Bureau of Independent Review Semi-Annual Report January – June 2009

BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY – JUNE 2009 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DAVID R. SHAW INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 2009 C ONTENTS FOREWORD......................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................2 SUMMARY OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES........................................................................................3 EXPLANATION OF TABLE FORMAT...............................................................................................13 TABLE OF DEADLY FORCE CASES................................................................................................16 TABLE OF DISTINGUISHED CASES.................................................................................................19 TABLE OF DEFICIENT CASES........................................................................................................30 TABLE OF SATISFACTORY CASES.................................................................................................35 TABLE OF APPEALED CASES.........................................................................................................97 TABLE OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS.................................................................................................107 APPENDIX: DISCIPLINARY ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS..........................................................148 F OREWORD This ninth semi-annual report from the Bureau of Independent Review continues to document a positive trend in which the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has consistently improved its overall handling of internal affairs investigations and employee disciplinary matters. I am pleased that with the assistance of the bureau the department has made significant improvement. As Inspector General, I am committed to furthering our work with the department and its many stakeholders to ensure the department’s internal affairs investigations and disciplinary actions remain thorough, transparent, and fair. For the January to June 2009 reporting period, the bureau has included an assessment of 306 cases involving the most serious allegations of misconduct by department employees. Of the 306 cases, only 10 were found to have resulted in unreasonable outcomes. The remaining 296 cases were found to have resulted in reasonable outcomes, with 44 of them being identified as distinguished cases. I continue to be encouraged by the department’s progress in carrying out the reforms mandated by the Madrid federal court case, as evidenced by the information presented in this report, and I remain steadfastly committed to ensuring this progress continues. The bureau has always given the department’s use of deadly force its highest level of scrutiny. It is, therefore, fitting that the bureau’s assessment of the department’s deadly force investigations are now presented for the first time in a separate table so that they are easily identifiable to the public, thereby increasing the transparency of these most serious cases. Despite California’s significant fiscal challenges, we continue to move closer to a shared goal of establishing a model correctional system in California, thanks to the many efforts of my staff, the department’s staff, and our stakeholders. — DAVID R. SHAW, INSPECTOR GENERAL BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 1 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA I NTRODUCTION It is with great pleasure that I present the Bureau of Independent Review’s ninth semi-annual report, which documents the bureau’s case monitoring and oversight activities from January 1, 2009, to June 30, 2009. Since its inception in 2004, the bureau has actively assisted the department in implementing many of the reforms mandated by the Madrid federal court case. Specifically, the bureau monitors investigations of alleged employee misconduct and disciplinary processes related to misconduct. 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. The State of California’s unprecedented fiscal crisis significantly affected the bureau’s statutory mission during this reporting period. Both the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the bureau were required to implement three work furlough days per month for all staff, as well as reduce travel and training expenditures. Despite these challenges, staff from both entities continue to demonstrate an extraordinary dedication to public service. This report presents the bureau’s largest number of monitored cases ever reported in a semi- annual report. However, future semi-annual reports will necessarily reflect the true impact of the work furloughs, as the bureau has reduced the number of cases it monitors. This means there will be fewer monitored cases to present in the future. The work furloughs have also adversely affected the bureau’s pilot program to provide in-depth reviews of in-custody deaths, which began in January 2009. The program was suspended after six months, but the bureau hopes it will commence again in January 2010. It is also important to note that this report does not provide an overview of the bureau’s monitoring of the department’s use-of-force review committee meetings, as it has in the past. Instead, this information will be presented in a new, separate report to be published in the spring of 2010. Finally, I wish to thank the bureau’s many talented professionals who make this report possible. I also want to thank the department’s executives and staff members for their daily cooperation and support of the bureau’s mission. I look forward to continuing the bureau’s work with the department and other stakeholders to achieve our mutual goal of creating a model correctional system for California. — 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 monitoring of the department’s internal affairs investigations into alleged employee misconduct, as well as any disciplinary decisions related to alleged employee misconduct. In addition, the bureau monitors the department’s response to critical incidents and its review of use-of-force incidents. The bureau also implemented a pilot program for reviewing the circumstances surrounding the in-custody death of inmates and wards occurring at specified facilities. In this report, the bureau is reporting on its evaluation of 306 monitored cases, including 10 cases involving deadly force and 147 critical incidents.1 This represents the bureau’s largest number of cases reported in a semi-annual report. New to this semi-annual report is a special focus on the bureau’s monitoring of investigations into the use of deadly force, as described in detail below. This report does not, however, include statistics regarding the bureau’s monitoring of the department’s use-of-force review committees, as the bureau has reported in previous semi-annual reports. An overview and statistical analysis of the department’s 2009 use-of-force incidents will be reported in a separate report to be published in the spring of 2010. Monitoring Deadly Force Investigations The department’s use of deadly force has always received the bureau’s highest level of scrutiny and oversight. However, previous semi-annual reports have not presented the bureau’s assessment of deadly force investigations in a manner that enabled the reader to easily identify them from all the other cases the bureau monitors. This report marks the first semi-annual report to include a separate table of deadly force cases. The department defines deadly force as either the use of lethal force, such as a firearm, or any force that is likely to result in death. The department immediately investigates all uses of deadly force, with the exception of some incidents involving the firing of confirmed warning shots in an institutional setting. Criminal and administrative investigations are conducted on all deadly force incidents, excluding some warning shots as described above. Occasionally, an outside law enforcement agency will conduct the criminal investigation. Any time department staff use deadly force, the department is required to promptly notify the bureau. Once the bureau receives notice of a deadly force incident, bureau staff respond to the incident scene and evaluate the department’s management of the incident as well as the department’s subsequent deadly force investigation. The bureau also participates as a non-voting member of the department’s independent Deadly Force Review Board (DFRB). The DFRB is an independent body comprised of outside law enforcement officials and one department executive officer. Generally, once the administrative 1 Monitored cases are those cases approved by the department for an administrative investigation, criminal investigation, or direct disciplinary action without an investigation. Critical incidents include serious events, such as riots or homicides, which require the department’s immediate response. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 3 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA investigation is completed, the investigative report is presented to the DFRB. The DFRB examines all aspects of the incident to determine the extent to which the use of force complied with departmental policies and procedures, and to determine the need for policy, training, or equipment modifications. The DFRB’s findings are then presented to the department. The bureau monitored 10 deadly force investigations during the reporting period; 4 criminal investigations and 6 administrative investigations. Of the six administrative deadly force investigations, the DFRB found that the force used in these instances complied with departmental policies and procedures. The bureau’s assessment of all 10 deadly force investigations it monitored during the reporting period are presented in the Deadly Force Cases table later in this report. The bureau’s assessment of the department’s management of deadly force incidents are presented in the Critical Incident table toward the end of this report. Monitoring Employee Misconduct Whenever the department reasonably believes that employee misconduct may have occurred, the matter is forwarded to the department’s Office of Internal Affairs’ (OIA) central intake panel for evaluation. The central intake panel determines if an internal affairs investigation is warranted, whether enough information exists for the department to proceed with a disciplinary action without an investigation, or if no further action is warranted. The bureau participates in the central intake panel meetings to provide recommendations on central intake panel determinations and to determine 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. Department managers who are responsible for determining whether or not to impose discipline on an employee are referred to as “hiring authorities.” When a hiring authority determines what, if any, discipline 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 representation 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. Employees who are disciplined have a right to challenge that discipline by filing an appeal with the State Personnel Board, which is an independent state agency. The bureau continues to monitor cases through this appeal process. If there is a significant change in the outcome of a case after it has been appealed, the bureau publishes the updated information to the public in the Appealed Cases table found later in this report. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 4 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Caseload Trends This report includes an evaluation of cases completed between January and June 2009, and consists of 306 monitored cases. As the chart below demonstrates, the bureau’s case-monitoring activities have steadily increased since January 2006. Semi-Annual Case Reporting Trend 306 295 260 239 221 206 193 January - July - January - July - January - July - January - June December June December June December June 2006 2007 2008 2009 Case Types Criminal Cases Administrative - 46 Direct Action Cases 33 Administrative - Investigation Cases 227 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 5 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA sesaC fo rebmuN Allegations of misconduct are characterized as administrative, criminal, or both. Most investigations monitored by the bureau involve allegations of administrative misconduct. In some cases, the department determines there is enough evidence to impose discipline on an employee for administrative misconduct without the need for an internal affairs investigation. These cases are referred to as “direct action” cases and are also monitored by the bureau. In this report, the bureau provides an assessment of the 227 administrative investigations and 33 direct action cases. The remaining 46 cases assessed by the bureau in this report involve allegations of criminal misconduct. Allegation Distribution Consistent with past practice, the bureau focused a large portion of its monitoring activities during this reporting period 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 inmates, wards, or parolees; and (5) sexual misconduct. The first three types of allegations are of particular concern to the bureau because, if true, serious civil rights violations may have occurred. The final two types of allegations are of special concern because the safety and security of a correctional institution might be at risk, as well the possibility that a potentially vulnerable population is being exploited. It is important to note that a single case often addresses many allegations of misconduct. Allegation Type Distribution 161 130 85 65 21 Use of F orc e Dis ho nesty Failure t o R ep ort Over-Fa miliarity Sex ual Misc o nd uct The chart above illustrates the number of times each of the five allegation types were at issue in the 306 cases assessed in this report. Case Findings One of the most important steps in the disciplinary process occurs when a hiring authority determines whether or not to sustain allegations of administrative misconduct against an employee. In past reports, the bureau has criticized the department for not recording this information in its internal affairs computer system for a large number of cases. In the last semi- annual report, the bureau identified that the department entered this information in only 60 percent of the cases. However, during this period, the department recorded this vital information in 86 percent of the cases, which is a significant improvement. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 6 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Of the 224 administrative cases with allegation findings documented in the department’s internal affairs computer system, 76 had no allegations of misconduct sustained by the hiring authority. At least one allegation of misconduct was sustained in each of the remaining 148 of these cases. Administrative Case Findings Cases Sustained 148 (66%) Cases with Data 224 (86%) Cases Without Data 36 (14%) Cases Not Sustained 76 (34%) Bureau Assessment The bureau assesses cases in two ways. One way is by evaluating the disposition, meaning the ultimate outcome of the case. The other way is by determining whether each of the three entities responsible for implementing the department’s disciplinary process complied with department policies and procedures.2 The three department entities are: • the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA), which conducts the investigations; • the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team (EAPT), which are the department’s attorneys who provide legal advice and represent the department at State Personnel Board hearings and through the appeals process; • hiring authorities (HA), which are management employees who determine whether or not to impose discipline. For this six-month reporting period, the bureau identified only 10 administrative cases as deficient, which means the outcome of the case was unreasonable. Of the remaining 260 administrative cases assessed, the bureau identified 45 as being distinguished, which means the outcome of the case was reasonable and each of the three entities substantially complied with department procedures, as shown on the chart on the next page. 2 The department policies and procedures regarding employee discipline are based on the reforms required under the Madrid federal court case. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 7 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA The remaining 205 administrative Case Assessments cases were found to be satisfactory, meaning the case resulted in a Satisfactory Cases reasonable outcome despite procedural 205 (79%) problems. The bureau did not evaluate Distinguished the disposition of the 46 monitored Cases criminal cases because the decision to 45 (17%) file criminal charges is made by district attorney’s offices or the attorney general’s office, not the department. Overall, the bureau found the three entities to be procedurally compliant with department policies and procedures more often than not. Deficient Cases Sometimes the bureau does not assess 10 (4%) the department’s procedural compliance because there is not enough information available to assess. For example, if an employee who is under investigation resigns before the investigation is completed, the bureau may not have enough information to evaluate the hiring authority’s compliance with procedures because no disciplinary action can be imposed against that employee. The charts that follow compare the assessment ratings for the OIA, EAPT, and the HA from this reporting period to those from the bureau’s last five semi-annual reports. The bureau found OIA: • Substantially compliant in 79 percent of cases; a slight decrease for the third consecutive reporting period; • Partially compliant in 20 percent of cases; a small increase for the third consecutive reporting period; • Failed to comply in less than 1 percent of cases; similar to previous reporting periods. The bureau found EAPT: • Substantially compliant in 63 percent of cases; an increase of more than 40 percent from 2007; • Partially compliant in 30 percent of cases; a decrease for the fourth consecutive reporting period; • Failed to comply in 7 percent of cases; a significant decrease from 48 percent reported in 2007. The bureau found HA: • Substantially compliant in 86 percent of cases; a significant increase from the last reporting period; • Partially compliant in 13 percent of cases; a decrease from 20 percent during the last reporting period; • Failed to comply in 1 percent of cases; a decrease from the last reporting period. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 8 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA OIA Assessment Ratings 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Jul - Dec 06 Jan - Jun 07 Jul - Dec 07 Jan - Jun 08 Jul - Dec 08 Jan - Jun 09 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 9 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA tnecreP Substantial Compliance Partial Compliance Failure to Comply HA Assessment Ratings 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Jul - Dec 06 Jan - Jun 07 Jul - Dec 07 Jan - Jun 08 Jul - Dec 08 Jan - Jun 09 tnecreP EAPT Assessment Ratings 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Jul - Dec 06 Jan - Jun 07 Jul - Dec 07 Jan - Jun 08 Jul - Dec 08 Jan - Jun 09 Substantial Compliance Partial Compliance Failure to Comply tnecreP Substantial Compliance Partial Compliance Failure to Comply Monitoring Critical Incidents The department is required to notify the bureau of all critical incidents shortly after the time of the event. Critical incidents include serious events that require an immediate response by the department, such as riots, homicides, escapes, sexual assaults, hostage situations, uses of lethal force, and unexpected inmate deaths. After notification, the bureau monitors the department’s management of the incident, often by deploying bureau representatives to the site of the incident. More specifically, the bureau evaluates the department’s immediate response to the incident, the subsequent determination of whether the incident should be referred to the OIA, and the OIA’s decision regarding any referral. The bureau’s evaluations of these critical incidents are contained in the Critical Incidents table found toward the end of this report. Caseload Trends During this reporting period, the bureau assessed 147 critical incidents, representing a dramatic increase over every other previous semi-annual report since the bureau’s inception in 2004. This increase reflects a new focus by the bureau on safety and security issues affecting the department, which are particularly challenging during critical incidents. Critical Incident Responses 160 147 140 120 100 74 78 80 61 61 48 63 60 40 20 0 January - July - January - July - January - July - January - June December June December June December June 2006 2007 2008 2009 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 10 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Type of Critical Incident Consistent with past reporting periods, the bureau most often monitored critical incidents involving use of force. As shown in the chart below, a noteworthy statistic is the increase in critical incidents assessed by the bureau involving inmate great bodily injury - from 11 in the second half of 2008 to 50 in the first half of 2009. Type of Critical Incidents Comparison 60 50 50 40 30 23 21 17 17 15 15 17 20 11 9 12 7 7 10 4 0 Use of Inmate Great Inmate Riot In-Custody Inmate Inmate Other Deadly Bodily Injury Inmate Sexual Suicide Force Death Assualt July - December 2008 January - June 2009 Monitoring Use-of-Force Incident Reviews The bureau also monitors the department’s internal review of use-of-force incidents that occur in adult institutions and 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 a staff member’s use of force complies with departmental policy and to identify any reporting deficiencies. At times, the initial supervisory review of 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 misconduct may have occurred, the incident is referred to the OIA for investigation or approval of direct disciplinary action without further investigation. The bureau will no longer report on its monitoring of the department’s use-of-force review committee meetings in its semi-annual reports. Instead, the bureau will produce an annual report of these monitoring activities beginning in 2010. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 11 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA In-Custody Death Reviews Beginning in January 2009, the bureau initiated a six-month pilot program to independently review the department’s response to in-custody deaths. The pilot program was developed by bureau staff after researching in-custody death review programs in other correctional systems. Specifically, the bureau researched the in-custody death review programs in the County of Los Angeles, the federal prison system, and the State of Texas, which was recently released from federal receivership and has an inmate population comparable to California. The pilot program team was able to review every in-custody death that occurred in five northern California adult prisons and the Division of Juvenile Justice during the reporting period.3 The five adult prisons selected for the pilot were Folsom State Prison; California State Prison, Sacramento; Mule Creek State Prison; Deuel Vocational Institution; and California State Prison, Solano. The pilot program was designed to review and report on the circumstances surrounding each death, including an analysis of the health care the inmate received prior to his or her death. Once the bureau received notice of an in-custody death, the bureau immediately went to the scene of the death, collected relevant records, attended the autopsy, analyzed all information gathered, and consulted with a medical expert retained by the bureau. The bureau analyzed each incident using the findings of the federal court in its remedial orders in Marciano Plata, et al, v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. The goal of the program was to complete the entire in-custody death review process within 30 days from the date of each in-custody death so that the information could be used by the department and the federal receiver to improve the quality of medical care provided to inmates throughout the state correctional system. Unfortunately, the bureau’s staff resources were insufficient to meet the desired time frames for completing each review. In addition, the bureau was mandated to implement work furloughs for all staff as a result of the state’s budget crisis. The combination of reduced staff work hours and the number of inmate deaths resulted in a delay in producing the bureau’s independent review of each in-custody death. The bureau is in the process of completing its evaluation of all in-custody deaths that occurred during the reporting period. Once all evaluations are completed, the bureau will evaluate the merits of the pilot program, and the bureau hopes it will commence again in January 2010. 3 There was no in-custody death of a ward during the period of January through June of 2009. 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 monitors an investigation opened as a result of a critical incident, 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 DEADLY FORCE CASES Case No. 09-0001 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 11, 2008, an inmate was attacked by two other inmates on the yard. This led to a riot involving DISPO INV ADV HA approximately 23 inmates. Despite orders to get down, the inmates continued fighting. Officers deployed pepper spray grenades and fired two less-than-lethal rounds; however, the fighting continued. An officer in the tower then fired one lethal round as a warning shot, which stopped most of the combatants; however, a few continued fighting. The officer then fired two additional lethal rounds as warning shots, but this did not stop the attack. Finally, staff on the yard was able to deploy pepper spray directly at the combatants and the fighting stopped. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation into the use of deadly force. The matter was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The department also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0002 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 30, 2008, a fight occurred between six inmates inside a facility dayroom. When the control booth DISPO INV ADV HA officer saw two inmates attacking a third inmate who was on his back and did not appear to be moving, he fired one lethal round at one of the two attacking inmates, but missed his target and hit the dayroom floor. DISPOSITION OF CASE 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. Case No. 09-0003 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 30, 2008, a fight occurred between six inmates inside a facility dayroom. When the control booth DISPO INV ADV HA officer saw two inmates attacking a third inmate who was on his back and did not appear to be moving, he fired one lethal round at one of the two attacking inmates, but missed his target and hit the dayroom floor. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department's independent Deadly Force Review Board found that the discharge of the lethal round was in compliance with the department's use of force policy. The hiring authority subsequently exonerated the officer and the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0004 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 16, 2008, an inmate was observed in his cell pacing back and forth. He appeared agitated and was not DISPO INV ADV HA communicating with officers, medical staff, or his cellmate. The inmate also had several containers filled with liquid placed throughout the cell. It was alleged that the inmate would not come out of his cell; therefore, a captain authorized a cell extraction to occur. Allegedly, due to the inmate's nonresponsive behavior, a lieutenant used multiple canisters of pepper spray to subdue the inmate prior to the extraction team entering the cell. Once the extraction team officers restrained the inmate, it was alleged the inmate tried to bite the officers. The officers then allegedly placed a surgical mask and a spit mask on the inmate without decontaminating him and transported him to the institution's medical treatment facility. The inmate became nonresponsive and life-saving measures were initiated. The inmate was then transported to an outside hospital where he died. An autopsy revealed the cause of death was respiratory arrest due to laryngospasm due to multiple pepper spray exposures. DISPOSITION OF CASE 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 16 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEADLY FORCE CASES Case No. 09-0005 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 9, 2008, it was alleged that during the search of a parolee's residence, one parole agent was attacked by a DISPO INV ADV HA large dog causing him to accidently discharge his weapon, thereby shooting another parole agent in the arm. It was further alleged that a second parole agent also discharged his weapon five times while attempting to shoot the dog. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation in to the use of deadly force. The matter 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. 09-0006 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 9, 2008, it was alleged that during the search of a parolee's residence, one parole agent was attacked by a DISPO INV ADV HA large dog causing him to accidently discharge his weapon, thereby shooting another parole agent in the arm. It was further alleged that a second parole agent also discharged his weapon five times while attempting to shoot the dog. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department's independent Deadly Force Review Board determined there was no staff misconduct. The hiring authority subsequently did not sustain the allegations and the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0007 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 6, 2008, a riot occurred on a recreation yard involving over fifty inmates from two rival gangs. Two DISPO INV ADV HA lethal rounds were discharged by two separate officers; one for warning and one to hit its intended target. The shot intended to hit a target struck an inmate in the shoulder, and he was taken to a local hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department's independent Deadly Force Review Board found that both shots were fired in compliance with departmental policy. The hiring authority subsequently exonerated the officers and the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0008 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 13, 2008, an officer in a control booth observed two inmates fighting on the second tier of a unit. After DISPO INV ADV HA verbal commands failed, the officer fired one less-than-lethal round. The officer could not say where the round struck, and one of the inmates sustained a serious wound to his head that was consistent with being struck by a less-than-lethal round. The fight stopped, and the injured inmate was taken to the hospital and eventually recovered. Because of the seriousness of the head injury, the Office of Internal Affairs conducted a review of the force used. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department's independent Deadly Force Review Board found no violation of departmental policy, and the hiring authority subsequently exonerated the officer. The bureau concurred. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 17 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEADLY FORCE CASES Case No. 09-0009 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 13, 2007, two separate riots broke out on two separate yards of an institution. In response, an DISPO INV ADV HA officer fired a lethal round into one of the yards as a warning shot. An inmate claimed he was hit in the foot by fragments of a bullet and was sent to an outside hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation could not conclusively determine that the injury was caused by bullet fragments. The department's independent Deadly Force Review Board found the officer's actions to be within policy. The hiring authority subsequently exonerated the officer and the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0010 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 17, 2007, three inmates began kicking another inmate in the head as he lay on the floor in a fetal DISPO INV ADV HA position. After the combatants ignored several orders to get down, the control booth officer fired a pepper spray round and a less-than-lethal round, both without effect. The officer then fired a lethal round, striking one of the combatants in the hip. The other two combatants continued kicking the victim. The officer then fired a second lethal round two feet behind the combatants, which stopped the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department's independent Deadly Force Review Board reviewed the incident and found that the officer's actions were within departmental policy. The hiring authority subsequently exonerated the officer and the bureau concurred. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 18 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 DISTINGUISHED CASES 44 Case No. 09-0011 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 9, 2008, a parole agent allegedly informed a parolee of parole search schedules. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0012 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 29, 2008, a supervising correctional cook allegedly smuggled mobile phones and tobacco into an DISPO INV ADV HA institution for an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the supervising correctional cook with a notice of dismissal. However, the supervising correctional cook resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating he resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0013 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 8, 2008, a facility received a phone call from an anonymous female who refused to identify DISPO INV ADV HA herself. The caller stated that at the request of an inmate, she sent $500 to a post office box registered to a department employee. The caller further stated the inmate was pressuring her to send more money and threatened someone would come after her if the money was not sent. Shortly thereafter, a package containing numerous mobile phones, tobacco, cash, and a money order was delivered to a post office box registered to an arts in corrections facilitator employed at the institution. It was alleged that the arts in corrections facilitator was smuggling the contraband into the institution for monetary gain. It was further alleged that the arts in corrections facilitator threatened an agent during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the arts in corrections facilitator with a notice of dismissal. An agreement was initially entered into allowing the arts in corrections facilitator to resign prior to the effective date of the dismissal. However, the arts in corrections facilitator rescinded the agreement, was dismissed, and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0014 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 29, 2008, it was alleged that an office technician embezzled thousands of dollars worth of laptop DISPO INV ADV HA computers, software, mobile phones, and other equipment from the department. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the office technician, who did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 19 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 DISTINGUISHED CASES 44 Case No. 09-0015 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 27, 2008, a maintenance worker was observed patting and rubbing an inmate's back, shoulders, and DISPO INV ADV HA thigh area. Approximately one week later, he was again seen rubbing and massaging the same inmate's upper torso area. A few days later, they were seen exiting a room together in an area that was closed due to construction. Additionally, when interviewed by the Office of Internal Affairs, the maintenance worker allegedly made dishonest statements. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the maintenance worker with a notice of dismissal. However, he accepted a position with another agency before the dismissal took effect. The maintenance worker transferred to the other agency and, pursuant to a settlement agreement, agreed to not to seek employment with the department in the future. Case No. 09-0016 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From July to December 2008, a nursing assistant allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate via mobile phone and brought tobacco and mobile phones into the institution on numerous occasions in exchange for money. She was also allegedly dishonest during her investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE Although the hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations, the hiring authority agreed not to serve the nursing assistant with a notice of dismissal in exchange for her resignation. A letter indicating the nursing assistant resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in her official personnel file. Case No. 09-0017 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 27, 2008, an inmate alleged that an officer was delivering tobacco to inmates. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0018 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 7, 2008, an officer allegedly brought mobile phones and accessories into an institution for purposes of DISPO INV ADV HA selling them to inmates. It was also alleged a second officer knew about the misconduct and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the first officer and served him with a notice of dismissal. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the second officer. Case No. 09-0019 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 4, 2008, an officer allegedly allowed an inmate in the inmate work program to go through an access gate DISPO INV ADV HA without a work pass. Upon returning through the same access gate, another officer found the inmate to be in possession of marijuana. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 20 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 DISTINGUISHED CASES 44 Case No. 09-0020 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 21, 2008, a sergeant allegedly jumped onto the back of an inmate who was compliant and lying face DISPO INV ADV HA down on the ground. The sergeant allegedly landed on his knees, breaking the inmate's ribs and causing significant back injuries, which required multiple surgeries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the sergeant used unreasonable force that was likely to cause injury and imposed a 48 working-day suspension. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0021 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 20, 2008, two officers allegedly failed to observe or intervene in an attack on an inmate by another DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. The inmate who was attacked sustained serious injuries. It was further alleged that the two officers made false or misleading statements during their investigative interviews. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations against both officers for endangering others by violating departmental training and neglecting their duties. The hiring authority imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months on each officer. Each officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0022 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 15, 2008, it was alleged that an officer insulted an inmate after the inmate verbally insulted the officer. It DISPO INV ADV HA was also alleged the officer pushed the inmate up against a fence and struck him in the head with his hand. It was further alleged that the officer failed to follow procedures by not sounding an alarm, notifying his supervisor, or reporting his use of force. It was also alleged that a second officer observed the use of force and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the first officer and initially imposed a 25 working-day suspension. However, after the Skelly hearing, the suspension was reduced to 16 days and the officer agreed not to appeal the discipline. The hiring authority sustained the allegation of failing to report an observed use of force against the second officer and imposed a 10 working-day suspension, which he appealed to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0023 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 30, 2008, an officer allegedly forced an inmate to throw away his evening meal before he was finished, DISPO INV ADV HA forced the inmate to volunteer to work, and ordered the inmate to remain in the dining hall for approximately three hours after the other inmates had been released. It was further alleged the officer made false or misleading statements during an interview conducted in response to the inmate's complaint about the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 21 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 DISTINGUISHED CASES 44 Case No. 09-0024 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 12, 2008, a sergeant and six officers used force to remove an inmate from a cell and place him into five DISPO INV ADV HA point restraints, resulting in minor injuries to the inmate. It was alleged the officers and the sergeant failed to follow proper use-of-force cell extraction procedures, failed to document the inmate's removal, and failed to report their use of force. It was further alleged the sergeant verbally reported the use of force to a lieutenant, who instructed him not to document it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the lieutenant. The hiring authority found that the six officers failed to submit written reports of the incident; however, they were acting at the direction of the sergeant so they received corrective training in lieu of disciplinary action. The hiring authority also sustained the allegations against the sergeant and served him with a notice of dismissal. However, the sergeant retired before the disciplinary action took effect. Case No. 09-0025 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 11, 2008, an officer allegedly pulled an inmate out of a cell, pushed him up against a wall, and forced DISPO INV ADV HA him to the ground. It is also alleged that the officer failed to report it. It was further alleged that a second officer witnessed the use of force and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers. Case No. 09-0026 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 4, 2008, an officer reported that another officer said that during an incident on February 2, 2008, three DISPO INV ADV HA sergeants and five officers used unnecessary and excessive force on two-handcuffed inmates by lifting them by their forearms, slamming their heads into the wall, and kicking them in the groin. It was further alleged that the sergeants and the officers failed to report the force used. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found sufficient evidence to sustain allegations that one sergeant witnessed the use of force but failed to report and appropriately respond to it. The sergeant was issued a notice of dismissal, which the hiring authority rescinded after a Skelly hearing. The hiring authority found there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations against the two other sergeants. The hiring authority sustained allegations that one officer used unnecessary force, failed to report it, and was dishonest during his investigative interview. The officer was dismissed and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority also sustained allegations against the four other officers for failing to report the use of force they witnessed. The hiring authority imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months for one of those officers, which he did not appeal. Another officer received a 60 working-day suspension, which the department later agreed to modify to a 10 percent salary reduction for 30 months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. One officer had been promoted to sergeant before the investigation was completed and the hiring authority demoted him back to officer. The final officer was no longer employed by the department at the time the investigation was completed so disciplinary action could not be taken. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 22 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 DISTINGUISHED CASES 44 Case No. 09-0027 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 29, 2008, officers allegedly slammed an inmate's head against a wall and choked him with a towel. It DISPO INV ADV HA was also alleged that other officers observed the use of force and failed to report it. It was further alleged that one of the officers who used force attempted to dissuade the inmate from reporting the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers. Case No. 09-0028 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 29, 2008, an officer allegedly assaulted an inmate by grabbing his shirt, pulling him out of his DISPO INV ADV HA wheelchair, striking the inmate in the face with his forearm or elbow, knocking the inmate back into the wheelchair, and then pushing him into two benches. It was also alleged that another officer pushed him into a fence. It was further alleged that the two officers failed to report their use of force and that other officers who witnessed the incident also failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers. Case No. 09-0029 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 26, 2008, an officer allegedly engaged in retaliatory conduct against another officer by asking the DISPO INV ADV HA officer if he knew it was the 'year of the rat' in front of other officers. The officer being spoken to had been a witness and reported misconduct in an earlier staff misconduct case. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0030 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 17, 2008, a sergeant ordered three officers to conduct an emergency cell extraction, which allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA did not comply with departmental policy. It was also alleged that the officers improperly carried the inmate by his restraints during the extraction. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority initially sustained the allegation against the sergeant. However, it was discovered during a Skelly hearing that the sergeant's action was within policy at the time it occurred and the allegation was ultimately not sustained. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers. Case No. 09-0031 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 4, 2008, it was alleged that an officer provided false testimony under oath at a criminal trial involving DISPO INV ADV HA an inmate assault. Allegedly, the officer testified that he had sent evidence to a criminal laboratory for testing, but the laboratory had no record of receiving the evidence. It was alleged the officer admitted to another officer that he had thrown the evidence away. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer retired prior to the disciplinary action taking effect. A letter indicating the officer retired pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 23 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 DISTINGUISHED CASES 44 Case No. 09-0032 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 23, 2008, it was alleged that an officer was observed with a parolee at the officer's home. It was also DISPO INV ADV HA alleged the officer was previously involved in an overly familiar relationship with the parolee when the parolee was an inmate, and then engaged in sexual activity with her upon her release to parole. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The officer resigned before the conclusion of the investigation and a letter indicating she resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in her official personnel file. Case No. 09-0033 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 19, 2008, it was alleged that a supervising parole agent violated departmental policy by housing DISPO INV ADV HA more than one sexual registrant parolee in a motel room, and that she was dishonest and discourteous to supervisors when questioned about the alleged policy violation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficent evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0034 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 11, 2008, a sergeant and three officers allegedly used pepper spray unnecessarily on an inmate who DISPO INV ADV HA was threatening to swallow portions of two spoons. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the sergeant and imposed a 48 working-day suspension. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the three officers. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0035 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 9, 2008, it was discovered that an officer did not have an up-to-date firearms certification, and had DISPO INV ADV HA last failed firearm qualification nearly a year earlier. The officer was ordered to the range on his next shift, but he failed to attend. It was further alleged that the officer misrepresented his firearm certification status to his supervisor. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer and imposed a 30 working-day suspension. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0036 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 6, 2008, an officer alleged that on December 28, 2007, another officer sexually assaulted him by DISPO INV ADV HA pinning him against a door and rubbing his pelvis against his leg. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 24 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 DISTINGUISHED CASES 44 Case No. 09-0037 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 28, 2008, it was alleged that an officer misled outside law enforcement officers when they DISPO INV ADV HA interviewed him about an unsolved homicide that occurred several years ago. It was further alleged that the officer displayed aggressive behavior toward the outside law enforcement officers during the interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0038 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 24, 2008, a sergeant allegedly pointed at a building maintenance worker and told other officers, "rat DISPO INV ADV HA boy was telling on us again." It was further alleged that the sergeant's conduct was motivated by the fact that the building maintenance worker had informed his supervisor of previous misconduct by officers. Finally, it was alleged that the sergeant made intentional misrepresentations during his internal affairs interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of discourteous treatment, interfering with the reporting of misconduct, and of making false statements during an internal affairs interview. The hiring authority demoted the sergeant to officer, but the sergeant retired from state service before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the sergeant retired pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0039 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 13, 2008, while off duty, a sergeant was allegedly involved in a traffic accident with a civilian and DISPO INV ADV HA made false statements to local law enforcement regarding his involvement in the accident. Specifically, the sergeant claimed that his friend, an officer with the department, had been the driver of the vehicle. When questioned by law enforcement, the officer identified by the sergeant allegedly made false statements by claiming he was the driver. It was further alleged that both the sergeant and the officer made false statements during their interviews with the Office of Internal Affairs regarding the alleged conduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant and the officer and served each of them with a notice of dismissal. The sergeant and the officer each filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0040 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 5, 2008, an officer allegedly used excessive force when he slammed a handcuffed inmate into the DISPO INV ADV HA wall. It was further alleged that the officer failed to properly report his use of force and was dishonest during his investigative interview. A second officer allegedly witnessed the use of force and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the first officer and served him with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the second officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 25 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 DISTINGUISHED CASES 44 Case No. 09-0041 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 31, 2007, an inmate would not go into his cell and assumed a prone position. A sergeant and two DISPO INV ADV HA officers allegedly attempted to drag the inmate into his cell, when the inmate wrapped his legs around the sergeant and they fell to the floor. The inmate eventually entered his cell. Neither the sergeant nor the two officers reported the incident. Another officer allegedly witnessed the incident and also failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant and the two involved officers. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation against the other officer. The hiring authority initially imposed a 48 working-day suspension against the sergeant. However, the case was settled and the penalty was modified to a 10 working-day suspension. The two officers each received a three working-day suspension, which they each appealed to the State Personnel Board. Prior to the hearing, the officers settled their cases and received letters of reprimand. Case No. 09-0042 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 18, 2007, an inmate sustained two fractured elbows while being removed from a holding cell. One DISPO INV ADV HA officer allegedly failed to follow proper holding cell procedures, used unnecessary force to remove the inmate, failed to properly report the force used on the inmate, and was dishonest in his reports. It was alleged that a second officer used unreasonable force by punching the inmate in the head and by fracturing the inmate's elbows while trying to control him. In addition, it was alleged that the second officer failed to properly report the force used on the inmate. Finally, it was alleged that two other officers who observed the incident, but were not directly involved, failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the first officer for failing to follow holding cell and escort procedures and for unnecessary use of force. The hiring authority sustained one allegation of unreasonable use of force against the second officer for punching the inmate. Finally, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of failure to report against the two uninvolved officers. The hiring authority imposed a 21-day suspension on the first officer, which was reduced to a 12-day suspension following a Skelly hearing. The second officer received a two-day suspension. Case No. 09-0043 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on December 12, 2007, an officer found a mobile phone belonging to a sergeant in a restricted DISPO INV ADV HA area of the institution. It was also alleged that a lieutenant was advised of the discovery, failed to report it, and then later falsified training records to show that corrective training had taken place to address the issue. It was further alleged that the lieutenant was discourteous to employees during discussions of the event. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the sergeant brought a mobile phone into the institution, but no disciplinary action was taken because the hiring authority determined the phone was brought in by mistake. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the lieutenant. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 26 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 DISTINGUISHED CASES 44 Case No. 09-0044 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 3, 2007, it was alleged that a materials and store supervisor brought a controlled substance onto the DISPO INV ADV HA grounds of an institution. A subsequent search warrant revealed additional controlled substances in the materials and stores supervisor's automobile. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, the materials and stores supervisor resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the materials and stores supervisor resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0045 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 3, 2007, it was alleged that three officers were negligent in their duties by allowing an inmate into DISPO INV ADV HA an area where he did not belong, thereby giving him an opportunity to stab another inmate. It was further alleged that the first officer left his post without authority, and the second officer was misleading during the subsequent investigation into the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the first officer for leaving his post without authority. The officer received a letter of reprimand. The hiring authority sustained all of the allegations against the second officer and served him with a notice of dismissal. However, the penalty was modified to a 60 working-day suspension as a result of a settlement agreement. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the third officer for negligence in the performance of his duties, and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 18 months. However, following a Skelly hearing, the penalty was reduced to a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. Case No. 09-0046 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 19, 2007, it was alleged that during an interview with a special agent from the Office of Internal DISPO INV ADV HA Affairs, an officer admitted that he had failed to document another officer's use of force on an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0047 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 14, 2007, a parole agent received information that a nurse who worked in an institution was seen DISPO INV ADV HA accompanying a fugitive parolee in the community. Phone records revealed that the parolee made numerous calls to the nurse at the institution. The nurse was allegedly bringing tobacco into the institution as well. A second nurse was allegedly aware of the overly familiar relationship and failed to report it. It was also alleged that the second nurse was trafficking narcotics into the institution and removing medication from the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of sexual misconduct against the nurse involved with the parolee. The hiring authority also determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of bringing controlled substances into the institution against the second nurse. However, both nurses resigned prior to the completion of the investigation. A letter indicating the nurses resigned prior to completion of the investigation was placed in their official personnel files. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 27 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 DISTINGUISHED CASES 44 Case No. 09-0048 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 26, 2007, an inmate made racially inappropriate remarks toward an officer. The officer confronted DISPO INV ADV HA the inmate and handcuffed him. However, the inmate continued to insult the officer, who responded by spraying the handcuffed inmate with pepper spray. The officer allegedly falsified his report by claiming that the inmate made threatening movements toward him, which were contrary to the other officers' reports that indicated the inmate was nonthreatening. The officer was allegedly dishonest during his internal affairs interview when he continued to assert that the inmate made threatening movements toward him. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the officer. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0049 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 26, 2007, a staff psychologist alleged that an officer used unnecessary force on an inmate by DISPO INV ADV HA pushing him up against a wall and twisting his arm. It was further alleged that the officer failed to report the use of force. Following an investigation, it was alleged that the psychologist had made a false report of the alleged use of force by the officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer. However, the hiring authority sustained the allegations against the psychologist and served him with a notice of dismissal. The psychologist filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0050 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between August 2007 and March 2008, it was alleged that two officers engaged in overly familiar conduct by DISPO INV ADV HA allowing inmates to engage in inappropriate transfers of personal property. It was also alleged that one of the officers was dishonest when he altered a property card belonging to an inmate by making it appear that certain property had been confiscated. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0051 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 7, 2007, while escorting an inmate, it was discovered the inmate was in possession of tobacco. On DISPO INV ADV HA August 20, 2007, contraband items were discovered in the possession of another inmate. Both inmates alleged that the same program instructor brought tobacco, lotions and perfume into the institution in exchange for sexual favors from inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the program instructor. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 28 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 DISTINGUISHED CASES 44 Case No. 09-0052 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Beginning in June of 2007 and continuing until December of 2007, it was alleged that an officer was overly DISPO INV ADV HA familiar with an inmate and failed to advise his supervisor of an investigation he was conducting in conjunction with an outside law enforcement agency. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0053 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 13, 2007, it was alleged that an officer left work without authorization prior to completing his shift, and DISPO INV ADV HA that he falsified the sign-out sheet. It was also alleged that the officer and two other officers failed to report the misconduct and were dishonest in their statements regarding the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer who left his post early and one of the other officers, and they were both dismissed. Following their Skelly hearings, the penalty against the first officer was modified to a 30 working-day suspension plus a 10 percent salary reduction for 15 months. The second officer's penalty was modified to a 10 working-day suspension plus a 10 percent salary reduction for 10 months. The hiring authority determined there was insufficent evidence to sustain the allegations against the third officer. Case No. 09-0054 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 15, 2007, an officer and a sergeant allegedly submitted reports about force used to stop two inmates DISPO INV ADV HA from fighting that did not match the video tape of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the sergeant. However, the hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the officer and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for nine months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 29 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 DEFICIENT CASES 10 Case No. 09-0055 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 23, 2008, a former lieutenant who was dismissed from state employment alleged that an officer was DISPO INV ADV HA dishonest in memoranda submitted during the investigation against him, in a corresponding internal affairs interview, and during a State Personnel Board hearing. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Had the hiring authority found there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations, discipline would have been prevented on some of the allegations because the statutory time period for taking disciplinary action expired. Case No. 09-0056 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 20, 2008, an off-duty officer was driving at excessive speed while under the influence of alcohol. He hit DISPO INV ADV HA another vehicle, lost control of his vehicle, and spun numerous times before coming to rest on a guardrail. The other vehicle veered off the shoulder of the highway and rolled over three times before coming to rest vertically. After the officer's vehicle came to a stop, he fled the scene of the collision on foot. Both the officer and occupants of the other vehicle suffered injuries. The officer was convicted of felony hit-and-run and felony driving under the influence with injury, which prohibited him from holding a position as a peace officer. The officer was sentenced to 365 days in custody; 30 days of which he had to serve in jail. The remainder of the sentence was to be served on home confinement. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority agreed to allow the officer to use vacation time to serve his 30-day jail sentence and to demote him to a non-peace officer position, even though he did not meet the minimum qualifications for the position. As a result of an executive review, the demotion was deemed improper and the officer was dismissed from his original peace officer position due to the felony conviction. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT After the officer was convicted of two felonies, the initial hiring authority failed to follow department policy by not taking appropriate action to dismiss the officer and the department's attorney failed to timely provide legal advice to the hiring authority. For further information regarding this case, see the Office of the Inspector General's Special Report: A Review of the Voluntary Demotion of a Correctional Officer by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (July 2009). BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 30 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 DEFICIENT CASES 10 Case No. 09-0057 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 20, 2008, two officers allegedly falsified official records when they completed logs indicating they DISPO INV ADV HA conducted 30-minute welfare checks in the administrative segregation unit when they had not. One of the officers alleged that the other officer did not complete the welfare checks because he was asleep on duty. They also allegedly failed to sign their post orders. It was also alleged that a control booth officer left one of the officers on the tier of the administrative segregation unit alone and without coverage. It was also alleged that a sergeant falsified a welfare check tracking sheet when he wrote another sergeant's name on the form. It was also alleged that another sergeant failed to sign the welfare check tracking sheet and that he also failed to sign his post orders. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority only sustained the allegations that the two officers and a sergeant neglected their duties when they failed to sign their post orders. None of the other allegations were sustained. However, disciplinary action was not imposed on one of the officers because the department failed to timely serve him with a notice of disciplinary action. The other officer originally received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months, which was modified to a letter of reprimand after a Skelly hearing. The sergeant also originally received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months, and his penalty was also later modified to a letter of reprimand. The officer and sergeant each filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Disciplinary action was not imposed on one of the officers because the department failed to serve him properly before the statutory deadline for taking disciplinary action expired. Furthermore, the institution reached a decision regarding a settlement agreement with one of the subjects without consulting the bureau, as required by departmental policy. Case No. 09-0058 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 24, 2007, an officer allegedly used pepper spray on an inmate without justification. The officer DISPO INV ADV HA indicated in his written report that he used the pepper spray because the inmate lunged at him. A few days later, the officer told a captain that the inmate did not lunge at him. Additionally, two other officers allegedly witnessed the use-of-force incident, but failed to submit reports. It was also alleged that a third officer failed to report the incident and lied repeatedly in his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer who used force and gave differing accounts of the incident. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the second officer who failed to report the use-of-force incident, but then withdrew the action after a Skelly hearing. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the third officer that he failed to report the use-of-force incident. The third officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for three months. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority did not adequately review the investigative report before determining potential disciplinary action and, therefore, arrived at incorrect conclusions regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to prove several of the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 31 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 DEFICIENT CASES 10 Case No. 09-0059 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 21, 2007, a senior youth counselor allegedly conducted a clothed body search of a ward who was DISPO INV ADV HA being counseled by a casework specialist for using obscenities. The ward was secured in handcuffs and leg restraints. After the search, the senior youth counselor allegedly left the room but soon returned and repeatedly physically poked the ward, asking him, "Do I need to strip search you?" The ward, who had been sitting, then allegedly stood up and kicked a chair, causing it to hit the senior youth counselor, and asked, "Do I need to spit on you?" The senior youth counselor allegedly left the room again and then quickly returned, grabbed the ward by the throat, and pushed him against the wall. The youth counselor's report of the incident allegedly did not include the fact that he left the room before returning and grabbing the ward by the throat, making his use of force appear to be partly justified as an immediate response to the ward's conduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of unreasonable use of force against the senior youth counselor and issued him a counseling memorandum and had him complete refresher training on appropriate use of force. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority delayed referring the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for ten months. As a result, the statutory deadline for taking disciplinary action was close to expiring and there was insufficient time to conduct an investigation into the allegation that the senior youth counselor falsified his report. Without an investigation, there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. It is unknown if the disposition of the case would have been different had the hiring authority timely referred the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. Case No. 09-0060 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 1, 2007, two officers allegedly used excessive force on an inmate who was handcuffed behind his DISPO INV ADV HA back. It was alleged they lifted his handcuffed arms and bent him forward during an escort and failed to document the use of force in their reports. It was also alleged that three other officers who observed the escort failed to document the use of force. A lieutenant and a sergeant allegedly failed to ensure that the officers involved in the use of force submitted timely incident reports. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against all but one of the officers. However, no disciplinary action was taken against the officers because the statutory deadline for taking disciplinary action expired. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The employee relations officer failed to serve the disciplinary actions before the statutory time period for taking disciplinary action expired. The department's attorneys did not monitor the statutory time period and did not provide the bureau with drafts of the disciplinary actions for review, as required by departmental policy. In addition, the department's attorneys did not coordinate with the bureau during the investigation, timely review the investigative report, or timely provide written confirmation of critical discussions about the investigative report. The department's attorneys also did not appropriately draft the disciplinary actions. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 32 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 DEFICIENT CASES 10 Case No. 09-0061 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 7, 2007, it was alleged that a youth treatment team supervisor provided wards with sexually DISPO INV ADV HA provocative magazines, mature-rated video games, and R-rated DVDs after a youth counselor had previously confiscated the items. Additonally, it was alleged that another youth treatment team supervisor used profanity and demeaning language toward the youth counselor and wards. A senior youth counselor also allegedly yelled at the youth counselor in front of other staff and wards. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority's failure to sustain allegations against two of the subjects was unreasonable, given the evidence presented. In addition, the hiring authority did not timely respond to the allegations of misconduct, nor did the hiring authority consult with the bureau on significant case developments. The hiring authority also failed to consult with the bureau before determining not to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0062 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 10, 2007, a sergeant in a housing unit allegedly received an order to move an inmate to a different cell DISPO INV ADV HA after the inmate reported that another inmate was causing him psychological harm by verbally badgering him through the ventilation system. However, the sergeant did not move the inmate for several days and the inmate later attempted suicide. Use of force was required by officers to stop the suicide attempt. The sergeant also allegedly provided false information to her supervisors concerning her failure to move the inmate. On May 24, 2007, in the same housing unit, multiple officers allegedly encouraged inmates to forgo showers by offering the inmates coffee or incidentals in lieu of showers, and they also encouraged inmates to attempt suicide, which in turn would necessitate the use of chemical agents against the inmates. On May 25, 2007, an inmate in the housing unit alleged that an officer used excessive force by slapping the inmate and placing tape across the inmate's mouth. Finally, on June 28, 2007, another inmate in the housing unit alleged that an officer used unnecessary force by kicking a food port; hitting the inmate's hand. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant and served her with a notice of dismissal. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained the allegations that two officers bartered with the inmates to get them to forgo showers and served each of them with a notice of dismissal. Both officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the remaining officers. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Although the department served the sergeant with a notice of dismissal, it was not until after the statutory deadline for taking disciplinary action had expired. As a result, the disciplinary action was not valid. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 33 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 DEFICIENT CASES 10 Case No. 09-0063 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between October 2006 and November 2007, a supervising parole agent was dishonest to a DISPO INV ADV HA superior court judge and dishonest while testifying at trial regarding a discharged parolee's gang status and drug- use history. Additionally, it was alleged that at the end of November 2007, the parole agent was dishonest and withheld information from homicide detectives regarding a the discharged parolee's possible location and past activities. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of dishonesty against the supervising parole agent and she was served with a notice of dismissal. However, she retired before the dismissal took effect. A copy of the disciplinary action was filed in her official personnel file. The supervising parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board to have the disciplinary action removed from her official personnel file. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority initially sustained the allegations and served the supervising parole agent with a dismissal. However, after a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority proposed reducing the penalty and attempted to enter into a settlement agreement. The effective date of the disciplinary action was delayed to allow additional time to negotiate a settlement before the dismissal took effect. The proposed settlement agreement would have documented her misconduct as being far less egregious than it was. The bureau objected and requested executive review. The supervising parole agent retired before the disciplinary action took effect. After significant delay, the hiring authority decided not to modify the disciplinary action. Case No. 09-0064 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Beginning in May 2004, several inmates made allegations that an officer was involved in smuggling narcotics DISPO INV ADV HA into the institution. However, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence of misconduct so the allegations were not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. Later, similar allegations against the officer were received from an inmate who was considered a reliable informant. As a result, the hiring authority referred the allegations to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation in February 2006. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs closed the case before the investigation was completed because the statutory deadline for taking disciplinary action against the officer expired. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department was first made aware of the officer's potential misconduct in May 2004. The information received in 2004 included specific information regarding the officer's identity, names of inmates the officer was working with, and the officer's method for smuggling narcotics into the institution. An outside law enforcement agency opened a criminal investigation into the allegations of narcotics trafficking on October 18, 2004, and closed the investigation on April 14, 2008. The Office of Internal Affairs did not begin to investigate the case until after the criminal investigation was completed. At that time, it was determined that the statutory time period for taking disciplinary action had already expired. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 34 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0065 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that during November 2008, an officer was engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate and the inmate's mother. Evidence was obtained indicating the inmate called the officer over 300 times, during which they engaged in intimate conversations. It was also alleged the officer was dishonest about her relationship with the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned prior to the completion of the investigation. The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and placed a letter in her official personnel file indicating she resigned pending disciplinary action. Case No. 09-0066 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In November 2008, it was alleged that a laundry services superintendent was engaged in a sexual relationship DISPO INV ADV HA with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the laundry services superintendent resigned prior to the completion of the investigation; therefore, disciplinary action was not taken. A letter indicating she resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in her official personnel file. Case No. 09-0067 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 1, 2008, it was alleged that an officer was engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate when the officer was discovered with the inmate inside his locked cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0068 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 27, 2008, a dental assistant was allegedly having a sexual relationship with an inmate and smuggling DISPO INV ADV HA heroin and other contraband into the institution for the inmate's use. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which charged the dental assistant with six felony counts of unlawful sexual activity with an inmate. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0069 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 27, 2008, a dental assistant was allegedly having sexual relations with an inmate and smuggling DISPO INV ADV HA heroin and other contraband into the institution for his use. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The dental assistant was a new employee and was, therefore, on probationary status. The hiring authority ended her employment with the department. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 35 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0070 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 27, 2008, during a search of an inmate dormitory, a mobile phone was discovered that contained DISPO INV ADV HA several photographs of a female officer. Given the nature of the photographs, it was alleged that the officer was engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate. In addition, it was alleged that the officer accepted money from the inmate and was dishonest during her internal affairs interview regarding her relationship with the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of over familiarity and dishonesty and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer entered into a settlement agreement before the disciplinary action took effect. She resigned and agreed to not seek employment with the department in the future. Case No. 09-0071 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 3, 2008, it was alleged that a stationary engineer provided inmates with drugs and alcohol in DISPO INV ADV HA exchange for sexual favors. It was also alleged that the engineer engaged in illegal communications with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed two felony charges of unlawful sexual activity with an inmate against the stationary engineer. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0072 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 3, 2008, it was alleged a stationary engineer provided inmates with drugs and alcohol in exchange for DISPO INV ADV HA sexual favors. It was also alleged that the engineer engaged in illegal communications with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE Prior to the completion of the investigation, the stationary engineer resigned from the department. A letter was placed in his official personnel file indicating he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 09-0073 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 1, 2008, it was alleged that a parole agent illegally used the California Law Enforcement Teletype DISPO INV ADV HA System (CLETS) to obtain criminal history information on his ex-wife's former boyfriend. The illegal use of the CLETS system allegedly occurred on July 6, 2006. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs dropped the criminal investigation after it was determined that the time period for filing misdemeanor charges had expired. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation instead, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 36 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0074 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 1, 2008, it was alleged that an officer was conspiring with inmates to introduce mobile phones and DISPO INV ADV HA tobacco into the institution. On November 15, 2008, the officer was searched as he attempted to enter the institution and a mobile phone was found inside the officer's sock. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the officer resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action, nor did they timely contact the assigned investigator and the bureau to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation. The department's attorneys also did not coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the investigative process or attend investigative interviews for key witnesses. In addition, the department's attorneys did not provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator, timely review the draft investigative report, or provide written confirmation summarizing critical discussions concerning the investigative report and disciplinary discussions. Case No. 09-0075 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 22, 2008, a nurse attempted to enter a facility on his day off while mumbling remarks about an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. Officers observed a bulge resembling a handgun under the nurse's shirt. Officers directed the nurse to stand by, but he ignored the directive and sped off in his vehicle. The nurse drove to his residence located on department property and, as he exited his vehicle, an officer observed a handgun protruding from his waist line. A short time later, the nurse exited his residence with his hands raised. A shotgun, handgun, and multiple rounds of ammunition were found inside the residence. The nurse was arrested and taken into custody by outside law enforcement. During the investigation of the incident, the nurse was allegedly dishonest and inappropriately contacted a witness. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the nurse with a notice of dismissal. The nurse filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0076 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 21, 2008, during contact with local law enforcement, a lieutenant revealed that she provided DISPO INV ADV HA marijuana to her ten-year-old son for a medical condition. Both the lieutenant and her son possessed medical marijuana cards, though the lieutenant denied ever using marijuana herself. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and served the lieutenant with a notice of dismissal. However, the lieutenant resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the lieutentant resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in her official personnel file. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 37 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0077 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 19, 2008, a correctional counselor allegedly embezzled funds from a private organization. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the correctional counselor with a notice of dismissal. However, she resigned before the dismissal took effect. A memorandum indicating the correctional counselor resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in her official personnel file. Case No. 09-0078 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 16, 2008, a correctional counselor allegedly conspired with an inmate to have her husband DISPO INV ADV HA murdered. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0079 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 9, 2008, it was alleged that a cook specialist had been involved in an ongoing sexual relationship DISPO INV ADV HA with a parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed; therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0080 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 9, 2008, it was alleged that a cook specialist had been involved in an ongoing sexual relationship DISPO INV ADV HA with a parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and decided to dismiss the cook specialist. However, the cook specialist resigned during the course of the investigation. A letter indicating she resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in her official personnel file. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for imposing discipline, nor did they timely contact the assigned investigator and the bureau to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation. The department's attorneys also did not adequately coordinate with the bureau during the investigation process, nor did they provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator. Case No. 09-0081 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 29, 2008, it was alleged that an office technician embezzled thousands of dollars worth of laptop DISPO INV ADV HA computers, software, mobile phones, and other equipment from the department. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed charges against the office techncian. The office technician pled no contest to grand theft from an employer as a misdemeanor. He was placed on probation and ordered to serve 60 days of work furlough. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative case, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 38 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0082 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 28, 2008, it was alleged that an officer was an active member of an organization that was engaged in DISPO INV ADV HA unlawful activity. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation was closed shortly after it was opened due to insufficient evidence that the organization or the officer was engaged in unlawful activity. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the investigative process, nor did they attend investigative interviews for key witnesses. The department's attorneys also did not provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator for the duration of the investigation. Case No. 09-0083 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 18, 2008, a parole agent allegedly slashed the tires of his neighbor's car. Later that day, the parole DISPO INV ADV HA agent allegedly called the neighbor at work, told him he had slashed the tires, and threatened to damage the neighbor's home the next time he upset the parole agent. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the parole agent and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for three months. The parole agent did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0084 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 15, 2008, it was alleged that two officers falsified documents when they filled out a tracking sheet in DISPO INV ADV HA advance indicating they had checked on the welfare of inmates at a future time, and then failed to conduct the welfare checks as documented. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined the officers did not make correct entries on the tracking form, but that there was evidence to suggest the inmate welfare checks occurred, just not at the exact times recorded on the tracking form. Both officers received letters of instruction. Case No. 09-0085 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 12, 2008, an officer and an associate warden allegedly had an angry exchange in the presence of DISPO INV ADV HA inmates and other staff. The officer was alleged to have been insubordinate and the associate warden was allegedly discourteous and unprofessional. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against both the officer and the associate warden. The officer was issued a letter of instruction. The associate warden retired before disciplinary action could be imposed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 39 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0086 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 11, 2008, it was alleged a custodian was bringing tobacco and marijuana into the institution and DISPO INV ADV HA soliciting bribes from inmates for these items. When the investigative services unit contacted the custodian, he was in possession of tobacco and had marijuana in his vehicle. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution and a criminal complaint was filed. The custodian resigned; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for an administrative investigation. Case No. 09-0087 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 6, 2008, an special agent allegedly misused her state-issued computer while on duty to forward an DISPO INV ADV HA email to departmental employees containing an attachment that disparaged a high-ranking state official and employee policies. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The special agent received an official letter of reprimand for the misconduct. Case No. 09-0088 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 6, 2008, it was alleged that a case records technician had removed approximately 200 confidential DISPO INV ADV HA documents from an institution and hid them in a bedroom she shared with her boyfriend. Many of the documents were given to the case records technician for filing in inmates' central files as part of her regular duties. It was also alleged that she was untruthful during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The case records technician was working in a limited term position; therefore, the hiring authority terminated her limited term position for cause. Case No. 09-0089 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 4, 2008, it was alleged a teacher fondled the breast of an office technician and licked and kissed her DISPO INV ADV HA earlobe. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which declined to file criminal charges. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 40 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0090 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In August 2008, it was alleged that an office technician purchased cocaine from a private citizen. It was further DISPO INV ADV HA alleged that he used the cocaine the night before he reported to work. It was alleged that a warden at another institution, who was the office technician's spouse, became aware of the cocaine purchase and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the office technician and the warden. The office technician resigned before discipline was imposed and the warden received an admonishment. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for imposing discipline, nor did they timely contact the assigned investigator and the bureau to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation. The department's attorneys also did not coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the investigative process or attend investigative interviews for key witnesses. The department's attorneys also did not provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator, timely review the draft investigative report, or provide written confirmation summarizing the critical discussions concerning the investigative report. In addition, the department's attorneys did not provide the hiring authority and the bureau confirmation of disciplinary discussions. Case No. 09-0091 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 28, 2008, it was alleged that an unidentified non-custody staff member was having sexual relations with DISPO INV ADV HA an inmate and was providing the inmate with tobacco. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office, and the Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative investigation. Case No. 09-0092 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 28, 2008, it was alleged that a psychiatric technician was bringing tobacco into the institution for an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. It was further alleged that he was dishonest during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the psychiatric technician; however, he resigned prior to completion of the investigation. The investigative report will be maintained in the psychiatric technician's official personnel file. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the investigative process, nor did they attend investigative interviews for key witnesses. The department's attorneys also did not provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator for the duration of the investigation or timely review the draft investigative report. In addition, the department's attorneys did not provide written confirmation summarizing the critical discussions concerning the investigative report. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 41 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0093 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 28, 2008, the department received information that a librarian was allegedly engaged in an overly DISPO INV ADV HA familiar relationship with several inmates and was providing them with tobacco, mobile phones, and drugs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The librarian resigned immediately after being interviewed by the Office of Internal Affairs. The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. A letter indicating the librarian resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in her official personnel file. Case No. 09-0094 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 28, 2008, it was alleged that a staff services manager was dishonest when she denied being related to her DISPO INV ADV HA supervisor. It was further alleged that on two separate occasions, she discussed an on-going internal affairs investigation with co-workers after she was given a direct order not to discuss the matter. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the staff services manager with a notice of dismissal; however, she retired before the dismissal took effect. A letter indicating the staff services manager retired pending disciplinary action was placed in her official personnel file. Case No. 09-0095 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 25, 2008, it was alleged an officer was engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE After consultation with the district attorney's office, it was determined that probable cause to believe a crime had been committed had not been established. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0096 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 22, 2008, an officer allegedly confronted an inmate after the inmate refused a lawful order and then DISPO INV ADV HA escorted the inmate out of the dining hall to a holding cell. It was alleged that the officer used unnecessary force while escorting the inmate when he pushed the inmate down onto the ground. It was also alleged that the officer made misleading statements in his official report of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustained the allegations. However, the hiring authority issued the officer a letter of instruction for escorting the inmate after having had a confrontation with him, which is not proper escort procedure. Case No. 09-0097 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 22, 2008, an officer allegedly fell asleep on duty while armed and at a time when she was supposed to be DISPO INV ADV HA guarding an inmate who was receiving treatment at an outside hospital. In addition, the officer allegedly attempted to intimidate a witness and was dishonest during her investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating she resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in her official personnel file. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 42 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0098 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 18, 2008, it was alleged that a parolee was living at an officer's residence. Outside law enforcement went DISPO INV ADV HA to the officer's residence and the officer allegedly lied to them when questioned about the parolee. The officer also allegedly lied during an internal affairs interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0099 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 17, 2008, it was alleged that a youth correctional officer smuggled cocaine into the institution and gave it DISPO INV ADV HA to a ward. It was further alleged that the officer allowed another ward to use a mobile phone for cocaine purchases. A search of the officer's person and personal vehicle did not uncover any drugs; although the officer was in possession of two mobile phones and two knives. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0100 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 15, 2008, an officer allegedly called an inmate a child molester in front of another inmate, as well as DISPO INV ADV HA revealed to other inmates that the inmate was in prison for child molestation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0101 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 14, 2008, it was alleged that an officer accepted money from an inmate's wife in exchange for delivering DISPO INV ADV HA mobile phones to the inmate inside the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative investigation. Case No. 09-0102 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 14, 2008, it was alleged that an officer accepted money from an inmate's wife in exchange for delivering DISPO INV ADV HA mobile phones to the inmate inside the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative investigation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 43 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0103 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 2, 2008, a court issued a restraning order against an officer after he allegedly threatened a private citizen. DISPO INV ADV HA The court also prohibited the officer from possessing a firearm. The officer failed to inform the institution of the firearms restriction, which prevented him from meeting the conditions of his employment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer. In conjunction with another case in which it was alleged that the officer engaged in lewd acts with a minor, the hiring authority dismissed the officer. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0104 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that from July 2008 until September 1, 2008, a correctional supervising cook was overly familiar DISPO INV ADV HA with an inmate and conspired with the inmate to bring illegal narcotics and other contraband into the institution. On September 1, 2008, a search of the correctional supervising cook's vehicle in the institution parking lot uncovered marijuana residue and an open bottle of alcohol. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was identified and the case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0105 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In July 2008, it was alleged an officer engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. Case No. 09-0106 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that from July 2008 until September 1, 2008, a correctional supervising cook was overly familiar DISPO INV ADV HA with an inmate and conspired with the inmate to bring illegal narcotics and other contraband into the institution. On September 1, 2008, a search of the correctional supervising cook's vehicle in the institution parking lot uncovered marijuana residue and an open bottle of alcohol. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the correctional supervising cook with a notice of dismissal. However, she resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 44 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0107 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 28, 2008, an officer was arrested for domestic violence and child abuse that occurred in another state. DISPO INV ADV HA Specifically, the officer was involved in a physical altercation with his wife during which their child was slightly injured when the child tried to intervene and separate them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the domestic violence and child abuse allegations against the officer. However, the hiring authority determined that the officer did not exhibit good behavior and brought discredit to the department. The officer received corrective action from his supervisor regarding the expectations of peace officers on and off duty. Case No. 09-0108 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 27, 2008, an inmate alleged that an officer was introducing tobacco, mobile phones, and narcotics into DISPO INV ADV HA the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. Case No. 09-0109 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 26, 2008, it was alleged a sergeant purposefully bumped and pushed his shoulders into a group of DISPO INV ADV HA inmates during the evening meal release. The sergeant allegedly indicated that he knew the inmates and therefore his conduct was "cool." The sergeant reported his conduct to a supervisor the next morning. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The case was consolidated with two other discipline cases against the sergeant and the hiring authority imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months for all three cases. Following the Skelly hearing, a settlement was reached in which the hiring authority reduced the penalty to 5 percent salary reduction for 6 months and the sergeant agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board in exchange for retention of post and bid privileges. Case No. 09-0110 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 26, 2008, an inmate alleged an officer jerked her arms while handcuffed, attempted to dislocate her DISPO INV ADV HA shoulder, pulled her by the hair, and attempted to spray her in the face with pepper spray. It was further alleged the officer and a second officer failed to report the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0111 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 25, 2008, a search of a youth correctional officer's residence resulted in the seizure of 5.7 grams of DISPO INV ADV HA methamphetamine and pay and owe sheets. The youth correctional officer later admitted to being a drug dealer. It was further alleged that on July 25, 2006, the youth correctional officer admitted to local law enforcement that he had committed workers' compensation fraud in 2001 and had been selling illegal narcotics. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the youth correctional officer with a notice of dismissal. The youth correctional officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 45 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0112 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 22, 2008, an officer was arrested for allegedly driving under the influence. In addition, it was alleged that DISPO INV ADV HA the officer was dishonest to law enforcement when he claimed his son had been driving the vehicle. In the subsequent criminal proceedings, the officer pled guilty to driving under the influence. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found that the officer did not exhibit good behavior and brought discredit to the department for driving under the influence. The hiring authority did not sustain the dishonesty allegation. Before disciplinary action could be taken, however, the officer was separated from state service for being absent without authorization for several consecutive days. A letter indicating he was separated from service while disciplinary action was pending was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0113 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 22, 2008, an inmate alleged that an officer grabbed him and threw him onto a bench in the shower while DISPO INV ADV HA a sergeant was present. It was alleged that the officer used unnecessary force and that both the officer and sergeant failed to report the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer and the sergeant. Case No. 09-0114 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 20, 2008, a local narcotics task force team served a search warrant on a youth correctional officer's DISPO INV ADV HA residence and found a bag of marijuana weighing 3.1 grams and numerous marijuana seeds in tin foil. An unsecured hand gun was also found. It was also alleged that the youth correctional officer was dishonest in his statements to outside law enforcement officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the youth correctional officer with a notice of dismissal. The youth correctional officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0115 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 17, 2008, an inmate cut a metal window screen and several window bars, escaped from the cell, and DISPO INV ADV HA travelled throughout the institution for several hours until staff observed him near a carpentry shop where he had stolen tools. Prior to the inmate's escape, it was alleged that two officers did not conduct screen and bar checks, although they signed a log book representing the checks had been conducted. It was further alleged that a third officer failed to conduct inmate counts during the time the inmate was missing. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations against one officer for failing to conduct the checks and for being documenting that they had been completed. He received a 48 working-day suspension. The hiring authority determined that the second officer was new to the unit and that he did not sign his name indicating that the checks were completed. In addition, the hiring authority determined that a sergeant diverted the second officer to another task before he could complete the checks. However, the second officer received a letter of reprimand for not telling a supervisor that the checks were not completed. The hiring authority also sustained the allegation against the third officer and imposed a 60 working-day suspension without pay. The officers did not file appeals with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 46 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0116 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 16, 2008, several officers were allegedly made aware that an inmate in an administrative segregation unit DISPO INV ADV HA was experiencing a medical problem and that he and his cellmate were potentially experiencing a conflict. However, the officers allegedly failed to address the situation. Later, the inmate was battered by his cellmate, resulting in the inmate sustaining a head injury and being airlifted to a hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation that the officers neglected their duties. However, the officers received instruction in completing forms relating to the activity of inmates in administrative segregation units. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau regarding the sufficiency of the investigation. The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau regarding allegations and findings prior to making a final decision. The hiring authority also did not consult with the bureau regarding disciplinary action prior to making a final decision, nor did the hiring authority inform the bureau of significant developments throughout the case. Case No. 09-0117 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 15, 2008, a sergeant allegedly approached an inmate, grabbed the inmate's hand and brought it in contact DISPO INV ADV HA with the sergeant's chest. Subsequently, the sergeant allegedly indicated, "I got assaulted, can I go home?" The sergeant's actions allegedly aggravated a previous shoulder injury suffered by the inmate. The sergeant fully documented his actions in a report. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The case was consolidated with two other discipline cases against the sergeant and the hiring authority imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months for all three cases. Following the Skelly hearing, a settlement was reached in which the hiring authority reduced the penalty to 5 percent salary reduction for 6 months and the sergeant agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board in exchange for retention of post and bid privileges. Case No. 09-0118 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 11, 2008, it was alleged an office supervisor was involved in an overly familiar relationship with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate by having sex with the inmate, giving him contraband consisting of tobacco and a mobile phone, and having contact with the inmate's family members outside the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution and a criminal complaint was filed. The office supervisor resigned; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for an administrative investigation. Case No. 09-0119 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 10, 2008, an officer was arrested by local law enforcement for battery on a peace officer, resisting arrest, DISPO INV ADV HA false imprisonment, and domestic violence. The officer notified the institution of his arrest. The officer pled guilty to disturbing the peace. DISPOSITION OF CASE Based on the law enforcement reports from the incident, the hiring authority determined that the officer committed a battery, was discourteous to local law enforcement, did not exhibit good behavior, and brought discredit to the department. The hiring authority imposed a 22 working-day suspension on the officer, who filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 47 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0120 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 10, 2008, it was alleged that an officer engaged in overly familiar conduct with an inmate by arranging DISPO INV ADV HA to pay the inmate for a tattoo design and allowing him to use his mobile phone. The officer was also found in possession of contraband items such as a lighter, a Leatherman, and a Sony Playstation. The officer admitted that he intended to provide the lighter to an inmate. The officer also allegedly sold tobacco to inmates on a prior occasion. Additionally, it was alleged that the officer was dishonest during his investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and the officer was served with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter was placed in the officer's official personnel file indicating he resigned pending disciplinary action. Case No. 09-0121 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 6, 2008, it was alleged that an officer provided tobacco and mobile phones to an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the investigative process. The department's attorneys also did not attend investigative interviews for key witnesses or provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator for the duration of the investigation. In addition, the department's attorneys did not provide written confirmation summarizing the critical discussions concerning the investigative report as required. Case No. 09-0122 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 6, 2008, it was alleged that a program director used racial slurs and made extremely offensive and DISPO INV ADV HA disparaging remarks to his staff. It was also alleged that he violated the department's nepotism policy when he hired a close family friend and a relative as subordinate employees. He also allegedly circumvented the competitive hiring process when hiring another employee and he was allegedly dishonest during his investigatory interviews. In addition, it was alleged that he inappropriately obtained and used an undercover state law enforcement vehicle, inappropriately rejected an employee during a probationary employment period, and allowed staff to claim mileage reimbursement for their commutes to work. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all allegations except the allegations that he inappropriately rejected a probationary employee and that he allowed employees to claim mileage reimbursement for commuting to work. The hiring authority served the program director with a notice of dismissal, and he filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action, nor did they timely contact the assigned investigator and the bureau to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation. The department's attorneys also did not coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture, attend investigative interviews for key witnesses, or provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator for the duration of the investigation. In addition, the department's attorneys did not timely review the draft investigative report, provide written confirmation summarizing the critical discussions concerning it, or provide the hiring authority and the bureau confirmation of disciplinary discussions as required. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 48 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0123 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 4, 2008, an inmate alleged that a sergeant engaged in sexual acts with her and gave her tobacco and other DISPO INV ADV HA contraband items. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0124 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE During June and July 2008, a psychiatric technician allegedly introduced drugs and tobacco into the institution. DISPO INV ADV HA On February 28, 2009, the psychiatric technician was found entering the institution with tobacco and admitted to providing tobacco to inmates. A small amount of marijuana was also found at his residence. DISPOSITION OF CASE After consultation with the district attorney's office, the case was not referred for prosecution. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0125 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on May 28, 2008, an officer was arrested for an act of domestic violence. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0126 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 25, 2008, a lieutenant allegedly used unreasonable force against an inmate and failed to report the use of DISPO INV ADV HA force. A medical report generated after the inmate's contact with the lieutenant documented that the inmate had "active bleeding" from both ears and the inmate reported he had been "roughed up" by a "cop." In addition, a sergeant allegedly witnessed the force used by the lieutenant and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the lieutenant and the sergeant. Case No. 09-0127 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 23, 2008, an officer allegedly used profanity when addressing his watch commander because he was not DISPO INV ADV HA consulted about bed moves for two inmates. It was also alleged the officer conducted a retaliatory search of the inmate's locker; removed a radio and other property from the locker without leaving a receipt as required; then threw the property on the ground during a confrontation with the inmate a short time later. In addition, it was alleged the officer was dishonest during his investigatory interview when he claimed that he had received approval from the watch commander to search the inmate's locker and that the box containing the inmate's property accidently slipped from his grasp. A lieutenant also allegedly failed to properly supervise the officer when he was advised by the watch commander about the officer's actions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer and served him with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the lieutenant. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 49 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0128 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2008, a parole agent allegedly entered the residence of a private citizen without permission while DISPO INV ADV HA attempting to locate a parolee-at-large who was wanted in connection with a home invasion robbery. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0129 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 21, 2008, a sergeant allegedly jumped onto the back of an inmate who was compliant and lying face DISPO INV ADV HA down on the ground. The sergeant allegedly landed on his knees, breaking the inmate's ribs and causing significant back injuries, which required multiple surgeries. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The Office of Internal Affairs submitted the case to the district attorney's office, which filed charges against the sergeant. An administrative investigation was also opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0130 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 16, 2008, it was alleged that an industrial supervisor was engaging in sexual misconduct with an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA and bringing contraband into the institution, including mobile phones. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0131 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 7, 2008, a lieutenant and two officers allegedly failed to timely account for a putty knife that had been DISPO INV ADV HA used by an inmate. In addition, it was alleged the lieutenant and one of the officers intentionally misled their captain regarding the lost putty knife. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of neglect of duty against the lieutenant and issued a letter of reprimand. The lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the other allegations against the lieutenant and officers. Case No. 09-0132 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 7, 2008, an officer allegedly twisted an inmate's arm and choked him while the inmate was confined to a DISPO INV ADV HA wheelchair. The officer allegedly did not initially report the incident to his supervisor. It was further alleged that the officer was dishonest in his internal affairs interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the dismissal took effect. A letter indicating the officer resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 50 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0133 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 4, 2008, an officer allegedly gave an inmate a pair of scissors to cut off his soiled pants and was DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly dishonest in his report about the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, a letter of instruction was issued to the officer for failing to properly secure the scissors, as required. Case No. 09-0134 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 3, 2008, a sergeant allegedly used pepper spray against an inmate who was a mental health patient in a DISPO INV ADV HA manner not authorized by departmental policy. Specifically, the sergeant used emergency force protocols when departmental policy and training required him to use calculated use of force protocols. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The officer filed an appeal with State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0135 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 1, 2008, a parole agent allegedly solicited a prostitute while driving his state vehicle. The agent also DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly failed to maintain his vehicle mileage log. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the parole agent solicited a prostitute. However, the hiring authority sustained the allegation that he failed to properly maintain his mileage log. The parole agent received a letter of reprimand, which he did not appeal to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0136 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 30, 2008, an inmate worker alleged that a cook shoved him forcefully into a wall. It was also alleged DISPO INV ADV HA that an officer witnessed the incident and failed to report it. Later, the inmate worker alleged two sergeants and a lieutenant dissuaded him from reporting the misconduct in exchange for keeping his job in the kitchen. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, the hiring authority issued a letter of instruction to both the cook and the officer for being discourteous to the inmate. Case No. 09-0137 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 28, 2008, an officer allegedly committed a sexual battery on an inmate by fondling his buttocks while DISPO INV ADV HA he was on a gurney in the institution's treatment center. The inmate also alleged that officer attempted to have the inmate orally copulate him. Two other officers were allegedly present during the incident and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. In addition, the evidence did not support the inmate's allegations of staff misconduct. Therefore, the Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative investigation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 51 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0138 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 28, 2008, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force against an inmate when he pushed him. The DISPO INV ADV HA officer also allegedly failed to report his use of force, as did a second officer who allegedly witnessed the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined the force used was not unreasonable. However, the hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officers failed to report the use of force. The officer who used force received a six working- day suspension. Following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority reduced the penalty to a four working-day suspension and the officer agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The second officer received a four working-day suspension, which he appealed to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0139 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 27, 2008, the institution's investigative services unit received pictures of an officer making what DISPO INV ADV HA appeared to be gang signs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to establish that the signs depicted were gang related. The allegation was not sustained. Case No. 09-0140 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 25, 2008, a sergeant allegedly grabbed the right arm of an officer, saying, "You're not going to get out DISPO INV ADV HA of work that easy." Additionally, the same sergeant allegedly sent anonymous letters to a female staff member expressing his desire to start a personal relationship with her. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined the sergeant was discourteous. However, the sergeant retired before disciplinary action could be imposed, and a letter was placed in his official personnel file indicating he retired pending disciplinary action. Case No. 09-0141 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 24, 2008, it was alleged that a vocational plumbing instructor was smuggling tobacco and illegal drugs DISPO INV ADV HA into a plumbing class at the institution for sale and personal use. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the vocational plumbing instructor with a notice of dismissal. Case No. 09-0142 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 19, 2008, a lieutenant allegedly provided a suicidal inmate with a razor. The inmate then used the razor DISPO INV ADV HA to cut himself. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 18 months. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 52 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0143 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 17, 2008, a parole agent used excessive force by punching and hitting a parolee and DISPO INV ADV HA made a dishonest statement to his supervisor about the circumstances surrounding the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action, nor did they coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the investigative process. The department's attorneys also did not attend investigative interviews for key witnesses or provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator for the duration of the investigation. In addition, the department's attorneys did not provide written confirmation summarizing the critical discussions concerning the investigative report, as required. Case No. 09-0144 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 16, 2008, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force when he forced a resistive inmate to the ground. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Case No. 09-0145 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 15, 2008, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force in responding to an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA fight when he used pepper spray against the inmates who were fighting as well as other inmates who were not fighting. In addition, the officer allegedly used vulgar language when addressing the inmates. The officer then allegedly failed to accurately describe the incident in his report. Another officer assigned to the building allegedly witnessed the incident and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers. Case No. 09-0146 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 12, 2008, a parole agent was arrested for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol. The parole DISPO INV ADV HA agent, who was off duty at the time, was driving a state vehicle and collided with a cement wall after veering off the roadway. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the agent received a 5 percent salary reduction for 20 months. Case No. 09-0147 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 11, 2008, an officer allegedly committed several acts of spousal abuse, for which he was subsequently DISPO INV ADV HA arrested by local law enforcement. DISPOSITION OF CASE Although criminal charges were dismissed by the district attorney's office, the hiring authority determined the officer did not exhibit good behavior and brought discredit to the department. The officer received a letter of reprimand. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 53 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0148 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 10, 2008, an officer allegedly used excessive force on an inmate by slamming him against a wall. It was DISPO INV ADV HA further alleged that on April 25, 2008, the officer again used excessive force on an inmate by pushing him against a cell wall and punching him. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0149 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 9, 2008, without other officers being present, a control booth officer opened the cell door of two gang- DISPO INV ADV HA affiliated inmates. Meanwhile, another inmate belonging to a different gang who was returning from a shower entered the open cell and attacked the two inmates. It was alleged that the officer failed to follow department procedures by opening a cell door without another officer being present, and the failure resulted in other officers having to use force to stop the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the officer and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0150 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 8, 2008, an officer allegedly threatened and intimidated another officer by calling her a "rata" ("rat" in DISPO INV ADV HA Spanish). DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation. However, the officer resigned prior to the completion of the investigation. A letter indicating the officer resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0151 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 7, 2008, an officer at a correctional fire camp allegedly allowed an inmate to pay for the shipment of DISPO INV ADV HA packages for two other inmates and allowed an inmate to mail a package for another inmate. It was further alleged that the officer failed to report his knowledge that another officer had connected his personal laptop to the camp's internet system while on-duty. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of allowing an inmate to pay for the shipment of packages for other inmates and allowing an inmate to mail a package for another inmate. The officer received corrective action in the form of training. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 54 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0152 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 4, 2008, a cook attempted to smuggle marijuana and other contraband into an DISPO INV ADV HA institution. Upon his arrival at the institution, the cook was contacted by the Office of Internal Affairs and his vehicle and personal belongings were searched. Marijuana, tobacco, and other contraband food items were found in his possession. A search of his home was also conducted, and additional tobacco, mobile phones, and marijuana were located. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which filed felony charges. An administrative investigation was also opened by the Office of Internal Affairs, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0153 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 4, 2008, a cook attempted to smuggle marijuana and other contraband into an DISPO INV ADV HA institution. Upon his arrival at the institution, the cook was contacted by the Office of Internal Affairs and his vehicle and personal belongings were searched. Marijuana, tobacco, and other contraband food items were found in his possession. A search of his home was also conducted and additional tobacco, mobile phones, and marijuana were located. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, the cook resigned prior to being served with a notice of dismissal. Case No. 09-0154 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 4, 2008, an officer allegedly transported tobacco, cocaine, and marijuana into a youth facility for use by DISPO INV ADV HA wards. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the officer resigned pending disciplinary action was place in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0155 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 3, 2008, an officer allegedly lied in an internal affairs interview during an investigation into whether a DISPO INV ADV HA sergeant intimidated witnesses and harassed other employees. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 55 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0156 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 3, 2008, a physician allegedly scheduled a medical appointment for an inmate, at an outside facility, in DISPO INV ADV HA the inmate's presence so the inmate was aware of when he could be expected to be transported out of the institution, creating a security risk. The inmate then passed the details of the appointment, including the uniforms of the escort officers, to his father over the phone with instructions to "bring some muscle." Subsequently, the physician allegedly gave similar information to another inmate about that inmate's appointment at an outside medical appointment and then permitted that inmate to return to his housing unit before the inmate was transported to the appointment, creating a security risk. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the physician and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 3 months. He did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0157 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 31, 2008, an officer was arrested for possession of an illegal assault weapon. Additionally, the officer DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly threatened his girlfriend and made reference to being affiliated with a criminal street gang. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer threatened his girlfriend and initially imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. However, after a Skelly hearing, a settlement agreement was reached modifying the penalty to a 5 percent salary reduction for 24 months. Case No. 09-0158 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 29, 2008, an officer allegedly grabbed an inmate from behind and slammed him to the ground, causing DISPO INV ADV HA a cut to the inmate's chin and chipping his teeth. While the inmate was on the ground, the officer allegedly kicked the inmate and kneed him in the ribs. The officer reported his use of force to another officer, who failed to report it. Another inmate told a third officer about the incident, which he failed to report. A control booth officer allegedly failed to observe and report the incident. The inmate reported the allegations to a lieutenant who allegedly gave the inmate the option of returning to his cell or being placed in administrative segregation if he persisted in making a complaint. The lieutenant also allegedly falsified his time sheet. A senior psychiatric technician allegedly falsified a medical report regarding the inmate's injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority initially sustained the allegations against the lieutenant and all the officers. The officer who used force was dismissed. The lieutenant was demoted to officer. The officer who learned of the use of force and failed to report it received a 60 working-day suspension. The officer who learned of the use of force from an inmate and failed to report it received a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months. The control booth officer initially received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months; however, her penalty was withdrawn after a Skelly hearing. The senior psychiatric technician received a demotion to a psychiatric technician and a 5 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The lieutenant and officers each filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 56 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0159 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 27, 2008, it was alleged an associate warden falsely claimed he counseled subordinate staff about their DISPO INV ADV HA spreading rumors of a sexual nature concerning another staff member. It was also alleged the associate warden was less than truthful in his investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, the associate warden retired before disciplinary action could be taken. A letter indicating the associate warden retired under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0160 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 26, 2008, a youth counselor allegedly made comments of a sadistic nature to wards and derogatory DISPO INV ADV HA comments of a sexual nature to a female staff member. It was further alleged that on that same date the counselor inappropriately stared at wards who were taking showers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0161 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on March 25, 2008 and in April 2008, an officer provided inmates with heroin and tobacco in DISPO INV ADV HA exchange for cash. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative investigation. Case No. 09-0162 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 25, 2008, an inmate notified the investigative services unit that he and an officer were selling heroin at DISPO INV ADV HA an institution. In addition, on January 28, 2009, special agents from the Office of Internal Affairs approached the officer in the institution parking lot in an attempt to interview him as part of the investigation. The special agents discovered that the officer had an unauthorized firearm in his vehicle. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe the officer was trafficking narcotics. There was probable cause to believe the officer unlawfully possessed a firearm on institutional grounds. However, the special agents did not seize or photograph the firearm as evidence. The Office of Internal Affairs did not refer the case to the district attorney's office for prosecution. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 57 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0163 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 22, 2008, a sergeant allegedly pulled an inmate out of line and used verbal taunts and force on the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate in an apparent attempt to provoke a response. The sergeant allegedly poked his finger into the chest of the inmate, kicked his foot, and called him derogatory names. It was also alleged that the sergeant was dishonest during his internal affairs interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of discourteous treatment and neglect of duty, but determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of unreasonable use of force and dishonesty. The case was consolidated with two other discipline cases against the sergeant and the hiring authority imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months for all three cases. Following a Skelly hearing, a settlement was reached in which the hiring authority reduced the penalty to 5 percent salary reduction for 6 months, and the sergeant agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board in exchange for retaining his post and bid privileges. Case No. 09-0164 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 20, 2008, a parole agent called outside law enforcement about a vehicle he had been following on a DISPO INV ADV HA highway and then pulled up behind the vehicle when it pulled over to the side of the highway. He then allegedly detained the citizen, took her keys, grabbed onto his weapon, and grabbed the citizen's arm. The agent was also allegedly dishonest with the law enforcement officers that responded to the scene. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the parole agent inappropriately stopped the citizen and was discourteous to her, and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0165 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 19, 2008, it was alleged that an officer witnessed another officer's use force on an inmate. However, DISPO INV ADV HA the officer failed to report the use of force and lied to his superior officers when he said that he did not see the incident. After being ordered to write a report, the officer wrote a very detailed account of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. Case No. 09-0166 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 15, 2008, while visiting a parolee's mother, an officer and the parolee allegedly confronted each other, DISPO INV ADV HA and the parolee struck the officer three times in the face. It was further alleged that prior to this incident, the officer was engaged in a personal relationship with the parolee's mother and failed to notify the hiring authority of his relationship with both the parolee's mother and the parolee. In addition, it was alleged that the officer was dishonest during the Office of Internal Affairs' investigation into the matter. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 58 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0167 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 14, 2008, an unknown staff member allegedly placed an inmate from one racial group in a cell with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate from a different racial group without a proper review of the inmates' files and without proper supervisory approval. Later that day, one inmate killed the other inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The staff member responsible for housing the inmates together was identified during the investigation. However, the hiring authority determined there was no evidence of misconduct and exonerated the staff member. Case No. 09-0168 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 7, 2008, a sergeant allegedly slammed handcuffs on the wrists of an inmate, tightened them as tight as DISPO INV ADV HA they would go, and applied unnecessary pressure on the inmate's head, even though the inmate was on the ground and compliant with the orders being given. The sergeant then allegedly jerked the inmate to his feet. It was further alleged that the sergeant was dishonest in his reporting of the incident. Two other officers allegedly witnessed the event and failed to document the sergeant's actions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the sergeant with a notice of dismissal. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority also sustained the allegations against the two officers. They both received corrective action in the form of letters of instruction. Case No. 09-0169 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 5, 2008, a correctional counselor allegedly sexually harassed and was discourteous to an officer. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the correctional counselor and served him with a notice of dismissal. The correctional counselor filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. This case was consolidated with two other cases pending against the officer in front of the State Personnel Board. The officer and the department stipulated to allow the officer to retire in lieu of disciplinary action, and the officer agreed to never seek employment with the department in the future. Case No. 09-0170 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 1, 2008, a sergeant was allegedly notified that an inmate sexually harassed another inmate by offering DISPO INV ADV HA him drugs in exchange for sex. The sergeant allegedly failed to properly document the information and take appropriate action as required by the Prison Rape Elimination Act. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations, but did order additional training regarding Prison Rape Elimination Act procedures. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 59 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0171 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 28, 2008, it was alleged that a parole administrator, two district administrators, and a unit supervisor DISPO INV ADV HA received information that high-risk sex offender parolees were being housed at a motel that was located too close to a park, in violation of Jessica's Law. A parole agent allegedly discovered that the motel was too close to a park and sent this information to his supervisors in an email. It was also alleged that the supervisors did not share this information with the parole agents who were responsible for the parolees being housed in the motel. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action, nor did they timely contact the assigned investigator and the bureau to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation. The department's attorneys also did not coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the investigative process, attend investigative interviews for key witnesses, or provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator for the duration of the investigation. In addition, the department's attorneys did not timely review the draft investigative report and provide feedback, provide written confirmation summarizing the critical discussions concerning the investigative report, or provide the hiring authority and the bureau confirmation of disciplinary discussions. Case No. 09-0172 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 28, 2008, it was alleged that a parole agent was allowing a parolee to live in his residence. It was DISPO INV ADV HA also alleged the parole agent falsified records of supervision concerning where the parolee was living. During the course of the investigation, it was learned local law enforcement pulled the parole agent over in his private vehicle and found three parolees in the car with him. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the agent with a notice of dismissal. However, the parole agent retired before the disciplinary action took effect. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not attend investigative interviews for key witnesses, nor did they provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator for the duration of the investigation. The department's attorneys also did not timely review the draft investigative report and provide feedback or provide written confirmation summarizing the critical discussions concerning it. In addition, the department's attorneys did not provide legal consultation to the hiring authority regarding the determination of the allegations and findings. Case No. 09-0173 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 27, 2008, an inmate told a licensed vocational nurse that another inmate sexually harassed him by DISPO INV ADV HA offering him drugs in exchange for sex. The licensed vocational nurse told an officer about the complaint, and the officer reported it to a sergeant. The sergeant then allegedly failed to properly document the information and take appropriate action as required by the Prison Rape Elimination Act. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations, but did order additional training regarding Prison Rape Elimination Act procedures. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 60 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0174 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 27, 2007, it was alleged that an inmate used the back of his head to strike an officer on the forehead DISPO INV ADV HA during a clothed body search. During the ensuing struggle, the inmate allegedly struck his face on the cement sidewalk when they both fell to the ground. The officer also allegedly struck the inmate in the face with his open hand because the inmate was attempting to bite the officers other hand that was pinned under the inmate. It was further alleged that the officer failed to report the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action, nor did they timely contact the assigned investigator and the bureau to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation. The department's attorneys also did not coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the investigative process or attend investigative interviews for key witnesses. In addition, the department's attorneys did not provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator, review the draft investigative report and provide timely feedback, or provide written confirmation summarizing the critical discussions concerning the investigative report as required. Case No. 09-0175 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 26, 2008, an officer allegedly switched a urine sample for an inmate and waited approximately two DISPO INV ADV HA years to report a policy violation that may have resulted in an inmate's escape. It was further alleged that on June 6, 2008, the officer approved two trust withdrawals from an inmate's account, which allowed the inmate to ship two packages for another inmate. Additionally, it was alleged that the officer provided inmates personal food items and a music, as well as allowed them to use a staff phone. Moreover, it was alleged that on May 1, 2008, the officer made false statements in two documents he authored accusing another officer of misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of providing items to inmates, allowing inmates to use the staff phone, allowing an inmate to pay for the shipment of packages for another inmate, and making intentionally misleading statements to a supervisor. The officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months, and he filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0176 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 26, 2008, an officer allegedly slapped another officer on his hand three times while assisting in the DISPO INV ADV HA removal of handcuffs from an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0177 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 25, 2008, a youth counselor allegedly failed to comply with an order to stay away from a ward's cell DISPO INV ADV HA resulting in the ward kicking his cell door. The youth counselor then allegedly used pepper spray on the ward. It was further alleged that the youth counselor's use of pepper spray was unreasonable. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 18 months against the youth counselor. The youth counselor filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 61 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0178 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 25, 2008, an inmate alleged that an officer used excessive force by pulling the inmate to his feet and DISPO INV ADV HA forcefully shoving him against a wall while another officer watched. It was also alleged that in the presence of two other officers, a sergeant threatened to put the inmate into administrative segregation if he did not retract his allegations. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, the hiring authority issued a letter of instruction to the officer regarding the proper use of force. Case No. 09-0179 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 25, 2008, the department received a complaint from an employee alleging a warden retaliated DISPO INV ADV HA against her by placing her under investigation after she had written an anonymous complaint about several acts of misconduct the warden had engaged in. The anonymous complaint alleged that the warden engaged in inappropriate hiring practices, inappropriately approved a leave of absence, unjustly transferred an employee to a different position, and violated departmental policy by dating an employee. It was also alleged that a chief deputy warden inappropriately approved a leave of absence, failed to report an illegal personnel appointment made by the warden, and engaged in inappropriate hiring practices. Additionally, a business manager allegedly failed to report an inappropriate leave of absence approved by the warden, directed personnel to pay an employee in violation of civil service rules, engaged in inappropriate hiring processes, and unjustly transferred an employee to a different position after making a statement that could be perceived as supporting the whistleblowers. It was further alleged that a lieutenant inappropriately attempted to influence the promotion of an employee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the warden, chief deputy warden, business manager, and lieutenant. However, the hiring authority did impose corrective action on the chief deputy warden, business manager, and lieutenant. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action, nor did they attend investigative interviews for key witnesses. The department's attorneys also did not provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator for the duration of the investigation or provide written confirmation summarizing the critical discussions concerning the investigative report, as required. Case No. 09-0180 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on February 19, 2008, a sergeant was interviewed by special agents about a case involving DISPO INV ADV HA potentially serious violations of security policy. During the interview, the sergeant was ordered to answer questions and he refused. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation of insubordination against the lieutenant for refusing to answer the special agent's questions and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 62 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0181 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 19, 2008, an officer allegedly stalked a private citizen, misused his authority as a peace officer by DISPO INV ADV HA displaying his badge and incompletely identifying himself, and was dishonest with responding outside law enforcement. The officer was also allegedly dishonest about his conduct during his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the officer. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0182 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 14, 2008, a high-risk sex offender parolee was found in a bedroom with two minor children. One of DISPO INV ADV HA the children was three years old and was nude from the waist down. It was alleged that the parole agent assigned to monitor the parolee failed to discover that the parolee had visited the children's home on at least 60 occasions, despite the parolee being monitored by a GPS device. It was also alleged the parole agent was untruthful about his monitoring activity and was insubordinate when he refused to attend an investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the parole agent with a notice of dismissal. An appeal was not filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0183 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 8, 2008, it was alleged that four officers and a sergeant failed to properly determine and respond to DISPO INV ADV HA claims that two inmates were incompatible. It was alleged that the two inmates were placed in the cell and an altercation ensued, causing the officers to use pepper spray to quell the incident. It was further alleged that the officers and sergeant provided misleading information by preparing two separate, and seemingly unrelated, incident reports and omitted information about the inmates' incompatibility. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against two of the officers. One officer resigned and the other officer resigned in connection with an unrelated case. The hiring authority sustained the allegation of failing to perform within the scope of training against the other two officers, and they received training. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant and served him with a notice of dismissal. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 63 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0184 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 7, 2008, an officer was attacked and stabbed by an inmate. Responding officers restrained the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate with handcuffs and leg irons and escorted him out of the area. It was alleged that during the escort, one officer inserted his baton between the inmate's handcuffs and twisted his arm, causing his left arm to break; a second officer punched the inmate in the face; and a sergeant punched the inmate three times in the stomach. It was further alleged the two officers and the sergeant failed to report the use of force. One of the officers allegedly reported the use of force to a lieutenant a few days later, who then failed to take immediate steps to investigate and report the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers, the sergeant, and the lieutenant and served the officer who used the baton and the sergeant with a notice of dismissal. The officer who punched the inmate in the face and later reported the use of force received a 60 working-day suspension. The lieutenant received a 40 working-day suspension. The officers, the sergeant, and the lieutenant each filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0185 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 6, 2008, an officer alleged that on December 28, 2007, another officer sexually assaulted him by DISPO INV ADV HA pinning him against a door and rubbing his pelvis against his leg. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0186 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 5, 2008, an inmate alleged that a teacher instructed the her to crawl under the teacher's desk, then the DISPO INV ADV HA teacher allegedly unzipped his pants. The inmate stated she was not going to do that and the teacher then stood up and allegedly placed his hands down the inmate's pants and digitally penetrated her. Another inmate alleged that the teacher brought candy and tobacco into the institution to give to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack of evidence. Case No. 09-0187 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on February 4, 2008, an officer conspired with an inmate to falsify evidence. The inmate was DISPO INV ADV HA investigated for possessing narcotics and the case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The inmate was also administratively disciplined for the same offense. The officer was allegedly paid by the inmate to say that it was another inmate who possessed the narcotics so that the inmate would not be disciplined. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 64 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0188 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 2, 2008, while escorting an inmate to a cell, an officer allegedly hit an inmate in the head with his DISPO INV ADV HA fists and a pepper spray canister. It was also alleged that a second officer saw the incident and wrote a false report, stating that the inmate assaulted the officer. Further, it was alleged a sergeant saw the incident and did not report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE 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. Case No. 09-0189 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 2, 2008, an anonymous letter was received at a parole office alleging that a parole agent was DISPO INV ADV HA detained and cited by local law enforcement for solicitation of prostitution in December of 2007, and that the agent used his position to avoid an arrest. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed that the parole agent was not cited, nor did local law enforcement determine there was probable cause to believe he had solicited prostitution. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation. Case No. 09-0190 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE A visitor to a women's prison alleged that on February 2, 2008, approximately 12 male and female staff members DISPO INV ADV HA were gathered around a video monitor in the visiting area watching the unclothed body searches of the female inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigation, the hiring authority found there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The complainant failed to cooperate with the investigation and would not provide any information to support the alleged misconduct. Case No. 09-0191 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In February 2008, an inmate alleged that a psychiatric technician was engaged in an overly familiar relationship DISPO INV ADV HA with another inmate. It was also alleged that the psychiatric technician and inmate engaged in physical touching during group sessions and had telephone contact. It was further alleged that the psychiatric technician was dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the psychiatric technician with a notice of dismissal. She did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0192 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In February 2008, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force against an inmate who was returning from a DISPO INV ADV HA medical appointment. As a result, the inmate allegedly suffered an ankle injury. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 65 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0193 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between February and June of 2008, a parole agent engaged in a sexual relationship with a DISPO INV ADV HA parolee he supervised. It was further alleged the parole agent was dishonest during his investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the parole agent. However, the parole agent retired before the dismissal took effect. A letter indicating the parole agent retired pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action, nor did they timely contact the assigned investigator and the bureau to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation. The department's attorneys also did not coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the investigative process or attend investigative interviews for key witnesses. In addition, the department's attorneys did not timely review the investigative report or provide written confirmation summarizing the critical discussions concerning it. The department's attorneys did not provide the hiring authority and the bureau with confirmation of disciplinary discussions, nor did they properly draft the disciplinary notice. Case No. 09-0194 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 31, 2008, it was alleged that an officer failed to properly secure cell doors; resulting in a riot DISPO INV ADV HA involving 11 inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0195 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 30, 2008, an officer allegedly engaged in multiple acts of child molestation off duty, for which he was DISPO INV ADV HA arrested by local law enforcement. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0196 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 29, 2008, it was alleged that a lieutenant and a sergeant violated departmental policy when they failed DISPO INV ADV HA to ensure administrative forms were completed before placing two inmates in the same cell in an administrative segregation unit. Shortly after the inmates were placed in the same cell, one inmate attacked the other inmate. The attacked inmate was stabbed with an inmate-manufactured weapon and survived, after being air-lifted to an outside hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the lieutenant. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the sergeant, but also determined that the inmates may have been housed together even if the required forms had been completed properly. As a result, the hiring authority initially imposed a two working-day suspension without pay against the sergeant. However, after a Skelly hearing, the penalty was reduced to a letter of instruction. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 66 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0197 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 29, 2008, an inmate alleged that an officer arranged for the inmate to be placed in a medical holding DISPO INV ADV HA cell so that two other inmates could assault him. The inmate further alleged the officer told officers from another institution that the inmate had tried to murder him in the past. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer. Case No. 09-0198 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 29, 2008, it was alleged an officer grabbed and twisted an inmate's wrist to break her hold of his hand DISPO INV ADV HA after the inmate tried to bite him. Another officer witnessed the incident and both officers filed reports about it. It is alleged that the officers' reports were inconsistent and that the officer who grabbed the inmate's wrist was dishonest because he did not appropriately document his actions in his report.. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined the officer who grabbed the inmate's wrist did not intentionally omit his actions from his report and, therefore, did not sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0199 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 28, 2008, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force on an inmate by pushing him against a wall to DISPO INV ADV HA conduct a search. It was further alleged that a sergeant and another officer failed to report the use of force that they witnessed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant or the two officers. However, the hiring authority ordered training for the two officers based on information derived from the investigation. Case No. 09-0200 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 24, 2008, an officer allegedly fabricated a receipt documenting the search of an inmate's cell, which DISPO INV ADV HA was submitted as evidence in a disciplinary hearing against the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0201 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on January 23, 2008, a lieutenant failed to report an officer's use of force. The officer allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA told the lieutenant that he grabbed two inmates who were fighting by their arms and put them on the ground after they refused orders to stop fighting. The lieutenant allegedly told the officer not to report the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, the hiring authority determined that the lieutenant reported the inmate fight as an inmate rules violation, although he did not witness it and did not accurately list the names of everyone who did witness the incident in the report. As a result, the lieutenant received a letter of instruction for authoring an inmate rules violation report for an incident he did not witness and for failing to correctly document who was present during the incident. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 67 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0202 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 23, 2008, it was alleged that between February 2005 and January 2008, a parole agent misused state DISPO INV ADV HA time and equipment by transporting a private citizen in his state vehicle while on-duty to assist her in recruiting persons for her transitional home for parolees, by attending civil divorce proceedings on state time, by pursuing a personal relationship while on duty, and by not appropriately documenting his work hours. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the parole agent misused his state vehicle and improperly documented his time off and, therefore, imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 3 months. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0203 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 21, 2008, a youth counselor allegedly challenged a ward to a fight. During the altercation, the DISPO INV ADV HA counselor purportedly struck the ward several times with his fists. It was further alleged that another youth counselor intentionally failed to report this incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against both youth counselors and served each of them with a notice of dismissal. Both filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0204 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 20, 2008, it was discovered that an officer allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA and became pregnant by the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. A felony charge of having sexual intercourse with an inmate was filed against the officer after DNA results confirmed the inmate was the father of the officer's baby. No administrative investigation was opened as a result of these allegations because the officer resigned. Case No. 09-0205 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 19, 2008, it was alleged that an officer allowed an inmate to have a contact visit and wedding in DISPO INV ADV HA violation of orders that the inmate was only allowed visits through glass. It was further alleged that when asked by her superior officers if the inmate had received a contact visit, the officer was dishonest. It was further alleged that a second officer brought the inmate into the contact visiting area after having received orders that the inmate was not allowed to have a contact visit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of dishonesty, insubordination, and neglect of duty against the first officer and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. As to the second officer, the hiring authority sustained the neglect of duty allegation and issued a letter of instruction. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 68 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0206 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 16, 2008, a teacher allegedly used a state computer during normal working hours to access restricted DISPO INV ADV HA internet sites, which included pornographic materials that he disseminated to student wards and saved on a CD. He also allegedly allowed the wards to use a state computer to access this material. During the investigation, the teacher was allegedly dishonest and interfered with the reporting of his misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the teacher with a notice of dismissal. He did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0207 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 16, 2008, it was alleged a captain made changes to the master assignment roster without seeking DISPO INV ADV HA proper authorization from the warden. The changes benefitted union leaders as they were given preferred positions. The captain made the changes even after he was present during a meeting with other administration officials in which it was made clear that such changes were not to be made. It was also alleged that the captain lied during his interview with internal affairs investigators. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the captain made unauthorized changes to the master assignment roster and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The captain filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0208 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 16, 2008, it was alleged that an officer introduced tobacco into the institution for personal gain. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Case No. 09-0209 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 11, 2008, a lieutenant allegedly instructed an officer to delete language in a report reflecting that the DISPO INV ADV HA watch commander failed to properly respond to the officer's request for assistance during an inmate's repeated attempts to escape from custody at a local hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Case No. 09-0210 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 10, 2008, an officer placed an inmate in handcuffs because he was being disruptive. While escorting DISPO INV ADV HA the inmate, the officer alleges the inmate suddenly turned and hit the officer in the chest. The officer shoved the inmate up against a wall then took him to the ground, causing injury to the inmate. The officer's use of force report allegedly did not adequately explain the need to take the inmate to the ground. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 69 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0211 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 7, 2008, an outside law enforcement agency provided information alleging that an officer may have DISPO INV ADV HA been involved in a homicide at a bar while off duty. It was also alleged that the officer assaulted a private citizen, did not provide first aid to a seriously injured person, and did not notify law enforcement of the altercation. On April 9, 2008, the outside law enforcement agency alleged the officer was dishonest during the homicide investigation. It was also alleged the officer was dishonest during the internal affairs investigation of his off-duty conduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and the officer was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0212 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 5, 2008, an officer allegedly slapped and punched his wife in the face during a domestic dispute off DISPO INV ADV HA duty, causing injury to her face. The officer was arrested by outside law enforcement for spousal battery. The district attorney's office filed charges against the officer and after a jury trial, the officer was found guilty of a misdemeanor offense. However, the officer's conviction was suspended, pending the officer's successful completion of a diversion program. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer successfully completed the diversion program and, therefore, his conviction was set aside. The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the officer had committed an assault against his wife and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. Case No. 09-0213 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 4, 2008, it was alleged that from June through November 2007, a cook engaged in sexual misconduct DISPO INV ADV HA with a female ward who had been assigned to work with him in the kitchen area. He reportedly kissed her and, on another occasion, touched the ward's breast. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined there was probable cause to believe a crime was 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 70 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0214 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 3, 2008, sergeant assigned to an administrative segregation unit allegedly told an officer that if he DISPO INV ADV HA wanted to continue working on the unit, he would have to cut his hair and wear a black shirt underneath his jumpsuit, even though his hair did not violate departmental grooming standards and requiring staff to wear a black shirt under their jumpsuit is against departmental policy. A lieutenant and three other officers were present during the incident and allegedly failed to report the misconduct. When questioned by an uninvolved lieutenant and two captains, the officer who was directed to cut his hair and wear a black shirt provided varying versions of the events and later allegedly lied during an internal affairs interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the sergeant and issued him a letter of reprimand. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer for not truthfully reporting the incident when questioned and he received a suspension without pay for 60 working days. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the lieutenant and the three officers who were allegedly present during the incident. Case No. 09-0215 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 2, 2008, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force on an inmate by pushing him to the ground while DISPO INV ADV HA placing him in handcuffs. It was also alleged that a sergeant witnessed the use of force and did not stop it or report it. It was further alleged that the sergeant pressured the inmate not to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer and the sergeant. Case No. 09-0216 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between January 1, 2008 and May 29, 2008, a library technician brought contraband into an DISPO INV ADV HA institution for inmates and had sexual intercourse with an inmate in the institution's library. Several inmates corroborated the information, and the library technician ultimately confessed to the criminal misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which filed felony charges. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0217 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In January 2008, it was alleged that an officer was involved in a sexual relationship with an inmate. It was also DISPO INV ADV HA alleged the officer provided the inmate with contraband in exchange for sexual favors. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The officer was already dismissed in conjunction with another case; therefore, an administrative investigation was not initiated as a result of the allegations in this case. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 71 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0218 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From January to March 2008, a lieutenant allegedly failed to follow orders to properly document her sick leave DISPO INV ADV HA and claims of misconduct against other supervisors. Additionally, from February 19 to March 7, 2008, the lieutenant allegedly was inefficient in processing inmate file reviews related to housing assignments. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the lieutenant and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0219 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between January and October 2008, a health records technician engaged in a sexual DISPO INV ADV HA relationship with an inmate. Additionally, it was alleged the technician was bringing mobile phones and narcotics into the institution for inmates. It was also alleged that the technician was using marijuana. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, the health records technician resigned while the investigation was pending so no disciplinary action was taken. A letter documenting the circumstances surrounding her resignation was placed in her official personnel file. Case No. 09-0220 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From January to March 2008, it was alleged that two captains and an associate warden verbally harassed and DISPO INV ADV HA created a hostile work environment for a lieutenant. It was specifically alleged that on March 7, 2008, the associate warden prevented the lieutenant from leaving the watch commander's office after her shift was over by physically blocking her exit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the two captains and the associate warden. Case No. 09-0221 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between January and March 2008, an officer allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA and provided the inmate with contraband. In April 2008, the officer allegedly failed to report confidential information about an inmate assault, and was also allegedly discourteous to other staff. Additionally, the officer was allegedly dishonest in his investigative interview regarding the allegations. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and the officer was served with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer retired pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement, before the dismissal went into effect. Case No. 09-0222 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 29, 2007, a sergeant and an officer allegedly used physical force to subdue an attacking inmate and DISPO INV ADV HA failed to report the use of force. It was also alleged that the officer lied during his internal affairs interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The sergeant received a one-day suspension without pay and the hiring authority served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The sergeant and the officer each filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 72 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0223 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 29, 2007, two youth correctional counselors allegedly failed to activate their alarms to summon DISPO INV ADV HA assistance when they observed another youth correctional counselor being attacked by a ward. It was also alleged that neither counselor provided emergency assistance to the attacked counselor. In addition, both correctional counselors allegedly made intentionally misleading statements in their official reports. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of failure to activate an alarm and provide emergency assistance against both youth correctional counselors. The hiring authority imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 10 months against one of the counselors. The counselor filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The other counselor resigned prior to the completion of the investigation so no disciplinary action could be taken. Case No. 09-0224 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 26, 2007, it was alleged that a lieutenant retaliated against a sergeant after she filed a sexual DISPO INV ADV HA harassment complaint against him. It was alleged that the lieutenant prevented the sergeant from attending required training, which caused her to be reassigned to a non-custody post. It was further alleged that an associate warden did not forward the sergeant's sexual harassment complaint to the Office of Civil Rights as required, but instead handled the matter informally. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0225 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 24, 2007, a correctional counselor allegedly disclosed what was discussed during an investigatory DISPO INV ADV HA interview with both the subject of the investigation and a witness, after he was ordered not to do so. It was also alleged that on January 8, 2008, an officer told another person she had been interviewed by the Office of Internal Affairs after she was ordered not to do so. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against both the correctional counselor and the officer. The correctional counselor received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The officer received a letter of reprimand. The correctional counselor filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0226 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 14, 2007, a potentially suicidal inmate was allegedly placed into a holding cell that was near an DISPO INV ADV HA open exterior door when the temperatures outside were below freezing. The inmate was allegedly left naked and with no blanket or suicide vest for over three hours. It was alleged a lieutenant, a sergeant, and two officers were aware of the situation and failed to act. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the lieutenant, the sergeant and both officers. The lieutenant received a letter of reprimand and the sergeant received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. Both officers received a letter of reprimand, which were reduced to letters of instruction after Skelly hearings. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 73 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0227 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 13, 2007, a sergeant allegedly slammed an inmate into a sally port gate, raised the inmate's DISPO INV ADV HA handcuffed arms over his head to inflict pain, and used expletives when shouting at the inmate. It was also alleged that the sergeant forced the inmate to stay on an exercise yard for approximately one and one half hours without any staff supervision. It was further alleged the sergeant failed to report the incident. In addition, it was alleged five other officers failed to count the inmate as missing from his cell and failed to report misconduct by another officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of discourteous treatment and inappropriately leaving the inmate unsupervised and demoted the sergeant to an officer. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The allegations related to failure to report misconduct by another employee were sustained against four of the officers. In addition, the hiring authority determined that one of those officers neglected his duty by counting an inmate to be in his cell when the inmate was actually on the exercise yard. All four officers each received a letter of reprimand and all four officers each filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The allegations against the fifth officer were not sustained. Case No. 09-0228 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 13, 2007, outside law enforcement contacted an officer at a residence while executing a search DISPO INV ADV HA warrant. They also located the officer's wife and a parolee near the residence. The officer's wife and the parolee were under the influence of a controlled substance and in possession of narcotics paraphernalia. It was alleged that the officer was overly familiar with the parolee and failed to report his contact with the parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of inappropriate involvement in a law enforcement matter and neglect of duty against the officer, and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0229 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 12, 2007, it was alleged that an officer used unnecessary force on an inmate who was handcuffed DISPO INV ADV HA by pulling the inmate's arms up behind the inmate's back, forcing the inmate to lean forward, head first toward the ground. The inmate alleged that once he was on the ground, the officer put his knee on the side of the inmate's head, pinning the side of his face against the concrete. The inmate also alleged that the officer's actions were in retaliation for the inmate cooperating with investigators in a prior use-of-force incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 74 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0230 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 11, 2007, a sergeant at an adult correctional fire fighting camp allegedly accepted and used a $200 DISPO INV ADV HA donation from a private business prior to receiving approval from the warden. The donation was allegedly intended and used for purchasing prizes for an annual inmate holiday event. It was also alleged that the sergeant received and accepted for personal use a package delivered to the camp containing DVDs from the same private business. It was further alleged that on January 8, 2008, January 16, 2008, and February 20, 2008, the sergeant did not accurrately document the hours he worked on his timesheet.and that on another occasion he allowed an inmate to use a staff telephone to talk with a private citizen. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the sergeant accepted a private donation before obtaining the warden's approval and that he engaged in a practice of filling out his timesheets in advance but then failed to correct them to reflect any shift changes that occurred. The sergeant received a letter of instruction. Case No. 09-0231 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 11, 2007, it was alleged that a parole agent assigned to the Board of Parole Hearings DISPO INV ADV HA inappropriately contacted the Deputy Commissioner scheduled to hear an inmate's parole hearing and indicated that the inmate was ready for parole. As a result, the Deputy Commissioner recused herself from presiding over the hearing. It was subsequently alleged that the parole agent inappropriately ordered an investigator to change the findings on a report to be used at another inmate's parole hearing. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the parole agent inappropriately contacted the deputy commissioner and intended to issued the parole agent a letter of instruction. However, the parole agent retired before the letter was served. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 75 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0232 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 8, 2007, an inmate threw a powdered substance out of his cell onto an officer. A sergeant and DISPO INV ADV HA another officer responded to the scene and allegedly entered the inmate's cell and punched him several times and then slammed him into a holding cell. It was further alleged that the sergeant failed to report the use of force and interfered with other officers in reporting the incident. The sergeant and the responding officer were also allegedly dishonest in their interviews about the incident. Two additional officers who witnessed the incident allegedly failed to initially report the use of force and then subsequently submitted false reports. A fourth officer also allegedly witnessed the incident and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant and served him with a notice of dismissal. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained allegations against the responding officer for failing to report the force used by the sergeant and for being dishonest in his interview, and served him with a notice of dismissal. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the second and third officers. The second officer initially received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months, which the hiring authority later reduced to a 10 percent salary reduction for 18 months. The third officer, who had been promoted to sergeant, initially was demoted back to officer and received a 5 percent salary reduction for 24 months. Later, the hiring authority agreed to reduce the penalty to a 10 percent salary reduction for 18 months. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the fourth officer and initially imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for six months, which the hiring authority later agreed to modify to a letter of reprimand. Case No. 09-0233 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 7, 2007, two officers allegedly failed to conduct a proper count of inmates in their assigned DISPO INV ADV HA housing unit. It was further alleged that the same officers became aware of a possible inmate fight resulting in visible injuries to an inmate, but failed to take action. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against one of the officers and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for seven months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the other officer. Case No. 09-0234 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 6, 2007, it was alleged that two officers failed to handcuff two inmates prior to having their cell DISPO INV ADV HA door opened, as required. As a result, when the cell door was opened, the inmates were able to run out of the cell and attack another inmate with an inmate-manufactured weapon. It was further alleged a sergeant instructed officers to use this practice in an effort to save time, rather than applying hand cuffs through cell door food ports. The latter practice allows staff to ensure inmates are restrained prior to opening their cell doors. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the two officers and the sergeant. The hiring authority issued a letter of reprimand to each of the officers and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months on the sergeant. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 76 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0235 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 5, 2007, an officer allegedly attempted to interfere with an inmate's hearing before the Board of DISPO INV ADV HA Parole Hearings by providing the Board of Parole Hearings with a disciplinary write-up that had been expunged from the inmate's file. It was further alleged that the officer improperly attempted to switch her assigned post in order to be present at the hearing. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. Following a Skelly hearing, a settlement was reached in which the officer could request that the action be removed from her personnel file after six months if she remained discipline-free. In exchange, the officer agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0236 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 5, 2007, a lieutenant allegedly bent a handcuffed inmate over a chair, pushed him into a wall, and DISPO INV ADV HA put him on the ground. In addition, a sergeant allegedly saw the use of force and failed to properly report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the sergeant. The lieutenant medically retired from the department before the investigation was completed and before he could be interviewed. A letter indicating he resigned while the investigation was pending was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0237 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 4, 2007, a sergeant and several officers allegedly encouraged inmates to create and participate in DISPO INV ADV HA incidents in their housing unit that would have to be managed by another sergeant in retaliation for his issuing one of the officers a letter of instruction and for giving on-the-job training to the staff. The inmates allegedly received several perks, including receipt of unauthorized packages, new laundry, new shoes, and extra time to watch television. In addition, the inmates were allegedly told that inmate disciplinary reports would not be filed against them if they participated. It was also alleged the sergeant and officers attempted to conceal the misconduct and that the sergeant and one of the officers lied during their internal affairs interviews. It was also alleged a licensed vocational nurse knew the officers encouraged inmates to stage incidents and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant and two of the officers. They were dismissed and each filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the two other officers. The allegation against the licensed vocational nurse was not determined as she had already been dismissed pursuant to another disciplinary action. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 77 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0238 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 4, 2007, an inmate punched a female nurse in the face. Responding staff forced the inmate to the DISPO INV ADV HA ground. The inmate alleged that two officers then took him behind a program office and punched him in the rib cage 15 to 25 times before kicking him in the rib cage five or six times. The inmate was then taken to the administrative segregation unit. The inmate was later found to have two broken ribs. Both officers allegedly failed to report their use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the inmate was not credible and that it was possible the inmate's ribs were broken when he was forced to the ground after hitting the nurse. In the absence of additional evidence to corroborate the inmate's allegations, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0239 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 29, 2007, an officer allegedly physically pulled an inmate out of his cell, forced him to the ground, DISPO INV ADV HA and then handcuffed him. It was also alleged the officer in the control booth opened the cell door for the first officer and witnessed the incident. Further, it is alleged that both officers failed to report the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer who used force and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the officer who opened the cell door. Case No. 09-0240 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 28, 2007, a parole agent allegedly failed to adequately document his contacts with outside law DISPO INV ADV HA enforcement concerning an arrest of a parolee. It was further alleged that the parole agent was dishonest and made misleading statements to a supervisor when he indicated that he was unaware of the parolee's arrest. A subsequent caseload audit revealed the parole agent was also deficient in recording his contacts with numerous parolees. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the parole agent failed to adequately document events. The hiring authority imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The penalty was modified to a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months pursuant to a settlement agreement. Case No. 09-0241 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 28, 2007, an officer was allegedly dishonest during a use-of-force investigation of a sergeant. It DISPO INV ADV HA was further alleged that the officer and the sergeant discussed the investigation and conspired to have the officer submit a false report, which he did. This allegedly occurred after the sergeant had been ordered not to discuss the investigation with anyone. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of dishonesty against the officer and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. The allegation of insubordination was sustained against the sergeant, but discipline could not be imposed because the sergeant had already been dismissed as a result of the underlying use of force incident. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 78 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0242 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 26, 2007, a range master allegedly signed an off-duty weapons qualification card for an officer DISPO INV ADV HA without actually qualifying the officer. The officer who allegedly obtained the inappropriate qualification card waited 60 days to report the incident to a supervisor. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the range master and the officer. The range master initially received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months and the officer initially received a 5 percent salary reduction for nine months. After Skelly hearings, both the officer and the range master entered into settlement agreements. The range master's penalty was reduced to a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months and the officer's penalty was reduced to a 5 percent salary reduction for two months. Case No. 09-0243 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 23, 2007, a marriage and family counselor allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with a DISPO INV ADV HA parolee who was participating in the treatment program where the counselor worked. DISPOSITION OF CASE The marriage and family counselor resigned before the investigation was completed. The Office of Internal Affairs determined there was no probable cause to believe that a crime had occurred and, therefore, did not refer the case to the district attorney's office for prosecution. In addition, the Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The Office of Internal Affairs did not timely determine whether to open an investigation or approve disciplinary action. The investigation and interviews did not completely address all relevant facts regarding the allegation. The investigator did not fully cooperate and consult with the bureau and the Office of Internal Affairs did not appropriately determine whether probable cause existed to believe a crime was committed. In addition, a copy of the draft investigative report was not forwarded to the bureau, nor were copies of the supporting materials. Further, the final investigative report did not address all of the relevant facts regarding the allegation and the investigation was not conducted with due diligence. Case No. 09-0244 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 22, 2007, an sergeant went hunting off duty with his seven-year-old son and several adult civilians. DISPO INV ADV HA They allegedly were hunting from a moving vehicle without a license. A member of the hunting party was shot in the head. The sergeant allegedly transported the injured person to a nearby city and placed his body into the bed of a truck. The sergeant allegedly did not contact law enforcement or obtain medical attention for the injured person. Thereafter, the sergeant allegedly left the scene, disposed of the weapons, changed some of his clothing and went to another location. Two hours later, he returned to his residence where he was contacted by law enforcement. The injured person died. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and served the sergeant with a notice of dismissal. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The outside law enforcement agency also referred the matter to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which filed charges against the sergeant. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 79 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0245 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that during a six-month period from November 2007 into 2008, a certified nursing assistant DISPO INV ADV HA inappropriately touched the penis of an inmate who was a patient in the hospice unit of the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was commited, and the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau did not accept for monitoring. Case No. 09-0246 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 11, 2007, it was alleged a parole agent had been falsifying her attendance records. The parole DISPO INV ADV HA agent's state-issued credit card records showed her purchasing gasoline at times when she claimed to be in the office working. It was also alleged the agent was untruthful during her interview with internal affairs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and the parole agent received a 60 working-day suspension without pay. She did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0247 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 9, 2007, it was alleged that a teaching assistant had been engaged in a romantic relationship with a DISPO INV ADV HA ward, which included eye contact, smiling, and secret hand gestures, but no physical contact. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Case No. 09-0248 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 2, 2007, an inmate told an officer that he had a medical emergency. Another officer allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA grabbed the inmate by the bicep and escorted him to his cell. After being locked in his cell, the inmate began to yell and complain. The officer then allegedly entered the cell and choked the inmate. It was also alleged that the officer was dishonest during his investigatory interview. It was also alleged that two other officers saw the misconduct but failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the involved officer and served him with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The allegations against the two witnessing officers were not sustained; however, one of the officers received corrective action for failing to observe safety procedures. Case No. 09-0249 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE During the months of November 2007, December 2007, and January 2008, a parole agent allegedly falsified a DISPO INV ADV HA parolee's record of supervision by noting that he had received monthly supervision updates from the parolee. It was later discovered that the parolee had died on October 26, 2007. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months. However, the parole agent retired before the disciplinary action took effect. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 80 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0250 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In November 2007, a superintendent and a deputy superintendent were allegedly informed that a parole agent DISPO INV ADV HA repeatedly punched a youth counselor while on duty and failed to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. In addition, the superintendent and deputy superintendent were allegedly dishonest when questioned about the incident. The superintendent also allegedly threatened to retaliate against the person who reported the incident to the Office of Internal Affairs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of neglect of duty and dishonesty against both the superintendent and the deputy superintendent and served each of them with a notice of dismissal. However, they both resigned before the discipline took effect. Case No. 09-0251 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 31, 2007, a parole agent allegedly repeatedly punched a youth counselor while they were both on DISPO INV ADV HA duty. It was further alleged that the parole agent used profanity against other staff members and was dishonest during his investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the parole agent and he was dismissed. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0252 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 31, 2007, an institution received information indicating an officer had been detained on a mental DISPO INV ADV HA health hold and taken to a hospital. Reports prepared by outside law enforcement indicated that the officer drank a gallon of rum and coke, repeatedly begged a neighbor to kill him, broke the glass of a fire extinguisher box by punching it, and had eight firearms at his disposal in his apartment. It was alleged the officer later lied in his Office of Internal Affairs investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined the officer did not exhibit good behavior and his conduct brought discredit to the department. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation that the officer lied during his investigative interview. The officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. He did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0253 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 29, 2007, it was alleged that a parole agent misused the California Law Enforcement DISPO INV ADV HA Telecommunications System (CLETS) to access law enforcement records on two of his associates who were not parolees. One of the associates was allegedly on the Border Patrol's Terrorism Watch List. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was submitted to the district attorney's office for prosecution. However, the district attorney was unable to file criminal charges because the time period for filing criminal charges had passed. An administrative investigation was opened by the Office of Internal Affairs, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 81 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0254 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 27, 2007, a sergeant and two officers allegedly took an inmate into a sergeant's office and physically DISPO INV ADV HA assaulted him during a counseling session. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant or the officers. Case No. 09-0255 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 26, 2007, outside law enforcement searched a residence and apprehended a parolee who was wanted DISPO INV ADV HA for violating the terms of his parole. An officer was allegedly at the residence at the time visiting his estranged girlfriend, at her request. The law enforcement officials discovered that the girlfriend was in possession of a crack pipe and that she had a valid restraining order against the officer. The officer was arrested for violating the terms of the restraining order. It was also alleged that the officer was dishonest because he gave conflicting reasons for being at the residence. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the officer failed to exhibit good behavior when he violated the terms of the restraining order, although the hiring authority recognized that the girlfriend admitted to inviting the officer to the residence after telling him that the restraining order was no longer in effect. The hiring authority did not sustain the dishonesty allegation. The hiring authority also determined that the officer had very limited contact with the residence, had not previously met the parolee, and was not involved with the crack pipe. The officer was issued a letter of reprimand. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0256 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 18, 2007, it was alleged that an officer brought a photo album containing nude photographs into an DISPO INV ADV HA institution. Another officer discovered the photo album and reported it. On October 31, 2007, the officer who discovered the photo album found a large plastic rat inside a bag of mail. It was alleged that the officer who brought in the photo album conspired with two other officers to place the rat inside the mail bag in retaliation for the officer reporting his discovery of the photo album. It was further alleged that one of the officers previously displayed the rat while simultaneously referring to the rat as his partner and the building mascot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the officer for bringing nude photographs into the institution, but no discipline was imposed because the officer had been dismissed as the result of another investigation. The hiring authority also sustained allegations of discourteous treatment against the other two officers and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 24 months on one of the officers, but did not impose a penalty on the other officer since he too had already been dismissed as the result of another investigation. No appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board as a result of the discipline imposed in this case. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 82 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0257 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 17, 2007, an officer allegedly escorted an inmate from one housing unit to another so that the inmate DISPO INV ADV HA could assault another inmate. The officer allegedly told another officer that she solicited an inmate to give another inmate "thirteen seconds of love," which was a reference to an assault by Hispanic gangs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed charges of conspiracy to assault under color of authority. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0258 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 12, 2007, it was alleged a parole agent and a parolee were in a state car when they were stopped by DISPO INV ADV HA an outside law enforcement agency while driving in an area where narcotics transactions were taking place. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and the parole agent was dismissed. The parole agent did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0259 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE During the month of October 2007, an administrative assistant and a driver allegedly had sexual contact with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate at a drug treatment facility. DISPOSITION OF CASE The administrative assistant and the driver were not state employees. The drug treatment facility moved them to another location. The Office of Internal Affairs concluded there was no probable cause to believe that a crime occurred and closed the case. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The investigation did not completely address all relevant facts regarding the allegation(s). The interview did not completely address all relevant facts regarding the allegation(s). The investigator(s) did not fully cooperate and consult with the bureau. The Office of Internal Affairs did not appropriately determine whether probable cause existed to believe a crime was committed. After determining that there was probable cause to believe a crime had been committed, the Office of Internal Affairs did not properly refer the investigation to the appropriate agency for prosecution. A copy of the draft investigative report was not forwarded to the bureau. Copies of the supporting materials were not forwarded to the bureau at the completion of the investigation. The investigation was not conducted with due diligence. Case No. 09-0260 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From October through December 2007, a lieutenant allegedly sent sexually explicit text messages and images to DISPO INV ADV HA an officer. In addition, the lieutenant allegedly threatened to make work difficult for the officer's fiancé if the officer did not send a nude photograph of herself to the lieutenant. It was further alleged that the lieutenant used his personal cell phone during work hours to contact the officer. Finally, it was alleged that the lieutenant made sexually suggestive comments to three other female officers from August to October 2007. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the lieutenant and determined that dismissal from state service was the appropriate penalty. However, the lieutenant retired before service of the notice of dismissal. A letter indicating the lieutenant retired pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 83 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0261 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 29, 2007, three officers allegedly escorted an unrestrained inmate from his cell toward a yard. The DISPO INV ADV HA inmate placed one of the officers in a headlock, resulting in the use of physical force and injuries to staff and the inmate. It was further alleged that the three officers made intentionally misleading statements in their official reports of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against two of the officers, but did order corrective action for them in the form of training. The hiring authority sustained the neglect of duty allegation against the third officer and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. Case No. 09-0262 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 25, 2007, it was alleged that a male youth counselor had passed a ward notes, blew her kisses, DISPO INV ADV HA grabbed her buttocks, and masturbated while looking at a photograph of her. It was further alleged that a parole agent was told about the alleged misconduct but did not report it until several days later. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the youth counselor and served him with notice of dismissal. The youth counselor filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority also sustained the allegation against the parole agent and issued him a letter of instruction. Case No. 09-0263 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between September 24 and September 27, 2007, an officer sold tobacco and mobile phones to DISPO INV ADV HA inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE Prior to the completion of investigation, the hiring authority dismissed the officer in an unrelated case. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau regarding the sufficiency of the investigation. After deeming the investigation insufficient, the hiring authority did not request additional information. The hiring authority also did not consult with the bureau regarding allegations and findings prior to making a final decision, nor did the hiring authority inform the bureau of significant developments throughout the case. Case No. 09-0264 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 5, 2007, an officer allegedly entered a cell, then choked and punched an inmate. On September 11, DISPO INV ADV HA 2007, the officer allegedly insulted and shoved a licensed vocational nurse. The licensed vocational nurse also reported that the officer tried to block her in traffic while she was driving home. Furthermore, the officer reportedly called a fellow officer a "rat" and intimidated another officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined there was probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. 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 Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 84 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0265 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 27, 2007, it was alleged that a senior youth correctional counselor used unnecessary force when she DISPO INV ADV HA asked to use another staff member's pepper spray on a noncompliant ward, even though she had chemical agents assigned to her. Additionally, it was alleged that the senior youth correctional counselor failed to report her use of force until almost 24 hours later, violating departmental policy. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0266 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 27, 2007, two officers submitted separate reports documenting the use of force against an inmate. One DISPO INV ADV HA officer reported he personally used pepper spray against the inmate and the other officer reported he did not utilize force but observed force being used. Both officers reported the pepper spray was used because the inmate took an aggressive stance toward one of the officers. The following day an uninvolved officer reported to the department that the alleged force was used because the inmate directed a racial slur at one of the officers, and that the inmate did not take an aggressive stance but was sitting on a bunk when the officer used force. It was further alleged that both officers tried to dissuade the uninvolved officer from reporting the incident, and that both officers were dishonest during their investigative interviews. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served each officer with a notice of dismissal. Each officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0267 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 19, 2007, outside law enforcement provided the department with photographs depicting an officer DISPO INV ADV HA wearing gang clothing in the company of known gang members. It was also alleged that on two prior occasions, the officer was contacted by outside law enforcement while in the company of known gang members. The department also learned that prior to his employment with the department, the officer had been questioned by outside law enforcement about an attempted homicide; a fact the officer allegedly failed to disclose in a personal history questionnaire he submitted to the department. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0268 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 14, 2007, an officer was arrested and charged for an act of domestic violence arising from an incident DISPO INV ADV HA with his estranged girlfriend. DISPOSITION OF CASE On January 15, 2008, the officer resigned. Approximately ten months later, the hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer caused injury to his estranged girlfriend. However, since the officer had already resigned, no disciplinary action was taken. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 85 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0269 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 9, 2007, a sergeant allegedly submitted documentation representing that he interviewed an officer DISPO INV ADV HA regarding an inmate complaint when, in fact, the sergeant did not interview the officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and served the sergeant with a notice of dismissal. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0270 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In August 2007, a lieutenant allegedly conducted an unauthorized investigation into an officer who had filed a DISPO INV ADV HA complaint against him. The lieutenant was allegedly attempting to discredit the officer in hopes of thwarting the complaint against him. The lieutenant also allegedly made false and malicious statements regarding the officer in question, subordinate staff, peers, supervisors, and managers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The lieutenant medically retired from the department prior to completion of the internal affairs investigation, and a letter indicating this fact was placed in the lieutenant's official personnel file. Case No. 09-0271 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 1, 2007, an officer allegedly removed an inmate from a cell for spitting on him. Two other officers DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly used unnecessary and excessive force on the handcuffed inmate when they took him to the ground. The inmate allegedly received several injuries, including teeth that were knocked out, a cut on the left side of his face, and a bloody mouth. The officers allegedly threatened the inmate and told him he would receive "special treatment" if he did not lie and say that another inmate caused the injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE 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. Case No. 09-0272 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that from August 2007 thru February 2008, a parole agent negligently failed to follow departmental DISPO INV ADV HA policies regarding parolee sex offender registration and housing. It was further alleged that a parole agent II and a parole agent III failed to properly monitor and supervise the parole agent's caseload. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation against the parole agent due to the agent's lack of training. The allegation against the parole agent II was sustained, including a separate allegation that he was dishonest when he made false entries during case file reviews. He was dismissed but retired prior to the action becoming effective. The allegation against the parole agent III was not sustained. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 86 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0273 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 1, 2007, an inmate allegedly refused to be handcuffed and escorted from a cell. An officer allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA sprayed the inmate with pepper spray using a high-powered device that was not appropriate for the distance between him and the inmate. It was also alleged that supervising officers failed to prevent the officer from using the high-powered device. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer used an inappropriate device to administer the pepper spray and ordered corrective training for the officer. The allegations against the supervisors were handled in a separate administrative case. Case No. 09-0274 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 30, 2007, it was alleged that an inmate got into a fight with another inmate and then hit an officer. The DISPO INV ADV HA officer allegedly defended himself with his fists and hit the attacking inmate with his elbow. The inmate alleged that officers who escorted him after the incident slammed his head into a wall and repeatedly kicked and punched him. The inmate had significant injuries, including a fractured eye socket. It was further alleged that the officers who escorted the inmate failed to report their use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority initially sustained the allegations and served the officers with disciplinary actions. However, after a Skelly hearing, additional information was received that cast doubt on the inmate's credibility. In addition, it was determined that the inmate's injuries may have resulted from his fight with the other inmate, and that the officer the inmate attacked may have elbowed the inmate in the eye, fracturing his eye socket. It was determined that it was unlikely that the escorting officers could have injured the inmate without other staff witnessing it, which they did not. The hiring authority, therefore, withdrew the disciplinary actions. Case No. 09-0275 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 29, 2007, a sergeant allegedly told an officer to falsify documentation of a wellness check on an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA after two other officers refused to do so. The officer allegedly did so, and the two other officers allegedly did not report the misconduct until nine months later. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, the hiring authority determined that the sergeant was using inappropriate administrative practices that had previously been commonplace. The hiring authority, therefore, issued the sergeant a letter of instruction for failing to perform within the scope of training. Case No. 09-0276 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 17, 2007, it was alleged that two sergeants and two officers did not follow the use of force policy when DISPO INV ADV HA they opened an inmate's cell door after the inmate refused to relinquish a food tray. It was also alleged that one of the sergeants was dishonest during an administrative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant who was dishonest and served him with a notice of dismissal. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the other sergeant and two officers. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 87 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0277 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 14, 2007, it was alleged that an officer roughly pushed an inmate who needed psychiatric care into a DISPO INV ADV HA holding cell and failed to report it. It was further alleged three other officers observed the use of force and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers. Case No. 09-0278 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2007, an officer allegedly slammed an inmate against a wall and hit him on the side of his head. It DISPO INV ADV HA was further alleged that the officer failed to report the use of force, attempted to dissuade another officer from reporting the use of force, and was dishonest during the internal affairs investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0279 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 15, 2007, a physician allegedly provided six prescription pills to a licensed vocational nurse for personal DISPO INV ADV HA use. Further, it was alleged on August 18, 2007, a health care administrator directed the licensed vocational nurse not to disclose the possible misconduct of the physician. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0280 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between May 1, 2007, and June 19, 2008, a materials and stores supervisor was engaged in DISPO INV ADV HA overly familiar relationships with inmates by providing them with drugs, mobile phones, and by engaging in sexual acts with them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed criminal charges. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0281 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in May 2007, the Board of Parole Hearings and the Division of Adult Parole Operations failed DISPO INV ADV HA to take a parolee into custody after he had been declared unsuitable for parole. The parolee's suitability for parole was the subject of protracted legal proceedings, which resulted in him being on parole until the legal matters were resolved. The court ultimately ruled that the parolee was unsuitable for parole. At the time the misconduct was alleged, it was unknown which staff members were responsible for taking the parolee into custody. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against Division of Adult Operations staff. Although it was determined that the Division of Adult Parole Operations was responsible for taking the parolee into custody, Division of Adult Parole Operations staff were not given clear direction from the department's legal office to take him into custody once the court ruled that he was unsuitable for parole. The hiring authority determined that the allegation against Board of Parole Hearings staff were unfounded, as it was not the Board of Parole Hearings' responsibility to take the parolee into custody. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 88 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0282 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 5, 2007, the investigative services unit received numerous memoranda alleging that a dental assistant DISPO INV ADV HA was engaging in overly familiar conduct with inmates by slapping, kicking, and flirting with them. It was further alleged that the dental assistant also engaged in sexual misconduct with inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the dental assistant engaged in an overly familiar relationship with inmates and initially imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 15 months. However, following the Skelly hearing, the penalty was reduced to a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The dental assistant did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0283 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that during the months of April and May 2007, an inmate intermittently refused two consecutive DISPO INV ADV HA meals on multiple occasions and several officers and a sergeant knew the inmate refused meals but failed to respond appropriately. It was further alleged the sergeant was dishonest when asked about his knowledge of the situation. Also, it was alleged that another sergeant changed facility procedures regarding staff review of inmate daily activities and a lieutenant failed to ensure the sergeants reviewed the daily activities. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against seven officers, two sergeants, and a lieutenant. Four of the seven officers received verbal or written counseling; two officers received a letter of reprimand; and one officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The hiring authority initially served the first sergeant with a notice of dismissal, but later settled the case by allowing the sergeant to demote from sergeant to officer. The second sergeant initially received a 10 percent salary reduction for nine months, which was later reduced to a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months after a Skelly hearing. The second sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The lieutenant initially received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months, but the department later settled the case by revoking the salary reduction and issuing a letter of reprimand. The hiring authority exonerated seven other officers and one sergeant, and determined that allegations were unfounded against six other officers. Case No. 09-0284 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 28, 2007, it was alleged that a materials and stores supervisor was engaged in a sexual relationship DISPO INV ADV HA with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to file criminal charges. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 89 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0285 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 25, 2007, an officer negligently discharged his personal firearm while on duty at an unarmed post. A DISPO INV ADV HA second officer allegedly removed some medication from the scene that the officer had brought to work. It was also alleged that the second officer and a third officer drove the officer's personal vehicle off prison grounds so that it could not be searched as part of the initial investigation into the discharged firearm incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer who negligently discharged his firearm was disciplined in a separate case. The officer who removed the medication container and assisted with the removal of the officer's vehicle was suspended without pay for 60 working days. The third officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months. Each officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0286 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on March 23, 2007, a package was received at an institution addressed to a chaplain. It DISPO INV ADV HA contained items which appeared to be unopened and factory sealed. On March 28, 2007, the chaplain delivered the package to an inmate; bypassing institutional procedures. It was discovered the package contained contraband. It was further alleged that the chaplain allowed inmates to generate institutional count slips and conduct institutional counts. The chaplain allegedly made degrading, rude and sexual comments to the women of the Jewish sisterhood, and weekly narrated demeaning and vulgar jokes to them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. An administrative investigation was opened by the department, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0287 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in March and April 2007, an inmate was sexually harrassed, sexually propositioned and DISPO INV ADV HA inappropriately touched by a vocational instructor. The inmate alleged that on multiple occasions, the vocational instructor followed her into a closet, asked her to show him her breasts, and grabbed her breasts a couple of times. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0288 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 1, 2007, an audit revealed a correctional business manager approved a special assignment for an DISPO INV ADV HA accounting supervisor without authorization. It was further discovered the accounting department had over 243 outstanding unpaid accounts and 33 unpaid salary advances. Additionally, it was discovered there were 85 pay warrants being held, some dating as far back as March 2006. It was alleged the correctional business manager and the accounting supervisor failed to follow accounting policies. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the correctional business manager and served him with a notice of dismissal. He did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the accounting supervisor and provided her with a letter of instruction. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 90 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0289 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In March 2007, an officer allegedly directed two inmates to perform a sexual act in return for allowing them to DISPO INV ADV HA share a cell. The officer allegedly photographed the act with his mobile phone and forwarded the photographs to a second and third officer. The second officer allegedly struck one of inmates with a side-handle baton and sprayed the inmate with small burst of chemical agent in a playful manner. None of the officers reported the conduct and all were allegedly dishonest when interviewed about the events. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the three officers and served each of them with a notice of dismissal. Each officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0290 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 5, 2007, it was alleged that officers assigned to the investigative services unit and the institutional DISPO INV ADV HA gang investigations unit failed to take appropriate action upon receiving information regarding a potential attack on an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0291 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 22, 2007, an inmate alleged that two officers used force on him while he was in handcuffs. It was also DISPO INV ADV HA alleged that three other officers and three supervising officers were dishonest in their reports of the incident and three additional officers failed to activate their alarms when they observed the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations as to one supervising officer and the six other officers. The supervising officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months, and he filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The three officers that used force received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months, and each officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. In regard to the three officers that failed to activate their alarms; one received a letter of instruction and the other two received letters of reprimand. The two officers that received letters of reprimand each filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 91 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0292 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 20, 2006, the department was notified that a senator's aide found a USB flash drive containing DISPO INV ADV HA confidential department information on the aid's desk. The information on the drive included, but was not limited to, staff investigations, inmate sexual assault investigative reports, staff complaints, polygraph exam results, and prison lay-outs. An investigation into possible misconduct by a lieutenant, sergeant, and four officers was conducted. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the lieutenant that he lost or misplaced the flash drive and failed to report the loss. The hiring authority also sustained the allegations against the sergeant that he knew the drive had been lost, failed to report knowledge of the drive's whereabouts, and provided false or misleading statements during the investigation. Allegations were also sustained against the two officers who came into possession of the drive, failed to report the discovery, and provided the drive to a person not authorized to view or possess the information. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the other two officers. The lieutenant and two officers received a two-day suspension. The lieutenant and two officers each filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The department agreed to settle the lieutenant's case by amending the legal causes of action; however, the lieutenant's penalty was not modified. The sergeant was served with a notice of dismissal and did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0293 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between December 6, 2006, and February 6, 2007, it was alleged that two parole agents failed to follow the DISPO INV ADV HA department's policy with respect to using a parolee as an informant. It was further alleged that one of the agents lied to a deputy district attorney and a deputy public defender when he denied that he knew the parolee. The investigation revealed more than 100 phone calls between the parole agent and the parolee during the three month period. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the parole agent who was in telephone communication with the parolee and dismissed him. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The allegations against the other parole agent were not sustained. Case No. 09-0294 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 6, 2006, a contract certified nurses assistant allegedly slapped and twisted an inmate's ear. The DISPO INV ADV HA incident was reported by another contract certified nurse. An officer allegedly saw the incident as well and failed to report it. Additionally, it was alleged that several administrators, including the director of nurses, the standards and compliance coordinator, the chief medical officer, as well as other nursing staff, were notified of the incident, but failed to take appropriate action. It was also alleged that the director of nurses threatened to fire the certified nurses assistant who reported the incident if she could not prove the allegations. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and provided the officer with a letter of reprimand. The hiring authority did not sustain allegations against the director of nurses, the standards and compliance director, and other nursing staff. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the chief medical officer. However, before the hiring authority could impose a 5 percent salary reduction for three months, the chief medical officer separated from state service for being absent without leave. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 92 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0295 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 7, 2006, it was alleged a parole agent initiated a traffic stop on a private citizen and searched his DISPO INV ADV HA vehicle without authorization. It was also alleged that on February 7, 2007, the same parole agent conducted a search of a parolee's home without authorization and without personally confirming the parolee was at the residence prior to the search. On March 29, 2007, it was further alleged the parole agent transported a parolee without properly securing the parolee in the his car, thereby allowing the parolee to escape. Also, the parole agent allegedly used unnecessary force when detaining the parolee and failed to report that force. Further, it was alleged that the regional administrator had knowledge of the agent's misconduct and failed to report it and failed to initiate an internal affairs investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the parole agent and the regional administrator. Case No. 09-0296 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between October 2006 and June 2008, a supervising cook was negligent in his duties and DISPO INV ADV HA overly familiar with inmates when he smuggled approximately 30 mobile phones and numerous packages of tobacco to inmates in exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the two allegations of neglect of duty and the allegation of overfamiliarity and served the supervising cook with a notice of dismissal. The supervising cook did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0297 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between September 2006 and May 2008, it was alleged that an office technician was having a sexual relationship DISPO INV ADV HA with a parolee and lent the parolee money to purchase a car. DISPOSITION OF CASE After it was discovered that some evidence was based on a past compelled statement that may have compromised a criminal prosecution, the Office of Internal Affairs chose to close the criminal case and open an administrative case, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0298 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in July, August, and September 2006, an institutional personnel officer and a position control DISPO INV ADV HA analyst approved overpayment of wages to an associate warden. Allegedly, the associate warden had knowledge of the overpayments and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0299 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 16, 2006, it was alleged a psychiatrist was dishonest when he falsely claimed to have seen and treated DISPO INV ADV HA parolees. It was also alleged he violated the standard of care by refilling prescriptions without seeing the parolees and by failing to prescribe sufficient medication supplies for other parolees. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the psychiatrist. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 93 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0300 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 4, 2006, it was alleged an inmate attempted to introduce razor blades and other contraband into the DISPO INV ADV HA institution's administrative segregation unit. The inmate claimed a captain, lieutenant, and an officer promised him immunity from criminal prosecution relating to the attempt to smuggle contraband in exchange for information. It was further alleged that the officer violated procedure by removing witness interview tapes from a secured office and subsequently losing them. It was also alleged that the officer was dishonest in his investigative interview when he claimed he was given approval by his superiors to remove the audio tapes from the institution and dispose of them as he saw fit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer related to the improper handling of evidence and dishonesty and served him with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0301 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between April 2006 and September 2007, four mailroom supervisors and an office assistant DISPO INV ADV HA viewed and passed around sexually explicit photographs and made inappropriate comments about the photos in front of other employees. It was also alleged that one of the supervisors used racial slurs when referring to inmates, fell asleep on duty, intimidated coworkers with threats of violence, and was dishonest during his internal affairs interview regarding the incidents. It was also alleged that two of the supervisors failed to properly supervise the other mailroom employees. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against all of the employees. Two of the supervisors resigned before discipline could be imposed. A letter was placed in their official personnel files indicating they had resigned under adverse circumstances. One of the supervisors had been dismissed on an unrelated case and no further action was taken. A letter of reprimand was issued to the remaining supervisor and the office assistant; neither of whom filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0302 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 21, 2006, an officer allegedly brought in personal food and medication for inmates and rented movies DISPO INV ADV HA for them. Additionally, the officer allegedly allowed an inmate to withdraw funds from his trust account to facilitate the shipping of another inmate's package. It was further alleged that the officer provided an inmate advanced notice that he would be transferred from the camp on that day. There was also an allegation that he used his personal laptop while on duty. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer allowed an inmate to pay for the shipment of another inmate's package and that he provided inmates food and other items and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. However, after the Skelly hearing, the penalty was modified to a letter of reprimand, which the officer agreed not to appeal. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 94 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0303 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between mid-2005 and November 25, 2008, an officer was involved in a sexual relationship DISPO INV ADV HA with an inmate who had escaped from custody. It was further alleged that the officer concealed the escapee's whereabouts from the department's fugitive apprehension team and was dishonest when questioned by the team. Also, it was alleged the officer failed to cooperate with the internal affairs investigation into her alleged misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE Prior to the completion of the investigation, the officer was separated from state service due to the fact she was absent without leave for five consecutive days. The officer did not appeal the separation from state service. Criminal charges were also filed against the officer. Case No. 09-0304 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between May 2005 and May 2008, two officers owned and operated a van pool company that DISPO INV ADV HA had direct business dealings with an institution. Allegedly, in April 2005, the officers' request to engage in this business was denied as a conflict of interest. It was further alleged that the officers submitted fraudulent travel reimbursement claims to the state, submitted fraudulent subsidy requests to a state-sponsored grant program, and failed to report the income to the California Franchise Tax Board. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The matter was also submitted to the state and federal tax authorities for consideration of potential tax fraud. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0305 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between May 2005 and July 2007, a correctional business manager misused and DISPO INV ADV HA misappropriated state property. Also, he and a mechanic allegedly used their positions to solicit gratuities from companies that conducted business with the institution. It was further alleged that the correctional business manager made false and misleading statements to investigators. He also contacted witnesses in the investigation after being ordered not to. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The correctional business manager was dismissed and the mechanic received a 5 percent salary reduction for 24 months, which he appealed to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 95 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 296 SATISFACTORY CASES 242 Case No. 09-0306 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 28, 2005, it was alleged a doctor inserted his entire hand into an inmate's rectum while attempting to DISPO INV ADV HA reposition the inmate's intestine and attach a clamp. It was also alleged that on October 17, 2006, the doctor subjected inmates to prolonged exposure of their breasts during physical examinations. During April and May 2007, it was alleged the doctor inappropriately examined and touched inmates and brushed up against inmates with his body and his erect penis. It was alleged that on November 7, 2007, the doctor poked an inmate hard with a speculum in the cervix. In November 2007, it was alleged that the doctor acted inappropriately by using the back of his hand to hit inmates on the buttocks, stared at inmates' genital areas, and squeezed the inmates' nipples after the exams were complete. DISPOSITION OF CASE 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 Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 96 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 07-0179 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 20, 2005, it was alleged that an officer rented a home to a parolee and accepted methamphetamine as payment for rent. It was also alleged that the officer made false statements to a peace officer during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board reversed the findings of overfamiliarity and dishonesty, but sustained the allegation of failing to report contact with a parolee. Therefore, the penalty was modified from a dismissal to a five working-day suspension. Case No. 07-0217 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 10, 2005, a parole agent allegedly failed to report large amounts of cash and drugs in the possession of one of the parolees under his supervision. An investigation also revealed evidence that the parole agent failed to impose special conditions of parole, falsified department forms, and lied during an internal affairs interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, and the parole agent was dismissed. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the parole agent entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which the parole agent received a one-year suspension without pay. The bureau did not concur with the modification, which was entered into without notice to the bureau. Case No. 07-0307 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On or about September 4, 2007, an officer was arrested and charged with being under the influence of drugs, possessing methamphetamine, possessing less than an ounce of marijuana, possessing a concealed fixed-blade knife, resisting arrest, and violating a domestic violence restraining order. The officer did not report the arrest to his hiring authority, as required. DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of possession of a controlled substance, carrying an unauthorized weapon off duty, neglect of duty, and drunkenness in public were sustained, and the officer was dismissed. The officer appealed the dismissal to the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer in which he agreed to resign in lieu of dismissal. The officer also agreed to not seek future employment with the department and to withdraw his appeal. The bureau concurred with the settlement. Case No. 07-0393 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 26, 2006, an officer allegedly dragged a handcuffed inmate across a dayroom floor. The officer was allegedly dishonest by failing to accurately document the incident and attempting to cover it up. Another officer who witnessed the incident was also allegedly dishonest by failing to accurately document the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer who dragged the inmate. The officer was dismissed and appealed the disciplinary action. The other officer retired before the investigation was completed; however, a letter was placed in his personnel file indicating that he retired under adverse circumstances. APPEAL UPDATE On March 23, 2009, the State Personnel Board approved a settlement agreement, the terms of which permitted the officer to resign in lieu of dismissal, and a copy of the settlement agreement was placed in his official personnel file. The bureau concurred with the settlement. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 97 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 07-0453 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2006, a correctional officer allegedly used unnecessary and excessive force by spraying pepper spray into an inmate's face and dragging him down stairs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, and the officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 18 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which the officer's penalty was modified to a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months and the allegations of incompetency and inefficiency were dismissed. The bureau concurred with the settlement. Case No. 07-0496 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 13, 2005, after an inmate fight, two officers allegedly noticed one inmate was bleeding from her left upper chest area. The officers allegedly failed to write a report or obtain medical treatment for the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against one of the officers for endangering an inmate. The officer initially received a two working day suspension, but this was later reduced to a one working day suspension. The officer has appealed the suspension to the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the other officer because of insufficient evidence. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the penalty was reduced to a letter of reprimand that will be removed from the officer's personnel file in two years and the officer withdrew his appeal. The bureau concurred with the settlement. Case No. 07-0500 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 31, 2005, a ward covered a cell window and was verbally unresponsive for approximately 38 minutes. Two counselors were aware of the situation but failed to intervene. A sergeant was notified of the situation; however, the sergeant failed to follow reporting procedures. The cell door was eventually opened, and the ward was found dead, hanging with a sheet tightly secured around the neck. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of neglect of duty against all subjects. The sergeant received a two working day suspension. One counselor received a five working day suspension, and the other counselor received a ten working day suspension. All subjects filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE It was determined that the delay in opening the ward's cell door may have been due, in part, to multiple and conflicting policies and procedures originally created in response to the many recent staff assaults. As a result, the department entered into settlement agreements with the sergeant and both counselors, pursuant to which their penalties were reduced to official letters of reprimand and they withdrew their appeals. The bureau concurred with the settlement agreements. For more information see the Office of the Inspector General's N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility, Special Review into the Death of a Ward on August 31, 2005 (December 2005). BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 98 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 08-0024 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On or about March 2, 2007, it was alleged that a lieutenant and a sergeant were overly familiar with inmates, 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. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board modified the sergeant's penalty from a dismissal to a 30 working-day suspension without pay. The bureau did not concur with the modification. Case No. 08-0077 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 16, 2007, an officer was arrested for driving without a license, driving under the influence of 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. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the officer resigned in lieu of dismissal and agreed to not seek future employment with the department and to withdraw his appeal. The bureau concurred with the settlement. Case No. 08-0135 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 14, 2007, an inmate alleged that two officers threatened him with physical force in retaliation for 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. APPEAL UPDATE This case was combined with another case involving the same officer. The department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the officer's discipline was reduced to a letter of reprimand and the officer withdrew his appeal. The bureau did not concur with the settlement. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 99 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 08-0165 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 30, 2007, officers' reports regarding the use of force against an inmate while trying to remove him 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. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the officer retired in lieu of dismissal, agreed to not seek future employment with the department, and withdrew his appeal. The bureau did not concur with the agreement. Case No. 08-0176 (Headquarters) FACTS OF CASE On March 15, 2007, it was alleged that a correctional counselor I, a correctional counselor II, two sergeants, and 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. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the sergeant entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the sergeant's 15-day suspension was reduced to a five-day suspension. The settlement occurred after the parties arrived prepared for the first day of the State Personnel Board hearing and found out that the State Personnel Board had cancelled the hearing without notice. It was determined that settling the case was in the best interests of the department because the matter would not be scheduled for hearing again for a significant period of time and at considerable cost to the department. The bureau was not consulted regarding the settlement at the time; however, the bureau later concurred with the terms of the settlement based on the unique circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 100 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 08-0180 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 10, 2007, an officer allegedly grabbed an inmate without cause and then falsified a report charging 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. APPEAL UPDATE At the State Personnel Board hearing, this case was combined with another case involving the same officer. The department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the allegations and discipline imposed against the officer in this case were withdrawn. The bureau did not concur with the settlement agreement. Case No. 08-0207 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 3, 2007, two officers allegedly retaliated against a third officer because he had reported official 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. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the department agreed to remove the disciplinary action and the letter of reprimand from the officer's official personnel file no later than February 28, 2009; approximately 11 months after the disciplinary action was imposed. The officer agreed to withdraw his appeal. The bureau concurred with the settlement agreement. Case No. 08-0352 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 26, 2005, a lieutenant conducted disciplinary hearings for four inmates. Despite receiving information from a sergeant that the inmates could not be positively identified, the lieutenant found the inmates guilty of having participated in a riot. It was also alleged the lieutenant was dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation of dishonesty and the lieutenant was dismissed. The lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The disciplinary action was revoked after the State Personnel Board determined that it was not timely served. The bureau did not concur with the decision. Case No. 08-0353 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 13, 2005, an officer allegedly submitted documents in an investigative report falsely indicating that a sergeant had seen a particular inmate participating in a riot. The officer was also allegedly dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegation of dishonesty was sustained and the officer was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board revoked the disciplinary action after determining that it was not timely served. The bureau did not concur with the decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 101 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 08-0402 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 10, 2008, an officer was arrested by local law enforcement officials for possession of stolen property. The officer allegedly admitted that he knew the property was stolen when he gained possession of it. In addition, the officer allegedly failed to report his arrest to the department, as required. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the officer resigned in lieu of dismissal and withdrew his appeal. The bureau concurred with the settlement agreement. Case No. 08-0478 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on November 3, 2007, a parole agent sexually harassed co-workers and had been asleep while on duty. It was additionally alleged that the parole agent was dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the parole agent was dismissed. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the parole agent entered into a settlement agreement following a pre-hearing settlement conference in which a State Personnel Board administrative law judge indicated that dismissal was not warranted based on the facts of the case as alleged in the disciplinary action. Furthermore, it was determined that the disciplinary action was deficient because it did not include key dates, as required. The department's attorney, who was not assigned to the case until after the disciplinary action had been served, concurred with the assessment that the disciplinary action was deficient and felt the most prudent action was to settle the case for a significant suspension. The bureau concurred, based on the circumstances presented. Case No. 08-0514 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on September 5, 2007, an officer entered a cell then choked and punched an inmate. On September 11, 2007, the officer allegedly insulted and shoved a licensed vocational nurse. The licensed vocational nurse also reported the officer tried to trap her in traffic while she was driving home. The officer also reportedly called a fellow officer a rat and intimidated another officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, the officer was dismissed, and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which the officer resigned. The bureau concurred with the settlement agreement. Case No. 08-0543 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 17, 2007, an officer allegedly used his department identification card inappropriately to gain access to an inmate housed at a county jail. It was alleged that the officer falsely stated to the jail staff that he needed to see the inmate for official business. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer and he was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board revoked the dismissal in its entirety. The officer was reinstated to his position. The bureau did not concur with the decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 102 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 08-0552 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 28, 2007, an officer was reportedly seen with his jumpsuit down to his waist, without his radio, keys, or alarm. Additionally, it was alleged he made inappropriate comments to inmates about their sexual orientation. After a sergeant counseled him about the misconduct, the officer allegedly called the officer who reported the misconduct a "snitch" and "rat." It was also alleged that the officer attempted to intimidate two witnesses during the pendency of the investigation and that he was dishonest during two investigatory interviews. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained all of the allegations and the officer was dismissed. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The hiring authority withdrew the adverse action and gave the officer six months of pay in exchange for his resignation and commitment to not seek employment with the department in the future. The bureau did not concur with the settlement agreement. Case No. 08-0563 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on May 23, 2007, an officer used unnecessary and excessive force by striking and kicking an inmate. The officer was also allegedly dishonest in his report of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations were sustained and the officer was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board granted the sergeant's motion to dismiss the action because a key piece of evidence was deemed inadmissible due to lack of foundation and authentication. The bureau concurred with the decision. Case No. 08-0576 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 27, 2007, a lieutenant was reviewing custody sign-in sheets for the previous day and discovered that an officer signed in for a position he did not work. When questioned, the officer allegedly stated he was called in by a sergeant. It was also alleged that the sergeant was untruthful to the lieutenant about the officer's work assignments. Further review uncovered multiple dates the officer was allegedly called in by the sergeant and paid for hours he did not work. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained and the officer and sergeant were dismissed. Both have filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE Although significant additional mitigating information was presented at a Skelly hearing, the complexity of the case and the unavailability of the department's attorney prevented the department from amending the disciplinary actions before they took effect. As a result, the department entered into settlement agreements with both the officer and the sergeant, pursuant to which their dismissals were reduced to three-month suspensions without pay. The bureau concurred with the settlement agreements. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 103 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 08-0578 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 25, 2007, several inmate-manufactured weapons were found in the vocational print shop. The sergeant assigned to the print shop allegedly failed to properly secure the weapons in an evidence locker and failed to notify his supervisor about them. In addition, the sergeant was allegedly dishonest during his investigative interview when he claimed that he attempted to contact his supervisor. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations against the sergeant were sustained. The sergeant was issued a 10 percent salary reduction for 18 months. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the sergeant entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which the department agreed to reduce the penalty to a 10 percent salary reduction for nine months and the allegation of dishonesty was removed from the disciplinary action. The sergeant agreed to withdraw his appeal. The bureau concurred with the settlement agreement. Case No. 08-0585 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 7, 2007, a sergeant took control of one inmate who had been involved in a fight and escorted him to the medical office for evaluation. Once inside the medical office, the sergeant allegedly grabbed the inmate by his throat and pushed him against a file cabinet. In addition, it was alleged that the sergeant was dishonest during his investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE After investigation, the hiring authority sustained allegations of unnecessary use of force and dishonesty against the sergeant. The sergeant was dismissed. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the sergeant entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which the sergeant was demoted, received an eight-month suspension without pay, and lost his post-and-bid privileges. In addition, the sergeant agreed to retire immediately upon turning 50 years old (in approximately one year). The bureau concurred with the settlement agreement. Case No. 08-0603 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 26, 2006, a sergeant allegedly interfered with officers attempting to place inmates in administrative segregation by falsely claiming that the inmates were needed as part of an unrelated investigation. In addition, it was alleged that the sergeant was dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the sergeant was dismissed. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board modified the penalty to a one-year suspension without pay. The bureau did not concur with the modification. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 104 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 09-0041 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 31, 2007, an inmate would not go into his cell and assumed a prone position. A sergeant and two officers allegedly attempted to drag the inmate into his cell, when the inmate wrapped his legs around the sergeant and they fell to the floor. The inmate eventually entered his cell. Neither the sergeant nor the two officers reported the incident. Another officer allegedly witnessed the incident and also failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant and the two involved officers. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation against the other officer. The hiring authority initially imposed a 48 working-day suspension against the sergeant. However, the case was settled and the penalty was modified to a 10 working-day suspension. The two officers each received a three working-day suspension, which they each appealed to the State Personnel Board. Prior to the hearing, the officers settled their cases and received letters of reprimand. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the two officers entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which the two officers' penalties were reduced to letters of reprimand with no reimbursement by the department for the pay they lost as a result of the suspensions. The bureau concurred with the settlement agreements. Case No. 09-0183 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 8, 2008, it was alleged that four officers and a sergeant failed to properly determine and respond to claims that two inmates were incompatible. It was alleged that the two inmates were placed in the cell and an altercation ensued, causing the officers to use pepper spray to quell the incident. It was further alleged that the officers and sergeant provided misleading information by preparing two separate, and seemingly unrelated, incident reports and omitted information about the inmates' incompatibility. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against two of the officers. One officer resigned and the other officer resigned in connection with an unrelated case. The hiring authority sustained the allegation of failing to perform within the scope of training against the other two officers, and they received training. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant and served him with a notice of dismissal. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the sergeant entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to the department agreed to withdraw the dismissal. The sergeant agreed to resign, not seek employment with the department in the future, and withdraw his appeal. The bureau concurred with the settlement agreement. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 105 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 09-0267 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 19, 2007, outside law enforcement provided the department with photographs depicting an officer wearing gang clothing in the company of known gang members. It was also alleged that on two prior occasions, the officer was contacted by outside law enforcement while in the company of known gang members. The department also learned that prior to his employment with the department, the officer had been questioned by outside law enforcement about an attempted homicide; a fact the officer allegedly failed to disclose in a personal history questionnaire he submitted to the department. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement on the first day the case was scheduled for hearing before the State Personnel Board, Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the officer's discipline was reduced to a 36-week suspension without pay and the officer withdrew his appeal. Due to the department's failure to subpoena a key witness and the questionable credibility of another key witness, the bureau concurred with the settlement agreement. Case No. 09-0269 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 9, 2007, a sergeant allegedly submitted documentation representing that he interviewed an officer regarding an inmate complaint when, in fact, the sergeant did not interview the officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and served the sergeant with a notice of dismissal. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the sergeant entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which the department withdrew the dismissal and the sergeant resigned and agreed to not seek employment with the department in the future. The bureau concurred with the settlement agreement. Case No. 09-0300 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 4, 2006, it was alleged an inmate attempted to introduce razor blades and other contraband into the institution's administrative segregation unit. The inmate claimed a captain, lieutenant, and an officer promised him immunity from criminal prosecution relating to the attempt to smuggle contraband in exchange for information. It was further alleged that the officer violated procedure by removing witness interview tapes from a secured office and subsequently losing them. It was also alleged that the officer was dishonest in his investigative interview when he claimed he was given approval by his superiors to remove the audio tapes from the institution and dispose of them as he saw fit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer related to the improper handling of evidence and dishonesty and served him with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which the penalty was reduced to a 90 working- day suspension plus a six month unpaid leave of absence. The bureau did not concur with the settlement agreement. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 106 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0307 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 26, 2009, an inmate alleged he was sexually assaulted by his cellmate. However, after the inmate was transferred to an outside hospital, he denied he was sexually assaulted and refused to be physically examined. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The case was not referred to the district attorney's office because there was no evidence that a sexual assault occurred. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0308 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 2, 2009, an inmate was discovered unconscious in his cell. It was discovered the inmate had shoe prints on his chest and neck. Subsequently, the inmate died as a result of his injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy revealed that the inmate died as a result of asphyxia and compression and blunt force trauma of the neck. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The case against the inmate's cellmate 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 critical aspects. 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 concurred. Case No. 09-0309 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 30, 2009, an inmate was found unresponsive in his cell. The cellmate notified staff that the inmate was in need of medical care. Staff responded to the cell and the inmate was transported to the institution's medical treatment center where he was pronounced dead. The autopsy and toxicology reports identify the cause of death as acute opiate overdose. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy revealed the inmate died as a result of an acute opiate overdose. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 and the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0310 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 27, 2009, it was reported that an inmate being treated at a local hospital fell out of his wheelchair onto the floor, breaking his back. The inmate alleged that an officer pulled the wheelchair out from under him as he attempted to stand. DISPOSITION OF CASE It was determined that the inmate did not lock the wheels of the wheelchair before attempting to stand and, after a medical examination, it was determined he back was not broken. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical aspects. The department failed to promptly notify the bureau, but then adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 107 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0311 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 24, 2009, four wards were found in their cells with nooses around their necks. One of the wards had started a fire in his cell. The four wards were breathing normally after the incident and did not require outside medical treatment. They were each placed on suicide watch and were evaluated by mental health staff the next morning. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was no evidence of staff misconduct; therefore, 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 critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0312 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 23, 2009, a single-celled inmate was found hanging from a sheet in his administrative segregation unit cell. The inmate was cut down and immediate life-saving efforts were initiated by custody and medical staff. DISPOSITION OF CASE Responding paramedics pronounced the inmate dead after life-saving efforts failed. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0313 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 17, 2009, an inmate was walking around the yard with two other inmates when one of the inmates distracted him as the other stabbed him with an inmate-manufactured weapon. The inmate was flown to a local hospital for medical treatment, and he survived. A crime scene was established, suspects were identified, and the weapon was recovered. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the two inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. Case No. 09-0314 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 15, 2009, during the preparation of the morning meal, an inmate was stabbed by another inmate with an inmate-manufactured weapon. The attacked inmate received a serious injury to his neck. Officers used pepper spray to stop the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution of the inmate. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department's notice to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient, as was its consultation with the bureau. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 108 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0315 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 11, 2009, two inmates attacked a third inmate while on the exercise yard. While yard staff were responding to the incident, a control booth officer fired a 40 mm less-than-lethal round at one of the attackers, striking him in the head. The inmate received a fractured skull with internal bleeding and was transported to an outside hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE Because of the seriousness of the inmate's injuries, the Office of Internal Affairs responded immediately to the institution and opened a deadly force investigation into the incident. The department opened both criminal and adminstrative investigations into the matter, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department's notice to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient, as was its consultation with the bureau. The hiring authority chose to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and the bureau concurred. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral. Case No. 09-0316 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 11, 2009, an inmate was attacked by two other inmates on a concrete housing yard. The inmate was stabbed multiple times with an inmate-manufactured weapon and died from his injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the two inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department's notice to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient, as was its consultation with the bureau. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0317 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 10, 2009, an inmate alleged he had been forced to orally copulate his cellmate the previous night. The institution initiated the Prison Rape Elimination Act procedures. DISPOSITION OF CASE Physical evidence was sent to the Department of Justice for processing. The case against the inmate may be referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution pending the results of the evidence. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response to the incident was satisfactory, except that the department did not ensure that the sexual assault examination was timely completed. Although the department contacted the sexual assault nurse on the date the assault was reported, the alleged victim was not forensically examined until approximately 44 hours later. 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 Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 109 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0318 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 9, 2009, an inmate was battered and allegedly sexually assaulted by several inmates. The inmate suffered head trauma and was transported to a local hospital for further evaluation and treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was sufficient, except they did not follow all Prison Rape Elimination Act protocols. Although the inmate was seen at an outside hospital for her injuries, the department failed to have the victim examined for sexual battery by a sexual assault nurse examiner. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0319 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 7, 2009, an inmate was attacked by another inmate and sustained a fractured nose and ruptured orbital lobe of his right eye. The injured inmate was transported to a local hospital where he was treated and released back to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0320 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 6, 2009, two inmates stabbed another inmate multiple times. The inmates stopped the attack as officers responded to the incident. The injured inmate was transported to a local hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide timely initial notification. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0321 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 5, 2009, an inmate reported that an officer escorted her to her cell after her shower on May 4, 2009. Once in the cell, it was alleged the officer inserted his finger inside her vagina. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate except for a failure to refer the inmate for a sexual assault examination in a more timely manner. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs addressed the hiring authority’s referral, and the bureau concurred with its response. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 110 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0322 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 27, 2009, a transport van from an institution was involved in a motor vehicle accident with a civilian's vehicle. The inmate being transported received minor injuries, and the two transport officers did not receive any injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE Outside law enforcement conducted an investigation and determined that there was no staff misconduct. The matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response to the incident was sufficient in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0323 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 27, 2009, an officer observed an inmate lying on the floor of his cell covered in blood while the cellmate was sitting at the desk. The injured inmate was air-lifted to a local hospital after paramedics determined he received a serious head injury. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to initially notify the bureau promptly 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. 09-0324 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 25, 2009, a ward told another ward that he was going to attempt suicide by swallowing two AAA batteries in hopes that they would explode in his stomach. Staff was immediately notified and responded to the ward's cell. He gave a suicide note to a medical staff member and was taken to the hospital for observation. He returned to the facility the following day. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. However, training was provided to mental health staff on how to properly complete incident reports. 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. 09-0325 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 23, 2009, three inmates stabbed another inmate in a dayroom. The inmates stopped the attack when officers sounded the alarm and responded to the scene. The injured inmate was transported to a local hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide timely initial notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 111 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0326 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 20, 2009, officers conducting an inmate count found a single-celled inmate hanging from the bars of his cell. Officers cut down the inmate but did not perform life-saving measures because rigor mortis had already set in. The inmate was officially pronounced dead a short time later. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined that the inmate died within a few minutes of lowering himself into the noose. A suicide note was found in his cell. There was no indication of staff misconduct; therefore, 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 adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0327 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 19, 2009, an officer observed two inmates assaulting another inmate. The officer used pepper spray to stop the attack after verbal commands failed. The injured inmate was treated at a local hospital for multiple stab wounds. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution because both inmates were serving life terms and, pursuant to the district attorney's filing criteria, would not be prosecuted. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical aspects. The department adequately notified and 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. 09-0328 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 18, 2009, an inmate attempted suicide by biting his arm causing damage to an artery. The inmate was transported to a local hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case 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 critical 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. 09-0329 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 15, 2009, an inmate alleged that he was sexually assaulted by his cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE A forensic examination was conducted and the case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 112 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0330 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 13, 2009, an inmate alleged that he was sexually assaulted by his cellmate while he was sleeping. DISPOSITION OF CASE A forensic examination was conducted and revealed no evidence of sexual assault; therefore, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. No staff misconduct was identified. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0331 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 12, 2009, a 75-year old inmate was sitting at a table on a facility's recreation yard when another inmate attacked him, stabbing him multiple times with an inmate-manufactured weapon. Staff ordered the assailant to stop, but he did not immediately comply. As staff approached, the assailant dropped his weapon and assumed a prone position on the ground. The attacked inmate died in an outside hospital eight days later. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the assailant inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Except for the investigative services unit's untimely response in processing the scene of the incident, collecting evidence, and photographing the scene, the bureau determined that the department's response to the incident was adequate. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0332 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 11, 2009, an inmate approached an officer while he was holding his eye stating that he fell. The inmate later admitted he was assaulted with a stabbing weapon by another inmate. The injured inmate was transported to a local hospital via ambulance for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which declined to prosecute. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 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. 09-0333 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 11, 2009, a riot erupted in a gymnasium between several inmates, resulting in serious injury to two of the inmates. The fighting stopped when staff gave verbal commands. No force was used in the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and the bureau concurred. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 113 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0334 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 8, 2009, a youth counselor discovered a ward hanging in his room. Staff entered the room and cut the ward down. The ward was breathing, conscious, and taken to an outside hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 09-0335 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 31, 2009, an officer heard banging in a cell and found an inmate hitting his cellmate in the face and upper torso. The inmate stopped the attack after the officer activated the alarm. The injured inmate was transported to a local hospital for treatment of multiple fractures. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which declined to prosecute. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide timely initial notification, but adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. Case No. 09-0336 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 25, 2009, an inmate alleged he was sexually assaulted by his cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate timely initial notification. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0337 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 23, 2009, at approximately 1046 hours, two inmates attempted to murder another inmate with an inmate-manufactured weapon. The attack occurred in an area of the yard that inmates are not to be in and is difficult for officers to observe. Staff deployed a chemical grenade onto the yard, thereby stopping the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The institution repainted the red border delineating the area where inmates are not allowed to make it more visible, and are investigating the practicality of installing cameras to cover potential blind spots. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 114 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0338 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 19, 2009, two inmates stabbed another inmate in the neck and upper torso numerous times while on an exercise yard. The inmates stopped their attack following verbal orders by the observation officer. The injured inmate was transported to a trauma center at a local hospital and later transferred to an intensive care unit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0339 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 13, 2009, a riot broke out between two rival prison gangs involving approximately 35 inmates. Officers deployed pepper spray canisters and fired less-than-lethal rounds with no effect. The observation post officer observed defenseless inmates on the ground being stomped, kicked, and stabbed by multiple inmates. He fired five lethal rounds at the attackers. The first round was fired at an attacker, and the second round was a warning shot into the ground in the middle of the yard. Neither round stopped the attack, so the observation post officer fired three more rounds at the remaining attackers. It was determined that the rounds hit two inmates in the buttocks area, one inmate in the arm, and one inmate in the foot. All of the inmates that were hit by rounds were taken to outside hospitals for treatment. One of defenseless inmates died from multiple stab wounds. There were several other inmates treated for stab and slash wounds. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was not referred to district attorney's office for prosecution because an assailant could not be identified. The Office of Internal Affairs dispatched special agents from the deadly force investigation team to conduct investigations into the incident. 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 The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for a deadly force investigation and the bureau concurred with this decision. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 09-0340 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 13, 2009, custody staff responded to an inmate yelling for assistance from inside a cell. Responding officers located an inmate laying in her bunk bleeding from lacerations to both of her wrists. Officers began life-saving measures, and medical staff was summoned. The inmate was transported by ambulance to an outside hospital. The inmate received medical care and was returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide timely initial notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 115 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0341 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 12, 2009, an inmate alleged he was raped two days prior by several other inmates while housed in the gymnasium. The inmate indicated that a group of inmates sprayed him with mushroom dust, which caused him to pass out, and he was raped while unconscious. DISPOSITION OF CASE A sexual assault examination of the inmate was conducted, which provided no evidence of a sexual assault. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0342 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 10, 2009, approximately 200 inmates engaged in a riot in a dining hall. Several inmates used food trays as weapons. Officers used chemical agents, batons, and approximately sixty 40mm less-than-lethal rounds to quell the riot. Several inmates and officers sustained minor injuries during the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate initial notification. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0343 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 7, 2009, an inmate was found unresponsive in his cell. CPR was initiated and an emergency response vehicle was immediately dispatched to the cell. The inmate was transported to an outside medical facility where he was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy determined the cause of death was hypertension and atherosclerotic cardio vascular disease. A toxicology report reflected a recent use of heroin prior to the inmate's death. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to make an initial timely notification regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0344 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 4, 2009, officers responded to a cell after inmates notified them of a medical emergency. An inmate was found in his cell with multiple cuts and a large amount of blood on his blanket. He resisted medical attention stating that he did it to himself. The inmate was pronounced dead at a local hospital after life-saving efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE A coroner determined that the inmate bled to death from self-inflicted wounds. A suicide note was found in his cell. There was no indication of staff misconduct; therefore, 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 critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and the bureau concurred. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 116 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0345 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 24, 2009, an inmate alerted an officer to a problem in a nearby cell. The officer went to the cell and saw an inmate kicking his cellmate in the head and the inmate being kicked appeared unconscious. The officer sounded his alarm for backup and sprayed the attacking inmate with pepper spray. The officers removed the attacking inmate from the cell and began life-saving measures on the injured inmate. The injured inmate died as a result of the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0346 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 24, 2009, an inmate told staff that he had been raped in his cell an hour earlier. The institution initiated Prison Rape Elimination Act protocols and the inmate was sent out to a hospital for further evaluation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The examination produced no evidence to corroborate the inmate's allegation that he had been sexually assaulted. The matter against the inmate was not referred to the district attorney's office. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0347 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 24, 2009, an inmate resisted the efforts of an officer to perform a clothed-body search. During an ensuing physical struggle, the officer suffered a dislocated shoulder when the inmate slammed him head-first toward the ground and punched the officer in the face with both fists. Several officers came to the aid of the injured officer. One of the assisting officers used pepper spray to deter the inmate from further assaulting the injured officer. Another inmate, from the same disruptive group as the inmate assailant, ran toward the scene and attempted to hit an officer who was helping the injured officer. The officer used several baton strikes to ward off the second inmate. Approximately 50 inmates from the same disruptive group reacted to the assaults by collectively moving toward the incident. They stopped when a yard observation sergeant announced that "live rounds would be fired" if they did not retreat and get down on the ground. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 117 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0348 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 24, 2009, while conducting an inmate count, an officer discovered an inmate dead in his cell with his throat cut by a razor blade. The inmate did not have a cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical aspects. 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. 09-0349 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 23, 2009, while being interviewed about suspected narcotics in his possession, a ward made allegations that he received the suspected narcotics from a female teacher's aide, who worked at the facility. The ward also alleged that he had sexual contact with the teacher's aide as payment for delivering the narcotics. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an inquiry, which included testing the suspected narcotics, interviewing the ward, and obtaining reports from Child Protective Services. The inquiry did not corroborate the ward's allegations because the suspected narcotics turned out to not be narcotics, the ward refused to answer follow-up questions, and Child Protective Services' involvement did not provide additional information. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0350 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 21, 2009, an inmate fell to the ground in the yard during yard activity. An officer responded and observed the inmate lying on his back gasping for air. The inmate was immediately transported to the institutional medical facility where CPR was initiated. Attempts to revive the inmate were unsuccessful and he was pronounced dead after being transported to a local hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy revealed the cause of death to be a heart attack. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 118 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0351 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 15, 2009, an inmate alleged that he was sexually assaulted by another inmate. The institution initiated Prison Rape Elimination Act protocols. The accused inmate was housed in the administrative segregation unit pending the completion of the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE Physical evidence was sent to the Department of Justice for analysis. The case may be referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution pending analysis of the evidence. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case 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 critical aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation; but failed to make initial notification in a timely manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0352 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 12, 2009, three inmates attacked another inmate in a dayroom by stabbing him with an inmate-manufactured weapon and hitting him. Staff used pepper spray to stop the attack. The attacked inmate was stabbed on his back, lower left side, his arm, and on the side of his head. He also appeared to have a punctured lung and was transported by helicopter to an outside hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to this incident was timely and satisfactory in all critical aspects. In addition, the department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau. The department found no staff misconduct related to this incident, and the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0353 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 11, 2009, while on an exercise yard, two inmates began hitting another inmate in the face, head, and upper torso with their fists and feet. A control booth officer ordered all the inmates on the yard to get down. The combatants did not comply. Responding staff arrived, formed a skirmish line, and gave numerous verbal orders, which were ignored. The combatants continued hitting and kicking the inmate, who was then motionless on the ground. The control booth officer fired one lethal round as a warning shot into the outside wall of the gymnasium. The combatants still continued their attack. Responding staff then deployed pocket grenades of pepper spray, which stopped the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE The attacked inmate survived. The case against the inmates was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to this incident was timely and satisfactory in all critical aspects. In addition, the department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau. The department found no staff misconduct related to this incident, and the bureau concurred. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 119 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0354 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 10, 2009, an officer observed an inmate stabbing another inmate multiple times on the exercise yard. The officer ordered all inmates to get down and sounded the alarm. The inmate fell to the ground and the aggressor threw the knife over a nearby wall and then complied with the officer's orders. The inmate was stabbed in the neck, chest, abdomen, wrist, and hand. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide adequate initial notification, but adequately consulted with 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. 09-0355 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 8 and February 9, 2009, officers forcibly extracted inmates from 27 cells. An inmate alleged that his shoulder was dislocated during one of the cell extractions. A medical examination confirmed that the inmate's shoulder was dislocated. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide timely initial notification. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0356 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 4, 2009, a nurse noticed that an inmate had blood on his arm while she was delivering medication to his cell. The inmate later received 15 stitches for a self-inflicted cut to his forearm. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. However, a sergeant received training for failing to search for a weapon when removing the inmate from his cell. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide timely initial notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0357 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 3, 2009, during a medical intake examination, an inmate told a doctor that he had been sexually assaulted by his cellmate in May 2008. The inmate claimed this may have been the source of his recent Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) contraction. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department initiated Prison Rape Elimination Act protocols and the inmate was physically examined. During the examination, the inmate stated that he had been misunderstood and that he had not been sexually assaulted. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 120 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0358 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 2, 2009, a 49-year-old inmate collapsed while playing basketball. An AED and CPR were used to revive him. He was transported to an outside hospital where he died shortly thereafter. DISPOSITION OF CASE Medical staff attributed the cause of death to a heart attack due to exertion. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with 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. 09-0359 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 31, 2009, an officer observed two inmates fighting in their assigned cell. The inmates ignored orders to stop fighting, so pepper spray was used to obtain compliance. After the inmates stopped fighting, officers applied restraints and found one of the inmates had stab wounds to the neck and upper torso. A stabbing weapon was discovered during a subsequent search. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide timely initial notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0360 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 30, 2009, an inmate bleeding from the neck and shoulder area approached a vocational instructor. An alarm was activated and staff provided medical aid to the inmate. Because of the potentially life-threatening injuries, the inmate was transported to a local hospital by helicopter. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate refused to fully cooperate with investigators. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0361 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 27, 2009, officers observed two inmates assaulting another inmate in the exercise yard. Officers ordered the inmates to take prone positions; however, the inmates continued the assault before eventually taking prone positions. One inmate received seven stab wounds resulting in punctures to his lung, liver, and diaphragm; requiring surgery. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 121 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0362 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 26, 2009, an inmate died after being beaten and kicked by his cellmate. No weapons were used during the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was investigated by the district attorney's office with assistance from the institution's investigative services unit. The case was subsequently referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and 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. 09-0363 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 26, 2009, an inmate reported that he had just discovered another inmate sitting in the restroom bleeding profusely from his wrists. Responding staff began life-saving measures and summoned emergency medical care. The inmate was taken to a local hospital where he died as a result of his injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy revealed the inmate died as a result of self-inflicted wounds. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0364 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 24, 2009, a riot occurred in the dayroom of an institution. Officers used chemical agents and less-than-lethal force to stop the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0365 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 23, 2009, an inmate was found unresponsive in his cell with a bed sheet around his neck. The inmate was pronounced dead after advanced life-saving efforts failed. The inmate's cellmate was placed in administrative segregation until the conclusion of the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined the inmate died as a result of suicide by hanging. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 122 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0366 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 23, 2009, officers heard a "man down" call and responded to a cell to find an inmate with his hands and ankles bound together and tied to the back corners of the upper bunk. Officers removed the cellmate and entered the cell to remove the tied-up inmate. The inmate claimed he had been sexually assaulted. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0367 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 21, 2009, two inmates were assaulting another inmate who was unable to defend himself. An officer fired a lethal round from a rifle as a warning shot toward an unoccupied location on the main yard. The combatants continued to assault the inmate and responding staff used pepper spray to stop the incident. No inmates or staff members were injured as a result of the discharge of the firearm. DISPOSITION OF CASE The lethal round was confirmed to have been a warning shot. The institution's use-of-force review committee reviewed the matter and determined that the shooting was within policy. Therefore, the matter was not referred to the Officer of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0368 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 17, 2009, outside law enforcement officers found a registered nurse employed by the department engaged in sexual intercourse with a parolee in a vehicle at a park. The officers also found Vicodin and Xanax pills in an unlabeled prescription bottle in the vehicle. The nurse claimed that the pills belonged to her although she did not have a prescription with her at the time. The nurse and parolee informed the officers that they met while at an institution and that the parolee had been released from custody only two days before the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs’ response to the hiring authority’s referral. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 123 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0369 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 17, 2009, an officer observed two inmates stabbing another inmate multiple times on an exercise yard. The officer sounded the alarm and ordered all inmates on the yard to get down. After stabbing the inmate multiple times in the back, the assailants threw the weapon over a wall and then complied with orders to get down. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify the bureau initially regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0370 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 15, 2009, an officer's relatives received a call from an inmate, who was also a family member. The inmate said that the officer was going to be hurt. DISPOSITION OF CASE After investigation and assessment, the department determined the inmate was attempting to extort money from his family and that he did not have the ability or resources to carry out threats against the officer. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department initially failed to provide adequate notification, but then adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation and the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0371 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 14, 2009, during a staff meeting held inside an institution, staff observed another employee slumped over in a chair. Staff quickly assessed the employee's condition and determined the employee to be unconscious, not breathing, and having no pulse. Staff began and continued life-saving measures, including the use of an oxygen bag, chest compressions, and an AED, until an ambulance arrived and transported the employee to an outside hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE Although the employee did not regain consciousness prior to leaving the institution, staff were able to establish a normal heart beat. The employee regained consciousness at the hospital and recovered from the incident. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation, and the bureau agreed. The hiring authority nominated six staff for the department's medal of valor for their life-saving efforts. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 124 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0372 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 13, 2009, it was alleged that a parole agent made statements advocating the assassination of President Barack Obama in the presence of other department employees. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department alerted the United States Secret Service , which initiated a criminal investigation. Also, the Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 09-0373 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 12, 2009, a riot occurred on the yard in which approximately 130 inmates from one racial group attacked approximately 20 inmates from another racial group. Four inmates from the attacked group were observed unconscious on the ground while the attacking inmates kicked them in the head and upper torso area. Officers deployed chemical agents in an attempt to control the riot. An officer fired a lethal round at the attacking inmates. The shot did not strike anyone, but and successfully ended the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs dispatched special agents from the deadly force investigation team to conduct investigations into the incident. 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 adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau also concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. Case No. 09-0374 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 11, 2009, a racially motivated riot involving approximately 30 inmates occurred at an institution. Officers unsuccessfully used pepper spray, batons and fired 11 less-than-lethal rounds to try and stop the riot. An officer discharged two lethal rounds as warning shots, which successfully stopped the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The shots were confirmed to have been warning shots. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation with the bureau, although it failed to promptly notify the bureau about the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 125 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0375 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 9, 2009, three inmates got into a fight during a basketball game. The fight escalated into a riot between two large groups of inmates. The incident was stopped without the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and 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. 09-0376 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 5, 2009, two officers ordered an inmate to exit a cell for the purpose of allowing another inmate to move into the same cell. While exiting the cell, the inmate voiced strenuous objections to receiving a cellmate and threatened the officers. After the inmate exited the cell, the officers attempted to place the inmate in handcuffs. The inmate turned and attacked one of the officers. The other officer attempted to stop the attack by using physical force, but quickly became the target of the attack. The inmate repeatedly struck and kicked both officers and attempted to push one of the officers from the second tier to the first tier below while threatening to kill her. A third officer responded and attempted to stop the attack by using chemical agents; however, the inmate did not respond to the chemical agents. The third officer then used a baton on the inmate; successfully stopping the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE The two officers sustained multiple injuries and were taken to an outside hospital for treatment. The matter was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The district attorney's office filed charges against the inmate, including two counts of attempted murder. The matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation of staff misconduct. However, the department will provide training to the two officers to address inmate threats and appropriate staff responses. The bureau agreed with the department's decision to provide training in these areas. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau 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. 09-0377 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 5, 2009, an inmate alleged that he had been sexually assaulted by another inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 126 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0378 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 4, 2009, an inmate alleged that she was involved in a sexual relationship with an officer. The investigative services unit conducted an inquiry and determined that the allegation was unfounded. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for review, which declined to open the matter for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. The Office of Internal Affairs addressed the hiring authority’s referral, and the bureau concurred with its response. Case No. 09-0379 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 2, 2009, an inmate was found on a cell floor in a prone position. He did not appear to be breathing. Upon finding no signs of a pulse or respiration, medical staff performed CPR and initiated the emergency response system. Medical staff continued emergency life- saving measures until the inmate was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy report revealed the cause of death as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was timely and satisfactory in all critical aspects. In addition, the department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau. The department found no staff misconduct related to this matter, and the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0380 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 28, 2008, an inmate became argumentative with an officer and then struck the officer on the left side of his face with a clenched fist. The officer used his baton to stop the attack and gain the inmate's compliance. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which declined to prosecute. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide sufficient notification. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0381 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 28, 2008, officers observed an inmate washing blood off of himself inside of his cell. The inmate appeared to have been stabbed multiple times by his cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 127 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0382 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 27, 2008, an inmate told an officer that another inmate was injured in his cell. Officers and medical staff responded to the cell and found the inmate injured after allegedly being attacked by three other inmates. The inmate was taken to a local hospital where he received treatment, including 38 stitches for a head injury. The inmate recovered from his injury. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which filed criminal charges. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical 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. 09-0383 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 26, 2008, a riot occurred on the exercise yard between approximately 36 inmates. To stop the incident, the officer in the yard tower fired two lethal warning shots into an adjoining empty yard. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority conducted a review of the incident and determined that staff members' responses were within policy. Because the two lethal rounds were fired for warning, no deadly force investigation was requested. Thus, 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 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. 09-0384 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 25, 2008, an inmate alleged that he was the victim of a sexual assault by another inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0385 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 25, 2008, an officer saw two inmates assaulting another inmate. The inmates did not respond to verbal commands, pepper spray, or baton strikes. Two less-than-lethal rounds were shot by an officer. Due to rapid movement of the inmates, the first round missed the intended target area and struck one of the inmates in the back of the head. The second round missed the other inmate and struck the yard area. The inmate that was struck in the head was taken to a local hospital for treatment. The injuries were determined to be non life- threatening and he recovered. The other inmate was not injured. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which declined to prosecute. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and 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 Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 128 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0386 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 23, 2008, an inmate with a history of mental health issues alleged she had been sexually battered by another inmate in a restroom. The inmate alleged another inmate inserted a piece of bologna and a pencil into her vagina. The inmate was taken to a local hospital for a sexual assault examination pursuant to Prison Rape Elimination Act protocols. DISPOSITION OF CASE Although the sexual assault examination identified some injury, there was insufficient evidence to refer the matter to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 timely notification, but adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. Case No. 09-0387 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 22, 2008, two inmates attacked another inmate and ignored verbal commands to stop fighting. An officer fired three less- than-lethal rounds at the attacking inmates. The last round hit one of the inmates on the right side of his head above the ear, causing a cut and active bleeding. The inmate was air-lifted to a local hospital for treatment and returned to the institution two days later. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with 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. 09-0388 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 22, 2008, an officer found an inmate lying in front of a cell who appeared to be unconscious. Upon reaching the inmate, the officer noticed a small amount of blood coming out of his ear. The inmate was kicking his legs and appeared to be disoriented. Medical personnel discovered a cut inside the inmate's ear. The inmate was transported to a local hospital and underwent surgery because he had internal bleeding in the head region. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate recovered, but refused to cooperate with investigators. As a result, the nature of his injuries could not determined conclusively. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case 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 critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 129 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0389 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 21, 2008, an officer saw a visitor pass contraband to an inmate. When confronted, the inmate struggled and officers used pepper spray and struck him with a baton to gain control of him. The inmate stopped breathing and died. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy revealed the cause of death was asphyxia due to the inmate's airway being obstruction by a bindle of drugs the he attempted to swallow. Outside law enforcement conducted a criminal investigation of the death that was presented to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory except that it allowed other visitors who saw the incident leave without first questioning them. The department adequately notified and 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. 09-0390 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 20, 2008, 23 inmates attacked another inmate on an exercise yard. An alarm was sounded and responding staff formed a skirmish line. The attacking inmates eventually complied with orders to get down without the need for staff to use force. The right lung of the attacked inmate partially collapsed due to a puncture wound. He was transported to an outside hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was sufficient in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau. The department found no staff misconduct related to this incident, and the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0391 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 19, 2008, an inmate returned from the yard before the rest of his unit and was allowed back into his cell because he complained of an earache. Approximately 40 minutes later, his cellmate returned to the cell and alerted officers that the inmate was hanging in the cell. Officers and medical staff responded and attempted life-saving efforts without success. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy confirmed the manner of death as suicide by hanging. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0392 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 18, 2008, while transportation staff were securing their departmental weapons upon return to the institution, an officer accidentally dropped a .38 caliber cartridge causing it to explode. There were no injuries resulting from this incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to this incident was timely and satisfactory in all critical aspects. In addition, the department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau. The department found no staff misconduct related to this incident, and the bureau concurred. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 130 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0393 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 16, 2008, inmates notified officers that an inmate was having seizures. The inmate initially refused treatment, but later agreed to be moved to the triage and treatment area for evaluation. After examining her, the physician requested an ambulance. Prior to the ambulance arriving, the inmate stopped breathing and became unresponsive. Medical staff began CPR and the inmate began breathing again on her own. The inmate was then transported to an outside hospital where she died shortly after arriving at the emergency room. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined that the cause of death was epilepsy. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 adequately notified and consulted with 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. 09-0394 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 15, 2008, an officer observed two inmates attacking another inmate with clenched fists. The officer fired four less-than- lethal rounds at the aggressors; the first two rounds hit the first aggressor in the abdomen and the hip, and the last two rounds missed the second aggressor, but successfully stopped the attack. Two inmate-manufactured knives were found at the scene. The inmates did not sustain serious injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0395 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 15, 2008, an inmate was discovered hanging in his cell during the morning inmate count. Officers began CPR, emergency medical help was called, and medical staff arrived and provided emergency care. Shortly thereafter, paramedics arrived and began advanced life-saving efforts. The inmate was later pronounced dead after all efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined the inmate died as a result of suicide by hanging. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0396 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 14, 2008, two inmates escaped from a conservation camp in northern California. Emergency escape procedures, including all appropriate notifications, were immediately activated once it was learned the inmates were missing. DISPOSITION OF CASE On December 22, 2008, both inmates were captured in southern California. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the escape was timely and satisfactory in all critical aspects. In addition, the department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau. The department found no staff misconduct related to this incident, and the bureau concurred. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 131 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0397 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 11, 2008, a riot occurred on an exercise yard involving approximately 23 inmates. Officers used pepper spray, batons, less- than-lethal and lethal rounds to stop the riot. Neither inmates nor staff sustained any serious injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs dispatched special agents from the deadly force investigation team to conduct investigations into the incident. The Office of Internal Affairs opened administrative and criminal 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 critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit 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. 09-0398 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 9, 2008, an inmate was allegedly attacked by another inmate resulting in serious injury. An officer discharged a 40mm less- than-lethal round to stop the battery; not striking either inmate. The injured inmate was transported by a code-3 ambulance to a local hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Except for conflicting information in the incident report, the bureau determined that the department's response to the incident was adequate. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the hiring authority's decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0399 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 9, 2008, an inmate was discovered hanging by his neck in his single cell. The medical emergency extraction team removed the inmate from his cell and initiated CPR. The inmate was transported by ambulance to an outside hospital where he was pronounced dead later that day. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case 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 neglected to inform the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0400 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 4, 2008, an inmate was found unresponsive in his outpatient-housing unit cell. A code-3 ambulance was called and medical staff initiated CPR. The inmate was pronounced dead after advanced life-saving measures failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined that the inmate died of lung cancer. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 132 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0401 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 3, 2008, an inmate alleged that an officer opened his cell and allowed a nurse to sexually assault him. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case 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 bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0402 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 29, 2008, inmates alerted officers to a cell where they thought an inmate might be having a seizure. Officers found an inmate with a noose around his neck and he was purple in color. The officers began CPR after determining the absence of a pulse. The inmate was transported to the medical clinic and an ambulance was called. The inmate was later pronounced dead at a local hospital after life-saving efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined the cause of death to be lack of oxygen to the brain due to hanging. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0403 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 28, 2008, an inmate alleged that he was sexually assaulted by his cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department failed to adequately notify and consult with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0404 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 19, 2008, medical and custody staff discovered an inmate unresponsive in his cell. Medical staff initiated life-saving measures, summoned an ambulance, and transported the inmate to the treatment triage area. When the paramedics arrived, they assisted institutional medical staff with administering life-saving measures, without success. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined the cause of death to be acute aspiration pneumonia caused by acute morphine intoxication. The evidence indicated the inmate died from an overdose of self-administered heroin. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 133 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0405 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 19, 2008, an inmate was transported to a local hospital exhibiting signs of internal bleeding. The inmate died the following day. DISPOSITION OF CASE A review of the autopsy report revealed the cause of death was liver failure. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with 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. 09-0406 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 18, 2008, an inmate was found unresponsive in his cell by his cellmate. The cellmate unsuccessfully attempted to revive the inmate by throwing water on his face. The cellmate then notified staff who initiated life-saving measures and called for emergency medical services. The inmate was transported to a local hospital and placed on life support until discontinued on November 20, 2008, at his family's request. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined that the inmate died of an accidental heroin overdose; therefore, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0407 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 18, 2008, an inmate alleged he was sexually assaulted by his cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigative services unit properly followed all Prison Rape Elimination Act requirements. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0408 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 18, 2008, two officers found an inmate unresponsive on the floor of his assigned cell in the infirmary. An alarm was sounded and a registered nurse examined the inmate, but was unable to detect a pulse. The inmate was previously diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and had completed a "do not resuscitate" order, which was in his medical file. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined the inmate died from metastatic lung cancer, which he had been suffering from for years. The inmate was in the cell alone and there was no indication of staff misconduct; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 134 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0409 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 17, 2008, staff observed several inmates from two different races engaged in an altercation on the recreation yard. One inmate was observed striking another inmate in a stabbing motion. Officers ordered the inmates to get down and fired less-than-lethal rounds. The inmates ignored the orders to get down and continued to attack the inmate. Officers eventually gained control of the inmates by using chemical agents. One of the inmates suffered serious injuries, including stab wounds, and was air-lifted to an outside hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The incident was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. However, the institution's investigative services unit failed to properly secure and clear the crime scene. Staff and inmates were seen walking through the crime scene prior to the conclusion of evidence collection. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0410 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 17, 2008, while an officer was conducting count, she approached a cell and observed an inmate hanging by his neck from a sheet tied to the upper bunk. After removing the cellmate from the cell, officers cut down the hanging inmate and started life-saving measures. The inmate never regained consciousness and was pronounced dead approximately 40 minutes later at the hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy confirmed the manner of death was suicide by hanging. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with 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. 09-0411 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 14, 2008, during an inmate riot, four to six inmates surrounded another inmate who was on the ground and were kicking him in the head. The tower officer saw that the less-than-lethal rounds that had been fired had not stopped the attack and, therefore, fired a single lethal round as a warning shot into the dirt just below the tower. There were no inmates or staff in the area where the shot was fired. After the warning shot was fired, the attack stopped and the entire riot was brought under control. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical aspects. Although the department provided sufficient consultation, 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 135 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0412 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 12, 2008, an inmate allegedly jumped or fell from the second tier of a housing unit causing serious injuries to his head. Inmate witnesses claimed the inmate dove off the tier; however, the inmate himself claimed he fell from the tier. Custody and medical staff immediately responded to the incident and the inmate was transported to a local hospital for a higher level of care. After several days of treatment at the local hospital, the inmate returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide timely initial notification. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0413 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 8, 2008, officers found an inmate unresponsive on the floor of his assigned single-occupant cell. Officers removed the inmate from the cell and assisted the nurse with CPR. The inmate was transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined the cause of death to be a heart attack. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0414 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 5, 2008, an inmate was attacked by his cellmate. The inmate was transferred to a community hospital where he was hospitalized for several days. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 bureau agreed with the hiring authority's decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0415 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 4, 2008, an inmate was attacked by his cellmate in an administrative segregation unit. The inmate was transferred to a community hospital, placed on life support due to a severe head injury, air-lifted to a trauma center, then returned to a community hospital where he stayed for a short time. The inmate was returned to the institution upon his release from the hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was sufficient except for the absence of incident reports by responding medical staff. The department failed to provide adequate notification, but their consultation with the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 136 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0416 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 3, 2008, prison gang related riots broke out in two housing units simultaneously. Officers responded with pepper spray and less-than-lethal rounds to stop the riots. Five inmates required transportation to community hospitals for injuries caused by inmate- manufactured knives. One inmate was transported by helicopter to a community trauma center after receiving a head injury caused by a less-than-lethal round. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was not referred to the district attorney's office due to a lack of evidence. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. However, the hiring authority requested training for the incident commander. BUREAU ASSESSMENT With the exception of adequate documentation of the injuries resulting from the use of force, the department's overall response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with 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. 09-0417 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 2, 2008, an inmate refused to return to his cell because he had not received sleep medication. An officer placed the inmate in handcuffs and escorted him to his cell. At the cell entrance, the inmate turned away from his cell and resisted going into the cell. While the officer was attempting to control the inmate, the inmate lost his balance and fell, striking his forehead and chin on the corner of his bed. The inmate was taken to a local hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with 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. 09-0418 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 2, 2008, an inmate sustained a serious head injury after he was attacked by two other inmates. The inmate was treated at a community hospital for two days and then returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 137 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0419 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 1, 2008, staff responded to a cell after hearing a banging noise and discovered an inmate sitting on the floor next to a pool of blood while his cellmate was standing in the back of the cell. Both inmates had injuries consistent with being in a cell fight. The inmate who was sitting next to the pool of blood was transported by ambulance to a local hospital for further treatment of trauma to his head. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide adequate notification, but adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0420 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 31, 2008, two inmates associated with a prison gang attacked another inmate associated with the same prison gang. The inmate who was attacked sustained 29 puncture wounds and seven cuts to his back, neck, and face. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The incident was reviewed by the institution's use-of-force review committee and no staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0421 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 30, 2008, two inmates attempted to murder another inmate by repeatedly striking and kicking him in the head, causing serious injuries. Staff responded to the scene using verbal commands and pepper spray to stop the attack. The injured inmate was immediately transported in an ambulance to a local hospital, where it was determined he sustained facial fractures, cuts, and severe head trauma. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the two inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau 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. 09-0422 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 29, 2008, an inmate in a security housing unit stabbed an officer with an inmate-manufactured weapon. The inmate attached the weapon to his foot and kicked the officer in the upper thigh. The officer sustained a puncture wound, but was not seriously injured. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 138 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0423 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 24, 2008, an inmate made allegations of sexual misconduct against a doctor. The inmate alleged that the doctor inappropriately touched his genitals during a medical examination on October 20, 2008. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigative services unit conducted a videotaped interview of the inmate. The institution referred the complaint to Office of Internal Affairs, which declined to open an investigation due to a lack of corroborating evidence. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate except for failure to follow some of the protocols of the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority chose to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. The bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs’ response to the hiring authority’s referral. Case No. 09-0424 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 22, 2008, an inmate was discovered by his cellmate hanging by his neck from a vent. The cellmate called for help and officers responded to the cell, sounded an alarm, requested medical response, and cut the inmate down. Medical staff responded to the scene, but pronounced the inmate dead after life-saving efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE Investigators found a suicide note and determined that it matched the handwriting of the inmate. The coroner's preliminary opinion was that the death occurred as a result of hanging and there was no evidence of foul play. The bureau recommended that training be provided to custody staff because the inmate fell and hit his head after he was cut down due to inadequate support of the body by officers. The hiring authority agreed and initiated a training request. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0425 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 21, 2008, fighting broke out on the main exercise yard between approximately 13 inmates who were members of rival prison gangs. Responding staff used chemical agents to stop the incident. No significant injuries resulted from the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was sufficient. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but failed to provide timely initial notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0426 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 21, 2008, two inmates assaulted a third inmate on the exercise yard. The inmates ignored officers' orders to get down and stop fighting. A control booth officer fired one less-than-lethal round; striking one of the inmates in the head and causing injury. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident in a timely manner. 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 Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 139 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0427 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 17, 2008, an inmate attacked another inmate while on the recreation yard. The inmate was punched in the head, rendering him unconscious. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department referred the matter to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which declined to prosecute. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0428 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 16, 2008, while officers were searching inmates on the facility yard, an officer observed an inmate jump up from the prone position and attempt to kill another inmate by stabbing him twice in the upper body. An officer ran to the area and saw that the inmate was severely bleeding. He summoned medical assistance, and the inmate was immediately transported to an outside hospital for treatment. An inmate-manufactured weapon was recovered from the crime scene. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to timely notify the bureau of 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. 09-0429 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 10, 2008, an inmate entered an open cell and attacked two inmates inside the cell. Responding staff observed the assailant hit one inmate while the other lay on the floor with head injuries. The inmate died of his head injuries 11 days later at an outside hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the assailant inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0430 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 9, 2008, a condemned inmate committed suicide by hanging himself in his cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects, except that it failed to timely notify the bureau about the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 140 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0431 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 8, 2008, a riot involving 15 inmates occurred on a recreational yard. Responding officers used chemical agents and one less- than-lethal round to stop the violence. One of the inmates was air-lifted to a local medical facility for severe facial injuries suffered during the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for 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 bureau agreed with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0432 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 30, 2008, after two inmates got into a fight about a basketball game, an inmate riot occurred on the yard involving approximately 500 inmates. The riot was stopped with the use of pepper spray and less-than-lethal rounds. Several inmates were transported to a local hospital with wounds consistent with mutual combat. Neither inmates nor staff sustained any serious injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. No cases against inmates were referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with the decision. Case No. 09-0433 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 22, 2008, a nurse called a minimum security facility and expressed concerns he had with a specific inmate. Shortly thereafter, the nurse arrived at the facility and attempted to gain access. As the nurse exited his vehicle, staff observed he had a large bulge resembling a gun under his shirt. When officers attempted to communicate with him, he quickly left the area and drove toward his residence on institutional property. Officers responded to the nurse's residence and searched his residence. During the search, officers found a handgun, shotgun, ammunition, and observed a pipe with capped ends. A similar pipe was observed in the nurse's vehicle. Officers cleared the area and contacted outside law enforcement. DISPOSITION OF CASE Outside law enforcement arrested the nurse and submitted the case to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The Office of Internal Affairs did not conduct a timely interview with the nurse to investigate concerns that an additional weapon may have been unaccounted for. When the Office of Internal Affairs finally spoke with the nurse, it purposefully excluded the bureau and did not record the interview. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 141 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0434 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 17, 2008, the department allegedly released an inmate even though he had a pending action for a rules violation that would have kept him in custody for a longer time period. The inmate had a history of threatening to kill the police, the prosecutor, and the judge who were involved in his criminal case. He was returned to custody shortly after release. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the Office of Internal Affairs did not conduct an investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 09-0435 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 16, 2008, an inmate committed suicide by hanging in an administrative segregation unit. A staff psychologist found the inmate and immediately contacted custody staff. Life-saving measures were implemented without success, and the inmate was later pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case 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 adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0436 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 16, 2008, a riot occurred involving 50 to 60 inmates and the use of inmate-manufactured knives. Officers used pepper spray and less-than-lethal rounds to stop the incident. Five inmates were seriously injured and required treatment at a community hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT With the exception of a delay in having the institution's use-of-force review committee evaluate the incident, the department's overall response was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with 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. 09-0437 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 15, 2008, a riot occurred involving 17 inmates. Officers attempted to stop the disturbance with pepper spray and less-than- lethal rounds, but without success. After observing an inmate striking another inmate with stabbing motions, an officer used lethal force by firing a single warning shot. The inmates immediately stopped fighting and complied with orders. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affiars for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 142 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0438 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 5, 2008, an inmate alleged that her cellmate sexually assaulted her with a foreign object. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate was evaluated by institutional medical staff but refused to be taken to an outside medical provider and further refused to cooperate with an investigation into the matter. No staff misconduct was identified and 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 adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0439 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 31, 2008, an inmate was found unresponsive in his cell by an officer. Emergency medical aid was provided; however, the inmate did not survive. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy report determined heroin intoxication as the cause of death. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0440 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 28, 2008, an inmate was erroneously released on parole 14 months early because institution staff failed to place documentary records in the inmate's file that affected the calculation of the inmate's release date. DISPOSITION OF CASE A full audit was conducted of the correctional case records procedure. The system flaws that were identified were corrected and staff received training. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not reffered to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient, although the department failed to adequately notify and consult with 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. 09-0441 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 16, 2008, an inmate exhibited bizarre behavior in his cell. A cell extraction was authorized in order to remove the inmate and place him in a crisis bed. Large amounts of pepper spray, as well as physical force, were used to remove the inmate from his cell. A spit mask was placed on the inmate to prevent him from biting staff. The inmate was placed on a gurney and transported to the institution's treatment and triage area where he stopped breathing. Attempts to revive the inmate were unsuccessful. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs dispatched special agents from the deadly force investigation team to conduct investigations into the incident. 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 The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. The bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 143 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0442 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 9, 2008, it was alleged that a cook grabbed an inmate's arm causing the inmate to trip and fall. As she was falling, the cook allegedly grabbed the inmate's breast. The inmate also alleged she was attacked by other inmates on July 14, 2007, after the cook told the inmates she was a snitch. The inmate also alleged that the cook attempted to sexually assault her during November of 2007 while she was locked in the kitchen. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was identified, therefore, the matter was referred 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 adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs’ response to the hiring authority’s referral. Case No. 09-0443 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 2, 2008, a riot occurred in a gym that was being used as a housing unit at an institution. Thirty to 40 inmates attacked a group of 11 inmates. As the riot continued, other inmates joined in. Staff used pepper spray and a 40 mm less-than-lethal projectile launcher in an attempt to stop the incident, with negative results. When additional staff arrived, a skirmish line was formed and the inmates complied with orders to stop fighting. Three inmate-manufactured weapons, tobacco, and marijuana were recovered from the crime scene. Seven inmates were transported to an outside hospital for higher level of care; one of those inmates suffered four stab wounds. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution because the inmate victims, witnesses, and participants indicated that they would not testify in court. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it did not timely notify the bureau of the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0444 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 25, 2008, approximately 35 inmates were involved in a riot stemming from a dispute between rival prison gangs. Two inmates received serious injuries as a result of the riot. Officers used pepper spray to stop the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department's use-of-force committee reviewed the incident and determined that the force used was within departmental policy and appropriate for the situation. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 144 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0445 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 4, 2008, a riot broke out at a private contract facility during an attempt to restrain two inmates suspected of being intoxicated. An officer used chemical agents to stop the violence. A private contract employee sustained four fractures to his jawbone and a perforated eardrum when attacked by inmates during the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The response to the incident by the department and the contract facility were unsatisfactory. The contract facility did not provide adequate training to its employees on how to safely approach a large group of inmates during a riot. The department did not complete medical examination forms on riot participants, and the results of a use of force review were not provided to the facility or the bureau. In addition, the department did not sufficiently consult with the bureau, nor did it properly notify the bureau about the incident. Case No. 09-0446 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 20, 2008, an office technician for the Board of Parole Hearings was confronted by special agents concerning allegations that she was bringing contraband into an institution, including drugs. The office technician admitted to the allegations. The officers retrieved contraband from the institution at the specific location given by the office technician and drugs were found during a search of her residence. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs, which opened a criminal and an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau agreed with the decision 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. 09-0447 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 19, 2008, an inmate threatened to stab an officer and attempted to break a light fixture in his cell, possibly for purposes of creating an inmate-manufactured weapon. Pepper spray was used to gain compliance with negative results. A lieutenant ordered an emergency cell extraction. When the extraction team entered the cell, an officer was stabbed with an inmate-manufactured weapon, but he was wearing a protective vest and was not injured. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. Staff misconduct was identified. The hiring authority referred the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an investigation, but authorized the hiring authority to take corrective or disciplinary action to address the staff misconduct. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. 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' response to the hiring authority's referral. The bureau is monitoring the hiring authority's disciplinary decisions in this matter. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 145 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0448 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2008, an inmate was observed slamming the front and back of his head against the walls of a holding cell. A psychiatrist attempted to counsel the inmate, but he was unreceptive. While the inmate was being moved to another holding cell, he attempted to hit the escorting officers. One of the officers forced the inmate to the ground. Following the use of force, the inmate complained of pain to his ribs. He was transported to an outside hospital where a medical examination revealed the inmate had suffered a broken rib. Approximately two weeks later, the inmate suffered a stroke and fell into a coma. A hematoma was discovered on the top of his head, which required surgery. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority referred the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation, which declined to open an investigation. A review of the use of force did not identify any staff misconduct. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0449 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 24, 2008, a parole agent shot and killed a pit bull dog when it attempted to attack him during a parole sweep. Specifically, a parolee attempted to exit the rear door of the residence with his dog after parole agents announced their presence from within the residence. A parole agent, who was clearly identified by his badge and clothing as being a parole agent, was posted in the rear of the residence and gave commands for the parolee to stop and raise his hands. The parolee responded by directing the dog to attack the parole agent, and made no attempt to restrain the dog or use verbal commands to prevent the dog from attacking the parole agent. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the parolee was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 critical aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide sufficient timely initial notification. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0450 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 23, 2008, a riot occurred involving 20 to 30 inmates at a private contract facility. Two inmates were hospitalized and later released. The riot was stopped with the use of pepper spray and no staff were injured. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was sufficient; however, the department did not submit the incident to a use-of-force committee for review. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 146 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0451 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 29, 2008, a floor officer observed two inmates assaulting another inmate. After the inmates refused to comply with orders to get down, a gymnasium observation officer fired one less-than-lethal round which struck one of the assaultive inmates on the head. The inmate was transported to a local hospital and treated for a head injury. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, although there was initially some confusion about whether or not lethal force was used. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The hiring authority also agreed with the bureau's recommendation to train officers on shooting a 40mm less-than-lethal weapon from an elevated position. Case No. 09-0452 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 23, 2008, a riot occurred involving 250 to 300 inmates at a contracted private facility. Assistance from an adult institution was necessary to stop the riot, which was eventually stopped with pepper spray. A total of 12 inmates sustained injuries, including one inmate who was air-lifted due to a head injury. One officer slipped in a puddle of pepper spray and injured his elbow. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Although the department's overall response to the incident was sufficient, the department did not conduct a use-of-force committee review. Case No. 09-0453 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 23, 2008, an inmate was seriously injured as a result of being stabbed in the neck by another inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide sufficient notification. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 147 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPENDIX DISCIPLINARY ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS January 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009 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. Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 148 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0001 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0002 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0003 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Weapons Not Sustained Yes 09-0004 (Headquarters) (1) <None> * 09-0005 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I * (2) Parole Agent I * 09-0006 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Parole Agent I Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0007 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0008 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0009 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0010 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0011 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0012 (South Region) (1) Supervising Cook I Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 09-0013 (North Region) (1) <None> Contraband Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0014 (North Region) (1) Office Technician - General Theft Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 149 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0015 (North Region) (1) Maintenance Mechanic Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0016 (North Region) (1) Certified Nursing Assistant Contraband Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0017 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes 09-0018 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0019 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes 09-0020 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0021 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0022 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes 09-0023 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0024 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 150 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (8) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0025 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 09-0026 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant 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 (3) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes (8) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 151 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0027 (North 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 Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Sergeant * (5) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0028 (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 Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0029 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 09-0030 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 152 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0031 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0032 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes 09-0033 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent II Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0034 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0035 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0036 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes 09-0037 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes Insubordination Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes 09-0038 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 153 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Retaliation Not Sustained Yes 09-0039 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0040 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0041 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0042 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0043 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Contraband Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 154 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Failure to Report Not Sustained No (2) Correctional Lieutenant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 09-0044 (Central Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Controlled Substances Sustained Yes Controlled Substances Sustained Yes 09-0045 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0046 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes 09-0047 (North Region) (1) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes (2) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Theft Not Sustained Yes Controlled Substances Sustained Yes 09-0048 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0049 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Psychologist Failure to Report Sustained Yes Insubordination Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 155 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0050 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0051 (Central Region) (1) Re-Entry Program Instructor Contraband Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0052 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes Insubordination Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0053 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0054 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Sergeant * 09-0055 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 156 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0056 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Intoxication Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0057 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No Dishonesty Not Sustained No Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0058 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained No Dishonesty Not Sustained No (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained No (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained No Dishonesty Not Sustained No Dishonesty Not Sustained No Dishonesty Not Sustained No Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 157 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (1) Senior Youth Correctional Use of Force 09-0059 (North Region) Not Sustained Yes Counselor Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes 09-0060 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * (2) Correctional Sergeant * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Correctional Officer * (6) Correctional Officer * (7) Correctional Officer * 09-0061 (North Region) (1) <None> Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained No (2) <None> Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained No (3) Senior Youth Correctional Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained No Counselor 09-0062 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Correctional Officer * (6) Correctional Officer * (7) Correctional Officer * (8) Correctional Officer * (9) Correctional Officer * (10) Correctional Officer * 09-0063 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent III Dishonesty Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 158 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0064 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0065 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0066 (North Region) (1) Superintendent II Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0067 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0068 (South Region) (1) Dental Assistant * 09-0069 (South Region) (1) Dental Assistant Contraband Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Controlled Substances Sustained Yes 09-0070 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 09-0071 (South Region) (1) Stationary Engineer * 09-0072 (South Region) (1) Stationary Engineer Contraband Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 159 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0073 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I * 09-0074 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0075 (North Region) (1) Registered Nurse Contraband Sustained Yes 09-0076 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Controlled Substances Sustained Yes 09-0077 (North Region) (1) <None> Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Theft Sustained Yes 09-0078 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Counselor I Other Criminal Act N/A N/A 09-0079 (North Region) (1) <None> Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 09-0080 (North Region) (1) <None> Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0081 (North Region) (1) Office Technician - General Theft N/A N/A 09-0082 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer (Cadet) Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes 09-0083 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent II Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes 09-0084 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0085 (North Region) (1) Associate Warden Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes 09-0086 (Central Region) (1) Janitor Controlled Substances N/A N/A Over-Familiarity N/A N/A 09-0087 (Headquarters) (1) Special Agent Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 09-0088 (Headquarters) (1) Office Assistant I General Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0089 (Central Region) (1) Teacher - Elementary * 09-0090 (Headquarters) (1) Office Technician - Typing Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 160 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Controlled Substances Sustained Yes (2) Warden Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0091 (North Region) (1) <None> Over-Familiarity N/A N/A Contraband N/A N/A 09-0092 (North Region) (1) Psychologist Dishonesty Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 09-0093 (North Region) (1) Librarian Contraband Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0094 (Headquarters) (1) Staff Services Manager I Insubordination Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0095 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 09-0096 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0097 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0098 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes 09-0099 (North Region) (1) Youth Correctional Counselor * 09-0100 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0101 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances N/A N/A Contraband N/A N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 161 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0102 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A Controlled Substances N/A N/A 09-0103 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes 09-0104 (Central Region) (1) Supervising Cook I * 09-0105 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0106 (Central Region) (1) Supervising Cook I Contraband Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0107 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0108 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances N/A N/A 09-0109 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0110 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 09-0111 (North Region) (1) Youth Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0112 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Intoxication Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0113 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 162 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 09-0114 (North Region) (1) Youth Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0115 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty 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 09-0116 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0117 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0118 (Central Region) (1) Off Serv Supervisor II - General Contraband N/A N/A Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 09-0119 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Battery Sustained Yes 09-0120 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 163 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 09-0121 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes 09-0122 (Headquarters) (1) Director Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 09-0123 (Central Region) (1) Sergeant Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0124 (North Region) (1) <None> Controlled Substances N/A N/A 09-0125 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes 09-0126 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0127 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0128 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0129 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Sergeant * 09-0130 (North Region) (1) Industrial Supervisor Contraband Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 164 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0131 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0132 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 09-0133 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0134 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0135 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent III Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes 09-0136 (South Region) (1) <None> Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Battery Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 165 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (4) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 09-0137 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 09-0138 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes 09-0139 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes 09-0140 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0141 (North Region) (1) Vocational Instructor Contraband Sustained Yes Controlled Substances Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Controlled Substances Sustained Yes 09-0142 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0143 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0144 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0145 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 166 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0146 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Intoxication Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0147 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0148 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0149 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0150 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes 09-0151 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 09-0152 (Central Region) (1) Supervising Cook I Contraband N/A N/A 09-0153 (Central Region) (1) Supervising Cook I Dishonesty Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0154 (North Region) (1) Youth Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes 09-0155 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0156 (North Region) (1) Physician & Surgeon Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0157 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 167 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0158 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Lieutenant Use of Force Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes (5) Psychiatric Technician Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 09-0159 (South Region) (1) Associate Warden Dishonesty Sustained Yes Insubordination Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0160 (North Region) (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 168 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0161 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances N/A N/A 09-0162 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0163 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0164 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0165 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes 09-0166 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0167 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0168 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes 09-0169 (North Region) (1) Correctional Counselor III Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 169 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes 09-0170 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0171 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Administrator I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Parole Agent III Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Parole Agent III Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Parole Agent II Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0172 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0173 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0174 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0175 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0176 (Central Region) (1) Facility Captain Battery Not Sustained Yes 09-0177 (North Region) (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Insubordination Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes 09-0178 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 170 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes 09-0179 (Headquarters) (1) Warden Retaliation Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (2) Chief Deputy Warden Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Business Manager II Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0180 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Insubordination Sustained Yes 09-0181 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 171 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 09-0182 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0183 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0184 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 172 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Use of Force Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Lieutenant Use of Force Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0185 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 09-0186 (Central Region) (1) Re-Entry Program Instructor Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A Contraband N/A N/A 09-0187 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0188 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 09-0189 (North Region) (1) Personnel Assistant II Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes 09-0190 (South Region) (1) <None> Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes 09-0191 (North Region) (1) Psychiatric Technician Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0192 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0193 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes 09-0194 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer * Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 173 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0195 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0196 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0197 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes 09-0198 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0199 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0200 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0201 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0202 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes 09-0203 (North Region) (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Failure to Report Sustained Yes (2) Youth Correctional Counselor Battery Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0204 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0205 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 174 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (2) Correctional Officer Insubordination Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0206 (North Region) (1) Teacher - High School Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0207 (South Region) (1) Captain Insubordination Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes 09-0208 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0209 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0210 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0211 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Assault Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0212 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Assault Sustained Yes 09-0213 (Headquarters) (1) Cook I * 09-0214 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 175 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (6) *Other Peace Officer * 09-0215 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0216 (Central Region) (1) Library Technical Assistant Contraband N/A N/A Controlled Substances N/A N/A Over-Familiarity N/A N/A 09-0217 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A Over-Familiarity N/A N/A 09-0218 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes 09-0219 (South Region) (1) Health Records Technician Contraband Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Intoxication Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0220 (North Region) (1) Correctional Captain Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (2) Associate Warden Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (3) Facility Captain Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes 09-0221 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 176 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Contraband Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 09-0222 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0223 (North Region) (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Youth Correctional Counselor Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0224 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Retaliation Not Sustained Yes (2) Associate Warden Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0225 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Counselor I Insubordination Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes 09-0226 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 177 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0227 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 09-0228 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0229 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes 09-0230 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 178 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0231 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent III Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes 09-0232 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 179 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0233 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0234 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0235 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes 09-0236 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0237 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes (4) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) * (5) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 180 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (6) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0238 (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 09-0239 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0240 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0241 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Insubordination Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0242 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0243 (South Region) (1) *Other HCSD * 09-0244 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant * Yes 09-0245 (North Region) (1) <None> * 09-0246 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent II Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 181 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0247 (North Region) (1) *Other non-Peace Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0248 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes 09-0249 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0250 (Headquarters) (1) Superintendent II Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Retaliation Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Superintendent II Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0251 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Battery Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0252 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0253 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent I * 09-0254 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant * (2) Correctional Officer * Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 182 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (3) Correctional Officer * 09-0255 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0256 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 09-0257 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0258 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes 09-0259 (South Region) (1) <None> * (2) <None> * 09-0260 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 09-0261 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0262 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I * (2) Youth Correctional Counselor * 09-0263 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 183 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0264 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer * (1) Senior Youth Correctional Use of Force 09-0265 (Headquarters) Not Sustained Yes Counselor Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0266 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 09-0267 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0268 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0269 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant * 09-0270 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * 09-0271 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 09-0272 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Parole Agent II Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (3) Parole Agent III Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0273 (North Region) (1) Correctional Plant Manager II * (2) Correctional Sergeant * (3) Correctional Sergeant * (4) Correctional Lieutenant * (5) Correctional Officer * 09-0274 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 184 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (4) Correctional Officer * 09-0275 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 09-0276 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0277 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Sergeant * (4) Correctional Officer * 09-0278 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0279 (South Region) (1) Physician & Surgeon Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Health Services Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Adminis 09-0280 (South Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I * 09-0281 (Headquarters) (1) <None> Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) <None> Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0282 (North Region) (1) Dental Assistant * Yes 09-0283 (North Region) (1) Correctional Counselor II * (2) Correctional Lieutenant * Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 185 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Sergeant * (5) Correctional Officer * (6) Correctional Officer * (7) Correctional Officer * (8) Correctional Officer * (9) Correctional Officer * (10) Correctional Officer * (11) Correctional Officer * (12) Correctional Officer * (13) Correctional Officer * (14) Correctional Sergeant * (15) Correctional Sergeant * (16) Correctional Officer * (17) Correctional Officer * (18) Correctional Officer * (19) Correctional Sergeant * (20) Correctional Officer * (21) Correctional Officer * (22) Correctional Officer * (23) Correctional Officer * (24) Correctional Officer * (25) Correctional Officer * 09-0284 (Central Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I * 09-0285 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 186 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (2) Correctional Officer * 09-0286 (Central Region) (1) Chaplain * 09-0287 (Central Region) (1) Vocational Instructor Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0288 (South Region) (1) Associate Warden * (2) Accountant I (Supervisor) * (3) Staff Services Manager I * (4) Business Manager II * 09-0289 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * 09-0290 (Central Region) (1) <None> Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0291 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Counselor I * (2) Correctional Lieutenant * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Correctional Officer * (6) Correctional Sergeant * (7) Correctional Officer * (8) Correctional Officer * (9) Correctional Officer * (10) Correctional Lieutenant * 09-0292 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 187 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (2) Correctional Lieutenant * (3) Correctional Sergeant * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Correctional Officer * (6) Correctional Officer * (7) Correctional Officer * 09-0293 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Parole Agent I Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0294 (South Region) (1) Chief Medical Officer * (2) Physician & Surgeon * (3) Director * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) *UNKNOWN * (6) Registered Nurse * (7) Registered Nurse * 09-0295 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent II Insubordination Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 188 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Parole Administrator I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0296 (South Region) (1) Supervising Cook I Contraband Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0297 (South Region) (1) Office Technician - Typing Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 09-0298 (Headquarters) (1) Institution Personnel Off. I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) <None> Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Associate Warden Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0299 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 09-0300 (South Region) (1) Correctional Captain * Yes (2) Correctional Officer * Yes (3) Correctional Lieutenant * Yes 09-0301 (South Region) (1) Office Assistant General * (2) Materials And Stores Supv II * (3) Materials And Stores Supv I * (4) Materials And Stores Supv I * (5) Materials And Stores Supv II * 09-0302 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0303 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 189 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Insubordination Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes Other Criminal Act Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes 09-0304 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Correctional Officer * (6) Correctional Officer * 09-0305 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 09-0306 (Central Region) (1) Physician & Surgeon Battery N/A N/A Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A Misuse of Authority N/A N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 190 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA