complexity, bureau staff members continue to provide valuable expertise and passion for correctional reform. The bureau now reports on the department’s review committees for use-of- force incidents, and the bureau’s monitoring activities now include the department’s new medical oversight program. Thanks to the many efforts of my staff, the department’s staff, and our stakeholders, we are moving closer to our shared goal of establishing a fair, effective, and transparent correctional system for California. — DAVID R. SHAW, INSPECTOR GENERAL BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 1 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA I NTRODUCTION The Bureau of Independent Review was created in 2004 to provide contemporaneous oversight to the employee disciplinary process within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Since its inception, the bureau has actively assisted the department in implementing many reforms to its process as mandated by the Madrid federal court case. Consistent with its mission to promote integrity, accountability, and transparency within the department, the bureau monitors the investigation of alleged employee misconduct and disciplinary decisions related to misconduct. The bureau then evaluates the department’s performance by its own policies and procedures. Pursuant to California Penal Code section 6133, the bureau publishes public reports summarizing its monitoring activities that have concluded during each six-month reporting period. In this seventh semi-annual report, you will see that the bureau’s monitoring responsibilities have continued to expand. For instance, in this reporting period the bureau reports more cases than in any previous semi-annual report. For the first time, the bureau also reports data related to monitoring of use-of-force incident reviews conducted by the department throughout the state. As this report demonstrates, the oversight model continues to have a significant effect on the department’s operations. During the January through June 2008 reporting period, the department improved in its overall compliance with its own policies and procedures for bureau-monitored cases and had fewer cases result in unreasonable outcomes. Despite these positive steps toward increased compliance with the Madrid reforms, there remains room for improvement. Thus, the bureau is committed to remaining vigilant in its efforts to seek full compliance with the oversight model developed in collaboration with the department and the federal court to help California move closer to a model correctional system. — HOWARD E. MOSELEY, CHIEF ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 2 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA S M A UMMARY OF ONITORING CTIVITIES The Bureau of Independent Review’s (bureau) primary function is to monitor the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (department) disciplinary process. This includes internal affairs investigations into alleged criminal and administrative misconduct, as well as any disciplinary decisions related to alleged misconduct. The bureau’s responsibilities also extend to monitoring the department’s response to critical incidents and the review of use-of-force incidents. In this report, the bureau evaluates 260 monitored cases and 63 critical incidents.* This represents an overall increase in the number of cases reported compared with prior semi-annual reports. Moreover, for the first time, the bureau reports on the department’s use-of-force incident review committees and medical oversight program. Thus, the monitoring activities of the bureau have continued to increase over time. Case Monitoring Activities When a hiring authority—the managers who determine discipline to impose—reasonably believes that misconduct may have occurred, the matter is forwarded to the Office of Internal Affairs’ (OIA) central intake panel for evaluation. The central intake panel determines whether an internal affairs investigation is warranted, whether enough information exists for the hiring authority to proceed with a disciplinary action without an internal affairs investigation, or whether no further action is warranted. The bureau participates in the central intake panel meetings to provide recommendations on central intake panel determinations and to decide which cases the bureau will accept for monitoring. Once a case is accepted for monitoring, the bureau follows the case through the various stages of the disciplinary process. If an internal affairs investigation is conducted, the bureau consults with the investigators, attends key interviews, reviews evidence, and provides recommendations regarding the investigative report. When the hiring authority determines what, if any, disciplinary action will be imposed on an employee, the bureau provides feedback regarding the hiring authority’s proposed course of action. If the hiring authority and the bureau representative have a significant disagreement regarding the appropriate outcome of a case, the matter may be elevated to the next supervisory level through a process called executive review. If the department’s attorneys have been assigned to provide legal advice for the case, the bureau consults with the attorneys regarding legal issues and reviews any disciplinary documents drafted on behalf of the department. Once the department’s internal disciplinary process has concluded, the bureau provides its assessment of the case in the tables that follow in this report. If the department imposes discipline, employees have a right to challenge that discipline by appealing to the State Personnel Board, an independent state agency. The bureau continues to * Monitored cases are those cases approved by the department for an administrative investigation, criminal investigation, or direct disciplinary action without an internal affairs investigation. Critical incidents include serious events, such as riots or homicides, that require the department’s immediate response. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 3 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA monitor cases through this appeal process. If there is a significant change in the outcome of a case after the bureau has reported it, this updated information is provided to the public in the Table of Appealed Cases found later in this report. Caseload trends. The January through June 2008 report includes 260 monitored cases, which represents the highest number of cases reported by the bureau since its first semi-annual report. As the chart below demonstrates, the bureau’s case-monitoring activities have steadily increased over the last two and a half years. Most investigations monitored by the bureau involve allegations of administrative misconduct. During this reporting period, 83 percent of reported cases involved alleged administrative misconduct, while 17 percent involved alleged criminal misconduct. Of the 215 Case Types reported administrative misconduct cases, an internal affairs investigation was conducted in 179 cases and the 36 45 department took direct action without an internal affairs investigation in 36 cases. Criminal The chart to the right provides the total Administrative number of administrative, criminal, and Direct Action direct action cases for which the bureau concluded monitoring during this reporting period. 179 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 4 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Allegation Type Distribution 160 140 137 131 120 100 80 61 60 42 40 20 12 0 Use of Force Dishonesty Failure to Report Over-Familiarity Sexual Misconduct Allegation distribution. Consistent with past practice, the bureau has continued to focus a large portion of its monitoring activities on cases involving five allegation types: (1) improper use of force; (2) dishonesty in official reports or during investigative interviews; (3) failure to report misconduct; (4) overly familiar conduct between employees and those in the department’s custody or control; and (5) sexual misconduct. The first three allegations are of particular concern to the bureau because, if true, serious civil rights violations may have occurred. The other two allegations are of concern because they can compromise a correctional institution’s safety and security, as well as exploit a potentially vulnerable population. Although most cases include multiple allegations, during this reporting period, 68 percent of the reported cases involved one or more of the allegations listed above. The chart above illustrates the number of reported cases in which each of the five allegation types were at issue. Case findings. The most important step Administrative Case Findings in the disciplinary process occurs when the hiring authority determines whether the allegations of misconduct are 38 sustained against the employee. This step occurs for administrative cases only. Unfortunately, data regarding Cases w/out Data 102 Sustained these determinations is only available Not Sustained for 113 of the 215 reported cases, which equates to 53 percent. Of those 53 75 percent, allegations were sustained in 66 percent of the reported cases and not sustained in the remaining 34 percent. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 5 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA For this reporting period, data is unavailable on the findings for 102 of the reported cases because the department failed to enter this information into its case management system, as required by department policies and procedures. Despite the bureau’s continued efforts to remedy this data gap, the department has yet to correct the problem by enforcing these rules. Bureau assessment. The bureau Case Assessments assesses cases in two ways. First, the bureau evaluates the disposition, 5 30 meaning the ultimate outcome of the case. Second, the entities primarily tasked with implementing the department’s disciplinary process are Distinguished evaluated for procedural compliance Satisfactory Deficient with the department’s policies and procedures. For this six-month reporting period, the 180 bureau identified 30 cases as distinguished, which means they had a reasonable outcome and were in substantial compliance with department procedures. This is contrasted by five cases deemed deficient by the bureau, which means they had unreasonable outcomes. Finally, the bureau found 180 cases to be satisfactory, which means they resulted in a reasonable outcome despite procedural problems. The bureau does not evaluate the disposition of criminal cases because the decision to file criminal charges is made by district attorney’s offices or the attorney general’s office, not the department. The bureau evaluates the three department entities that are responsible for implementing the Madrid reforms: • the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA), which conducts the investigations; • the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team (EAPT), which consists of the department’s attorneys who provide legal advice and represent the department at State Personnel Board hearings; • the hiring authorities (HA), which are management employees who determine the discipline to impose. Overall, the bureau found the three entities to be procedurally compliant with department policies and procedures more often than not. Of the cases that met the criteria to receive a rating, the OIA was substantially compliant in 83 percent of cases, partially compliant in 16 percent, and deficient in 1 percent. The EAPT was substantially compliant in 53 percent of cases, partially compliant in 35 percent, and deficient in 12 percent. Finally, the department hiring authorities were substantially compliant in 81 percent of cases, partially compliant in 18 percent, and deficient in 1 percent. A noteworthy statistic for this reporting period is the decreased percentage of cases where we found the EAPT to be noncompliant with the department’s policies and procedures—the percentage decreased by 16 percent when compared to the last semi-annual report. The charts BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 6 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA that follow compare the assessment ratings for the OIA, EAPT, and HA from this reporting period to those from the bureau’s last semi-annual report. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 7 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Critical Incident Monitoring Activities The department is required to notify the bureau of all critical incidents close to the time of their occurrence. Critical incidents include serious events that require an immediate response by the department. Examples of critical incidents include riots, homicides, escapes, sexual assaults, hostage situations, uses of lethal force, and unexpected inmate deaths. The bureau then monitors the department’s response to the incident, often by deploying bureau representatives to the site of the incident. The bureau evaluates the department’s immediate response to the incident, the subsequent determination of Critical Incident Responses whether the incident should 80 be referred to the OIA, and 74 the OIA’s decision regarding 70 any referral. The bureau’s 63 61 61 evaluations of these critical 60 incidents are contained in the 50 48 Table of Critical Incidents found in this report. 40 30 Caseload trends. During this six-month reporting period, 20 the bureau concluded its 10 monitoring activities for 63 critical incidents. As the 0 JAN-JUN 2006 JUL-DEC 2006 JAN-JUN 2007 JUL-DEC 2007 JAN-JUN 2008 chart to the right shows, the BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 8 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA bureau’s monitoring of critical incidents has remained consistent over the last two and a half years. Type of incident. Consistent with past reporting periods, the bureau most often monitored incidents involving use of force. As shown in the chart below, a noteworthy statistic is the increase in sexual assault incidents reported by the bureau, from 4 percent in the last semi-annual report to 22 percent. Type of Critical Incidents Comparison 25 22 20 15 15 15 14 Jul - Dec '07 Jan - June '08 10 10 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 5 3 3 0 Use of Letha U l s F e o o rc f e Force Resulting fro m Riot In mate Suicid U e nexpected In mate Death In mate Ho micide Sexual Assault Other Use-of-Force Incident Review Monitoring Activities The bureau also monitors the department’s internal review of use-of-force incidents that occur in adult institutions and in juvenile facilities, as well as use-of-force incidents involving parole agents. The committees that conduct use-of-force reviews serve two purposes: to determine whether an employee’s use of force is within policy, and to identify any reporting deficiencies. At times, the initial supervisory review of the use-of-force incident reports reveals that potential misconduct occurred, and the matter is referred directly to the OIA without a committee review. However, most use-of-force incidents are subject to the committee review process. If the committee determines that potential misconduct occurred, the incident is referred to the OIA for investigation or approval of direct disciplinary action without further investigation. During this reporting period, the bureau attended 269 of these committee meetings statewide. At these meetings, the bureau reviewed 2,105 incidents involving 4,116 staff members who used force. This equates to a statewide average of eight incidents involving use of force by an average of two staff members considered at each meeting. The chart below shows the number of meetings attended by the bureau and the number of cases reviewed in each region of the state and within the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 9 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Meetings Attended by Bureau 700 644 655 600 500 491 400 315 300 200 100 88 89 42 50 0 DJJ North Central South Region Level of force. The bureau tracks each use of force by each staff member separately even if more than one use of force occurs within the same incident. The force categories used by the bureau from lowest to highest are physical force, pepper spray, baton, less-lethal projectile force, and lethal force. If a staff member uses more than one type of force against an inmate, juvenile ward, or parolee, the bureau only notes the highest level of force used. For example, if a staff member uses pepper spray against an inmate and then uses physical force to restrain the inmate, the level of force is reported as pepper spray. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 10 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA latoT Total Meetings Total Cases Type of Force Used From Most to Least Frequent 70% 66% 60% 60% 50% 48% 43% 44% 42% 40% 36% 33% 33% 30% 20% 14% 11% 10% 9% 9% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% Pepper Spray Physical Force Less Lethal Baton Lethal Force Used egatnecreP DJJ North Central South Statewide the type of force most often used in incidents reviewed by the bureau was pepper spray, followed by physical force. More often than not, uses of lethal force are immediately referred to the OIA without committee review; thus, this category was least frequently reviewed at committee meetings. The second least frequent type of force used in the incidents was the baton. The frequency of each type of force used in the incidents reviewed by region and the DJJ are reflected in the chart above. Timeliness of reviews. The amount of time between the date of the incident and the date of review is important for several reasons. If staff misconduct is identified, the department statutorily has one year to take disciplinary action against peace officers and three years to take disciplinary action against other employees, absent an exception. Moreover, if a need for training is identified, it is critical that the training occur promptly to prevent the conduct from reoccurring. The time between the date of the incident and its review varied significantly statewide. The DJJ had the quickest overall review time, ranging from 16 days to 45 days depending on the month. The central region had the overall longest review time for this reporting period. The central region’s monthly average time between incident and review ranged from 8 to 727 days depending on the month. The chart below shows the 2008 monthly average for each region within the state and the DJJ. Average Number of Days Between Incident and Review 180 171 169 160 140 120 109 104 102 100 98 96 98 DJJ 91 86 North Central 80 73 75 South 69 67 60 56 48 50 51 45 40 33 22 23 20 20 16 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 11 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Medical Oversight Program Monitoring Activities The bureau’s monitoring activities also expanded to include matters under review by the department’s newly formed Medical Oversight Program (MOP), which began a pilot program during this reporting period. The MOP consists of doctors and nurses from the department’s Division of Health Care Services, investigators from the OIA, and department attorneys from the EAPT. When an unexpected inmate death meets the program’s criteria, the chief medical officer at the affected institution notifies the MOP. Depending on the circumstances, the MOP may conduct a preliminary inquiry of the matter or a full investigation. During this reporting period, the bureau established its own Medical Monitoring Team to provide oversight for the MOP process. The bureau engaged in significant work hand-in-hand with the MOP to help develop the program’s policies and procedures, as well as monitor any preliminary inquiries and investigations that were begun during the reporting period. Because the MOP is a pilot program, it remains to be seen what form the program will ultimately take and, therefore, what role the bureau will play in the future. The bureau is committed to providing whatever monitoring functions are deemed necessary and appropriate in the vital area of custodial health care services. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 12 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA E T F XPLANATION OF ABLE ORMAT The tables that follow provide the public with the bureau’s assessment of individual cases and critical incidents monitored by the bureau. The case tables, which appear first, provide the bureau’s assessment of the department’s internal affairs investigations and employee discipline actions related to alleged misconduct. The appealed cases table provides additional information regarding the resolution of cases originally reported in prior semi-annual reports. Finally, the critical incidents table provides an assessment of how the department responded to these serious incidents. Format of Case Tables The bureau’s approach to assessing individual cases focuses on the ultimate outcome, or disposition, of each case. 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 of the case was unreasonable are presented as deficient cases. Assessing the Disposition of Cases The disposition in each case, which includes the allegations, findings, and penalty imposed, if any, has been 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. However, the department 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 unreasonable and inconsistent with the bureau’s recommendations but later rectified as the result of executive review, a process that elevates the unreasonable decision to the hiring authority’s superior within the department; or The case eventually resulted in a finding that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct. However, had actionable misconduct been found, no action could have been taken because the time for a prosecutor 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 penalties imposed by the department for the bureau to assess. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 13 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA The DISPO column shows the rating for the disposition of each monitored case. Assessing the Department’s Compliance This report also provides an assessment of the department’s compliance with policies and procedures governing its internal investigations and employee discipline. Three critical entities are involved in the department’s disciplinary process: the OIA, which conducts the investigation (INV); the EAPT, which provides legal advice and advocacy (ADV); and the hiring authorities (HA), which determine the discipline to impose. Each critical entity is assessed with one of the following ratings: 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, because of the nature of the case, the individual component was not involved. The rating for each critical entity 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 that resulted in reasonable outcomes that were handled well by each critical entity. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 14 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Deficient cases – cases that initially resulted in unreasonable outcomes or cases in which the applicable statutory deadline expired before the case was resolved. Satisfactory cases – cases that resulted in reasonable outcomes despite not being handled well by one or more of the critical entities. Format of Appealed Cases Table The appealed cases table provides updated information regarding cases published in prior semi- annual reports. The bureau initially reports administrative actions when the department has determined whether to impose discipline on an employee, and if discipline is to be imposed, the department has served the employee with disciplinary documents. However, employees may request a hearing to challenge the disciplinary action before the State Personnel Board, an independent state agency. The bureau continues to monitor the case through this appeal process. If there is a significant modification in the discipline after an appeal is filed, the bureau publicly reports this change in the appealed cases table. Each case in the appealed cases table is listed in ascending order by the case’s original number in a prior semi-annual report. The first two digits of the case number reflect the year the case was reported, and the second number reflects the order in which the case was reported during that year. For example, case number 05-0012 was the twelfth case appearing in the 2005 semi-annual reports. Cases appear in the appealed cases table after resolution, and they complete the appeal process at various times. Therefore, by design, there are gaps in the number sequence of the appealed cases table. Format of Critical Incidents Table The critical incidents table provides a text-based description regarding the facts of the incident, the disposition of the case, and the bureau’s assessment of how the department responded to the incident. The bureau’s assessment addresses the following critical components of the department’s response: • Did the department appropriately respond to the incident? • Was the bureau properly consulted, as mandated by the Madrid reforms? • Did the department properly determine whether to refer the matter for investigation? • If the matter was referred for investigation, did the OIA properly handle the referral? When the bureau accepts an investigation opened as a result of a critical incident for monitoring, it is reported in the case tables of the semi-annual report when the case has completed the department’s internal disciplinary process. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 15 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0001 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 29, 2008, two mailroom employees allegedly found $200 in a greeting card sent to an inmate and DISPO INV ADV HA stole the money. Previously, one of the employees had been ordered to immediately report any suspicious mail coming from the sender to that inmate because of concerns about contraband being introduced into the institution. The employees were also allegedly dishonest during their internal affairs interviews regarding the allegations. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against both employees were sustained, and they were dismissed. The employees did not file appeals with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0002 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 15, 2008, it was discovered that a non-sworn employee was smuggling tobacco into the institution DISPO INV ADV HA for distribution to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The employee retired from state service before completion of the administrative investigation. It was noted in his personnel file that he retired under unfavorable circumstances. Case No. 08-0003 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 29, 2007, an officer allegedly left the scene of a home invasion robbery before outside law DISPO INV ADV HA enforcement arrived. The officer also allegedly failed to cooperate with the criminal investigation conducted by outside law enforcement officers and made false or misleading statements to them. The officer was further allegedly dishonest during the department's administrative investigation of the alleged conduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE All the allegations against the officer were sustained. He was dismissed as a result of the allegations in this case as well as those from an unrelated case. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0004 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 15, 2007, the institution's investigative services unit discovered a mobile phone, money, a pay list, DISPO INV ADV HA and the home contact information for an officer in an inmate's possession. In a subsequent interview, the inmate alleged that he had a friendly relationship with the officer and that the officer had provided him with tobacco in exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations made by the inmate against the officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 16 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0005 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 28, 2007, an officer was ordered to take a random drug test, pursuant to the department's policy. DISPO INV ADV HA After providing a suspicious urinalysis sample, the officer refused to provide another sample as requested. DISPOSITION OF CASE All allegations were sustained. This case was combined with another pending case involving dishonesty, and the officer was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0006 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 18, 2007, a sergeant allegedly intentionally falsified a criminal report regarding an inmate fight, DISPO INV ADV HA ordered an officer to place certain information in a report, ordered another officer not to submit an accurate report, and provided false information to a third officer who was preparing his report. It was also alleged that the sergeant failed to properly process evidence related to the fight. DISPOSITION OF CASE During the internal affairs investigation of the sergeant's conduct, he openly admitted all his misconduct. The hiring authority sustained all the allegations and demoted him to officer, the second highest penalty that could be imposed. He did not appeal to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0007 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 4, 2007, an officer allegedly failed to take appropriate emergency action when one inmate was stabbing DISPO INV ADV HA another inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegation of neglect of duty and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0008 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 2, 2007, it was alleged that a lieutenant intentionally bumped shoulders with an inmate in an act of DISPO INV ADV HA intimidation and used profanity while counseling the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations against the lieutenant were not sustained. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 17 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0009 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 20, 2007, a Department of Justice representative notified the institution that a sergeant and a lieutenant DISPO INV ADV HA signed memorandums certifying several officers as active peace officers in good standing and authorizing waiver of the waiting period to purchase firearms. Neither the warden, nor the chief deputy warden, delegated the responsibility of authorizing such waivers to either the sergeant or the lieutenant. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained allegations of misuse of authority against the sergeant and the lieutenant, but it did not sustain any allegations against the other officers involved. The hiring authority issued letters of instruction to the sergeant and the lieutenant. Case No. 08-0010 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 18, 2007, an inmate reportedly had a seizure while in a holding cell. A lieutenant and an officer DISPO INV ADV HA reported that when the holding cell door was opened, the inmate fell out shaking, and custody staff members placed him on a gurney and transported him to the treatment area. However, medical staff members reported the opposite. They reported that several custody staff members, including the lieutenant and the officer, stood watching the inmate have the seizure. They further alleged that the custody staff members would not open the holding cell so the medical staff could assist the inmate; when the cell was finally opened, the inmate fell out, and the medical staff members placed him on a gurney. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations against all staff members, both medical and custody, were not sustained. However, the medical staff members continue to receive training on incident response. Case No. 08-0011 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about June 17, 2007, an officer allegedly engaged in sexual conduct with a parolee. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority found insufficient evidence of criminal conduct to sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0012 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 11, 2007, following an argument in the gym between an inmate and three officers, one of the officers DISPO INV ADV HA told the inmate to go outside. Once outside, the inmate complied with orders to place his hands on the wall and spread his feet. The officers then allegedly kicked his left leg from under him, twisted his right arm, pushed him causing his right eye to hit the wall, hit him in the right kidney, and pushed him into the wall a second time. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against any of the officers. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 18 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0013 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 7, 2007, an inmate alleged that an officer intentionally placed him in another inmate's cell so the other DISPO INV ADV HA inmate could assault him. The inmate also alleged that the officer knew that the other inmate possessed an inmate-manufactured weapon to carry out the assault. DISPOSITION OF CASE During the investigation, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence of staff member misconduct. Case No. 08-0014 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 31, 2007, an officer allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate by writing a DISPO INV ADV HA personal note and delivering a gift to him. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegation that the officer engaged in overly familiar conduct with the inmate. Case No. 08-0015 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2007, an officer allegedly used profanity toward an inmate and threatened the inmate with the loss DISPO INV ADV HA of his work assignment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation that the officer used profanity against the inmate was sustained, while the allegation that he threatened the inmate with the loss of a work assignment was not sustained. The officer received a letter of instruction. Case No. 08-0016 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2007, three parole agents allegedly retained or distributed a copy of a confidential exam while at the DISPO INV ADV HA parole academy. A fourth parole agent was allegedly dishonest during his internal affairs interview when asked who provided him the exam. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation did not corroborate any of the allegations against the agents. Accordingly, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against them. Case No. 08-0017 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 15, 2007, two inmates were fighting in their cell. Officers used pepper spray and physical force to stop DISPO INV ADV HA the fight. Afterward, one of the inmates attempted to kick an officer, causing that officer and another officer to use physical force against the inmate. During a hearing to determine whether the inmate should be disciplined for attempting to kick the officer, a third officer said that he did not see the inmate attempt to kick the officer. As a result, it was alleged that the two officers used inappropriate force and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 19 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0018 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 29, 2007, it was alleged that an officer had engaged in acts of domestic violence and used racial slurs DISPO INV ADV HA toward his daughter. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority found no evidence of misconduct. The department's attorneys requested that the hiring authority's supervisor review the decision through an executive review. The supervisor agreed with the hiring authority's decision that no misconduct occurred. The allegations were not sustained. Case No. 08-0019 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 26, 2007, it was alleged that a non-sworn employee attempted to dissuade inmates and other DISPO INV ADV HA employees from reporting staff member misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations were not sustained. Case No. 08-0020 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 13, 2007, about 14 inmates refused to return to their cells until they spoke with a supervisor DISPO INV ADV HA concerning the use of unnecessary force on an inmate during the evening meal. According to the inmates, an officer allegedly stopped an inmate before he entered the dining area and counseled the inmate about his behavior on a previous day. During the counseling, the officer allegedly slapped the inmate three times on the head with an open hand. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority decided not to sustain the allegations against the officer because of insufficient evidence. Case No. 08-0021 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 8, 2007, a sergeant allegedly punched and kneed an inmate in the face, injuring the inmate's orbital DISPO INV ADV HA bones. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations were sustained, and the sergeant was dismissed. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0022 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 5, 2007, an inmate was stabbed by another inmate. An officer used deadly force on the aggressor DISPO INV ADV HA inmate and stopped the attack. However, it was later alleged that a third inmate had informed two sergeants that the attack was being planned. The sergeants allegedly neglected their duties by failing to act on that information. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against either sergeant because there was no proof that the sergeants were given enough information to require action. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 20 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0023 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 4, 2007, a sergeant allegedly directed an inmate to sexually assault a second inmate in retaliation for DISPO INV ADV HA the second inmate exposing his penis to the sergeant's spouse, who was an officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigative report, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0024 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about March 2, 2007, it was alleged that a lieutenant and a sergeant were overly familiar with inmates, DISPO INV ADV HA engaged in unethical behavior, intentionally lost or suppressed evidence and inmate rules violation reports, impeded an investigation by intimidating witnesses, intentionally failed to report the misconduct of another employee, and were discourteous toward inmates and other employees. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations were sustained against the sergeant, who was dismissed. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The allegations against the lieutenant were not sustained. Case No. 08-0025 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about March 1, 2007, a parolee alleged that two parole agents used force to move his father away from a DISPO INV ADV HA door during a search of the parolee's home. The parolee also alleged that the parole agents ordered the parolee's minor brother to remove his clothes to search for gang-related tattoos. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation did not substantiate the parolee's claims. Therefore, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the parole agents. Case No. 08-0026 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about March 1, 2007, a parolee alleged that during a home visit parole agents forced a female DISPO INV ADV HA acquaintance of the parolee to remove her clothing to check for gang-related tattoos. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed no evidence to corroborate the parolee's claim. Therefore, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegation against the parole agent. Case No. 08-0027 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 8, 2007, an inmate filed an appeal alleging that on December 2, 2006, an officer threatened him DISPO INV ADV HA and challenged him to fight. The inmate allegedly reported the threat to a lieutenant and a sergeant, who told the inmate to keep his mouth shut or be set up for an offense that would result in his third strike. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation of threatening the inmate was not sustained, but the allegation of neglect of duty was sustained. The officer received a suspension for three working days, and he did not appeal the discipline to the State Personnel Board. The lieutenant and the sergeant were not subjects in the investigation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 21 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0028 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 25, 2007, outside law enforcement entered a parolee's residence and discovered her in the embrace DISPO INV ADV HA of an officer wearing his department uniform. The officer allegedly lied to his supervisor about why he was going to be late for work that day. Four days later, outside law enforcement stopped a vehicle driven by the officer and discovered the same parolee as a passenger. A search of the vehicle revealed a purse under the driver's seat containing methamphetamine and marijuana. The parolee later told outside law enforcement that she had a sexual relationship with the officer and had seen him use drugs in the past. The officer also allegedly lied to the department about information in his background and lied during his internal affairs interview regarding the alleged misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained allegations of sexual misconduct and engaging in an overly familiar relationship with a parolee. Allegations of dishonesty related to why he was late to work and his background were also sustained; however, the allegation of dishonesty during his internal affairs interview was not sustained. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation of use of controlled substances off duty. The officer was dismissed, and he filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0029 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 2, 2007, a lieutenant held a hearing to determine if an inmate had engaged in misconduct as DISPO INV ADV HA indicated in a rules violation report. During the hearing, the lieutenant allegedly falsified the hearing report by indicating that the officer who authored the rules violation report participated in the hearing via telephone when, in fact, the officer was never contacted. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigative report, the hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the lieutenant. Therefore, no discipline was imposed. Case No. 08-0030 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 2, 2007, the institution received information that since March 2005 an officer allegedly maintained DISPO INV ADV HA an overly familiar relationship with a former boyfriend while he was incarcerated and after he was paroled. The officer also allegedly failed to report contacts with the boyfriend and was dishonest about those contacts. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of neglect of duty, failure to follow policy, and dishonesty. The officer was dismissed and appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 22 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 08-0031 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 1, 2007, an inmate alleged that a few days earlier, after flooding his cell, he was handcuffed and DISPO INV ADV HA punched six to eight times in the ribs by one officer as a second officer acted as a lookout. The inmate initially refused to identify the two officers, but he later identified them after he was released on parole. The officers were allegedly dishonest during their investigative interviews regarding their conduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority initially sustained the dishonesty allegations against the officers. However, after the Skelly hearings, the hiring authority decided that the allegations should not be sustained and withdrew the actions. One of the officers received a letter of instruction for failing to prepare a rules violation report against the inmate for flooding the cell. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The investigation was completed less than a month before the time to take disciplinary action expired. The officers were notified of the intent to take disciplinary action before the time to take action expired, and they were served with the written notices shortly thereafter. Thus, the Skelly hearings were held after the time to take disciplinary action had expired. At the Skelly hearings, the officers provided information that needed to be investigated. The hiring authority did not request that the Office of Internal Affairs remedy the insufficient investigation and conduct this necessary additional investigation because the time to take action had expired. The hiring authority's disposition of the case was appropriate based on the information available. However, the hiring authority was not provided with all the information necessary to determine the proper disposition of this case within the time frame for taking action. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 23 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 08-0032 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 26, 2007, a department nurse and doctor allegedly violated policy when they removed a dead DISPO INV ADV HA inmate's medical chart from an outside hospital where the inmate had been undergoing treatment. It was also alleged that the nurse refused her supervisor's order to report to the employee relations officer and acted in a discourteous manner to three different employees. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation was reviewed by two separate hiring authorities. The hiring authority for the doctor did not sustain any of the allegations. The hiring authority for the nurse did not sustain any of the allegations; however, the nurse was served with a letter of expectation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The doctor's hiring authority made appropriate determinations regarding the allegations against the doctor. The nurse's hiring authority, however, sustained misconduct but issued her a non-disciplinary letter of expectation. Her conduct should have been assessed and a penalty imposed consistent with the department's disciplinary guidelines, which should have resulted in penalty of a suspension or loss of pay for a period of time. The nurse's hiring authority also failed to consult with the bureau and the department's attorney about the sufficiency of the investigation, the findings on the allegations, and the appropriate discipline. The case transferred between four different department attorneys as it progressed, and there was a failure by the department's attorneys to follow department policies and procedures in this case. During the investigation, the attorneys failed to consistently update the case management system, provide legal advice to the investigator, provide feedback regarding the sufficiency of the investigation, or provide comments on the final investigative report. Further, the department's attorneys did not consult with the bureau as required. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 24 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 08-0033 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 2, 2006, it was alleged that a parole agent hugged and kissed a parolee. He also allegedly asked DISPO INV ADV HA the parolee if he could wash her car, clean her floor, buy her groceries, and switch roles with her by allowing her to be in charge of him. During his investigative interview, the parole agent was confronted with a tape recording of his comments to the parolee, and in response he denied making the statements and refused to complete the interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE Upon completion of the investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations against the parole agent and served him with a notice of dismissal. However, the dismissal was based only on allegations of dishonesty and insubordination during the investigative interview. The deadline for taking disciplinary action for the overly familiar conduct had passed. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The investigation in this case was requested approximately 30 days after the date of the alleged misconduct, and the central intake unit sent the case to the regional internal affairs office for investigation approximately 60 days later. However, the investigation was not completed until less than three weeks before the time to take disciplinary action for the misconduct related to the parolee expired. The notice of dismissal was served on the last day, but was served incorrectly. By the time the defective service was discovered, the time to take action on the misconduct related to the parolee had expired. Therefore, the only misconduct for which the hiring authority could take action was the dishonesty that occurred during his investigative interview. In addition, this case exhibited a failure to comply with the department's policies and procedures by its attorneys. The department attorneys essentially failed to be involved in the investigative portion of the case. The department's attorneys also did not properly consult with the bureau during the case, and they failed to provide the bureau an opportunity to review the written disciplinary notice before serving it on the parole agent. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 25 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 08-0034 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE An inmate submitted an appeal dated August 3, 2006, alleging that on May 22, 2006, he was hit and kneed DISPO INV ADV HA without provocation by four officers while he was handcuffed. The inmate had injuries consistent with his complaint. During the investigation, allegations of dishonesty were added against all officers based on the information contained in their reports and against a lieutenant for wrongfully denying that he received training in report writing. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain the initial allegations of unnecessary use of force against the officers. In addition, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations of dishonesty against two officers arising from their reports. The allegations against the lieutenant were also not sustained. BUREAU ASSESSMENT At the penalty conference, the hiring authority determined that action would be taken and a penalty imposed on the officers for dishonesty. The next day, without consulting with the bureau, the hiring authority decided that no action would be taken against two of the officers. This decision was unreasonable based on the conclusions to be drawn from the investigation. There was no time for the bureau to request that the decision be reviewed by the hiring authority's supervisor through an executive review because the decision was made late in the day that the time to take action expired. Further, the Office of Internal Affairs did not complete the investigation in a timely manner, and the complainant and subjects were interviewed when there was less than 30 days left to take disciplinary action. Moreover, the department's attorneys failed to be involved in the investigation as required by policy, they did not properly confirm key dates in the case, and they did not coordinate with the bureau. Case No. 08-0035 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 9, 2006, a sergeant and subordinate officers allegedly removed an inmate from his cell by force DISPO INV ADV HA without proper authorization. It was also alleged that the sergeant failed to report the unnecessary use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a letter of reprimand against the sergeant. After the Skelly hearing, however, the hiring authority withdrew the action against the sergeant. The officers received corrective action in the form of report writing training. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority initially sustained the allegations and issued a letter of reprimand to the sergeant. After the Skelly hearing, the hiring authority withdrew the penalty and imposed no disciplinary or corrective action. There were no changes in the circumstances surrounding the facts, and no new evidence was presented at the Skelly hearing by the subject warranting the change in disciplinary action. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 26 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0036 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 2, 2008, an inmate alleged that a materials and stores supervisor allowed inmates to watch movies DISPO INV ADV HA on a laptop computer that she brought into the institution, gave inmates food, allowed inmates to use a telephone, and gave an inmate a piece of jewelry. In addition, she allegedly spent time alone in a bathroom with one of the inmates and allowed him to use her personal mobile phone. It was further alleged that she knew about an unsecured weapon in the work area but failed to notify anyone. DISPOSITION OF CASE All the allegations were sustained, and the materials and stores supervisor was dismissed. She filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0037 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 25, 2008, an officer was given an assignment to shred several boxes of confidential documents. DISPO INV ADV HA Instead, the officer left his assigned post, drove a state vehicle off grounds without supervisor approval, and disposed of the confidential documents in a dumpster at the local high school. The following day, the officer was dishonest when he told his supervisor that he had finished shredding the confidential documents. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, and the hiring authority served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the dismissal became effective. The department placed a letter in his personnel file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0038 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 21, 2008, a librarian was allegedly overly familiar with an inmate. A video showed her holding hands DISPO INV ADV HA with the inmate, kissing him, and performing oral sex on him. The video also showed the inmate masturbating with her. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the matter was referred to the district attorney's office, which charged the librarian with a felony offense. The librarian resigned, and it was noted in her personnel file that the resignation was under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0039 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 18, 2008, a lieutenant allegedly placed an inmate in danger by providing him with a razor blade after DISPO INV ADV HA the inmate threatened to commit suicide. The inmate then superficially cut himself with the razor. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute the case based on insufficient evidence. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative case, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 27 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0040 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 5, 2008, it was alleged that a youth correctional officer was providing cocaine, marijuana, and tobacco DISPO INV ADV HA to wards inside a youth facility. DISPOSITION OF CASE The criminal investigation revealed no evidence to corroborate the allegations except the officer's own admission that he had provided a small amount of chewing tobacco to wards on several occasions. Since the possession of tobacco inside a prison is not a crime, no referral was made to the district attorney's office. Case No. 08-0041 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 1, 2008, an inmate alleged that a psychiatric technician had been selling tobacco and drugs to inmates. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and served the psychiatric technician with a notice of dismissal. However, he resigned from his position. A letter was placed in his personnel file indicating that he resigned with adverse action pending against him. Case No. 08-0042 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 25, 2008, a contract medical assistant allegedly brought marijuana into the institution and delivered DISPO INV ADV HA it to an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The subject of this case was a contract employee, so the employee's contract was terminated. Case No. 08-0043 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 19, 2008, information was received alleging that an officer had used the express lanes on toll roads DISPO INV ADV HA 622 times without paying the required tolls. DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigation determined that the officer's electronic device for the toll roads malfunctioned, so the allegations were not sustained. Case No. 08-0044 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 19, 2008, information was received alleging that an officer had used the express lanes on toll roads DISPO INV ADV HA 224 times without paying the required tolls. DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigation determined that the officer's son had used the toll roads without making the required payment, and no charges were sustained against the officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 28 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0045 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 17, 2008, a high-profile inmate was prematurely released from custody at least one year too early. DISPO INV ADV HA Case records analysts and supervisors allegedly failed to properly calculate the inmate's release date. DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigation revealed that all the involved employees followed proper procedure in the computation of the inmate's release date, but that the computation was uncommonly complex. Therefore, the hiring authority did not sustain any allegations of misconduct against the employees. Case No. 08-0046 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 4, 2008, while being interviewed by staff members, an inmate alleged that an officer was selling DISPO INV ADV HA mobile phones, marijuana, and narcotics to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were investigated, and probable cause to believe a crime had been committed was not established. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. Case No. 08-0047 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 21, 2008, a youth correctional counselor allegedly engaged in a fistfight with a ward and conspired DISPO INV ADV HA with another youth correctional counselor to make himself appear the victim of the altercation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed probable cause to support the allegations. Accordingly, the investigation was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to file charges. An administrative investigation was also opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0048 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In January 2008, the department received information that an officer had allegedly been engaged in an overly DISPO INV ADV HA familiar relationship with an inmate for several months, which included engaging in sexual acts with the inmate, providing the inmate with a mobile phone to exchange text messages of a sexual nature, and bringing the inmate tobacco and a cigarette lighter. The officer also allegedly provided the inmate with a letter that the officer intercepted that detailed a plan by other inmates to smuggle narcotics into the institution. During an interview with the Office of Internal Affairs, the officer was allegedly dishonest when questioned about his conduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, and the officer was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 29 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0049 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 20, 2007, it was alleged that a parole district administrator had inappropriately altered parole DISPO INV ADV HA discharge forms with correction fluid so that they did not reflect the recommendations of lower supervisors to retain parolees on parole. DISPOSITION OF CASE The administrator admitted his use of correction fluid to erase the recommendations of his lower supervisors to retain parolees on parole. However, the administrator possessed the authority to discharge the parolees and thereby overrule the lower supervisors’ decisions. Moreover, it was found that his recommendations to discharge the parolees were within policy and law. The investigation revealed that the administrator used the correction fluid so that third parties reading the forms would not mistake the contrary recommendation of a subordinate supervisor for his own final decision. The administrator was counseled to avoid using correction fluid in the future. Case No. 08-0050 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 19, 2007, the institution received information that since August 15, 2007, a dental assistant had DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly been engaging in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The dental assistant resigned during the disciplinary process. It was noted in the dental assistant's personnel file that the resignation was under unfavorable circumstances. Case No. 08-0051 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 10, 2007, it was alleged that between June 2007 and December 2007, a landscaper was selling DISPO INV ADV HA marijuana to wards at a youth facility. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation yielded probable cause to support the allegation. The investigation was referred to the district attorney's office, but the district attorney declined to file charges against the landscaper. Subsequently, the department conducted an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 30 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0052 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 10, 2007, it was alleged that between June 2007 and December 2007, a landscaper was selling DISPO INV ADV HA marijuana to wards at a youth facility. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and dismissed the landscaper. However, the landscaper resigned before the effective date of the dismissal. A letter was placed in his personnel file indicating that the resignation was under adverse circumstances. BUREAU ASSESSMENT During the investigative phase of the case, the department's attorneys did not review the draft investigative report and provide feedback within the required time, nor did they provide written confirmation of critical discussions about the report. The department's attorneys also failed to provide legal consultation to the hiring authority regarding the determination of allegations, findings, and discipline. No confirmation of disciplinary discussions with the bureau was provided. Case No. 08-0053 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 4, 2007, it was alleged that a dental technician possessed marijuana and conspired to transport it DISPO INV ADV HA into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The dental technician resigned from the department before the conclusion of the investigation. The hiring authority placed a copy of the investigation report in the dental technician's personnel file. Case No. 08-0054 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 4, 2007, a dental technician was arrested during an undercover drug sale. The dental technician DISPO INV ADV HA was allegedly conspiring to bring drugs into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs referred the matter to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The dental technician was convicted of purchasing drugs from an undercover agent. However, the dental technician resigned following the arrest, so the department did open an administrative investigation. Case No. 08-0055 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 3, 2007, it was discovered that a non-sworn staff member brought marijuana into the institution. DISPO INV ADV HA On December 11, 2007, a search warrant was executed on the staff member, his workplace at the institution, and his residence. Additional controlled substances were discovered during the search. DISPOSITION OF CASE On May 9, 2008, the district attorney's office charged the staff member with four drug-related felony crimes. The department also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 31 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0056 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 3, 2007, a materials and stores supervisor allegedly refused to submit to a required random drug DISPO INV ADV HA test and left his post without permission. It was also alleged that he admitted to being under the influence of either alcohol or methamphetamine while at work. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, and the materials and stores supervisor was dismissed. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0057 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 27, 2007, an associate deputy commissioner was arrested for driving under the influence of DISPO INV ADV HA alcohol. It was alleged that his supervisor, an executive officer, was in the vehicle with him, that the two had been drinking together after a day of conducting state business, and that the commissioner was driving a state vehicle at the time. It was also alleged that the commissioner attempted to use his position in the department to gain leniency from the arresting officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the commissioner operated a state vehicle while under the influence of alcohol but did not sustain the allegation that he used his position in the department to solicit leniency. The hiring authority decided to dismiss the commissioner; however, he retired before any penalty was imposed. It was indicated in his personnel file that the retirement was under adverse circumstances. The executive officer resigned. Case No. 08-0058 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 25, 2007, two officers allegedly entered an inmate's cell and held him down while one officer DISPO INV ADV HA inserted a large prison key into the inmate's rectum. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, which included DNA testing, the Office of Internal Affairs determined that insufficient evidence existed to establish probable cause of criminal misconduct. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. Case No. 08-0059 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 23, 2007, the investigative services unit asked a doctor to draw a blood sample from a deceased DISPO INV ADV HA inmate's body as part of an investigation into the murder of the inmate. The doctor allegedly refused the request, failed to follow an order from a supervisor, and was discourteous. DISPOSITION OF CASE All the allegations were sustained, and the doctor received a suspension without pay for six working days. The doctor filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 32 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0060 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 20, 2007, a person with whom a cook had an intimate relationship was sentenced to the DISPO INV ADV HA institution where the cook worked. The cook failed to notify the hiring authority of his relationship with the inmate, intended to keep the relationship a secret, and planned to communicate with the inmate's mother on behalf of the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The cook resigned from the department during the investigation. The department placed a letter in his personnel file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0061 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 16, 2007, a licensed vocational nurse allegedly endangered others by leaving a fully intact syringe DISPO INV ADV HA unattended in the institution's administrative segregation unit. Further, on December 14, 2007, the nurse found an inmate's blood sugar level to be extremely low, and she gave the inmate some nutrients and assured him that she would return in one hour. She failed to return and left the institution. The following day, when the inmate asked why she did not return to care for him, the nurse allegedly replied, "I went home. I go home at this time." Finally, on December 15, 2007, the nurse handed an insulin syringe to an inmate and failed to retrieve it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and decided to reject the nurse on probation; however, the nurse resigned before the rejection on probation became effective. Case No. 08-0062 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 14, 2007, a parole agent was informed that a licensed vocational nurse was seen with a fugitive DISPO INV ADV HA parolee in the community. Phone records revealed that the parolee made numerous calls to the nurse at the institution. The nurse was also allegedly smuggling narcotics into the institution for inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The criminal investigation found insufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing, so no referral was made to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 33 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0063 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 12, 2007, at approximately 2:10 am, an officer was arrested outside of a bar for making criminal DISPO INV ADV HA threats, battering a cohabitant, and being intoxicated in public. The officer allegedly threatened to shoot a bar security employee and another witness while gesturing that he had a weapon. When questioned by police, the officer denied threatening anyone and denied any physical altercation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The hiring authority also sustained an allegation in a separate case that the officer abused sick time because he called in sick, but was arrested at the bar during his shift time. The officer received a combined penalty for both cases and was served with a notice of dismissal. Following a Skelly hearing, the penalty was reduced to a 10 percent salary reduction for 48 months, which the officer did not appeal. Case No. 08-0064 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 11, 2007, at about 12:45 p.m., an officer called the institution to say he was unable to work his DISPO INV ADV HA regularly scheduled shift for November 12, 2007, because of a sick family member. On November 12, 2007, during his shift hours at about 2:10 a.m., the officer was arrested outside a bar. The officer stated he had been at the bar celebrating a family member's birthday. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation regarding abuse of sick leave was sustained. Allegations in another case related to the arrest at the bar were also sustained. The officer received a combined penalty for both cases and was served with a notice of dismissal. Following a Skelly hearing, the penalty was reduced to a 10 percent salary reduction for 48 months, which the officer did not appeal. Case No. 08-0065 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 9, 2007, an officer was allegedly ordered to work overtime by a sergeant. The officer refused to DISPO INV ADV HA stay, stating he had a sick family member at home. The sergeant ordered the officer to obtain a doctor's note and submit it to the watch commander within two days after his return to work. The officer failed to obtain the note but told the sergeant that he had submitted verification to the personnel office. The officer failed to comply with a second order to submit verification to the watch commander. The personnel office confirmed that it did not receive a doctor's note from the officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. The officer resigned after the Skelly hearing. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 34 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0066 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 8, 2007, a youth correctional officer allegedly used unnecessary force when he sprayed two wards DISPO INV ADV HA in their cell with pepper spray, closed their cell door, and allowed the wards to stay in the cell until one of them vomited from the pepper spray fumes. The officer then allegedly threatened the wards to prevent them from reporting his misconduct. He also allegedly did not initially report the use of force and was dishonest in his report and during the investigation of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against the youth correctional officer were sustained, and he was dismissed. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0067 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 26, 2007, a parole agent allegedly had a parolee store and repair her privately owned vehicle. The DISPO INV ADV HA agent was also allegedly dishonest with outside law enforcement when questioned about her relationship with the parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of engaging in overly familiar behavior with the parolee and dishonesty. However, the parole agent resigned before discipline was imposed. The hiring authority placed a letter in the parole agent's personnel file indicating that the resignation was under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0068 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 13, 2007, a parole agent was allegedly insubordinate and negligent by failing to complete a required DISPO INV ADV HA violation report on a parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations; however, the parole agent passed away before discipline could be imposed. Case No. 08-0069 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 9, 2007, while off duty, an officer was arrested for battery against another officer with whom he DISPO INV ADV HA previously had a romantic relationship. The officer failed to report his arrest to the institution and was later convicted of fighting in public and reckless driving. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a suspension of eight working days, which the officer did not appeal. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 35 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0070 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 7, 2007, a sergeant discovered weapons assigned to an observation post unsecured outside the gate DISPO INV ADV HA of a different observation post. The officer assigned to the observation post allegedly failed to properly secure weapons assigned to him and was also dishonest when he told the sergeant that he had placed the weapons on a cart. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation related to negligence in securing the weapons, but it did not sustain the dishonesty allegation. The hiring authority imposed a 30-working-day suspension. After the Skelly hearing, the officer agreed to a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months and relinquished any appeal rights. Case No. 08-0071 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 3, 2007, a physician allegedly fondled an inmate's genitalia inappropriately during a medical DISPO INV ADV HA examination. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were investigated, but the case was not referred to the district attorney's office because of lack of probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The department also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0072 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 3, 2007, a physician allegedly fondled an inmate's genitalia inappropriately during a medical DISPO INV ADV HA examination. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority found insufficient evidence of misconduct to sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0073 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 1, 2007, an inmate's spouse alleged that she was coerced to help officers smuggle narcotics into the DISPO INV ADV HA institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigation determined that the allegations were a ruse by the inmate and spouse to divert attention from their drug smuggling enterprise. The allegation was not referred to the district attorney's office because probable cause was not established to believe any officer committed a crime. No subsequent administrative investigation was opened by the department. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 36 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0074 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 26, 2007, an informant alleged that an employee was trafficking narcotics and tobacco into the DISPO INV ADV HA institution. The proceeds were reportedly going to a specific post office box. The postmaster confirmed that the box was assigned to a certified nursing assistant employed by the institution. It was also alleged that the certified nursing assistant told an officer that she was engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, but the district attorney declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0075 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 24, 2007, it was alleged that an office technician made threatening phone calls to an DISPO INV ADV HA administrator following an investigation that resulted in the dismissal of the office technician's spouse. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation of threatening a coworker was sustained, and the office technician received a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months. The office technician filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority settled the matter before the hearing and agreed to reduce the penalty to a 10 percent salary reduction for six months, modify the language contained in the notice, and remove the action from his personnel file. Case No. 08-0076 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 20, 2007, an officer allegedly battered his spouse during an argument. The officer's version of the DISPO INV ADV HA event was inconsistent with his spouse's version, and the officer was arrested. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer entered a guilty plea to disturbing the peace. The hiring authority sustained allegations of failure of good behavior, discourteous treatment, and inexcusable neglect of duty. A salary reduction of 10 percent for 18 months was imposed, and no notification has been received from the State Personnel Board that an appeal was filed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 37 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0077 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 16, 2007, an officer was arrested for driving without a license, driving under the influence of DISPO INV ADV HA alcohol, and evading law enforcement. On November 5, 2007, the officer was arrested for felony charges of evading law enforcement, driving in the direction opposite of lawful traffic while evading law enforcement, and driving under the influence of alcohol. The officer was involved in a high-speed pursuit on his motorcycle while attempting to avoid a traffic stop, reaching speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour in a 45 mile-per-hour zone, and he was involved in a single-vehicle accident where he was thrown from the motorcycle. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of driving under the influence, evading outside law enforcement on multiple occasions, discourteous treatment, conviction of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, intemperance, and other failure of good behavior. The officer was dismissed, and he filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0078 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 11, 2007, a sergeant was involved in a domestic dispute with his spouse. Outside law enforcement DISPO INV ADV HA officers arrested the sergeant for using physical force on his spouse. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the sergeant brought discredit on the department and issued him a letter of instruction. Case No. 08-0079 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 10, 2007, information was received that an officer was involved in an inappropriate relationship DISPO INV ADV HA with an inmate. The officer allegedly hugged and touched the inmate while she was incarcerated, and the officer corresponded with the inmate after she was transferred to a drug treatment facility. The officer also allegedly submitted forged orders for military duty to the institution and received military leave pay even though he was no longer a member of the armed forces. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned from the department before the investigation was completed. The hiring authority accepted the resignation but noted that it was tendered under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0080 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 31, 2007, a parole agent allegedly made demeaning remarks to a parolee in front of family members DISPO INV ADV HA during a home visit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegation. Accordingly, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the agent. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 38 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0081 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 22, 2007, an officer saw an inmate stabbing another inmate. The officer fired one lethal round as a DISPO INV ADV HA warning shot to stop the attack. When the attack did not cease, the officer fired another lethal round, which hit the attacker. The inmate who was shot was transported to an outside hospital where he underwent surgery and has since recovered. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer's use of deadly force was investigated, and the case was presented to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. An administrative investigation was also opened by the department, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0082 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 16, 2007, a staff member was allegedly absent without leave from his post for almost 45 minutes. DISPO INV ADV HA The staff member allegedly lied to his supervisors about his absence and about the hours he worked on his time sheet. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the staff member resigned before being served with the notice of dismissal. The department placed a letter in his personnel file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0083 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 15, 2007, it was alleged that a staff member engaged in overly familiar conduct by telling an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA that he was going to get the inmate a lap dance for her birthday from another inmate at the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The staff member resigned from the department during the investigation. The department placed a letter in his personnel file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0084 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 14, 2007, staff members at an adult institution allegedly heard a monitored telephone call during DISPO INV ADV HA which a parole agent with the department's Division of Juvenile Justice used terms of endearment toward an adult institution inmate and agreed to deliver a personal message to the inmate's girlfriend. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation did not produce sufficient evidence to warrant disciplinary action, but it did reveal that the agent spoke to the inmate in an overly familiar manner. The agent received corrective action to address her behavior. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 39 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0085 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 13, 2007, a lieutenant allegedly took an inmate into an office, then insulted the inmate and threw a DISPO INV ADV HA notepad at the inmate, striking him on the left ear. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations of discourteous treatment and neglect of duty against the lieutenant. Case No. 08-0086 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 9, 2007, three inmates allegedly struck another inmate. It was later alleged that the incident occurred DISPO INV ADV HA because seven officers and a sergeant violated procedures for bringing inmates from the institution's yard to the housing unit. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0087 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 8, 2007, at about 9:45 p.m., an inmate housed in the administrative segregation unit became upset. DISPO INV ADV HA He allegedly flooded his cell, prepared a bed sheet to hang himself, and said he was going to kill himself. Other inmates allegedly yelled, "Man down," but no staff members responded. On the morning of August 9, 2007, a sergeant went to speak to the inmate and found him hanging from the sheet. An emergency cell extraction was performed, and the inmate was taken for a medical evaluation and placed on suicide watch. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigation, the hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain allegations that the officers assigned to the area neglected their duties. Case No. 08-0088 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 4, 2007, an officer allegedly informed inmate porters that another inmate had reported they were DISPO INV ADV HA stealing food. The officer admitted to a lieutenant that he told this information to the inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations of neglect of duty and sharing confidential information. In addition, the hiring authority sustained allegations against the officer in two other cases that were not monitored by the bureau. As a result of the allegations sustained against the officer in all three cases, he was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 40 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0089 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 3, 2007, an officer attempted to interfere with an investigation by removing contraband DVDs from DISPO INV ADV HA a captain's office. The items were being stored as part of an investigation related to the introduction of contraband into the institution's secured perimeter. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation that the officer introduced contraband DVDs into the secured perimeter of the institution was sustained. The allegation that the officer intentionally distracted his supervisor to retrieve the DVDs after they had been seized was not sustained. The officer received a penalty of a 10 percent salary reduction for four months, which he did not appeal. Case No. 08-0090 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 3, 2007, an academic instructor allegedly engaged in sexual acts with an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE There was insufficient evidence to establish that a crime had been committed. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office, nor was a subsequent administrative investigation opened. Case No. 08-0091 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In August 2007, a sergeant allegedly provided drugs, DVDs, and mobile phones to inmates associated with a DISPO INV ADV HA gang. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the sergeant. Case No. 08-0092 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 29, 2007, an officer's home was searched, and narcotics belonging to the officer were discovered. It was DISPO INV ADV HA also alleged that the officer stole the narcotics from the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against the officer were sustained, and the department served him with a notice of dismissal. Subsequently, the department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement in which the officer was allowed to resign from the department in lieu of dismissal. Case No. 08-0093 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 10, 2007, it was alleged that an officer repeatedly used derogatory, offensive, and demeaning language DISPO INV ADV HA toward several inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer was discourteous toward an inmate and issued a letter of instruction to the officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 41 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0094 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 9, 2007, a sergeant allegedly grabbed an inmate by the throat and failed to report the use of force. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation established probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The case was accepted for criminal prosecution by the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0095 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about July 9, 2007, a sergeant allegedly grabbed an inmate by the throat and failed to report the use of DISPO INV ADV HA force. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations were sustained, and the sergeant was dismissed. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0096 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 6, 2007, after an argument with a ward, a youth correctional officer allegedly allowed the ward to go DISPO INV ADV HA into the laundry room for another ward to counsel him. The ward was told that he was going to have to fight for disrespecting a staff member. The ward then left the laundry room. When he returned, the ward who counseled him and an additional ward physically attacked him. The officer who the ward argued with and two other officers allegedly authorized the attack. After the attack, the officer who argued with the ward allegedly threatened him if he reported the misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation by the Office of Internal Affairs, the hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the three officers. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys failed to provide legal consultation during the investigative phase of the case. Specifically, the department's attorney's did not attend investigative interviews, provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator during the investigation, provide timely feedback regarding the investigative report, or provide written confirmation of critical discussions about the report. The attorneys also did not coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture. Further, the department's attorneys did not properly confirm the incident date and last date to take disciplinary action after receiving the case. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 42 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0097 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 6, 2007, an officer submitted a memorandum indicating that another officer was sexually involved with DISPO INV ADV HA several inmates and that the officer brought in contraband, such as CDs, cigarettes, and marijuana, for the inmates. In particular, it was alleged that the officer watched inmates as they masturbated and as they exercised and made sexually suggestive remarks to them. It was also alleged that the officer gave his home phone number to an inmate and communicated with the inmate after the inmate paroled. DISPOSITION OF CASE Upon completion of the investigation and after careful consideration, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the officer because there was a lack of corroboration from the witnesses interviewed by the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0098 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 6, 2007, an officer submitted a memorandum indicating that another officer was sexually involved with DISPO INV ADV HA several inmates and that the officer brought in contraband, such as CDs, cigarettes, and marijuana, for the inmates. In particular, it was alleged that the officer watched inmates as they masturbated and as they exercised and made sexually suggestive remarks to them. It was also alleged that the officer gave his home phone number to an inmate and communicated with the inmate after the inmate paroled. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed; thus, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0099 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In July 2007, a supervising parole agent allegedly failed to notify the department's legal affairs division that a DISPO INV ADV HA parole agent in her unit had been served with a summons in a civil action brought by a parolee. Instead, the supervising parole agent placed the summons in the parolee's field file, which resulted in a default judgment being entered against the parole agent. The judgment was later set aside. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and issued a letter of reprimand to the supervising parole agent. No appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0100 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about June 30, 2007, an unknown person allegedly forged a parolee's signature on a form setting forth the DISPO INV ADV HA conditions of his parole. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed no evidence to corroborate the allegation or to identify anyone involved. Accordingly, the allegations against the unknown subject were not sustained. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 43 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0101 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 29, 2007, it was alleged that a staff services analyst was having sex with inmates and trafficking DISPO INV ADV HA narcotics into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The employee resigned during the investigation. However, it was noted in the employee's personnel file that the resignation was under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0102 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 23, 2007, an officer was arrested for allegedly operating a boat while under the influence of alcohol. DISPO INV ADV HA The officer allegedly conspired with a second officer to commit perjury during court appearances related to the arrest. It was further alleged that both officers were dishonest during the administrative investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an investigation, the allegations were sustained, and the officer was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. An allegation of dishonesty during his internal affairs interview about whether he conspired with the first officer was sustained against the second officer. The second officer was on probation in his position and was rejected. Case No. 08-0103 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 21, 2007, an officer allegedly was negligent in his duties, engaged in unprofessional conduct with other DISPO INV ADV HA staff members, was insubordinate on two occasions, and falsified his time sheet for that day. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were initially sustained, and the officer received a letter of reprimand. However, during the officer's Skelly hearing, he provided additional information to explain his actions. The hiring authority decided not to sustain the allegations and withdrew the disciplinary action. Case No. 08-0104 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 20, 2007, a Department of Justice representative notified the institution that a sergeant and a lieutenant DISPO INV ADV HA signed memorandums certifying several officers as active peace officers in good standing and authorizing waiver of the waiting period to purchase firearms. Neither the warden, nor the chief deputy warden, delegated the responsibility of authorizing such waivers to either the sergeant or the lieutenant. DISPOSITION OF CASE During the criminal investigation, it was determined that the allegations did not support a finding of criminal conduct. Therefore, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. Subsequently, an administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 44 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0105 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 19, 2007, an officer was arrested for soliciting prostitution. His one-year-old daughter was in the DISPO INV ADV HA backseat of his vehicle at the time of his arrest; a concealed and loaded weapon was also in the vehicle. The officer was allegedly dishonest in the memorandum describing the incident that he submitted to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned while the investigation was pending. The investigation was completed, and the investigation report was placed in the officer's personnel file. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not comply with policy during the investigation because they failed to complete virtually all the substantive required tasks. As a result, the investigator did not receive legal consultation during the entire investigation, timely feedback was not provided regarding the report, and witness interviews were not attended to evaluate credibility and demeanor. The department's attorneys also failed to coordinate with the bureau for critical portions of the investigative process. Case No. 08-0106 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about June 19, 2007, a lieutenant received information stating that an officer allegedly engaged in sexual DISPO INV ADV HA conduct with an inmate on several occasions in November 2005. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation and referred the case to the district attorney's office, which rejected the case for prosecution. A related administrative investigation into the allegations was also opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0107 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 19, 2007, an officer alleged that a lieutenant used a state computer while on duty to post inflammatory DISPO INV ADV HA remarks about officers on an unofficial Web site dedicated to correctional peace officers. In addition, it was alleged that his username on the Web site and posted remarks were supportive of officers who refused to report misconduct. A captain also allegedly inappropriately provided his Internet password to the lieutenant. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations and issued a letter of reprimand to the lieutenant. There was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the captain; however, the hiring authority provided staff members with additional training and procedures regarding use of Internet passwords. Case No. 08-0108 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 18, 2007, an inmate overdosed on heroin and subsequently died. An officer allegedly failed to DISPO INV ADV HA adequately monitor the inmate and notice that the inmate was in medical distress. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations against the officer were not sustained. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 45 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0109 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about June 17, 2007, an officer allegedly engaged in sexual conduct with a parolee. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation and consultation with the local district attorney's office, the hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence of criminal conduct. Subsequently, an administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0110 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 13, 2007, an office technician allegedly told an inmate he would not receive his dental care unless he DISPO INV ADV HA withdrew a complaint he had previously filed regarding dental care. The inmate withdrew his complaint and was seen by a dentist. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and issued the office technician a letter of instruction. Case No. 08-0111 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 13, 2007, an officer was arrested for first-degree burglary. The officer later admitted to being addicted DISPO INV ADV HA to drugs and to entering the residence to steal prescription drugs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, and the hiring authority served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the dismissal became effective. The department placed a letter in his personnel file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 46 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0112 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2007, a youth correctional counselor was identified as the person seen vandalizing the vehicle of a DISPO INV ADV HA former ward at the ward's home. Outside law enforcement stopped the youth correctional counselor's vehicle, observed signs of intoxication, and arrested her for driving under the influence of alcohol and prescription drugs. She failed to properly inform her supervisor of the arrest. The youth correctional counselor was allegedly overly familiar with the ward, both while he was at the youth facility and after his release, by writing him letters, exchanging telephone calls, and expressing a romantic interest in him. She allegedly provided dishonest statements to outside law enforcement at the time of her arrest and to the Office of Internal Affairs during her investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, all the allegations were sustained against the youth correctional officer except for the vandalism because the youth correctional counselor owned the vehicle. The hiring authority served her with a notice of dismissal, but she resigned before the dismissal could take effect. A letter was placed in her personnel file indicating that she resigned under adverse circumstances. BUREAU ASSESSMENT After receiving the case, the department's attorneys made initial contact with the investigator but then essentially failed to perform their required role during the investigation. The department's attorneys also failed to properly coordinate with the bureau during the investigation. The hiring authority and the bureau were nor provided with written confirmation of disciplinary discussions. Further, the written disciplinary notice was not properly drafted as required by the department's policy. Case No. 08-0113 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 11, 2007, an inmate alleged that an officer was trafficking drugs into the institution. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE A prearranged undercover drug sale was conducted but failed to produce evidence of wrongdoing. Therefore, the Office of Internal Affairs closed the criminal investigation and did not initiate an administrative investigation. Case No. 08-0114 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 11, 2007, an inmate alleged that an officer was trafficking drugs into the institution. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish evidence that a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office, nor was an administrative investigation opened. Case No. 08-0115 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 11, 2007, it was alleged that officers assigned to an investigative services unit violated institution DISPO INV ADV HA protocols by compensating confidential informants with special treatment from about January 2005 through January 2007. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations against the officers were not sustained. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 47 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0116 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about June 7, 2007, an officer allegedly asked several inmates to write reports against a lieutenant in an DISPO INV ADV HA effort to support the officer's complaint filed with the Office of Civil Rights. It was also alleged that the officer was overly familiar with inmates by discussing personal affairs with them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, and the officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. Following the officer's Skelly hearing, the discipline was reduced to a letter of reprimand, which the officer did not appeal. Case No. 08-0117 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 7, 2007, an inmate alleged that an officer intentionally placed him in another inmate's cell so the other DISPO INV ADV HA inmate could assault him. The inmate also alleged that the officer knew that the other inmate possessed an inmate-manufactured weapon to carry out the assault. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was insufficient evidence of criminal conduct, so the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was also opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0118 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 5, 2007, an officer was arrested for filing a false police report with outside law enforcement, which DISPO INV ADV HA claimed that someone vandalized his vehicle. It was later learned that the officer damaged the vehicle himself to collect insurance money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of dishonesty, neglect of duty, and other failure of good behavior. The officer was dismissed. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0119 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about June 4, 2007, an office assistant allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship with a parolee. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs investigated the allegation, which was sustained by the hiring authority. However, the office assistant resigned before discipline was imposed. The department placed a letter in the office assistant's file indicating the resignation was under adverse circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 48 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0120 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 4, 2007, a senior youth correctional counselor allegedly used excessive force when he placed his hands DISPO INV ADV HA at the base of a ward's neck and pushed him against a wall. The senior youth correctional counselor then placed the ward's hands behind his back and escorted him to another room before releasing him. It was also alleged that the senior youth correctional counselor failed to report his use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation of excessive use of force. However, the hiring authority determined that the senior youth correctional counselor violated policy by not reporting the incident. He received a counseling memorandum admonishing him for failing to report his use of force. Case No. 08-0121 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about June 4, 2007, it was alleged that an office assistant engaged in an overly familiar relationship with DISPO INV ADV HA a parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was referred to the district attorney's office, and the office assistant was charged with an infraction for possessing marijuana in her home. The office assistant resigned during the investigation. Case No. 08-0122 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 30, 2007, an officer observed an inmate on the roof of a dormitory and two other inmates standing on DISPO INV ADV HA the ground below the inmate on the roof. After hearing an alarm sound, all three inmates ran into the dormitory. A sergeant responded to the dormitory, where he allegedly saw an inmate handing electronics to another officer in the staff office and heard the officer advise the inmates that they were about to be searched. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the officer was overly familiar with inmates, neglected his duty, and engaged in other misconduct. The officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months and appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 49 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0123 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 29, 2007, a sergeant was informed that an inmate feared for his life and that staff members were going DISPO INV ADV HA to be assaulted. The sergeant allegedly failed to immediately report the situation or interview the inmate to ascertain the seriousness of the allegations. The sergeant was then allegedly dishonest with his supervisor and failed to prepare a memorandum concerning the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant. He retired after being served with a notice of dismissal. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Upon receipt of the case, the department's attorneys failed to promptly confirm in the department's case management system information about the incident date and time period to take disciplinary action. The department's attorneys then failed to meet their obligations during the investigative phase of the case, including providing legal consultation to the investigator, attending interviews, and providing comments on the report. Moreover, the bureau was not coordinated with at critical junctures during the investigation or disciplinary action. Case No. 08-0124 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 28, 2007, outside law enforcement arrested an off-duty lieutenant for spousal abuse and witness DISPO INV ADV HA intimidation related to the spousal abuse case. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority decided to dismiss the lieutenant. However, before the disciplinary action was served, the lieutenant resigned pending processing of retirement paperwork. The hiring authority placed a letter in the lieutenant's personnel file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0125 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 25, 2007, a control booth officer allegedly refused to open a cell door when requested to do so by a floor DISPO INV ADV HA officer. As a result, two inmates were forced to remain in their cells during the scheduled evening yard time. The control booth officer was also allegedly dishonest during her investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of dishonesty, incompetence, and inexcusable neglect of duty. The officer received a 55-working-day suspension, which she appealed to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0126 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 23, 2007, an officer allegedly failed to notice an inmate had committed suicide in his cell. The officer DISPO INV ADV HA had been responsible for observing all inmates in the housing unit on an hourly basis. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an investigation, the allegations against the officer were not sustained. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 50 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0127 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2007, two parole agents participated in a multi-agency law enforcement operation executing a DISPO INV ADV HA search warrant on a parolee's residence. It was alleged that one agent used excessive force against the parolee, including blows to the neck and shoulders, and that both agents failed to accurately document this force in their reports of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE Accounts from the outside law enforcement officers who witnessed the incident contradicted the sole claim of excessive force. Accordingly, the hiring authority determined that the allegations were unfounded. Case No. 08-0128 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2007, a parole agent allegedly informed a parolee that outside law enforcement was investigating DISPO INV ADV HA him for burglaries committed at a sporting goods store during which numerous firearms were stolen. On the same day, a shootout occurred between outside law enforcement officers, the parolee, and several of his associates. As a result, two individuals were killed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation and submitted the case to the district attorney's office. The district attorney's office decided not to file charges against the parole agent. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0129 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 21, 2007, an outside law enforcement officer and a parole agent, who were members of a joint task DISPO INV ADV HA force, received information that a parolee would be going to a motel to engage in drug activity. The parolee was out of compliance with his parole. They responded to the motel and requested assistance from other law enforcement officers and parole agents. When the parolee exited the motel room, one non-uniformed parole agent followed the parolee, who began to flee across the motel parking lot. The parole agent believed that the parolee pointed a handgun at him, so the agent fired his weapon at the parolee. The parolee jumped the parking lot fence and was apprehended by uniformed law enforcement officers converging on the scene. Officers recovered a handgun, which the parolee later admitted he had thrown to the ground. There were no injuries sustained by the parolee or the law enforcement officers. For further information regarding this case, see the Office of the Inspector General's Special Report into the Use of Deadly Force Against Parolee Delvin Wright by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (August 2008). DISPOSITION OF CASE The department did not conduct a criminal investigation into the shooting because it believed that local law enforcement was conducting an investigation. Later, the department discovered that local law enforcement did not conduct a criminal investigation. The department conducted an administrative investigation to determine whether the use of deadly force complied with policy. The investigation was presented to the department's Deadly Force Review Board, which found the shooting within policy but made recommendations related to operational tactics based on the incident. The department adopted the findings and recommendations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 51 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0130 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 18, 2007, the institution erroneously released an inmate on standard parole conditions. The inmate DISPO INV ADV HA should have been subject to high-control parole conditions. Because of the error, rather then being transported by the department, the inmate was allowed to travel unescorted by bus to the county of his parole. The parolee traveled to another county and stabbed two victims. For further information regarding this case, see the Office of the Inspector General's Special Review into the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Release of Inmate Scott Thomas (October 2007). DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations against a correctional case records analyst and a correctional counselor were sustained. The correctional case records analyst received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The correctional counselor received a 5 percent salary reduction for 24 months. Both employees filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0131 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 17, 2007, an officer allegedly used pepper spray on an inmate after the inmate refused to be handcuffed DISPO INV ADV HA and demanded to see the sergeant. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation of use of unnecessary force was not sustained against the officer, but he received a letter of instruction for his overall handling of the incident. Case No. 08-0132 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 17, 2007, inmates alleged that an officer was smuggling narcotics and tobacco into the institution. It DISPO INV ADV HA was also alleged that the officer was involved in a sexual relationship with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation, which produced insufficient evidence to refer the case to the district attorney's office. Thus, a subsequent administrative investigation was not opened. Case No. 08-0133 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 16 and 17, 2007, a facility captain allegedly allowed into housing units inmates who had no reason to DISPO INV ADV HA be there. The captain also allowed inmates into the housing units without conducting unclothed body searches. In addition, the captain allegedly ordered a sergeant to allow the inmates to enter the yard without first undergoing unclothed body searches. DISPOSITION OF CASE One allegation of neglect of duty was sustained, and the captain received a letter of instruction. The remaining allegations were not sustained. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 52 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0134 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 16, 2007, an inmate was transported from a community correctional facility to the institution for a DISPO INV ADV HA medical appointment. The inmate alleged that a transportation officer entered his cell and physically battered him. The inmate also claimed the same officer threatened him upon return to the community correctional facility. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain any allegations against the transportation officer. Case No. 08-0135 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 14, 2007, an inmate alleged that two officers threatened him with physical force in retaliation for DISPO INV ADV HA refusing a work assignment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against the first officer were not sustained. The allegation of discourteous treatment against the second officer was sustained based on the content of the conversation with the inmate; however, the allegation of communicating a threat was not sustained. The second officer received a penalty of a seven-working-day suspension, which he appealed to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0136 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 8, 2007, it was alleged that an officer was involved in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate, DISPO INV ADV HA had engaged in sexual activity with the inmate, and assisted in smuggling contraband into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an investigation by the Office of Internal Affairs, it was determined that there was no probable cause to believe that the officer had committed a criminal offense. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. The department also opened an administrative investigation into the alleged conduct, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0137 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 8, 2007, it was alleged that an officer was involved in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate, DISPO INV ADV HA had engaged in sexual activity with the inmate, and assisted in smuggling contraband into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned before the investigation was completed. It was noted in her personnel file that she resigned under unfavorable circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 53 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0138 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 4, 2007, an inmate submitted a written complaint alleging that on March 26, 2007, while being DISPO INV ADV HA searched by an officer, another officer struck the inmate's arm, causing the inmate's coffee cup to fall out of his hand. The officer then threw the inmate against the wall and handcuffed him. As the inmate was being escorted to the program office, the same officer made derogatory comments toward him. Once they arrived at the holding cell, the inmate was pushed into the cell and taunted in an apparent effort to get him to retaliate against the officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer. Case No. 08-0139 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 3, 2007, and again on May 11, 2007, an associate warden was allegedly dishonest during two DISPO INV ADV HA investigative interviews conducted by the Office of Internal Affairs. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigation, the hiring authority concluded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0140 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 3, 2007, it was alleged that a registered nurse was engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The nurse admitted to the investigator that he had kissed an inmate in the institution's medical treatment center. However, he resigned during the investigation. The institution is maintaining the investigation in case he attempts to regain employment with the department. Case No. 08-0141 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 2, 2007, five officers allegedly used physical force to place an inmate on the ground when the inmate DISPO INV ADV HA was not resisting the officers' directives. Several discrepancies in staff member reports and interviews were discovered when the incident was reviewed. The officers also allegedly failed to properly and promptly report the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, corrective action in the form of on-the-job training regarding handcuffing procedures and report writing was provided to all five officers. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 54 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0142 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In May 2007, the department audited a parole agent's caseload records. As a result, it was alleged that the parole DISPO INV ADV HA agent falsified documents when he waived parolee contact requirements retroactively for 16 cases, falsified his work hours, and failed to properly supervise parolees. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the parole agent, who did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0143 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 30, 2007, an inmate alleged that a groundskeeper accepted $5,000 from an inmate to smuggle a pound DISPO INV ADV HA of marijuana, ten packages of tobacco, and a mobile phone into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation established probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0144 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 28, 2007, an inmate reported that a month earlier, an officer forced him and another inmate to perform DISPO INV ADV HA a sexual act on each other in return for allowing them to cell together. The inmate further alleged that the officer photographed the act on his mobile phone and forwarded the picture to three other officers. One of these officers also allegedly struck one of the inmates in a playful manner with her side-handle baton and sprayed him with a small burst of pepper spray. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was forwarded to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute the matter citing insufficient evidence. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 55 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0145 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 26, 2007, an inmate alleged that a transportation officer grabbed him by the neck of his jumpsuit and DISPO INV ADV HA pushed him into a chain link fence. The inmate alleged that the officer was angry with him for refusing to assist in unloading property from the transportation bus. The inmate also alleged that another transportation officer observed the misconduct and failed to intervene. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority concluded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers. However, the hiring authority determined that all transportation officers would receive training in operational procedures for transportation units. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Upon receipt of the case, the department's attorneys failed to promptly confirm in the department's case management system information about the incident date and time period to take disciplinary action. The department's attorneys then failed to meet their obligations during the investigative phase of the case, including providing legal consultation to the investigator, attending interviews, and providing comments on the report. Moreover, the attorneys did not coordinate with the bureau at critical junctures during the investigation. Case No. 08-0146 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 23, 2007, it was reported that a recreational therapist was allegedly engaged in an ongoing DISPO INV ADV HA relationship with an inmate that involved the exchange of romantic correspondence and smuggling of tobacco into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation did not establish probable cause that a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was then opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0147 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 23, 2007, it was reported that a recreational therapist was allegedly engaged in an ongoing DISPO INV ADV HA relationship with an inmate that involved the exchange of romantic correspondence and smuggling of tobacco into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The therapist resigned before the conclusion of the investigation. However, after the investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations, and a letter indicating the resignation occurred under adverse circumstances was placed in the therapist's personnel file. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 56 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0148 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 23, 2007, a lieutenant conducted a hearing to determine if an inmate had engaged in a rules violation. DISPO INV ADV HA A captain allegedly directed another lieutenant to change the findings on the report from guilty to not guilty. The subject lieutenant allegedly did so even though he was off work the day he prepared the report. DISPOSITION OF CASE An allegation of dishonesty against the lieutenant was not sustained. An allegation of misuse of authority against the captain was not sustained. However, the allegation of neglect of duty was sustained against both the captain and the lieutenant for failure to follow the inmate appeals procedure, and both employees received letters of reprimand. Neither employee filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0149 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 23, 2007, it was alleged that an officer was overly familiar with members of a prison gang. The DISPO INV ADV HA officer's supervisor was allegedly aware of the relationship and did not take appropriate action to correct the matter. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigative report, the hiring authority did not sustain any of the allegations. Case No. 08-0150 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 22, 2007, a floor officer was allegedly sleeping in an office with the lights off, wearing his uniform DISPO INV ADV HA rolled down to his waist, and not wearing his required protective vest and assigned equipment. He also allegedly failed to properly identify staff members before allowing them into the unit. The control booth officer was also allegedly asleep while on duty and failed to provide proper coverage for the floor officer while he was counting inmates and performing security checks. Further, both officers allegedly left the unit's security gates open at all times in violation of policy. The floor officer and the control booth officer allegedly failed to report each other's misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained against both officers. The floor officer was initially dismissed. However, based on information and evidence presented after the floor officer's Skelly hearing, the case was settled and the penalty reduced to a suspension without pay for 30 calendar days and a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The control booth officer initially received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. His penalty was reduced to a 5 percent salary reduction for 36 months pursuant to a settlement agreement. Both officers agreed not to appeal the discipline. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 57 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0151 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 21, 2007, an officer brought into the institution 2.57 pounds of tobacco sealed in separate packages, 24 DISPO INV ADV HA packs of tobacco rolling papers, a pocketknife, and a personal mobile phone. Inmates alleged that the officer had been selling tobacco products to inmates for about one year and had profited approximately $100,000. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was referred to the local district attorney's office for consideration of criminal prosecution for bringing the pocketknife on prison grounds; however, the district attorney declined to prosecute. The act of bringing tobacco and a mobile phone into the institution does not constitute a crime in California and was not considered for criminal prosecution. The officer ultimately resigned from the department. A letter was placed in the officer's file indicating the circumstances under which he resigned. Case No. 08-0152 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 16, 2007, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force on two inmates when she sprayed pepper spray DISPO INV ADV HA into their cell through the food port because the inmates refused to uncover their window. It is further alleged that the officer lied in her report and during her investigative interview when she attempted to justify the force used. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office declined to prosecute, and the officer resigned. Case No. 08-0153 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 16, 2007, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force on two inmates when she sprayed pepper spray DISPO INV ADV HA into their cell through the food port because the inmates refused to uncover their window. It is further alleged that the officer lied in her report and during her investigative interview when she attempted to justify the force used. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer was asked to submit to a urine test for unrelated reasons, and she resigned from the department before this investigation was completed. A letter was placed in her personnel file indicating the resignation was under adverse circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 58 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0154 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 14, 2007, three officers and a licensed vocational nurse allegedly failed to properly assess the medical DISPO INV ADV HA condition of an inmate who did not respond when they delivered medication and breakfast to his cell. It was later determined that the inmate was experiencing an altered level of consciousness. The inmate suffered no permanent injury. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against two of the three officers. One officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 24 months, which was appealed. The other officer retired before discipline was imposed, and it was noted in his personnel file that he retired under adverse circumstances. The allegations against the licensed vocational nurse were also sustained, and the nurse received training. Case No. 08-0155 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 14, 2007, an officer allegedly used force on an inmate by pulling on the inmate's arms while removing DISPO INV ADV HA handcuffs. It was alleged that the officer failed to report the use of force and that the incident was observed by a sergeant, who also failed to report the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer and the sergeant. The officer received a suspension for 45 working days, which included disciplinary action for a separate incident. The sergeant received a one-day suspension. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0156 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 12, 2007, while reviewing a parolee's file, a supervising parole agent noticed two case review forms DISPO INV ADV HA that appeared to have the forged signatures of two supervisors. The body of the report was completed by one parole agent; however, the forged signatures looked similar to the writing of another parole agent. It was alleged that the two parole agents committed the forgery. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined that there was insufficient evidence to support criminal charges. Although the criminal case was closed, an administrative investigation was initiated, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 59 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0157 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 12, 2007, while reviewing a parolee's file, a supervising parole agent noticed two case review forms DISPO INV ADV HA that appeared to have the forged signatures of two supervisors. The body of the report was completed by one parole agent; however, the forged signatures looked similar to the writing of another parole agent. It was alleged that the two parole agents committed the forgery. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to show that the two parole agents were involved in misconduct. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not confirm critical dates in the case management system or contact the assigned investigator and the bureau to discuss the investigation in a timely manner. The investigator was not provided with legal consultation for the duration of the investigation or written confirmation of critical discussions about the report, nor was the bureau coordinated with at critical junctures of the investigation. Further, the department's attorney failed to provide legal consultation to the hiring authority regarding the allegations and findings. Case No. 08-0158 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 11, 2007, an officer allegedly retaliated against a non-sworn employee for reporting possible custody DISPO INV ADV HA staff member misconduct by following the employee and preventing his communication with inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0159 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 11, 2007, an inmate alleged that officers were smuggling tobacco into the institution. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 60 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0160 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 10, 2007, an elderly inmate submitted an appeal alleging that on April 4, 2007, during a handcuffed DISPO INV ADV HA escort, he was shoved and forcibly pushed into a cell by an officer, causing the inmate's chest to strike a metal locker. The officer then pinned him against the locker and removed the handcuffs. Another officer reportedly observed the use of force but failed to intervene or report the incident. Following the assault, the officer who battered the inmate allegedly threatened him on two separate occasions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers. Therefore, no discipline was imposed. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys failed to make case management system entries concerning the incident date or the last day to take disciplinary action. The investigator was not provided with legal consultation for the duration of the investigation, feedback about the report within the allotted time period, or written confirmation summarizing critical discussions about the report. The department's attorneys also failed to attend key witness interviews. In addition, the department's attorneys failed to coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the investigative process, and they failed to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation with the bureau and the investigator. Case No. 08-0161 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 10, 2007, an inmate alleged that an officer had assaulted him four days before. The inmate also alleged DISPO INV ADV HA that he reported the assault to another officer, who failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigation, the hiring authority concluded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against either officer. Case No. 08-0162 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 5, 2007, an inmate housed in a cell inside a medical treatment center attempted suicide by tying a DISPO INV ADV HA string around her neck. One officer and medical staff members stood outside the cell door giving instructions to the inmate. Medical staff members requested that the officer open the door so that medical care could be administered. However, the officer did not open the door until a second officer arrived on the scene several minutes later. The inmate survived. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigative report, the hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of misconduct against the two officers. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not promptly confirm information regarding the incident date or the time period to take disciplinary action. They also failed to contact the assigned investigator and the bureau to discuss the investigation in a timely manner. The investigator was not provided with legal consultation throughout the investigation, and the bureau did not receive consultation from the department's attorneys at each critical point of the investigation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 61 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0163 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 2, 2007, an officer allegedly grabbed an inmate's neck and pushed him into a wall, then failed to report DISPO INV ADV HA the use of force. The officer was allegedly dishonest during the internal affairs investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of unnecessary force, discourteous and unprofessional behavior, and being intentionally misleading during the investigative interview. The officer received a 60-working-day suspension, which he appealed. Case No. 08-0164 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 31, 2007, a lieutenant allegedly falsified documents by rewriting two officers' reports regarding rules DISPO INV ADV HA violations by an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found that the investigation revealed insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0165 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 30, 2007, officers' reports regarding the use of force against an inmate while trying to remove him DISPO INV ADV HA from his cell were allegedly inaccurate and misleading. It was also alleged that the cell extraction was not performed in accordance with department standards and procedures. DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of dishonesty and neglect of duty were sustained against one of the officers. The officer was dismissed and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The allegations against the other officers were not sustained. Case No. 08-0166 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 29, 2007, an inmate alleged that a sergeant struck him on the back of the head with an open hand DISPO INV ADV HA while he faced the wall, and then the sergeant and an officer slammed him to the floor. While on the floor, the inmate claimed the sergeant grabbed the back of his head, slammed it to the floor, and held it there for an extended period. The inmate stated he remained in the unit's holding cell for a long time until he was seen by medical staff members. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the Office of Internal Affairs investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain any of the allegations against the two subjects. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 62 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0167 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 29, 2007, an inmate alleged that an officer was disrespectful to him during an argument and pinched DISPO INV ADV HA him on his back while performing a clothed body search. The inmate allegedly reported the information to a lieutenant, who ordered the officer to physically place the inmate on the ground. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations were not sustained because there was no evidence to corroborate the inmate's accusations. Case No. 08-0168 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 26, 2007, an inmate alleged that he was struck and kicked by an officer while he was in the shower. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office declined to prosecute the officer. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0169 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 26, 2007, an inmate alleged that he was struck and kicked by an officer while he was in the shower. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations, and the officer received a suspension without pay for ten working days. Case No. 08-0170 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 23, 2007, during an internal affairs interview regarding an allegation that an officer failed to DISPO INV ADV HA document his use of force against an inmate, the officer stated that he documented the incident and produced a memorandum. The memorandum was allegedly manufactured for purposes of the interview. The officer also allegedly lied during the interview and spoke to witnesses about the investigation despite a direct order not to do so. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation that the officer manufactured the memorandum. However, the hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer was insubordinate and dishonest. The hiring authority served the officer with a notice of dismissal. After a Skelly hearing, the department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement in which the officer was suspended without pay for four months and, upon his return to work, received a further penalty of a 10 percent salary reduction for 22 months. The hiring authority also removed the officer from the institution's honor guard and crisis response team. The officer agreed not to appeal the discipline. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 63 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0171 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 22, 2007, several officers allegedly assaulted an inmate, fracturing his skull. The officers then DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly falsified reports to conceal the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE After conducting an investigation, the Office of Internal Affairs concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that a crime had been committed. As a result, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was also opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0172 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 22, 2007, several officers allegedly assaulted an inmate, fracturing his skull. The officers then DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly falsified reports to conceal the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0173 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 21, 2007, a medical technical assistant allegedly conducted a medication inventory and accounted for DISPO INV ADV HA all medication. However, on March 21 and 22, 2007, a licensed psychiatric technician and a supervising nurse reported vials of a sedative missing. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs concluded that there was no probable cause to believe a crime had been committed, primarily because the inventory controls were poor. The criminal investigation was closed, and an administrative case was initiated, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0174 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 21, 2007, a medical technical assistant allegedly conducted a medication inventory and accounted for DISPO INV ADV HA all medication. However, on March 21 and 22, 2007, a licensed psychiatric technician and a supervising nurse reported vials of a sedative missing. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were not sustained primarily because of systemic issues. Both medical and custody staff members had access to the area where the missing medication was stored, and the procedure for conducting inventories was inadequate. Because of this case, access to medication storage areas has been limited to medical personnel, and inventory procedures and review systems have been improved. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 64 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0175 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 21, 2007, an inmate alleged that he was physically assaulted by several staff members while in a DISPO INV ADV HA holding cell. The inmate was later treated for a laceration on the back of his head that required sutures. Staff members alleged that the inmate caused his own injury by banging his head against the wall. DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of excessive force were not sustained; however, allegations of neglect of duty were sustained. A sergeant and two officers received letters of instruction for failing to completely document the incident. A lieutenant received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months for failing to provide adequate supervision and did not appeal the discipline. Case No. 08-0176 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 15, 2007, it was alleged that a correctional counselor I, a correctional counselor II, two sergeants, and DISPO INV ADV HA a lieutenant had been using a state computer to view pornography and other inappropriate material at work. The correctional counselor II also allegedly approved a female inmate's request to correspond with another inmate after she allowed him to touch her breast. The correctional counselor I allegedly attempted to persuade an inmate to give false testimony against the correctional counselor II and made unprofessional comments to an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations concerning use of the state computer to view pornographic material were sustained against the correctional counselor II and the lieutenant. The allegation concerning the correspondence request was not sustained. Both the correctional counselor II and the lieutenant retired before the completion of the investigation. Letters were placed in their personnel files indicating they retired under adverse circumstances. An allegation was sustained against one of the sergeants for using the state computer for personal business, and he received a letter of instruction and training. Allegations were also sustained against the other sergeant for using the state computer for personal business and for failing to report the misconduct of the correctional counselor II and the lieutenant. He received a 15-day suspension and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The correctional counselor I received a letter of instruction for making unprofessional comments to an inmate; the remaining allegation against him was not sustained. Case No. 08-0177 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 14, 2007, an employee reported that a registered nurse allegedly made a valentine for an inmate and DISPO INV ADV HA was observed alone with the inmate in her office on more than one occasion. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and issued a letter of instruction cautioning the nurse about interactions with inmates. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 65 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0178 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 14, 2007, an associate warden discovered that between November 6, 2006, and February 23, 2007, a DISPO INV ADV HA mailroom supervisor allegedly stole four money orders sent to inmates, forged his name on the money orders, and cashed them. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the mailroom supervisor, who did not appeal the dismissal to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0179 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 10, 2007, an inmate alleged that two officers dragged him to the floor, placed their knees on his back, DISPO INV ADV HA and attempted to break his leg at the direction of an unidentified sergeant. A medical report prepared after the incident indicated that the inmate had scratches on his wrists. It was also alleged that staff members failed to properly document their actions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation against a sergeant for his failure to direct staff members to report the use of force; the sergeant was issued a letter of reprimand. Following the Skelly hearing, the letter of reprimand was limited to 18 months in his personnel file, and his right to appeal to the State Personnel Board was waived. The use of force was found to be within policy and not excessive, so no allegations were sustained against the officers. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The investigation, interviews, and investigative report failed to address all the relevant facts regarding the allegations. The investigation was also not completed so that the hiring authority had an appropriate amount of time to review the investigation and take disciplinary action. Further, the investigators failed to fully cooperate and consult with the department's attorneys and the bureau, and they failed to properly enter information into the case management system. Case No. 08-0180 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 10, 2007, an officer allegedly grabbed an inmate without cause and then falsified a report charging DISPO INV ADV HA the inmate with a rules violation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations related to the use of force or falsifying a report. However, allegations of neglect of duty for not performing according to training and leaving his post without supervisor approval were sustained. The officer received a ten-working-day suspension without pay, which he appealed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 66 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0181 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 8, 2007, a sergeant allegedly punched and kneed an inmate in the face, injuring the inmate's orbital DISPO INV ADV HA bones. DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigation established probable cause to believe a crime had been committed, and the case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. However, the district attorney's office declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0182 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 7, 2007, the institution learned that an off-duty officer allegedly was involved in an argument at a gas DISPO INV ADV HA station to which outside law enforcement responded. When asked to turn her vehicle off, the officer fled from the scene. She was contacted by mobile phone and said she would return to the scene, but she failed to do so. During a later interview with outside law enforcement, she also allegedly denied that she was involved in the argument. Further, she failed to appear for her interview with department internal affairs investigators as scheduled. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. However, the department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement that reduced the dismissal to a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months and required the officer to agree not to file an appeal. Case No. 08-0183 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 5, 2007, an anonymous caller contacted the institution to report that an inmate was going to be DISPO INV ADV HA assaulted. The caller gave only partial information to identify the targeted inmate. Two associate wardens, a captain, and the public information officer attempted to identify the inmate. They tentatively identified an inmate, checked his records, and determined there was no information to corroborate the threat. The inmate was scheduled for questioning about the potential threat within three hours of receiving the call. However, the inmate was attacked by two other inmates on the yard about 90 minutes before he was scheduled to be questioned. The inmate survived. DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of neglect of duty were not sustained, and all subjects were exonerated. The bureau recommended an institutional policy for responding to threats against inmates, which includes immediate monitoring of an inmate identified as the potential target of such a threat. The institution agreed to put such a policy into place. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 67 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0184 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 27, 2007, a sergeant and two officers allegedly falsified their rules violation reports to indicate that DISPO INV ADV HA two inmates were fighting in their cell; both inmates denied that they fought. However, pepper spray was used to stop the alleged fight, and one of the inmates had minor injuries. The injured inmate alleged that the injuries were a result of battery committed by the sergeant and the officers. The inmate also alleged that the treating nurse falsified the medical report by indicating that the injuries stemmed from the fight with his cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant further criminal investigation. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. An administrative investigation into the allegations was not conducted. Case No. 08-0185 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 27, 2007, a ward alleged that a youth correctional counselor threatened him and told him that DISPO INV ADV HA another ward was acting as an informant about staff member misconduct. On March 16, 2007, a second ward alleged that the counselor identified another ward as a "Mexican killer." As the investigation progressed, additional allegations were made against the counselor. Specifically, it was alleged that the counselor engaged in inappropriate horseplay and received personal phone calls, including one on an unauthorized personal mobile phone, from a ward with whom the counselor was having a sexual relationship. It was also alleged that she made obscene and demeaning references about a ward on the basis of that ward's perceived sexual orientation, engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with wards, engaged in a sexual relationship with a ward, used derogatory language toward a ward, and engaged in an overly familiar relationship with a parolee, including the use of narcotics with that parolee. It was further alleged that the counselor attempted to destroy relevant evidence and intimidate a witness to the alleged misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all the allegations except the allegations that she threatened a ward, told wards that another ward was reporting misconduct, and called a ward a "Mexican killer." The counselor resigned during the investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT After being assigned this case, the department's attorneys did not properly confirm the last date to take disciplinary action, then they failed to properly consult with the bureau and the investigator about the need to modify the last date to take action. The investigator was not provided legal consultation for the duration of the investigation, timely feedback regarding the investigative report, or written confirmation of discussions about the report. The department's attorneys also failed to coordinate with the bureau at critical junctures of the investigative process. Further, legal consultation was not provided to the hiring authority regarding the allegations and findings. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 68 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0186 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 21, 2007, a sergeant allegedly made discourteous remarks to an inmate, poked the inmate in the DISPO INV ADV HA chest with his knuckles, and later clenched his fist as if he were going to punch the inmate, but instead spat in the inmate's face. A lieutenant, another sergeant, and an officer allegedly witnessed the incident but failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, no allegations were sustained against the lieutenant, sergeants, or officer. Case No. 08-0187 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 19, 2007, an officer allegedly refused to return an inmate's property; her lieutenant ordered her to DISPO INV ADV HA return the property to the inmate. The officer allegedly refused because the inmate had engaged in misconduct. The officer then went home sick, and the lieutenant facilitated the return of the property. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The officer appealed the salary reduction to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0188 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 19, 2007, an inmate allegedly threatened to assault an officer once his handcuffs were removed. DISPO INV ADV HA The officer allegedly removed the handcuffs, then challenged and taunted the inmate. When interviewed by the Office of Internal Affairs about the incident, the officer was allegedly dishonest. A second officer, who observed the incident, was also allegedly dishonest during his internal affairs interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed both officers. Neither officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys failed to confirm the incident date and time period to take disciplinary action in a timely manner. Although the department's attorneys provided legal consultation during the investigation, the investigator was not properly provided with feedback about the report. In addition, written confirmation of critical discussions was not provided to the investigator, hiring authority, and bureau. The department's attorneys also failed to consult with the bureau at critical junctures during the investigation and disciplinary process. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 69 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0189 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 16, 2007, an officer allegedly refused an inmate access to his housing unit where he kept his DISPO INV ADV HA medication. The inmate explained to the officer that he had just returned from the hospital, was experiencing chest pains and dizziness, and needed to get his blood pressure medication. The officer allegedly told the inmate that he was not coming into her building and "if you don't get your ass away from my building, I will have you standing out there butt naked." Moments later, the inmate collapsed and was taken to an outside hospital where he stayed for two days. During the investigation, the officer allegedly contacted two employee witnesses in an attempt to influence their statements, and she was dishonest during her investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and sought to dismiss the officer. However, a settlement agreement was reached between the parties. The officer admitted she was negligent in her duties, was insubordinate, and engaged in willful disobedience. The hiring authority withdrew the allegations of dishonesty, incompetence, and discourteous treatment. The officer received a 49-working-day suspension and agreed not to appeal the discipline. Case No. 08-0190 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 15, 2007, a sergeant reported that he asked the subject sergeant if he could use the computer in the DISPO INV ADV HA subject sergeant's office to complete an incident report. However, the subject sergeant refused and ordered him off the yard, allegedly saying the sergeant was a "rat" and a "snitch." DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of discourteous treatment but did not sustain the allegation of making a threat against a member of the department. No disciplinary action was taken because the subject sergeant had already received corrective action in the form of on-the-job training. Case No. 08-0191 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 15, 2007, an inmate reached through an open food port and knocked the food trays out of an DISPO INV ADV HA officer's hands while the officer collected trays, allegedly without following safety protocols. The officer was assisted by a second officer in spraying the inmate with pepper spray and removing the inmate from the cell. The officer then allegedly failed to properly follow decontamination protocols. Finally, there were discrepancies between the officer's report and the reports of other involved staff members. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a salary reduction of 10 percent for 24 months in combination with another disciplinary action for similar allegations. The officer appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 70 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0192 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 14, 2007, an inmate alleged that officers assaulted him just before he was transported to another DISPO INV ADV HA institution. Only one officer was positively identified by the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigation, the district attorney's office declined to file charges. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0193 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 14, 2007, an inmate alleged that officers assaulted him just before he was transported to another DISPO INV ADV HA institution. Only one officer was positively identified by the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority found no basis to sustain the allegation. Case No. 08-0194 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 14, 2007, a riot and an inmate homicide occurred at the institution. As a result, the warden ordered DISPO INV ADV HA that all inmates were to be escorted by officers and handcuffed when moving within the institution. On February 16, 2007, a captain allegedly instructed officers to allow certain unescorted and unhandcuffed inmates access to a housing unit to talk to other inmates in an effort to ease the tension between the racial groups that participated in the riot. However, a fight erupted between two inmates, requiring officers to fire a less-lethal round, which struck one of the inmates. The warden and a lieutenant allegedly ordered another lieutenant to alter his report about the incident to remove reference to the fact that the inmates were unescorted and unrestrained. The captain also allegedly lied during his internal affairs interview regarding the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The captain was initially served with a notice of dismissal. However, the penalty was reduced to a demotion after a Skelly hearing. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Allegations against the warden and the lieutenant were not sustained. Case No. 08-0195 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 14, 2007, a riot occurred at the institution. Subsequently, it was alleged that four officers falsified DISPO INV ADV HA reports and that one of the officers signed another officer's name to a report. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations against the officers were not sustained. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 71 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0196 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE During a random cell search on February 14, 2007, the investigative services unit discovered two notes DISPO INV ADV HA concealed behind the backing of an inmate's photo album. One of the notes identified a lieutenant and several officers as involved in distributing narcotics and tobacco within the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The information obtained during the investigation was insufficient to establish probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. Therefore, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. No subsequent administrative investigation was opened. Case No. 08-0197 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 13, 2007, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force on an inmate by emptying four canisters of DISPO INV ADV HA pepper spray into the inmate's cell. In addition, a sergeant allegedly failed to take appropriate action when the officer used the unnecessary force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against both employees. The officer received a two-working-day suspension, and the sergeant received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. Neither employee appealed the disciplinary action to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0198 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 11, 2007, an off-duty officer was arrested by outside law enforcement officers for driving under the DISPO INV ADV HA influence of drugs. The officer was also allegedly dishonest during the resulting internal affairs investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, and the officer was served with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the dismissal took effect. A letter was placed in the officer's file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0199 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 11, 2007, March 8, 2007, and March 20, 2007, a registered nurse allegedly made inappropriate DISPO INV ADV HA comments to an inmate and inappropriately touched the inmate's breast. DISPOSITION OF CASE Upon completing the criminal investigation, the case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 72 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0200 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 9, 2007, a sergeant allegedly falsified a property release form to conceal that staff members DISPO INV ADV HA improperly released an inmate's property. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Following case assignment, the department's attorneys did not properly confirm critical dates in the department's case management system or contact the investigator and the bureau to discuss the investigation. The department's attorneys then failed to provide legal consultation to the investigator throughout the investigation. The attorneys also failed to coordinate with the bureau at critical junctures of the investigation, and they failed to provide written confirmation of critical discussion regarding the investigative report. Case No. 08-0201 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 7, 2007, an inmate's grandmother reported that a sergeant allegedly pushed her grandson against a DISPO INV ADV HA wall, knocking his hat off and causing his ear to bleed. Another officer reportedly observed the incident but failed to intervene. The grandmother also said that the inmate had a fresh ear piercing that may have caused the bleeding. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant and the officer. Therefore, no discipline was imposed. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not contact the assigned investigator and the bureau to discuss the investigation, attend investigative interviews for key witnesses, provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator, provide comments on the report within the allotted time period, or provide written confirmation about critical report discussions. In addition, the attorneys did not coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the investigation. The department's attorneys also failed to make computer entries concerning the incident date and the deadline for taking disciplinary action. Case No. 08-0202 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 7, 2007, at about 2:30 a.m., an inmate approached officers and said he needed to be removed from DISPO INV ADV HA the housing unit because he owed a debt to other inmates that he could not repay, and he feared for his safety. The inmate alleged he was told by the sergeant to return to his bunk and advise officers on the next watch of his safety concerns. About four hours later, the inmate was discovered with injuries consistent with being the victim of a battery. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of neglect of duty against the sergeant and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. No appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 73 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0203 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 6, 2007, two officers gave different versions of an incident where an officer used physical force DISPO INV ADV HA against an inmate. The officer who used force reported that an inmate refused to follow his orders to remain seated, waved his arms, yelled obscenities, and resisted being handcuffed, thus compelling the officer to use his body weight to bring the inmate to the ground. Another officer, who observed the incident, reported that the officer who used force provoked the inmate, challenged the inmate to a fight, kneed the inmate in the back and buttocks, and unnecessarily threw the inmate to the ground. DISPOSITION OF CASE The criminal investigation was submitted to the district attorney's office for criminal prosecution. After reviewing the case, the district attorney's office declined to file criminal charges. The department also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0204 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 6, 2007, an officer was arrested for an off-duty domestic violence incident in which he allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA slapped the victim repeatedly, choked her, and wrenched her leg with enough force to cause serious injury to her knee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, and the officer was dismissed. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0205 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 6, 2007, an officer allegedly used his body weight to take an inmate to the ground after the inmate DISPO INV ADV HA refused to follow the officer's orders. A second officer saw the incident and reported that the officer had provoked the inmate, challenged him to a fight, and then kneed him in the back and buttocks before throwing him to the ground. A third officer witnessed the incident and allegedly failed to report it. A fourth officer who responded to the incident allegedly kicked the inmate and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations against the officer who initially used force against the inmate and dismissed the officer. The hiring authority also sustained allegations against the officer who witnessed the incident and reported it; the officer was issued a letter of reprimand for failing to intervene. Allegations against the officer who allegedly kicked the inmate were not sustained. The officer who witnessed the incident and failed to report it was dismissed. Following Skelly hearings, the hiring authority reduced the discipline to a 120- working-day suspension for the officer who used force and a 60-working-day suspension for the officer who failed to report it. The hiring authority did not reduce the discipline of the officer who failed to intervene, and he appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 74 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0206 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 5, 2007, it was alleged that an officer had not allowed certain inmates to shower because another DISPO INV ADV HA inmate was off his bunk during an inmate count. The incident caused racial tension between the inmates in the unit. On February 7, 2007, an inmate appeal was received with about 100 inmate signatures concerning the officer's unprofessional conduct. The appeal addressed issues of mass punishment for the improper behavior of one inmate, termination of daily activities without reason, unnecessary searches without receipts, unprofessional language, derogatory comments to inmates, and inciting inmates to discipline one another. The officer also allegedly disabled the housing unit's fan in retaliation for what he considered disrespectful inmate conduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained two allegations of neglect of duty for pursuing mass punishments of inmates of a certain race for the misconduct of a few and one allegation of discourteous treatment toward inmates. The officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The officer appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0207 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 3, 2007, two officers allegedly retaliated against a third officer because he had reported official DISPO INV ADV HA misconduct and cooperated in a subsequent investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain allegations against one of the officers. The other officer received a letter of reprimand and appealed to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0208 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 2, 2007, three officers and a nurse allowed an inmate to attempt to revive another inmate using DISPO INV ADV HA first aid, CPR, and a defibrillator, rather than performing the actions themselves. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation of neglect of duty against the first officer was sustained, and the officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The allegation of neglect of duty against the second officer was sustained, and the officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. The allegation of neglect of duty against the third officer was sustained, and the officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for nine months. All three officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. The allegation of neglect of duty against the nurse was sustained, and the nurse received a 10 percent salary reduction for nine months, which was not appealed. Case No. 08-0209 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 1, 2007, an officer allegedly entered an administrative segregation cell, injected an inmate in the DISPO INV ADV HA leg with a sleeping drug, and sexually assaulted him. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation and referred the case to the district attorney's office. The district attorney's office determined that there was insufficient evidence to file charges against the officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 75 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0210 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 27, 2007, a ward refused to return to his cell. After being asked to return to his cell several times, DISPO INV ADV HA officers used pepper spray and physical force to handcuff the resistive ward. Later, the ward complained of pain in his arm, and a medical evaluation determined that the ward's arm was fractured. It was alleged that the youth correctional counselor who restrained the arm used excessive force. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegation of use of excessive force was not sustained against the youth correctional counselor. Case No. 08-0211 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 25, 2007, an employee reported entering an office and observing an inmate with her face a few DISPO INV ADV HA inches from a lieutenant's crotch. It was alleged that the lieutenant engaged in sexual conduct with the inmate and provided her with tobacco in exchange and had engaged in sexual intercourse with another inmate. In addition, on July 29, 2006, the lieutenant allegedly reduced an inmate's rules violation in exchange for sexual favors from the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all the allegations. However, the lieutenant had already been dismissed for conduct related to another investigation by the time the allegations were sustained. Case No. 08-0212 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 20, 2007, it was alleged that a member of the medical staff was unprofessional and failed to observe DISPO INV ADV HA and perform within the scope of training by not responding to assist an injured and critically ill inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained following an investigation. The staff member was dismissed and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0213 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 15, 2007, a lieutenant allegedly failed to maintain control of a situation when he left the scene of an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate who was threatening to harm himself. Subsequently, the inmate had to be forcibly removed from his cell. A captain and an associate warden allegedly failed to properly review the cell extraction. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority exonerated the lieutenant of any wrongdoing. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the captain, who admitted to failing to properly review the incident, and issued a letter of instruction. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation against the associate warden because there was no evidence to suggest any fault in his review of the incident. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 76 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0214 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 13, 2007, an officer allegedly reported to outside law enforcement that someone had thrown an DISPO INV ADV HA object at his vehicle, causing minor body damage. Outside law enforcement's investigation determined that the officer collided with an unoccupied parked vehicle and left the scene of the accident. It was also alleged that the officer made false and misleading statements and identified himself as a peace officer in an attempt to sway the outside law enforcement officer from writing a report. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation of neglect of duty but did not sustain allegations of misuse of authority or dishonesty. The officer received a two-working-day suspension, which was later converted to a 5 percent salary reduction for two months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The bureau did not agree with the penalty but did not find it unreasonable. Case No. 08-0215 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 12, 2007, three officers allegedly forced an inmate's head into the wall of a holding cell and DISPO INV ADV HA physically beat him, then destroyed evidence and attempted to cover up the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained. One officer retired and another resigned. The department indicated in the officers' personnel files that they left under adverse circumstances. The third officer was dismissed and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0216 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 12, 2007, it was alleged that an officer endangered both herself and coworkers by attempting to DISPO INV ADV HA provoke an inmate to physical violence. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations against the officer were not sustained. Case No. 08-0217 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 11, 2007, an inmate attacked two other inmates and inflicted extraordinarily gruesome wounds; a DISPO INV ADV HA nurse performed a medical evaluation of one of the wounded inmates. When the district attorney's office informed the nurse that he needed to testify to conducting the medical evaluation, the nurse denied any knowledge of the incident, stated he was not aware of a medical evaluation report being completed, and stated he did not work the day of the incident. The case was pled out at a lesser included offense. The nurse was allegedly dishonest by denying his involvement in the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigation into the alleged misconduct, the hiring authority determined that the allegations against the nurse were unfounded. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 77 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0218 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 10, 2007, a ward alleged that a janitor was smuggling tobacco into the youth facility and selling it to DISPO INV ADV HA wards. During the investigative interview, the janitor admitted to selling wards tobacco, fast food, hygiene products, pornographic magazines, and pornographic movies. He also admitted to watching the movies with the wards and engaging in mutual masturbation with them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against the janitor were sustained, and he was dismissed. He did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The subject was placed on administrative time off, without the department's criteria being met. The subject then remained on paid time off for a lengthy amount of time before the department's attorneys drafted the written disciplinary notice, which did not comply with policy. The department's attorneys also did not provide legal consultation to the hiring authority regarding the allegations, findings, or penalty. In addition, the department's attorneys did not properly confirm critical dates in the case management system, consult with the investigator and bureau about the investigative plan, or provide written confirmation of discussions about the investigative report. The hiring authority failed to consult with the bureau regarding the investigation, allegations, findings, and appropriate discipline prior to making a final decision. The bureau was also not informed by the hiring authority of significant developments throughout the case. Case No. 08-0219 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 8, 2007, a captain allegedly grabbed an inmate by the neck when the inmate refused to comply with DISPO INV ADV HA the captain's orders. After the incident, the captain also allegedly failed to report his use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, and the captain received a letter of instruction. Case No. 08-0220 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 8, 2007, an inmate allegedly advised a lieutenant and a sergeant that he wanted to be moved from DISPO INV ADV HA his cell because of safety concerns, but the inmate refused to provide further details. On January 9, 2007, the inmate was stabbed by his cellmate. On February 6, 2007, the same lieutenant and sergeant were allegedly provided information that weapons and drugs were in a certain cell, but they waited until the next day to advise staff members. The cell was searched, and inmate-manufactured weapons were recovered. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained only the allegations related to the incident on February 6, 2007. The lieutenant received a letter of reprimand and did not appeal the discipline. The sergeant received a letter of instruction. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 78 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0221 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 8, 2007, a sergeant and an officer, both range masters, allegedly allowed a second sergeant to DISPO INV ADV HA complete her firearms qualification without firing a weapon as required. The range master sergeant allegedly signed the second sergeant's qualification score sheet and the weapons qualification card with full knowledge that she did not actually qualify, thereby falsifying the documents. The second sergeant allegedly allowed these circumstances to occur and had full knowledge of the falsification of the documents. It was further alleged that the officer also had full knowledge of the falsification and did not report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was sufficient evidence to sustain all the allegations against each subject. All subjects received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months, and they did not appeal the discipline to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0222 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 8, 2007, an inmate was taken to the institution emergency room after suffering a seizure. The DISPO INV ADV HA inmate had another seizure and fell off the gurney onto the floor. The treating nurse allegedly neglected her duties when she failed to raise the gurney's side rails, thereby violating the medical seizure protocol. It was also alleged that the nurse neglected her duties when she failed to properly document that the inmate had fallen. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. The nurse did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0223 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 6, 2007, an officer allegedly threatened the life of an inmate and informed his supervisor that he DISPO INV ADV HA "nearly shot an inmate over disrespect." It was also alleged that the officer failed to properly notify an inmate of a visit and, on January 11, 2007, was insubordinate to his supervisor. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations of discourteous treatment, neglect of duty, and insubordination were sustained. The officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months and filed an appeal. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 79 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0224 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 3, 2007, a nurse allegedly placed his hand over the left breast of a partially paralyzed inmate and DISPO INV ADV HA squeezed it with his fingers. On January 17, 2007, the nurse allegedly entered the same inmate's room, placed his hand on her vaginal area over the blankets, and made a rubbing motion. On January 21, 2007, the nurse allegedly touched the inmate's genitals and penetrated her. During an Office of Internal Affairs investigation, the nurse was allegedly dishonest by denying the sexual conduct and denying being in the room alone with a female patient. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of sexual battery and dishonesty. The nurse was a contract employee and has been precluded from obtaining future employment with the department. The matter was referred to the appropriate licensing board and to the district attorney's office. Case No. 08-0225 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE A parole agent alleged that in January and February 2007, two of his supervisors retaliated against him for DISPO INV ADV HA cooperating with Office of Internal Affairs investigations. The parole agent alleged that he was denied a light- duty assignment after he sustained a work-related injury, given an unreasonable caseload, and denied vacation time. The parole agent also alleged that one of the supervisors ordered him to falsify an incident report. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain any of the allegations against the supervisors. Case No. 08-0226 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In January 2007, an employee reported that since July 2006 two officers and a sergeant allegedly had been DISPO INV ADV HA sexually harassing her by making sexual comments and brushing up against her breasts. It was also alleged that the sergeant and one of the officers treated inmates of a certain race unfairly and that the sergeant used a racial epithet when referring to another officer. It was further alleged that the sergeant had his staff members call in sick to protest institutional policy. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority found there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations against the sergeant and the two officers. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The investigation, interviews, and investigative report did not address all facts relevant to the allegations. The bureau was not provided with a copy of the draft investigative report, nor was the report stored in the case management system in a timely manner. Upon receipt of the case, the department’s attorneys failed to promptly confirm in the department's case management system information about the incident date and time period to take disciplinary action. The department's attorneys then essentially failed to meet their obligations during the investigative phase of the case, including providing legal consultation to the investigator, attending interviews, and providing comments on the report. Moreover, the attorneys did not coordinate with the bureau at critical junctures during the investigation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 80 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0227 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 14, 2006, a nurse practitioner allegedly failed to obtain proper medical treatment for an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA housed in the institution's hospital administrative segregation unit who was under her care. When medical staff members attended to the inmate, they allegedly sat him in his own feces and left the cell. About 22 hours allegedly passed with neither custody nor medical staff members checking on the inmate. Other officers allegedly conducted welfare checks, but they failed to document the checks. Staff members eventually conducted a welfare check, and they found the inmate unresponsive. A sergeant with nursing training responded to the cell but allegedly did not initiate life-saving measures. The inmate died shortly thereafter. The coroner concluded that the death resulted from natural causes. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained allegations of neglect of duty against the nurse practitioner and dismissed her. She filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained an allegation of neglect of duty against the sergeant and demoted him to officer. However, he later entered an agreement with the department where the penalty was reduced to a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months, and he agreed not to appeal the penalty. Allegations of neglect of duty were also sustained against two officers. One officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months, and the other officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. The officers did not appeal the discipline. Case No. 08-0228 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 10, 2006, a senior youth correctional counselor allegedly forged the initials of a parole agent on DISPO INV ADV HA ward disciplinary forms, despite being previously counseled not to do so. On December 11, 2006, the senior youth correctional counselor used correction fluid to cover up notes written by the assigned parole agent that indicated time should be added to wards' sentences, and the counselor instead processed disciplinary forms without adding any time. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation during which the senior youth correctional counselor admitted to his misconduct, the allegations were sustained. However, he retired during the investigation, so no discipline was imposed. A letter indicating that he retired under adverse circumstances was placed in his personnel file. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority failed to consult with the bureau regarding the investigation, findings, and allegations prior to making a final decision about the case. The bureau was also not informed by the hiring authority of significant developments throughout the case. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 81 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0229 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In December 2006, it was alleged that during the latter half of 2006 a parole agent made false reports regarding DISPO INV ADV HA his supervision of two parolees, including one false report that led to a parolee's wrongful return to custody. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained two allegations of dishonesty and one allegation of neglect of duty against the parole agent. The agent was served with a notice of dismissal. Subsequently, the department and the agent entered into an agreement whereby the department withdrew the disciplinary action in exchange for the agent's resignation. Case No. 08-0230 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In December 2006 and January 2007, a parole agent allegedly failed to arrest a parolee who she knew had a DISPO INV ADV HA felony warrant and failed to assist the sheriff's department with arresting the parolee. The agent also allegedly disclosed to the parolee and his girlfriend information related to the parolee's charges that was only known to law enforcement. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Upon receipt of the case, the department's attorneys failed to promptly confirm in the department's case management system information about the incident date and time period to take disciplinary action. The department's attorneys then essentially failed to meet their obligations during the investigative phase of the case, including providing legal consultation to the investigator, attending interviews, and providing comments on the report. Moreover, the attorneys did not coordinate with the bureau at critical junctures during the investigation or disciplinary action. The hiring authority and the bureau were also not provided with written confirmation of disciplinary discussions. Case No. 08-0231 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In December 2006, it was discovered that a parole agent may have failed to report his longtime friendship with a DISPO INV ADV HA parolee to his supervisor, which should have been reported months earlier. On September 22, 2006, the agent also allegedly submitted a Department of Motor Vehicles form to remove a failure to appear violation for the parolee without the knowledge of the parolee's assigned parole agent. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed that the parole agent had verbally notified a supervisor of his acquaintance with the parolee, and it was not uncommon for an agent to submit such paperwork with the Department of Motor Vehicles on behalf of a parolee even if the parolee was not on the agent's roster. Therefore, the hiring authority did not sustain any allegations against the agent. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 82 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0232 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 30, 2006, an inmate was found hanging in his cell. It was alleged that an officer unnecessarily DISPO INV ADV HA delayed entering the cell to initiate emergency medical assistance. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an investigation, the allegation against the officer was not sustained. Case No. 08-0233 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 29, 2006, a sergeant began to remove an assaultive inmate from a holding cell. A lieutenant DISPO INV ADV HA reportedly advised the sergeant that the inmate had attempted to spit on staff members and directed the sergeant to place a spit hood on the inmate. The sergeant allegedly ignored the lieutenant's directive, handcuffed the inmate, and escorted him out of the building. It was alleged that the sergeant falsely reported that he and the inmate were assaulted by staff members during the escort. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and concluded that dismissal was the appropriate penalty. Meanwhile, the sergeant was dismissed for actions in a prior case, and thus no disciplinary action was taken regarding this case. Case No. 08-0234 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 24, 2006, two floor officers admitted to abandoning their posts and allowing certain inmates out DISPO INV ADV HA of their cells to distribute food trays instead of doing so themselves. The officers' actions allegedly contributed to another officer being assaulted by one of the inmates who was out of his cell. The officers also allegedly failed to immediately report alleged misconduct by other officers because they did not want to be known as "rats." Both officers admitted to exchanging reports after they had written them. It was further alleged that both officers falsified their reports to redirect attention away from their actions and onto a third officer, who they claimed was overly familiar with a certain group of inmates and was complicit in the inmate assault on the officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The first officer received a suspension for 50 working days for sustained allegations of failing to report another employee's misconduct and abandoning his post. He appealed the decision to the State Personnel Board. The second officer accepted a 35-working-day suspension for the same sustained allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 83 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0235 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From November 22, 2006, through November 25, 2006, a dentist instructed a registered nurse to give an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA a specified amount of medication. The nurse allegedly changed the prescription by increasing the amount of medication to be administered. The nurse also allegedly prepared and signed two orders dated December 2, 2006, and December 3, 2006, indicating that a physician had prescribed medication for another inmate over the phone. The physician denied prescribing the medication. DISPOSITION OF CASE The nurse had been dismissed as a result of a prior case, which she appealed to the State Personnel Board. Before the hearing, the prior case was settled, and the nurse resigned. Based on the nurse's resignation, the administrative investigation was closed. Case No. 08-0236 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 17, 2006, the institution received confidential information stating that an officer was overly DISPO INV ADV HA familiar with inmates and trafficking contraband for financial gain. DISPOSITION OF CASE The initial information that developed in the case was insufficient to warrant further investigation. Therefore, the investigation was closed because there was no credible evidence supporting allegations of wrongdoing. Case No. 08-0237 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 15, 2006, an officer was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and causing injury DISPO INV ADV HA to another person. In February 2008, the officer received a misdemeanor conviction for the offense. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation of driving under the influence was sustained, and the officer received a 30-working-day suspension. Case No. 08-0238 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 8, 2006, an inmate rules violation hearing occurred. The inmate requested that a correctional DISPO INV ADV HA counselor testify on his behalf. The lieutenant, who presided over the hearing, reported that the counselor had been contacted and that the inmate had been given an opportunity to ask questions of the counselor. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations of dishonesty and neglect of duty were sustained because, although the lieutenant tried to contact the counselor, the inmate did not have an opportunity to question the counselor. The hiring authority dismissed the lieutenant, who appealed the penalty to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 84 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0239 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 3, 2006, an inmate alleged that he had been providing officers information regarding inmate DISPO INV ADV HA activities in exchange for tobacco for several months. It was also alleged that from November 2006 through March 2007, four officers allegedly harassed inmates by conducting excessive searches, threatening the inmates, and paying the inmates with tobacco for information on illegal inmate activities. One of the officers was allegedly dishonest about finding an inmate holding marijuana in his hand. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain any of the allegations against the officers. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Upon assignment of the case, critical dates were not confirmed in the case management system. The department's attorneys did not comply with policy during the investigation by failing to complete virtually all the substantive required tasks. As a result, the investigator did not receive legal consultation during the entire investigation, timely feedback was not provided regarding the report, and witness interviews were not attended to evaluate credibility and demeanor. There was also a lack of coordination with the bureau by the department's attorneys for critical portions of the investigatory process and disciplinary determinations. Case No. 08-0240 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 2, 2006, an officer was arrested for domestic violence against his spouse, who was also a DISPO INV ADV HA department employee. The officer was arrested again on March 1, 2007, for violating a domestic violence restraining order. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of discourteous treatment toward other public employees and other failure of good behavior. The officer received a suspension of 26 working days, which he did not appeal. Case No. 08-0241 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In November 2006, a chief engineer was allegedly promoted to his position improperly because he received DISPO INV ADV HA examination questions and answers before the promotional interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority found that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, the hiring authority determined that all employees in plant operations would receive training on the confidentiality of examination questions. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 85 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0242 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In November 2006, it was alleged that a male parole agent was involved in a sexual relationship with a female DISPO INV ADV HA parolee under his supervision. The allegations arose after a local police officer observed the agent and the parolee, who was holding a bouquet of flowers, having what appeared to be an intimate conversation in front of her residence. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs closed the criminal case after it determined that there was no probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. However, an administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0243 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In November 2006, it was alleged that a parole agent was involved in an inappropriate relationship with a DISPO INV ADV HA parolee under his supervision. Specifically, the parole agent allegedly gave the parolee flowers and failed to take appropriate action after drug paraphernalia and packaging materials were found in the parolee's residence after she admitted using methamphetamine. It was also alleged that the parole agent's failure to act resulted in the parolee being granted an early discharge from parole. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Although the department's attorneys attended key witness interviews, they failed to fulfill the other important responsibilities during the investigative process such as providing legal consultation throughout the investigation and providing timely feedback regarding the report. The department's attorneys also failed to properly coordinate with the bureau and confirm critical dates in the case. The hiring authority did not receive legal consultation from the department's attorneys regarding the allegations and findings. Case No. 08-0244 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 19, 2006, an inmate refused to return his food tray in an attempt to obtain medical attention. After DISPO INV ADV HA arriving at the medical clinic, the inmate alleged that officers repeatedly punched and kicked him at the direction of a sergeant. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 86 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0245 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 9, 2006, a sergeant allegedly pushed an uncooperative inmate into his cell, despite the inmate's DISPO INV ADV HA claim that his cellmate was an enemy. After being pushed into the cell, the inmate was attacked by his cellmate and received injuries. The sergeant failed to report this use of force and ordered three officers not to report the incident. A fourth officer allegedly failed to assist the other officers after the situation escalated. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant and demoted him to officer. The hiring authority also sustained allegations against two of the officers for failing to report the force. One officer was issued a letter of instruction, and the other officer retired during the investigation, so no penalty was assessed. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation of failure to report force against the third officer. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the fourth officer for failing to assist his fellow officers and issued him a letter of reprimand. No appeals were filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0246 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 31, 2006, an associate warden allegedly inappropriately released an inmate from the administrative DISPO INV ADV HA segregation unit to a general population yard, where the inmate assaulted two staff members. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigation, the hiring authority determined that there was no misconduct by the associate warden. BUREAU ASSESSMENT After receiving the case, the department's attorneys did not promptly confirm critical dates, contact the assigned investigator and the bureau, or consult about the need to modify the last date on which disciplinary action could be taken. The department's attorneys failed to attend key witness interviews during the investigation. The investigator did not receive feedback about the report in a timely fashion, nor written confirmation of discussions about the report. Moreover, the hiring authority and the bureau did not receive confirmation of the disciplinary discussions. Case No. 08-0247 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 23, 2006, the district attorney's office notified the institution that an officer's son had been arrested DISPO INV ADV HA for murder and that the officer had obstructed justice. The officer allegedly conspired with her son to have witnesses lie during court proceedings, visited other gang member inmates in the county jail, deposited money in their inmate accounts, assisted her inmate son in completing three-way phone calls from the county jail, and lied to outside law enforcement investigators. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, and the officer was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 87 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0248 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about July 10, 2006, during an escort, a lieutenant allegedly punched an inmate in the mouth, told him to DISPO INV ADV HA shut up, and failed to report the incident. A sergeant and several other officers allegedly witnessed the incident and failed to report it. Further, the inmate reported the incident to another officer, who also failed to report the incident. In addition, it was alleged that several other supervisors learned of the incident and failed to take action. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the lieutenant and decided to dismiss her; however, the lieutenant resigned before the dismissal became effective. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against four officers who observed the incident and failed to report it. They originally received suspensions for 60 working days, but they later entered settlement agreements where they received 5 percent salary reductions for 36 months and did not appeal the discipline. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against one officer who, it was determined during the investigation, did not witness the incident. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the officer who learned of the incident from the inmate and yet failed to document it. This officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for eight months, which he appealed. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against one of the supervisors who learned about the incident but failed to obtain a written report from the lieutenant; he received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months, which he appealed. Finally, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the other supervisors who allegedly knew about the incident and failed to take action. Case No. 08-0249 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In July 2006, after an inmate's death, medical staff members allegedly fabricated, altered, or forged information DISPO INV ADV HA in the inmate's medical file. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain any of the allegations against the staff members. Training was provided to medical staff members who are responsible for charting and completing medical record entries. Case No. 08-0250 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 30, 2006, a medical support employee alleged that she was retaliated against by a supervisor and a DISPO INV ADV HA fellow employee after she reported conduct that she believed violated department policy, state law, and medical ethics. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined that the allegations against both subjects were unfounded. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 88 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0251 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 27, 2006, an officer was collecting food trays when an inmate threw his food tray out of the food port, DISPO INV ADV HA striking the officer. The officer responded by spraying the inmate and his cellmate with pepper spray. One inmate refused orders to submit to restraints and was sprayed a second time. It was alleged that the officer failed to follow appropriate safety protocols for feeding through food ports when he inserted his arm into the food port to spray the inmates. It was also alleged that unnecessary force was used on the cellmate. In addition, proper alarm response protocols were not followed, and there were discrepancies between the officer's report and the reports of responding staff members. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of incompetence, neglect of duty, and failure of good behavior. This case was combined with another similar disciplinary action that was also sustained. The officer received a salary reduction of 10 percent for 24 months, which he appealed. Case No. 08-0252 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2006, the institution received information alleging that a psychiatric technician was married to a DISPO INV ADV HA member of a suspected criminal organization. It was also alleged that the staff member had attended a sensitive training class without authorization. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain the original allegations. However, an allegation of insubordination was sustained because the psychiatric technician discussed the investigation into her conduct with other employees after being admonished not to. She was issued a letter of instruction. Case No. 08-0253 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about May 10, 2006, an officer allegedly allowed a non-sworn staff member to enter a control booth DISPO INV ADV HA without approval or logging the visit, then sexually battered the staff member. Another officer allegedly witnessed sexual acts between the two employees and failed to intervene or report the conduct. The non-sworn staff member allegedly reported the incident to a sergeant who failed to take appropriate action. DISPOSITION OF CASE This case dealt with the sexual battery allegations against the officer, and the alleged failure to report this conduct by other staff members was handled in a separate investigation. The control booth officer was dismissed and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 89 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0254 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about May 10, 2006, an officer allegedly allowed a non-sworn staff member to enter a control booth DISPO INV ADV HA without approval or logging the visit, then sexually battered the staff member. Another officer allegedly witnessed sexual acts between the two employees and failed to intervene or report the conduct. The non-sworn staff member allegedly reported the incident to a sergeant who failed to take appropriate action. DISPOSITION OF CASE This case dealt with the alleged failure to report misconduct of another employee by the non-sworn staff member, the sergeant, and the other officer. The alleged sexual battery was handled in a separate investigation. The non-sworn staff member received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months for failing to report the incident in a timely manner and not disclosing her presence in the control booth. She did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The sergeant received a 10 percent salary reduction for 30 months for a sustained allegation of neglect of duty. The sergeant appealed to the State Personnel Board. The allegation against the other officer was not sustained. Case No. 08-0255 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about April 22, 2006, a captain allegedly witnessed an officer forcefully hit an inmate with his shoulder DISPO INV ADV HA while the inmate was being escorted in handcuffs by another officer. The escorting officer allegedly failed to stop or report the assault. It was also alleged that a third and fourth officer later removed the same inmate from a holding cell and struck him in the face numerous times with closed fists. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against the officer who allegedly assaulted the inmate were sustained, and the hiring authority initially recommended dismissing the officer. However, the officer later agreed to a settlement where he received a suspension without pay for 68 calendar days, followed by a salary reduction of 10 percent for 24 months. The allegations against the escorting officer who allegedly failed to stop or report the use of force were sustained, and he was dismissed. He appealed the dismissal to the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the third and fourth officers who allegedly took the inmate from a holding cell and assaulted him. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 90 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0256 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 23, 2006, an inmate who was a sex offender was released to parole, and because of his medical DISPO INV ADV HA condition, he was transported directly to a convalescent hospital. The parolee normally would have been placed in one parole region, but the hospital willing and able to accommodate his care was located in a different region. Thus, the original parole region initiated transfer paperwork, which was rejected by the parole region where the hospital was located because the hospital was too close to a school. The deputy director of parole allegedly ordered the receiving region to accept supervision, but that did not occur. For several months, the two parole regions continued to try to resolve the issue of who would supervise the parolee. During this time, the parolee was not supervised or registered as a sex offender. Around October 2006, the deputy director learned that her order had not been followed. The situation was resolved at that time, and the receiving region took on supervision. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the regional administrator over the original parole region received a letter of reprimand for failing to take appropriate action regarding the supervision dispute between the two regions. She did not appeal the discipline to the State Personnel Board. The receiving parole region's first-line supervisor received a 5 percent salary reduction for three months for failing to ensure proper supervision of a parolee he knew was within his area. He did not appeal the discipline to the State Personnel Board. The receiving parole region's parole administrator received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months for failing to ensure proper supervision of a parolee within his area and failing to elevate the dispute between the regions to upper-level management. He did not appeal the discipline to the State Personnel Board. The receiving region's deputy regional administrator initially received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months for failing to ensure that a parolee within her area was properly supervised. After a Skelly hearing, the penalty was reduced to a 5 percent salary reduction for three months, which she appealed to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0257 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 12, 2005, it was alleged that an assistant secretary allowed a subordinate to participate as an DISPO INV ADV HA interviewer on an employment panel during August 2005. While on the panel, the subordinate participated in the interview of a close friend. The friend was also a witness in an ongoing investigation against the subordinate for providing money to other employees for gambling conducted during work hours. The friend received employment as a result of the interview. The assistant secretary allegedly knew of the relationship and the investigation, yet placed the subordinate on the hiring panel and approved the hiring of the friend. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations against the assistant secretary were not sustained. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 91 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0258 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 22, 2005, a document was discovered on a nurse's computer that appeared to be a ballot supporting a DISPO INV ADV HA sick-out by nurses statewide. When questioned about the document, the nurse initially denied any knowledge of the document. However, he later admitted that he created the document and that it was a job action supported by the nurses. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months. The nurse appealed the disciplinary action to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0259 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 8, 2005, it was alleged that an associate governmental program analyst used state resources for a DISPO INV ADV HA horseracing business and gambling operation. The resources included use of the Internet, fax machine, and telephone during work hours. The employee was also allegedly billing overtime on days when significant amounts of time were spent on the horseracing and gambling operations. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations of misuse of state resources were sustained, and the employee received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The employee filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0260 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In June 2005, a licensed clinical social worker allegedly failed to provide adequate psychological care to an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate and did not refer the inmate for a suicide risk assessment. The inmate later committed suicide. Similar allegations were made against other mental health care providers. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the licensed clinical social worker. The conduct of the other mental health care providers was referred for a professional practices review. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 92 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 06-0266 (Headquarters) FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2006, a youth correctional officer was observed kissing a ward and initially suggested the incident was accidental when interviewed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the youth correctional officer. The officer has appealed his dismissal to the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board set aside the dismissal because it found that the youth correctional officer resigned before the effective date of the dismissal. However, the board allowed the department to keep the dismissal action in the officer's personnel file. The department also placed a letter in the personnel file indicating that the resignation was under adverse circumstances. Case No. 06-0298 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 28, 2006, an administrative segregation unit inmate refused a reassignment from one housing unit to another. The sergeant ordered the control booth officer to open the cell door, and the sergeant entered the cell with four correctional officers. The inmate was handcuffed and escorted out of his cell without incident. The officers reported that the inmate became resistive and attempted to slam officers against the wall. During the incident, the inmate's head and face hit the wall, causing injury. Staff members at the new housing unit observed the inmate's injuries, obtained medical treatment, and interviewed the inmate in accordance with policy. The inmate alleged that five or six officers and the sergeant entered the inmate's cell and assaulted the inmate for no reason. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded there was sufficient evidence to sustain an allegation of neglect of duty against the sergeant for ordering staff to enter the inmate's cell after the inmate refused to be handcuffed and for failing to implement a calculated cell extraction. The hiring authority imposed on the sergeant a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The hiring authority also concluded there was sufficient evidence to sustain allegations that the four escorting officers failed to report a use of force and failed to provide medical treatment for the inmate, but it concluded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain an allegation that the officers' use of force was excessive. The hiring authority imposed against these officers a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. Allegations against two other officers were not sustained. APPEAL UPDATE The department agreed to modify the discipline to a 5 percent salary reduction for three months for one officer and a letter of reprimand that will remain in the personnel file for three years for the other officer, and the appeals were withdrawn. The bureau found the agreement to be reasonable. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 93 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 06-0310 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 20, 2005, an inmate refused a control booth officer's order to return to the inmate's assigned cell. Another officer began talking with the inmate to resolve the issue. The control booth officer discharged a non-lethal round at the inmate, missing the inmate and striking a second uninvolved inmate in the chest. A floor officer ran up the stairs toward the inmates. Before the floor officer reached the top of the stairs, 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 hiring authority concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the allegation that the control booth officer used excessive force and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The officer appealed, and the department is waiting for the State Personnel Board's decision. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board modified the discipline to a suspension for six months. The bureau continues to believe that the discipline imposed by the department was reasonable. Case No. 06-0360 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on September 4, 2005, a sergeant improperly entered an inmate's cell and assaulted the inmate, causing injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE A 30-day suspension was imposed. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board revoked the discipline because it found that the disciplinary action was not imposed before the time to take action had expired. Specifically, the department did not produce affirmative evidence that the action was served on the employee in time. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 94 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 06-0398 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on July 9, 2005, an officer improperly punished an inmate, then, accompanied by two other officers, entered the inmate's cell without authorization and assaulted the inmate. None of the officers reported the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE One officer was exonerated, and the hiring authority sustained allegations against the other two. One officer was dismissed, and the other was given a 49-day suspension. A State Personnel Board hearing is pending. APPEAL UPDATE The department agreed to modify the discipline from dismissal to a suspension for six months for one officer and from a 49-working-day suspension to an 11-working-day suspension for the other officer, and the appeals were withdrawn. The bureau found the agreement to be unreasonable because the modified discipline for each officer constituted a lower penalty than the recommended penalty contained in the department’s disciplinary matrix. Case No. 07-0184 (Headquarters) 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 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. APPEAL UPDATE The department agreed to modify the discipline to a suspension for 20 days, and the appeal was withdrawn. The bureau found the agreement to be reasonable. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 95 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 07-0120 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 28, 2006, an officer pled no contest to a misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment stemming from a 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. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board modified the discipline to a suspension for one year. The bureau continues to believe that the discipline imposed by the department was reasonable. In addition, the department took a non-punitive dismissal action based on the protective order, which was upheld by the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0205 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE Between August 2005 and May 2006, an officer consistently called in sick or reported that a family member was sick 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. APPEAL UPDATE The department agreed not to seek financial reimbursement for the days that the officer was paid but did not work, and the appeal was withdrawn. The bureau found the agreement to be unreasonable because the amount of overpayment to the officer was several thousand dollars. Case No. 07-0208 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 9, 2005, an officer allegedly unnecessarily used chemical agents and physical force to subdue an inmate to the 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. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board modified the discipline to a suspension for ten working days. The bureau continues to believe that the discipline imposed by the department was reasonable. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 96 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 07-0294 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2006, a sergeant allegedly slammed a disabled inmate against a wall. On June 22, 2007, the same sergeant allegedly grabbed another inmate by the throat, and on September 22, 2007, the sergeant allegedly sprained yet another inmate's thumb by twisting it. In addition, the sergeant allegedly failed to report the use of force in one of the incidents and was allegedly dishonest in reporting another. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, but the statutory deadline expired before discipline could be imposed for the June 22, 2006, incident and for the alleged dishonesty. The sergeant received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months as a result of the remaining allegations. The sergeant has appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department agreed to modify the discipline to a 10 percent salary reduction for seven months and a loss of post and bid rights for a period of time, and the appeal was withdrawn. The bureau found the agreement to be reasonable. Case No. 07-0456 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 3, 2006, a handcuffed inmate refused to relinquish the handcuffs. When officers entered the cell to retrieve the handcuffs, the inmate fell and was injured. The officers then used a triangle device to force the inmate to relinquish the handcuffs. On June 4, 2006, a sergeant interviewed the inmate and noticed that the officers did not prepare incident reports; the sergeant referred the matter for further investigation. During the investigation, it was determined that a lieutenant was advised of the incident but failed to ensure that the officers and the sergeant properly documented what occurred. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, and each officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The sergeant received a 5 percent salary reduction for 36 months. The lieutenant received a letter of instruction. The officers and the sergeant filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board modified the discipline to letters of reprimand for both officers and the sergeant. The bureau continues to believe that the discipline imposed by the department was reasonable. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 97 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 07-0462 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2006, an inmate suspected of having a razor was placed in a holding cell. Once secured, the inmate became loud and threatened to kill staff members. While three officers attempted to calm the inmate, the inmate reached through the tray slot and took an officer's whistle and baton. Two of the officers entered the holding cell and used force on the inmate. The two officers stated that they entered the holding cell because the inmate was trying to swallow the whistle. However, a third officer's report contradicted this. Although the inmate was blowing the whistle, a sergeant and a lieutenant did not respond from a nearby office. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded that the officer who entered the holding cell after his equipment was taken acted outside the scope of training and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The hiring authority did not sustain any allegations against the second officer who entered the cell. However, the hiring authority sustained an allegation against the third officer for inconsistent statements and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The hiring authority sustained an allegation that the lieutenant failed to act within the scope of training and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 24 months. In addition, the hiring authority sustained the allegation that the sergeant failed to respond to the incident and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. Only the sergeant filed an appeal. APPEAL UPDATE The department withdrew the discipline because it was not imposed before the time to take action expired. The bureau found the modification to be reasonable. Case No. 07-0493 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 6, 2005, the institution's employee relations officer informed a captain that she had been selected for a random drug test. The captain inappropriately delayed the test until December 9, 2005, and the employee relations officer failed to properly ensure that the random drug testing program was administered within policy. DISPOSITION OF CASE The captain was demoted and did not appeal the decision. The employee relations officer was given a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months and appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board revoked the discipline. The bureau continues to believe that the discipline imposed by the department was reasonable. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 98 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 07-0503 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 3, 2005, a lieutenant conducted a hearing on a rules violation report that charged an inmate with threatening a public official. The inmate was allegedly afforded the opportunity to attend the hearing and declined. Two officers documented in an official report that they witnessed the inmate's refusal. In addition, a third officer reported in an official document that he advised the inmate of the right to attend the hearing. The lieutenant conducted the hearing without the inmate present, found him guilty of the charged offense, and assessed a 150-day credit forfeiture. The lieutenant also falsely attested in the official hearing report that the third officer attended the hearing and verified that the inmate was made aware of his right to attend the hearing. A fourth officer allegedly provided the hearing summary to the inmate. It was later discovered that the inmate had been transferred out of the institution before the time the officers claimed to have witnessed his refusal to attend the hearing. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation against the lieutenant that he had unintentionally entered auto text into the hearing information system indicating the inmate's staff representative had attended the hearing in the inmate's place; the hiring authority imposed a 12 working day suspension. The lieutenant appealed the discipline. Allegations against one officer were not sustained. Allegations against three other officers were sustained. All three officers were initially dismissed. After a Skelly hearing, one officer was found to have committed neglect of duty and not dishonesty; thus, he received a two working day suspension instead of dismissal. Another officer's penalty was reduced to a 48-working-day suspension. The remaining officer did not have her penalty reduced and appealed her dismissal to the State Personnel Board. Ultimately, this remaining dismissal case was settled by allowing the officer to resign and agree never to again seek employment with the department. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board revoked the discipline against the lieutenant. The bureau continues to believe that the discipline imposed by the department was reasonable. The department agreed to modify the dismissal against the officer who appealed to allow the officer to resign; the officer agreed never to again seek employment with the department, and the appeal was withdrawn. The bureau found the agreement to be reasonable. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 99 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0261 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 9, 2008, parole agents attempted to serve an arrest warrant for a parolee. While conducting a security check of the parolee's residence, one parole agent was attacked by a dog, causing him to discharge his firearm. The shot struck another parole agent in the shoulder. DISPOSITION OF CASE A deadly force investigation team was dispatched to the scene to document and review the shooting, as well as to gather and preserve evidence. The department opened criminal and administrative investigations into the use of deadly force, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all key 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 Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 08-0262 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 6, 2008, a riot occurred on the institution's yard involving over 50 inmates from two rival gangs. Two officers discharged two lethal rounds, one as a warning shot and one for effect. The shot for effect struck an inmate in the shoulder, and the inmate received a non- life-threatening injury. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs dispatched a special agent from the deadly force investigation team to the scene. The Office of Internal Affairs opened both criminal and administrative investigations into the use of deadly force, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. 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 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. 08-0263 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 5, 2008, an inmate was found unconscious in his cell suffering from an illegal drug overdose. Staff members initiated medical rescue procedures without success, and the inmate died. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy confirmed that the inmate died from a drug overdose. There was no potential staff member misconduct identified, so the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 100 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0264 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 20, 2008, an inmate was beaten and seriously injured by unknown inmates and transported to an outside hospital for medical care. DISPOSITION OF CASE Because of the inmate's refusal to cooperate with investigators, no inmate suspects could be identified. Further, no potential staff member misconduct was identified, so the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. 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 initial notification. Case No. 08-0265 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 13, 2008, two inmates were observed fighting. The control booth officer fired a less-lethal round at the aggressor inmate, and the round struck the inmate in the head. The inmate was sent to an outside hospital for treatment, and he remained in intensive care for three days. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department initiated both criminal and administrative investigations into the propriety of the officer firing the less-lethal weapon. The bureau accepted both investigations for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all key 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. Further, the bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. Case No. 08-0266 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 9, 2008, staff members received confidential information that an inmate was sexually assaulted with a foreign object and digitally penetrated by his cellmate. A medical examination revealed injuries consistent with sexual assault. DISPOSITION OF CASE Forensic evidence was collected from both inmates and submitted to the county criminalist laboratory for processing. The cell where the incident occurred was processed for evidence and photographed, and the suspect was placed in the administrative segregation unit according to procedure. The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which intends to file criminal charges against the suspect. There was no evidence of potential staff member misconduct; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all key aspects. The department's notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 101 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0267 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 7, 2008, an inmate reported that another unidentified inmate had committed a sexual battery and forced digital penetration of her. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's investigative services unit conducted an investigation and concluded that the inmate fabricated the allegations. No potential staff misconduct was identified, so the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation or to the district attorney's office for prosecution. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all key aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify 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. 08-0268 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 3, 2008, an inmate had a seizure that caused him to fall from an upper bunk in a dormitory, and he received a serious head injury. The inmate was assigned to the lower bunk. Staff members were concerned that the inmate may have been pressured to surrender the lower bunk to the inmate assigned to the upper bunk. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate was assigned to a lower bunk because of seizures; however, the inmate willingly switched places with the inmate assigned to the upper bunk. The inmate was receiving his prescribed medications and treatment at the time of the incident. There was no evidence of potential staff member misconduct to warrant further investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all key aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide timely initial notification. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0269 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 28, 2008, an officer allegedly exposed an inmate's penis to another officer and spit on the penis. The officer also exposed his own penis, waved it in front of the inmate's face, and tried to get the inmate to perform oral sex on him. Two other officers were allegedly present during the incident and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority submitted a request for investigation of the inmate's allegations. The Office of Internal Affairs initiated a criminal investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. 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 referred the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 102 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0270 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 28, 2008, a racially motivated riot involving approximately 62 inmates occurred at the institution. Fourteen black inmates and nine white inmates were charged with disciplinary offenses. DISPOSITION OF CASE The incident did not involve potential staff member misconduct, so the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. 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. Case No. 08-0271 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE An inmate alleged that on April 17, 2008, at 3:30 a.m., she was sexually assaulted. She was housed in a dormitory room with seven other inmates at the time and identified one of the inmates as the perpetrator. A medical exam was conducted, and no injuries were found. The inmate later apologized for lying. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's investigative services unit conducted an investigation and concluded that the inmate fabricated the allegations. No potential staff misconduct was identified, so the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for 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 chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 08-0272 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 17, 2008, a parole agent said that an unknown male attacked him while he sat in his car at a stoplight. Outside law enforcement responded to the scene and arrested the attacker, who was found to be a parolee. The parole agent's version of the events conflicted with reports from responding outside law enforcement officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority conducted an inquiry into the incident and referred the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all key 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 Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 103 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0273 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 15, 2008, an inmate was discovered to have been severely beaten by other inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's investigative services unit identified at least two inmate attackers and referred the case to the district attorney's office for prosecution. There was no evidence of potential staff member misconduct, so the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all key 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. 08-0274 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 3, 2008, a suspect inmate believed another inmate had contraband concealed inside her that belonged to the suspect inmate, and she attempted to retrieve it by forced digital penetration. Following the assault, the suspect inmate discovered she had mistaken the victim inmate's identity. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department referred the matter to the district attorney's office for criminal prosecution of the inmate. There was no potential staff member misconduct identified as a result of the incident, so the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all key aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0275 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 30, 2008, a registered nurse allegedly made verbal threats toward inmates, custody staff members, and nursing staff members. The threats were very specific and even included a description of the type of gun the nurse would bring to the institution to carry out the threats. DISPOSITION OF CASE The registered nurse was escorted off the institution grounds and placed on administrative time off. The institution served him with a notice of rejection during probation. The nurse subsequently resigned. 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 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 104 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0276 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 30, 2008, an inmate believed that another inmate was concealing drugs that were to be delivered to her. The inmate held down the other inmate while digitally penetrating the inmate's rectal and vaginal cavities searching for the drugs. The victim inmate was not carrying drugs and reported the assault. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's investigative services unit conducted an investigation and referred the matter to the district attorney's office for criminal prosecution of the inmate. No potential staff member misconduct was involved; therefore, no internal affairs investigation was opened. 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 hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0277 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 29, 2008, inmates alerted housing unit staff members to an unresponsive inmate in a single cell, whom they believed may have overdosed on drugs. When staff members entered the cell, they discovered the inmate had no pulse. Staff members performed CPR until the inmate was pronounced dead by a physician. DISPOSITION OF CASE The county coroner performed an autopsy and a toxicology screening. The coroner determined that the inmate died of a drug overdose. There was no evidence of potential staff member misconduct; therefore, this case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all key aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0278 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE An inmate alleged that on March 25, 2008, a teacher sucked her breast, placed his hand down her pants, and fondled her. The inmate allegedly received tobacco from the teacher through extortion. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an inquiry by the institution, the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The bureau accepted the case for monitoring. 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 105 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0279 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 25, 2008, staff members at a minimum security facility discovered two inmates from different dormitories missing during the evening count. Subsequently, another count was conducted of both dormitories, and staff members discovered that a third inmate was also missing. DISPOSITION OF CASE Emergency count and escape procedures were implemented; however, the escapees were not apprehended. There was no evidence of potential staff member misconduct, so the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident initially. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0280 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 9, 2008, at 1:12 a.m., an inmate was found bleeding in his cell. A suicide note and razors were found in the cell. He was transported to the treatment triage area. After consulting with the psychiatrist, both the registered nurse and the psychiatrist determined that the inmate was not suicidal and just needed a cell move. At 5:15 a.m., the inmate was found sitting unresponsive on the floor, not breathing, with no pulse, and a noose around his neck attached to the upper bunk. The inmate later died. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority requested that the Office of Internal Affairs conduct an investigation into the care the inmate received from the nurse and psychiatrist. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all key aspects. The department's notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. 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 its response. Case No. 08-0281 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 8, 2008, a riot erupted between approximately 30 inmates from rival gangs on the institution's yard. The yard alarm was activated, and staff members used pepper spray to successfully stop the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority conducted an institutional review of the incident and determined that the staff members' response was within policy. Thus, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all key aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide sufficient notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 106 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0282 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 27, 2008, an inmate alleged that she was raped by an officer, as well as raped by every officer in another institution where she was previously incarcerated. The inmate alleged that she was masked and gassed before the rapes. The inmate stated she saw the rapes from hidden cameras in her cell and that President Bush was aware of the rapes. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were found not to be credible. Therefore, no referral was made to the Office of Internal Affairs. 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 not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0283 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 18, 2008, a riot involving approximately 75 inmates occurred in the institution's dining hall. To control the riot, three officers fired a total of 14 less-lethal rounds. One inmate may have been hit in the head by a round, which caused serious injury to the inmate's ear. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs decided not to open a deadly force investigation because the injured inmate was not likely to die from his injuries. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Except for a delayed response by the deadly force investigation team, the bureau determined that the department's response to the incident was adequate. 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 did not concur with this decision. Case No. 08-0284 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 15, 2008, an inmate alleged that he was raped by his cellmate while he remained asleep in his bunk. DISPOSITION OF CASE The cell was processed as a crime scene in accordance with departmental procedure, and the inmates were examined. Investigators submitted forensic evidence to the county criminalist laboratory for processing, and the case was referred to the district attorney's office for review. There was no evidence of potential staff member misconduct; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all key aspects. The department's notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 08-0285 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 14, 2008, an inmate killed another inmate by slashing the inmate's throat with a box cutter blade in an open area of a housing facility. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigative services unit investigated the homicide, and the case was referred to the district attorney's office. No potential staff member misconduct was identified, so the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all key aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 107 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0286 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 13, 2008, two men with a knife accosted an off-duty officer in a parking lot. One of the men began physically assaulting the officer while he attempted to get into his car. The officer retrieved his off-duty weapon and fired one shot, hitting the man who was assaulting him. Both assailants fled the scene, but local law enforcement officers later apprehended the man who was shot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution obtained the initial reports from local law enforcement and found no evidence of wrongdoing by the officer in the shooting. However, the hiring authority discovered that the officer did not have a current quarterly qualification certification for his off-duty weapon. The hiring authority referred the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation, and the matter was returned to the hiring authority for appropriate training or corrective action. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all key 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 its response. Case No. 08-0287 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 9, 2008, a large cache of contraband was discovered hidden in a hole covered by a loose floor tile under an inmate's bed at the institution's minimum security housing unit. The contraband included marijuana, cocaine, tobacco, a mobile phone, and cash. DISPOSITION OF CASE The contraband was collected, documented, and stored in the appropriate evidence lockers. An interview with the inmate revealed no staff involvement with the contraband, so the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. 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 decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0288 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 3, 2008, an inmate was transported to an outside hospital because of swelling of the abdomen. He died about two hours later. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy indicated that the inmate died from pre-existing medical conditions. The matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation because no potential staff member misconduct was identified. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response to the incident was satisfactory except that the institution's reports did not address how the inmate was discovered or whether he reported to the medical clinic. 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 108 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0289 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 2, 2008, several officers in a visiting reception area allegedly watched female inmates being strip-searched on a video surveillance monitor. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority conducted an initial inquiry and referred the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The bureau accepted the investigation for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all key aspects. Initially, the department did not promptly notify the bureau. Once the bureau was notified, the department adequately consulted with the bureau in all respects. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' decision to open an investigation. Case No. 08-0290 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 28, 2008, an inmate was found unresponsive on the bottom bunk of his assigned cell with a cloth noose wrapped around his neck and affixed to the top bunk. Staff members cut the noose, laid the inmate flat on the floor, and performed CPR. However, the inmate was later pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy was performed, and the coroner determined that the inmate died of a self-induced hanging. This case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs because there was no evidence of potential staff member misconduct. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all key aspects. The department's notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 08-0291 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 27, 2008, an inmate attempted to commit suicide by cutting both sides of his neck with a razor blade, causing severe injuries. The inmate was treated at an outside hospital and returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE This case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs because there was no evidence of potential staff member misconduct. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all key aspects. The department's notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. 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 109 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0292 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 27, 2008, staff members received confidential information alleging that an inmate had been sexually assaulted by his cellmate over the past three days. The inmate was interviewed and taken to an outside hospital for a forensic examination. The suspect was placed in the administrative segregation unit pending investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department conducted a thorough investigation. Forensic evidence collected from both inmates was submitted to the county crime laboratory for processing. There was no evidence of potential staff member misconduct; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all key aspects. The department failed to provide adequate initial 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. Case No. 08-0293 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 24, 2008, at least three inmates attacked another inmate on the institution's yard. A less-lethal round was fired at the attackers, and the assault ceased. The inmates had various injuries, and one inmate was taken by ambulance to an outside hospital where he was diagnosed with a concussion. It was initially unclear if the concussion was a result of the round or the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE After a thorough institutional review of the incident, the hiring authority determined that the use of force was within policy and that the inmate's concussion most likely resulted from the attack by other inmates. No internal affairs investigation was requested. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all key aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide sufficient notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0294 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 23, 2008, an inmate was stabbed and strangled to death by his cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The homicide was investigated and referred to the district attorney's office. There was no indication of potential staff member misconduct, so the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department's notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. 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 110 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0295 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 21, 2008, an inmate alleged to a psychiatric staff member that his former cellmate had raped him two days earlier. The alleged victim was transported to an outside hospital where a qualified sexual assault nurse completed a sexual assault forensic exam. DISPOSITION OF CASE Department employees followed all appropriate procedures in investigating the allegation. The matter was submitted to the district attorney's office for review. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all key aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate initial notification. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0296 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 18, 2008, a large riot occurred involving multiple housing units. There were no major injuries to staff members, but one inmate received a broken arm. Officers discharged multiple less-lethal rounds, pepper spray, and lethal warning shots to quell the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution gathered the appropriate reports for a use-of-force review and determined that the use of force was within policy. Thus, no internal affairs investigation was requested. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all key 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. 08-0297 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 14, 2008, two inmates attacked another inmate. When they failed to respond to verbal orders to stop, an officer fired one lethal shot from a rifle, which hit one of the assailants in the hand, severing his thumb. The assault then stopped. The inmate who was attacked suffered over 20 stab wounds. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs opened both criminal and administrative investigations to determine whether the use of deadly force was appropriate. The bureau accepted both investigations for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all key aspects. The department's notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority chose to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Further, the bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 111 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0298 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 31, 2007, a riot occurred at the institution involving 40 inmates from rival gangs. An officer sustained serious facial injuries when he was shot in the eye by a less-lethal round fired by another officer attempting to quell the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department opened an administrative investigation into the use of force. The bureau accepted the investigation for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau. 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. 08-0299 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 6, 2008, an inmate was found hanging in his cell. He did not have a cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The death was found to be a suicide. The case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs because there was no evidence of potential staff member misconduct. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, initially it failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0300 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 2, 2008, a riot erupted involving 49 inmates. One inmate was airlifted to a hospital, and several other inmates were taken by ambulance to local hospitals. Staff members used pepper spray to quell the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution completed an investigation of the incident. None of the inmates who received serious injuries was able or willing to identify the assailants, nor were the inmates willing to testify in court should the assailants be identified. This case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs because there was no evidence of potential staff member misconduct. 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 agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0301 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 29, 2007, a riot broke out among nearly 100 inmates. Officers formed a skirmish line and began discharging less-lethal rounds at the combatants. One officer fired a lethal round from a rifle as a warning shot toward a location between the combatants and the skirmish line. No inmates or staff members were injured as a result of the discharge of the firearm. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution use-of-force committee reviewed the matter and determined that the shooting was within policy. Therefore, the matter was not referred for an internal affairs investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all key aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 112 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0302 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 16, 2007, an inmate was strangled to death by his cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The incident was investigated, and the case against the cellmate was referred to the district attorney's office for criminal prosecution. No potential staff member misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all key aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0303 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 12, 2007, an inmate told a staff member that his cellmate was unresponsive. Upon reaching the cell, the staff member discovered that the cellmate was dead. A syringe containing a small amount of suspected narcotics was found in the cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy revealed the cause of death to be acute heroin intoxication. No potential staff member misconduct was identified; therefore, no referral was made to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all key 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. 08-0304 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 12, 2007, about 15 Hispanic inmates attacked about six white inmates based on racial affiliation and tension within a dormitory at the institution. Several inmates were injured, and some inmates were transported to a medical treatment facility for evaluation. DISPOSITION OF CASE All the inmates were rehoused in the administrative segregation unit, and the cases against the inmates were referred to the district attorney's office. No potential staff member misconduct was identified, so no internal affairs investigations resulted from the incident. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide adequate notification, but it 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 113 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0305 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 11, 2007, an inmate escaped while assigned to a community work crew. On January 29, 2008, the inmate was apprehended by outside law enforcement officers and returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was no evidence of potential staff member misconduct; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The post orders for the community services crew officer were revised to limit the number of inmates assigned to a crew and to ensure the officer conducts more frequent inmate counts. The inmate received a rules violation report for the escape, and the matter was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all key aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, initially it failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0306 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 1, 2007, during the distribution of medication within a housing unit, a staff member discovered an unresponsive inmate in a cell he shared with another inmate. The inmate was pronounced dead at the scene. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner's office determined that the inmate died from asphyxiation. The case was referred to the district attorney's office to determine whether criminal charges should be filed against the cellmate. There was no indication of potential staff member misconduct, so the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response to the incident was sufficient. 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. 08-0307 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 29, 2007, there was a large riot at the institution involving about 100 inmates. Officers used both lethal warning shots and less-lethal force to control the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE Because no potential staff member misconduct was identified, no internal affairs investigation was requested. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all key aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0308 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 23, 2007, an inmate was beaten and strangled to death by his cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the case against the cellmate was referred to the district attorney's office for criminal prosecution. No potential staff member 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 hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 114 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0309 (Headquarters) FACTS OF CASE On November 9, 2007, a riot occurred on the institution yard involving 13 inmates. Staff members fired three less-lethal rounds and three instantaneous pepper spray rounds to quell the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE No potential staff member misconduct was identified, so the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all key aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0310 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 6, 2007, an inmate was reported to be suffering a seizure in his dormitory. Staff members initiated medical rescue procedures without success. The inmate died a short time later. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy revealed that the inmate died of respiratory arrest and heart disease. No potential staff member misconduct was identified. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all key aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0311 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 1, 2007, an inmate alleged that she had been sexually assaulted two days earlier. She was drinking with seven other inmates in her dormitory room. She and another inmate performed consensual sex acts while the other inmates watched. When the inmate tried to stop, she was held down and digitally penetrated and sodomized. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office filed felony criminal charges against the inmates. No potential staff member misconduct was identified; therefore, no internal affairs referral was made. 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 hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0312 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 31, 2007, an inmate was discovered dead in his assigned cell. His cellmate was in the cell at the time. Small traces of blood splatter were discovered, but no evidence of a struggle was found. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following the autopsy, the cause of death was determined to be acute heroin toxicity. No potential staff member misconduct was identified, so no internal affairs investigation was requested. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all key 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 115 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0313 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 5, 2007, an inmate was found unconscious in his cell with a linen noose around his neck. The inmate was later pronounced dead. The inmate's cellmate admitted to killing the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy revealed that the inmate died of strangulation. The matter was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, and criminal charges were filed against the cellmate. No potential staff member misconduct was identified; therefore, no internal affairs investigation was requested. 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 hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 08-0314 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 3, 2007, an inmate refused commands to place his arms behind his back as he walked across the institution's yard. As officers approached him, the inmate attempted to punch one of them. The officers used force to take the inmate to the ground, and he was struck with a less-lethal round. During an interview, the inmate initially said that the officers did not use excessive force. The following day, the inmate was transported to another institution. On his arrival, he alleged that the officers at the prior institution used excessive force against him, but he did not identify the specific officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not submit a request for an internal affairs investigation because the inmate's injuries were consistent with the force the officers reported using to overcome his resistance, the inmate changed his story, and the inmate could not identify the officers or any witnesses. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all key 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. 08-0315 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 24, 2007, a riot involving approximately 52 inmates erupted on the institution's yard. The inmates were given several orders to get down but did not comply. Officers fired several less-lethal rounds at the inmates, and one officer discharged a lethal round into a basketball hoop backboard as a warning shot. The inmates stopped fighting. DISPOSITION OF CASE After a use-of-force committee review, the hiring authority referred the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, which opened an investigation. The bureau accepted the case for monitoring. 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 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 its response. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 116 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0316 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 16, 2007, an inmate who did not share a cell with anyone else alleged that she had been raped by an unidentified person. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate was examined by a nurse at an outside hospital. No physical evidence was found to support the inmate's claim, so the hiring authority closed the case. 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 bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0317 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 27, 2007, an inmate assaulted another inmate. The inmate later died from medical complications related to the assault. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution conducted an investigation and submitted the case against the aggressor inmate to the district attorney's office. No potential staff member misconduct was identified. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all key 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. 08-0318 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 10, 2007, a staff member found an inmate hanging from the upper bunk in his cell with a noose around his neck. The inmate was transported by ambulance to an outside hospital where he was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE No potential staff member misconduct was identified in this case; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. 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 bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0319 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 2, 2007, an inmate was placed in the wrong cell. The inmate then hid under the bunk until officers placed the inmate properly assigned to the cell inside it. The inmate who was hiding under the bed then attacked the inmate assigned to the cell with an inmate- manufactured weapon. DISPOSITION OF CASE All reports and statements from the involved inmates were reviewed. An investigation was opened alleging that the escorting officer failed to report that the inmate had a weapon. The bureau accepted the investigation for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all key 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. The bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 117 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0320 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 28, 2007, an inmate being monitored on suicide precaution committed suicide. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was no internal affairs investigation into the incident because no potential staff member misconduct was identified. The inmate committed suicide between the hourly checks, which staff members were required to conduct as part of the suicide precaution watch. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all key aspects. The department neglected to inform the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0321 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 24, 2007, an inmate attempted to stab an officer in the throat with an inmate-manufactured weapon. Staff members used pepper spray on the inmate and physically restrained him. The officer was not injured because the weapon struck the officer's radio microphone. DISPOSITION OF CASE No potential staff member misconduct occurred in this incident, so an internal affairs investigation was not requested. The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution of the inmate for attempted murder of an officer. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all key 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. Case No. 08-0322 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 7, 2007, two inmates attacked another inmate on the institution's yard. Staff members deployed a pepper spray grenade and three less-lethal rounds that did not quell the incident. An officer then fired a lethal warning shot, which stopped the attack. Two inmate- manufactured weapons were recovered at the scene. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was not referred for an internal affairs investigation because no potential staff member misconduct was identified. 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 chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 118 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0323 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 3, 2007, an inmate housed in the infirmary became aggressive and hit a counselor in the head with his fist. Officers used physical force to handcuff the inmate and place him on the floor. While on the floor, the inmate stopped breathing and died. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined that the inmate's death was not caused by the use of force, but by a pre-existing medical condition. The department determined that the use of force was appropriate to gain compliance with a lawful order and to subdue the inmate. Therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all key 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 119 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPENDIX DISCIPLINARY ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS JANUARY 1, 2008 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2008 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 120 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0001 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0002 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0003 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0004 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0005 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 08-0006 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0007 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 08-0008 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0009 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes (8) Medical Technical Assistant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 08-0010 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0011 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 121 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0012 (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 08-0013 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 08-0014 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0015 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0016 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0017 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes 08-0018 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes 08-0019 (North Region) (1) Vocational Instructor Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes 08-0020 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes 08-0021 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Battery Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0022 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 08-0023 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0024 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 122 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0024 (North Region) (2) Correctional Sergeant Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes 08-0025 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment - Pub/Employees Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes (2) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment - Pub/Employees Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes 08-0026 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment - Pub/Employees Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes (2) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment - Pub/Employees Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes 08-0027 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0028 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Controlled Substances Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 08-0029 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0030 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes 08-0031 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 123 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0031 (South Region) (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 08-0032 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0033 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0034 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Use of force Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes 08-0035 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of force Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes 08-0036 (Central Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Misuse of state equip. or property Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 08-0037 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0038 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0039 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0040 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0041 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0042 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0043 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0044 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0045 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0046 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0047 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 124 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0048 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0049 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0050 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0051 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0052 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0053 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0054 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0055 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0056 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0057 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0058 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0059 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0060 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0061 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0062 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0063 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0064 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0065 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0066 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0067 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes 08-0068 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 125 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0069 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0070 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0071 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0072 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0073 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0074 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0075 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0076 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes 08-0077 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0078 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 08-0079 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes 08-0080 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes 08-0081 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0082 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0083 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0084 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0085 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0086 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0087 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 126 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0088 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0089 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0090 (North Region) (1) *UNKNOWN * 08-0091 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Contraband Not Sustained Yes 08-0092 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Criminal Act Sustained Yes 08-0093 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0094 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0095 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes 08-0096 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0097 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 08-0098 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0099 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0100 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0101 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0102 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Intoxication Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 127 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0103 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0104 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0105 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 08-0106 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0107 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0108 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 08-0109 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0110 (South Region) (1) Office Technician - Typing Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 08-0111 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0112 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0113 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0114 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0115 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes 08-0116 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes 08-0117 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0118 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 128 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0118 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0119 (North Region) (1) Office Assistant General Controlled Substances Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes 08-0120 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0121 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0122 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Insubordination Not Sustained Yes 08-0123 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 08-0124 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Assault/Battery Sustained Yes Assault/Battery Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes Assault/Battery Sustained Yes Assault/Battery Sustained Yes 08-0125 (South Region) (1) Medical Technical Assistant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 08-0126 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 08-0127 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0128 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 129 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0129 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0130 (North Region) (1) *UNKNOWN Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Counselor II Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0131 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 08-0132 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0133 (Central Region) (1) Facility Captain Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0134 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0135 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes 08-0136 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 08-0137 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes 08-0138 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0139 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0140 (North Region) (1) Registered Nurse Over-familiarity Sustained Yes 08-0141 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 130 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0141 (Central Region) (4) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes 08-0142 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0143 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0144 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0145 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0146 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0147 (North Region) (1) *UNKNOWN Contraband Not Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes 08-0148 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Facility Captain Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0149 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0150 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes 08-0151 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0152 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0153 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 131 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0154 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes 08-0155 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Use of force Sustained Yes 08-0156 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0157 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 08-0158 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Retaliation Not Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes 08-0159 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Confidential Information Not Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes 08-0160 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0161 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0162 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 08-0163 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0164 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0165 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 132 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0165 (Central Region) (4) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0166 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Use of force Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes 08-0167 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0168 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0169 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0170 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes 08-0171 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0172 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Sergeant Battery Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Sergeant Battery Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 08-0173 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0174 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 133 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0175 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Use of force Sustained Yes 08-0176 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0177 (Central Region) (1) Registered Nurse Over-familiarity Sustained Yes 08-0178 (South Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv II Theft Sustained Yes Theft Sustained Yes Theft Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes 08-0179 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0180 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0181 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0182 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes 08-0183 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0184 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0185 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0186 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Use of force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Use of force Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Sergeant Use of force Not Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 134 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0187 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0188 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 08-0189 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes Confidential Information Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 08-0190 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Retaliation Not Sustained Yes 08-0191 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes 08-0192 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0193 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Assault Not Sustained Yes 08-0194 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0195 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 08-0196 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0197 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0198 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Other Criminal Act Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes 08-0199 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 135 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0200 (South Region) (1) Correctional Captain Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 08-0201 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0202 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0203 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0204 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Battery Sustained Yes Attendance Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0205 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0206 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0207 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes 08-0208 (Central Region) (1) *Other HCSD Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 136 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0208 (Central Region) (4) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (5) Licensed Vocational Nurse Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (6) Medical Technical Assistant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0209 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 08-0210 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0211 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0212 (North Region) (1) Registered Nurse Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0213 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0214 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 08-0215 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes 08-0216 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes 08-0217 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 137 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0218 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0219 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0220 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0221 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0222 (South Region) (1) Registered Nurse Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0223 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes 08-0224 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0225 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0226 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0227 (Central Region) (1) *UNKNOWN Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 138 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0227 (Central Region) (1) *UNKNOWN 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 Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) 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 (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (6) Registered Nurse 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 08-0228 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0229 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 08-0230 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0231 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent I Inexcusable Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 139 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0231 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Immorality Not Sustained Yes Violation of Section 19990 Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes 08-0232 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 08-0233 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Sergeant Insubordination Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Sergeant Use of force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Sergeant Use of force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 08-0234 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0235 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0236 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes 08-0237 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 140 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0238 (Central Region) (1) Lieutenant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0239 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes 08-0240 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0241 (South Region) (1) Chief Engineer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes 08-0242 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0243 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes 08-0244 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Assault Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Assault Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Assault Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Assault Not Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 141 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0244 (South Region) (4) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes 08-0245 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes 08-0246 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0247 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0248 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 142 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0248 (South Region) (5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes (8) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes (9) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes 08-0249 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0250 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0251 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Discourteous Treatment * N/A Other failure of good behavior * N/A 08-0252 (North Region) (1) Psychiatric Technician Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 143 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0253 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes 08-0254 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Sustained Yes (3) Supervising Cook I Failure to Report Sustained Yes 08-0255 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes 08-0256 (Headquarters) (1) Other Staff * 08-0257 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0258 (North Region) (1) Registered Nurse Misuse of state equip. or property Sustained Yes Medical Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0259 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 08-0260 (South Region) (1) Psychiatric Social Worker Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty * N/A BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 144 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA