Bureau of Independent Review Semi-Annual Report January – June 2010

BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY – JUNE 2010 OOOOFFFFFFFFIIIICCCCEEEE OOOOFFFF TTTTHHHHEEEE IIIINNNNSSSSPPPPEEEECCCCTTTTOOOORRRR GGGGEEEENNNNEEEERRRRAAAALLLL DAVID R. SHAW INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 2010 C ONTENTS FOREWORD......................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................2 SUMMARY OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES........................................................................................3 EXPLANATION OF TABLE FORMAT...............................................................................................13 TABLE OF APPEALED CASES.........................................................................................................17 TABLE OF DEADLY FORCE CASES................................................................................................27 TABLE OF DISTINGUISHED CASES.................................................................................................31 TABLE OF DEFICIENT CASES........................................................................................................45 TABLE OF SATISFACTORY CASES.................................................................................................47 TABLE OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS...................................................................................................91 APPENDIX: DISCIPLINARY ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS..........................................................130 F OREWORD The Bureau of Independent Review (bureau) was formed in 2004 to oversee internal affairs investigations conducted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. A key component of this mission is to bring transparency to these critical investigations. This semi- annual report is the vehicle by which the bureau provides the public with information about serious allegations of misconduct alleged against employees of the state correctional system. This is the 11th semi-annual report to be published by the bureau. This report documents a generally positive trend in which the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has 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 continued to enforce the reforms required by the federal court in the Madrid lawsuit. As Inspector General, I remain 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. The implementation of the Madrid Remedial Plan has been successful to date through the sustained cooperation of the Office of Internal Affairs, the employment advocacy and prosecution team, the hiring authorities, and the bureau. Each of these entities has a vital role to play in achieving the kinds of successes that are demonstrated in this report. Without the sustained cooperation and determined adherence to the Madrid reforms by all affected parties, the department’s internal affairs and disciplinary processes would again be subject to a substantial risk of failure – and therefore future civil rights litigation. For the January to June 2010 reporting period, the bureau assessed 245 cases involving the most serious allegations of misconduct by department employees. Of the 245 cases, only four were found to have resulted in unreasonable outcomes. In addition, 55 cases received the bureau’s highest rating of “distinguished” meaning the outcome of the case was reasonable and the department substantially complied with the policies and procedures mandated by the Madrid court in conducting its investigation and determining whether discipline should be imposed. On behalf of the management, attorneys, investigators and support staff of the bureau, I invite you to review this semi-annual report and provide us with your feedback. For more information about the Office of the Inspector General, including all reports, please see our website at www.oig.ca.gov. — 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 11th Semi-Annual Report. This report documents the bureau’s case monitoring and oversight activities from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2010. Although the percentage of monitored cases receiving the bureau’s highest rating of “distinguished” fell from 33 percent during the last reporting period to 28 percent this period, the most significant measure of progress under the Madrid reforms - the percentage of cases in which there is an unreasonable outcome - remained unchanged at just 2 percent. This semi-annual report provides the public with an overview of the bureau’s mission to ensure that the most serious allegations of misconduct in our state correctional system are investigated with integrity. The bureau’s ability to fully carry out its mission, however, remains adversely impacted by the State of California’s unprecedented fiscal crisis. Since January 2009 the majority of state agencies, including the bureau, have reduced their work hours by almost 15 percent through furloughs. Despite this challenge, staff from both agencies continue to demonstrate an extraordinary dedication to public service. I wish to thank the bureau’s many talented professionals with whom I am honored to work. 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. In this report, the bureau is reporting on its evaluation of 245 monitored cases, including 10 cases involving deadly force, plus an additional 136 critical incidents the bureau monitored during the reporting period.1 This represents a 10 percent decline in the number of monitored cases from the bureau’s last semi-annual report, which presented the bureau’s evaluation of 271 monitored cases. It also represents a slight decline in the number of critical incidents monitored by the bureau during this reporting period when compared to the bureau’s last semi-annual report. The bureau is reporting on 136 critical incidents in this report, compared to 139 reported in the previous semi-annual report. This marks the second consecutive report in which the number of monitored cases reported by the bureau has declined, a trend directly related to the bureau’s nearly 15 percent decline in available work hours since January 2009, when work furloughs were mandated in response to the state’s unprecedented fiscal crisis. 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 officials 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 them regarding legal issues and reviews any 1 Monitored cases are those cases approved by the department for an administrative investigation, criminal investigation, or 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 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 the discipline imposed against them 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 beginning on page 17. Monitoring Appealed Cases The Appealed Cases table provides an update to monitored cases, many of which were previously reported in a semi-annual report. The Appealed Cases table in this report presents 23 cases in which the discipline initially imposed by the department was significantly modified after an employee filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. There are many reasons for the discipline imposed against an employee to be modified during the appeal process. For example, key witnesses may change their statements at hearing or not be available to testify. Facts previously unavailable may also be discovered. In addition, the department may agree to settle a case in which the employee agrees to resign from the department, never to return. There are, however, cases in which a settlement agreement or a decision of the State Personnel Board results in an outcome that is unreasonable, given the facts of the case and the misconduct alleged. During the reporting period, the bureau found the final outcome to have been unreasonable in 10 of the 23 cases in which discipline was significantly modified during the appeal process. The term “DEFICIENT OUTCOME” appears in the “appeal update” section for each of these cases, all of which are presented in the Appealed Case table, beginning on page 17. Monitoring Deadly Force Investigations 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 fired 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 investigations. The bureau also participates as a non-voting member of the department’s 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 investigation is complete, the investigative report is presented to the DFRB. The DFRB examines all aspects BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 4 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA of the incident to determine the extent to which the use of force complied with department policies and procedures, and to determine the need for department modifications to policy, training, or equipment. The DFRB’s findings are then presented to the department. Because the use of deadly force has such serious implications, the department’s use of deadly force has always received the bureau’s highest level of scrutiny and oversight. In addition, the bureau’s assessment of deadly force cases is presented in a separate Deadly Force Cases table so that the cases are publicly identified and easy to distinguish from the other cases the bureau monitors. The bureau monitored 10 deadly force investigations during the reporting period; 4 criminal investigations and 6 administrative investigations. The bureau’s assessment of the ten deadly force investigations monitored during the reporting period are presented in the Deadly Force Cases table beginning on page 27. The bureau’s assessment of the department’s management of deadly force incidents are presented in the Critical Incident table beginning on page 91. Caseload Trends This report includes an evaluation of cases completed between January and June 2010, and consists of 245 monitored cases. As the chart below demonstrates, the bureau’s case-monitoring activities generally increased from January 2006 until June 2009, when the bureau was mandated to reduce its work hours. The bureau’s case-monitoring activities have declined for the second consecutive reporting period, from a peak of 306 cases in the first half of 2009 to 245 presented in this report. Semi-Annual Case Reporting Trend 306 295 271 260 239 245 221 206 193 January - July - January - July - January - July - January - July - January - June December June December June December June December June 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 5 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA sesaC fo rebmuN The department characterizes allegations of misconduct 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 they are also often monitored by the bureau. Case Types Case Types Criminal July - December 2009 January - June 2010 Criminal Investigation Investigation Cases A D dm ire in c i t s A tr c a t t i i o v n e - 69 (25%) Ad D m ire in c i t s A tr c a t t i i o v n e - 4 C 9 a (2 s 0 e % s ) Cases Cases 38 (14%) 52 (21%) Administrative - Investigation Cases Administrative - 164 (61%) Investigation Cases 144 (59%) In this report, the bureau provides an assessment of 144 administrative investigations and 52 direct action cases. The remaining 49 cases assessed by the bureau involve allegations of criminal misconduct. The bureau’s focus on monitoring administrative investigations remained relatively unchanged from the last reporting period. Administrative investigations comprised 59 percent of the cases the bureau monitored this reporting period, compared to 61 percent during the last reporting period. In contrast, direct action cases comprised 21 percent of cases monitored during this reporting period, up from 14 percent during the last reporting period. Finally, criminal investigations accounted for 20 percent of monitored cases during this reporting period, a decrease from 25 percent during the last reporting period. Allegation Type Distribution Consistent with the Madrid remedial plan adopted by the federal court, 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 concern because, if true, serious civil rights violations may have occurred. The other two types of allegations are of concern because they affect the safety and security of a correctional institution or the exploitation of a potentially vulnerable population. It is important to note that a single case often addresses many allegations of misconduct. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 6 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Allegation Type Distribution 120 108 100 89 82 84 80 60 54 44 46 46 40 29 20 20 0 Use of Force Dishonesty Failure to Over-Familiarity Sexual Report Misconduct BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 7 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA snoitagellA fo rebmuN July - December 2009 January - June 2010 The chart above illustrates the number of times each of the five types of allegations were at issue in the 245 cases assessed in this report, compared to the number of times each allegation types was at issue in the cases reported in the last reporting period. Administrative 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. The department is required to document this information in its case management computer system. In 2009 the department dramatically increased the number of cases in which this critical information was entered and electronically recorded into its case management computer system. In the last semi-annual report, the bureau reported the department had entered this information in 93 percent of monitored cases. During this reporting period, the department entered this information in 98 percent of the cases. This represents a dramatic improvement since 2008, when the bureau reported this information was missing in 40 percent of monitored cases. As shown in the chart on the next page, of the 193 administrative cases with allegation findings documented in the department’s case management computer system, 55 or 28 percent had no allegations of misconduct sustained by the hiring authority. At least one allegation of misconduct was sustained in each of the remaining 138 cases. Administrative Case Findings Cases Sustained 138 (72%) Cases with Data 193 (98%) Cases Not Sustained 55 (28%) Cases Without Data 3 (2%) Bureau Assessment The bureau assesses cases in two ways. One way is by evaluating the disposition or outcome of the case. Another other way is by assessing the department’s compliance with disciplinary processes required by the federal court in the Madrid lawsuit. There are three entities responsible for implementing the department’s disciplinary processes. The three department entities are listed below. • The Office of Internal Affairs (OIA), which conducts the investigations • The Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team (EAPT), which is comprised of the department’s attorneys who provide legal advice and represent the department at State Personnel Board hearings and through the appeals process • Hiring authorities, who are the department officials, such as wardens, who are responsible for determining whether or not to impose discipline For this six-month reporting period, the bureau identified four administrative cases as deficient, which means the initial outcome of the case was unreasonable. These cases are presented in the Deficient Cases table, beginning on page 45. The bureau also found the final outcome of an additional ten cases to be deficient as a result of penalty modifications that occurred after an appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. These cases are presented in the Appealed Cases table, beginning on page 17. The bureau identified 55 administrative cases as being distinguished, which means the initial 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 8 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA The bureau assessed 137 administrative Case Assessments cases as satisfactory, meaning the case Distinguished resulted in a reasonable outcome despite Cases procedural problems. The bureau did not 55 (28%) evaluate the disposition of the 49 monitored criminal investigations Satisfactory because the decision to file criminal Cases charges is made by district attorney’s 137 (70%) offices or the attorney general’s office, not the department. Deficient Overall, the bureau found the three Cases entities to be procedurally compliant 4 (2%) with department policies and procedures more often than not. It should be noted that the bureau does not assess the department’s procedural compliance in some cases because there is not enough information available to provide a meaningful assessment. For example, if an employee who is under investigation resigns before the investigation is completed, the disciplinary process may be significantly streamlined, leaving too few applicable procedures for the bureau to assess. The chart below shows the overall procedural compliance by OIA on cases monitored by the bureau during this reporting period. In summary, the bureau found OIA: • Substantially compliant in 73 percent of cases; a slight decrease for the fifth consecutive reporting period; • Partially compliant in 24 percent of cases; an increase for the fifth consecutive reporting period; • Failed to comply in 3 percent of the cases the bureau monitored; an increase from the last reporting period. OIA Assessment Ratings 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Jan - Jun 07 Jul - Dec 07 Jan - Jun 08 Jul - Dec 08 Jan - Jun 09 Jul - Dec 09 Jan - Jun 10 Substantial Compliance Partial Compliance Failure to Comply BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 9 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA The bureau found EAPT: • Substantially compliant in 64 percent of cases; a percentage similar to the previous two reporting periods; • Partially compliant in 34 percent of cases; a percentage that has remained generally constant since January 2008; • Failed to comply in 2 percent of cases; a continued decrease for the seventh consecutive reporting period. EAPT Assessment Ratings 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Jan - Jun 07 Jul - Dec 07 Jan - Jun 08 Jul - Dec 08 Jan - Jun 09 Jul - Dec 09 Jan - Jun 10 Substantial Compliance Partial Compliance Failure to Comply The bureau found hiring authorities: • Substantially compliant in 73 percent of cases; a decrease for the third consecutive reporting period; • Partially compliant in 25 percent of cases; double the percentage from just two reporting periods ago; • Failed to comply in 2 percent of cases; similar to the last reporting period. Hiring Authority Assessment Ratings 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Jan - Jun 07 Jul - Dec 07 Jan - Jun 08 Jul - Dec 08 Jan - Jun 09 Jul - Dec 09 Jan - Jun 10 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 10 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 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, uses of deadly force, and unexpected inmate deaths. After notification, the bureau monitors the department’s management of the incident, often by deploying bureau monitors 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, beginning on page 91. Caseload Trends During this reporting period, the bureau assessed 136 critical incidents, which is a 2 percent decline from the number of critical incidents monitored by the bureau during the last reporting period. The decline is small, especially when compared with the bureau’s reduction in available work hours. Despite the bureau’s limited work hours, the bureau continued to focus on safety and security issues affecting the department, which are particularly challenging during critical incidents. Critical Incident Responses 147 139 136 74 78 63 48 January - July - January - July - January - July - January - June December June December June December June 2007 2008 2009 2010 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 11 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA stnedicnI fo rebmuN Type of Critical Incident Consistent with past reporting periods, the bureau most often monitored critical incidents involving great bodily injury to inmates and wards. Noteworthy is the increase in the number of critical incidents involving in-custody deaths and suicides. Type of Critical Incidents Comparison 60 42 30 20 14 18 18 11 11 12 14 9 9 7 Use of Deadly Great Bodily Inmate or In-Custody Inmate or Inmate or Other Force Injury to Ward Ward Riot Inmate Death Ward Sexual Ward Suicide or Inmate Assualt BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 12 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA stnedicnI lacitirC fo rebmuN July - December 2009 January - June 2010 E T F XPLANATION OF ABLE ORMAT The tables that follow provide the bureau’s assessment of individual cases and critical incidents it monitored. The Appealed Cases table provides an update regarding the resolution of some monitored cases in which discipline was initially imposed and the employee filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The majority of the bureau’s monitoring activities can be found in the Deadly Force Cases, Distinguished Cases, Deficient Cases, and Satisfactory Cases tables. These tables provide the bureau’s assessment of the department’s internal affairs investigations and employee discipline actions related to alleged misconduct. Finally, the Critical Incidents table provides an assessment of how the department handled a variety of serious incidents. Format of Appealed Cases Table The Appealed Cases table provides updated information regarding cases monitored by the bureau in which the original discipline imposed was significantly modified during the appeal process. The bureau initially publishes its assessment of a monitored administrative case once the department determines whether or not to impose discipline on an employee; and, if discipline is to be imposed, the department serves the employee with a disciplinary action. However, employees may request a hearing before the State Personnel Board, an independent state agency, to challenge the discipline taken against them. 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 number, as published in the semi-annual report in which it first appeared. 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 08-0606 was the 606th case appearing in the 2008 semi-annual reports. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 13 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA It is important to note that only cases in which the final outcome deviates significantly from the discipline initially imposed are published in the Appealed Cases. Many additional cases are resolved during the appeal process. However, the majority of these cases are resolved in a manner that leaves the discipline originally imposed relatively unchanged so they do not appear in the Appealed Cases table. In addition, the length of time needed to resolve a case once an appeal has been filed can vary greatly from one case to another. For these reasons, not all cases in which an appeal is filed will be published in the Appealed Cases table and there are significant gaps in the number sequence of cases that appear in the Appealed Cases table. Format of Case Tables The bureau’s approach to assessing individual cases focuses on the 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 14 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), who determine if discipline is warranted and if so, the penalty to be imposed. 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. An explanation of each appears in the “bureau assessment” box. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 15 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 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. • 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 Critical Incidents Table The Critical Incidents table provides a text-based description 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 upon completion of the department’s internal disciplinary process. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 16 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 07-0495 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 21, 2005, during an audit of a counselor's state-issued computer, the department discovered unauthorized programs and files containing inmate visitors' personal information. In addition, the counselor was allegedly dishonest during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, and the counselor was dismissed. The counselor filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: A State Personnel Board hearing was held. The State Personnel Board found that the department did not meet its burden of proving the counselor was dishonest. As a result, the State Personnel Board modified the dismissal to an 18 -month suspension. The bureau did not concur with the State Personnel Board's decision. Case No. 08-0048 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE In January 2008, the department received information that an officer had allegedly been engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate for several months, which included engaging in sexual acts with the inmate, providing the inmate with a mobile phone to exchange text messages of a sexual nature, and bringing the inmate tobacco and a cigarette lighter. The officer also allegedly provided the inmate with a letter that the officer intercepted that detailed a plan by other inmates to smuggle narcotics into the institution. During an interview with the Office of Internal Affairs, the officer was allegedly dishonest when questioned about his conduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, and the officer was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The officer and the department entered into a settlement agreement. The department agreed to allow the officer to resign in exchange for the officer agreeing not to seek or accept future employment with the department and withdrawing his appeal with the State Personnel Board. The bureau concurred with the settlement. Case No. 08-0056 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 3, 2007, a materials and stores supervisor allegedly refused to submit to a required random drug test and left his post without permission. It was also alleged that he admitted to being under the influence of either alcohol or methamphetamine while at work. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, and the materials and stores supervisor was dismissed. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: Following a hearing before the State Personnel Board, all of the charges were upheld. However, the State Personnel Board reduced the penalty from a dismissal to a one-year suspension. The bureau did not concur with the State Personnel Board's decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 17 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 08-0342 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 28, 2007, several officers allegedly used unnecessary and excessive force on a resistive inmate when they forced him to the ground and caused injuries to his head and then took him to an area out of view of other inmates and repeatedly punched him while he was in handcuffs. The incident commander allegedly prevented a security squad officer from collecting evidence from staff and inmates. The incident commander also allegedly failed to include a security squad officer's report in the incident package. It is further alleged that several of the involved officers failed to accurately describe the amount of force used in the incident and that a licensed vocational nurse failed to document many of the inmate's injuries. A registered nurse later conducted a second evaluation of the inmate and noted numerous additional injuries on the inmate's body. It was further alleged that several officers lied during their interviews with the Office of Internal Affairs. DISPOSITION OF CASE One of the officers involved in the incident ultimately came forward and disclosed that he witnessed several officers use unnecessary and excessive force on the inmate. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the incident commander and demoted him from lieutenant to officer. Allegations were sustained against a sergeant for failing to report unnecessary and excessive use of force and for being dishonest during the investigation. The hiring authority initially dismissed the sergeant but the penalty was later modified to a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months as part of a settlement agreement. Allegations of excessive use of force were sustained against two officers who punched the handcuffed inmate and for being dishonest during the investigation. Both officers were dismissed. Another officer who witnessed the excessive and unnecessary force, failed to report it, and later lied about the incident during the investigation, was also dismissed. The officer who initially denied witnessing excessive force but later reported the misconduct was suspended without pay for 60 working days. However, the suspension was reduced to a 10 percent salary reduction for 30 months as a result of a settlement agreement. Allegations were sustained against the licensed vocational nurse for neglecting her duties, for failing to report all of the inmate's injuries, and for being dishonest during the investigation. The hiring authority dismissed the licensed vocational nurse. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations against six additional officers. The dismissed employees and the lieutenant who was demoted to officer all filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: A State Personnel Board hearing was held. The licensed vocational nurse resigned several days into the hearing. The State Personnel Board reduced the lieutenant's penalty from a demotion to a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The bureau did not concur with the decision. The State Personnel Board sustained the dismissals against the two officers who punched the handcuffed inmate and later lied about the incident to the Office of Internal Affairs. The State Personnel Board also sustained the dismissal against the officer who witnessed the excessive and unnecessary force, failed to report it, and later lied about the incident during the investigation. Case No. 08-0499 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 30, 2007, an officer allegedly used unnecessary physical force to take an inmate to the ground and place him in handcuffs even though he had complied with the officer's instructions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation of inexcusable neglect of duty but did not sustain an allegation for excessive use of force. The hiring authority concluded that although the force used was justified, the officer's actions prior to the use of force were not within policy. The hiring authority imposed a salary reduction of 10 percent for 12 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department relied on a use-of-force policy expert to determine that the officer's actions leading up to the use of force were inappropriate. The initial use-of-force expert resigned from his position prior to the State Personnel Board hearing in this matter. A second expert was consulted and he concluded that there were no policy violations arising from this incident. The disciplinary action was withdrawn. The bureau concurred with the decision to withdraw the disciplinary action. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 18 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 08-0511 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 11, 2007, it was alleged that two officers performed an unauthorized search of an inmate's cell. The officers were also allegedly dishonest to a lieutenant when they denied the cell search took place. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded both officers conducted an unauthorized cell search but only one of the officers was dishonest when questioned about the incident. The officer who was dishonest was dismissed. The other officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. Both officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board sustained the dismissal of the officer who participated in the unauthorized cell search and then lied about it in his investigatory interview. However, the State Personnel Board modified the penalty for the other officer from a 10 percent reduction in salary for 24 months to a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months because that officer's role in the incident was less significant and he had no prior disciplinary action taken against him. The bureau concurred with the State Personnel Board decision. Case No. 08-0580 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 13, 2007, an officer used unnecessary force on an inmate by striking him several times in the face and by forcing him to the ground without justification. It was also alleged that the officer was dishonest when he falsely indicated in his report that the inmate posed a threat to the officer by walking toward him, thus necessitating the officer's use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The officer was suspended without pay for 60 working days. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: A State Personnel Board hearing was held. The State Personnel Board revoked the 60 working-day suspension. The State Personnel Board found the department's witnesses to not be credible and accepted the officer's version of the events. The bureau did not agree with the State Personnel Board's credibility determination and analysis of the case. Case No. 08-0592 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 28, 2007, a registered nurse responded to an emergency medical call to assist an inmate who had fallen in her cell and sustained a head wound. It was alleged the nurse failed to provide proper medical care and left the unconscious inmate laying face down on the floor. Within moments of leaving the cell, the nurse was called back because the inmate was convulsing. When the nurse returned to the cell, he allegedly stated that the inmate was "faking" and shut the cell door for a second time, leaving the inmate on the floor unconscious and bleeding. It was further alleged that the nurse failed to prepare any documentation about the incident and was dishonest during the investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained all of the allegations and the nurse was dismissed. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into a settlement agreement with the registered nurse in which he was reinstated to work on January 4, 2010, but waived all claims for back pay and interest from the effective date of his dismissal. The bureau concurred with the settlement due to late-discovered evidence and witness credibility issues that affected the sufficiency of the department's case against the nurse. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 19 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 09-0039 (Headquarters) FACTS OF CASE On January 13, 2008, while off duty, a sergeant was allegedly involved in a traffic accident with a civilian and 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. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: Following a hearing before the State Personnel Board, the disciplinary actions against both the sergeant and officer were revoked. The State Personnel Board found the local law enforcement officer to not be credible. The bureau did not concur with the State Personnel Board's decision. Case No. 09-0040 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 5, 2008, an officer allegedly used excessive force when he slammed a handcuffed inmate into the 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. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: The State Personnel Board modified the officer's penalty from a dismissal to a 60 working-day suspension without pay. The bureau did not concur with the modification. Case No. 09-0063 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between October 2006 and November 2007, a supervising parole agent was dishonest to a 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. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the supervising parole agent entered into a settlement agreement. The department agreed to remove the disciplinary action from the supervising parole agent's official personnel file in exchange for her agreeing to not seek or accept future employment with the department. The bureau concurred with the settlement. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 20 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 09-0203 (Headquarters) FACTS OF CASE On January 21, 2008, a youth counselor allegedly challenged a ward to a fight. During the altercation, the 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. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: The State Personnel revoked the dismissal of the youth counselor who allegedly failed to report the use of force and reinstated him. The bureau concurred with the State Personnel Board's decision because the department failed to present evidence that the use of force occurred and that the youth counselor witnessed it. The appeal filed by the youth counselor who allegedly used force was subsequently brought before the State Personnel Board as a separate matter. One the first day of hearing, the department withdrew the disciplinary action against the youth counselor who allegedly used force and would have reinstated him had he not died before the hearing. The department and the youth counselor's estate will now determine the amount of wages the youth counselor lost while the dismissal was in effect. The bureau agreed with the department's decision to withdraw the action because the department failed to subpoena key witnesses to testify at the hearing. As a result, the department could not present any direct evidence regarding the use of force. During the investigation, wards provided percipient accounts of the use of force. Had this testimony been presented at the hearings, the department could have provided evidence that the use of force did in fact occur. Case No. 09-0223 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 29, 2007, two youth correctional counselors allegedly failed to activate their alarms to summon 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. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: The department's attorney failed to subpoena witnesses for the State Personnel Board hearing. As a result, the department did not have key witnesses to testify at the hearing. The department withdrew the disciplinary action against the youth correctional counselor. Given the lack of witnesses at the hearing, the bureau concurred with the withdrawal of the disciplinary action; however, it is the bureau's position that had the department been better prepared for hearing, the withdrawal would not have been warranted. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 21 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 09-0291 (Central Region) 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 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. After the appeal, one letter of reprimand was lowered to a letter of instruction. APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into a settlement agreement with the officers during a pre-hearing settlement conference. The three officers who used force demonstrated that they were not dishonest and that they had no intent to injure the inmate. As a result, the department agreed to reduce their penalties from 10 percent salary reductions for 24 months to 5 percent salary reductions for 12 months. The officers agreed to withdraw their appeals. The bureau concurred with the settlement agreements. Case No. 09-0490 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on September 15, 2008, an officer improperly entered a holding cell, put his hands around an inmate's neck, and pushed the inmate toward the rear of the holding cell. It was also alleged that the officer was dishonest during his investigative interview. In addition, four other officers and a sergeant allegedly improperly documented the incident. Three of the officers and the sergeant were also allegedly dishonest during their investigative interviews. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The officer who entered the cell and put his hands on the inmate's neck was dismissed and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. One of the three officers who was allegedly dishonest in his investigative interview retired before the investigation was completed and, therefore, no discipline was imposed against him. The remaining two officers and the sergeant who were initially found to have been dishonest in their investigative interviews were served with notices of dismissal. However, after a Skelly hearing during which the credibility of a critical witness was substantially undermined, the department reduced the imposed discipline and entered into settlement agreements with the two officers and the sergeant. One of the officers received a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. The other officer received a one working-day suspension. The sergeant was demoted to an officer. The remaining officer who was not found to have been dishonest, initially received a two working-day suspension for failing to write a report, which was later reduced to a one working-day suspension. APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer during a pre-hearing settlement conference. The department modified the penalty to a 7-month suspension and removed the allegations of dishonesty from the action and the officer withdrew his appeal. The bureau concurred with the settlement due to the witness credibility issues that affected the sufficiency of the department's case. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 22 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 09-0516 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on February 6, 2008, an officer punched an inmate in the face after the inmate had been resistive to being placed in handcuffs and then failed to report the use of force. It is also alleged that the officer had an inmate write his incident report in violation of his duty and training. During the investigation, it was further alleged that the officer failed to provide the institution with current contact information, as required, and that he disclosed confidential information to an inmate. The officer also allegedly disobeyed a direct order to report for his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs. A second officer allegedly had an inmate write his incident report, disclosed confidential information to an inmate, and lied during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the officer for not reporting for his investigative interview, having an inmate write his incident report, not providing the institution with current contact information, and disclosing confidential information to an inmate. The hiring authority dismissed the officer. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the second officer for disclosing confidential information to an inmate and having an inmate write his incident report. The hiring authority initially imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. After a Skelly hearing, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the second officer, pursuant to which he received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer who was dismissed. The department agreed to withdraw the disciplinary action in exchange for the officer withdrawing his appeal to the State Personnel Board and resigning from his employment with the department. The bureau was not consulted on the settlement agreement as required, but found that the agreement was reasonable. Case No. 09-0519 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 1, 2007, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force on an inmate by grabbing him and pushing him onto a desk. It was also alleged that the officer failed to report the incident. A second officer, a supervising cook, a nurse, and a sergeant also allegedly witnessed the use of force and failed to report the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against everyone except the nurse. The officer who used force was dismissed. The second officer received a 60 working-day suspension. The supervising cook received a 5 percent salary reduction for 18 months. The sergeant initially received a notice of dismissal. However, following a Skelly hearing the sergeant and the hiring authority entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which the penalty was reduced to a one-year demotion to officer, as well as a 15 working-day suspension. Both officers and the supervising cook filed appeals with State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board upheld the dismissal of the officer who used unreasonable force. While the appeal was pending, the department and the second officer entered into a settlement agreement. The department agreed to reduce the penalty from a 60 working-day suspension to a 30 working-day suspension in exchange for the officer withdrawing his appeal. The department and the supervising cook also entered into a settlement agreement. The department agreed to reduce the discipline from a 5 percent salary reduction for 18 months to a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months in exchange for the supervising cook withdrawing his appeal. The bureau concurred with the terms of the settlement agreements. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 23 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 09-0646 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 20, 2008, an officer allegedly slammed a handcuffed inmate to the ground and another officer used pepper spray on the inmate's face after the inmate was taken to the ground and no longer resisting. The officers allegedly lied about the incident in written reports. It was also alleged that the officers violated an order not to discuss the case after receiving notice they were under investigation and that they lied during their investigative interviews. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed both officers. They both filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The hiring authority who imposed the dismissals retired and was replaced by a hiring authority who reviewed the case and had a different opinion about the weight of the evidence. As a result, the department and the officers entered into settlement agreements. The department agreed to modify the penalty of one officer from a dismissal to a 60 working-day suspension and the other officer's penalty was modified from a dismissal to a 24 working-day suspension. Both officers agreed to waive all claims for pay and interest for the time period that the dismissals were in effect. The bureau determined the settlements were not unreasonable. Case No. 09-0648 (Headquarters) FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on July 18, 2008, a youth counselor left his assigned post to make phone calls on his personal mobile phone. It was further alleged that on July 18, 2008, the counselor provided a ward a controlled substance and also allowed the ward to use his personal mobile phone. On that same date two knives, a black pocket knife four to five inches in length closed, and a dagger-type knife eight to nine inches in length, were allegedly found in the counselor's personal vehicle, which was parked on institutional grounds. Additionally, the counselor was allegedly found with two mobile phones while on institutional grounds. He was also allegedly rude and discourteous during the on-site search and dishonest during his investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations that the youth counselor gave a controlled substance to a ward and allowed that ward to use his personal mobile phone were not sustained because there was no reliable and corroborating evidence to support the allegations. However, the allegations that the counselor brought his personal mobile phone inside the perimeter of the institution and used it while on duty were sustained. Also sustained were the allegations that the counselor was rude and discourteous during the on-site search and dishonest during his investigatory interview. The counselor was served with a notice of dismissal, for which he filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the youth counselor entered into a settlement agreement. The youth counselor agreed to withdraw his appeal, resign, and not seek or accept future employment with the department. In exchange, the department withdrew the dismissal. The bureau concurred with the settlement. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 24 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 09-0721 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 21, 2006, two inmates were transported in a van from one institution to another. Both inmates had significant pre-existing medical conditions. The trip took over nine hours on a day in which the outside temperatures exceeded 100 degrees. The air conditioning in the rear of the van stopped working during the transport. Upon arriving at the receiving institution, one of the inmates was found unconscious on the van's floor with a very high temperature. The inmate later died of complications related to excessive heat. It was alleged that four officers and a sergeant were neglectful. In addition, two of the officers were allegedly dishonest during their investigative interviews and a lieutenant allegedly delayed emergency medical care. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed two of the officers. Two other officers and the sergeant received 48 working-day suspensions and the lieutenant received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The officers and the lieutenant filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: The department withdrew the disciplinary actions imposed against the sergeant and one of the officers who had previously received a 48 working-day suspension. A State Personnel Board hearing was held as to the remaining individuals. The State Personnel Board modified the dismissals of two officers to six-month suspensions and revoked the 48 working-day suspension of another officer. The State Personnel Board also revoked the 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months imposed against the lieutenant. The State Personnel Board found the evidence presented by the department's attorney was insufficient to uphold the discipline imposed. The bureau did not concur with the modifications. Case No. 10-0068 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 7, 2008, it was discovered that a lieutenant inappropriately allowed an associate warden to remove the associate warden's personnel training file from the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The initial hiring authority did not sustain the allegations. Following an executive review initiated by the bureau, the department sustained allegations of neglect of duty and making false or misleading statements during an investigative interview. The lieutenant received a 48- day suspension. The lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: Following a hearing before the State Personnel Board, the disciplinary action was revoked. The State Personnel Board determined the testimony of the witnesses was not credible. The bureau did not concur with the State Personnel Board's decision. Case No. 10-0232 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 16, 2008, it was alleged that a psychiatric technician was overly familiar with several wards at a facility. Two mobile phones were confiscated from a room shared by two wards that allegedly had the psychiatric technician's personal telephone number in the contacts. It was also alleged that the technician was exchanging sexually explicit letters with one of the wards. It was further alleged that the psychiatric technician was dishonest during her investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the psychiatric technician. The psychiatric technician filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into a settlement agreement with the psychiatric technician at a State Personnel Board pre-hearing settlement conference. The psychiatric technician withdrew her appeal and resigned. The bureau concurred with the settlement. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 25 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 10-0245 (Headquarters) FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that from June 2006 to March 2007 an employee relations officer was negligent in his duties. Specifically, it was alleged that the employee relations officer failed to timely prepare disciplinary actions in four separate cases, causing the department to be unable to impose discipline on four officers who had engaged in misconduct. Also, it was alleged that in another case, the employee relations officer misled the hiring authority about the circumstances of the case resulting in an officer being dismissed. Further, it was alleged that the employee relations officer provided false information to the Employment Development Department regarding the dismissed officer's request for unemployment benefits. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the employee relations officer. The employee relations officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the employee relations officer entered into a settlement agreement. The department allowed the employee relations officer to resign in lieu of dismissal. The bureau concurred with the settlement. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 26 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEADLY FORCE CASES Case No. 10-0001 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 27, 2010, a pit bull cornered a parole agent who was making a home visit to a parolee in a remote DISPO INV ADV HA location. The parole agent repeatedly asked the parolee to restrain the dog without success. The dog lunged at the parole agent and the parole agent fired one lethal round, killing the dog. 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. 10-0002 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 26, 2010, four inmates attacked four other inmates on an exercise yard. A tower officer saw one of DISPO INV ADV HA the inmates on the ground, unresponsive, being kicked repeatedly in the head and upper body. The tower officer fired two lethal rounds into an exercise yard wall as warning shots, but the fighting continued. The tower officer then fired one lethal round at the attacking inmates, but missed. The fighting stopped after the third lethal round was fired. All inmates survived with non life-threatening injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation into the use of lethal force. The matter was referred to the district attorneys office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 10-0003 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 8, 2009, more than a thousand inmates participated in a riot, in which a dormitory was partially DISPO INV ADV HA burned. A control booth officer and an outside patrol officer fired six warning shots in an effort to stop the incident. Other officers also used less-than-lethal weapons during the disturbance. 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. 10-0004 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 8, 2009, more than a thousand inmates participated in a riot in which an institution's dormitory was DISPO INV ADV HA partially burned. The control officer and an outside patrol officer fired six lethal rounds as warning shots in an effort to stop the incident. Other officers also utilized less-than-lethal weapons during the disturbance. No officers were injured. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department's independent Deadly Force Review Board found that the discharges of the lethal rounds were in compliance with the department's use of force policy. The hiring authority subsequently exonerated the officers and the bureau concurred. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 27 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEADLY FORCE CASES Case No. 10-0005 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 4, 2009, an inmate died immediately after officers used pepper spray and physical force to stop the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate and his cellmate from fighting. Because the inmate died after staff used force, the Office of Internal Affairs opened a deadly force investigation into the matter. 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. Case No. 10-0006 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 16, 2009, a riot occurred on a recreation yard involving approximately 150 inmates. The inmates were DISPO INV ADV HA ordered to get down, however, the fighting continued. Less-than-lethal rounds were fired and chemical agents were used but they were unsuccessful in stopping the riot. Subsequently, a control booth officer fired two lethal rounds as warning shots but combatants continued to attack inmates who were laying on the ground. Two lethal shots were then fired at the attackers, hitting one inmate in the leg and another in the torso. The inmate shot in the torso died. A subsequent search of the yard recovered 13 inmate-manufactured weapons. DISPOSITION OF CASE Outside law enforcement conducted a criminal investigation into the use of lethal force and determined that the officer acted lawfully to prevent loss of life. The department's independent Deadly Force Review Board found that the discharge of the lethal rounds complied with the department's use of force policy and the hiring authority exonerated the officer of any administrative misconduct. The hiring authority subsequently reviewed the other less-than-lethal force used, and also found it to be within policy. The bureau concurred. Case No. 10-0007 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 13 2009, a group of inmates attacked another group of inmates on an exercise yard. A total of 35 DISPO INV ADV HA inmates were involved in the fight. Yard staff used pepper spray and other officers fired less-than-lethal rounds at the inmates but the fighting continued. A tower officer saw an inmate on the ground being stomped, kicked, and stabbed by multiple inmates. The officer fired five lethal rounds. The first round was fired at one of the attacking inmates. The second round was a warning shot to the ground in the middle of the yard. Neither round stopped the attack. The last three rounds were fired at the attacking inmates. The officer hit two inmates in the buttocks, one in the arm, and one in the foot. The inmate who was being attacked died from multiple stab wounds. All of the inmates who were shot survived and were taken to outside hospitals for treatment. There were several other inmates treated for stab and slash wounds as well. 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 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 28 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEADLY FORCE CASES Case No. 10-0008 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 13, 2009, there was a riot involving approximately 35 inmates from two rival prison gangs. Officers DISPO INV ADV HA used pepper spray 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 the defenseless inmates died from multiple stab wounds. Several additional inmates were treated for stab and slash wounds. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an administrative investigation and the department's independent Deadly Force Review Board found that the discharge of the lethal rounds was in compliance with the department's use-of -force policy. The hiring authority subsequently exonerated the officer and the bureau concurred. The less-than- lethal force used during the incident was reviewed by the institution's use of force committee, which determined it to be within policy. The bureau concurred. However, as a result of the incident, training was provided to supervisory staff regarding the appropriate placement of warning shots, and a directive was issued to all staff regarding weapon maintenance. The Office of Internal Affairs also conducted a criminal investigation into the use of lethal force, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 10-0009 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 21, 2008, officers used physical force, pepper spray, and batons on a resistive inmate who was DISPO INV ADV HA suspected of accepting contraband in the visiting area of the institution. During the struggle, the inmate became unconscious and died. The medical examiner determined that the inmate suffocated to death from having a bindle of marijuana lodged in his throat. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an administrative investigation and the department's independent Deadly Force Review Board found no violation of departmental policy regarding the use of force. The hiring authority subsequently exonerated the officers. The bureau concurred. In addition, outside law enforcement conducted a criminal investigation and the matter was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 29 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEADLY FORCE CASES Case No. 10-0010 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2007, two parole agents and two outside law enforcement officers approached a high-risk sex DISPO INV ADV HA offender, who was seated in a vehicle, in an attempt to take him into custody for violating his parole conditions. The parolee started the vehicle and drove toward the parole agents and outside law enforcement officers. He struck one of the outside law enforcement officers with the vehicle. One of the parole agents and one of the outside law enforcement officers fired multiple lethal rounds into the vehicle. The parolee suffered two minor gunshot wounds to the back. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an administrative investigation and the department's independent Deadly Force Review Board found no violation of departmental policy concerning the use of force. However, the Deadly Force Review Board determined there were tactical inadequacies with the operation and made several training recommendations. In response to the recommendations, the department amended policy and field training requirements. The bureau concurred. In addition, outside law enforcement conducted a criminal investigation into the use of lethal force. The case was referred to the district attorneys office, which declined to prosecute. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 30 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 DISTINGUISHED CASES 54 Case No. 10-0011 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 13, 2010, a warden while off duty threatened her domestic partner by stating that if DISPO INV ADV HA she could kill her and get away with it she would. It was further alleged, that while driving on the freeway with her partner and son in the car, the warden stated that if their son was not in the car, she would wreck the car and kill them both. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0012 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 26, 2010, it was alleged that an officer was introducing drugs and a mobile phone into the institution. DISPO INV ADV HA The officer later admitted to smuggling the contraband and that he received between $3,000 and $4,000 for the items. 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 the officer resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 10-0013 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between November 12, 2009, and March 30, 2010, an officer allegedly had a sexual relationship with a parolee. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the officer resigned prior to the completion of the investigation; therefore, disciplinary action was not taken. A letter indicating he resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 10-0014 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 5, 2009, and November 10, 2009, an officer was allegedly overly familiar with an inmate when she DISPO INV ADV HA visited him while off duty and without possessing any required safety equipment. It was further alleged the officer was insubordinate when she failed to leave the inmate's cell after being ordered to leave by a supervisor. On or before November 17, 2009, the officer was allegedly overly familiar with a second inmate when she provided a mobile phone to the him so she could communicate with him. It was alleged the officer brought her personal mobile phone into the secured perimeter of the prison, spoke to the second inmate on her mobile phone while on duty inside the prison, sent text messages of an explicit sexual nature to the second inmate, and brought a pair of sunglasses and cards of a personal nature to the second inmate. It was further alleged the officer was dishonest during her investigatory interview about the allegations. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all the allegations except that the officer provided the cell phone and the sunglasses to the second inmate. 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 she resigned pending disciplinary action. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 31 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 DISTINGUISHED CASES 54 Case No. 10-0015 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 13, 2009, an institution learned that an officer was allegedly providing mobile phones, tobacco, and DISPO INV ADV HA narcotics to inmates. The officer's vehicle was searched on institutional grounds and a loaded firearm, inmate correspondence, and prescription drugs were found inside. The officer admitted to bringing in cans of tobacco on approximately 18 occasions for which he received $7, 000. DISPOSITION OF CASE All allegations against the officer were sustained and the hiring authority dismissed the officer. The Office of Internal Affairs also conducted a criminal investigation and the matter was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed charges against the officer. Case No. 10-0016 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 2, 2009, a parolee revealed to his parole agent that an officer allegedly solicited him to commit a DISPO INV ADV HA murder. When interviewed about the allegations during the investigation, the officer admitted that he had contacted the parolee to kill another person. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the officer. The district attorney's office also charged the officer with attempted murder. Case No. 10-0017 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on August 12, 2009, an officer committed several acts of child molestation against a girl under DISPO INV ADV HA the age of 16, including forcible acts of penetration and oral copulation. The officer was arrested and allegedly failed to truthfully report the circumstances of his arrest to the hiring authority. In addition, he was allegedly dishonest when questioned by local law enforcement about the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, before the investigation was completed, the court issued an order prohibiting the officer from carrying a firearm. As a result, the officer was unable to continue to serve as a peace officer and he was dismissed. A letter was placed in his official personnel file indicating that he will be dismissed again as a result of the allegations in this case, if the firearm restrictions are lifted and he seeks to be reinstated with the department. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 32 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 DISTINGUISHED CASES 54 Case No. 10-0018 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 6, 2009, an escorting officer allegedly used physical force on an inmate and failed to report it. A DISPO INV ADV HA second officer also allegedly used physical force on the inmate by applying an unauthorized control hold, and then failed to report the use of force. Two sergeants were alleged to have failed to report the use of force by the officers, and one of the sergeants was also alleged to have improperly issued control keys to a temporary holding cell to one of the officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the allegation that the first officer had failed to report his own use of force was unfounded. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation that the second officer failed to report his own use of force; however, the hiring authority did sustain the allegation that the second officer used an unauthorized control hold, which he should have reported. He received a letter of instruction. The allegation that the first sergeant failed to immediately report the incident to a supervisor was sustained, and the hiring authority issued him a letter of instruction. The hiring authority did not sustain allegations that the second sergeant failed to report the officers' use of force. However, the allegation that the second sergeant improperly released control keys was sustained, and he received a letter of instruction. Case No. 10-0019 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 5, 2009, an officer allegedly used inappropriate force when he struck an inmate on the back of the DISPO INV ADV HA head with a baton. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0020 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In July 2009, it was alleged that a deputy director exchanged numerous emails of a personal and sometimes DISPO INV ADV HA flirtatious nature with a staff services manager, a staff services analyst, and a friend while using state equipment. It was also alleged that the deputy director violated the fraternization policy by engaging in a personal relationship with a subordinate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the deputy director misused state equipment, but did not sustain the allegation that the deputy director engaged in a personal relationship with a subordinate. The deputy director was issued a letter of reprimand. The hiring authority also sustained allegations against the staff services manager and staff services analyst for misusing their state equipment for the email exchanges. The hiring authority decided to issue the staff services manager a letter of instruction; however, she left the department before the letter was issued. The hiring authority decided to take corrective action with the staff services analyst. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 33 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 DISTINGUISHED CASES 54 Case No. 10-0021 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about June 16, 2009, an officer allegedly made threatening and harassing statements to coworkers because DISPO INV ADV HA they had discussed his personal relationship with two female employees. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations that the officer engaged in discrimination and harassment were not sustained. The allegation that the officer engaged in threats or intimidation of a coworker was not sustained. The evidence from the complainants interviews indicated that the officer acted in an unprofessional manner and used inappropriate language toward a fellow employee but did not rise to the legal standard of harassment, discrimination, threats, or intimidation. The hiring authority issued the officer a letter of instruction for his discourtesy. Case No. 10-0022 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 3, 2009, several sergeants and officers responded to an incident in a vocational area of an institution DISPO INV ADV HA where inmates were repeatedly stabbing a plumber. It was alleged that two sergeants and several officers used unnecessary and excessive force on the inmates involved in the attack on the plumber, including using pepper spray and baton strikes on the inmates' backs and legs while they were handcuffed and on the ground. It was also alleged that an associate warden observed the unnecessary and excessive force by the sergeants and officers, yet failed to report the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0023 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 2, 2009, an officer allegedly grabbed an inmate by the collar of his shirt, spun him around, and forcefully DISPO INV ADV HA pushed him against storage lockers. The inmate had allegedly made a threatening comment to the officer, prompting the officer's reaction. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0024 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 1, 2009, an officer allegedly had knowledge of, or participated in, the transportation and sale of narcotics DISPO INV ADV HA at his residence. The officer also reportedly failed to notify the institution that he was contacted by outside law enforcement about the allegations. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0025 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 14, 2009, a ward alleged that an officer pushed him into some bushes and punched him several times. He DISPO INV ADV HA also alleged that other officers arrived and also punched and kicked him. 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 34 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 DISTINGUISHED CASES 54 Case No. 10-0026 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on May 10, 2009, and in August 2009, a sergeant illegally accessed state computers assigned DISPO INV ADV HA to the warden, the chief deputy warden, an administrative assistant, and the lieutenant of an investigative services unit, all of whom worked at an institution different from his assigned workplace. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0027 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 4, 2009, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force when he continued to strike an inmate with a baton DISPO INV ADV HA after the inmate had stopped fighting. Also, the officer allegedly failed to accurately report the number of strikes. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for three months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0028 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 29, 2009, a ward alleged that a cook smuggled mobile phones and drugs into the institution. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the cook. Case No. 10-0029 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 28, 2009, an officer allegedly used excessive force when he forced an inmate to the ground causing DISPO INV ADV HA injuries to his head and mouth. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0030 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in April 2009 two sergeants were discourteous to an officer in response to the officer reporting DISPO INV ADV HA the misconduct of officers assigned to a transportation unit. Specifically, the officer alleged one sergeant denied him use of a state vehicle to travel to the store to purchase medications during a overnight trip. The officer further alleged that the sergeants used profanity towards him and placed a note that said "rat" on his personal vehicle. He further alleged that one sergeant glared at him and tried to run him off the freeway while he was traveling home in his personal vehicle. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeants. Case No. 10-0031 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 27, 2009, an officer allegedly lied under oath while testifying during a criminal hearing. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation that the officer falsely testified under oath was sustained but no discipline was imposed because she resigned before disciplinary action could be taken. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 35 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 DISTINGUISHED CASES 54 Case No. 10-0032 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 19, 2009, an officer was arrested for driving under the influence of morphine. It was alleged the officer DISPO INV ADV HA illegally used morphine, a controlled substance. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations after the officer provided proof the morphine was legally prescribed. In a separate action, the hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer drove while under the influence and entered a plea of guilty to driving under the influence. The officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. Case No. 10-0033 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 5, 2009, it was alleged that a sergeant used physical force on an inmate resulting in a head injury and DISPO INV ADV HA that he failed to report it. Two officers allegedly witnessed the force and failed to report it. Additionally, the two officers allegedly threatened to place the inmate in administrative segregation housing if he complained about the use of force. The sergeant was also allegedly dishonest when describing the incident to a supervisor and during his investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant and dismissed him. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the two officers. However, the hiring authority issued the two officers letters of instruction for failing to take the inmate's complaint and for failing to report a possible inmate complaint. Case No. 10-0034 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 4, 2009, an officer allegedly told inmates that the institution's investigative services unit would soon be DISPO INV ADV HA conducting surprise cell searches and then delayed the unit's entry into the building. On March 6, 2009, the officer allegedly told his superior officer that the institution's investigative services unit was going to make another surprise visit, after he was told not to tell anyone. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0035 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In March 2009, the institution received information that between January 2006 and February 2007 an officer DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly trafficked narcotics and other contraband into the institution. It was also alleged that the officer was dishonest regarding his conduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 36 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 DISTINGUISHED CASES 54 Case No. 10-0036 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 22, 2009, two officers were escorting an inmate when one of the officers allegedly used excessive DISPO INV ADV HA force on the inmate. The officer who used force allegedly failed to report it. The other escorting officer initially failed to report the incident, but then reported it a few days later. Both officers also allegedly made false statements about the incident. Two other officers allegedly witnessed the incident, failed to report it, and made false statements concerning the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the two escorting officers. The officer who used force was dismissed. The hiring authority served the other escorting officer with a notice of dismissal but he retired before the disciplinary action took effect. The hiring authority sustained allegations of dishonesty against one of the witnessing officers and dismissed her. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the other officer who witnessed the incident. However, the hiring authority determined that due his lack of experience relative to the other three officers, the officer's penalty should be less than dismissal. As a result, the hiring authority imposed a 60 working-day suspension against him. Following a Skelly hearing, the department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which the officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 16 months in exchange for waiving his right to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The two officers who were dismissed filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0037 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 10, 2009, an officer allegedly pushed an inmate to the ground and placed his arm around the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate's neck in an effort to retrieve contraband. In addition, the officer allegedly opened an administrative segregation cell without first securing the inmate in handcuffs contrary to the instructions of a sergeant. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer inappropriately opened the cell door and was insubordinate in doing so. The allegation for using unreasonable force was not sustained. The hiring authority imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. Case No. 10-0038 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 4, 2009, it was alleged that a sergeant physically assaulted two restrained inmates while two officers DISPO INV ADV HA assisted. The sergeant allegedly failed to report the assault, directed the officers to omit the assault from their reports, and lied during an investigatory interview. The two officers allegedly did not attempt to stop the assault and did not disclose the assault in the reports they submitted. Further, a third officer allegedly witnessed the assault and did not attempt to stop it, and failed to report it. A fourth officer witnessed the assault, but allegedly failed to report it in a timely manner. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant and dismissed him. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the two officers, and imposed 60 working-day suspensions. Both officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the third officer. The hiring authority sustained allegations against the fourth officer who witnessed the assault but delayed in reporting it and issued the officer a letter of instruction. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 37 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 DISTINGUISHED CASES 54 Case No. 10-0039 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between February 2009 and October 2009 a special agent accessed pornography from his work computer. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and imposed a salary reduction of 10 percent for 12 months. Case No. 10-0040 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 30, 2009, an officer allegedly grabbed an inmate by the back of his neck and failed to report it. A DISPO INV ADV HA social worker reportedly witnessed the incident but failed to report it until a week later. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer. However, the hiring authority sustained an allegation against the social worker for failing to timely report what the social worker believed was an inappropriate use of force, as required. The social worker received a letter of reprimand, which he appealed to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0041 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 29, 2009, a youth correctional counselor allegedly punched a ward in the face. The youth correctional DISPO INV ADV HA counselor wrote in his report that he extended his hand in order to gain distance from the ward, however a videotape of the incident showed the counselor stepping forward and punching the ward. Two other youth correctional counselors were present during the altercation, but failed to document the use of force in their reports. When questioned by a lieutenant on the day of the incident, all three youth correctional counselors allegedly gave a blank stare and refused to answer. It was further alleged that the counselors were dishonest during their investigative interviews when they maintained that they did not see the ward get hit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the youth correctional counselors and dismissed them. Case No. 10-0042 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 23, 2009, an officer allegedly struck an inmate and did not document the use of force. Another officer DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly witnessed the incident and failed to report it. The inmate who was allegedly struck also alleged that staff withheld food and a bible from him. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers. Case No. 10-0043 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 12, 2009, an officer allegedly made false statements in an official report by claiming that an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA threatened him with physical harm. In addition, on March 2, 2009, the officer allegedly endangered the safety of an inmate by telling other inmates that the first inmate was a sexual predator. It was further alleged that the officer was dishonest when reporting the initial threat to his supervisor and during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer disclosed confidential information about an inmate and was dishonest about his actions in an official report and during his investigative interview. The hiring authority, however, did not sustain the allegation of dishonesty stemming from the officer's report that an inmate had threatened him. Based on the sustained allegations, the officer was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 38 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 DISTINGUISHED CASES 54 Case No. 10-0044 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 9, 2009, it was alleged that in 2008 a sergeant gained access to a captain's office and smeared feces DISPO INV ADV HA on the office telephone. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation. The sergeant was dismissed. Case No. 10-0045 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between December 18, 2008, and January 31, 2009, eight officers allegedly violated orders by opening cell doors DISPO INV ADV HA of inmates who were on "lockdown" status and, therefore, prohibited from being released from their cells in that manner. On one occasion, after officers allowed inmates out of their cells, two inmates attacked another inmate in the building. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against all eight officers. The first officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 18 months because his neglect resulted in an inmate being assaulted. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board but later withdrew the appeal. The second officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 18 months because his actions also contributed to the inmate being assaulted. Following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority reduced the penalty to a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months and the officer agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The third officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. The other five officers received corrective action in the form of training. Case No. 10-0046 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 11, 2008, a tower officer fired three lethal rounds as warning shots during an inmate riot. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The department's Deadly Force Review Board concluded that the three warning shots were not in compliance with department policy. The hiring authority imposed a salary reduction of 10 percent for 18 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0047 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 4, 2008, an officer allegedly slammed an inmate against a wall and failed to report the use of force. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 39 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 DISTINGUISHED CASES 54 Case No. 10-0048 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 2, 2008, a parole agent allegedly knocked on a residence door and requested to see a parolee. When DISPO INV ADV HA the elderly resident asked him to wait, the agent allegedly forcibly entered the house causing the man to stumble backwards. Later that day, the agent reportedly went to another home and wanted to see a parolee’s room. The parolee was not in his bedroom so the agent started looking for him throughout the residence. He was asked to wait but instead allegedly barged into a room where an elderly woman and her daughter were in the process of changing the elderly woman's under garments. The agent allegedly started yelling at the women asking if the parolee had stayed there the previous night, insisting that he had a right to be in the residence. The agent eventually left after contacting the parolee by phone. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The parole agent was also under investigation in two other unrelated matters that resulted in sustained allegations of misconduct including dishonesty. All three cases were combined and the parole agent was served with a notice of dismissal. An appeal is pending before the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0049 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On several occasions during December 2008, a correctional counselor responsible for meeting face-to-face with DISPO INV ADV HA inmates and processing official paperwork for them allegedly filled out paperwork and forged their signatures without meeting with them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the correctional counselor falsified inmate records and was dishonest. The counselor was dismissed. The counselor filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0050 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in December 2008, a deputy commissioner was overly familiar with a parolee when she sent DISPO INV ADV HA him $50.00. Further, it was alleged that the deputy commissioner improperly used confidential information by sending the money to the parolee's address. Also, it was alleged that the deputy commissioner was misleading to a parole agent when she told him she was a new employee of the department and did not know what the rules were for sending a parolee money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 30 working-day suspension. The deputy commissioner filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0051 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in December 2008, a supervising parole agent sexually harassed a parole agent by showing DISPO INV ADV HA him a pornographic image on her office computer. Additionally, the parole agent alleged that on January 29, 2009, the supervising parole agent told him, "I would have sex with you but you are married." DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that a pornographic image was shown to the parole agent. However, the hiring authority did sustain the allegation that an inappropriate statement was made and imposed corrective counseling. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 40 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 DISTINGUISHED CASES 54 Case No. 10-0052 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 17, 2008, a sergeant allegedly insulted an inmate about his sexual preference, disregarded the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate's safety, and was disrespectful to a licensed psychiatric technician. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The sergeant did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0053 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 16, 2008, a sergeant allegedly engaged in a confrontation with two inmates who were in their cell, DISPO INV ADV HA then challenged them to fight. A control booth officer then allegedly opened the inmates' cell door, allowing the sergeant access to the inmates. The control booth officer also allegedly failed to report the sergeant's actions and the sergeant was allegedly dishonest during his investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant and dismissed him. The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the control booth officer failed to report the matter, but exonerated her on the allegation that she had neglected her duty by inappropriately opening the cell door. The hiring authority imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months on the officer. Both the sergeant and the officer appealed their discipline to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0054 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE During November and December 2008, a materials and store supervisor allegedly allowed inmates to steal items DISPO INV ADV HA from an institution's inmate canteen store. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0055 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 20, 2008, an off-duty parole agent allegedly confronted his son's football coach. The confrontation DISPO INV ADV HA escalated and the parole agent allegedly displayed his badge and firearm. An off-duty sheriff's deputy reportedly intervened and escorted the parole agent off the field. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 20-day suspension. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0056 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 8, 2008, an officer allegedly forged the signature of a department employee on an inmate work DISPO INV ADV HA change application. 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 41 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 DISTINGUISHED CASES 54 Case No. 10-0057 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 22, 2008, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force on an inmate while escorting him, resulting in a DISPO INV ADV HA head injury to the inmate. Another officer was allegedly dishonest when he indicated he had not observed how the inmate was injured by the other officer. A third officer in the overhead observation area allegedly failed to observe how the inmate had been injured by the first officer during the escort. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against the officer who allegedly used force were addressed in a separate investigation. The hiring authority determined that the second officer had not performed his duties within the scope of his training when he failed to observe how the inmate was injured; however, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of dishonesty. The officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The hiring authority also sustained the allegation against the observation officer that he had neglected his duty and issued him a letter of reprimand. Both of the officers filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0058 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In August 2008, a sergeant allegedly told an officer that another officer who had previously reported staff DISPO INV ADV HA misconduct was a "rat", "snitch," and that he wore a "wire". DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and demoted the sergeant to officer. The former sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0059 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 27, 2008, a sergeant allegedly provided mobile phones to inmates and was overly familiar with inmates. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the allegations against the sergeant were unfounded; therefore, no discipline was imposed. Case No. 10-0060 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 3, 2008, during a vehicle stop conducted by an outside law enforcement agency, medication and dental DISPO INV ADV HA tools from a facility were found in a dental assistant's vehicle. The dental assistant's brother, who was a parolee and an alleged gang member, and her husband were in the vehicle at the time of the stop. It was alleged that the dental assistant removed the medication and dental tools from the facility without authorization. It was further alleged that two supervising dentists attempted to conceal the dental assistant's misconduct and poor oversight in the institutions dental unit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found there was insufficient evidence to establish the dental assistant removed dental tools without authorization. However, the hiring authority sustained an allegation that the dental assistant removed medication from the facility without authorization and issued her a letter of reprimand. The hiring authority found one of the supervising dentists failed to ensure that dental tools and medication were timely returned to the facility. He received a 5 percent salary reduction for 6 months. The hiring authority did not sustain allegations against the other supervising dentist. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 42 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 DISTINGUISHED CASES 54 Case No. 10-0061 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 3, 2008, it was alleged that between November 1, 2006, and January 31, 2008, a sergeant engaged in DISPO INV ADV HA stalking conduct following the end of a romantic relationship with an officer. The sergeant allegedly made harassing phone calls, threats, and falsely impersonated family members. The sergeant was prosecuted and convicted of a misdemeanor for making harassing phone calls. Further, during the course of the investigation into these matters by both local law enforcement and the Office of Internal Affairs, the sergeant allegedly made misleading and dishonest statements. Also, between May 1, 2006, and September 30, 2007, the officer and sergeant engaged in numerous and lengthy personal communications while both were on duty. Separate from the above allegations, on January 17, 2008, the officer allegedly made a false police report to local law enforcement claiming that he had been assaulted by another sergeant. The alleged motive for the false report was to retaliate against the other sergeant, who was having an affair with the officer's wife, who was also an officer. During the course of the investigation, the officer who allegedly filed the false report also allegedly made further false statements to investigators. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant and dismissed her. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority also sustained the allegations against the officer 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. Case No. 10-0062 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 2, 2008, it was alleged that two officers removed an inmate from his cell and forced him to the DISPO INV ADV HA ground. One officer allegedly held the inmate down, as the other officer beat the inmate with a pepper spray canister. The officers allegedly wrote false reports about the incident. In addition, another officer and a sergeant allegedly witnessed the incident but failed to report it. Further, a lieutenant allegedly failed to properly supervise the officers following the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the two officers who used unnecessary force. Both were dismissed. The allegations against the other officer who witnessed the force but failed to report it were sustained, and he was also dismissed. The sergeant that failed to follow departmental training by not reporting the incident was demoted to the position of officer. The lieutenant who failed to perform within the course and scope of training was demoted to the position of sergeant. All employees who received disciplinary action filed appeals to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0063 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 31, 2007, an officer allegedly sprayed an inmate with pepper spray while the inmate was secured in DISPO INV ADV HA his cell. In addition, the officer allegedly failed to follow proper security procedures when opening the food port in the cell door to spray the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring sustained the allegations against the officer and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 43 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 DISTINGUISHED CASES 54 Case No. 10-0064 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between July 2006 and October 11, 2008, an associate warden allegedly subjected an office assistant to sexual DISPO INV ADV HA harassment when he touched the office assistant inappropriately by giving her hugs, touching her breast, and rubbing her buttocks. During the same period, a lieutenant allegedly subjected the same office assistant to sexual harassment when he touched her inappropriately. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations; therefore, no discipline was imposed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 44 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 DEFICIENT CASES 4 Case No. 10-0065 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 18, 2009, an off-duty officer was allegedly cited during a traffic stop for misdemeanor possession DISPO INV ADV HA of marijuana. It is also alleged that the officer failed to cooperate with the outside law enforcement officer who made the traffic stop and was dishonest when he failed to disclose that he possessed marijuana. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the officer used and possessed marijuana while off duty and made false or misleading statements to a public safety officer. The hiring authority served the officer with a notice of dismissal; however, the officer retired before the dismissal took effect. A letter was placed in his official personnel file indicating that he retired under unfavorable circumstances. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Although the hiring authority initially served the officer with a notice of dismissal, after a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority determined that the penalty should be reduced to a 60 working-day suspension. The bureau found the reduced penalty to be unreasonable, given the misconduct alleged. The bureau requested an executive review of the case. After the executive review, the department agreed that the appropriate penalty was dismissal. However, the officer retired prior to the dismissal taking effect. Case No. 10-0066 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 14, 2009, an off-duty officer allegedly pushed a female citizen to the ground twice during a DISPO INV ADV HA confrontation in the parking lot after a professional football game. The second push allegedly caused the woman to strike her head on the pavement, rendering her unconscious. The officer was arrested and charged with battery with serious injury and disturbing the peace. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau found the penalty to be unreasonable, given the seriousness of the misconduct and because the officer was previously disciplined for disturbing the peace in another off-duty incident. In addition, the hiring authority did not consult with the bureau prior to serving the officer with a notice of discipline, as required. As a result, the bureau was unable to seek executive review of the hiring authority's decision prior to discipline being imposed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 45 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 DEFICIENT CASES 4 Case No. 10-0067 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 8, 2008, a lieutenant and an officer allegedly removed an inmate from a housing unit because he was DISPO INV ADV HA being disruptive when staff were conducting cell searches. The Lieutenant and the officer allegedly took the inmate to a van parked outside the housing unit and locked the inmate inside a small metal equipment cage that was inside the van. The inmate was allegedly left locked in the cage for about 30 minutes while the outside temperature was in excess of 100 degrees. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The hiring authority initially imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for three months against the lieutenant. After a Skelly hearing, however, the hiring authority sought to reduce the penalty to a letter of reprimand. The bureau disagreed and requested an executive review of the decision. After an executive review, the department decided to impose a one working-day suspension without pay against the lieutenant. The officer was issued a letter of instruction and ordered to receive training on the use of proper holding cells for inmates. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the discipline imposed against the lieutenant was unreasonable, given the severity of the misconduct and the potential harm to the inmate. In addition, the hiring authority did not submit the allegations to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation until 10 months after the incident occurred. As a result, the department had just two months to complete the investigation and impose discipline before the one- year statutory deadline for taking disciplinary action expired. The bureau also found the investigation to be insufficient. Despite the time constraints, the Office of Internal Affairs had the opportunity to conduct a thorough investigation and failed to do so. The Office of Internal Affairs refused to investigate the hiring authority’s potential misconduct for failing to timely submit the case for investigation. In addition, the investigation failed to address the possibility that the lieutenant’s actions were a form of unauthorized punishment and that his actions were in retaliation for the inmate’s disruptive behavior. Case No. 10-0068 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 7, 2008, it was discovered that a lieutenant inappropriately allowed an associate warden to remove the DISPO INV ADV HA associate warden's personnel training file from the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The initial hiring authority did not sustain the allegations. Following an executive review initiated by the bureau, the department sustained allegations of neglect of duty and making false or misleading statements during an investigative interview. The lieutenant received a 48-day suspension. The lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The initial hiring authority did not sustain any allegations against the lieutenant. The bureau found the initial hiring authority's decision to be unreasonable because there was sufficient evidence to prove that the lieutenant ordered that the original files be released to the associate warden, and that the lieutenant was dishonest when he denied giving the order. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 46 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0069 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 13, 2010, a warden threatened her partner by stating that if she could kill her and get DISPO INV ADV HA away with it she would. It was further alleged, that while driving on the freeway with her partner and son in the car, the warden stated that if their son was not in the car, she would wreck the car and kill them both. DISPOSITION OF CASE 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. 10-0070 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 8, 2010, an officer allegedly committed a battery upon his girlfriend while intoxicated. He was DISPO INV ADV HA arrested for battery and for an outstanding warrant related to an earlier DUI incident. The officer also allegedly failed to report his arrest to the department. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the officer resigned before disciplinary action could be taken. A letter indicating he resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 10-0071 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 3, 2010, an inmate alleged that a groundskeeper offered to smuggle drugs into the institution for her DISPO INV ADV HA in exchange for sexual favors. On February 12, 2010, Office of Internal Affairs special agents seized marijuana cigarettes from the groundskeeper while inside the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed criminal charges. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 10-0072 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 3, 2010, an inmate alleged that a groundskeeper offered to smuggle drugs into the institution for her DISPO INV ADV HA in exchange for sexual favors. On February 12, 2010, agents from the Office of Internal Affairs contacted the groundskeeper inside the institution and seized marijuana cigarettes from the groundskeeper's person. The groundskeeper refused an order to provide a urine sample for drug testing and allegedly lied to the agents when he denied having any contraband on his person. In a subsequent investigatory interview, the groundskeeper refused to answer any questions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and decided to dismiss the groundskeeper. However, the groundskeeper retired before he was served with a notice of dismissal. A letter indicating the he retired pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 10-0073 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 21, 2010, a confidential informant inmate alleged that an officer had been bringing mobile phones, DISPO INV ADV HA tobacco, and drugs into the institution. In addition, it was alleged that the officer stored live rounds of ammunition in his vehicle while it was parked on institutional grounds. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed two felony counts against the officer. 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 47 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0074 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 3, 2010, an officer was apprehended with heroin that he allegedly intended to sell to inmates. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer was arrested on January 3, 2010, and the district attorney's office filed multiple felony charges. The officer resigned his position with the department on the day of his arrest. Case No. 10-0075 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 2, 2010, an officer allegedly assaulted his girlfriend, with whom he lived. The district attorney's DISPO INV ADV HA office filed charges of domestic battery against him. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the officer and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. The district attorney's office dismissed the criminal charges. Case No. 10-0076 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 29, 2009, outside law enforcement arrested an officer for felony possession of methamphetamine DISPO INV ADV HA and marijuana. During the contact, the officer allegedly lied when she denied being in possession of the drugs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed the penalty of dismissal. However, the officer retired before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the officer retired pending disciplinary action was placed in her official personnel file. Case No. 10-0077 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged on December 16, 2009, that an officer was engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. Allegedly, the officer received numerous calls from the inmate and she made references about her relationship with inmate on her "MySpace" webpage. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the dismissal took effect and agreed to not seek employment with the department in the future. Case No. 10-0078 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 15, 2009, it was alleged that a parole agent was engaged in sexual relationship with a parolee. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause 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 did not accept for monitoring. Case No. 10-0079 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 29, 2009, an officer allegedly conspired with an inmate to introduce cell phones into the DISPO INV ADV HA institution. On December 10, 2009, the same officer allegedly attempted to bring drugs into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed criminal charges. 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 48 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0080 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 24, 2009, an officer allegedly sent an email to a friend indicating he was going to strap on DISPO INV ADV HA explosives to blow up during a session of Congress. Based on the email, the Federal Bureau of Investigation obtained a search warrant for his home. During the search, several weapons were located including an illegal assault rifle, and a 9mm loaded handgun in a dresser drawer of the officer's daughter. The officer was arrested for allegedly possessing an illegal weapon, making terrorist threats, and child endangerment. 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. In addition, the matter was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed charges. Case No. 10-0081 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 18, 2009, it was alleged that following a verbal confrontation with an inmate at a hospital, an DISPO INV ADV HA officer verbally threatened the inmate by stating that the inmate "better sleep with one eye open." Later that night, the officer allegedly entered the inmate's hospital room and struck him in the eye as the inmate lay asleep in bed. It was further alleged that an unknown officer witnessed the assault but 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. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack of evidence. Case No. 10-0082 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 1, 2009, a lieutenant allegedly forcibly took his estranged wife to the ground, sexually assaulted DISPO INV ADV HA her, and destroyed her cell phone. This allegedly took place at the front door of their home, outside, while a teenage child of theirs waited in the car. The lieutenant was later arrested on the charges but the district attorney's office declined to prosecute. Additionally, it was alleged the lieutenant violated a restraining order by contacting the estranged wife and yelling obscene words at her. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the lieutenant was rude to his wife, destroyed her cell phone, and violated the court order. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the other charges. The lieutenant received a five working-day suspension. As a result of a restraining order that was eventually dismissed, the lieutenant suffered a two-month leave without pay. Following the Skelly hearing, a settlement was reached in which the hiring authority reduced the penalty to a letter of reprimand and the lieutenant agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0083 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 24, 2009, a parole agent was arrested for allegedly hitting his wife several times and attempting to DISPO INV ADV HA prevent her from escaping the residence. DISPOSITION OF CASE The superior court deferred judgment and sentencing, and placed the parole agent into an informal diversion program. The hiring authority sustained the allegation and imposed a 32 working-day suspension, which he appealed to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 49 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0084 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 20, 2009, a warden received information that a video containing images of crime scenes and autopsy DISPO INV ADV HA photos had been circulated through email to persons both inside and outside of the department. The video indicated it had been produced by an investigative services unit employee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation that the video was improperly created, or that persons at that institution knowingly inappropriately distributed it within the department. However, the hiring authority sustained allegations of misuse of state equipment against a sergeant and lieutenant at the institution who had sent the video to persons not employed by the department. Both received letters of reprimand. The department and lieutenant entered into a settlement agreement whereby the letter of reprimand will remain in his file for 18 months instead of 36 months, and the lieutenant agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The investigation identified additional employees who also forwarded the video to persons outside of the department. The bureau has recommended that the Office of Internal Affairs forward the information to their respective hiring authorities for appropriate action. Case No. 10-0085 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 10, 2009, an officer allegedly committed an act of domestic violence when he choked and beat his DISPO INV ADV HA wife. The officer was arrested and charged with domestic violence. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. Case No. 10-0086 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 15, 2007, a federal jury found an officer guilty of assaulting two inmates under color of law. The DISPO INV ADV HA charges stemmed from an incident on May 9, 2002, when the officer pushed two inmates from a van while they were in leg and hand restraints. After the verdict, the trial court set aside the convictions. The government appealed and the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court and reinstated the felony convictions against the officer. On June 7, 2010, the officer was sentenced to 51 months in federal prison. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the officer suffered felony convictions and that he brought discredit to the department. The officer was dismissed. Case No. 10-0087 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 31, 2009, an inmate alleged that a sergeant assigned to an institution's investigative security unit used DISPO INV ADV HA profanity toward him, choked him, and kicked him to the ground. It was further alleged that other officers observed the use of force and failed to intervene or report the force used. 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 50 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0088 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 28, 2009, it was alleged an officer knowingly provided the department with a falsified physician's note DISPO INV ADV HA excusing him from work. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed charges for forgery and altering a medical record. Prior to completion of the investigation, the officer was dismissed for failing to report to work for five consecutive days. Case No. 10-0089 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 26, 2009, an inmate allegedly exited a licensed vocational nurse's office with two vacuum-sealed bags DISPO INV ADV HA of tobacco. A search of the nurse's office and personal bag revealed two mobile phones, two chargers, and two hands-free phone devices. DISPOSITION OF CASE During her interview, the nurse admitted to bringing mobile phones and tobacco into the institution and being romantically involved with an inmate, and resigned. The hiring authority determined that the nurse would have been dismissed, had she not resigned. A letter was placed in the nurse's official personnel file stating that she resigned under unfavorable circumstances. Case No. 10-0090 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 24, 2009, a lieutenant was speaking to a captain about a situation in which the captain's staff was DISPO INV ADV HA asked for assistance and did not promptly provide it. A second lieutenant allegedly interjected with a sarcastic comment about the assistance not being provided. The captain allegedly replied with words to the effect of: "Why don't you shut the [explicative] up and stay out of it." The second lieutenant responded with words to the effect of "the next time one of your staff gets stabbed and needs one of my staff to help out, and I hope it's you, we will see what happens." Subsequently, the captain was allegedly dishonest in his interview about whether he made a statement to the lieutenant. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the lieutenant was discourteous. The lieutenant was counseled about his behavior. The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the captain was discourteous, but did not sustain the allegation of dishonesty. The captain received a letter of instruction. 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 attend the interviews of key witnesses nor did they provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 51 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0091 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 21, 2009, an officer was allegedly intoxicated and involved in a domestic dispute. Outside law DISPO INV ADV HA enforcement officers responding to the incident admitted the officer to a mental health facility. As a result, the officer was prohibited from possessing a firearm for five years. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer was served with a notice separating him state service because without the ability to possess a firearm he no longer met the minimum requirements of his position. However, the officer resigned before the separation took effect. The hiring authority subsequently sustained the allegations that the officer's involvement in the domestic dispute brought discredit to the department and a letter was placed in the officer's official personnel file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 10-0092 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 16, 2009, outside law enforcement attempted to serve an arrest warrant on a parolee and observed an DISPO INV ADV HA off-duty officer in the parolee's residence. It was alleged that the officer may have been involved in the suspected methamphetamine-related activity at the residence. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed by the officer. 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. 10-0093 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 14, 2008, it was alleged that an officer who was responsible for supervising an inmate work crew DISPO INV ADV HA submitted reports that two inmates performed substandard work at times when, according to inmate time logs, the inmates were not at work. In addition, it was alleged a sergeant failed to adequately supervise the officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the rules violations occurred as documented and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0094 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about August 11, 2009, a sergeant allegedly directed two officers to escort a barefoot inmate. It is also DISPO INV ADV HA alleged that because the two officers escorted the inmate barefoot, it resulted in blisters on her feet. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the sergeant and imposed a one working-day suspension. The sergeant did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority also sustained the allegations against the two officers and issued them letters of reprimand. In addition, the hiring authority removed the officers' ability to bid for various posts within the institution pursuant to the provisions of the governing union contract. Following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority and the officers entered into settlement agreements. The hiring authority agreed to remove the letters of reprimand from the officers' official personnel files after one year in exchange for the officers agreeing to not file appeals with the State Personnel Board. In addition, the hiring authority reinstated the officers' ability to bid for post assignments. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 52 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0095 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 8, 2009, an officer was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine and being under DISPO INV ADV HA the influence of methamphetamine when outside law enforcement searched a home pursuant to a narcotics warrant. In a voluntary statement given to outside law enforcement, the officer admitted being a long-term user of methamphetamine. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0096 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 06, 2009, an officer allegedly brandished a personal firearm while off duty. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE Prior to completion of the investigation, the officer was convicted of a misdemeanor related to the alleged misconduct and retired before discipline could be imposed. Case No. 10-0097 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on July 31, 2009, an officer physically assaulted and threatened a citizen outside a bar. The DISPO INV ADV HA officer was arrested. It was also alleged that the officer was drinking alcohol while in uniform. The district attorney's office did not file charges in this case. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the officer was dismissed. Case No. 10-0098 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 30, 2009, the department received information that a senior special agent assigned to the Office of DISPO INV ADV HA Internal Affairs allegedly made loud and discourteous remarks to a retired outside law enforcement officer in a public setting. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the senior special agent received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The senior special agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0099 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 30, 2009, an officer allegedly failed to account for ammunition given to him when he was on assignment DISPO INV ADV HA guarding an inmate at a local hospital, resulting in the loss of one bullet. Staff learned of the missing bullet at the end of the officer's shift. The bullet was found in an adjacent parking lot a few days later and turned in. The officer also allegedly made misleading statements to his supervisors. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. However, following a Skelly hearing the hiring authority agreed to reduce the penalty to a 5 percent salary reduction for 16 months in exchange for the officer agreeing not to 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 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0100 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 28, 2009, an officer was arrested by outside law enforcement officers for domestic violence. The officer DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly failed to notify the department of his arrest. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a salary reduction of 10 percent for 13 months. Case No. 10-0101 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about July 27, 2009, a captain was allegedly dishonest when he indicated that he watched a video-taped DISPO INV ADV HA interview of an inmate as part of his overall review of a use of force incident. However, at that time, the video tape was unreviewable due to technical difficulties and not signed out for review by the captain. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and decided to serve the captain with a notice of dismissal. However, the captain resigned before disciplinary action could be imposed. The department placed a letter in his official personnel file indicating he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 10-0102 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 25, 2009, an inmate alleged that an officer was involved in an ongoing conspiracy to smuggle mobile DISPO INV ADV HA telephones, marijuana, methamphetamine, heroin, and tobacco in exchange for money, televisions, furniture, and custom automobile rims. 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. 10-0103 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 14, 2009, an inmate reported that he observed a licensed vocational nurse orally copulate an inmate. The DISPO INV ADV HA department also received information that the nurse introduced cell phones and tobacco into 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 also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 10-0104 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 6, 2009, a transport officer allegedly drove a state-owned vehicle in a negligent manner, resulting in an DISPO INV ADV HA accident. The officer, a sergeant, and an inmate were all injured in the crash. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and issued the officer a letter of reprimand. Following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority rescinded the reprimand and instead issued the officer a letter of instruction. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 54 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0105 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 6, 2009, an associate director received information that during the summer of 2008, a warden, chief DISPO INV ADV HA deputy warden, captain, and lieutenant allegedly inappropriately allowed the identity of an informant to remain in a disciplinary document that was provided to an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the warden and associate warden, but exonerated the captain and lieutenant. The hiring authority initiated corrective action by requiring training for the management, investigative services unit, and hearing officers at the institution. Case No. 10-0106 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 4, 2009, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force when he used chemical agents on an inmate who DISPO INV ADV HA refused to exit a shower after being decontaminated as a result of staff previously using pepper spray on him to stop him and his cellmate from fighting. Two lieutenants and an associate warden allegedly failed to identify the misconduct upon reviewing the incident reports. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that, although the officer had other options to gain the inmate's compliance, his use of pepper spray did not violate departmental policy. The allegations, therefore, were not sustained. Case No. 10-0107 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In July 2009, a parole agent was allegedly involved in an overly familiar sexual relationship with a parolee. An DISPO INV ADV HA anonymous person reported to a parole unit supervisor that the parole agent was allowing the parolee to skip drug testing and was sexually involved with the parolee, among other allegations. The anonymous caller reported that she witnessed the parole agent and the parolee hugging and kissing at the homeless shelter. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0108 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In July 2009, a staff member received an email with two videos attached and recognized the incidents depicted on DISPO INV ADV HA the videos involved department inmates housed at an out-of-state correctional institution. Both videos had been provided by the out-of-state institution to a particular unit in the department pursuant to department procedures. It was alleged that the videos contained confidential material and that they were inappropriately distributed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to identify a department staff member who engaged in the misconduct. Therefore, the allegations were not sustained. Case No. 10-0109 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 1, 2009, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force by pepper spraying an inmate who was making DISPO INV ADV HA verbal threats towards the officer from inside his cell. The officer was also allegedly dishonest in his report of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the use of force was justified and exonerated the officer. The hiring authority determined that the officer's report was poorly written, not dishonest. As a result, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 55 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0110 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 27, 2009, a youth correctional officer allegedly made discourteous jokes about a ward's mother. It was DISPO INV ADV HA also alleged the youth correctional officer used excessive force when he grabbed the ward around the neck, leaving scratches and abrasions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0111 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 26, 2009, a lieutenant allegedly informed another lieutenant that the other lieutenant was under DISPO INV ADV HA investigation for sending inappropriate electronic mail to staff. A request for investigation against the other lieutenant had been initiated at the time of the alleged disclosure. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Case No. 10-0112 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between June 22 and June 27, 2009, an officer allegedly conducted improper searches of seven inmates' bunks DISPO INV ADV HA and lockers. It is alleged that he threw the lockers and their contents onto the housing unit floor and did not issue receipts for confiscated items, as required. It is also alleged that during a search, the officer sustained an injury, which he failed to report or document. The officer allegedly also conducted an improper body search on an inmate and threw the inmate's shoes onto the roof of a building. It was further alleged that the officer used force on an inmate and failed to report it. Another officer allegedly used inappropriate force on an inmate following a search, made unprofessional and profane comments to an inmate, and participated in an improper search with the first officer. A sergeant allegedly failed to take action to stop the improper searches by the officers and failed to report or stop an improper unclothed body search of an inmate by the first officer. The sergeant also allegedly failed to document a work-related injury sustained by the first officer during a search. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the first officer for failing to report a minor injury to his own finger from the locker search, and for throwing a pair of inmate shoes up on the roof of a housing unit; however, the hiring determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the remaining allegations. The officer expressed remorse for his actions, and training was provided as corrective action. The allegations against the second officer and the sergeant were not sustained. Case No. 10-0113 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 21, 2009, an intoxicated officer allegedly spray painted offensive language on the front door of another DISPO INV ADV HA officer's home. He then attempted suicide with a hand gun but the weapon malfunctioned. Outside law enforcement took the officer into custody and detained him until his mental status could be determined. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer's authorization to carry a firearm was revoked as a result of this incident. The hiring authority, therefore, dismissed the officer because he was no longer eligible to be a peace officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 56 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0114 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 20, 2009, a captain was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. It was alleged the captain was DISPO INV ADV HA dishonest to an outside law enforcement officer when he denied consuming any alcohol. It was also alleged that the captain abused his authority when he showed the outside law enforcement officer his department badge, said he was a captain at the institution and in charge of over 4,000 inmates, and asked to be released. It was further alleged that the captain was intoxicated while on duty because he was "on call" at the time of his arrest, which would have required him to respond to the institution had a serious incident occurred. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and demoted the captain to lieutenant. However, the captain resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the captain resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 10-0115 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 20, 2009, it was alleged that an officer was arrested for being in possession of brass knuckles which were DISPO INV ADV HA attached to a motorcycle key ring on the motorcycle he was driving. He was later convicted. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations related to possession of the brass knuckles and the officer's subsequent misdemeanor conviction. The officer received an official letter of reprimand. Case No. 10-0116 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 19, 2009, a parolee alleged that he was having a sexual relationship with his assigned parole agent. DISPO INV ADV HA 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. 10-0117 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 7, 2009, an inmate allegedly passed six balloons containing marijuana from his rectum. An officer then DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly disposed of the balloons, which were considered evidence of the inmate's criminal conduct. A subsequent search of the officer's vehicle on prison grounds allegedly uncovered items that appeared to be gang paraphernalia and a loaded handgun. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute due to concerns about the evidence. The Office of Internal Affairs also conducted an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 57 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0118 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 15, 2009, an office assistant alleged that she had been sexually harassed by a captain who supervised her. DISPO INV ADV HA The captain also allegedly engaged in a consenual sexual relationship with the office assistant in violation of departmental policy. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, the captain was issued a letter of instruction explaining his obligation as a senior manager with the department to conduct himself in a professional manner. Case No. 10-0119 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 14, 2009, an inmate committed suicide in his cell by hanging. Several officers allegedly failed to conduct DISPO INV ADV HA necessary welfare checks on the inmate during the period of time immediately preceding his death. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0120 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 3, 2009, during a riot in an exercise yard, a skirmish line was established by responding officers. It was DISPO INV ADV HA alleged that an officer violated policy when he ran from the line into the middle of the riot and used his baton on inmates. The officer fell to the ground, causing a security risk to himself and others when other officers had to also break from the skirmish line help the officer. After the riot had been stopped, it was alleged that the officer kicked an inmate two or three times in the shoulder and back area as the inmate lay prone on the ground. 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. Case No. 10-0121 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between June and November 2009, a parole agent allegedly possessed child pornography and enticed a minor to DISPO INV ADV HA engage in unlawful sexual activity with him. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the parole agent. However, the agent was charged in federal court, pled guilty, and resigned before disciplinary action could be taken against him. A letter indicating that the parole agent resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 10-0122 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 29, 2009, outside law enforcement officers allegedly arrested a sergeant for physically attacking his wife DISPO INV ADV HA and child and for threatening them with future violence. An emergency protection order was issued, prohibiting the sergeant from making any contact with his family. The district attorney's office filed charges in the case. DISPOSITION OF CASE All allegations against the officer were sustained, the hiring authority imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 58 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0123 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 20, 2009, an officer allegedly failed to observe one inmate assault another and failed to intervene to stop DISPO INV ADV HA the incident. The officer was then allegedly dishonest when documenting his actions in a written report. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the officer failed to observe the incident, but did not sustain the allegation of dishonesty. A 10 percent salary reduction for 6 months was imposed on the officer. Following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority agreed to settle the case by reducing the penalty to a 5 percent salary reduction for 6 months and the officer agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0124 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 20, 2009, three officers allegedly allowed two inmates to attack a third inmate and failed to accurately DISPO INV ADV HA report or document the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0125 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 15, 2009, an off-duty officer was arrested for allegedly committing a battery against a former girlfriend. DISPO INV ADV HA The officer also allegedly failed to report the arrest in a timely manner. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0126 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 1, 2009, outside law enforcement searched an officer's residence, where they located marijuana plants in DISPO INV ADV HA the backyard and items related to marijuana cultivation and sales in the officer's adult son's bedroom. The son allegedly was growing the marijuana for an ill friend with a doctor prescribed medicinal marijuana card. It was also alleged that another officer frequently stayed at the home. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that both officers knew about the marijuana being grown at the residence and failed to act. The officer who lived in the residence received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The other officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 10 months. Both officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 59 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0127 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged on May 13, 2009, that during a dispute with his wife, an officer grabbed her from behind and threw DISPO INV ADV HA her on the floor. It was further alleged that the officer left a note on the front door of a residence of a private citizen alleging that the citizen's husband was having an affair. The private citizen called the number provided on the note which was the number for the officer. The officer informed the private citizen that her husband was having an affair with his wife. When asked how the officer obtained her address, the officer told the private citizen that he had used the law enforcement database to find her. The private citizen called local law enforcement to report the harassment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the domestic violence allegation and the allegation that the officer used a law enforcement database without authorization. However, the hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer harassed a private citizen and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0128 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 12, 2009, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force by kneeling on an inmate's head and spraying his DISPO INV ADV HA face with pepper spray. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0129 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 12, 2009, it was alleged that two officers failed to respond to an inmate calling for help as he was being DISPO INV ADV HA attacked by his cellmate. The inmate had serious facial injuries and blood on his clothing. The cell was covered in blood and there were items strewn throughout. It was further alleged that the officers signed an audit sheet affirming they had they had conducted security checks every half hour during the night and did not discover the injured inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed that the injured inmate provided a different version of events to investigators than he originally provided to the officers who responded to his cell. In addition, several inmates provided inconsistent statements regarding whether the inmate's cries for help could have heard by staff. Nevertheless, the hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the officers should have discovered the injured inmate more timely and imposed letters of instruction as to both officers. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 60 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0130 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on May 8, 2009, two officers violated departmental policies when they entered the cell of a DISPO INV ADV HA psychiatric inmate patient and used force to remove him without notifying or obtaining approval from a supervisor. It was further alleged that when the officers entered the cell, one of them used unreasonable force when no emergency existed. Additionally, it was alleged that both officers failed to report the force used. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the two officers violated departmental policies when they entered the cell of a psychiatric inmate patient and used force to remove him without first notifying or obtaining approval from a supervisor. The hiring authority also sustained allegations that the officers entered the cell and used force when no emergency existed, and that the officers failed to report the force used. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation that the use of force was unreasonable. The officer who used the force received a 10 percent salary reduction for four months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The other officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for four months. The other officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0131 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between May 6, 2009, and May 15, 2009, a parole agent allegedly provided confidential information to a parolee DISPO INV ADV HA regarding a search warrant and then lied to his supervisor about providing the information. It was further alleged that the parole agent failed to conduct home visits as required. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0132 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 5, 2009, an officer was allegedly negligent when he submitted an inaccurate rules violation report. The DISPO INV ADV HA officer reported that he went to pick up an inmate for escort to a medical appointment, when it was allegedly not him but another officer who conducted the escort. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that 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 timely review the draft investigative report or provide written confirmation summarizing critical discussions concerning the investigative report. Case No. 10-0133 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 4, 2009, an officer allegedly sexually assaulted an inmate in her cell. DISPO INV ADV HA 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 61 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0134 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 29, 2009, a ward alleged that a cook smuggled mobile phones and drugs into the institution for wards. DISPO INV ADV HA 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. 10-0135 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 26, 2009, an officer allegedly used excessive and unnecessary force when he struck an inmate multiple DISPO INV ADV HA times. It was also alleged that the officer later lied in his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs and that he was also dishonest about the incident by filing a false workers' compensation claim. 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. 10-0136 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 21, 2009, two officers allegedly failed to visually confirm that an inmate was alive and breathing during DISPO INV ADV HA early morning inmate count procedures. The inmate was later discovered to have committed suicide by hanging. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate was seen standing without a noose during the preceding inmate count. The next inmate count was conducted an hour and 20 minutes later at which time the inmate was found in what appeared to be a similar standing position with the addition of a noose around his neck. The officers initiated appropriate response protocols. The coroner determined that the inmate would have died within minutes after tightening the noose and that the estimated time of death was consistent with the timeline provided by the officers. The inmate was not on suicide watch and there was no indication that he was planning to commit suicide. As a result, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers. Case No. 10-0137 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 21, 2009, a sergeant allegedly slammed an inmate's head into the window of a transportation van DISPO INV ADV HA multiple times causing injury to the inmate, who was handcuffed and non-resistive. It was also alleged the sergeant failed to report his use of force, made intentionally misleading statements in a memorandum he submitted about the incident, and was dishonest in his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs. It was also alleged that an officer saw the sergeant's unnecessary use of force and failed to report it. It was alleged the officer made intentionally misleading statements in a memorandum she submitted about the incident and was dishonest in her investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant and the officer and dismissed them. The sergeant and officer filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority did not timely submit a request for investigation to the Office of Internal Affairs or adequately review the investigation upon its completion. The hiring authority also did not inform the bureau of significant case developments. In addition, the hiring authority failed to provide the bureau with documentation of critical decisions in the case, as required. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 62 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0138 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 19, 2009, an officer allegedly smuggled mobile phones, box cutter blades, and drugs into the institution DISPO INV ADV HA in exchange for money. 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. 10-0139 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 15, 2009, it was alleged that a youth correctional counselor had been involved in an overly familiar DISPO INV ADV HA relationship with a ward for approximately two years, including while the ward was incarcerated and after he was paroled. She also allegedly brought contraband into the facility and gave the items to the ward. She further allegedly failed to inform the hiring authority of contact with an outside law enforcement agency. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation regarding the overly familiar relationship and failure to report, but did not sustain the allegation related to contraband. The hiring authority dismissed the youth counselor, who filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0140 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 14, 2009, an officer's wife reported to outside law enforcement that the officer had physically and DISPO INV ADV HA verbally abused her. The district attorneys office filed charges and the officer pled no contest to misdemeanor charges of making annoying and threatening phone calls. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the officer physically abused his wife. However, the hiring authority sustained allegations that the officer made annoying and threatening telephone calls to her. A letter of instruction was issued counseling the officer about off-duty misconduct and the need to avoid conduct that brings discredit to him and the department. Case No. 10-0141 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 12, 2009, a sergeant sprayed an inmate with pepper spray after the inmate allegedly attempted to spit on DISPO INV ADV HA the sergeant. At the time the inmate was secured in a temporary holding cell. After being sprayed, the inmate was decontaminated in an outdoor secured shower stall. A nurse conducted wellness checks of the inmate at 1725, 1730, and 1740 hours. At 1750 hours the inmate was found unresponsive. He was transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead at 1844 hours. DISPOSITION OF CASE This case was reviewed by the Deadly Force Review Board. Following a presentation by the Office of Internal Affairs, the board concluded that the use of force was within policy and that there was no misconduct. The hiring authority exonerated the officer and the bureau concurred. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 63 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0142 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 12, 2009, an officer allegedly used pepper spray on an inmate even though the inmate did not pose a DISPO INV ADV HA threat to him. It was further alleged the officer falsified his report regarding the incident. It was also alleged that another officer witnessed the incident and also falsified his report. Furthermore, it was alleged that both officers failed to notify their supervisor of the incident as required by the institution's policy. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the officers violated policy by failing to notify their supervisor of the incident and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months against one officer and a 5 percent salary reduction for three months against the other officer. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the other allegations. Both officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0143 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 11, 2009, an inmate allegedly refused to leave his cell for a shower. When an officer attempted to DISPO INV ADV HA confront the inmate, the inmate lunged at the officer and bit the officer's finger. The officer allegedly hit the inmate with handcuffs, sprayed him with pepper spray, and hit him with a baton. The officer lost control of his baton during the scuffle and the inmate hit him with it. It was also alleged that the officer failed to accurately report the incident and that a second officer saw the incident, failed to assist the first officer, and failed to report the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer who used force. However, the hiring authority determined the second officer failed to assist the first officer during the incident. The second officer received a letter of reprimand and was ordered to attend training. Case No. 10-0144 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 9, 2009, an inmate alleged that while he was being escorted two officers took him to the ground and DISPO INV ADV HA struck him while he was handcuffed. A supervisor who was informed of the inmate's allegations regarding the incident allegedly failed to adequately document the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of excessive force against the two officers. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the supervisor and he was issued a counseling memorandum and provided training on documenting incidents. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 64 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0145 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 8, 2009, three youth counselors failed to take appropriate action when they discovered DISPO INV ADV HA a ward's cell window covered with paper, obstructing their view into the cell. The ward was later discovered hanging in his cell in an attempt to commit suicide. It was further alleged they were distracted from their assigned duties when they were watching television in the unit dayroom and incorrectly reported their security checks in the unit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of failing to take action when discovering the covered window and distraction from duty; but did not sustain the allegation of incorrectly reporting the security checks. The hiring authority imposed a salary reduction of 5 percent for 36 months for one youth counselor and a salary reduction of 10 percent for 12 months for the second counselor. The third counselor had previously received disciplinary action for similar misconduct. As a result, the hiring authority dismissed him. All three counselors filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0146 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 4, 2009, two lieutenants allegedly failed to take appropriate action after receiving information of a DISPO INV ADV HA possible threat against an inmate. The inmate who was threatened was later assaulted by two inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and issued both lieutenants letters of instruction. Case No. 10-0147 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Beginning on April 3, 2009, an officer allegedly engaged in a personal relationship with a known gang member, DISPO INV ADV HA who was on probation. The employee allegedly lived with the probationer and members of his family who were also on probation, and lied to outside law enforcement agents and the department's investigators about this issue. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of an overly familiar relationship because the gang member was on probation, not state parole. Departmental policy only prohibits overly familiar relationships between employees and state parolees or inmates. All of the other allegations were sustained. The hiring authority determined the officer should be dismissed. However, the officer resigned prior to the completion of the investigation and before disciplinary action could be imposed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 65 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0148 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 1, 2009, an inmate was released from an outside hospital to be returned to an institution. A sergeant and DISPO INV ADV HA an officer took custody of the inmate and escorted him to a state vehicle for transport back to an institution. However, the inmate fell to the ground before he was secured in the state vehicle. As a result of the fall, the inmate sustained a head injury and was readmitted to the hospital. On May 11, 2009, the inmate died from complications resulting from the head injury. The sergeant and the officer allegedly failed to use the proper transportation vehicle and failed to properly assist the inmate into the vehicle. It was further alleged that another sergeant and a supervising lieutenant failed to properly document the inmate's injuries after the incident was reported to them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the proper vehicle was used to transport the inmate but that the sergeant should have done more to attempt to prevent the inmate's fall. The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the sergeant failed to properly assist the inmate into the vehicle and ordered corrective training and issued a letter of instruction. The remaining allegations against the other officers were not sustained. All the involved officers received corrective training related to the procedures for preparing transport vehicles, loading inmates into transport vehicles, and documenting communications in log books. Case No. 10-0149 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 30, 2009, a memorandum was written alleging that on June 11, 2008, a lieutenant and sergeant DISPO INV ADV HA submitted false reports implicating an inmate in a conspiracy to introduce controlled substances into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0150 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 28, 2009, a sergeant allegedly ordered an inmate who had previously filed a grievance against him to DISPO INV ADV HA disrobe in a dorm room. He then allegedly watched as she did so, which resulted in him seeing her bare breasts. It was also alleged that the sergeant lied about the incident during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The assigned investigator did not adequately consult with the bureau when the case was first opened, as required. The assigned investigator also did not adequately prepare for the investigation, including interviews, and the interviews failed to address relevant issues. In addition, the investigation failed to address relevant issues, as did the investigative report. The investigation was also not pursued with diligence and it was not timely completed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 66 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0151 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 27, 2009, the Office of the Inspector General provided the Office of Internal Affairs with an DISPO INV ADV HA investigative report. The report was a summary of the Office of the Inspector General's investigation into allegations that an Office of Internal Affairs chief and a senior special agent mishandled allegations of misconduct they received from an institution. Instead of documenting the allegations and opening a formal investigation or conducting a proper inquiry, the senior special agent conducted an unauthorized formal investigation. During his investigation, additional allegations of misconduct were disclosed but not brought forward for investigation. The senior special agent allegedly did not appropriately document his investigative activities. The senior special agent was also allegedly dishonest with institution officials about what he uncovered, and in his interviews about the alleged misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the chief failed to properly supervise the senior special agent's investigative activities. The chief, who changed jobs prior to the conclusion of this case, received a letter of instruction. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the senior special agent. The allegations in this case were combined with another case and the senior special agent was dismissed. Case No. 10-0152 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 27, 2009, the Office of the Inspector General provided an investigative report to the Office of Internal DISPO INV ADV HA Affairs. The report documented the Office of Inspector General's investigation into allegations that a senior special agent used his state-issued computer while on and off-duty to conduct extensive private business transactions, engage in overly familiar communications with an inmate's wife, and to solicit sexual encounters. The senior special agent also allegedly allowed multiple unauthorized users to use his state-issued computer, which contained confidential investigative materials. The senior special agent further allegedly engaged in both romantic and business relationships with an inmate's wife, as well as disclosed confidential information to her. The senior special agent was also allegedly dishonest with his supervisor concerning his relationship with the inmate's wife. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The allegations were combined with allegations in another case and the senior special agent was dismissed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 67 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0153 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 27, 2009, the Office of the Inspector General provided the Office of Internal Affairs with an DISPO INV ADV HA investigative report. The report was a summary of the Office of the Inspector General's investigation into allegations that an Office of Internal Affairs senior special agent engaged in an overly familiar business and romantic relationship with an inmate's wife. Upon receiving the investigation, the Office of Internal Affairs opened an investigation into whether the senior special agent disclosed confidential information to the inmate's wife. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the senior special agent had already been dismissed as a result of another case; therefore, disciplinary action could not be taken as a result of the sustained allegations in this case. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The assigned investigator did not adequately consult with the bureau upon case initiation or during the investigation, as required. The investigation failed to adequately address relevant issues. In addition, the final investigative report failed to address relevant facts and the investigation was not pursued with due diligence. Case No. 10-0154 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on March 27, 2009, an officer filed a false workers' compensation claim. The officer indicated DISPO INV ADV HA that he was shot in the back by a parolee while off-duty leaving a restaurant. It was later alleged that the officer was dishonest in his claim when it was discovered that the officer had an altercation with the shooter while they both were at an adult sex club 30 minutes prior. It was also alleged that while the officer and the shooter were at the adult sex club, they engaged in consensual sexual activity with each other's female partners. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of dishonesty and dismissed the officer. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Criminal charges were also filed against the officer as a result of a criminal investigation, which the bureau did not accept for monitoring. Case No. 10-0155 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 20, 2009, an inmate alleged that an officer worked in conjunction with a prison gang to introduce DISPO INV ADV HA methamphetamine, heroin, marijuana, and alcohol into 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 department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack of evidence. Case No. 10-0156 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 19, 2009, an officer was arrested for driving under the influence of morphine. On December 23, 2009, DISPO INV ADV HA the officer entered a plea of guilty to the charge of driving under the influence. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened a separate administrative investigation into whether the morphine was legally prescribed to the officer, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 68 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0157 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 9, 2009, it was alleged that an officer was smuggling drugs into an institution for inmates. DISPO INV ADV HA 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. 10-0158 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between March 7, 2009, and April 14, 2009, a lieutenant serving as a camp commander allegedly knew that DISPO INV ADV HA evidence storage procedures were not being followed at the camp and failed to do anything about it. It was further alleged that the camp commander engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate at the camp by providing the inmate with preferential treatment. Finally, it was alleged that an officer at the camp was engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with inmates at the camp. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The hiring authority decided to serve the lieutenant with a notice of demotion and the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, both subjects resigned before the discipline took effect. Letters were placed in their official personnel files indicating they resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 10-0159 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 24, 2009, it was alleged that a materials and stores supervisor provided inmates with marijuana, DISPO INV ADV HA tobacco, and mobile phones. 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 also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau did not accept for monitoring. Case No. 10-0160 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about February 20, 2009, an inmate alleged that he was assaulted by an officer at the direction of a DISPO INV ADV HA sergeant, and that the assault was retaliation for something the sergeant believed the inmate said about him. Two other officers allegedly witnessed the assault and failed to report it. It was further alleged that the inmate advised a social worker that he had been assaulted and the social worker failed to report the allegations. Another inmate alleged that he was similarly assaulted on February 28, 2009, by the same officer in retaliation for allegedly kicking a cell door. Another officer allegedly witnessed the second assault and failed to report it. Further, it was alleged that the sergeant failed to maintain accurate timekeeping by not reflecting officer assignment switches in department records and failed to ensure staff signed administrative segregation logs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations against the sergeant for failing to ensure officers under his supervision were signing the officer's roster within the unit and for failing to maintain accurate timekeeping an accountability records. The sergeant was served with a letter of reprimand. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the clinical social worker for failing to properly report the inmate's allegations. The hiring authority issued a letter of instruction to the social worker and provided on-the-job training. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the remaining allegations against the sergeant and all allegations against the other officers. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 69 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0161 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 16, 2009, an officer allegedly told an inmate that she searched his cell because he was black and his DISPO INV ADV HA mother would like the pornographic pictures she found. The officer also allegedly made misleading statements during an investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 60-day suspension. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0162 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 16, 2009, an officer allegedly grabbed an inmate's wrists in an attempt to forcibly apply handcuffs to DISPO INV ADV HA her and then denied it when asked by a sergeant and a lieutenant later that day. Another officer allegedly witnessed the use of force and did not properly report it. Both officers reported the use of force in written documents the day after the incident when instructed to do so. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers. The officer who used the force told the sergeant and lieutenant what occurred on the day of the incident. The officer who observed the use of force also told the sergeant on the day of the incident what occurred. Neither officer was instructed by the sergeant or lieutenant to write a report at that time. Case No. 10-0163 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 9, 2009, it is alleged that a sergeant failed to properly document an inmate's complaint that he had DISPO INV ADV HA been attacked the day before by another inmate, resulting in an injury to the inmate's finger. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the sergeant failed to properly document the inmate's complaint. The sergeant received a letter of instruction and training. Case No. 10-0164 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 6, 2009, a parole agent allegedly violated departmental policy by removing a parole hold on a DISPO INV ADV HA parolee thereby allowing him to be released from jail. The parolee had been arrested and taken into custody the previous day by a different parole agent who was assigned to supervise the parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Case No. 10-0165 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on February 5, 2009, a specialized team consisting of a special agent, a sergeant, and two DISPO INV ADV HA officers engaged in an unauthorized cell extraction of two inmates at an out-of-state correctional facility. It was alleged that the specialized team was providing training to employees at the correctional facility when they were asked to assist in contacting two inmates who were possibly in possession of weapons. Allegedly, the team conducted the cell extractions without authorization from the warden. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations against the sergeant and two officers. The hiring authority sustained allegations against the special agent and imposed a salary reduction of 5 percent for six months. The agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 70 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0166 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In February 2009, it was alleged that an officer was smuggling mobile phones, tobacco, and marijuana into an DISPO INV ADV HA institution for inmates. It was further alleged that the officer offered to provide an inmate with a firearm for $1,600. On August 13, 2009, the officer was searched prior to entering the secured perimeter of the institution as part of a random search of staff members. The officer had in his possession three mobile phones, three phone chargers, two bags of tobacco, one bag of rolling papers, two lighters, and a manila envelope disguised to look like inmate correspondence. A search warranted was executed at his home and an unregistered firearm was located. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. The unregistered firearm was found to have been purchased while the officer lived in another state. The officer's failure to register the firearm upon establishing residency in California was not a criminal offense. 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. 10-0167 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between February and April, 2009, an inmate allegedly served as a confidential informant. He allegedly provided DISPO INV ADV HA a captain and lieutenant information directly through email he sent from a mobile phone the inmate had inside the prison, and indirectly through email sent by his girlfriend. The captain and lieutenant allegedly knew the inmate had a mobile phone but allowed him to keep it so that he could continue to provide them with information about illegal activities in the institution. The inmate also allegedly purchased heroin from another inmate, which he turned into the lieutenant to be used as evidence by the department against the seller. It was alleged that the lieutenant and the captain failed to obtain authorization to use the inmate as a confidential informant. It is also alleged that the lieutenant and the captain inappropriately allowed the inmate to possess contraband and that the lieutenant failed to issue the inmate rules violation reports for the heroin and mobile phones that were in his possession. It was further alleged that the captain failed to timely issue the lieutenant a letter of instruction for his misconduct, as requested by an associate warden. Finally, it was alleged that the captain was dishonest about his electronic communication with the inmate and the inmate's girlfriend and that two officers were allegedly aware of the lieutenant's misconduct, but failed to properly report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the captain negligently allowed the inmate to possess mobile phones, failed to issue a rules violation report to the inmate, and failed to issue the lieutenant a letter of instruction. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the remaining allegations against the captain. The captain received a 5 percent salary reduction for three months, which he appealed to the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the lieutenant negligently allowed the inmate to possess mobile phones. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the remaining allegations against the lieutenant. The lieutenant received a 5 percent salary reduction for two months, which he appealed to the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority exonerated the officers of misconduct as they were told that the lieutenant had received permission from the captain for his actions with the confidential informant. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 71 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0168 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 29, 2009, three officers allegedly violated policy by escorting an inmate on administrative DISPO INV ADV HA segregation status without first placing him in handcuffs. The officers also allegedly failed to properly document the incident and were dishonest in their reports of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation against one officer for failing to perform within the scope of his training. The officer was suspended without pay for three days. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the remaining allegations. Although they were involved in the escort of the inmate, there was no evidence to indicate that they should have known that the inmate was on administrative segregation status. Case No. 10-0169 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 29, 2009, an inmate reported to an institution's investigative services unit that an officer provided DISPO INV ADV HA marijuana, heroin, and mobile phones to several inmates. The inmate also alleged that the officer belonged to the same criminal street gang as one of the inmates to whom he provides contraband. Two other inmates independently gave similar information to the investigative services unit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed that the allegations were old and, as a result, they could not be corroborated. Therefore, the investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. 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. 10-0170 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 23, 24, 30, and February 6, 2009, a licensed psychiatric technician was allegedly overly familiar with DISPO INV ADV HA an inmate. It is alleged that the licensed psychiatric technician met with the inmate alone in a group room at the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Case No. 10-0171 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 23, 2009, it was alleged that an officer was involved in a sexual relationship with an inmate and was DISPO INV ADV HA making sexual remarks to a second inmate. The officer also allegedly brought drugs, tobacco, and other contraband into the institution for inmates. 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 also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 72 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0172 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 14, 2009, a citizen reported that a parole agent came to his home looking for a parolee. When he told DISPO INV ADV HA the parole agent that the parolee did not live there a verbal argument ensued at which point the agent allegedly unholstered his gun and pointed it at the citizen. The agent then drove off but called 911 to report the citizen was belligerent and under the influence. The next day the agent wrote a memo about the incident that was inconsistent with his call to 911. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegation that the agent violated policy by inappropriately displaying his weapon at the citizen. The agent was suspended without pay for 36 days. The agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0173 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 5, 2009, it was alleged that an officer was trafficking controlled substances to inmates. In addition, DISPO INV ADV HA the officer allegedly left his assigned post without authorization and moved a department video surveillance camera so that his activity in a visiting room would not be observed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the officer was trafficking controlled substances. The hiring authority sustained the remaining allegations and imposed a 48 working-day suspension. The department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement, which reduced the discipline to a 44 working-day suspension in exchange for the officer waiving his right to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The assigned investigator did not adequately prepare for the investigation, including interviews and the interviews did not adequately address relevant issues. The assigned investigator also did not consult with the bureau as required. The investigative report failed to address relevant facts and it was not timely completed. Case No. 10-0174 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in January 2009, a parole agent made several inappropriate comments about President Barack DISPO INV ADV HA Obama. Allegedly, the parole agent stated that he hated the President and hoped that someone would shoot and kill him. It was further alleged that he stated that he would have a celebration party when the President was assassinated. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and issued the parole agent a letter of reprimand. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0175 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in January 2009, an officer gave his firearm to a dominatrix in exchange for her services. It DISPO INV ADV HA was also alleged that the officer failed to complete the required paperwork to transfer the firearm to her. Further, it was alleged that the officer provided false information to outside law enforcement about the firearm. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs opened a administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 73 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0176 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In 2009 and 2010, an officer allegedly smuggled mobile phones and other contraband into an institution in DISPO INV ADV HA exchange for money. It was also alleged that between July and August of 2009, 205 phone calls were made and received between the officer's personal mobile phone and an inmate's contraband mobile phone. It was also alleged that 48 phone calls were made from internal institutional phone lines to the inmate's contraband mobile phone. 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 also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau did not accept for monitoring. Case No. 10-0177 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in January 2009, an officer gave his firearm to a dominatrix in exchange for her services. It DISPO INV ADV HA was also alleged that the officer failed to complete required paperwork to properly transfer ownership of the firearm to her. Further, it was alleged that the officer provided false information about the firearm to outside law enforcement. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. Case No. 10-0178 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 29, 2008, it was alleged a vocational instructor was involved in a sexual relationship with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate and provided the inmate with mobile phones and tobacco in exchange for sexual favors. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the vocational instructor. Case No. 10-0179 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 8, 2008, a painter allegedly provided marijuana and heroin to an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA 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. 10-0180 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 8, 2008, an officer allegedly hit an inmate in a holding cell, failed to report the use of force, and DISPO INV ADV HA made an unprofessional remark about the inmate's transgender status. Three officers allegedly witnessed these events and failed to report them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the use of force allegation. However, the hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer used unprofessional language and issued the officer a letter of instruction. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 74 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0181 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between December 2008 and January 2009, three officers engaged in sexual activity with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate at various locations in 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 department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack of evidence. Case No. 10-0182 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 1, 2008, a counselor allegedly forged a supervisor's signature on a document that was to be placed DISPO INV ADV HA in an inmate's correctional file. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation but found that the counselor had no intent to deceive the department. The counselor received an official letter of reprimand, which was appealed to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0183 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between December 2008 through October 16, 2009, a lieutenant allegedly used a state mobile phone for personal DISPO INV ADV HA calls amounting to $2,671in phone charges. When questioned, he allegedly lied to a supervisor regarding his use and possession of the phone. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the lieutenant. The lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0184 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 28, 2008, outside law enforcement received information that an officer allegedly molested a child DISPO INV ADV HA approximately 8 months earlier. The officer was questioned, and subsequently arrested, which he reported to the hiring authority. The officer eventually pled no contest to unlawful intercourse with a person under the age of 18. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the officer and he was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0185 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 21, 2008, an outside law enforcement agency notified the department that a counselor was under DISPO INV ADV HA investigation for allegations of domestic violence and false imprisonment. He was later arrested and taken into custody. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of false imprisonment against the counselor. He received a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months. After a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority and the counselor entered into a settlement agreement and the penalty was modified to a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months. The counselor agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 75 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0186 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between November 20, 2008, and December 2008, a parole agent falsified parole supervision DISPO INV ADV HA records for several parolees he was responsible for supervising. It was also alleged that he failed to collect required anti-narcotics test samples from more than 25 parolees. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the parole agent with a notice of dismissal. However, after a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority and parole agent entered into a settlement agreement. The department agreed to demote the agent to a correctional officer in exchange for the agent waiving his right to an appeal. The bureau did not agree with the reduction in penalty. However, due to a variety of factors, including the agent's significantly improved work performance, truthfulness during the investigation, and his remorsefulness, the bureau did not find the settlement to be unreasonable. Case No. 10-0187 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 20, 2008, it was alleged that a parole agent requested another parole agent to access a law DISPO INV ADV HA enforcement computer system to obtain information on a private citizen. It was alleged that the parole agent did not disclose he wanted this information for personal reasons. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and imposed a salary reduction of 5 percent for three months. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0188 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 13, 2008, an officer allegedly used excessive force when he slammed a handcuffed inmate's head DISPO INV ADV HA into a wall several times. It was also alleged that the officer failed to report his use of force, prevented medical staff from performing a medical evaluation of the inmate after the incident, and failed to initiate a holding cell log as required. It was also alleged that three other officers observed the use of force and failed to report it and that two of those officers left approximately 14 inmates unsupervised in the culinary area while they assisted the first officer in escorting the inmate to the yard medical clinic. It was alleged that another officer failed to initiate a holding cell log and delayed unlocking the holding cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of excessive use of force against the first officer and the failure to report allegation as to all officers. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the first officer for failing to initiate the holding cell log and served him with a letter of reprimand. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against two officers for leaving inmates unsupervised and served them with letters of instruction. The hiring authority sustained the allegation of failing to initiate a holding cell log against the other officer and he also received a letter of instruction. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 76 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0189 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 12, 2008, a parole agent allegedly made inappropriate sexual advances toward a parolee's DISPO INV ADV HA girlfriend. It was further alleged that the parole agent was dishonest in his interview with an outside law enforcement agency during its criminal investigation of the incident and that he was also dishonest during his investigative interview with the Office of Internal Affairs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the parole agent. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0190 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 11, 2008, it was alleged that from August 2008 through November 2008 an officer assigned to an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate community work crew used force on an inmate and failed to report the incident, engaged in overly familiar behavior with inmates, and was discourteous to some of the inmates on his work crew. It was also alleged that the officer inappropriately used the community work crew to clean a local motel and a highway patrol office, that he failed to report the injury of an inmate worker, that he inappropriately grabbed a woman's buttocks while on duty in front of the community work crew, and that he engaged in a physical altercation with one of the inmates on his work crew. It was further alleged that he failed to report outside employment and that he was overly familiar with a parolee during the course of his outside employment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer failed to report his own use of force, engaged in overly familiar and discourteous behavior toward inmates, failed to report his outside employment, and was overly familiar with a parolee. The hiring authority found that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the remaining allegations. The hiring authority imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0191 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 5, 2008, a lieutenant was arrested for driving under the influence. During the arrest, the lieutenant DISPO INV ADV HA was allegedly discourteous and physically abusive to outside law enforcement officers. The lieutenant was subsequently convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, battery of a peace officer, and resisting arrest, all of which are misdemeanors. However, the judge also issued an order prohibiting the officer from possessing a firearm. DISPOSITION OF CASE Prior to the lieutenant's convictions, the hiring authority sustained the allegation that the lieutenant was discourteous to the outside law enforcement officers, for which the lieutenant received a letter of reprimand and was reassigned from his position at a fire camp. The lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Subsequently, the lieutenant was dismissed from his employment with the department because he could no longer carry a firearm, as required. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 77 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0192 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about November 4, 2008, a cook allegedly brought drugs and other contraband into the facility. It was also DISPO INV ADV HA alleged that she was having a sexual relations with a ward on institution grounds. 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 also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 10-0193 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on or about November 4, 2008, a cook brought drugs and other contraband into an institution. DISPO INV ADV HA In addition, it was alleged that the cook was having a sexual relationship with a ward on institution grounds, was absent without leave, and failed to appear for an investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the cook. Case No. 10-0194 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From November 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009, a lieutenant and several officers allegedly conducted an DISPO INV ADV HA unauthorized investigation into staff misconduct. A captain allegedly knew about the unauthorized investigation, yet did not prevent it from occurring. Additionally, the lieutenant and officers allegedly received unauthorized overtime pay for conducting the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the lieutenant conducted an unauthorized investigation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. 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 or any of the allegations against the captain and the officers. Case No. 10-0195 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between November 2008 and March 2009, a parole agent failed to properly supervise parolees DISPO INV ADV HA and falsified official records for numerous parolees by documenting visits and anti-narcotic tests that never occurred. It was further alleged the parole agent failed to provide accurate dates regarding parolee contacts in activity reports after being directed to do so by his supervisor. It was also alleged the parole agent coerced a parolee to provide a false statement to his supervisor about the agent conducting a home visit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations regarding negligent parolee supervision, falsifying reports, and insubordination. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the parole agent coerced a parolee to provide a false statement to his supervisor. The parole agent had previously been dismissed on earlier allegations of misconduct; therefore, disciplinary action was not taken in this matter. A letter notifying the parole agent of the findings in this case was sent to the parole agent and placed in his official personnel file. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The investigation failed to address relevant issues, as did the investigative report. In addition, the investigation was not pursued with due diligence, nor was it completed in a timely manner. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 78 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0196 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 28, 2008, a sergeant allegedly falsified information in an inmate rules violation investigative report DISPO INV ADV HA by claiming that the inmate had been interviewed when he had not. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Case No. 10-0197 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 22, 2008, it was alleged that a parole agent who had a dispute with his former landlord, conducted an DISPO INV ADV HA unauthorized parole search of his former residence. The residence he searched was located in the jurisdiction of another parole region and involved parolees who were not under the parole agent's supervision. It was also alleged that the parole agent was dishonest during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the parole agent. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0198 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 13, 2008, a parole agent allegedly failed to maintain proper documentation regarding the parolees he DISPO INV ADV HA was supervising. On January 1, 2009, the parole agent allegedly lied to his supervisor when he reported that a parolee still remained in federal custody when, in fact, the parolee had been released from federal custody on September 19, 2008. On February 8, 2009, the parole agent also allegedly failed to generate the required parole violation reports for a parolee who was in possession of a stun gun. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the parole agent retired before a notice of dismissal was served on him. A letter indicating the parole agent retired pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 10-0199 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on October 9, 2008, three officers conspired to plant an inmate-manufactured weapon inside DISPO INV ADV HA the cell of two inmates. Specifically, on the day of the incident, the entire housing unit was being searched for contraband and weapons. Prior to their cell being searched, the inmates told staff that they believed the three officers were going to 'set them up' by planting a weapon inside their cell. The cell was subsequently searched and a weapon was located. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the officers was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office on Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 79 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0200 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE A sergeant had previously been dismissed from the department for dishonesty. The sergeant filed an appeal with DISPO INV ADV HA the State Personnel Board. On October 6, 2008, while his appeal was pending and he was working elsewhere, he was charged with having improper sexual contact with a minor. Meanwhile, the State Personnel Board overturned his dismissal for dishonesty and reinstated him to his previous position with the department. Upon being reinstated, the sergeant allegedly failed to report his arrest to the department. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the sergeant engaged in criminal conduct and that failed to report it. The hiring authority served the sergeant with a notice of dismissal. Following the service of the notice of dismissal, and prior to a criminal trial, the district attorney's office dismissed all felony charges in exchange for a plea to a misdemeanor for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The hiring authority and the sergeant then entered into a settlement agreement for a 5 percent salary reduction for ten months, in exchanged for the sergeant agreeing to not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0201 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 1, 2008, an institution's investigative services unit staff learned that a plumber allegedly engaged in a DISPO INV ADV HA sexual act with an inmate. 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. 10-0202 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 1, 2008, an officer allegedly violated policy and procedure by opening a cell door without floor staff DISPO INV ADV HA present. An inmate exited the cell, ran down stairs and into the rotunda where he attacked another inmate. This necessitated the use of force by staff to stop the altercation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 6 months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0203 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between October and November of 2008, an officer allegedly smuggled cell phones, tobacco, and narcotics to an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate in return for money. 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 also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 80 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0204 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 30, 2008, a parole unit supervisor discovered that a parole agent had a parolee on her active DISPO INV ADV HA caseload who was found to have died on February 16, 2008. It was alleged that the parole agent falsified her records to reflect that the parolee had reported to the parole office on several occasions for five consecutive months after the parolee's death. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of dishonesty and falsification of official records and dismissed the parole agent. The agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0205 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about September 22, 2008, it was alleged that a plumber engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Case No. 10-0206 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 21, 2008, outside law enforcement arrested an officer for felony domestic violence and DISPO INV ADV HA misdemeanor disturbing the peace for allegedly pushing and striking his wife at their home. While in custody, he contacted the institution to report his arrest. The next day, he pled guilty to disturbing the peace, and the district attorney's office dismissed the felony charge. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer and imposed a 10 working-day suspension. Subsequently, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer. The department agreed to reduce the penalty to a 5 percent salary reduction for six months and the officer agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. After the settlement was finalized, the officer resigned. Case No. 10-0207 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 4, 2008, it was alleged that two officers were providing inmates with drugs, food, CD's, and DISPO INV ADV HA unapproved clothing. In addition, it was alleged that the officers were allowing some inmates to control other inmates in a housing unit through intimidation, threats, and assaults. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute due to insufficient evidence. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative case, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 10-0208 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It is alleged that on August 29, 2008, an officer used profanity and called another officer a "rat" for reporting that DISPO INV ADV HA a third officer assigned to a yard was absent during yard activities. 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 81 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0209 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 28, 2008, a sergeant was allegedly dishonest when he told his supervisor there was a false alarm in his DISPO INV ADV HA unit due to an accidental discharge of pepper spray. The use of pepper spray was allegedly calculated and was not accidental. The sergeant also allegedly failed to timely gather the proper incident reports despite a directive from his lieutenant. Finally, the sergeant was allegedly dishonest during an investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. Case No. 10-0210 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Beginning in August of 2008, a counselor allegedly altered military orders that he submitted to the department to DISPO INV ADV HA falsely indicate that he was on active military duty during periods when he was actually on inactive military duty. This enabled him to receive over $3,000 in paid leave from the state to which he was not entitled. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all allegations and prepared a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the notice of dismissal was issued. Case No. 10-0211 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 27, 2008, it was alleged that a materials and stores supervisor had been repeatedly introducing mobile DISPO INV ADV HA phones, illegal narcotics, and tobacco into an institution in exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed so the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau did not accept for monitoring. Case No. 10-0212 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 24, 2008, it was alleged that an electrician brought several contraband items into the institution. It was DISPO INV ADV HA alleged that he had alcohol, a pocket knife, and ammunition in his personal vehicle and a knife in his desk drawer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The electrician initially resigned when confronted about the contraband; however, it was later determined that his resignation was submitted under duress as a result of being threatened with arrest and criminal prosecution if he did not resign. The electrician was reinstated and the hiring authority sustained the allegations. The hiring authority and the electrician entered into a settlement agreement. The electrician received a 60 working-day suspension. The circumstances surrounding the electrician's resignation under duress were the subject of a separate investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 82 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0213 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 19, 2008, a parole agent's wife alleged that he struck her in the face multiple times with a closed fist. DISPO INV ADV HA After several attempts to contact the parole agent, outside law enforcement contacted the department. Officials from the department made contact with the parole agent and made arrangements to transport him to the outside law enforcement agency. Despite being off-duty and having stayed in a hotel the night before, the parole agent arrived in his state-issued vehicle, which contained his firearms. The district attorney's office filed criminal charges against the parole agent. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the parole agent engaged in domestic violence and inappropriately used his state vehicle off duty. The parole agent received a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0214 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 16, 2008, it was alleged that an officer brought marijuana, tobacco, and mobile phones into the institution DISPO INV ADV HA and provided these items to inmates. It was further alleged that the officer was engaged in a conspiracy with family members of inmates to bring tobacco, mobile phones, and marijuana into the institution for inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed charges against the officer. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 10-0215 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 16, 2009, a parole agent allegedly failed to verify a pre-parole plan by not making home and place of DISPO INV ADV HA employment visits. In addition, he allegedly falsified documents by indicating he had made these visits. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the agent retired prior to the completion of the investigation; therefore, disciplinary action was not taken. A letter indicating he retired under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 10-0216 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between June and November 2008, an officer engaged in sexual relations with inmates and that DISPO INV ADV HA he introduced alcohol inside the institution and sold it to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office and charges were filed against the officer for bringing alcohol into an institution. The officer resigned; therefore, the department did not open an administrative investigation. Case No. 10-0217 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between June 2008 and April 2009 an officer introduced mobile phones and drugs into an DISPO INV ADV HA 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 department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack of evidence. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 83 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0218 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 27, 2008, three inmates in the custody of the department escaped from a courthouse. It was alleged that DISPO INV ADV HA three officers failed to properly ensure that the inmates were handcuffed. In addition, it was alleged that the officers failed to properly escort the inmates and failed to be armed during the escort, as required. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all allegations against the three officers. All three officers received 30 working-day suspensions. The hiring authority entered into settlement agreements with two of the officers. The hiring authority agreed to spread out the 30 working-day suspensions over a period of three months so the officers would not lose other employment benefits, such as health care. The officers agreed to not file appeals with the State Personnel Board. The third officer died shortly after disciplinary action was taken. Case No. 10-0219 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 19, 2008, it was alleged that an office technician showed a coworker the results of a negative pregnancy DISPO INV ADV HA test and indicated that an inmate could have been the father if the test had been positive. The office technician reportedly acknowledged giving the inmate "brotherly hugs and kisses." DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the office technician was over familiar with an inmate by hugging and kissing him. However, she resigned and accepted a position at another state agency prior to the completion of the disciplinary process; therefore, no disciplinary action was imposed. Case No. 10-0220 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 18, 2008, an institution's investigative services unit received information alleging that an officer was DISPO INV ADV HA engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate's relative and that the officer provided the inmate tobacco and marijuana in exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was insufficient evidence to establish probable cause to believe 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. 10-0221 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE An inmate alleged that on May 1, 2008, an officer falsified an investigative report by including responses of two DISPO INV ADV HA other officers who had not in fact been interviewed. One of the officers and a sergeant allegedly failed to take appropriate action when they learned of the other officer's misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0222 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 25, 2008, it was alleged that an officer had engaged in sexual acts with inmates and brought inmates DISPO INV ADV HA contraband such as tobacco and intimate apparel. 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 84 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0223 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 25, 2008, it was alleged that a correctional sergeant was receiving sexual favors from inmates in DISPO INV ADV HA exchange for providing them with preferential treatment and commodities. DISPOSITION OF CASE There were significant inconsistencies in the statements made by inmate witnesses. In addition, other inmate witnesses who had since been released on parole were interviewed and stated that the misconduct did not occur. As a result, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Case No. 10-0224 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 23, 2008, the department became aware that beginning in late September 2007 or early October 2007, a DISPO INV ADV HA painter allegedly had several sexual encounters with an inmate in exchange for lighters, tobacco, and gum. It is also alleged that later in 2007, a carpenter had several sexual encounters with an inmate in exchange for a watch and tobacco. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the painter had retired from the department in December of 2008. The carpenter was not a civil service employee; therefore, no action could be taken against him by the department. Both the painter and carpenter were criminally prosecuted. Case No. 10-0225 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 4, 2008, an off-duty officer allegedly committed auto insurance fraud and failed to timely report his DISPO INV ADV HA arrest. The officer was later convicted of a misdemeanor offense of insurance fraud. 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. 10-0226 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between April 2008 and July 2008 an officer allegedly directed an inmate to assault another inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0227 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE During March 2008, an officer allegedly provided a mobile phone to an inmate and engaged in an overly familiar DISPO INV ADV HA relationship with the inmate. In addition, in August 2008, the officer allegedly disseminated confidential information about an inmate to other inmates in the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations except for the allegation of transmitting confidential information. However the officer resigned prior to the completion of the investigation; therefore, disciplinary action was not taken. A letter indicating the officer resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in her official personnel file. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 85 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0228 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between March 2008 and September 2008, a materials and stores supervisor engaged in overly DISPO INV ADV HA familiar relationships with inmates, including multiple sexual acts with one of the inmates. It was further alleged that the materials and stores supervisor jeopardized the safety of other staff members and inmates by allowing inmates to dismantle a fire alarm and that she brought contraband into the secured perimeter and provided it to the inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and decided to dismiss the materials and stores supervisor. However, she resigned prior to the completion of the investigation; therefore, disciplinary action was not taken. A letter indicating that she resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in her official personnel file. Case No. 10-0229 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged on February 19, 2008, that officers introduced marijuana, heroin, and mobile phones into an DISPO INV ADV HA 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 department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack of evidence. Case No. 10-0230 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 18, 2008, it was alleged that an officer was engaged in an overly familiar relationship with a parolee, DISPO INV ADV HA who was an acquaintance of the officer's husband. The officer also allegedly omitted important background information on her job application. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0231 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 6, 2008, a social worker allegedly brought narcotics into an institution and provided them to an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. The social worker was also allegedly dishonest during the investigation of the allegation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 10-0232 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 16, 2008, it was alleged that a psychiatric technician was overly familiar with several wards at a DISPO INV ADV HA facility. Two mobile phones were confiscated from a room shared by two wards that allegedly had the psychiatric technician's personal telephone number in the contacts. It was also alleged that the technician was exchanging sexually explicit letters with one of the wards. It was further alleged that the psychiatric technician was dishonest during her investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the psychiatric technician. The psychiatric technician filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 86 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0233 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between January and May 2008, a parole services associate allegedly failed to timely complete discharge reviews DISPO INV ADV HA for parolees, which led to the inappropriate and early discharge from parole of more than 83 parolees, some of whom were sex offenders. It was also alleged that the parole services associate improperly used her work computer to browse the internet during work hours. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. Case No. 10-0234 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in 2008 an officer smuggled drugs, mobile phones, and tobacco into an institution in exchange DISPO INV ADV HA for money. 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. 10-0235 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that during 2008 and 2009, two youth correctional counselors provided contraband, including DISPO INV ADV HA drugs, to wards. It was also alleged the youth correctional counselors sold "clean" urine to the wards so the wards' drug use would not be detected through mandatory urine analysis tests. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that crimes were 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. 10-0236 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that during 2008 and 2009, two youth correctional counselors provided contraband, including DISPO INV ADV HA drugs, to wards. It was also alleged the youth correctional counselors sold "clean" urine to the wards so the wards' drug use would not be detected through mandatory urine analysis tests. 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, attend key witness interviews, or provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator. In addition, the department's attorneys did not timely review the draft investigative report or provide legal consultation to the hiring authority. The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau and the department's attorney prior to making critical decisions, nor did the hiring authority notify the bureau of significant case developments. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 87 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0237 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 27, 2007, three parole agents arrested a parolee suspected of selling narcotics. During the arrest, DISPO INV ADV HA the parole agents discovered a large amount of cash and suspected marijuana. The currency was turned over to the unit supervisor, who inventoried the cash and noted the amount as $4,606. One of the parole agents threw the suspected marijuana into the garbage. On December 3, 2007, one of the agents delivered the $4,606 to an outside law enforcement agency as evidence for the criminal prosecution of the parolee. However, a parole violation report completed by the parole agents on December 6, 2007, reflected that approximately $1,000 in cash was seized from the parolee's person in addition to the approximately $4,600 in cash seized from the parolee's vehicle. On February 23, 2009, the parolee demanded return of the approximately $1,000 that was not turned over to the outside law enforcement agency. It was alleged that the parole agents either committed a theft of approximately $1,000 or that the parole agents and the supervising parole agent were negligent by failing to properly account for the money seized from the parolee and that a parole agent was negligent in discarding the suspected marijuana. DISPOSITION OF CASE The $1,000 was never located and the method by which it was initially documented was not reliable. As a result, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the theft allegations against the parole agents. The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the parole agents failed to follow proper procedure for documenting seized evidence and issued counseling memoranda to them. The hiring authority also sustained the allegation against the parole agent who improperly disposed of the suspected marijuana and initially imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. Following a Skelly hearing, the penalty was reduced to a letter of instruction. Case No. 10-0238 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 5, 2007, a sergeant allegedly falsely claimed he was assaulted by two men while conducting a DISPO INV ADV HA security inspection of the outside area of institutional grounds. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was referred to the district attorney's office. On December 4, 2009, the district attorney's office rejected the case for prosecution citing insufficient evidence. The sergeant medically retired from his employment. Case No. 10-0239 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 12, 2007, it was alleged that a prison industry authority supervisor had been smuggling mobile DISPO INV ADV HA phones and narcotics into an institution for distribution to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The prison industry authority supervisor was criminally charged by the district attorney's office with several felony drug-related offenses. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 88 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0240 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In July of 2007, during the course of another investigation, the department discovered that a deputy commissioner DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly engaged in over familiarity with a parolee by attending the same church and arranging for another commissioner to discharge the parolee from parole without disclosing this personal relationship with the parolee. The deputy commissioner also allegedly improperly accessed the parolee's file. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 60 working-day suspension followed by a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. However, due to the employee's classification, the employee could not receive a salary reduction; therefore, a 60 working-day suspension was imposed instead. The deputy commissioner filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0241 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 6, 2007, a sergeant allegedly took his motorcycle into a motorcycle shop to have some work done on it. DISPO INV ADV HA He allegedly wrote a $3,277 check for the services but then cancelled it upon receiving his motorcycle after the work was completed. On August 5, 2008, the sergeant allegedly filed a false theft report claiming that his motorcycle had been stolen. He received $18,654 from his insurance company for the loss of his motorcycle. An anonymous tip led to the discovery of the motorcycle at the residence of the sergeant's former family member. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and intended to dismiss the sergeant. However, the sergeant resigned before the notice of dismissal was served on the sergeant. A letter indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 10-0242 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that from June through November 2007, a cook engaged in sexual misconduct with a female ward DISPO INV ADV HA who had been assigned to work with him in the kitchen area. He reportedly kissed her and touched her breast. It was also alleged that the cook provided gifts to the ward and that he lied during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the cook was overly familiar with the ward and that he lied during his investigative interview. The hiring authority did not sustain allegations that the cook engaged in sexual misconduct or that he provided gifts to the ward. The hiring authority imposed a 49 working-day suspension. The cook filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 10-0243 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between 2007 and 2010, a correctional counselor was involved in an overly familiar DISPO INV ADV HA relationship with a parolee. It was also alleged that the parolee and correctional counselor had a child together. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to file charges. 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 89 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 235 SATISFACTORY CASES 177 Case No. 10-0244 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between 2007 and 2010, a correctional counselor was involved in an overly familiar DISPO INV ADV HA relationship with a parolee. It was also alleged that the parolee and correctional counselor had a child together. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the correctional counselor. However, the correctional counselor resigned before the dismissal took effect. A letter indicating the correctional counselor resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in her official personnel file. Case No. 10-0245 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that from June 2006 to March 2007 an employee relations officer was negligent in his duties. DISPO INV ADV HA Specifically, it was alleged that the employee relations officer failed to timely prepare disciplinary actions in four separate cases, causing the department to be unable to impose discipline on four officers who had engaged in misconduct. Also, it was alleged that in another case, the employee relations officer misled the hiring authority about the circumstances of the case resulting in an officer being dismissed. Further, it was alleged that the employee relations officer provided false information to the Employment Development Department regarding the dismissed officer's request for unemployment benefits. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the employee relations officer. The employee relations officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 90 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0246 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 25, 2010, two inmates were involved in a physical altercation in the dayroom of a housing unit. The inmates did not comply with verbal commands to cease fighting. An officer fired two rounds from a less-than-lethal weapon. The first round missed, but the second round inadvertently struck one of the combatants in the eye. The inmate was transported to a local hospital where he underwent surgery to repair the damage to his eye socket. 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 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. 10-0247 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 15, 2010, two cellmates were involved in a physical altercation. An officer sprayed a burst of pepper spray into the cell, striking the aggressor inmate in the face. Both inmates were then handcuffed and taken to separate showers. While in the process of decontamination, the aggressor inmate complained of breathing problems and eventually collapsed in the shower. Medical staff ordered officers to remove the inmate from the shower and to sit him at a table. Medical staff started live-saving measures on the inmate. The inmate was subsequently transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs dispatched special agents from the deadly force investigation team to the scene. The Office of Internal Affairs opened both criminal and administrative investigations into the use of force, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT With the exception of the investigative services unit's failure to secure the pepper spray canister used in this incident, the department's overall response to the incident was sufficient. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. Case No. 10-0248 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 31, 2010, an inmate stabbed and killed another inmate on the exercise yard. The investigative services unit initially investigated the homicide. However, outside law enforcement later assumed responsibility for the investigation. 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. 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 91 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0249 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 14, 2010, an officer discovered an inmate unresponsive in his assigned cell during count procedures. Responding staff initiated life-saving measures, however, the inmate was pronounced dead at the institution's treatment center. DISPOSITION OF CASE Based on the decedent's medical history and no foul play suspected, the coroner's office determined there was no need for an autopsy. The cause of death was deemed to be sudden cardiac death. 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 consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide timely 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. 10-0250 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 1, 2010, two inmates stabbed a third inmate multiple times with inmate-manufactured weapons. The inmates attempted to discard their weapons before they complied with orders to assume a prone position. The injured inmate was air-lifted to an outside hospital for treatment of stab wounds to his upper torso and neck. DISPOSITION OF CASE The injured inmate was returned to custody after six days at the hospital. The weapons were recovered by officers and the case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. There was not any force used by department staff during this incident because the inmates stopped the assault as officers responded to the scene. 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 timely notify the bureau. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 10-0251 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 25, 2010, an inmate was found unconscious next to his bunk with bruises to the back of his head and blood coming from his nose. After conducting searches and interviews, it was determined that the victim inmate had been involved in a fight with another inmate and was knocked to the ground, suffering a loss of consciousness. DISPOSITION OF CASE 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 decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 92 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0252 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 25, 2010, an officer noticed that an inmate was squatted down against a wall in his cell with a bloody face and upper torso. Officers removed the inmate's cellmate without incident. The inmate was unresponsive and appeared to be unconscious. DISPOSITION OF CASE It was determined that the inmate had been attacked by his cellmate. The injured inmate was transported to a local hospital for treatment and later returned to custody. The case against the cellmate 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. 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. Case No. 10-0253 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 24, 2010, staff heard a loud banging noise and responded to the cell where an inmate was yelling at staff to remove his cellmate. When staff looked inside the cell, they saw the cellmate lying on the floor unresponsive and bleeding from his face and head. The injured inmate was transported to a local hospital where he remained comatose for a few days. The injured inmate returned to the institution after fourteen days. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute because the injured inmate refused to cooperate. 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. Case No. 10-0254 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 23, 2010, a sergeant shot himself in the hand while showing another officer how to disassemble a firearm. The accident occurred off duty at the home of the sergeant. DISPOSITION OF CASE Outside law enforcement responded to the incident. 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 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 93 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0255 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 21, 2010, an inmate allegedly attacked an officer without provocation, hitting him multiple times in the head, face, and torso. The inmate also kicked the officer at least twice, once in the head rendering the officer unconscious, and once in the face after the officer was down. The inmate laid prone on the ground as another officer ran to the scene. The officer placed his knee on the inmate and used his body weight to maintain control of the inmate until additional staff arrived. The inmate was not injured. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate was transferred to another institution and the case against him 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 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. The hiring authority determined that the officer's use of his knee and body weight to maintain control of the inmate was not a use of force and, therefore, did not require a use-of-force review. The bureau disagreed but nevertheless found the officer's use of force to be reasonable. Case No. 10-0256 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 14, 2010, an officer found an inmate laying on the floor of his cell. Although the inmate had a cellmate, the cellmate was not in the cell at the time. There were no signs of trauma to the inmate. The inmate was pronounced dead by a doctor at the institution. 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 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 concurred. Case No. 10-0257 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 11, 2010, an officer shot himself in his right leg during off-duty weapons qualification at an institution. 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. However, at the time of the incident, the department's first-aid kit on scene was locked in the classroom, rather than immediately accessible. The bureau recommended that an appropriate first-aid kit be accessible to staff during weapons qualification and the department agreed. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 94 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0258 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 11, 2010 an inmate riot erupted during which an officer observed three inmates attacking another inmate. The officer fired one direct impact less-than-lethal round striking an inmate. The less-than-lethal round had no discernable effect on the combatant that was struck. The officer then observed approximately 70 inmates advancing toward the area of the fighting. The officer ordered the inmates to get down on the ground, but the inmates continued advancing. The officer then fired a lethal round into a grassy area in front of the building where he was located as a warning shot. All inmates then stopped advancing and got down on the ground. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for an 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. The institution's use of force committee, however, did not complete a review of the use of force in this incident in a timely manner. Case No. 10-0259 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 8, 2010, an inmate collapsed in his cell. The cellmate yelled "man down." Responding officers determined that the inmate was unresponsive with his neck resting on a support chain for the bed and blood oozing from his nose. The inmate was removed from his cell and CPR was started after medical staff determined the absence of a pulse and respirations. The inmate regained consciousness twice during advanced life-saving efforts, but was rushed to a local hospital after his condition deteriorated. He died two days later. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner ruled out homicide and concluded that the ultimate cause of death was from a pulmonary embolism resulting in injury to the heart and brain. 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’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 10-0260 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 4, 2010, an officer discovered an inmate hanging from a ligature tied around his neck in his cell. Responding staff removed the inmate from the cell and initially determined that CPR was not indicated because there were clear signs of death, such as pooled blood within the inmate's body. However, shortly thereafter, staff began assessing the inmate for a pulse in advance of initiating CPR. At this time, medical staff arrived and declared the inmate dead. No life-saving measures were initiated. The inmate was the sole occupant of the cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined the cause of death was ligature strangulation. A suicide note was found in the cell. Potential staff misconduct was identified concerning the initial determination by responding staff to not begin CPR; therefore, the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was adequate, except that responding staff's delay in beginning CPR may have been out of compliance with departmental policy. The department failed to provide adequate notification, but adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 95 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0261 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 1, 2010, special agents from the Office of Correctional Safety assisted outside law enforcement officers with the service of a search warrant when a parolee exited her residence and released a pit bull. The pit bull charged at the special agents, one of whom fired one round from his shotgun and another whom fired one round from his .40 caliber hand gun. The shotgun round struck the dog in the right side, killing the dog and preventing an attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs dispatched special agents from the deadly force investigation team to the scene. The Office of Internal Affairs opened both criminal and administrative investigations into the use of 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’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. Case No. 10-0262 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 29, 2010, two inmates attacked another inmate in the dining hall. Officers attempted to stop the attack with tear gas grenades without success. The observation officer fired four less-than-lethal direct impact rounds in an attempt to stop the attack. One round struck one of the inmates in the left hip. Another inmate was struck in the right shoulder. Officers were finally able to stop the attack by using pepper spray. The inmate who was attacked was treated for a skull fracture at a local hospital 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 The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0263 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 27, 2010, staff saw two inmates facing each other with aggressive stances and ordered all inmates on the exercise yard down. As staff approached the two inmates, they saw one inmate bleeding from his neck and upper torso. Staff immediately called for an emergency transport vehicle and applied pressure to the wound on the inmate's neck. The inmate was transported to a local hospital for treatment of several stab wounds. The other inmate had no serious injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate suspect was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution because the inmate was unwilling to testify and a lack of witnesses. 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 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 96 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0264 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 23, 2010, an officer observed two inmates on an exercise yard attacking another inmate, who was bleeding extensively. The officer fired one lethal round as a warning shot, which stopped the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE 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 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. 10-0265 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 21, 2010, staff heard sounds consistent with a cell fight. When staff arrived at the cell, one inmate was laying face down in what appeared to be a pool of his own blood and the other inmate was standing at the cell door. The other inmate was conscious upon emergency entry into the cell, and transported to the clinic emergency room for evaluation and treatment. Subsequently, the inmate was transported to a local hospital for a higher level of care. His injuries consisted of a fractured orbital socket to his left eye and multiple lacerations to his face and head that required sutures. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate suspect was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution because the injured inmate refused to testify in court. 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 adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0266 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 20, 2010, a riot involving approximately 19 inmates occurred on an exercise yard. Officers responded to the incident and used pepper spray, expandable batons, and less-than-lethal projectiles to stop the fighting and gain compliance. One inmate sustained a serious laceration to his neck during the riot. He was air-lifted to a local hospital for treatment and returned to the institution the following day. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against one 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 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. 10-0267 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 18, 2010, a riot involving approximately 33 inmates occurred on an exercise yard. Officers used pepper spray and less-than- lethal projectiles to stop the fighting and gain compliance. DISPOSITION OF CASE 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 not adequately documenting the incident, the department's overall response was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consultated with 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 97 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0268 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 13, 2010, an officer used pepper spray on two inmates who were fighting in their cell. During the fight one inmate received multiple puncture wounds to his back and chest. He was treated by medical staff at the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking 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 bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects, although the department did not sufficiently advise the bureau about 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. 10-0269 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 11, 2010, staff responded to a "man down" call in a security housing unit. When staff arrived at the cell they saw an inmate bleeding profusely from what appeared to be numerous stab wounds to his upper torso. The injured inmate was transported to a local hospital for a high level of care where he remained for three days, before being returned to the institution. The suspect had minor injuries consisting of an abrasion to the left forearm and right 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 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 provide timely initial notification. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0270 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 11, 2010, two inmates attacked a third inmate hitting him in the face and upper torso with their fists. An officer used pepper spray to stop the assault. The inmate being attacked suffered ten puncture wounds to his back and chest and was transported to a local hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the two 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 the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0271 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 8, 2010, an inmate was found unresponsive, hanging in his single-occupied cell. Responding staff attempted life-saving procedures without success. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy confirmed the cause of death to be asphyxiation from hanging. 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. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, however failed to provide timely initial notification. 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 98 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0272 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 5, 2010, 17 wards barricaded themselves in a dayroom by stacking chairs, tables, and other items in front of the doors. The wards armed themselves with various types of ward-manufactured weapons and vandalized the dayroom by breaking glass and furniture. Youth correctional officers used pepper spray on the wards. Several wards and one youth correctional officer sustained minor injuries from the broken glass. DISPOSITION OF CASE 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 failing to adequately document the incident, the department's overall response was sufficient. The department did not adequately notify and consult 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. 10-0273 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 1, 2009, officers responded to a "man down" call in one of the two-man cells. Officers and medical staff discovered one of the inmates lying on his bed unresponsive. Immediately after securing the cellmate, staff began life-saving measures while transporting him to the institution hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE Shortly after arriving at the institution hospital, the physician pronounced the inmate dead. The investigative services unit sealed off the cell as a potential crime scene and notified the local district attorney's office, who sent an investigator to the scene. The investigator documented the scene and interviewed the cellmate. An autopsy was conducted that same day and the cause of the death was determined to be heart failure. No staff misconduct was identfied; therefore, no referral was made to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 10-0274 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 1, 2010, officers found an unresponsive inmate, who was was pronounced dead a few minutes later. Outside law enforcement responded to investigate the incident. The cellmate admitted to strangling the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the cellmate 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 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 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 99 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0275 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 26, 2010, a parole agent assisted outside law enforcement in an ongoing investigation at a parolee's residence. While attempting to make sure the residence was secure, the parole agent saw two unrestrained dogs coming toward him. One dog aggressively charged at the agent. The agent fired one lethal round toward the charging dog, which caused it to stop. The round struck the ground and did not injure the animal. Animal control officers were called to the scene, and the dogs were eventually released unharmed to their owners. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department opened a deadly force investigation into the matter, 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 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. 10-0276 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 23, 2010, an inmate was attacked by his cellmate. The attacking inmate bit off one of the injured inmate's ears and ate it. When interviewed, the attacking cellmate indicated he was trying to kill his cellmate so he could eat his eyeballs. The injured inmate was treated at a local hospital for his injuries and returned to the facility. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking 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 bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide sufficient notification. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 10-0277 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 22, 2010, an inmate was lying on the grass in an exercise yard having what appeared to be a seizure. Medical staff responded and transported the inmate to the institution clinic where CPR was initiated. The inmate was transported to an outside hospital where he died an hour later. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy indicated the cause of death was cardio vascular disease. 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 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 100 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0278 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 20, 2010, an inmate returning from work to his assigned cell, discovered his cell mate was lying on his bunk unresponsive. The inmate immediately notified staff of a "man down," and staff responded to the cell. The inmate was not breathing, so they immediately began life-saving measures. Life-saving measures were continued until the inmate was transported to a local hospital and pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE Due to the inmate's hypertension and history of heart disease, and the circumstances surrounding his death, the coroner chose not to perform an autopsy. The cause of death was determined to be sudden death. 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 following the incident, it failed to provide timely initial notification when the incident occurred. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0279 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 20, 2010 an inmate allegedly committed an in-cell homicide of 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 failed to provide adequate notification, but adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. Case No. 10-0280 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 19, 2010, an officer conducting the institutional inmate count found an inmate hanging from an air vent with by noose. The inmate was the sole occupant of the cell. The officer announced a medical emergency using the institutional radio system. Responding staff arrived and an emergency extraction was performed. Life-saving measures began immediately and continued throughout the transport of the inmate to a local hospital. The inmate was pronounced dead shortly after arriving at the hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy determined the death to be a suicide. 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 consulted with the bureau about the incident, but 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. 10-0281 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 18, 2010, an inmate was found unresponsive by his cellmate, who called for help from staff. Life-saving procedures were unsuccessful. DISPOSITION OF CASE Autopsy results indicated the death was a homicide due to strangulation. The victim's cellmate confessed to the homicide and the case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. Potential 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 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 101 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0282 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 14, 2010, an inmate committed suicide by slashing his wrist with a razor. The inmate was transported to a community hospital where he was 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 The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. Case No. 10-0283 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 13, 2010 an inmate was found hanging from an upper bunk in his cell. Officers applied CPR but the inmate was later pronounced dead at the scene. 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 adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. Case No. 10-0284 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 11, 2010, during a routine cell check, an officer found a single-celled inmate unresponsive with a bed sheet and a t-shirt tied around his neck. Life-saving measures were initiated but were unsuccessful. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy report indicated the manner of death to be asphyxia, due to the ligatures around the inmate's neck. 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 decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 10-0285 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 12, 2010, two inmates attacked another inmate. An officer fired one lethal round as a warning shot to stop the attack against the third inmate who appeared to unconscious. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the two inmates was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined prosecution. 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 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 102 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0286 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 6, 2010, two inmates attacked another inmate with inmate-manufactured weapons in a dining hall. An officer fired one less- than-lethal round at the inmates. The round missed the target, but the inmates stopped fighting. The inmate who was attacked received approximately 17 puncture wounds to his chest, neck, and back. He was transported to a local hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking 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 Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department failed to provide adequately notify and consult 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. 10-0287 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 3, 2010, an inmate assaulted another inmate with an inmate-manufactured weapon. The inmate who was stabbed sustained three stab wounds to his upper body and a significant injury to his right ear. 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 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. 10-0288 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 2, 2010, an inmate assaulted an officer by stabbing the officer in the left side of her head with an inmate manufactured weapon. The officer was transported to a local hospital and released. 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 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. 10-0289 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 2, 2010, an inmate reported to staff that his cellmate would not wake up. The cellmate was found to be unresponsive and was declared dead by medical staff. The inmate later confessed to beating his cellmate to death. 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 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 103 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0290 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 27, 2010, during the distribution of medications to inmates, an inmate got out of his wheelchair, walked over to another inmate in a wheelchair and gave him what appeared to be a friendly hug from behind. However, the inmate then made a slashing motion across the throat of the inmate in the wheelchair, cutting the inmate's throat with an inmate manufactured weapon. The assailant returned to his wheelchair and rolled away to the back of the medication line in an attempt to blend in with other inmates and discarded the weapon on the ground. The sergeant saw a large amount of blood coming from the other inmate's throat and immediately requested a medical emergency response using the prison radio system. The inmate was transported to a hospital for an emergency life saving operation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the assailant 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 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. 10-0291 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 26, 2010, a fight between three inmates broke out on an exercise yard. As a result, officers had to utilize pepper spray and batons to stop the fighting. One inmate suffered a broken arm as a result of being struck with the baton. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking 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. 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. 10-0292 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 27, 2010, a pit bull cornered a parole agent who was making a home visit to a parolee in a remote location. The parole agent repeatedly asked the parolee to restrain the dog, without success. The dog lunged at the parole agent and the parole agent fired one shot, killing the dog. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs dispatched special agents from its deadly force investigation team to review the incident. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation into the parole agent's 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. Case No. 10-0293 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 26, 2010, two inmates were battered by several inmates in a dormitory. One of the battered inmates suffered a ruptured spleen and multiple facial and rib fractures, requiring treatment at a local hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate suspects 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 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 104 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0294 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 25, 2010, an inmate alleged he was sexually assaulted by multiple staff members. DISPOSITION OF CASE Due to the serious nature of the allegations, 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 overall response to the incident was sufficient. The department failed to provide timely initial notification, but adequately 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 agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs’ response to the hiring authority’s referral. Case No. 10-0295 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 22, 2010, a control booth officer saw two inmates fighting in the dayroom. Staff ordered the inmates to stop fighting but they refused to comply. While continuing to give orders to stop fighting, the control booth officer discharged a total of six direct impact rounds, but was unable to see whether the rounds struck the intended target in the leg area. When responding staff arrived, the inmates stopped fighting. One inmate sustained two injuries as a result of being struck in the head and lower back with a direct impact round. DISPOSITION OF CASE This case against the inmates was not referred to the district attorney's office. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0296 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 22, 2010, a sergeant was discovered unresponsive at home by his family. Life saving measures were unsuccessful and he was pronounced dead later that day. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy revealed the cause of death to be suicide. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0297 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 21, 2010, a riot between rival prison gangs erupted simultaneously in three housing units, involving a total of 119 inmates. Responding staff used pepper spray and less-than-lethal rounds to regain control. Multiple inmate manufactured weapons were recovered and 19 inmates were transported to local hospitals for higher levels of care then 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 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 105 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0298 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 20, 2010, an inmate notified staff of a "man down" in a cell. Staff responded to the cell and found an inmate hanging with sheet strips double wrapped around his neck and secured to the cell air vent. Staff activated the building alarm and used a cut-down tool to remove the inmate from the cell. Live saving measures continued until a doctor arrived on scene, and pronounced the inmate dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE A subsequent investigation revealed staff had released the cellmate to the yard approximately one hour prior to the incident at which time staff observed both inmates to be alive. The cell door remained secured until staff responded to the incident. A post mortem examination revealed the cause of death to be asphyxia due to hanging and the manner of death as suicide. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. Case No. 10-0299 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 19, 2010, inmates yelled "man down." Officers responded to find an inmate unresponsive, perspiring, and blue. Officers repositioned the inmate and he started breathing and his color returned to normal. The officers rechecked the pulse after the inmate became quiet and started CPR after determining the inmate's pulse was weak. Paramedics arrived within seven minutes and transported the inmate to a local hospital. The inmate was later pronounced dead after advanced life-saving efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined that the cause of death was from coronary artery disease. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The bureau pointed out that CPR should not be performed when a pulse is present, and the hiring authority agreed to provide remedial training to the officers. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate except for the officers starting CPR while a pulse was still present. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide timely initial notification. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0300 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 18, 2010, an inmate was assaulted by two other inmates. The victim was stabbed over ten times receiving serious injuries, and was taken to a local hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attackers has been 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 Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 106 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0301 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 13, 2010, an inmate was found unresponsive in his single cell hanging from a cloth noose and tied to the light fixture. Staff members cut the noose, laid the inmate flat on the floor, and performed CPR. However, the inmate did not respond and was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy was performed, and the coroner determined that the inmate died of a self-induced hanging. 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 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. 10-0302 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 11, 2010, an officer discovered an inmate with a black eye and informed his supervisor. The inmate refused to identify the assailants. A search of all inmates in the housing unit was conducted with negative results for injuries consistent with being in a fight. The inmate was escorted to the medical clinic and later transported to a local hospital for further evaluation and treatment. The inmate suffered a fractured orbital socket and a fractured jaw. He was admitted to the hospital and returned to the institution four days later. DISPOSITION OF CASE This case was not referred to the district attorney's office because no suspects were identified. 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 initially failed to timely notify the bureau regarding the incident, but adequately consulted with the bureau once notice was provided. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 10-0303 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 14, 2010, an inmate took an overdose of prescription medications, she was transported to a local hospital where she later died. 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 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. 10-0304 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 13, 2010, a fight broke out among three inmates on an exercise yard. Officers used pepper spray and less-than-lethal impact rounds in order to try to stop fight. Two of the inmates stopped fighting; however, the third inmate began kicking one of the compliant inmates in the head as he lay motionless on the ground. Officers struck the third inmate with a baton and used more pepper spray on him, but he continued the assault. The observation officer fired one lethal round as a warning shot from a rifle, which caused the third inmate to finally stop his assault. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 107 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0305 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 11, 2010, an inmate was discovered unresponsive in her room during a routine inmate count. Staff initiated life-saving procedures. Paramedics were called and advanced life-saving techniques were applied. The inmate was pronounced dead after efforts to revive her failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined the cause of death was from cardiovascular disease. 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 hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 10-0306 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 12, 2010, during the evening, an inmate approached an officer and complained of stomach pains. Officers transported the inmate to the infirmary and then to a local hospital by ambulance. While in the ambulance, the inmate told an officer that he had swallowed "a bindle." The inmate was later pronounced dead at the hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy revealed six items, which appeared to be packaging material, located in the inmate's lower intestine. Of the six items, four appeared to have ruptured. The coroner determined that the inmate died as a result of ingesting multiple bindles of methamphetamine. No staff misconduct was indentified; 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. 10-0307 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 7, 2010, officers were conducting a routine cell check when they observed an inmate hanging with a sheet around his neck from the bunk bed. The inmate was housed alone in the cell. Staff initiated life-saving procedures without success. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy confirmed that the death was a suicide. 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. 10-0308 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 8, 2010, two inmates were using an inmate-manufactured weapon in an attack against another inmate. An officer fired two less-than-lethal rounds to stop the attack. One of the rounds struck one of the attacking inmates near the inmate's lower ear and neck. The inmate did not lose consciousness or require outside medical assistance. 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 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 108 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0309 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 27, 2009, a sergeant saw an inmate tying a noose around his neck. The sergeant ordered the inmate to stop, but he refused and continued to twist the noose around his neck. The sergeant used pepper spray on the inmate and staff were ordered to forcibly remove the inmate form his cell. The inmate tried to run past officers as they entered the cell. Officers used an expandable baton and physical force to gain compliance from the inmate. The inmate sustained minor injuries due to 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 overall response to the incident was adequate except that the use-of-force review committee failed to obtain needed clarification from staff related to the use of force and the inmate's injuries. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 10-0310 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 1, 2010, officers responded to a "man down" call from inmates in a dormitory and discovered an inmate lying on his bed and unresponsive. The officers immediately sounded the alarm and initiated life-saving measures. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate was placed on a gurney and taken to the institution hospital where the doctor pronounced him dead. The dorm room was sealed off as a potential crime scene and the inmates assigned to that dorm were interviewed by the investigative services unit. An autopsy was performed on January 4, 2010, and the cause of death was determined to be drug overdose. No staff misconduct was identfied; therefore, no referral was made to the Office of Internal Affairs. 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. 10-0311 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 28, 2009, officers observed two inmates attacking a disabled inmate while he was in a wheelchair during the evening shower program. The assailants knocked the inmate to the ground and repeatedly stabbed him with an inmate manufactured weapon. Officers used pepper spray to stop the attack. The injured inmate was rushed to a local hospital via ambulance and returned to custody after treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was not 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 109 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0312 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 28, 2009, a riot erupted on an exercise yard involving 19 inmates. Responding staff used chemical agents to stop the riot. One inmate was transported to a local hospital for treatment of a broken jaw. DISPOSITION OF CASE The incident was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, 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 failed to provide the bureau with timely notification of the incident. Overall, the department's response was satisfactory. However, the bureau found there were deficiencies in how the institution handled one of the inmates once the riot ended. The inmate was suspected of hiding an inmate-manufactured weapon in his rectum, which should have resulted in the inmate being watched closely until the item was expelled from his body. However, the institution's investigative services unit failed to adequately communicate with facility staff and as a result, the inmate was able to dispose of the inmate-manufactured weapon. The weapon was found near the holding cell where the inmate was being held, but it could not be directly linked to the inmate. Training was provided to the institution's investigative services unit to avoid similar deficiencies in the future. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 10-0313 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 26, 2009, an inmate alleged she was sexually battered by two other inmates the day before. The inmate was transported to a local hospital for a forensic examination and the institution completed an investigation of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates will be referred to the district attorney's office pending receipt of the forensic evidence results. 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 sufficiently consulted with the bureau, although it did not timely 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. 10-0314 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 29, 2009, a riot occurred involving an unspecified number of inmates. At the time of the incident, 262 inmates were in the dining hall facility. Two inmates received serious injuries and were sent to a local hospital for advanced medical treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The two inmates who received injuries were sent to a local hospital for advanced medical care. 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 provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 110 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0315 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 28, 2009, an inmate notified officers that his cellmate was having a seizure. Life-saving measures were initiated, but were not successful. According to an autopsy report, the cellmate died of cardiovascular disease. 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. 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. 10-0316 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 28, 2009, two wards simultaneously attempted to commit suicide by tying one end of a torn sheet to the hand rail of a second-story tier, and tying the other end around their necks, and then jumping off the tier. One ward jumped off the tier, but the sheet tore and he fell to the ground uninjured. Staff were able to prevent the second ward from jumping. DISPOSITION OF CASE Neither ward was injured, but both were transported to an outside hospital for evaluation. 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 concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0317 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 27, 2009, a youth counselor found a ward with a plastic bag and noose around his neck. The ward had signs of life and was transported by ambulance to a local hospital. 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 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. 10-0318 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 25, 2009, an inmate was found unresponsive in her bunk. CPR was initiated and medical staff was dispatched to the cell. The inmate was pronounced dead by a physician at the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined the cause of death to be cardiovascular disease. 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 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 111 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0319 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 22, 2009, a single-celled inmate committed suicide by hanging from an inmate-manufactured noose that was attached to the cell light fixture while housed in an administrative segregation housing unit. 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 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. 10-0320 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 20, 2009, an inmate committed suicide by hanging. At approximately 0600 hours, an officer located the inmate hanging in his cell from the top bunk with a sheet tied around his neck. Another officer reportedly completed inmate counts four times between 2330 and 0500 hours and did not note any irregularities in the inmate's cell. However, when the inmate was found at 0600 hours, he was already in full rigor mortis. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an 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 agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. However, the bureau did not concur with the Office of Internal Affairs' decision not to open an investigation. Case No. 10-0321 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 18, 2009, an inmate was found unresponsive, hanging in his cell. The inmate was the only occupant of the cell. Attempts by staff to revive him with CPR were not successful and he was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy confirmed that the death was a suicide. 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 112 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0322 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 16, 2009, a supervising parole agent participated in a search at a parolee's residence. During the search, the agent fired his weapon into the floor of the residence. There were no injuries as a result of the discharge. The parole agent did not secure the scene, recover the expelled round, or immediately report the discharge. Less than an hour later, the parole agent participated in a search of a different residence belonging to an unrelated parolee. While examining his weapon prior to making entry into the home, the parole agent fired his weapon again into the parole agent's state vehicle. There were no injuries as a result of the discharge. The parole agent located the expelled round and casing inside his vehicle, but he did not immediately report the discharge. The parole agent did not report either of the incidents to a supervisor or local law enforcement until he returned to the parole office later in the day. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs dispatched special agents from the deadly force investigation team to the scene. The Office of Internal Affairs opened both criminal and administrative investigations into the use of deadly force, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department sufficiently notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. Case No. 10-0323 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 15, 2009, officers observed two inmates fighting two other inmates. In order to stop the fight, an officer fired one less- lethal round that struck one inmate in the head, then ricocheted striking another inmate in the head. The other two inmates did not sustain any injuries. Both injured inmates were sent to an outside hospital. 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 provided adequate notification, but failed to adequately consult 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. 10-0324 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 11, 2009, officers observed two inmates fighting inside a housing unit. The officers ordered the inmates to stop fighting, without effect. One officer fired a less-than-lethal round at the inmates. It was unclear where the round struck as the inmates were moving quickly. Both inmates reported they may have been struck in the head from a ricocheted round. DISPOSITION OF CASE After a review of the medical findings, one inmate had an injury on his left forearm consistent with an impact from a less-than-lethal round, and both inmates had bruising and redness to their heads that may have been caused by the fight or possibly from a ricocheted round. Both inmates were treated and fully recovered from their injuries. 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 113 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0325 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 12, 2009, three inmates attacked another inmate on an exercise yard. Officers fired less-than-lethal impact rounds to stop the attack. The inmate who was attacked sustained multiple lacerations and puncture wounds to his torso and was transported to a local hospital for treatment. One of the assailants sustained minor injuries, which may have been caused by the officers' use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking 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 prosecution. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department failed to adequately notify and consult 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. 10-0326 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 5, 2009, an inmate called for an officer and told him to remove his cellmate before he kills him. The officer observed that the cellmate had been assaulted. The cellmate who was assaulted had his hands and feet tied behind his back with torn sheets, a ligature around his neck, a gag in his mouth, and his face was blue. Both inmates were removed from the cell. The inmate who was assaulted was treated at a local hospital and returned to custody. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. Staff misconduct was not 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 timely initial notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 10-0327 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 12, 2009, two inmates stabbed a third inmate multiple times with an inmate-manufactured knife. The responding officers stopped the attack with pepper spray. The victim was rushed to a local hospital via ambulance with a punctured lung and other 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 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 provide timely initial notification. 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 114 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0328 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 10, 2009, an inmate was found on the floor of his cell in a confused state. Medical staff determined he had an elevated blood sugar. He was transferred to a local hospital by ambulance after he vomited blood and lost consciousness. The inmate died the following day. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy revealed that the inmate died from complications related to diabetes and heart disease. The inmate had no prior history of diabetes. 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 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. 10-0329 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 10, 2009, inmates attacked another inmate with an inmate-manufactured weapon. Another inmate discovered the injured inmate and notified an officer that he was cut and bleeding. The officer found the injured inmate with blood on his shirt and holding a rag against his neck. The officer directed the injured inmate to walk, accompanied only by another inmate, to the facility medical clinic for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The officer received on-the-job training for failing to properly respond to a situation involving an injured inmate. The case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Except for staff's improper response to the injured inmate, the bureau determined that the department's response to the incident was adequate. The department did not adequately notify and consult with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau concurred. Case No. 10-0330 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 7, 2009, an inmate committed suicide by hanging himself with a bedsheet while alone in a cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an autopsy, the death was determined to be a suicide. A psychiatric technician was alleged to have neglected her duties by failing to properly follow-up on information she had received from the inmate's cellmate indicating that the inmate had been talking about committing suicide; therefore, the matter was 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 to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0331 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 3, 2009, two inmates attacked a third inmate on an exercise yard. The inmates refused to stop fighting despite verbal orders form officers. When the inmate that was being attacked became defenseless, an officer fired one lethal round as a warning shot. The inmates stopped fighting and were removed from the yard. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified as a result of this incident; 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 115 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0332 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 6, 2009, two inmates were attacked by four inmates in a housing unit. An officer struck one of the inmates in the head with his baton while aiming for the shoulder. Responding officers used pepper spray to stop the inmate attack. The inmate that was hit in the head inmate was drifting in and out of consciousness and rushed to a local hospital with a head injury. He later returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution because of an existing agreement regarding inmates serving life sentences.The strike to the head was deemed unintentional and due to inmate movement. 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 hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 10-0333 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 3, 2009, inmates in a housing unit notified an officer that another inmate was unresponsive. Two officers responded to the area. However, they did not render aid to the unresponsive inmate and instead watched as two inmates conducted CPR on him. The inmate was later pronounced dead. 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 bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide adequate notification, but adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs’ response to the hiring authority’s referral. Case No. 10-0334 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 29, 2009, an inmate reported that his cellmate was unresponsive. Officers immediately responded and found the dead inmate's cellmate trying to wake him up. Life-saving measures were unsuccessful and the inmate was pronounced dead by responding paramedics. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined that the cause of death was natural causes. 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 116 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0335 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 23, 2009, staff observed a ward's cell window covered up and the ward did not respond to the officer. Staff entered the room and observed a sheet wrapped around the ward's neck that was not secured to a fixed location. Medical treatment was provided, including a referral for mental health services. 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. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0336 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 21, 2009, staff discovered an inmate hanging from an air vent by a cloth ligature around his neck. Officers completed an emergency cell extraction and life-saving measures were initiated. The inmate was transported to a local hospital where he was later pronounced dead. The inmate was housed in an administrative segregation unit and was the sole occupant of the cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE The death was determined to be a suicide. Potential staff misconduct was identified regarding failure to perform cell checks as required, prior to the suicide; 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 bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority 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. Case No. 10-0337 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 23, 2009, a ward was discovered hanging in his room after an officer discovered a suicide note on his window during a room check. Officers responded and successfully intervened to save him. The ward was taken to an outside medical facility for treatment. He returned to the institution where he was placed on suicide watch and was monitored by mental health staff. 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. 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. 10-0338 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 11, 2009, two inmates were found unresponsive on the floor of their cell with evidence of a violent cell fight. One inmate was transported via ambulance to a local hospital for treatment of head trauma. DISPOSITION OF CASE 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 response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 117 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0339 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 11, 2009, an inmate alleged she was sexually battered by another inmate on November 5, 2009. The inmate was transported to a local hospital for a forensic examination and an investigation of the allegation was completed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the aggressor inmate will be referred to the district attorney's office pending receipt of the forensic evidence results. 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 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. 10-0340 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 8, 2009, an officer observed three inmates assaulting a fourth inmate. The officer in the control booth gave verbal commands to stop fighting and then fired two less-lethal rounds at the attackers. Another officer used pepper spray on the inmates to stop the attack. One of the attacking inmates claimed that he was hit in the head with a less-lethal round. He was taken for treatment to a local hospital for a head injury and returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosection. 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 on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0341 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 27, 2009, an inmate was stabbed multiple times by three inmates while on an exercise yard. Officers used pepper spray to stop the attack. The inmate was transported to an outside hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking 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 response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0342 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 26, 2009, an officer observed one inmate attacking another. The officer first fired a water cannon without effect. He then fired four less-lethal rounds at the attacker striking him in the legs before the attack finally stopped. The attacked inmate had been stabbed and was taken to an outside hospital with a punctured lung. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The district attorney's office declined to prosecute, however, because the attacking inmate was already serving two consecutive life terms. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau in a satisfactory manner regarding this incident in all key aspects. 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 118 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0343 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 22, 2009, an inmate alleged he had been sexually assaulted by his cellmate the night before. Staff attempted to have the inmate transported to a local hospital for a sexual assault examination, but the inmate refused to be evaluated. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the cellmate was not referred to the local district attorney's office because of insufficient 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 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. 10-0344 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 21, 2009, an inmate was found non-responsive in his bunk in a dormitory housing unit. Responding staff began CPR and transported the inmate to the institution's medical treatment facility, where he was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy revealed that the inmate died from complications of end-stage liver disease. 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. 10-0345 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 21, 2009, an inmate did not report to his work assignment as expected. Two officers went to the inmate's cell and discovered him unresponsive. The housing unit alarm was activated and responding medical staff initiated life-saving measures. The life-saving measures were unsuccessful and the inmate was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy revealed that the inmate died from heart disease. 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. Case No. 10-0346 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 18, 2009, a parolee in a re-entry facility was found unresponsive on the floor in his room. Life-saving measures were initiated, but were not successful. An autopsy concluded that the death was an accident, caused by acute heroin and alcohol intoxication. 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 adequate notification. 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 119 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0347 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 18, 2009, two inmates were fighting on the exercise yard. Officers responded by firing two less-than-lethal rounds. One of the rounds struck one of the fighting inmates in the forehead and he was taken to an outside hospital for treatment and then returned to the institution. 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 adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. Case No. 10-0348 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 7, 2009, an inmate riot erupted in a dining hall involving about 65 inmates. Officers gave the inmates verbal warnings to stop fighting, but the riot continued. Officers used pepper spray, chemical agent grenades, and less-than-lethal rounds to stop the incident. Inmates sustained no serious injuries as a result of the riot or 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. All 65 inmates were accused of violating institution rules for participating in the riot. However, no cases 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 bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0349 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 6, 2009, an inmate hit an officer with his head. In response, the officer used physical force to take the inmate to the ground resulting in serious injury to the inmate's leg. 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 consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide sufficient notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 10-0350 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 6, 2009, two inmates attacked another inmate on an exercise yard, kicking and punching him in the head. Responding officers ordered the attackers to stop. However, the attack continued. Yard officers deployed pepper spray and the tower officer fired one lethal round as a warning shot, which stopped the attack. The inmate who was attacked was sent to an outside hospital for treatment of a head injury. 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. However, there were some errors in the way some of the evidence was preserved and officers received training on that subject. 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 120 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0351 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 6, 2009, multiple inmates assaulted two officers. In response, officers used pepper spray and fired one less-than-lethal round at the inmates to stop the assault. DISPOSITION OF CASE The cases against the inmates were 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. However, the hiring authority determined that the conduct of the control booth officer and the searching officer prior to the use of force was not consistent with policy and ordered the officers to receive training. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide timely notification. Overall, the department's response to 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. 10-0352 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 5, 2009, five inmates attacked another inmate with an inmate-manufactured weapon. The inmate who was attacked received 14 puncture wounds to his back and head and a punctured lung. Officers used pepper spray to stop the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE 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 decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 10-0353 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 3, 2009, an officer found a single-celled inmate unresponsive in his cell. Life-saving measures were initiated, but were not successful. According to the autopsy report, the manner of death was an accident, caused by acute water intoxication. DISPOSITION OF CASE 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. 10-0354 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 21, 2009, two riots occurred on an institution's yard involving nearly 200 inmates. The first riot began at 2030 hours between rival prison gangs. After the first riot appeared to be over, a second riot involving the same rival prison gangs began at 2230 hours. Several inmates received stab wounds. Staff members fired less-than-lethal rounds and pepper spray to stop the riots. Twenty-four inmates were transported to outside hospitals for treatment of injuries sustained during the riots. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution of six inmates; however, the district attorney's office declined to prosecute. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. All of the injured inmates recovered from their injuries and were returned to the institution. 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 timely 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 121 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0355 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 17, 2009, two inmates were stabbed and a third inmate was beaten in attacks by six to eight other inmates. The three inmates who were attacked were taken to a local hospital for treatment and were reported to be in stable condition. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which declined to file criminal charges against the inmates involved in the attack. 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 agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0356 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 15, 2009, officers observed two inmates attacking a third inmate. The officers used pepper spray to stop the attack. The inmate who was attacked received 25 stab wounds and was transported to a local hospital by ambulance. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attackers 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 provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0357 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 4, 2009, an inmate alleged that he was sexually assaulted by his cellmate. 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 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; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 10-0358 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 29, 2009, two inmates attacked a third inmate resulting in staff using pepper spray, expandable batons, and firing less-than- lethal rounds to gain control of the incident. One of the attackers sustained a laceration to the top of his head as a result of possibly being struck on the top of the head by a less-than-lethal round, and was transported to an outside hospital where he was found to have a fractured skull. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, no referral was made to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department neglected to inform the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 122 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0359 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 22, 2009, an inmate attacked an officer with an inmate-manufactured weapon striking the officer behind the ear. The inmate was immediately forced to the ground by several officers. During a video taped interview, the inmate claimed that he had been previously beaten and sexually assaulted by the officer whom he attacked. According to initial medical reports done shortly after the incident, the inmate received scratches and a swollen cheek as a result of the incident. However, the inmate was sent to a local hospital several hours later because he was disoriented and was suffering from possible head trauma. A subsequent medical evaluation reflected numerous injuries on the inmate that were not noted in the earlier reports. During a second videotaped interview several days later, the inmate alleged that he was taken out of a holding cell and physically assaulted by a group of officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The bureau reviewed the incident reports that appeared to sufficiently explain the circumstances surrounding the event and the description of the reported force used by staff to subdue the inmate. The injuries depicted in the medical reports provided at the time appeared consistent with the force that was described in the officers' reports. However, there was an unreasonable delay in completing the incident packet for review by the hiring authority. Nearly four months after the incident took place, a preliminary review was finally conducted which revealed that the institution did not follow the department's policies regarding the processing of inmate allegations of sexual assault. In addition, a third medical report was discovered showing more extensive injuries than were originally reported in two earlier medical reports. Lastly, the bureau learned that the inmate had been re-interviewed four days after the incident where he alleged that after being placed in the holding cell following the assault, he was removed from the cell and physically assaulted by a group of officers. Due to the allegations of excessive force and the questionable handling of the incident by staff, the hiring authority referred the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate except for the failure to complete a timely review of the incident prior to submitting a request for investigation. 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. 10-0360 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 16, 2009, a single-celled inmate committed suicide by hanging himself from the top bunk in his cell. An officer found the inmate hanging from the top bunk and activated his alarm. Responding officers entered the cell and began life-saving measures. The inmate was transported to an outside hospital where he was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy confirmed that the cause of death was suicide by hanging. The hiring authority determined that an officer may not have properly conducted welfare checks on the inmate; 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 Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 123 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0361 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 8, 2009, more than a thousand inmates participated in a riot in which several buildings were partially burned. A control booth officer and an outside patrol officer fired six warning shots in an effort to stop the incident. Other officers also used less-than-lethal weapons during the disturbance. No officers were injured. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs dispatched special agents from the deadly force investigation team to the scene. The Office of Internal Affairs opened both criminal and administrative investigations into the use of deadly force, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. Case No. 10-0362 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 4, 2009, two inmates got into a fight in their assigned cell. Staff responded to the cell and used pepper spray and physical force to stop the fighting. One inmate died immediately after the staff responded and the fight was stopped. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. Due of the possible staff involvement in the death due to the use of force, the hiring authority also contacted the Office of Internal Affairs, which opened a deadly force investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. The autopsy later revealed that the use of force was not a factor in the inmate's cause of death. 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 Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 10-0363 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 28, 2009, officers found a single-celled inmate unresponsive in her cell. Medical staff responded and determined rigor mortis was present; therefore, no life-saving measures were taken. According to the autopsy report, the cause of death is undetermined. DISPOSITION OF CASE 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. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0364 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 20, 2009, two inmates attacked a third inmate with inmate manufactured stabbing weapons. Staff shot four rounds from a less- lethal weapon and used pepper spray to stop the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate who was attacked had numerous puncture wounds about his body and was taken to an outside hospital for treatment. No staff misconduct was identfied; therefore, no referral was made to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 124 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0365 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 20, 2009, an inmate attacked another inmate with a stabbing weapon. DISPOSITION OF CASE The victim inmate received numerous stab wounds about his body and was taken by ambulance to an outside hospital for treatment. No staff misconduct was identfied; therefore, no referral was made to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0366 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 17, 2009, at approximately 0800 hours, an inmate was found hanging in his cell during the morning inmate count. The coroner informed the institution that the inmate had been dead for four to six hours prior to being discovered. The officers documented a number of cell checks during the several hours prior to discovery with no one finding him hanging. DISPOSITION OF CASE Potential 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 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 to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. Case No. 10-0367 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 16, 2009, an inmate called "man down" after he found his cellmate underneath his bunk with a plastic bag over his head and a piece of cloth wrapped around his neck. The cellmate died after life-saving efforts failed. 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 except for a 16 minute delay in calling 911. An internal emergency response review provided clarification to medical staff regarding which medical clinic should be responsible for calling 911. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. 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. 10-0368 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 16, 2009, a riot erupted on an exercise yard involving approximately 150 inmates, some of whom were armed with inmate- manufactured weapons. The exercise yard was ordered down and all inmates complied with the exception of the combatants. Chemical agents and less-than-lethal force was unsuccessful in stopping the incident. Officers than fired lethal rounds to stop the incident. Two inmates were struck with lethal rounds and were transported to an outside hospital for further medical treatment. One inmate, who had been struck in the torso with a lethal round died. DISPOSITION OF CASE Outside law enforcement conducted a criminal investigation into the use of lethal force and the underlying criminal acts of the inmates involved in the riot. The department opened an administrative investigation into the use of deadly force, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs’ response to the hiring authority’s referral. Case No. 10-0369 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 21, 2009, a riot erupted between rival prison gang members in multiple locations involving 69 inmates. Officers attempted to stop the disturbance with pepper spray and less-lethal rounds. The riot was finally stopped following the firing of two lethal rounds as warning shots. One inmate was airlifted to a trauma center after sustaining life-threatening wounds and ten other inmates were transported to local hospitals via ambulance for serious injuries. Numerous inmate manufactured knives were used during the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department referred the matter to the district attorney's office for criminal prosecution of inmates. 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 concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0370 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 17, 2009, two inmates assaulted a third inmate using an inmate-manufactured stabbing instrument. Staff fired three less-than- lethal rounds to stop the assault. The attacked inmate sustained numerous stab wounds which appeared to be life-threatening and medical staff ordered the inmate to be air-lifted to an outside hospital. The inmate was released from the hospital and returned to the institution the following day. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the suspect 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. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department did not adequately notify and consult with the bureau on the incident. The 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 126 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0371 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 14, 2009, a ward at a youth facility attempted suicide by tying a sheet around his neck in an attempt to hang himself. DISPOSITION OF CASE Facility staff initiated emergency response procedures, cutting the ward down and transporting him to an outside hospital where he was treated and released. No staff misconduct was identfied; therefore, no referral was made to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department did not sufficiently advise the bureau about 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. 10-0372 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 29, 2009, nine inmates were fighting in an exercise yard. The observation officer activated the alarm and ordered all inmates to get down. Three responding officers used pepper spray and one officer deployed an instantaneous blast dispersion grenade. When the inmates continued to fight, the observation officer fired three less-than-lethal rounds, none of which struck inmates. A yard officer also fired three less-than-lethal rounds; one struck an inmate in the head, causing a laceration, one struck an inmate in the hand, and one round missed its target. DISPOSITION OF CASE Cases against some of the inmates were 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 Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. Case No. 10-0373 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 20, 2009, an inmate was discovered unresponsive in his celI. The inmate was subsequently declared dead the same morning. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an autopsy and toxicology tests, the coroner determined that the inmate died of a drug overdose. 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 bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0374 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 19, 2009 an inmate was found unconscious and unresponsive. His cellmate stated that he had been attacked by the now unconscious inmate and responded to the attack by stomping on his attacker's head several times. The unconscious inmate was taken to a hospital where he never regained consciousness and ultimately died. 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’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 127 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0375 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 15, 2009, staff found an inmate lying on the floor of his single-cell next to a pool of blood. Emergency medical staff responded and began life-saving measures. The inmate, who was unconscious but alive, was air-lifted to an outside hospital where he died a short time later. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was no evidence of foul play and the initial autopsy could not determine a 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 found the department's response was satisfactory except that the institution's investigative services unit seemed unprepared to assist the Coroner's office in determining the cause of death. Specifically, although the institution's investigative services unit processed the crime scene and took numerous photos, they had apparently not read the inmate's file because they were unable to answer the coroner's questions related to the inmate's time spent in prison. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. Case No. 10-0376 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 30, 2009, an inmate was found unresponsive in his cell. The inmate was later declared dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an autopsy, it was determined that the probable cause of death was break through seizures. The inmate had a history of seizures prior to this date for which he was receiving treatment. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all 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. 10-0377 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 27, 2009, a sergeant alleged he was assaulted by three suspects at a rest stop while on his way to work. The sergeant allegedly sustained slashing type wounds to the face and injured ribs. Two days prior to the incident while at a gas station, a stranger allegedly addressed the sergeant by the name of an institution gang unit investigator whom the sergeant said he resembles. It was suspected that the attack may have been a case of mistaken identity and that the attackers intended to attack the institution gang unit investigator. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department conducted a threat assessment investigation and placed a 24-hour protection detail on the sergeant's residence for each of the three days following the incident. Due to inconsistencies in the seargeant's statement, however, 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 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 to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 128 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 10-0378 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 11, 2009, an inmate alleged that unidentified staff members had sexually assaulted him every night for the preceding three months. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department did not sufficiently advise the bureau about the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0379 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 6, 2009, two inmates attacked a third inmate with a prison-made stabbing instrument. As a result, officers used chemical agent grenades and less- than-lethal weapons, as well as pepper spray to break up the fight. The attacked inmate was transported to a local hospital for treatment and returned to the institution. 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 on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 10-0380 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 4, 2009, an inmate cut his wrists. While being treated for the injuries, the inmate claimed he had been sexually assaulted by his cellmate the previous night. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 did not adequately notify or consult 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. 10-0381 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 14, 2008, three wards who were part of the institution's intensive treatment program attempted suicide at about the same time. The first ward was observed by staff attempting to tie a cloth noose around his neck. Staff entered the cell and prevented the ward from continuing his efforts. The second ward was found by staff unconscious hanging from a cloth noose in his cell. The staff members cut the noose and performed CPR before the ward was transported to an outside hospital. The third ward was found unresponsive in a pool of blood from self inflicted cuts on his body. He was transported to an outside hospital. A fourth ward, who was seen conversing with the three wards earlier in the day, was placed on suicide watch. All three wards were treated and were in stable condition within 24 hours of 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 The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all key aspects. The department's notification and consulation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 129 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPENDIX DISCIPLINARY ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS January through June 2010 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 130 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 10-0001 South Region (1) Parole Agent I * 10-0002 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer * 10-0003 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 10-0004 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Weapons Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Weapons Not Sustained Yes 10-0005 North Region (1) *Other Peace Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0006 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Weapons Not Sustained Yes 10-0007 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer Weapons N/A N/A 10-0008 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Weapons Not Sustained Yes 10-0009 South Region (1) <None> Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0010 South Region (1) Parole Agent I * 10-0011 Headquarters (1) Warden Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes 10-0012 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 10-0013 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes 10-0014 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 131 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 10-0015 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 10-0016 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 10-0017 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0018 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0019 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0020 Headquarters (1) Deputy Director Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes (1) Deputy Director Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes (1) Deputy Director Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes (1) Deputy Director Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Staff Services Analyst (Gen) * (3) Staff Services Manager II (Sup) * 10-0021 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Discrimination/Harassment Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 132 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (1) Correctional Officer Discrimination/Harassment Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Discrimination/Harassment Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes 10-0022 South Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Associate Warden Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (8) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (9) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0023 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes 10-0024 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Not Sustained Yes 10-0025 South Region (1) Youth Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Youth Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Youth Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (4) Youth Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0026 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 10-0027 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 133 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (4) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 10-0028 South Region (1) Cook II Contraband Sustained Yes (1) Cook II Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (1) Cook II Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (1) Cook II Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 10-0029 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0030 Headquarters (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (3) <None> Retaliation Not Sustained Yes 10-0031 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes 10-0032 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Not Sustained Yes 10-0033 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 10-0034 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 10-0035 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 134 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes 10-0036 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes 10-0037 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0038 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Battery Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 135 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 10-0039 Headquarters (1) Special Agent Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes 10-0040 North Region (1) *Other HCSD Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0041 South Region (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Use of Force Sustained Yes (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Failure to Report Sustained Yes (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Youth Correctional Counselor Failure to Report Sustained Yes (2) Youth Correctional Counselor Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Youth Correctional Counselor Dishonesty Sustained Yes (3) Youth Correctional Counselor Dishonesty Sustained Yes (3) Youth Correctional Counselor Use of Force Sustained Yes (3) Youth Correctional Counselor Failure to Report Sustained Yes 10-0042 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 136 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0043 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0044 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes 10-0045 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty 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 10-0046 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Weapons Sustained Yes 10-0047 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0048 North Region (1) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 10-0049 North Region (1) Correctional Counselor I Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Counselor I Insubordination Sustained Yes 10-0050 Headquarters (1) Deputy Commissioner (Exempt) Dishonesty Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 137 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (1) Deputy Commissioner (Exempt) Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 10-0051 Headquarters (1) Parole Agent III Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent III Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent III Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes 10-0052 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0053 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 10-0054 North Region (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 10-0055 North Region (1) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes 10-0056 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 10-0057 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0058 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 10-0059 Central Region (1) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Contraband Not Sustained Yes (1) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Controlled Substances Not Sustained Yes (1) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant * 10-0060 North Region (1) Dental Assistant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) <None> Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 138 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (2) <None> Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) <None> Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Chief Dental Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (3) Chief Dental Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 10-0061 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Discrimination/Harassment Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Discrimination/Harassment Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes 10-0062 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Lieutenant * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Correctional Sergeant * 10-0063 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 139 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 10-0064 Central Region (1) Lieutenant Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes (2) Associate Warden Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes 10-0065 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 10-0066 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Intoxication Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0067 South Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0068 North Region (1) Lieutenant Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0069 Headquarters (1) Warden * 10-0070 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0071 South Region (1) Lead Groundskeeper * 10-0072 South Region (1) Lead Groundskeeper Contraband Not Sustained No (1) Lead Groundskeeper Controlled Substances Sustained Yes (1) Lead Groundskeeper Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Lead Groundskeeper Insubordination Sustained Yes (1) Lead Groundskeeper Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 10-0073 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A 10-0074 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances N/A N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 140 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 10-0075 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0076 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0077 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 10-0078 Headquarters (1) Parole Agent I * 10-0079 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances N/A N/A 10-0080 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0081 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Battery N/A N/A (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation N/A N/A (2) <None> Battery N/A N/A (2) <None> Threat/Intimidation N/A N/A 10-0082 Central Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Assault Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Lieutenant Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Lieutenant Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes 10-0083 North Region (1) Parole Agent I Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0084 Headquarters (1) <None> Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes (1) <None> Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes (2) <None> Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes (2) <None> Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Lieutenant Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Lieutenant Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Lieutenant Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Lieutenant Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Lieutenant Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 141 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (5) Correctional Lieutenant Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Officer Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes (8) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes (8) Correctional Officer Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes (9) Correctional Officer Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes (9) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes (10) Correctional Sergeant Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes (10) Correctional Sergeant Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes (11) Correctional Lieutenant Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes (11) Correctional Lieutenant Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes 10-0085 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0086 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0087 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Sergeant * (4) Correctional Officer * 10-0088 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty N/A N/A (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty N/A N/A 10-0089 North Region (1) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Contraband Sustained Yes (1) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Contraband Sustained Yes (1) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Dishonesty Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 142 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (1) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (1) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 10-0090 Headquarters (1) Correctional Lieutenant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Captain Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Captain Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 10-0091 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Weapons Sustained Yes 10-0092 North Region (1) Correctional Officer * 10-0093 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 10-0094 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0095 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0096 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Weapons Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Weapons Sustained Yes 10-0097 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0098 Headquarters (1) Senior Special Agent Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 10-0099 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 143 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 10-0100 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0101 Central Region (1) Correctional Captain Dishonesty Sustained Yes 10-0102 South Region (1) Correctional Officer * 10-0103 Headquarters (1) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) * 10-0104 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0105 Headquarters (1) Associate Warden Confidential Information Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Captain Confidential Information Not Sustained Yes (3) Warden Confidential Information Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Lieutenant Confidential Information Not Sustained Yes 10-0106 North Region (1) Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Associate Warden Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 10-0107 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 10-0108 Headquarters (1) <None> Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes (1) <None> Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 10-0109 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0110 South Region (1) Youth Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (1) Youth Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No (1) Youth Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained No 10-0111 South Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes 10-0112 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 144 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (1) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes 10-0113 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0114 South Region (1) Fire Captain Intoxication Sustained Yes (1) Fire Captain Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes (1) Fire Captain Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0115 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Traffic Related Incidents While On Duty Not Sustained Yes 10-0116 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 10-0117 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer * 10-0118 Central Region (1) Correctional Captain Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Captain Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes 10-0119 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 145 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 10-0120 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Battery N/A N/A (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty N/A N/A 10-0121 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0122 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0123 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0124 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained No (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained No (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No 10-0125 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0126 Headquarters (1) Youth Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes (2) Youth Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes 10-0127 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 146 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes 10-0128 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0129 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0130 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes 10-0131 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 10-0132 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 10-0133 South Region (1) Correctional Officer * 10-0134 South Region (1) Cook II * 10-0135 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes 10-0136 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 147 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 10-0137 South Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes 10-0138 South Region (1) Correctional Officer * 10-0139 Headquarters (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Contraband Not Sustained Yes (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Failure to Report Sustained Yes (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 10-0140 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0141 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0142 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Assault Not Sustained No (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained No (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained No (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained No (2) Correctional Officer Assault Not Sustained No (2) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained No 10-0143 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 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? (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0144 Central Region (1) Associate Warden * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 10-0145 Headquarters (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Youth Correctional Counselor Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Youth Correctional Counselor Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0146 North Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0147 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 10-0148 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not 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? 10-0149 Headquarters (1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 10-0150 South Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes 10-0151 Headquarters (1) Senior Special Agent * (2) CEA Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0152 Headquarters (1) Senior Special Agent Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes 10-0153 Headquarters (1) Senior Special Agent Confidential Information Sustained Yes 10-0154 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes 10-0155 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A 10-0156 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Intoxication Sustained Yes 10-0157 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A 10-0158 North Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Lieutenant Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 10-0159 South Region (1) Materials And Stores Supv I * 10-0160 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer 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 150 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (6) Clinical Social Worker Failure to Report Sustained Yes 10-0161 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes 10-0162 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0163 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0164 North Region (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 10-0165 Headquarters (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Special Agent Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Special Agent Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Special Agent Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Special Agent Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) 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 (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 10-0166 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer * 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? 10-0167 Headquarters (1) Correctional Lieutenant Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained No (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Lieutenant Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Captain Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Captain Insubordination Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Captain Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Captain Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Captain Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 10-0168 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 10-0169 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances N/A N/A 10-0170 North Region (1) Psychiatric Technician Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 10-0171 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 10-0172 North Region (1) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 10-0173 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty 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? (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0174 Headquarters (1) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 10-0175 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer * 10-0176 South Region (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 10-0177 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes 10-0178 South Region (1) Vocational Instructor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Vocational Instructor Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (1) Vocational Instructor Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes 10-0179 South Region (1) Painter II * 10-0180 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 10-0181 South Region (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 10-0182 North Region (1) Correctional Counselor I Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 10-0183 South Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty 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? (1) Correctional Lieutenant Insubordination Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Lieutenant Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0184 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0185 North Region (1) Correctional Counselor II Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0186 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0187 Headquarters (1) Parole Agent I Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes 10-0188 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained No (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 10-0189 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Sexual Misconduct 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? 10-0190 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained No (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes 10-0191 North Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Lieutenant Intoxication Not Sustained Yes 10-0192 North Region (1) Cook I Contraband N/A N/A (1) Cook I Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 10-0193 Headquarters (1) Cook I Contraband Sustained Yes (1) Cook I Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 10-0194 South Region (1) Correctional Captain Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Misuse of Authority Not Sustained No (2) Correctional Lieutenant Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained No (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 10-0195 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Insubordination Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained No 10-0196 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not 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? 10-0197 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes 10-0198 South Region (1) Parole Agent II Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent II Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent II Insubordination Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent II Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent II Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0199 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 10-0200 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0201 North Region (1) Plumber II Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 10-0202 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0203 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A 10-0204 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0205 North Region (1) Plumber II Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes 10-0206 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0207 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer * 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? (2) Correctional Officer * 10-0208 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes 10-0209 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes 10-0210 North Region (1) Correctional Counselor I Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Counselor I Insubordination Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Counselor I Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0211 Central Region (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Contraband N/A N/A (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Controlled Substances N/A N/A 10-0212 Headquarters (1) Electrician II Contraband Sustained Yes (1) Electrician II Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Electrician II Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Electrician II Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0213 Headquarters (1) Correctional Sergeant Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained No 10-0214 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer * 10-0215 North Region (1) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Insubordination Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0216 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 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? 10-0217 South Region (1) Correctional Officer * 10-0218 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0219 North Region (1) Office Technician - General Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 10-0220 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer * 10-0221 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 10-0222 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 10-0223 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained No 10-0224 North Region (1) Painter II Contraband Sustained Yes (1) Painter II Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes (1) Painter II Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (1) Painter II Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes 10-0225 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 10-0226 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes 10-0227 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Confidential Information Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 10-0228 Central Region (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Contraband Sustained Yes (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Over-Familiarity 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? 10-0229 South Region (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Correctional Officer * 10-0230 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 10-0231 North Region (1) Clinical Social Worker Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (1) Clinical Social Worker Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 10-0232 South Region (1) Psychiatric Technician Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (1) Psychiatric Technician Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (1) Psychiatric Technician Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (1) Psychiatric Technician Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (1) Psychiatric Technician Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 10-0233 South Region (1) <None> Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes (1) <None> Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0234 South Region (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 10-0235 South Region (1) Youth Correctional Counselor * (2) Youth Correctional Counselor * 10-0236 South Region (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Contraband Not Sustained Yes (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Not 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? (2) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Youth Correctional Counselor Contraband Not Sustained Yes 10-0237 South Region (1) Parole Agent II Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent II Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (1) Parole Agent II Theft Not Sustained Yes (2) Parole Agent III Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Parole Agent III Theft Not Sustained Yes (3) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Parole Agent I Theft Not Sustained Yes (4) Parole Agent I Theft Not Sustained Yes (4) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 10-0238 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant * 10-0239 Central Region * (2) PIA Staff Supervisor * 10-0240 Headquarters (1) Deputy Commissioner (Exempt) * (2) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Parole Agent I Immorality Not Sustained Yes (2) Parole Agent I Inexcusable Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Parole Agent I Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes (2) Parole Agent I Violation of Section 19990 Not Sustained Yes 10-0241 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes (1) Correctional Sergeant Theft Sustained Yes 10-0242 South Region (1) Cook I Contraband Not Sustained Yes (1) Cook I Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (1) Cook I Over-Familiarity Not 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? (1) Cook I Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes (1) Cook I Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes 10-0243 South Region (1) Correctional Counselor I * 10-0244 South Region (1) Correctional Counselor I Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 10-0245 Headquarters (1) Labor Relations Analyst * Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 161 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA