Bureau of Independent Review, Semi-Annual Report, July – December 2007

O I G FFICE OF THE NSPECTOR ENERAL MATTHEW L. CATE, INSPECTOR GENERAL BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW DAVID R. SHAW CHIEF ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL ROBERT A. BARTON STEPHEN MILLER HOWARD E. MOSELEY TIM L. RIEGER ROY W. WESLEY SENIOR ASSISTANT INSPECTORS GENERAL SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JULY–DECEMBER 2007 MARCH 2008 STATE OF CALIFORNIA C ONTENTS FOREWORD......................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................2 ASSESSMENT OF THE MADRID REMEDIAL PLAN............................................................................3 OFFICE OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS...............................................................................3 EMPLOYMENT ADVOCACY AND PROSECUTION TEAM...........................................5 HIRING AUTHORITIES.............................................................................................6 SUMMARY OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES........................................................................................8 EXPLANATION OF TABLE FORMAT...............................................................................................12 TABLE OF DISTINGUISHED CASES.................................................................................................15 TABLE OF DEFICIENT CASES........................................................................................................17 TABLE OF SATISFACTORY CASES.................................................................................................22 TABLE OF APPEALED CASES.........................................................................................................76 TABLE OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS...................................................................................................81 APPENDIX: DISCIPLINARY ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS..........................................................106 F OREWORD S ince the Bureau of Independent Review’s inception three years ago, California’s correctional reform efforts have progressed markedly, and the bureau has cultivated a strong working relationship with the state’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The department continues to cooperate with the bureau to ensure the viability of the bureau’s oversight and monitoring functions—while making certain that the department’s internal affairs investigations and disciplinary actions are thorough, transparent, and fair. As Inspector General, I am dedicated to complying with the oversight model set forth in the federal court’s reform plan. My office’s prison monitoring duties have expanded, and likewise the bureau has added more staff members to provide better oversight to the department’s Office of Internal Affairs and Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team. Moreover, a culture of collaboration is developing as department and bureau staff members work together to accomplish these essential reforms. I was encouraged by several positive outcomes during this reporting period. For instance, the bureau found that the department arrived at a reasonable conclusion in the vast majority of monitored cases and that most investigations complied with department policies and procedures. However, there remains room for improvement, and it will be the bureau’s job to push the department toward full compliance with the oversight model, thus bringing California one step closer to establishing a safe and just correctional system. As we mark the third year of bureau operations, I would like to extend my support and heartfelt thanks to the department and to all the stakeholders who assisted with the bureau’s operations. I would also like to thank the attorneys, investigators, and support staff of the Bureau of Independent Review. — MATTHEW L. CATE, INSPECTOR GENERAL BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 1 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA I NTRODUCTION I am pleased to present the Bureau of Independent Review’s sixth semi-annual report, which documents bureau oversight activities from July 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. The bureau became operational nearly three years ago with a mission to promote integrity, accountability, and transparency within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation while complying with applicable privacy laws. Consistent with that purpose, Penal Code section 6133 requires the bureau to publish semi-annual reports detailing its monitoring work to the public. Since its creation, the bureau has actively assisted the department in implementing many reforms to its disciplinary process mandated by the Madrid federal court case. As you will see in this report, the Madrid reforms continued to gain momentum during this recent six-month period. I am pleased to report that the oversight model has had a positive affect on the department’s operations, as shown by the department’s improved procedural compliance with the Madrid reforms. During this reporting period, the bureau also began to monitor use-of-force reviews at all department institutions and facilities. I would like to thank several individuals for their support of the bureau. The bureau has received the continued support of the Inspector General and his executive staff members, who have made bureau operations a primary focus within the Office of the Inspector General. I would also like to commend my counterparts at the department, in particular those at the Office of Internal Affairs and the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team whose daily support and cooperation has helped the bureau to carry out its oversight responsibilities. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to my staff members at the bureau. Their hard work and commitment to the bureau’s mission has significantly contributed to the progress achieved in implementing the Madrid reforms. I invite you to review this semi-annual report at www.oig.ca.gov and provide us with your feedback. — DAVID R. SHAW, CHIEF ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL, BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 2 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA A M R P SSESSMENT OF THE ADRID EMEDIAL LAN The following summary provides a general assessment of the essential entities within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation responsible for investigating, litigating, and implementing the employee disciplinary process from July through December 2007. Specifically, these entities include the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA), which serves as the investigatory arm of the department, the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team (EAPT), which provides legal representation to the department in disciplinary matters, and the hiring authorities who ultimately determine what, if any, discipline is imposed. A detailed assessment of each bureau-monitored case that was completed by the department’s internal disciplinary process during this six-month period is presented in the tables later in this report. Office of Internal Affairs During this reporting period, the relationship between the OIA and the bureau remained strong at the headquarters level and continued to improve at the regional level. As in the last semi-annual report, the bureau found most investigations to be substantially compliant with department policies and procedures, with the bureau’s assistance. On a statewide level, the OIA accomplished a significant achievement by implementing a complicated conversion to an upgraded case management system. The upgraded system has many benefits, including enhanced data integrity and the ability to track a case through the entire disciplinary process. Although the conversion process was completed after its projected time frame with some collateral issues affecting bureau monitoring of the system, its implementation was worth the occasional missteps along the way. As previously reported, the OIA also continued plans to establish regional offices and, in fact, has hired special agents to staff a satellite office in Blythe. However, because the OIA has not secured office space in Blythe, the special agents have been placed in temporary working quarters within one of the institutions—where the OIA conducts investigations. Besides the concerns the bureau expressed in the last semi-annual report about the establishment of satellite offices, this current development raises new concerns about the ability to preserve the integrity of investigations and case materials during this temporary arrangement. During this reporting period, the OIA central intake process further improved with the development of a new communications procedure between the special agents, the department attorneys, and the bureau. In short, the central intake unit now provides the agenda to participants a few days before each meeting, then department and bureau attorneys forward questions about the agenda to the OIA in advance of the meetings. This process has allowed fewer cases to be held over to future meetings and has increased the efficiency of panel meetings. In the last report, the bureau expressed concern about the growing tendency of the central intake unit to send cases back to hiring authorities to take disciplinary action without an OIA investigation. Since then, there has been a positive change in this trend, and the bureau observed a decrease in the number of cases approved for disciplinary action without an OIA investigation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 3 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Another positive development in this reporting period was a decrease in the number of delayed referrals from hiring authorities compared to the previous six months. At the same time, the central intake unit experienced a decrease in the overall number of cases referred to it from hiring authorities. If this trend continues, the bureau recommends that the OIA look into the trend to determine its cause. Unfortunately, the bureau’s concerns about the central intake unit expressed in the last report have continued, and additional concerns have surfaced. Among these concerns is the hesitancy to open an investigation when the complainant is an inmate or when the subject’s identity is unclear, as well as an exaggerated concern that an investigation will negatively affect an employee, as it can equally exonerate the subject from unwarranted allegations. Further, turnover within the central intake unit also continued during this reporting period. The central intake unit continued to be staffed primarily by newer special agents who quickly transfer into other assignments within the OIA. Thus, the central intake unit has experienced both a lack of staffing and experience, which negatively affects this critical component of the Madrid reforms. The bureau believes that the OIA would be well served by determining the reason special agents do not remain in the central intake unit—and take affirmative steps to address the cause. To improve the quality of investigations, the OIA has continued to develop a comprehensive investigator’s field guide. To their credit, OIA management sent the guide to the Office of the Attorney General for a full legal review. The OIA has also made commendable advances in training for special agents. The northern region management conducted a comprehensive revision of the training regimen for the department’s special agents, which includes formal peace officer investigative training and on-the-job training requirements. Statewide training has begun, and the OIA northern region completed the first iteration of training. In addition, the OIA provided the special investigations unit members with specialized training in multiple subject areas, which should expand this team’s effectiveness. At the same time, the bureau believes that both the special investigations unit and the deadly force investigation team were underutilized. The deadly force investigation team failed to promptly and routinely respond to the scene of incidents where department peace officers used deadly force. The OIA often relied on lesser-trained institutional staff members to secure and process the incident area, preserve evidence, and begin the investigative process, thus defeating the purpose of having a team of specially trained OIA agents to rapidly respond to and handle such serious incidents. Likewise, the special investigations unit was not often assigned cases involving sensitive employees or subject matter while these cases were instead assigned to regional offices for investigation. In the last half of 2007, despite bureau concerns, the OIA northern region continued to conduct several “preliminary investigations” before criminal and administrative cases were reviewed or officially opened for investigation by the central intake unit. This unofficial practice increases the risk that these cases will not receive a thorough review regarding the type of investigation to open, the proper subjects to identify, or the appropriate allegations to investigate. In addition, this practice defeats the transparency model that is central to the Madrid reform process. Other than BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 4 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA the small subset of cases just discussed, the northern region special agents were more cooperative with the bureau during regular monitoring activities than during the previous reporting period, and newly hired special agents clearly made efforts to comply with the monitoring model. The OIA’s central region management has continued to make a strong effort to fully staff this office by hiring ten new special agents. The central region has also invested time and energy into training new special agents and senior special agents. By necessity, the training caused some delays in case assignments but, in time, the delays should be resolved. The bureau has not yet had the opportunity to assess the work product of all the new special agents; however, they seem to be receptive to cooperating with the monitoring model. The growth in the relationship between the OIA’s southern region and the bureau noted in the last report continued during this reporting period. Special agents exhibited an increased willingness to cooperate with the bureau, and those who did not were in a clear minority. The southern region’s greatest challenge continued to be completing quality investigations in a timely manner. While most agents diligently pursue investigations, some cases are still not completed on time. One factor that contributed to the southern region’s ability to complete its cases was the retirement or transfer of experienced special agents. At the same time, the recent increase in the number of senior special agents was noticeable during this reporting period because the number of special agents assigned to each supervisor decreased. This positive change should provide supervising special agents an increased ability to interact with special agents on cases. Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team In the last report, the bureau reported that the EAPT addressed structural problems noted by the bureau by creating assistant chief counsel positions. The presence of these assistant chief counsels has been a positive change during this reporting period. In fact, in the last report, the EAPT received a rating that indicated a failure to comply with department policies and procedures in the majority of cases. In this report, the bureau found the EAPT to be in at least partial compliance with department policies and procedures on the majority of cases. Therefore, the EAPT is to be commended for making progress in improving its legal services to the OIA and the hiring authorities within the department. During this reporting period, the EAPT and the bureau held a joint training program for department attorneys and bureau staff members to address legal issues related to employee discipline. Because of this joint program’s success, both the EAPT and the bureau are committed to continuing joint training programs in the future. Further, each month the EAPT—in consultation with the bureau—reviewed decisions from the State Personnel Board and appropriately determined which decisions should be appealed. The headquarters assistant chief counsel has actively engaged in the central intake process, thus providing important and consistent legal input to the central intake panel meetings. At the same time, the EAPT headquarters staff still struggled with managing its caseload during this period. However, the headquarters assistant chief counsel and the bureau implemented a monthly meeting to discuss cases assigned to EAPT headquarters. In addition, the disciplinary unit for the BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 5 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Division of Juvenile Justice and other non-institutional portions of the department was moved under the daily supervision of the EAPT headquarters assistant chief counsel. This change in supervision has allowed the disciplinary unit to more readily seek advice from department attorneys, while the attorneys work to ensure that cases are properly pursued. The bureau believes these positive changes will be effective tools to improve the EAPT’s ability to effectively manage its caseload in the future. During this reporting period, the EAPT northern region continued to fill positions as they became vacant. The assistant chief counsel actively engaged in training these new attorneys and established procedures that have allowed the northern region to provide better service to its hiring authorities. Despite these improvements, the vertical advocates have not been able to fully involve themselves in the model’s investigative process. While the EAPT northern region has improved service to the OIA northern region special agents and hiring authorities, additional measures must be taken to achieve the paradigm envisioned in the remedial plan. In the central region, the EAPT gained a supervising attorney who is located in the regional office, as well as additional attorneys. As a result, the EAPT improved its caseload management and provision of services to the department. Moreover, the central region attorneys should be commended for diligently providing legal assistance to the OIA agents in the southern region with a major project involving search and use-of-force issues. Overall, the relationship between the bureau and the EAPT central region office has been good. However, office space for the EAPT in the same building as the OIA and the bureau was unavailable; the EAPT will move to temporary office space across the street. The bureau is concerned that during the next reporting period this move will deny the central region of the benefits gained from the OIA, the EAPT, and the bureau being located in the same building. The EAPT established a southern region office located within a few miles of the OIA and bureau offices. In addition, an assistant chief counsel relocated to work at that office. The presence of attorneys within the region allowed the EAPT to begin to improve its services to the southern part of the state. But despite diligent recruiting efforts, the southern office continued to be seriously understaffed for the number of cases and hiring authorities it was designed to serve. Also, with some notable exceptions, there was still a substantial failure by attorneys to comply with the department Operations Manual requirements, specifically in the areas of providing written analysis memorandums and attending initial case conferences and critical witness interviews. Hiring Authorities The department’s executive management has continued to support the bureau and its monitoring activities during this reporting period. The hiring authorities were again, with bureau assistance, found to be in substantial compliance with department policies and procedures in the majority of cases reported, and the number of complaint cases has actually increased slightly over the last report. The Division of Adult Institutions continued to have a strong relationship with the bureau during this reporting period. The division was cooperative in implementing the bureau’s monitoring of BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 6 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA use-of-force committee meetings and actively began working on revising its use-of-force policy, as recommended by the bureau. Unfortunately, the division still has many key personnel in acting division management and warden positions, which had some impact on continuity and uniformity in disciplinary matters. Moreover, at times, changes in institutional employee relations officers coupled with the lack of a good training program for these officers resulted in failures to comply with the monitoring model. As the EAPT program grows, the bureau hopes that it can provide better service to the hiring authorities, including providing direction and training to institutional employee relations officers. Since the bureau’s last report, the Division of Adult Parole Operations has taken positive steps toward fully implementing the Madrid reforms. During this reporting period, the division conducted a daylong training session for administrators involved in disciplinary decisions about the processes mandated by Article 22 of the department’s Operations Manual. Division management actively communicated with the department attorneys and the bureau and has established a regular meeting to discuss relevant parole issues. However, the bureau is concerned that the division has yet to institute thorough and timely use-of-force reviews. Although the division still lags behind its institutional counterpart in implementation of the Madrid reforms, it has become more compliant during this reporting period. Also during this reporting period, the Division of Juvenile Justice has clearly communicated to the bureau that it now understands that the Madrid reforms apply to its programs and has expressed its intent to fully implement them within the division. Further, the division has actively consulted with the central intake unit to improve the quality of information it sends to the panel to ensure that allegations of misconduct are properly investigated. Although the relationship with this division is not yet as strong as the relationship with the Division of Adult Institutions, there has been an improvement in the level of consultation between the bureau and the facility superintendents within this division. Like the Division of Adult Institutions, this division also has several acting facility superintendents, which adversely affects continuity within the division. Regrettably, the Division of Health Care Services has yet to actively engage with the bureau to implement the Madrid reforms. For instance, when medical staff members commit acts of misconduct, the health care hiring authority rarely forwards the allegation to the central intake unit, but instead forwards it to the custody hiring authority. Nevertheless, there has been an increase in the number of newly appointed hiring authorities for health care. The bureau is cautiously optimistic that these new management personnel will allow each hiring authority to focus more attention on the employees they supervise, as well as more actively engage in consultation with the bureau. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 7 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTING TREND 300 239 250 221 206 193 200 150 100 73 50 27 0 JAN - JUN JUL - DEC JAN - JUN JUL - DEC JAN - JUN JUL - DEC 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 MONITORED CASE TYPES 31 35 CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATIVE OTHER 155 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 8 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SESAC RIB S M A UMMARY OF ONITORING CTIVITIES Case Monitoring Activities Caseload trends. The bureau primarily monitors cases involving internal affairs investigations as well as some cases where disciplinary action is taken without an investigation. The bureau determines whether to monitor a case based on the misconduct alleged, the bureau’s monitoring criteria, and other available information. Once the bureau selects a case for monitoring, the bureau consults with all the department entities involved in the case. If an investigation is conducted, the bureau makes recommendations on the investigative plan and observes important interviews. If the case is administrative, the bureau also confers with the hiring authorities regarding findings and disciplinary penalties. For cases to which a department attorney is assigned, the bureau provides feedback to the attorney regarding case development. Once the department’s internal disciplinary process has concluded, the bureau evaluates the case in this report. For the six-month period ending December 31, 2007, the bureau is prepared to report on 221 monitored cases. When compared to the last two six-month reporting periods, it is evident that the bureau’s monitoring activities have remained consistent, as shown in the chart to the right. During the July to December 2006 reporting period, the bureau reported 206 cases; the bureau reported 239 cases during the January to June 2007 reporting period. Case types. Consistent with past practice, most investigations monitored by the bureau involved allegations of administrative misconduct, while a smaller portion involved allegations of criminal misconduct. As the chart to the right shows, 186 of the reported cases involved alleged administrative misconduct; this number includes 31 cases in which the department took action without an investigation. In addition, 35 cases involved alleged criminal misconduct. This equates to 84 percent administrative cases and 16 percent criminal cases reported during this six-month period. The bureau’s emphasis on administrative misconduct is not accidental. As set forth in the Madrid reforms, the bureau’s primary responsibility is to ensure the department adequately investigates and disciplines a broad range of administrative misconduct. Allegation distribution. Misconduct cases usually include multiple allegations. The cases documented in this report involved a range of allegations. However, the following allegations were charged most often in the reported cases: • Improper use of force • Dishonesty in official reports or during investigative interviews • Failure to report misconduct committed by another or oneself • Overly familiar conduct between staff and those in their custody and care • Sexual misconduct The first three allegations are of particular concern to the bureau because, if proven true, serious civil rights violations may have occurred. The remaining two allegations are of concern because acts of sexual misconduct and overly familiar interactions between staff members and those in Allegation Distribution their custody often compromise the safety and 250 203 security of correctional institutions. Because of 200 the gravity of these allegations, the bureau 150 117 124 focuses substantial monitoring activities on cases 100 66 46 50 31 involving the five allegations listed above. During 0 t c t h h a i e s s e r r s i e g i p h n o t v r p o ti r l n v o g e v d i p d t e e h r s e i o a s d e b , f r 6 i e v 5 a e k p a d e l o r l c e w e g n n a t t o i o o f f n t h s th . e e T n h r u e e m p c o b h r e t a r e r d o t f t o Use of force Dishonesty Failure to Report Over Fa miliarit S y exual Misconduct Other cases reported that included each of these five categories of allegations. Case findings. The most important step in the disciplinary process occurs when the hiring authority makes findings regarding the alleged misconduct. In an administrative case, this step involves the hiring authority reviewing the investigative report or other material related to the misconduct and determining whether the allegations have been proven true by a preponderance of the evidence. Unfortunately, among the 186 administrative investigations reported by the bureau, data concerning these findings are only available in 113 cases because the department failed to include this information in its case management system. This gap in data has been ADMINISTRATIVE CASE CONCLUSIONS brought to the department’s attention yet again, but the department has been unable to remedy this problem. Meanwhile, the 113 cases for 73 78 which data are available reveal that hiring authorities sustained the allegations against staff Sustained 35 members in 78 of those cases, which equates to Not Sustained 69 percent. This information is depicted in the Missing Data chart to the right. Bureau assessment. As reflected in the tables in this report, for this six-month reporting period, the bureau identified five distinguished cases, meaning cases with a reasonable outcome and substantial compliance with department procedures. In contrast, the bureau identified eight deficient cases, defined as cases with an unreasonable outcome. As depicted in the chart to the BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 9 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA right, the bureau also identified 208 satisfactory CASE ASSESSMENTS cases, meaning cases that resulted in a reasonable outcome but contained procedural problems. In addition, the bureau found that in monitored Distinguished Cases 208 cases, the three primary entities responsible for 8 Deficient Cases 5 Satisfactory Cases implementing the Madrid reforms were procedurally compliant with department policies and procedures more often than not. The OIA was substantially compliant in 70 percent of cases, partially compliant in 27 percent, and deficient in 3 percent. The EAPT was substantially compliant in 18 percent of cases, partially compliant in 54 percent, and deficient in 28 percent. Finally, department hiring authorities were substantially compliant in 72 percent of cases, partially compliant in 24 percent, and deficient in 4 percent. As the chart below indicates, these statistics represent an improvement since the last reporting period. 2007 Case Ratings 180 159 160 140 130 129 119 120 100 80 65 67 60 55 50 51 46 43 34 40 24 22 20 11 5 8 8 0 Jan-Jun Jul-Dec Jan-Jun Jul-Dec Jan-Jun Jul-Dec OIA OIA EAPT EAPT HA HA Perhaps the most noteworthy statistic for this reporting period is the number of cases in which the department reached a reasonable outcome. Specifically, the outcome was reasonable in 96 percent of the reported cases. It is significant to note that after only three years of implementing the monitoring model, the department has arrived at a reasonable disposition in the vast majority of reported cases. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 10 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA sesaC fo rebmuN Substantial Compliance Partial Compliance Failure to Comply Critical Incidents Caseload Trends. As in each of the bureau’s previous reports, a table is included to Critical Incidents summarize the bureau’s monitoring activities related to critical incidents. The most 25 22 common type of critical incident the bureau 20 15 15 15 selects to monitor involves a significant use 9 10 7 of force that results in the death or serious 5 3 3 injury of an inmate or staff member. The 0 c i e s n i v h t c a u a i l r a d u t t e i a t n o o te t n s t d . h f I e t o n h r r e a i w g d d h d h e t i i p t c s a i h h o r o t n t m h w , e t e s h n b e t t h u ’ b s e r u e h t a r y a e u p n a e r d u e s l s r i o n e p f c g o o c n o m r d f i e t m t i d h c e a e a n l n d d s Use o U f s d e e a o d f l f y o r fo ce rc r e esulting fro m Riot In mat U e n s e u x ic p i e d c e ted in mate death In mate ho micide Sexual assault Other that, if warranted, the OIA initiate an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the critical incident. Critical Incident Responses 80 74 During this six-month period, the bureau 70 61 61 concluded its monitoring activities for 74 60 48 50 critical incidents. As demonstrated in the 40 chart to the right, when compared to the 30 20 last two six-month reporting periods, it is 20 10 evident that the bureau’s overall 0 monitoring activities are increasing. JUL - DEC JAN - JUN JUL - DEC JAN - JUN JUL - DEC 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 11 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA E T F XPLANATION OF ABLE ORMAT The tables that follow provide the public with the bureau’s assessment of individual cases and critical incidents monitored by the bureau. The case tables, which appear first, provide the bureau’s assessment of the department’s internal affairs investigations and employee discipline actions related to alleged misconduct. The appealed cases table provides additional information regarding the resolution of cases originally reported in prior semi-annual reports. Finally, the critical incidents table provides an assessment of how the department responded to these important incidents. Format of Case Tables The bureau’s approach to assessing individual cases focuses on the ultimate outcome, or disposition, of each case. A case in which the outcome was reasonable is presented as either a distinguished case or a satisfactory case, depending on how well the department complied with its policies and procedures in handling the case. Cases in which the disposition of the case was unreasonable are presented as deficient cases. Assessing the Disposition of Cases The disposition in each case, which includes the allegations, findings, and penalty imposed, if any, has been given one of the following ratings: Symbol Rating Explanation Given the totality of the circumstances, the disposition of the case was reasonable and substantially consistent with the bureau’s recommendations. In addition, the department substantially complied with critical policies and procedures applicable to the case. Given the totality of the circumstances, the disposition of the case was reasonable and substantially consistent with the bureau’s recommendations. However, the department failed to comply with some critical policies and procedures applicable to the case. Given the totality of the circumstances, the disposition of the case was unreasonable and inconsistent with the bureau’s recommendations. The disposition of the case was unreasonable and inconsistent with the bureau’s recommendations but later rectified as the result of executive review; 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 12 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 advocacy (ADV); and the hiring authorities (HA), which determine the discipline to impose. Each critical entity is assessed with one of the following ratings: Symbol Rating Explanation There was substantial compliance with critical policies and procedures. There was partial compliance with critical policies and procedures. There was a failure to comply with critical policies and procedures. There was insufficient data to provide an assessment or, because of the nature of the case, the individual component was not involved. The rating for each critical entity appears in the INV, ADV, and HA columns for each case the bureau monitored. As mentioned above, the bureau’s monitored cases are presented in the following three categories: Distinguished cases – cases that resulted in reasonable outcomes that were handled well by each critical entity. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 13 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Deficient cases – cases that initially resulted in unreasonable outcomes or cases in which the applicable statutory deadline expired before the case was resolved. Satisfactory cases – cases that resulted in reasonable outcomes despite not being handled well by one or more of the critical entities. Format of Appealed Cases Table The appealed cases table provides updated information regarding cases published in prior semi- annual reports. The bureau initially reports administrative actions when the department has determined whether to impose discipline on an employee, and if discipline is to be imposed, the department has served the employee with disciplinary documents. However, employees may request a hearing to challenge the disciplinary action before the State Personnel Board, an independent state agency. The bureau continues to monitor the case through this appeal process. If there is a significant modification in the discipline after an appeal is filed, the bureau publicly reports this change in the appealed cases table. Each case in the appealed cases table is listed in ascending order by the case’s original number in a prior semi-annual report. The first two digits of the case number reflect the year the case was reported, and the second number reflects the order in which the case was reported during that year. For example, case number 05-0012 was the twelfth case appearing in the 2005 semi-annual reports. Cases appear in the appealed cases table after resolution, and they complete the appeal process at various times. Therefore, by design, there are gaps in the number sequence of the appealed cases table. Format of Critical Incidents Table The critical incidents table provides a text-based description regarding the facts of the incident, the disposition of the case, and the bureau’s assessment of how the department responded to the incident. The bureau’s assessment addresses the following critical components of the department’s response: • Did the department appropriately respond to the incident? • Was the bureau properly consulted, as mandated by the Madrid reforms? • Did the department properly determine whether to refer the matter for investigation? • If the matter was referred for investigation, did the OIA properly handle the referral? When the bureau accepts an investigation for monitoring, it is reported in the case tables of the semi-annual report when the case has completed the department’s internal disciplinary process. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 14 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHED CASES Case No. 07-0288 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 9, 2006, three inmate porters asked permission to bring an inmate out to the recreation yard, but DISPO INV ADV HA not the inmate's cellmate, whose conduct had concerned the porters. Two officers agreed and opened the cell for the porters to bring out the inmate. The cellmate also attempted to leave the cell for the yard, but the porters assaulted him to keep him in the cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against both officers were sustained. One officer agreed to a 52 working day suspension, and the other officer agreed to a 49 working day suspension. Case No. 07-0289 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 25, 2006, a registered nurse working at an outside hospital alleged that he observed two officers, who DISPO INV ADV HA were guarding a prisoner, leave a weapon in a holster unsecured and unattended under a chair. DISPOSITION OF CASE Originally, the allegations were sustained, and the officers received 60 working day suspensions. Following the Skelly hearing and after further inquiry, the allegations were not sustained, and the suspensions were rescinded. Case No. 07-0290 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 19, 2005, information was received alleging that a senior radiological technologist made sexual DISPO INV ADV HA comments about inmates' x-rays, touched inmate patients in a sexual manner, and x-rayed inmates inappropriately. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, and the employee was dismissed. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0291 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 27, 2005, a parole agent allegedly slammed a parolee against an office wall, creating a large hole. DISPO INV ADV HA In addition, the agent was allegedly dishonest during the investigation. Two other agents reportedly witnessed the incident and failed to report the misconduct, and a supervising parole agent reportedly failed to follow policies and procedures in responding to the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the parole agents who allegedly observed the incident because of insufficient evidence. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the parole agent who allegedly used unreasonable force and dismissed the agent for dishonesty during the investigation. The supervising parole agent's allegation was also sustained, and he received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. Both the parole agent and the supervising parole agent filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 15 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHED CASES Case No. 07-0292 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 5, 2005, an officer allegedly used a side-handle baton to strike an inmate four to five times while the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate attempted to flush suspected contraband down the toilet. Moments after the incident, the officer made spontaneous statements regarding his belief that the inmate had narcotics. Thereafter, the officer allegedly falsified his incident report and asserted that the inmate possibly possessed a weapon to justify the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. The State Personnel Board resolved the officer's appeal in favor of the department and upheld the dismissal. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 16 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 07-0293 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 1, 2006, two officers allegedly refused to release an inmate for medical treatment after he reported DISPO INV ADV HA that he was having difficulty breathing due to an asthma attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Although the incident was alleged to have occurred on September 1, 2006, the hiring authority did not request an investigation until December 13, 2006, over three months later. In addition, due to a clerical error in the Office of Internal Affairs, an investigator was not assigned to the case for eight months. As a result, the investigation was not completed until after the deadline for taking disciplinary action had passed. Therefore, had the allegations been sustained, the department would have been prevented from taking disciplinary action. Case No. 07-0294 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2006, a sergeant allegedly slammed a disabled inmate against a wall. On June 22, 2007, the same DISPO INV ADV HA sergeant allegedly grabbed another inmate by the throat, and on September 22, 2007, the sergeant allegedly sprained yet another inmate's thumb by twisting it. In addition, the sergeant allegedly failed to report the use of force in one of the incidents and was allegedly dishonest in reporting another. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, but the statutory deadline expired before discipline could be imposed for the June 22, 2006, incident and for the alleged dishonesty. The sergeant received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months as a result of the remaining allegations. The sergeant has appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority did not submit a request for investigation to the Office of Internal Affairs until January 2007. Despite the delay, the Office of Internal Affairs completed the investigation in a timely manner. The hiring authority, however, delayed reviewing the investigative report until after the deadline for taking disciplinary action for the June 22, 2006, incident and the dishonesty allegation had expired. The hiring authority's delay prevented the department from imposing discipline for the most serious of the allegations and resulted in a significantly lesser penalty imposed against the sergeant. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 17 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 07-0295 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 2, 2006, two parole agents, working as part of a task force, observed a citizen engage in a narcotics DISPO INV ADV HA transaction and detained him. The parole agents allegedly drove the detained citizen around the city in an attempt to locate his residence. The citizen was later arrested and booked into county jail. The court concluded the citizen was detained beyond what was allowed by law and dismissed the criminal charges related to the narcotics transaction. The parole agents allegedly failed to disclose in their reports or while testifying that they detained the citizen for three hours. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. One parole agent received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months and has filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The other parole agent was initially served with a notice of dismissal for being dishonest, but the notice was withdrawn after it was determined that the time to take action had expired. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Although the Office of Internal Affairs completed the investigation on August 15, 2007, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations until September 11, 2007, just five days before the deadline to take disciplinary action. One parole agent was personally served with a notice of disciplinary action. The disciplinary action against the other parole agent was inappropriately served by mail. The parole agent was to be dismissed, but the hiring authority had to withdraw the action because it was not served in a timely manner. The employee relations officer who was responsible for serving the disciplinary action indicated that she had not received training and did not know how to properly serve a disciplinary action by mail. Case No. 07-0296 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 11, 2006, it was alleged that a medical technical assistant failed to provide adequate medical DISPO INV ADV HA treatment when responding to an unconscious inmate. It was also alleged that the medical technical assistant neglected to properly follow medical emergency procedures and delayed outside emergency care. The inmate later died. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were initially determined to be unfounded despite the medical technical assistant's admission that she was negligent in her duties. Ultimately, the allegations were sustained and she received a letter of reprimand for neglect of duty. It was determined that the medical technical assistant's actions did not contribute to the inmate's death because the inmate was already receiving CPR when she arrived on the scene. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority did not initially request an investigation; the department's death review committee requested the investigation. The hiring authority did not initially consult with the bureau and initially failed to appropriately sustain any allegations against the subject, even though the subject admitted her neglect of duty and failure to follow policy and procedure. The hiring authority ultimately sustained the allegations and issued a letter of reprimand. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 18 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 07-0297 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 27, 2006, outside law enforcement responded to a home occupied by two officers. One officer had DISPO INV ADV HA bite marks on his legs and arm, a scratch about six inches in length across his neck, and large marks on his eye and arm. The other officer was arrested for domestic violence. The officer pled guilty to misdemeanor false imprisonment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department dismissed the officer because, according to the department, the conviction prohibited her from carrying a firearm under federal law. Therefore, she could no longer serve as a California peace officer. The dismissal was considered non-punitive because it was based on the officer no longer meeting the minimum qualifications for her job, as opposed to disciplining the officer for the underlying criminal conduct. The officer appealed the non-punitive dismissal to the State Personnel Board. The State Personnel Board overturned the non- punitive dismissal based on an alternative interpretation of the federal firearms law, and the officer was reinstated. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department pursued only a non-punitive dismissal in this case. The bureau recommended that the department also impose discipline against the officer for the criminal conduct because the non-punitive dismissal was based on an unsettled area of the law. Imposing discipline for the criminal conduct would have preserved the department's ability to take disciplinary action against the officer, regardless of the State Personnel Board's decision on the non-punitive dismissal. Case No. 07-0298 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE During September 2005, it was alleged that an office technician inappropriately used a state computer to access DISPO INV ADV HA the Internet and view sexually explicit images while at work. It was also alleged that the office technician was dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation concerning misuse of state equipment but did not sustain the dishonesty allegation. The office technician received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months, which he did not appeal. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Despite the investigation clearly establishing that the office technician was dishonest during the internal affairs investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegation. The investigation was completed in February 2006, yet the department's legal office and the hiring authority delayed making a decision regarding the allegations and did not impose discipline until February 2007. The department determined that it would not be able to justify dismissing the office technician for dishonesty when he had been allowed to work for over a year without incident after the investigation was concluded. The bureau found the department's failure to sustain the dishonesty allegation in a timely manner unreasonable. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 19 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 07-0299 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 28, 2005, during an investigative interview, a health care administrator acknowledged terminating DISPO INV ADV HA the department's contract with a doctor for a variety of reasons, including as retaliation for the doctor's reporting of misconduct by another department employee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation that the health care administrator terminated the doctor's contract for reporting misconduct of another employee was sustained, and a 14 working day suspension was imposed. The health care administrator appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The initial hiring authority minimized the misconduct and did not sustain the allegation regarding retaliation, nor did the hiring authority determine an appropriate penalty for the misconduct, contrary to the recommendations of the department's attorney and the bureau. After an executive review of the case, the department sustained the allegations. However, the department delayed making a final determination about the allegations and penalty for over five months. As a result, the deadline for taking disciplinary action had to be extended. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 20 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 07-0300 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 27, 2004, an inmate refused an order to give up a blanket and then forcibly resisted officers' attempts DISPO INV ADV HA to retrieve it. In response, the officers used multiple canisters of pepper spray, baton strikes, and physical force. After being decontaminated from the pepper spray exposure, the inmate resisted officers' attempts to reapply handcuffs. The officers again responded with force and used additional canisters of pepper spray directed mainly at the inmate's face. A spit mask was then put over the inmate's head, and he was placed in restraints on a gurney and taken to the medical clinic. The inmate was not decontaminated a second time, nor was the spit mask removed despite the inmate's complaints of being unable to breathe. The inmate stopped breathing and died at the clinic while four officers held him on the gurney. The supervising sergeant of the unit where the incident began allegedly failed to ensure the inmate was decontaminated after being sprayed with pepper spray the second time. An officer who assisted in transporting the inmate to the clinic was allegedly dishonest when he later said that upon arriving at the clinic he told a clinic supervisor that the inmate should be decontaminated. The officer allegedly did nothing else to ensure the inmate was decontaminated despite the inmate saying he was unable to breathe. DISPOSITION OF CASE After the investigation concluded in February 2006, the hiring authority sustained the allegations. The supervising sergeant involved in the use of force received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months, and the officer was dismissed. The hiring authority later offered to reduce the supervising sergeant's penalty to a letter of reprimand, but the sergeant refused to settle the case. In July 2006, the hiring authority expressed a desire to withdraw the discipline against both the supervising sergeant and the officer, however the bureau objected. In September 2006, an executive review was conducted with the warden's supervisor. After further review, the discipline against both the supervising sergeant and the officer was eventually withdrawn by the department. As a result of this case, the department revised its policy to clarify the responsibilities of staff when using pepper spray and spit masks. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau was not given a specific reason for the hiring authority's change of decision, other than the hiring authority felt the initial decision was wrong and that it had been pressured into the decision by the department's attorney and the bureau. The bureau requested an executive review of the case, which resulted in the department's director of adult operations upholding the hiring authority's decision to withdraw discipline over the bureau's objection. The decision to withdraw all discipline was unreasonable under the circumstances of the investigation in this case. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 21 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0301 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In November 2007, a caseload audit revealed a parole agent allegedly failed to properly document his mileage DISPO INV ADV HA log and hours worked. Further, the audit revealed the agent allegedly failed to maintain his field book of parolee supervision activities and falsified anti-narcotic tests in his records of supervision. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, and the parole agent was dismissed. The parole agent did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0302 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 19, 2007, it was alleged that a licensed vocational nurse brought tobacco and drugs into the DISPO INV ADV HA institution and was sending inappropriate correspondence to an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The nurse resigned from her position following her investigative interview regarding the allegations. Case No. 07-0303 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 15, 2007, guilty verdicts were returned in a federal criminal case against one sergeant and two DISPO INV ADV HA officers. This case involved the sergeant on one of the officers. Their convictions stemmed from a May 9, 2002, incident where several inmates assaulted officers during the morning meal. As a result, nine inmates were taken to the administrative segregation unit in a van. Upon arrival, the officers allegedly pushed the shackled and handcuffed inmates out of the van and assaulted them. The officers then allegedly attempted to conceal the assault by mopping up the inmates' blood from the ground and the walls, as well as meeting to discuss their accounts of what occurred. Federal criminal charges were filed against the sergeant and the officer. The sergeant and the officer were convicted of civil rights violations and conspiracy. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority began the disciplinary process against the sergeant and the officer convicted of civil rights violations and conspiracy, but shortly thereafter the federal court reversed the convictions and dismissed the criminal charges. The hiring authority found that the sergeant and the officer could no longer be disciplined on the basis of the felony convictions, and the time to take action on the underlying behavior had passed. Therefore, the department did not move forward with imposing discipline. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 22 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0304 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 15, 2007, guilty verdicts were returned in a federal criminal case against one sergeant and two DISPO INV ADV HA officers. This case involved one of the officers. His conviction stemmed from a May 9, 2002, incident where several inmates assaulted officers during the morning meal. As a result, nine inmates were taken to the administrative segregation unit in a van. Upon arrival, the officer allegedly pushed the shackled and handcuffed inmates out of the van and assaulted them. The officer then allegedly attempted to conceal the assault by mopping up the inmates' blood from the ground and the walls, as well as meeting with others to discuss their accounts of what occurred. Federal criminal charges were filed against the officer. A guilty verdict for conspiracy was returned against this officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority began the disciplinary process against the officer convicted of conspiracy, but shortly thereafter the federal court reversed the convictions and dismissed the criminal charges. The hiring authority found that the officer could no longer be disciplined on the basis of the felony convictions, and the time to take action on the underlying behavior had passed. Therefore, the department did not move forward with imposing discipline. Case No. 07-0305 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 20, 2007, the border patrol provided the department with information indicating that a teacher DISPO INV ADV HA smuggled an undocumented immigrant into the country. In addition, a search of an inmate's cell disclosed handcuff keys smuggled into the institution by the teacher, as well as the teacher's address. When placed on administrative time off, the teacher consented to a search, which revealed marijuana and an unauthorized mobile phone in the teacher's possession on institution grounds. DISPOSITION OF CASE The teacher was rejected on probation. The institution also submitted the information to the district attorney's office for possible prosecution. Case No. 07-0306 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 14, 2007, it was alleged that an officer was engaged in sexual misconduct with an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned from the department during the investigation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 23 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0307 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about September 4, 2007, an officer was arrested and charged with being under the influence of drugs, DISPO INV ADV HA possessing methamphetamine, possessing less than an ounce of marijuana, possessing a concealed fixed-blade knife, resisting arrest, and violating a domestic violence restraining order. The officer did not report the arrest to his hiring authority, as required. DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of possession of a controlled substance, carrying an unauthorized weapon off duty, neglect of duty, and drunkenness in public were sustained, and the officer was dismissed. The officer appealed the dismissal to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0308 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 21, 2007, an officer was arrested for possessing marijuana and driving under the influence. The DISPO INV ADV HA officer failed to report the arrest to the hiring authority. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, and the hiring authority served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the dismissal became effective. The department placed a letter in his personnel file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 07-0309 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 8, 2007, it was alleged that a prison industries supervisor was engaged in a sexual relationship with DISPO INV ADV HA an inmate and was smuggling contraband, including marijuana, into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The supervisor resigned during the investigation. The department referred the case to the district attorney's office for prosecution. Case No. 07-0310 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 7, 2007, an officer allegedly had an argument with his wife after learning of her extramarital affair. DISPO INV ADV HA During the argument, the officer pointed an unloaded gun in her direction. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and issued the officer a 40 working day suspension. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0311 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 19, 2007, an officer was seen exiting a store without paying for items he had concealed. The officer DISPO INV ADV HA admitted taking the items and was arrested. The officer failed to report his arrest to the hiring authority. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. The officer resigned before the dismissal took effect. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 24 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0312 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 19, 2007, an outside law enforcement agency stopped an officer's vehicle. The passenger, who allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA was a parolee, was arrested for being under the influence of methamphetamine and for being in possession of a glass pipe used for smoking methamphetamine. A photograph of the officer and her child was found in the parolee's wallet, and he had the officer's name tattooed on his neck. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined that there was not probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. Therefore, the case was not submitted to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The officer resigned, so no administrative investigation was opened and no discipline was imposed. Case No. 07-0313 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 21, 2007, it was alleged that a clinical psychologist was engaged in a romantic relationship with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed insufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing, so there was no referral to the district attorney's office. The clinical psychologist resigned during the criminal investigation. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0314 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 21, 2007, it was alleged that a clinical psychologist was engaged in a romantic relationship with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. It was later alleged that the psychologist was dishonest during her administrative investigation interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The clinical psychologist resigned during the investigation. The hiring authority later sustained both allegations and placed a letter in her personnel file indicating that the allegations were sustained. Case No. 07-0315 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 19, 2007, it was alleged that an officer was engaged in sexual misconduct with an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned during the investigation. The department found that the investigation revealed insufficient evidence of criminal conduct to refer the case to the district attorney's office. Case No. 07-0316 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 19, 2007, it was alleged that an officer was engaged in sexual misconduct with an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned during the investigation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 25 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0317 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 19, 2007, a captain learned that several officers were distributing business cards at the institution that DISPO INV ADV HA contained inappropriate remarks about the captain. An associate warden allegedly was made aware of the situation and failed to take appropriate action. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the associate warden, who retired before discipline could be imposed. A letter was sent to the associate warden acknowledging that he retired under adverse circumstances. The department did not initiate an investigation to determine who distributed the business cards. Case No. 07-0318 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 9, 2007, an officer allegedly struck an inmate on the hand with his baton after the inmate refused an DISPO INV ADV HA order. The officer allegedly failed to report the baton use and was dishonest when asked about the incident. After learning the inmate had complained about the assault, the officer admitted he failed to report the baton use and was dishonest when initially asked about the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE All allegations were sustained, and the officer was served with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the effective date of the dismissal. Case No. 07-0319 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 7, 2007, a confidential informant reported that an officer was bringing marijuana into the institution DISPO INV ADV HA and was involved in a sexual relationship with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of sexual misconduct but did not sustain the marijuana charge because of insufficient evidence. The officer was dismissed and did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0320 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 5, 2007, an officer allegedly created a serious breach of security by permitting inmates to enter a DISPO INV ADV HA secured area inside a control booth that contained firearms and control panels for the housing unit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation, and the hiring authority decided to reject the officer on probation. However, the officer resigned before the action could be taken, so a letter acknowledging that he resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in his personnel file. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 26 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0321 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 1, 2007, it was alleged that a mailroom employee was intercepting inmate mail and then contacting the DISPO INV ADV HA women who sent the mail to initiate personal relationships. The employee allegedly misused a state vehicle to leave work early to contact the women from his home computer and misrepresented himself as an officer. In addition, the employee allegedly failed to report similar misconduct by other mailroom employees and was dishonest during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE There were 11 allegations against the employee, which included over-familiarity with inmates, theft of inmate mail, misuse of state property, false representation, negligent performance of duties, code of silence, and dishonesty. The hiring authority sustained each allegation and dismissed the employee, who did not appeal to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0322 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 29, 2007, a confidential informant reported that an officer was involved in overly familiar relationships DISPO INV ADV HA with inmates. Specifically, phone records revealed that the officer contacted two inmates at separate institutions. The officer was also reportedly involved in a sexual relationship with a parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs completed an investigation and forwarded the case to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute, citing insufficient evidence. The officer resigned before the completion of the criminal investigation. Subsequently, an administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau did not accept for monitoring. Case No. 07-0323 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 5, 2007, it was alleged that a registered nurse was engaged in sexual misconduct with an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The registered nurse resigned during the investigation. The case was referred to the district attorney's office. Case No. 07-0324 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between April 30, 2007, and May 17, 2007, a painter at the institution was allegedly involved in sexual DISPO INV ADV HA misconduct with at least three inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The employee retired from the department before the conclusion of the investigation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 27 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0325 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 21, 2007, an officer brought 2.57 pounds of tobacco, 24 packs of tobacco rolling papers, a pocket knife, DISPO INV ADV HA and a personal mobile phone into the institution. Inmates informed the institution's investigative services unit that the officer had been selling tobacco products to inmates for about one year and had profited approximately $100,000. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and decided to dismiss the officer. However, the officer resigned before the dismissal became effective. A document was placed in the officer's personnel file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 07-0326 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 12, 2007, an officer allegedly picked up a parolee from a parole office on the day the inmate paroled, DISPO INV ADV HA then proceeded to a nearby motel where they engaged in sexual activity. The officer and parolee also allegedly engaged in sexual activity at a motel several days later. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation and referred the case to the district attorney's office, which rejected the case. An administrative investigation was also opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0327 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 12, 2007, an officer allegedly picked up a parolee from a parole office on the day the inmate paroled, DISPO INV ADV HA then proceeded to a nearby motel where they engaged in sexual activity. The officer and parolee also allegedly engaged in sexual activity at a motel several days later. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned prior to a scheduled interview with the internal affairs special agent. A document was placed in the officer's personnel file indicating that the officer resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 07-0328 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 3, 2007, the institution released members of two gangs onto the same yard. Subsequently, an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA was rendered unconscious after being assaulted by another inmate. Officers fired two lethal rounds as warning shots but were unsuccessful in stopping the attack. An officer then shot the attacker in the arm and stopped the assault. DISPOSITION OF CASE The shot that hit the inmate was criminally investigated, and the case was referred to the district attorney's office, which found no criminal conduct had occurred. The department then opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 28 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0329 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 3, 2007, the institution released members of two gangs onto the same yard. Subsequently, an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA was rendered unconscious after being assaulted by another inmate. Officers fired two lethal rounds as warning shots but were unsuccessful in stopping the attack. An officer then shot the attacker in the arm and stopped the assault. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department initiated a deadly force investigation into the lethal shot that hit the inmate. The investigation was presented to the department's Deadly Force Review Board, which found that the discharge of the weapon was appropriate under the circumstances. Case No. 07-0330 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 27, 2007, a sergeant allegedly attempted to prevent an inmate from swallowing suspected contraband DISPO INV ADV HA by placing pressure on the inmate's throat. DISPOSITION OF CASE The sergeant was issued a letter of instruction stating that the force used was unreasonable. Case No. 07-0331 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 21, 2007, a registered nurse allegedly refused to ride in the back of an ambulance to monitor and DISPO INV ADV HA provide necessary medical care to an inmate while in transport. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were not sustained, and the nurse resigned before conclusion of the investigation. An adverse action letter was not put in the nurse's file because the allegations were not sustained. Case No. 07-0332 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 15 and 21, 2007, an officer allegedly introduced narcotics and tobacco into the institution. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were investigated and there was insufficient evidence to establish probable cause that criminal activity occurred. Therefore, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office, nor was an administrative investigation initiated. Case No. 07-0333 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 13, 2007, it was alleged that an unknown officer or officers smuggled controlled substances and other DISPO INV ADV HA contraband into the institution for inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were investigated, and probable cause to support criminal charges was not established. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office, nor was an administrative investigation initiated. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 29 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0334 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 5, 2007, an employee reported witnessing a materials and stores supervisor smoking a cigarette and DISPO INV ADV HA giving an inmate a cigarette on institution grounds. The next day, the supervisor told the employee that the incident should not have been reported and encouraged the employee to withdraw the complaint, otherwise he would be considered a rat. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, and the supervisor was dismissed. Shortly after receiving his notice of adverse action, the supervisor resigned. A letter was placed in his file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 07-0335 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 5, 2007, two inmates stabbed another inmate while on the recreation yard. Officers tried to stop the DISPO INV ADV HA attack with verbal commands, and two officers fired three less-lethal rounds, which failed to stop the attack. The tower officer fired one lethal round that struck one attacker in the torso. The assault stopped, and the attacked inmate was transported to the hospital with serious injuries. The inmate that the tower officer shot later died. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case resulted in an investigation into the use of deadly force, which was presented at a Deadly Force Review Board hearing. The officers were found to have acted within the scope of their training and policy. Therefore, no allegations of misconduct or negligence were made as a result of this incident. Criminal charges are pending against the attacking inmate who was not shot. Case No. 07-0336 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 4, 2007, following a domestic dispute, an officer was arrested by outside law enforcement at his home DISPO INV ADV HA for resisting arrest, endangering a child, and vandalism. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of neglect of duty, insubordination, discourteous treatment of the public, willful disobedience, and other failure of good behavior. The officer received a salary reduction of 10 percent for six months and did not appeal the discipline imposed. Case No. 07-0337 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In March 2007, an audit revealed an employee may have falsified her application to qualify for a staff services DISPO INV ADV HA manager position. She was hired for the position and was improperly allowed to work an out-of-class assignment as the institutional personnel officer. During the investigative interview, the employee was allegedly dishonest when questioned about the false information. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. Thus, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 30 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0338 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In March 2007, an audit revealed an employee may have falsified her application to qualify for a staff services DISPO INV ADV HA manager position. She was hired for the position and was improperly allowed to work an out-of-class assignment as the institutional personnel officer. During the investigative interview, the employee was allegedly dishonest when questioned about the false information. DISPOSITION OF CASE After the investigation was complete, the hiring authority sustained allegations of falsification, dishonesty, and interfering with an investigation. The employee was served with a notice of dismissal, but she resigned prior to the Skelly hearing. Case No. 07-0339 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 20, 2007, it was alleged that an officer confiscated an inmate's property and gave it to another DISPO INV ADV HA inmate, then allowed the inmate to sell or rent the confiscated property to other inmates for postage stamps, which the inmate then gave to the officer for personal use. The officer also allegedly took two money orders altered by the inmate to the inmate trust office. It was further alleged that between January 5 and February 15, 2007, an inmate was assaulted by the officer, who failed to report it. Finally, the officer was allegedly dishonest during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of bringing contraband into the institution, over-familiarity, other failure of good behavior, and dishonesty during the investigative interview were sustained. However, the allegation of failure to report an assault was not sustained. The officer was dismissed. After the Skelly hearing, the officer resigned, and the department served him a letter advising that his resignation was made under unfavorable circumstances. Case No. 07-0340 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 19, 2007, institution staff intercepted an inmate letter that contained information suggesting that DISPO INV ADV HA an unknown officer was smuggling narcotics and other contraband into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE A criminal investigation was opened; however, there was insufficient evidence to establish probable cause that a crime occurred and the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. No administrative investigation into the alleged conduct was opened. Case No. 07-0341 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 12, 2007, an officer, who was allegedly under the influence of alcohol and accompanied by a child, DISPO INV ADV HA drove to a business where he engaged in a fight and was uncooperative with responding outside law enforcement officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained. The officer initially received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The discipline was later changed to a 5 percent salary reduction for 24 months as part of a settlement agreement. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 31 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0342 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 4, 2007, a sergeant was arrested for felony battery of a spouse. The sergeant left the scene before DISPO INV ADV HA police arrived, but later turned himself in to outside law enforcement. The sergeant was convicted of a misdemeanor. DISPOSITION OF CASE The sergeant was convicted of offenses that render him unqualified to be a peace officer. Therefore, the sergeant was removed from his position by a non-punitive separation. Case No. 07-0343 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 2, 2007, two inmates assaulted another inmate. Two officers used pepper spray to stop the fight. DISPO INV ADV HA After the incident, a sergeant alleged that he observed the two involved officers unnecessarily pepper spray the inmates after they were in the prone position on the ground and had complied with orders to stop fighting. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation of unnecessary use of force against either officer. Case No. 07-0344 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 2, 2007, an officer was arrested for possessing methamphetamine and manufacturing counterfeit DISPO INV ADV HA money in a conspiracy with a parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer, who did not appeal the discipline to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0345 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 22, 2007, an inmate alleged that he had an overly familiar relationship with an office technician, DISPO INV ADV HA which evolved into a sexual relationship after he was paroled. During the investigation, it was also discovered that the office technician failed to report her current marriage to a different inmate housed at another prison, pursuant to department policy. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the office technician, who filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 32 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0346 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From January 19, 2007, through March 19, 2007, a dental assistant allegedly engaged in overly familiar and DISPO INV ADV HA provocative behavior toward inmates. The allegations ranged from slapping, kicking, and flirting with inmates to having sexual contact with them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation and determined that there was insufficient evidence of sexual misconduct to refer the case to the district attorney's office. However, an administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0347 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 18, 2007, a mailroom office assistant discovered an altered envelope containing a suspicious DISPO INV ADV HA substance addressed to an inmate at a nearby institution, and the office assistant informed the mailroom sergeant. The sergeant allegedly suspected the substance to be narcotics but took no action and routed it to the nearby institution. Officers at the receiving institution tested the substance and determined it was heroin. The sergeant was initially dishonest when questioned, but she later admitted that she was aware of the suspected narcotics but failed to take appropriate action. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and demoted the sergeant to the position of officer for two years. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0348 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 18, 2007, an inmate alleged that an officer sprayed pepper spray into his cell. A sergeant saw a clear DISPO INV ADV HA liquid on the cell floor with an odor similar to pepper spray but not the color of pepper spray used at the institution. Officers working in that housing unit reported they did not observe any use of pepper spray. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations were not sustained. Case No. 07-0349 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 11, 2007, it was alleged that two officers intentionally gave false testimony during an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA disciplinary hearing to have charges dismissed against an inmate who had assisted them in keeping peace on the yard. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, no allegations were sustained against the officers. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 33 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0350 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 8, 2007, officers allegedly entered an inmate's cell and used unnecessary force by striking him with DISPO INV ADV HA their hands and choking him. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations of unnecessary force and battery against the officers were not sustained. Case No. 07-0351 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 7, 2007, an officer allegedly slammed a food port door on an inmate's arm. The officer also allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA brought an unauthorized tool into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer attempted to close the port on the inmate's arm, but it was not unnecessary force under the circumstances. The allegation of bringing an unauthorized tool into the institution was sustained. The officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months and did not appeal the discipline to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0352 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 6, 2007, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force by striking an inmate with his hand three times DISPO INV ADV HA and failed to accurately report this use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE After the investigation, the allegations against the officer were not sustained. Case No. 07-0353 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 2, 2007, an officer allegedly continued a sexual relationship with a former partner even after that DISPO INV ADV HA person was incarcerated and on parole. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was insufficient evidence of criminal conduct to submit the case to the district attorney's office for prosecution. However, an administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0354 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 2, 2007, an officer was involved in a single vehicle rollover accident while driving under the DISPO INV ADV HA influence of alcohol. A passenger in the vehicle was injured. The officer pled no contest to criminal charges of driving under the influence of alcohol. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer agreed to a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 34 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0355 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 1, 2007, an officer allegedly committed an act of domestic violence against his wife, necessitating a DISPO INV ADV HA response by an outside law enforcement agency. After the incident, the officer allegedly drove away in his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned from state service after he was served with a notice of adverse action calling for his dismissal in an unrelated case. The officer was then served with a letter indicating he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 07-0356 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In January 2007, an inmate reported that she had been sexually assaulted by an officer, and that another officer DISPO INV ADV HA asked her to write him sexually explicit letters in exchange for gifts, such as candy and gum. During the investigation, an inmate witness indicated that the inmate had engaged in sexual activity with a third officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority found insufficient evidence existed to sustain the allegations against the three officers. Case No. 07-0357 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In January 2007, a sergeant walked into a lieutenant's office and allegedly observed the lieutenant in a sexually DISPO INV ADV HA compromising position with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the matter was referred to the district attorney's office, which charged the lieutenant with numerous felony offenses. An administrative investigation was also opened by the department, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0358 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In January 2007, a parolee alleged that his assigned parole agent was involved in a sexual relationship with the DISPO INV ADV HA parolee's girlfriend, conspired with her to force the parolee to engage in acts violating his parole, and threatened the girlfriend's mother with arrest if she did not return a vehicle belonging to the girlfriend. DISPOSITION OF CASE After the investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the parole agent. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 35 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0359 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In January 2007, an inmate reported that she had been sexually assaulted by an officer. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE At the conclusion of the criminal investigation, there was insufficient probable cause to believe a crime had been committed, and the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0360 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 27, 2006, a registered nurse alleged that an officer neglected his duty by failing to prevent an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate from assaulting the nurse. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigation, the hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer. Case No. 07-0361 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 13, 2006, a parolee alleged that her parole agent frequently picked her up in his vehicle, placed DISPO INV ADV HA his hand on her leg, asked her to keep secrets, wanted detailed information about her sex life, took her with him to a house he was selling as a real estate agent, and took her on a drive through the mountains. The department also received a tape recording of the parole agent making sexually suggestive statements to a second parolee. Further, the parole agent refused to appear for an investigative interview into the allegations despite being repeatedly told to do so. DISPOSITION OF CASE Upon completion of the investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the parole agent with a notice of dismissal, at which time the parole agent retired. Case No. 07-0362 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 11, 2006, an officer allegedly signed and dated an inmate discipline document indicating that he DISPO INV ADV HA entered the inmate's housing unit and served the inmate with the final copy of the document. However, the housing unit log book suggested the officer had not been in the inmate's housing unit on the date the document was allegedly served. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the officer after it was discovered there was an unofficial policy that prohibited non-living unit officers from going into the living unit for any reason and expected them to give items for inmate's to housing unit staff for delivery. The hiring authority revoked the unofficial policy. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 36 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0363 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 9, 2006, two officers allegedly assisted three inmates in assaulting another inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined prosecution. The Office of Internal Affairs then opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0364 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 7, 2006, an officer allegedly failed to report his use of force on an inmate who had forcefully DISPO INV ADV HA walked into the officer's hand, then was dishonest by telling his supervisor he had not used force on the inmate. Allegations were also brought against a medical technical assistant, who was present during the incident, for failing to report the battery on the officer and the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against either the officer or the medical technical assistant. Case No. 07-0365 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 1, 2006, an officer was allegedly aware that an inmate was being battered in the bathroom but DISPO INV ADV HA failed to take action, failed to properly report the incident, and was dishonest in a report about the incident. Another officer investigated the matter and allegedly failed to report the initial officer's involvement. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of dishonesty, failure to report, discourteous treatment, and neglect of duty against the initial officer. He was dismissed. The hiring authority sustained allegations of failure to perform for the investigating officer, who received a six working day suspension without pay. Both officers appealed to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0366 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In December 2006, an employee relations officer allegedly told an officer that the State Personnel Board had DISPO INV ADV HA canceled his disciplinary hearing when the employee relations officer had actually requested the hearing be canceled to pursue a settlement of the case. The employee relations officer allegedly engaged in similar conduct related to other employees' hearings in 2004 and 2005. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations against the employee relations officer were not sustained. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 37 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0367 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From December 2006 through January 2007, a prison industries supervisor allegedly conspired with several DISPO INV ADV HA inmates to traffic heroin, marijuana, tobacco, alcoholic beverages, and mobile phones into the institution. It was also alleged that the supervisor engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation and referred the case to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The district attorney's office filed a felony charge against the supervisor for conspiring to bring controlled substances into an institution. The supervisor resigned before the case was submitted to the district attorney's office. The department subsequently opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau did not accept for monitoring. Case No. 07-0368 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In late 2006 and early 2007, an officer allegedly had a sexual relationship with an inmate, then attempted to DISPO INV ADV HA dissuade others from reporting unrelated misconduct by the inmate. It was also alleged that the officer conspired with another officer to falsify a report and was dishonest during his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of over-familiarity with an inmate, dissuading a witness, interfering with the reporting of misconduct, and dishonesty during the investigative interview. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation that the officer conspired with the other officer to file a false report. The penalty imposed was dismissal; however, the officer retired before the effective date of the discipline. Case No. 07-0369 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 29, 2006, a sergeant allegedly struck an inmate in the torso three times with his shoulder while DISPO INV ADV HA escorting the inmate to a holding cell. Thereafter, the sergeant instructed an officer who witnessed the incident to omit the encounter from the officer's report, and the sergeant told the officer that he would review the report when completed. The officer complied and failed to accurately report the incident, as instructed by the sergeant. However, the officer came forward and reported the misconduct approximately one month later. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of unnecessary force, staff intimidation, and dishonesty and dismissed the sergeant. The hiring authority sustained the allegations of failure to report along with dishonesty against the officer and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 36 months. Both the sergeant and the officer filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 38 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0370 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 25, 2006, a riot occurred involving several inmates, and officers used physical force to quell the DISPO INV ADV HA incident. Subsequently, an involved inmate alleged that he was assaulted by two officers and that two other officers had knowledge of the assault but failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined there was insufficient evidence to refer the case to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was also opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0371 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 25, 2006, a riot occurred involving several inmates, and force was used to quell the incident. An DISPO INV ADV HA inmate who received a head injury during the riot later alleged that two officers battered him. However, officer reports indicated that three other officers also used force against the inmate. The officers reported that they physically took the inmate to the ground because he was resisting staff members during an escort. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations of excessive use of force against any of the five officers. Case No. 07-0372 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 24, 2006, two officers allegedly entered a bar with a minor and used their department badges in DISPO INV ADV HA an attempt to persuade the bar to serve alcohol to the minor, who had no identification. They were later dishonest to outside law enforcement investigating the incident, and one officer was dishonest in his internal affairs investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE One officer was initially dismissed. After numerous mitigating factors were taken into account, the case settled with the officer receiving a 30 working day suspension and a 10 percent salary reduction for an additional 60 working days. The officer was also required to submit a letter of apology to the business owner and the outside law enforcement agency. The officer who was dishonest in his internal affairs interview was dismissed, but the officer resigned before the dismissal took effect. A letter was placed in his personnel file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 39 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0373 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 21 and November 22, 2006, seven officers allegedly failed to properly follow inmate count DISPO INV ADV HA procedures. As a result, they failed to notice an inmate who died from injuries sustained from being assaulted by other inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE An allegation of neglect of duty was sustained against two floor officers in the unit. The first officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. This officer appealed to the State Personnel Board. The second officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for six months, which was negotiated to a 5 percent salary reduction for three months after the Skelly hearing. He did not appeal the penalty. No allegations were sustained against four other officers, and one officer was removed as a subject during the investigation. Case No. 07-0374 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 19, 2006, an employee discovered two inmate kitchen workers injecting narcotics. The employee DISPO INV ADV HA grabbed a white-colored rock substance from the inmates and took it to a sergeant and an officer. The sergeant, the officer, and several unidentified officers allegedly laughed, and someone commented that "you just ruined somebody's high." The sergeant then allegedly flicked the white substance onto the floor. Neither the sergeant nor the officer reported the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority found there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant or any of the officers. Case No. 07-0375 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 19, 2006, it was alleged that an officer was smuggling tobacco and pornographic magazines into DISPO INV ADV HA the institution and selling these contraband items to members of a prison gang. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer stopped coming to work while the investigation was pending. The officer was dismissed for being absent without leave. Case No. 07-0376 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 14, 2006, an audit revealed that a parole agent falsified home visits and anti-narcotic testing of DISPO INV ADV HA parolees. The parole agent also failed to complete required parolee risk assessments. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, and the parole agent was dismissed. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 40 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0377 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 11, 2006, an officer allegedly used pepper spray on an inmate masturbating in his cell. The officer DISPO INV ADV HA completed a report about the inmate's conduct, indicating she did not use force against the inmate. However, the inmate reported the use of pepper spray. The next day, the officer verbally reported she had used pepper spray on the inmate and was directed to immediately complete a report. The officer submitted a report several days later. During the investigative interview, the officer was dishonest in her responses about her conduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer, who did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0378 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 3, 2006, an officer allegedly used a baton unnecessarily on an inmate, and a second officer DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly used pepper spray on another inmate in an unnecessary manner. It was also alleged that several officers witnessed the use of force and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation, and the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations as a result of that investigation. Case No. 07-0379 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In November 2006, a parole agent allegedly made misrepresentations to an outside law enforcement agency to DISPO INV ADV HA obtain confidential information about a parolee who was not under his supervision. The parole agent also allegedly attempted to dissuade the parolee from cooperating with outside law enforcement and made intentional misrepresentations in a written report regarding his contact with the parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE After the investigation was complete, the Office of Internal Affairs determined there was insufficient probable cause to submit the case to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No administrative investigation was conducted into the allegations. Case No. 07-0380 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 16, 2006, an officer allegedly hit an inmate on the back with a collapsible baton and failed to report DISPO INV ADV HA the use of force. Although the officer admitted drawing his baton, he denied striking the inmate and was allegedly dishonest in his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE Upon completion of the investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain allegations of dishonesty, use of force, or failure to report. However, the hiring authority did determine the officer had failed to perform within the scope of his training and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 41 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0381 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 16, 2006, an officer allegedly kicked an inmate in the head and torso after the inmate complied with DISPO INV ADV HA verbal orders to lay on the ground. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation because the investigation produced insufficient evidence that the conduct occurred. Case No. 07-0382 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 13, 2006, an officer allegedly used excessive force with a baton on an inmate and later falsified his DISPO INV ADV HA report. In addition, on October 19, 2006, the officer allegedly taunted the same inmate, causing the inmate to curl up in a fetal position and become fearful of exiting his cell. A control booth officer witnessed the use of force and allegedly submitted a fraudulent report to justify the force used by the other officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation and determined there was insufficient evidence to refer the case to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The Office of Internal Affairs subsequently opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0383 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 13, 2006, an officer allegedly used excessive force with a baton on an inmate and later falsified his DISPO INV ADV HA report. In addition, on October 19, 2006, the officer allegedly taunted the same inmate, causing the inmate to curl up in a fetal position and become fearful of exiting his cell. A control booth officer witnessed the use of force and allegedly submitted a fraudulent report to justify the force used by the other officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against either officer. Case No. 07-0384 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 10, 2006, information was received that a sergeant was allegedly overly familiar with Southern DISPO INV ADV HA Hispanic disruptive groups by distributing their written inmate rules of conduct to other Southern Hispanic inmates placed in administrative segregation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, and the sergeant was demoted to officer. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 42 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0385 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 4, 2006, a parole agent allegedly drove a state vehicle recklessly and caused a traffic collision DISPO INV ADV HA involving two other vehicles. The parole agent then allegedly exited the state vehicle, displayed a parole badge, announced that he was a police officer, and ordered the driver of one of the other vehicles, a private citizen, to put his hands on top of his vehicle. The parole agent then allegedly told the citizen that he was going to jail, placed him in handcuffs, yelled at the citizen, and entered the citizen's vehicle without permission. The parole agent allegedly failed to properly report the traffic collision to the department. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the parole officer; therefore, no disciplinary action was imposed. Case No. 07-0386 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 4, 2006, an inmate alleged that an officer was involved in bringing tobacco and illegal drugs into DISPO INV ADV HA the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the matter was referred to the district attorney's office, which determined that there was insufficient evidence for a prosecution. The department also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0387 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 4, 2006, an inmate alleged that an officer was involved in bringing tobacco and illegal drugs into DISPO INV ADV HA the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned during the administrative investigation. The department placed a letter in the officer's personnel file indicating that the resignation was under adverse circumstances. Case No. 07-0388 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From October 2006 through April 2007, two supervising parole agents allegedly authorized overtime and DISPO INV ADV HA approved time sheets for three office support employees who did not physically work the overtime hours for which they were compensated. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against two of the office support employees and one parole agent. The other employee and parole agent each received a letter of reprimand. After the Skelly hearing, the employee received a counseling memorandum and the parole agent received a letter of instruction. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 43 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0389 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In October 2006, it was alleged that a lieutenant was engaging in consensual sexual acts with several inmates. It DISPO INV ADV HA was also alleged that the lieutenant brought non-narcotic contraband items into the institution to give as gifts or in exchange for sex acts with the inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The completed investigation was referred to the district attorney's office, which charged the lieutenant with numerous felony offenses. The department opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0390 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about October 1, 2006, the institution received information alleging that an officer was introducing DISPO INV ADV HA mobile phones, DVD players and games, tobacco, and drugs into the institution. The officer's phone number was stored in an inmate's mobile phone. In addition, an inmate at another institution placed a 15-minute telephone call to the officer's home. It was believed that the inmate is a relative of the officer, about whom the officer failed to notify the department. DISPOSITION OF CASE After the investigation was complete, but before disciplinary action, the officer submitted his resignation. The hiring authority accepted the resignation but noted that the resignation was made under adverse circumstances. Case No. 07-0391 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 27, 2006, it was alleged that a material and stores supervisor was selling inmates contraband, DISPO INV ADV HA including knives, controlled substances, a video recorder, and blank videotapes used by inmates to film daily life in the institution. Several of the videotapes containing footage from inside the institution were allegedly smuggled out of the institution and were never recovered. In addition, the material and stores supervisor was allegedly dishonest to investigators during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, and the material and stores supervisor was dismissed. No appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 44 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0392 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 27, 2006, a sergeant appeared as a witness at an officer's State Personnel Board hearing. The DISPO INV ADV HA sergeant provided conflicting testimony regarding what transpired, appeared to be dishonest, and contradicted testimony provided by the officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of insubordination, neglect of duty, and other failure of good behavior were sustained. An allegation of dishonesty was not sustained. The hiring authority believed the sergeant to be unprepared for the hearing and negligent in his duties as a supervisor, but not dishonest. The sergeant had previously been demoted from sergeant to officer for supervision failures, and this action resulted in an additional penalty of a 5 percent salary reduction for 36 months, which was not appealed. Case No. 07-0393 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 26, 2006, an officer allegedly dragged a handcuffed inmate across a dayroom floor. The officer DISPO INV ADV HA was allegedly dishonest by failing to accurately document the incident and attempting to cover it up. Another officer who witnessed the incident was also allegedly dishonest by failing to accurately document the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer who dragged the inmate. The officer was dismissed and appealed the disciplinary action. The other officer retired before the investigation was completed; however, a letter was placed in his personnel file indicating that he retired under adverse circumstances. Case No. 07-0394 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 26, 2006, several officers allegedly failed to use proper security practices during a lockdown DISPO INV ADV HA situation, which resulted in two inmates attacking other inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against one officer but found the conduct not to be intentional or malicious. The department imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months, which was not appealed to the State Personnel Board. No allegations were sustained against any other officers. Case No. 07-0395 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 20, 2006, an officer allegedly grabbed an inmate and then pushed and pulled the inmate back and DISPO INV ADV HA forth. The officer also allegedly performed an unclothed body search of the inmate in front of other inmates and staff members. In addition, the officer was allegedly dishonest in his reports and in an interview during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation regarding the unclothed body search because the search did not violate policy. The hiring authority initially sustained the remaining allegations, and the officer was served with a notice of dismissal. However, following the Skelly hearing and consideration of mitigating circumstances, the hiring authority withdrew the disciplinary action. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 45 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0396 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 17, 2006, a senior youth correctional counselor allegedly used unnecessary force against a ward DISPO INV ADV HA who refused to have his handcuffs removed by grabbing the ward from behind, pressing a hard object against his stomach, walking him to the tray slot in the door, and then twisting his arm through the tray slot after the handcuffs were removed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 07-0397 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 15, 2006, an officer allegedly refused a direct order to serve as an escort officer for an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA taken by ambulance to an outside hospital. The officer's refusal resulted in a delay of the ambulance's departure from the prison grounds, potentially jeopardizing the inmate's health. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and served the officer with a six working day suspension without pay. The action was reduced to a two working day suspension following the Skelly hearing. The officer did not appeal the discipline. Case No. 07-0398 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 15, 2006, after an inmate was removed from his work assignment for allegedly telling an DISPO INV ADV HA immigration officer to move from a table needed for cell feeding, two officers escorted the inmate back to his cell. Three days later, the inmate reported to medical staff that the officers assaulted him during the escort. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers. Case No. 07-0399 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 13, 2006, an officer allegedly made several discourteous remarks to inmates. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and imposed a one working day suspension. After the officer's Skelly hearing, the penalty was reduced to a letter of reprimand. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 46 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0400 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 11, 2006, an officer allegedly released two single-celled security housing unit inmates at the same DISPO INV ADV HA time, which resulted in one inmate stabbing the other and inflicting life-threatening injuries. It was subsequently alleged during the investigation that the officer was dishonest in his report of the incident and in the investigative interview. It was further alleged that before this date, the officer provided contraband tobacco and metal stock to inmates in exchange for them allowing the officer to view the inmates while they showered. DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of deliberately setting up an inmate for assault by another inmate and sexual misconduct were not sustained. Allegations of neglect of duty, dishonesty, and furnishing an inmate with contraband were sustained. The officer was served with a notice of dismissal but resigned before the dismissal took effect. A letter indicating that the officer resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in his personnel file. Case No. 07-0401 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 9, 2006, a local police officer stopped a vehicle registered to an officer. A parolee gang member DISPO INV ADV HA was driving the vehicle, and the officer was in the passenger seat. The officer was uncooperative, refused to divulge her identity or place of employment, and attempted to prevent the police from notifying the department about the police contact. The officer also failed to promptly notify the institution of her contact with outside law enforcement. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned before the department could take disciplinary action. A document was placed in the officer's personnel file indicating that the officer resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 07-0402 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 9, 2006, an off-duty sergeant and two male adults attempted to cut to the front of the line to enter DISPO INV ADV HA a nightclub. The sergeant allegedly identified himself by showing a department identification card. When denied access, the sergeant allegedly became verbally abusive, removed his shirt in preparation to fight, and threatened security staff. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all the allegations and imposed on the sergeant a 5 percent salary reduction for 18 months. The sergeant appealed the disciplinary action to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 47 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0403 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 8, 2006, at 1:55 a.m., a captain was notified by a lieutenant that an inmate broke the sprinkler in DISPO INV ADV HA his cell. Instead of responding to the cell, the captain told the lieutenant that a cell extraction could wait until the next watch, which started four hours later. At 4:30 a.m., the inmate began stabbing himself with metal from the broken sprinkler, and the lieutenant ordered a cell extraction, which successfully prevented the inmate from further injuring himself. The fire suppression system was inoperable during the hours after the inmate broke the sprinkler, thus placing the institution's security at risk. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation of neglect of duty against the captain and determined that a 45 working day suspension without pay was the appropriate penalty. However, the captain retired before the discipline was imposed; the State Personnel Board's decision regarding the discipline was noted in his personnel file. Case No. 07-0404 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 5, 2006, an officer allegedly placed an inmate in a headlock and pulled him out of a dormitory. It DISPO INV ADV HA was also alleged that the officer was not completely honest in his report regarding this use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority issued the officer a letter of reprimand for neglect of duty. However, allegations of dishonesty and excessive force were not sustained. The officer has not appealed to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0405 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In September 2006, it was alleged that a lieutenant falsified an officer's signature on an official report that was DISPO INV ADV HA being used as evidence in a criminal prosecution. As a result of the discovery of the forged signature, the underlying criminal case was dismissed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations of neglect of duty, other failure of good behavior, and dishonesty were not sustained against the lieutenant because of a lack of evidence proving that the lieutenant forged the signature. Case No. 07-0406 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In September 2006, an equal employment opportunity officer failed to document an incident at the workplace DISPO INV ADV HA that could have been perceived as discriminatory. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority issued the equal employment opportunity officer a letter of instruction for failing to adequately perform her duties. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 48 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0407 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In September 2006, two inmates were assaulted by seven other inmates. One of the victim inmates alleged that DISPO INV ADV HA an officer agreed to the attacking inmates' request for the officer to leave his post so the assaults could occur. The complaining inmate also alleged that the officer was bringing illegal narcotics into the institution and distributing them to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. There was no probable cause to believe the allegations had occurred, and the complaining inmate admitted that he had made false allegations against the officer. The department did not conduct an administrative investigation. Case No. 07-0408 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 28, 2006, a sergeant allegedly used unnecessary force by pushing an inmate to the ground. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE Following the investigation, the hiring authority found insufficient evidence of misconduct to sustain the allegations. Therefore, no disciplinary action was imposed. Case No. 07-0409 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 28, 2006, it was alleged that a psychiatrist falsified a medical chart by indicating that a treatment DISPO INV ADV HA team had determined an inmate should be discharged from care; the team had made no such determination. On September 16, 2006, it was alleged that the same psychiatrist ordered an emergency forced injection of medication for an inmate to teach the inmate a lesson. DISPOSITION OF CASE At the end of the investigation, the psychiatrist resigned before notice of discipline was served. A letter indicating that the resignation was under adverse circumstances was placed in the psychiatrist's personnel file. Case No. 07-0410 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between August 25, 2006, and September 10, 2006, three inmates filed separate complaints against an officer DISPO INV ADV HA alleging that the officer threatened them and used profanity on various occasions. One inmate alleged that the officer placed him against a wall and taunted him so the officer could use force against the inmate if he reacted. The officer also allegedly told one inmate that he thought he was a rat and suggested that the officer could have him killed. Another inmate alleged that the officer threw him against a wall and threatened to have him branded as a rat. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation, and the hiring authority sustained the allegations. The officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 49 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0411 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE After allegedly seeing an off-duty officer interacting with a suspected drug dealer, on August 24, 2006, outside DISPO INV ADV HA law enforcement officials executed a search warrant at the officer's residence. As a result of the warrant, officials seized drug paraphernalia and a banned assault rifle. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer seen with the suspected drug dealer and dismissed the officer. The officer appealed his dismissal to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0412 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 24, 2006, outside law enforcement officials executed a search warrant at a residence belonging to an DISPO INV ADV HA officer after seeing the person she resided with in the presence of a suspected drug dealer. As a result of the warrant, officials seized drug paraphernalia and a banned assault rifle. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the officer; however, the officer received a memo of expectations of work performance for allowing illegal substances in her home. Case No. 07-0413 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 23, 2006, a registered nurse and an officer allegedly failed to follow proper procedure when they DISPO INV ADV HA transferred an inmate to another institution without medication necessary to treat his cardiovascular disease and hypertension. The inmate died shortly after arriving at the receiving institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations of negligence by the nurse and officer were not sustained; thus, no disciplinary action was taken. Case No. 07-0414 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 23, 2006, an officer allegedly used excessive force on an inmate by taking the inmate to the ground DISPO INV ADV HA and causing an injury to the inmate's mouth. It was also alleged that the officer failed to report a responding officer's subsequent use of pepper spray on the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were not sustained against either officer because of insufficient evidence of misconduct. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 50 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0415 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 21, 2006, two inmates were transported from one institution to another. Both inmates had significant DISPO INV ADV HA pre-existing medical conditions. The trip took over nine hours, and during more than half that time, the outside temperature exceeded 100 degrees. During the transport, the van's rear air conditioning stopped working, and the transportation team became lost. Upon arrival 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. 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. 07-0416 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 21, 2006, an inmate alleged that two officers were abusing their authority by threatening inmates, DISPO INV ADV HA damaging or taking inmate property, and using profanity when inmates violated rules adopted by the officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain any allegations against the officers. Case No. 07-0417 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 19, 2006, an officer allegedly pushed an inmate against a wall after the inmate attempted to speak DISPO INV ADV HA with the officer about inmate-manufactured alcohol found in the inmate's locker. It was also alleged that the officer lied about the incident when preparing his written report. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the officer. Case No. 07-0418 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 18, 2006, an unknown officer allegedly opened an inmate's cell and allowed two other inmates DISPO INV ADV HA wearing T-shirts over their faces to enter and stab the inmate in the arm and torso. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer who opened the cell door. However, the hiring authority found the officer's conduct to be unintentional and not malicious. The hiring authority imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The officer did not appeal the discipline. Two other officers received letters of instruction, and another officer received training for failing to ensure that the unit's cell doors were properly secured. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 51 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0419 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 15, 2006, it was alleged that a captain, a lieutenant, and a sergeant failed to observe and perform DISPO INV ADV HA within their scope of training when they failed to move an inmate to the administrative segregation unit pending the completion of an assessment of the inmate's threat toward an officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE No allegations were sustained against any staff members. The lieutenant and the sergeant each received a counseling memorandum admonishing them to use more prudent judgment when determining whether to move an inmate to the administrative segregation unit. Case No. 07-0420 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 15, 2006, staff members learned of an alleged conspiracy by inmates and officers to smuggle DISPO INV ADV HA contraband into the institution, distribute drugs within the institution, and smuggle an inmate-produced video out of the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined there was insufficient probable cause to submit a criminal case to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0421 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 15, 2006, it was alleged that an officer was trafficking narcotics, mobile phones, and other DISPO INV ADV HA contraband to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the trafficking allegations against the officer because the investigation revealed that a non-sworn staff member was trafficking the contraband. The hiring authority did, however, sustain allegations against the officer for bringing his mobile phone into the institution and making personal calls while on duty. The officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for six months, and he appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board. An investigation was opened against the non-sworn staff member, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0422 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 14, 2006, it was alleged that an officer hit another officer on the back of the head with an open hand DISPO INV ADV HA while on duty in the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, and the officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. The officer did not appeal the discipline to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 52 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0423 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 13, 2006, an inmate was discovered hanging in his cell. The preliminary information from the DISPO INV ADV HA coroner's office suggested the inmate had been dead for up to four hours before being discovered. It was alleged that five officers did not properly count inmates in the hours before the inmate was discovered. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation resulted in sustained allegations against all five officers. One officer received a salary reduction of 10 percent for 24 months, and the other four officers received salary reductions of 5 percent for six months. None of the officers appealed the discipline. Case No. 07-0424 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 10, 2006, it was alleged that a sergeant inappropriately deleted all her work-related computer files DISPO INV ADV HA after having been notified that she was going to be reassigned to another position. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of insubordination, discourteous treatment, misuse of state property, and misuse of confidential information. The sergeant resigned after being served with notice of a salary reduction. Case No. 07-0425 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE An inmate alleged that on August 8, 2006, a sergeant struck another inmate who was handcuffed in the torso DISPO INV ADV HA and pushed the inmate against a fence. Two officers and another sergeant reportedly witnessed the incident but failed to intervene. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following the investigation, the hiring authority found insufficient evidence of misconduct to sustain the allegations. Therefore, no disciplinary action was imposed. Case No. 07-0426 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 8, 2006, it was alleged that a medical technical assistant failed to comply with physicians' orders to DISPO INV ADV HA monitor an inmate's glucose level, continuously denied treatment to the inmate, and was dishonest about the failure to perform the monitoring. DISPOSITION OF CASE Initially, all the allegations were sustained, and the medical technical assistant was served with a notice of dismissal. However, after the Skelly hearing, the charge of dishonesty was not sustained, and the penalty was reduced to a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The medical technical assistant filed an appeal. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 53 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0427 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 5, 2006, an inmate was medically evaluated and found to have no injuries before being transported DISPO INV ADV HA by van to the administrative segregation unit. Afterward, staff members found the inmate to have numerous injuries. The inmate alleged that during the transport, an officer in the rear of the van beat, kicked, and used a baton on the inmate while two other officers watched, and that one of the officers struck the inmate with his fist. The three officers did not report the use of force. The two officers were allegedly dishonest in their investigative interviews by stating that they did not look in the rear of the van and did not hear anything unusual. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded that the two officers who indicated that they did not look in the rear of the van failed to report the use of force and were dishonest during their investigative interviews. Both officers were dismissed and filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. The other officer had already been dismissed from the department based on an unrelated case. Case No. 07-0428 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 4, 2006, an inmate was allegedly removed from a cell and escorted by two officers to an office where DISPO INV ADV HA the inmate was grabbed by the neck and choked by a lieutenant. The escorting officers reportedly observed the misconduct but failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the officers or the lieutenant because of insufficient evidence. Case No. 07-0429 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From August 2006 through October 2006, staff members observed and received information that caused concern DISPO INV ADV HA about a correctional counselor's processing of inmate appeals. An audit was conducted pursuant to the Plata v. Schwarzenegger lawsuit, which revealed approximately 42 second-level appeals and 23 first-level appeals that were overdue. In addition, the correctional counselor inconsistently reported the status of overdue appeals on the inmate appeals tracking system report. Based on the audit, it was alleged that the correctional counselor was inefficient in her duties and dishonest when reporting the status of inmate appeals. DISPOSITION OF CASE The correctional counselor retired before the imposition of disciplinary action; however, it was documented in her personnel file that the retirement was under adverse circumstances. Case No. 07-0430 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From August 2006 through January 2007, an officer allegedly engaged in a pattern of discourteous treatment DISPO INV ADV HA toward numerous inmates by directing rude comments at the inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority selected a letter of reprimand as the appropriate penalty in this matter. Following a Skelly hearing, the matter was concluded by issuing a non-punitive letter of instruction. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 54 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0431 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 31, 2006, an officer allegedly opened an inmate's cell door, allowed several other inmates to assault the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate and steal his property, and then failed to report his observations. It was also alleged that the officer was unprofessional during an argument with the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, no allegations were sustained against the officer. Case No. 07-0432 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 30, 2006, a youth correctional counselor was allegedly made aware of a potential pact between wards to DISPO INV ADV HA hurt themselves, and a senior youth correctional counselor was also reportedly informed of this pact. Neither counselor took appropriate action. Later that evening, the wards injured themselves. The youth correctional counselor was also allegedly dishonest during the internal affairs investigative interview about the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained against both counselors. The youth correctional counselor who was dishonest during the investigative interview was dismissed. The senior youth correctional counselor received a suspension for two working days. Both have appealed their discipline to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0433 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 25, 2006, an officer allegedly attempted to break an inmate's wrist and slammed the inmate's face into DISPO INV ADV HA the steel door frame of a cell. It was also alleged that the officer failed to report the use of force and that two other officers witnessed the incident and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer who allegedly used force retired on disability while the investigation was pending, and it was noted in his personnel file that he retired under adverse circumstances. Allegations against the other officers were not sustained. Case No. 07-0434 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 23, 2006, an officer allegedly struck an inmate with a baton and forcefully pushed the inmate to the DISPO INV ADV HA ground while escorting him within the institution. Other officers also allegedly failed to truthfully report the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, no allegations were sustained against the officers. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 55 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0435 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 23, 2006, outside law enforcement arrested an officer after he was allegedly seen kissing and touching DISPO INV ADV HA the breast of a 16-year-old girl while lying on top of her on a couch at her home. The officer was also allegedly dishonest in his report of the incident to his superiors. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer and suspended him without pay for 60 working days. The officer did not appeal the discipline. Case No. 07-0436 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 22, 2006, an inmate housed in an administrative segregation unit alleged that he threw his food tray at DISPO INV ADV HA staff members because they spit in his food. He demanded to speak to a sergeant or lieutenant, but he refused to be handcuffed to do so. Shortly thereafter, his cell door allegedly opened, and several officers rushed inside and beat him. The inmate was examined at a later time, and medical staff noted some bruises. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an investigation, no allegations were sustained against the officers. Case No. 07-0437 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 21, 2006, it was alleged that a registered nurse had an ongoing romantic relationship with an inmate. It DISPO INV ADV HA was further alleged that the nurse was dishonest in her investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained both allegations and served the nurse with a notice of dismissal. Before the effective date of the dismissal, the nurse resigned and agreed not to seek future employment with the department. Case No. 07-0438 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 20, 2006, it was alleged that four officers were trafficking contraband and narcotics into the institution. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE No allegations were sustained against any officer as a result of the investigation. Case No. 07-0439 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 17, 2006, an officer allegedly attempted to purchase an assault weapon, but he was unable to show proof DISPO INV ADV HA that he was permitted to possess the assault weapon. On July 18, 2006, the officer had a sergeant sign a fictitious letter stating that the officer was authorized to possess the weapon; the officer then used the letter to purchase the assault weapon. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation was referred to two separate district attorney's offices, which declined to prosecute. The officer retired while the case was under review, and the hiring authority placed a memorandum in the officer's personnel file indicating the officer retired under adverse circumstances. No subsequent administrative investigation was initiated by the department. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 56 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0440 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 15, 2006, it was alleged that a sergeant brought an unauthorized computer flash drive into the DISPO INV ADV HA institution that contained pornographic videos, movies, and electronic games. It was also alleged that the sergeant accessed the flash drive while on duty using a state-issued computer. The goal of an electronic game found on the flash drive was to kill as many inmates as possible in a prison setting that was virtually identical to the housing unit where the sergeant worked. It was also alleged that the sergeant disobeyed a prior order not to bring unauthorized flash drives into the institution and was dishonest about having received the prior order. DISPOSITION OF CASE The initial hiring authority minimized the misconduct and intended to impose a low level of discipline against the sergeant. Before the decision was finalized, however, the initial hiring authority left and was replaced by a new hiring authority who sustained all allegations and dismissed the sergeant. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0441 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 14, 2006, an inmate was found lying on the floor of his cell, with his hands, ankles, and neck tied with DISPO INV ADV HA torn bed sheets. The inmate, who had been assaulted by his cellmate, was placed on life support but eventually died. A lieutenant allegedly was informed by the inmate that he considered his cellmate an enemy and had security concerns about their continued housing arrangement. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the lieutenant for being neglectful in his duties when he allowed the inmate to be housed with an enemy cellmate. The lieutenant received a 48 working day suspension without pay and did not appeal the disciplinary action to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0442 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 13, 2006, an officer informed the institution that her boyfriend was a parolee after a parole agent DISPO INV ADV HA discovered the overly familiar relationship. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, and the officer was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0443 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In July 2006, a senior radiological technologist allegedly made unwanted physical contact with a doctor and was DISPO INV ADV HA rude and threatening. DISPOSITION OF CASE This allegation was combined with other unrelated allegations. All the allegations were sustained, and the employee was dismissed. The employee appealed the dismissal to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 57 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0444 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From July 2006 through January 2007, an officer allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. Several personal letters from the officer were discovered both in the inmate's cell and in the officer's possession while the officer was on duty. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned after being served with a notice of dismissal. It was noted in the officer's personnel file that the resignation was under adverse circumstances. Case No. 07-0445 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 29, 2006, it was alleged that officers failed to prevent an inmate from attempting to commit suicide. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the officers were exonerated of the allegations. Case No. 07-0446 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE An inmate alleged that on June 29, 2006, force was used on a resistive inmate who had assaulted an officer. The DISPO INV ADV HA inmate was then escorted to the correctional treatment center by a sergeant and two officers who allegedly forced the inmate to the ground, struck the inmate in the face, and kicked the inmate in the upper body. Although their reports documented the initial use of force, there was no mention of the alleged use of force occurring during the escort. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded that the allegations against the sergeant and the officers were unfounded. Case No. 07-0447 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE An inmate alleged that on June 28, 2006, an officer, without provocation, addressed him with profanity, pulled DISPO INV ADV HA out a baton, and threatened the inmate with physical harm. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against the officer were sustained, and he was dismissed. The officer appealed the dismissal to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 58 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0448 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 24, 2006, three wards refused to go to their beds. A youth correctional officer exited a security cage to DISPO INV ADV HA confront the wards, sprayed them with pepper spray, and continued to spray them while following them to their assigned bunk beds. The officer was also allegedly dishonest in his report of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the unnecessary use of force allegation but found the investigation did not reveal evidence of dishonesty. The discrepancies in reports filed by the subject officer and another officer who witnessed the event, which served as the basis for the dishonesty allegation, were sufficiently explained during the course of the investigation. The officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 10 months, and he filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0449 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 18, 2006, an inmate accused a sergeant of hitting the inmate in the head. The sergeant then allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA ordered an officer to take the inmate to the ground, at which time the sergeant struck the inmate with a baton and kicked him in the head. The institution noted that the inmate's injuries were not consistent with the use of force reported by the officer and the sergeant. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an investigation, the hiring authority concluded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant or the officer. Case No. 07-0450 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 16, 2006, a parolee filed a complaint alleging that during a strip search by two parole agents, he was DISPO INV ADV HA placed in a choke hold and grabbed by the wrist and elbow, causing his head to hit the wall. It was also alleged that the agents were dishonest by telling their supervisor that no force was used, and that the agents failed to complete the use-of-force form. After the investigation began, a parole supervisor allegedly failed to complete a use-of-force report, misused her authority by intervening in the agents' internal affairs investigation, and lied during an internal affairs interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department found there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations of excessive force, dishonesty, and failure to complete the use-of-force form against the two agents. The allegation of neglect of duty was sustained against the supervisor. She retired before discipline could be imposed, but documentation in her personnel file reflects the adverse circumstances under which she retired. During the monitoring of this case, the bureau discovered that the department has no written policy governing when and under what circumstances parole agents may conduct strip searches in the field. This issue is undergoing further review. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 59 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0451 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 13, 2006, an officer was allegedly dishonest when reporting to the department that the officer did not DISPO INV ADV HA know anyone incarcerated and had not corresponded with any inmates. The officer had spoken to an inmate numerous times in recorded telephone calls and received letters from the same inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of dishonesty and over-familiarity and dismissed the officer. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0452 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2006, a transportation officer allegedly failed to conduct an unclothed body search of an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA before he was transported to an outside hospital. At the hospital, the inmate was discovered to be in possession of a small amount of suspected heroin. The officer with the inmate at the hospital allegedly retrieved the substance, immediately flushed the evidence down the toilet, and failed to report the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of failure to observe and perform within the scope of training against the transportation officer, resulting in a salary reduction of 5 percent for 12 months, which was not appealed. After an admission, allegations of failure to observe and perform within the scope of training were sustained against the officer at the hospital. The hiring authority imposed a salary reduction of 5 percent for 12 months. The officer at the hospital has appealed to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0453 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2006, an officer allegedly used unnecessary and excessive force by spraying pepper spray into an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate's face and dragging the inmate down some stairs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, and the officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 18 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0454 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 9, 2006, an inmate alleged that he was raped by his cellmate. An officer claimed that two other officers DISPO INV ADV HA were aware of the alleged sexual assault during their shift but failed to report the act or take appropriate action. One of the other officers was also alleged to have inappropriately contacted a staff member during this incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations concerning the failure to report or take appropriate action against either officer. One officer, however, received a letter of instruction for inappropriately contacting another staff member, who was a witness against the officer in a prior unrelated disciplinary matter. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 60 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0455 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 7, 2006, a confidential informant reported that an officer was bringing marijuana into the institution DISPO INV ADV HA and was involved in a sexual relationship with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs completed its investigation and forwarded the case to the district attorney's office for review. The district attorney's office declined to prosecute, citing insufficient evidence. The Office of Internal Affairs subsequently opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0456 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 3, 2006, a handcuffed inmate refused to relinquish the handcuffs. When officers entered the cell to DISPO INV ADV HA retrieve the handcuffs, the inmate fell and was injured. The officers then used a triangle device to force the inmate to relinquish the handcuffs. On June 4, 2006, a sergeant interviewed the inmate and noticed that the officers did not prepare incident reports; the sergeant referred the matter for further investigation. During the investigation, it was determined that a lieutenant was advised of the incident but failed to ensure that the officers and the sergeant properly documented what occurred. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, and each officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The sergeant received a 5 percent salary reduction for 36 months. The lieutenant received a letter of instruction. The officers and the sergeant filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0457 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In June 2006, an officer allegedly allowed inmates to conduct informal inmate counts, inventory inmate DISPO INV ADV HA property, generate and maintain inmate timecards, and distribute inmate mail. The officer also allegedly provided inmates his assigned keys, stole inmate property, gave inmates personal property from his lunch, and entered occupied inmate cells alone. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and decided to dismiss the officer. However, the officer resigned before the dismissal became effective. A document was placed in the officer's personnel file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 07-0458 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 31, 2006, a parole agent allegedly went to the home of a parolee and conducted a search under the DISPO INV ADV HA pretext of monitoring the parolee, but the parole agent was actually looking for a non-parolee fugitive. It was alleged that the agent violated policy because of the manner in which the search was conducted and by being discourteous to the non-parolee persons living in the home. DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of discourteous treatment and neglect of duty were sustained. The parole agent received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 61 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0459 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 28, 2006, an officer allegedly used excessive force against an inmate after the inmate refused to allow DISPO INV ADV HA the officer to remove her handcuffs. The inmate and her cellmate alleged that the officer struggled with the inmate in her cell, choked her, and pinned her upper body and head against a wall and desk in the back of the cell. A second officer allegedly witnessed the incident and sounded his personal alarm but did not assist the first officer. Both officers were allegedly dishonest in their reports of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer who allegedly used excessive force admitted that he struggled with the inmate when she refused to allow him to remove her handcuffs but denied that he choked her. The hiring authority found there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations of excessive force against the officer. The hiring authority also found there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of dishonesty against both officers. However, the hiring authority determined that the second officer who allegedly witnessed the incident was in a position to either assist the first officer or observe the struggle but instead neglected his duty to do so. Therefore, the hiring authority imposed a 5 percent pay reduction for 12 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0460 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 23, 2006, two inmates stabbed a third inmate. Staff members ordered the inmates to stop their attack, DISPO INV ADV HA but they refused. Two less-lethal rounds were fired without effect. An officer then fired one lethal round, killing one of the attackers. The second inmate continued to attack the third inmate until additional officers arrived. The inmate who was stabbed sustained serious injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE A deadly force investigation into the shot killing the attacker revealed that the use of force was within policy, and no staff member misconduct was identified. The case against the second attacker was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. Case No. 07-0461 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 23, 2006, an inmate told a sergeant that a maintenance worker was bringing large quantities of tobacco DISPO INV ADV HA and narcotics into the institution. During unrelated cell searches, officers located a partial home address of the maintenance worker, a mobile phone, and records indicating that inmates called the maintenance worker. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all the allegations except the narcotics allegation. The maintenance worker was served with a notice of dismissal but resigned before the dismissal took effect. The hiring authority noted in the maintenance worker's personnel file that he resigned under unfavorable circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 62 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0462 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2006, an inmate suspected of having a razor was placed in a holding cell. Once secured, the inmate DISPO INV ADV HA became loud and threatened to kill staff members. While three officers attempted to calm the inmate, the inmate reached through the tray slot and took an officer's whistle and baton. Two of the officers entered the holding cell and used force on the inmate. The two officers stated that they entered the holding cell because the inmate was trying to swallow the whistle. However, a third officer's report contradicted this. Although the inmate was blowing the whistle, a sergeant and a lieutenant did not respond from a nearby office. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded that the officer who entered the holding cell after his equipment was taken acted outside the scope of training and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The hiring authority did not sustain any allegations against the second officer who entered the cell. However, the hiring authority sustained an allegation against the third officer for inconsistent statements and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The hiring authority sustained an allegation that the lieutenant failed to act within the scope of training and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 24 months. In addition, the hiring authority sustained the allegation that the sergeant failed to respond to the incident and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. Only the sergeant filed an appeal. Case No. 07-0463 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 19, 2006, a youth correctional officer allegedly used unnecessary force against a ward by poking the DISPO INV ADV HA ward in the chest, grabbing the ward around the neck, and pushing the ward against a wall in response to the ward's verbal harassment. The ward was not injured. DISPOSITION OF CASE The youth correctional officer admitted to the conduct, and he initially received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The case was settled after a Skelly hearing, and the penalty was reduced to a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The officer agreed to not appeal the decision to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0464 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 11, 2006, an officer allegedly choked an inmate by grabbing and twisting the inmate's shirt, which DISPO INV ADV HA caused his head to strike a wall. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations were not sustained because of insufficient evidence. However, the officer was issued a letter of instruction for unprofessional conduct. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 63 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0465 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 10, 2006, an officer allegedly pinned a non-custodial employee against a wall inside a control booth, DISPO INV ADV HA groped her, and placed her hand on the officer's exposed genitals. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, but without sufficient time to allow for reasonable review and filing of appropriate criminal charges. Accordingly, the district attorney's office declined to prosecute the case. The department also opened an administrative investigation of this incident, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0466 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 8, 2006, an inmate allegedly attempted to throw an unknown liquid on an officer, and the officer DISPO INV ADV HA responded by using pepper spray on the inmate. Then, the officer allegedly documented false information in his report regarding the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against the officer who used force were sustained, and the department dismissed him. The officer appealed to the State Personnel Board. A second officer received a one day suspension on a sustained allegation of neglect of duty and a sergeant received training for the same allegation. The bureau concurs. The bureau will monitor the terminated officer's appeal. Case No. 07-0467 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE An inmate alleged that on May 5, 2006, officers intentionally placed him on the administrative segregation unit DISPO INV ADV HA exercise yard with a known enemy to provoke a fight. The inmates fought, and officers used pepper spray to stop the fight. Although the yard video showed multiple officers present when pepper spray was deployed, only two officers reported witnessing the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained one allegation for failure to report against one officer who admitted to witnessing use of force. The officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for nine months and did not appeal the discipline. Because of the poor quality of the yard video, the hiring authority concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations against any other officer for failure to report the force. There was also insufficient evidence to sustain allegations that officers placed the inmate on the yard to incite the fight. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 64 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0468 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between May and July 2006, a sergeant allegedly made several contacts with a captain at another institution to DISPO INV ADV HA get the captain to change housing assignments to benefit the sergeant's two incarcerated sons. In addition, the sergeant allegedly passed information from one son to another inmate's family, facilitated and participated in three-way phone calls on the sons' behalf, failed to report information obtained from the sons regarding drug trafficking at the institution where they were incarcerated, failed to report that the sons were violating institutional rules, and made discourteous statements about another officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all the allegations against the sergeant and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 36 months. The discipline was not appealed. Case No. 07-0469 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 30, 2006, one inmate assaulted another inmate. Although some inmates had been calling "man down" DISPO INV ADV HA throughout the entire day, allegedly only one officer responded to check on the inmates. The type and extent of the injuries to the assaulted inmate suggested that the incident occurred over a long period of time, and four officers allegedly neglected their duties by not noticing or taking action to stop the assault. DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of neglect of duty and dishonesty were sustained against only one officer. The officer received a suspension for 49 working days. The officer initially filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board, but then withdrew it. Case No. 07-0470 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 28, 2006, an officer allegedly identified two inmates involved in an attempted murder to the DISPO INV ADV HA institution's investigative services unit, but the officer refused to identify the source of the information. A lieutenant then ordered the officer to write a memorandum to document the information. The officer wrote a memorandum stating that the information she previously provided was mistaken. When interviewed by the Office of Internal Affairs, the officer denied identifying the two inmates to the investigative services unit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded that the officer was insubordinate and made false and misleading statements to the department. The officer was initially dismissed. However, after a Skelly hearing, the case was settled and the officer received a 60 working day suspension based on the officer's tenure and prior work history. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 65 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0471 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 7, 2006, an inmate was stabbed on an exercise yard by another inmate. The institution determined that DISPO INV ADV HA the suspect inmate should not have been on the yard with other inmates. It was also determined that the control booth officer failed to activate the exercise yard video recorder that day. No investigative or corrective action was initiated at that time. On April 18, 2006, the stabbed inmate alleged that staff members intentionally put the suspect inmate on the yard to allow the assault to take place, despite knowing that the suspect and victim were enemies. However, the complaint was not reviewed until December 2006. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded there was insufficient evidence to identify which officers were responsible for putting the suspect inmate on the yard. The hiring authority found that the control booth officer failed to activate the yard video recorder but deemed it a training issue because he was filling a vacancy and had little prior training. The hiring authority found the sergeant who was responsible for the inmates on the yard neglected his duty and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. Similar allegations against a second sergeant were not sustained. The hiring authority sustained allegations of neglect of duty and failure to report against a lieutenant who was responsible for the administrative segregation unit where the inmates were housed and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 36 months. Following Skelly hearings, the penalties for both the sergeant and lieutenant were reduced to 5 percent salary reductions for six months. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The lieutenant subsequently resigned, and a letter was placed in his file indicating he resigned under adverse circumstances. At the time of the inmate's complaint, there was a backlog of over 800 inmate complaints waiting for review, which delayed the start of this investigation. Following this incident, the hiring authority assigned a second counselor to handle inmate complaints and provided training to current staff members regarding the timely handling of inmate complaints alleging staff member misconduct. Case No. 07-0472 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 6, 2006, an officer allegedly engaged in sexual acts with an inmate. The inmate saved what he alleged DISPO INV ADV HA was the officer's seminal fluid as evidence to support his claim of sexual misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation and referred the case to the district attorney's office for criminal prosecution. The district attorney's office did not file charges because the DNA test results were inconclusive, and there was no other evidence to corroborate the inmate's allegations. The department subsequently opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0473 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 6, 2006, an officer allegedly engaged in sexual acts with an inmate. The inmate saved what he alleged DISPO INV ADV HA was the officer's seminal fluid as evidence to support his claim of sexual misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations because the DNA test results were inconclusive, and there was no other evidence to corroborate the inmate's allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 66 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0474 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 30, 2006, it was alleged that a vocational instructor failed to maintain security in his assigned area DISPO INV ADV HA when he permitted inmates to use a VCR to view pornographic videotapes and violated proper property control procedures by failing to account for various hand tools. Finally, the vocational instructor allegedly violated policy when he brought a disposable camera into the institution and photographed inmate projects without a supervisor's prior approval. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority initially imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months against the vocational instructor. The penalty was subsequently reduced to a letter of reprimand as part of a settlement agreement following a Skelly hearing. Case No. 07-0475 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 28, 2006, a registered nurse allegedly told an inmate, "I'll knock you out so fast that your head will DISPO INV ADV HA spin" after the inmate had spoken to the nurse in a dismissive manner. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation. In light of the nurse's prior history of unprofessional conduct, the hiring authority served him with a notice of dismissal. The nurse filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0476 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about March 27, 2006, an officer allegedly uttered disrespectful comments and made profane gestures DISPO INV ADV HA toward two inmates. The officer also reportedly displayed insubordinate behavior toward a sergeant during a job- related encounter and pointed a rifle toward inmates. It was further alleged that the officer was dishonest in his investigative interview. The inmates also reported that two other officers were verbally disrespectful toward them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation involving the rifle, but it did sustain the other allegations against the officer. The officer was dismissed based on the underlying misconduct and for making dishonest statements during the investigation. The officer appealed to the State Personnel Board. There was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the other officers who allegedly made the disrespectful remarks. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 67 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0477 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 25, 2006, two control booth officers allegedly released inmates inappropriately from separate DISPO INV ADV HA buildings to meet and resolve issues between the staff and inmates. This incident occurred while the housing unit was on lockdown status because of threats of an inmate assault on staff. It was later alleged that a floor officer facilitated the inmate meeting despite knowledge of the lockdown order prohibiting the release of inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against the first control booth officer, who initiated the release of the inmates, were sustained, and the department imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The second control booth officer's allegation was sustained, and a 5 percent salary reduction for six months was imposed. The floor officer's allegation was also sustained, and a 5 percent salary reduction for three months was imposed. One control booth officer appealed the adverse action to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0478 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 16, 2006, an officer allegedly failed to activate a personal alarm after being assaulted by an inmate. It DISPO INV ADV HA was also alleged that the officer pushed an inmate into a cell and threw inmates' food into the garbage before they finished eating. DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of discourteous treatment and neglect of duty were sustained, and the officer received a letter of reprimand. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0479 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 15, 2006, it was alleged that an officer said an inmate was a snitch and an internal affairs rat in an DISPO INV ADV HA attempt to have other inmates assault him. During the investigation, it was discovered that a lieutenant had engaged in overly familiar conduct with the inmate by corresponding with him after he paroled. DISPOSITION OF CASE The charges against the officer were not sustained. The charges against the lieutenant were sustained, and the lieutenant was dismissed. The department has not been informed whether the lieutenant has appealed the dismissal to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0480 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 15, 2006, a lieutenant allegedly took an inmate into a restricted dormitory to counsel him. The DISPO INV ADV HA lieutenant allegedly pushed the inmate against a wall, resulting in a laceration above the inmate's eye. It was also alleged that the lieutenant was dishonest about the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain allegations of excessive force and dishonesty. However, the lieutenant received a written reprimand for taking the inmate into the restricted dormitory. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 68 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0481 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 9, 2006, outside law enforcement stopped a supervising cook for speeding and discovered marijuana, DISPO INV ADV HA heroin, and methamphetamine in the vehicle, along with more than $2,000 in cash. The supervising cook admitted that she had sexual intercourse with one inmate and was romantically involved with a second inmate for whom she smuggled drugs into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of over-familiarity and possession of narcotics with the intent to deliver to an inmate. The supervising cook was dismissed, and she did not appeal the disciplinary action. Case No. 07-0482 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From March 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006, a lieutenant allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with DISPO INV ADV HA two inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of sexual misconduct, as well as allegations of making a false or misleading statement during the investigation, neglect of duty, bringing contraband into a secured area, and failure to perform within the scope of training. The lieutenant was dismissed, and no appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0483 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From March 2006 through August 2006, a sergeant allegedly verbally abused several inmates on a continual DISPO INV ADV HA basis. The sergeant also allegedly choked an inmate unconscious and threatened to set him up, hit another inmate from behind, and assaulted a third handcuffed inmate with closed fists while threatening him and his family if the inmate reported the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations that the sergeant physically assaulted the inmates. However, the hiring authority sustained the allegation that the sergeant yelled and cursed at the inmates, and the sergeant was issued a letter of reprimand. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0484 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 23, 2006, an officer allegedly provided false information in a use-of-force report. The videotape of DISPO INV ADV HA the incident appeared to show that the officer had failed to report striking the inmate and that the inmate did not take aggressive action toward the officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs presented the completed investigation to the district attorney's office, which declined to file criminal charges because of insufficient evidence. An administrative case was initiated, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 69 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0485 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 23, 2006, it was alleged that a sergeant worked an unauthorized overtime shift, claimed the work for DISPO INV ADV HA pay, and dissuaded other staff members from reporting his misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations of dishonesty and intimidating or coercing other staff members not to report the misconduct were sustained. The sergeant was dismissed, and he filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0486 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 4, 2006, an inmate reported to a sergeant that approximately two years ago, while housed at another DISPO INV ADV HA institution, the inmate had a sexual relationship with an officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE After referring the matter to the district attorney's office, the Office of Internal Affairs was informed that the district attorney's office would not consider filing criminal charges. No subsequent administrative investigation was opened. Case No. 07-0487 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 1, 2006, it was alleged that a parole agent provided parolee gang members confidential information DISPO INV ADV HA about ongoing criminal investigations into the gang's activities. DISPOSITION OF CASE After the investigation was complete, the Office of Internal Affairs determined there was insufficient probable cause to submit the case to the district attorney's office. No administrative investigation was conducted into the allegations. Case No. 07-0488 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In late December 2005, information was received that an officer was trafficking narcotics and other contraband DISPO INV ADV HA into the institution. On November 9, 2006, the department intercepted a phone call between an inmate and his sister suggesting that drugs would be delivered to the officer that weekend. The Office of Internal Affairs conducted surveillance and observed the inmate's sister give the officer a cigarette package, which the officer threw away when approached by special agents. The cigarette package thrown from the car contained 25 balloons of methamphetamine and five balloons of marijuana. Agents also recovered cash and other drugs intended as payment to the officer. When interviewed, the officer admitted being involved in a drug smuggling operation with the inmate and the inmate's sister on at least one prior occasion. DISPOSITION OF CASE On July 5, 2007, the district attorney's office filed felony charges against the officer for transporting a controlled substance, transporting marijuana, and conspiring to introduce drugs into an institution. The department also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 70 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0489 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 28, 2005, an officer allegedly made sexual comments to an inmate and sexually battered the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to file criminal charges against the officer. The department opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 07-0490 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 28, 2005, an officer allegedly made sexual comments to an inmate and sexually battered the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, no allegations were sustained against the officer. Case No. 07-0491 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between December 22, 2005, and February 7, 2006, an office technician was allegedly discourteous and DISPO INV ADV HA unprofessional to other staff members on numerous occasions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained a single instance of discourteous treatment and issued the office technician a letter of instruction. Case No. 07-0492 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 21, 2005, a sergeant erroneously housed an inmate in a housing unit reserved for inmates with DISPO INV ADV HA sensitive needs. Thereafter, during a review of the inmate's housing assignment, a captain and two counselors failed to detect the error and neglected to verify information contained in the inmate's file. The inmate subsequently took part in an assault on another inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of neglect of duty and issued letters of reprimand to the captain and the counselors. Both counselors filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0493 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 6, 2005, the institution's employee relations officer informed a captain that she had been selected DISPO INV ADV HA for a random drug test. The captain inappropriately delayed the test until December 9, 2005, and the employee relations officer failed to properly ensure that the random drug testing program was administered within policy. DISPOSITION OF CASE The captain was demoted and did not appeal the decision. The employee relations officer was given a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months and appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 71 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0494 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between December 2005 and April 2006, a parole agent allegedly harassed a parolee and his family by making DISPO INV ADV HA numerous visits to their home, during which the agent drew his firearm and pointed it at family members. The agent also allegedly inappropriately arrested the parolee and failed to accurately report the arrest. The parolee further alleged that during an office visit the agent unnecessarily twisted the parolee's arm behind his back and did not report the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded that allegations of unnecessary force, failure to report, and falsification of records could not be sustained. However, the parole agent was counseled about minor procedural violations discovered during the investigation. Case No. 07-0495 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 21, 2005, during an audit of a counselor's state-issued computer, the department discovered DISPO INV ADV HA 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. Case No. 07-0496 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 13, 2005, after an inmate fight, two officers allegedly noticed one inmate was bleeding from her DISPO INV ADV HA left upper chest area. The officers allegedly failed to write a report or obtain medical treatment for the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against one of the officers for endangering an inmate. The officer initially received a two working day suspension, but this was later reduced to a one working day suspension. The officer has appealed the suspension to the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the other officer because of insufficient evidence. Case No. 07-0497 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 10, 2005, an officer allegedly made a false report that an inmate was engaged in inappropriate DISPO INV ADV HA sexual behavior. Thereafter, the officer allegedly uttered profanities and made an inappropriate gesture toward the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer, who appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 72 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0498 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 10, 2005, information was received alleging that a supervising cook allowed an inmate to touch her DISPO INV ADV HA breast, provided tobacco to inmates, failed to report a physical altercation between two inmates, released inmates from the kitchen without the knowledge and approval of custody staff members, and failed to follow medical protocol by allowing an inmate experiencing respiratory distress to return to the housing unit. In addition, dishonesty was alleged based on statements the cook made during her investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all the allegations except for the allegation that the cook provided tobacco to inmates. The hiring authority imposed the penalty of dismissal. The cook appealed the penalty to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0499 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From October 2005 through June 2006, a captain, an associate warden, and a chief deputy warden allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA conspired to prevent the Office of Internal Affairs from investigating the misconduct of a lieutenant. The lieutenant allegedly falsified official law enforcement reports that resulted in the inappropriate discipline of several inmates. The captain, associate warden, and chief deputy warden were also allegedly dishonest when attempting to cover up the lieutenant's misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The chief deputy warden and the associate warden retired before adverse action could be taken. The captain was dismissed and did not appeal the decision to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0500 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 31, 2005, a ward covered a cell window and was verbally unresponsive for approximately 38 DISPO INV ADV HA minutes. Two counselors were aware of the situation but failed to intervene. A sergeant was notified of the situation; however, the sergeant failed to follow reporting procedures. The cell door was eventually opened, and the ward was found dead, hanging with a sheet tightly secured around the neck. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of neglect of duty against all subjects. The sergeant received a two working day suspension. One counselor received a five working day suspension, and the other counselor received a ten working day suspension. All subjects filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0501 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 8, 2005, an outside law enforcement officer issued a traffic citation to a department officer. On October DISPO INV ADV HA 3, 2005, the officer appeared in traffic court wearing his department uniform, informed the judge that he was a peace officer, and stated that outside law enforcement officers should have given him a warning as a professional courtesy. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority counseled the officer instead of pursuing formal disciplinary action. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 73 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0502 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 4, 2005, an officer was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and was subsequently DISPO INV ADV HA convicted. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority issued the officer a letter of reprimand, which he did not appeal to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0503 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 3, 2005, a lieutenant conducted a hearing on a rules violation report that charged an inmate with DISPO INV ADV HA threatening a public official. The inmate was allegedly afforded the opportunity to attend the hearing and declined. Two officers documented in an official report that they witnessed the inmate's refusal. In addition, a third officer reported in an official document that he advised the inmate of the right to attend the hearing. The lieutenant conducted the hearing without the inmate present, found him guilty of the charged offense, and assessed a 150-day credit forfeiture. The lieutenant also falsely attested in the official hearing report that the third officer attended the hearing and verified that the inmate was made aware of his right to attend the hearing. A fourth officer allegedly provided the hearing summary to the inmate. It was later discovered that the inmate had been transferred out of the institution before the time the officers claimed to have witnessed his refusal to attend the hearing. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation against the lieutenant that he had unintentionally entered auto text into the hearing information system indicating the inmate had attended the hearing; the hiring authority imposed a 12 working day suspension. The lieutenant appealed the discipline. Allegations against one officer were not sustained. Allegations against three other officers were sustained. All three officers were initially dismissed. After a Skelly hearing, one officer was found to have committed neglect of duty and not dishonesty; thus, he received a two working day suspension instead of dismissal. Another officer's penalty was reduced to a 48 working day suspension. The remaining officer did not have her penalty reduced and appealed her dismissal to the State Personnel Board. Ultimately, this remaining dismissal case was settled by allowing the officer to resign and agree never to again seek employment with the department. Case No. 07-0504 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 30, 2005, a parole agent allegedly suggested to a youth correctional officer that in retaliation for wards DISPO INV ADV HA battering the officer, they could plant weapons in the wards' rooms and charge them with unlawful possession so the wards could be transferred to an adult facility. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the parole agent, who appealed to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 74 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORY CASES Case No. 07-0505 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 29, 2005, an officer allegedly allowed an inmate to enter a cell to assault another inmate who had DISPO INV ADV HA whistled at a female officer earlier that day. The inmate sustained an abrasion to his lip. Afterward, the officer allegedly had the female officer ask the injured inmate if he could still whistle. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. The officer appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0506 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 5, 2005, and June 1, 2005, an officer allegedly falsified her supervisor's signature on two payroll time DISPO INV ADV HA sheets she submitted to personnel. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 60 working day suspension against the officer. Case No. 07-0507 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 10, 2005, a wheelchair-dependent inmate alleged that during a transport two officers forced him to DISPO INV ADV HA attempt to walk up the steps of a regular van, dropped him numerous times while trying to get him into the van, and finally pushed him face first into the van. Once in the van, the officers allegedly placed the inmate on his side with the seatbelt over his body, which caused the inmate to fall when the van's brakes were used. The inmate allegedly passed out during the transport. A sergeant at the scene allegedly failed to render assistance or report the incident. Upon return to the institution, the inmate reportedly did not receive medical treatment for a bloody nose. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. One officer received a letter of reprimand, the other officer received a letter of instruction, and the sergeant received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 07-0508 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 2, 2005, a parole agent and officers from an outside law enforcement agency used force to subdue a DISPO INV ADV HA parolee who resisted arrest. After being restrained, the parolee had difficulty breathing and later died. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain allegations of excessive force or improperly gaining access to the parolee's hotel room where the arrest occurred. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 75 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 05-083 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 5, 2003, a control booth officer allowed two cellmates out of their cell to talk with him. The officer’s conduct violated institution security protocols, which require the presence of a floor officer before inmates can be released from their cell. When the two inmates became disruptive and refused to return to their cell, the administrative officer-of-the-day approved a plan that had been proposed by the facility lieutenant to extract the inmates with a team of officers armed with 37-mm launchers and sponge rounds. A fight erupted during the extraction and numerous sponge rounds were fired from the launcher. Eventually one inmate surrendered and officers subdued the other inmate, placing him face down on the ground. The facility lieutenant then ordered a “cease fire,” but two correctional officers fired additional sponge rounds, at least one of which struck the subdued inmate. The injuries to the inmate included two broken fingers and a laceration to the neck/back area. It was determined that the inmates had consumed illegally manufactured alcohol. DISPOSITION OF CASE A Skelly hearing was held for the officer who failed to obtain the warden’s approval before using the 37-mm weapon, as required by institutional policy. The bureau concurred with the hearing officer’s recommendation to reduce the penalty to a letter of reprimand in light of the warden’s statement that he would have approved the use of the weapon regardless. Relative to the other subject employees, the hiring authority and the department’s staff attorney decided not to pursue this case given recent State Personnel Board decisions that called into question their ability to extend the statute of limitations, as well as discrepancies in the administrative reports. Under the circumstances, the bureau found that the hiring authority’s decision was reasonable. APPEAL UPDATE The department withdrew the discipline for the reasons stated above. The bureau found the modification to be reasonable. Case No. 05-086 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 9, 2004, it was alleged that an officer had intentionally or negligently allowed inmates out of their cells, which resulted in a fight. No serious injuries resulted. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney’s office declined to file criminal charges. The administrative investigation was completed before the bureau’s involvement. The bureau became involved primarily to alert the employee relations officer to the time sensitive nature of the case because of statute of limitations issues, particularly given recent State Personnel Board decisions. The employee relations officer did not file the adverse action—which sought a ten-day suspension because of the employee’s negligence—in a timely manner. An ensuing Skelly hearing upheld the ten-day suspension. The subject filed an appeal; given the recent State Personnel Board decisions, however, the staff attorney did not pursue the case because the statute of limitations had expired. The bureau agreed that this position was reasonable. APPEAL UPDATE The department withdrew the discipline for the reasons stated above. The bureau found the modification to be reasonable. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 76 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 06-113 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 15, 2005, a parole agent used his state-issued vehicle to attend a party on the way home from work. He drank alcohol at the party and afterwards was involved in a single-car accident while driving the state vehicle. The parole agent used his police radio to summon assistance for a “disabled vehicle.” He also made a series of phone calls to his immediate supervisor, who responded to the scene. Local law enforcement arrived on the scene and arrested the agent for driving under the influence of alcohol; his blood alcohol level was allegedly twice the legal limit. The agent was booked and subsequently released to the custody of his supervisor. During the course of his arrest, the agent repeatedly told local law enforcement that he had observed a wanted fugitive in a specific vehicle and had crashed while chasing the fugitive. DISPOSITION OF CASE The subject was dismissed from state service. The dismissal has been appealed to the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board modified the discipline to a suspension for 18 months. The bureau continues to believe that the discipline imposed by the department was reasonable. Case No. 06-317 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 3, 2005, an officer allegedly crashed his vehicle while driving under the influence of alcohol. The officer fled the scene and falsely reported the vehicle as stolen. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent reduction in salary for six months. Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the officer received a 5 percent reduction in salary for six months. APPEAL UPDATE The department agreed to modify the discipline to a 5 percent salary reduction for six months, and the appeal was withdrawn. The bureau found the agreement to be reasonable. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 77 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 06-348 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 28, 2005, an inmate reported being involved in a sexual relationship with an officer for approximately seven years, starting in 1999. The inmate provided confidential personal information about the officer, including a description of the officer's residence. The officer denied the sexual relationship but stated the inmate had offered to have a sexual relationship in the past. The officer admitted to not documenting the inmate's conduct to a supervisor. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department concluded that the officer had engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate and failed to report the conduct. The officer was suspended without pay for 48 days. The matter is pending before the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department agreed to modify the discipline to a suspension for 28 calendar days, and the appeal was withdrawn. The bureau found the agreement to be reasonable. Case No. 06-408 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 4, 2005, an officer reportedly approached two other officers and asked them to falsify their reports to match the officer's version of events regarding the use of force against an inmate. The officer wanted them to report that they witnessed the inmate strike the officer first. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer for encouraging the preparation of false reports. The officer was to be dismissed from state service for other misconduct involving dishonesty related to this case. The penalty of dismissal was modified to a five-month suspension. The officer also agreed to attend relevant training as deemed necessary by the hiring authority. APPEAL UPDATE The department agreed to modify the discipline to a suspension for five months, and the appeal was withdrawn. The bureau found the agreement to be reasonable. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 78 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 06-429 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 8, 2005, an officer allegedly displayed an offensive gesture toward an inmate. When the inmate returned the gesture, the officer assaulted the inmate. A sergeant arrived and observed the officer repeatedly striking the inmate about the upper torso while the inmate offered no resistance. There were several officers present at the scene who failed to intervene and stop the assault. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was insufficient evidence against the officers who allegedly observed the incident. The hiring authority sustained the allegation of excessive force against the officer and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 24 months. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board revoked the discipline. The bureau continues to believe that the discipline imposed by the department was reasonable. Case No. 06-435 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2004, a parole agent married an individual who was on parole. Although the agent may not have known at the time of the marriage that the spouse was on active parole, once the agent did find out, the agent failed to report the marriage to the hiring authority. In addition, the agent tried to conceal the marriage by getting an annulment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded that the parole agent became aware of the parolee's status approximately one year after the marriage and failed to inform the department of the marriage. The hiring authority dismissed the agent. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board modified the discipline to a suspension for five months. The bureau continues to believe that the discipline imposed by the department was reasonable. Case No. 07-0020 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 7, 2005, a doctor allegedly provided negligent medical care to an inmate by failing to approve the transfer of the inmate to the emergency room for evaluation and life-sustaining treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and served the doctor with a notice of dismissal. The doctor appealed the dismissal to the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board revoked the discipline. The bureau continues to believe that the discipline imposed by the department was unreasonable. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 79 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 07-0112 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 10, 2006, an administrative law judge found that an officer was dishonest both during an investigative interview and at a State Personnel Board hearing regarding the officer's conduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation was sustained, and the officer was dismissed based on the administrative law judge's opinion. The officer appealed the decision to the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board revoked the discipline. The bureau continues to believe that the discipline imposed by the department was reasonable. However, inadequate representation by the department’s attorneys may have contributed to the State Personnel Board’s decision. Case No. 07-0219 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 8, 2005, a captain was randomly selected to report for drug testing. The captain arrived at the test facility but failed to submit a sample. The captain later reported that there were irregularities with the testing procedures and claimed to have provided a sample. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the captain from state service. The captain appealed the action. The State Personnel Board sustained the allegations but modified the dismissal to a six-month suspension without pay and a demotion to sergeant. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board modified the discipline to a suspension for six months and demoted the captain to sergeant. The bureau continues to believe that the discipline imposed by the department was reasonable. Case No. 07-0231 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 11, 2004, an inmate slashed his own testicles, requiring transport to an area hospital for emergency care. Several days after his return, the inmate was transferred to another institution. Upon arrival, staff members noticed a severe infection from the inmate's wound. Medical records allegedly indicate that the chief medical officer at the sending institution failed to ensure adequate medical care for the inmate's wound following his return from the hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The chief medical officer was demoted to surgeon and retired from state service pursuant to a stipulated agreement. APPEAL UPDATE The department agreed to allow the chief medical officer to retire, and the appeal was withdrawn. The bureau found the agreement to be reasonable. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 80 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0509 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 13, 2007, two separate riots occurred on two separate yards of the institution. Inmate-manufactured weapons were used during the riots, resulting in injuries to several inmates. During the riots, staff members fired two lethal rounds, reportedly as warning shots. One inmate was hit by one of the bullets or the fragments from one of the bullets. He was treated at an outside hospital with other injured inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE On the day of the incident, the department's deadly force investigation team responded to the scene to determine whether an investigation was necessary and to preserve evidence. The Office of Internal Affairs opened criminal and administrative deadly force investigations into the shot allegedly hitting the inmate. The bureau accepted both investigations for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation but failed to promptly notify the bureau of the incident. The incident was opened for investigation by the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 07-0510 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 7, 2007, an inmate reported being physically and sexually assaulted by another inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's investigative services unit conducted an investigation and concluded that the inmate fabricated the allegations. No staff member misconduct was identified, so the matter was not referred for an internal affairs investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 07-0511 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 17, 2007, an inmate was transported to an outside hospital with symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and general weakness. He died three days later due to complications from cancer, for which he was receiving ongoing medical care. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority made no allegations of staff member misconduct in this matter, so no internal affairs investigation was requested. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 81 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0512 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 14, 2007, an inmate allegedly told another inmate to go into the laundry room. As the inmate entered the laundry room, she was struck twice in the head, the assailant covered her head so she could not see, and she was sexually assaulted with the handle of a toilet plunger by six or seven other inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's investigative services unit conducted an investigation and concluded that the inmate fabricated the allegations. There was no evidence of staff member misconduct, so no internal affairs investigation was requested. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the allegations 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. 07-0513 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 7, 2007, an inmate housed in an administrative segregation unit attempted to commit suicide by self-inflicted lacerations. The inmate then summoned an officer to his cell and lost consciousness. An alarm was sounded, and medical and custody staff members immediately began lifesaving measures by applying pressure to the wounds and administering CPR. The inmate began breathing on his own, but because of the seriousness of the wounds, he was transported to an outside hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was no evidence of staff member misconduct, and 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 concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 82 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0514 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 1, 2007, a fugitive apprehension team, consisting of outside law enforcement officers and a parole agent, attempted to apprehend a parolee who was in violation of his parole. When confronted by the team, the parolee attempted to flee in a vehicle occupied by a second parolee who was hidden from view. As the vehicle left the scene, the parole agent and the other officers fired their weapons. A chase ensued until the vehicle stopped, at which time the parolee fled on foot and was eventually apprehended. The second parolee was injured by the shots fired and later died. DISPOSITION OF CASE The outside law enforcement agency opened a criminal investigation into the incident. The department opened an administrative investigation to determine whether the parole agent's discharge of his weapon was within policy. The bureau accepted the administrative investigation for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department's response to the incident was deficient. The Office of Internal Affairs' deadly force investigation team failed to respond to the scene of the shooting as intended by department policy. The Office of Internal Affairs indicated that the deadly force investigation team did not respond to the scene because an outside law enforcement agency was conducting the criminal investigation into the incident, thus there was no need for a department response. The bureau disagreed and recommended that a deadly force investigation team respond to the scene of shootings regardless of whether the department will conduct the criminal investigation because the department will conduct the administrative investigation. The department neglected to inform the bureau about the location of the incident in a timely and sufficient manner, therefore precluding the bureau from responding to the scene. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an investigation into the parole agent's discharge of his weapon, and the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 07-0515 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 22, 2007, inmates alerted staff members to a medical emergency involving an unresponsive inmate on a cell floor. An autopsy determined the cause of death to be an accidental overdose of prescription medications. DISPOSITION OF CASE No misconduct by staff members was identified. 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. 07-0516 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 14, 2007, during a riot involving approximately 130 inmates, an officer fired four rifle rounds to quell the incident. The warning shots had the desired effect, and the riot ended. No inmates or staff members were injured as a result of the shots fired. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution use-of-force committee determined that the warning shots were within policy, justified, and effective. No deadly force investigation was conducted by the department. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 83 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0517 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs received confidential information that on October 9, 2007, an inmate was going to parole and then meet a psychiatric technician from the institution for a sexual encounter. DISPOSITION OF CASE When released from the institution, the parolee was followed by Office of Internal Affairs special agents. The parolee traveled to his county of parole, accompanied by his girlfriend, and reported to his parole officer in a timely manner. The parolee was interviewed and admitted that he planned to meet the psychiatric technician, but the plan was disrupted because his girlfriend picked him up upon release. The department opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority chose to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 07-0518 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 3, 2007, an inmate was found lying unresponsive in the grass area of the institution's recreation yard. He was rushed to the correctional treatment center and later transferred to an outside hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The coroner concluded that the victim died of trauma to the head. DISPOSITION OF CASE An institution investigation concluded that the inmate refused to change bed assignments, so he was beaten by another inmate in an area out of officers' view. No potential staff member misconduct was alleged; therefore, no subsequent internal affairs investigation was conducted. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 07-0519 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 29, 2007, an inmate was found unresponsive in his cell and was later pronounced dead by the medical staff. DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigation was conducted by institution staff members, the district attorney's office, and the coroner. During the investigation, the cellmate confessed to suffocating the inmate. The coroner's report corroborated the confession and indicated the victim died by asphyxiation. No criminal or administrative investigation was opened with respect to staff members' conduct. 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 agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 84 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0520 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 17, 2007, three inmates attacked another inmate, rendering him defenseless. An officer fired two lethal shots to stop the assault and hit one of the attackers in the left leg. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office is conducting a criminal investigation into the use of lethal force. The Office of Internal Affairs is conducting the administrative investigation into the shot that hit the inmate. The bureau accepted the administrative case for monitoring. There was no on-site deadly force investigation team response. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate except for the failure by the Office of Internal Affairs to deploy the deadly force investigation team to the institution in a timely manner. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. 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. Case No. 07-0521 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 12, 2007, a large riot occurred on a recreation yard at the institution, involving about 100 inmates from two rival prison gangs. The riot escalated until a tower officer discharged a lethal round into an unoccupied area of the yard. No inmates or staff members were seriously injured during the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE After a review of the shooting by the use-of-force committee, no criminal or administrative investigations were opened. 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 bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0522 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 10, 2007, at approximately 7:45 p.m., the institution's minimum support facility experienced a riot involving about 150 inmates. The riot ended when officers used pepper spray and expandable batons to separate the inmates. No inmates or staff members were seriously injured during the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department did not identify any misconduct by staff members, and no investigations were opened as a result of this incident. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide adequate notification, but it adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 85 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0523 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 8, 2007, an inmate was found unresponsive in her assigned bed and was later pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate was suffering from a terminal illness at the time of her death, and there were no signs of foul play and no evidence of staff member misconduct. 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 concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0524 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 5, 2007, an officer noticed a partially removed window screen in a dormitory bathroom. A photo identification count of all the inmates assigned to the dormitory was conducted, and one inmate was confirmed missing. The missing inmate was found dead on the ground below the bathroom window, a fall of approximately 50 feet. An outside law enforcement agency was called to the scene to conduct an investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The outside law enforcement agency's criminal investigation determined the inmate's death to be accidental. No staff member misconduct was identified; therefore, no administrative investigation was initiated. 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 decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 07-0525 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 1, 2007, following a riot on the recreation yard, all inmates were ordered to their bunks. When another riot involving about ten inmates erupted in one of the dormitories, all inmates were ordered to get down on the ground. Despite the deployment of multiple canisters of pepper spray, the inmates continued to fight, thus requiring the use of multiple pepper spray blast grenades to quell the incident. One inmate received significant head injuries caused by other inmates during the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was no staff member misconduct identified as a result of the incident, and the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. The department referred the matter to the district attorney's office for criminal prosecution of the involved inmates. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 86 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0526 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 25, 2007, according to inmates, an inmate fell from his bunk and then went to the restroom. The inmates then assisted the disoriented inmate back onto his bunk, but he fell off again, so they notified the officer. The inmate was transported to an outside hospital and pronounced dead of natural causes two days later. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff member misconduct was identified as a result of the incident. Therefore, no subsequent investigation was conducted. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 07-0527 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 22, 2007, a yard observation officer saw an inmate chasing another inmate and repeatedly stabbing him. The victim became pinned against the fence, and the attacker continued to stab him. The officer gave repeated warnings to the attacker to get down, which the attacker ignored. The officer fired one lethal round as a warning shot, which was ignored. The officer fired a second lethal round, which hit the attacker in the stomach. The attack stopped. The other inmate died as a result of the stabbing. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department opened both criminal and administrative deadly force investigations into the shot that hit the attacker. The bureau has accepted the cases for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide sufficient notification. The bureau 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. The bureau is monitoring the department's investigation. Case No. 07-0528 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 14, 2007, the institution received confidential information alleging that illegal narcotics would be smuggled into the institution by a prison industries supervisor at 5:30 a.m. on August 15, 2007. DISPOSITION OF CASE The supervisor was intercepted by the Office of Internal Affairs while bringing contraband tobacco into the institution. When questioned, the supervisor admitted to bringing marijuana into the institution on previous occasions. The Office of Internal Affairs opened a criminal investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring, and referred the matter to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was also initiated, 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’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs’ response to the hiring authority’s referral. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 87 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0529 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 11, 2007, two inmates engaged in a physical altercation with weapons. Officers used less-lethal rounds and pepper spray to control the fight. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff member misconduct was identified in this case, and the incident and reports were handled within policy. Thus, no investigation was requested. 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 hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 07-0530 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 8, 2007, three inmates were involved in a fight. Once an alarm was sounded, the three inmates stopped fighting, but two additional inmates began fighting. A code three alarm was then sounded, and an officer discharged one less-lethal round at the fighting inmates with negative results. A second less-lethal round was discharged and struck one inmate on the left side of the upper torso, quelling the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified as a result of the incident. Therefore, no subsequent investigation was conducted. 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. 07-0531 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 6, 2007, an inmate returned to his assigned cell to find his cellmate unresponsive and lying on the floor. Both custody and medical staff members responded to the cell, but lifesaving efforts were unsuccessful. DISPOSITION OF CASE On August 8, 2007, an autopsy was performed. The coroner concluded that the inmate died of cardiac problems with a contributing factor of obesity. There was no evidence of staff member misconduct or foul play. Therefore, no subsequent investigation was initiated. 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 88 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0532 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 4, 2007, an inmate was found hanging in her dormitory room when her roommates returned from the evening meal. CPR was performed, but lifesaving efforts were unsuccessful and the inmate died. DISPOSITION OF CASE A suicide note was discovered in the inmate's assigned room, and the autopsy report revealed that the inmate died from suicide by hanging. There was no evidence of staff misconduct; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0533 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 3, 2007, an inmate was hospitalized after ingesting razor blades, and the inmate eventually died. The inmate was placed in five- point restraints upon arrival at the hospital and was under medical observation at the time of death. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy report revealed that the inmate died of heart failure. Because of the medical issues involved, the case was referred to the department's professional practice executive committee to determine whether misconduct by medical staff members occurred. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's referral of the matter to the Division of Correctional Health Care Services. Case No. 07-0534 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 29, 2007, an inmate alleged that officers pepper sprayed the inmate's genital area and, after taking him to the shower to decontaminate, forced a baton into the inmate's rectum. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority began investigative steps to document the inmate's allegations and collect evidence. However, no further investigation by the Office of Internal Affairs was requested because of the lack of corroborating physical evidence and the complaining inmate's refusal to cooperate. 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 89 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0535 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 28, 2007, a riot occurred involving 75 inmates. To gain control and preserve life, one lethal round intended as a warning shot was fired. One lethal shot for effect was fired and struck an inmate in his right hip. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office is conducting a criminal investigation into the use of lethal force. In addition, the Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the shot that hit the inmate; the bureau has accepted that investigation for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The 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. 07-0536 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 23, 2007, two inmates stabbed a third inmate who died on the way to an outside hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff member misconduct was identified, so no internal affairs investigation was initiated. There are no criminal charges currently pending against the inmates. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0537 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 9, 2007, an inmate fatally stabbed another inmate in the head and upper torso. The suspect inmate sustained injuries to his right elbow, both knees, the front of his head, and his upper chest. DISPOSITION OF CASE Upon review of the completed incident package, there was no identifiable misconduct by staff members. Therefore, no Office of Internal Affairs investigation was opened. The case was referred to the district attorney 's office for prosecution of the suspect inmate. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 90 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0538 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 3, 2007, an inmate was found dead in his administrative segregation unit cell during distribution of the morning meal. The cellmate admitted to murdering the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE An administrative internal affairs investigation was opened to investigate the staff's alleged failure to adequately conduct the inmate counts before discovering the body. The bureau did not accept the case for monitoring. The matter was also referred to the district attorney for filing of murder charges against the cellmate. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs addressed the hiring authority's referral, and the bureau concurred with its response. Case No. 07-0539 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 28, 2007, an inmate was discovered strangled in his two-person cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE Before an internal review of the incident, it was determined that a request for investigation would not be submitted to the Office of Internal Affairs as there was no indication of staff member misconduct. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; however, the hiring authority took an inordinate amount of time to make the decision. Case No. 07-0540 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 21, 2007, a riot occurred involving about 70 inmates. Two less-lethal rounds and two pepper spray canisters were used to quell the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The incident was adequately controlled and documented. No staff member misconduct was identified, so 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 hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 91 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0541 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 21, 2007, a group of inmates who were part of a prison gang attacked and stabbed another inmate. The victim was transported to an outside hospital but did not suffer life-threatening injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. As a result of the incident, members of the assailant gang were placed on modified lockdown status, and extra officers were assigned to the area to monitor the inmates. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide sufficient notification. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 07-0542 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 19, 2007, a group of inmates attacked another inmate with an inmate-manufactured knife. Staff members ordered the inmates to get down and fired two less-lethal rounds, but the assailants ignored the orders. Staff members eventually gained control of the inmates by using pepper spray and expandable batons. None of the assailants suffered serious injuries. The victim suffered deep lacerations to his chest, back, and arm, and he was sent to an outside hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff member misconduct was identified, and 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. 07-0543 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 19, 2007, an inmate was found unresponsive in his dormitory bed after another inmate alerted the housing unit officer that there was a "man down." Staff members responded to the incident and attempted to resuscitate the inmate, but they were unsuccessful. It was alleged that an inmate informed officers the previous evening that there was a comatose inmate in the dormitory, but the officers did not take any action. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy report revealed that the inmate died of cardiac arrest due to an overdose. The institution's investigative services unit conducted an investigation of events surrounding the inmate's death and discovered evidence of potential negligence or misconduct. The case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An administrative investigation was initiated, 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 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 PAGE 92 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0544 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 15, 2007, three members of a prison gang, who had been on lockdown status because of their ongoing violence against another gang, were released from their cells to the yard while a member of the opposing gang was nearby. The three gang members attacked the one gang member, punching, kicking, and slicing him with an inmate-manufactured weapon. Officers used pepper spray and batons to stop the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE An internal affairs administrative investigation was opened into the appropriateness of allowing the attackers onto the yard. The bureau accepted the investigation for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on 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. 07-0545 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2007, a parole agent and outside law enforcement officers attempted to arrest a wanted high-control parolee. As the parolee tried to drive away and attempted to hit one of the officers, the agent and the other officers shot and wounded the parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE Upon learning about the shooting in the media, the Office of Internal Affairs' deadly force investigation team responded to the scene and met with the outside law enforcement agency conducting a criminal investigation into the incident. Subsequently, the Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation to determine whether the shooting was within policy, and the bureau accepted the investigation for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was both deficient and delayed. The department's documentation of the incident was inadequate; the department failed to provide adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs addressed the hiring authority's referral, and the bureau concurred with its response. Case No. 07-0546 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 23, 2007, an inmate was found unresponsive in his assigned administrative segregation unit cell. Upon entering the cell, staff members discovered that the inmate was covered with a blanket and had hanged himself with a bed sheet fashioned into a noose. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was evidence of potential staff misconduct, and the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident; however, the bureau had to prompt the hiring authority to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for review. The Office of Internal Affairs addressed the hiring authority's referral by opening an administrative investigation, and the bureau concurred. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 93 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0547 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2007, an inmate riot erupted, and staff members used physical force to quell the incident. About 29 inmates received injuries, all of which were treated on the institution's grounds. DISPOSITION OF CASE The use-of-force committee review found that the use of force was appropriate, and no further investigation was requested. There were no serious injuries resulting from the riot, nor were there any injuries related to the use of force, except for pepper spray exposure. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 07-0548 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 25, 2007, an inmate was assaulted by two other inmates. A yard gun officer discharged three less-lethal rounds at the attacking inmates, with one round hitting an attacker in the shoulder and two rounds missing the attackers. The assault continued, and the victim became unable to defend himself. Therefore, the officer shouldered and prepared to fire a lethal round; the attacking inmates then stopped. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's use-of-force committee reviewed the incident and determined there were no policy violations by the officer. Therefore, no subsequent investigation was conducted. 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 hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 07-0549 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 18, 2007, a 24-year-old inmate was found unresponsive in his cell. Lifesaving efforts failed to revive the inmate, and he was pronounced dead by a physician at the institution. There was no evidence of trauma. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined the cause of death to be an accidental drug overdose. There was no evidence of staff member misconduct, so the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 94 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0550 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 12, 2007, a disturbance erupted on the recreation yard involving 14 inmates. An officer fired three lethal rounds intended as warning shots as other officers used less-lethal force to quell the disturbance. Staff members were able to gain control of the yard, and no inmates were seriously injured. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority referred the matter to the deadly force investigation team, which declined to open a deadly force investigation because no death or great bodily injury occurred. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred for an internal affairs 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 concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0551 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 31, 2007, an inmate was found dead in his two-person cell with his hands bound behind his back. The autopsy concluded that the inmate died of strangulation. His cellmate refused to give a statement regarding the death. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigative reports were submitted to the district attorney's office for review. No staff misconduct was identified; thus, 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'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. 07-0552 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 30, 2007, an inmate told staff members that another inmate was unresponsive. Responding staff members initiated CPR, and the inmate was transported to an outside hospital where he was declared brain dead. The inmate subsequently died. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy revealed that the inmate died of an accidental drug overdose. There was no evidence of staff misconduct, and the incident 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 95 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0553 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 25, 2007, an officer took a personal handgun to his post inside the secured perimeter of the institution. The officer accidentally discharged the weapon, but no one was injured. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer was placed on administrative leave. The hiring authority initiated disciplinary action, and the bureau accepted the case for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 07-0554 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 22, 2007, an inmate was found unresponsive in his two-person cell with severe head injuries. Staff members unsuccessfully attempted to resuscitate the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined the cause of death to be blunt force injuries of the head. Outside law enforcement officials opened a criminal investigation into the inmate's death. There was no evidence of staff member misconduct; thus, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for administrative investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate with the exception of sufficiently documenting the incident. The names of responding medical staff members were not documented in the incident report, nor did the medical staff document their actions in a standard report format for inclusion in the incident package. After reviewing existing institutional procedures pertaining to the documentation of medical treatment during an incident, the bureau requested that the incident package be amended to include the names of responding medical staff members and their incident reports. The institution complied with the bureau's request. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 07-0555 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 14, 2007, a major riot occurred involving more than 200 inmates. Staff members used numerous less-lethal force options to restore order. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded that the staff members' response before, during, and after the riot was appropriate. No excessive force or misconduct allegations were made against staff members, and resulting injuries were caused by other inmates during the riot. However, tactical and chain-of-command issues related to the response arose and were handled informally through corrective action. The incident was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 96 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0556 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 12, 2007, an officer was hit in the shoulder by a less-lethal round while responding to a fight among three inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institutional use-of-force committee reviewed the incident, and training was provided to the involved staff members. No misconduct was identified; therefore, the incident 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’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 07-0557 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 1, 2007, an inmate was battered by three other inmates. The assaulted inmate received a life-threatening head injury, which rendered him unable to care for himself without the assistance of the medical staff. DISPOSITION OF CASE The three suspects were positively identified, and the case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. There was no evidence of staff member misconduct; therefore, the incident was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide adequate notification, but it adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0558 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 24, 2007, an inmate was found in his cell speaking German and acting agitated and uncooperative. He did not have a normal state of consciousness and was transported to an outside hospital. The inmate died the following day after medical intervention failed. The inmate was prescribed antibiotics the previous day. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined that the death was due to natural causes, and no staff member misconduct was alleged as a result of the incident. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 07-0559 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 15, 2007, an inmate was discovered hanging by the neck from the electrical box above his dormitory bunk. Medical staff members attempted to revive the inmate, but lifesaving efforts were unsuccessful. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined the cause of death was suicide by hanging. No staff member misconduct was identified; therefore, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 97 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0560 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 14, 2007, three inmates stabbed another inmate to death in a dayroom. Staff members fired a less-lethal round at the attacking inmates but were unable to prevent the victim's death. An inmate-manufactured weapon was recovered from the crime scene. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution of the three suspect inmates. The hiring authority made no allegations of staff member misconduct. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate, except for errors in the processing of evidence. Although staff members swabbed the hands of two of the homicide suspects to preserve forensic evidence, they failed to swab the hands of the third suspect before placing him in the administrative segregation unit where he could wash his hands. Against the bureau's advice, staff members waited four hours before taking full body photographs of the suspects, which allowed time for a change in the condition of their bodies between the time of the incident and the time of the photographs. Moreover, the area where the incident occurred was not cleaned after another incident the night before in which pepper spray was used; therefore, any biological evidence on the floor may have been contaminated. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification at the time the incident occurred. Although the department's overall review of the incident was adequate, it was delayed. In particular, the use-of-force committee review did not conclude its review of the incident for nine months. The use-of-force coordinator's explanation for this delay was that the clarification reports had not been completed and the associate warden had not approved the package for committee review. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0561 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 12, 2007, a disturbance occurred on the recreation yard involving about 40 inmates. Staff members used pepper spray, fired less-lethal rubber and wooden rounds, and discharged two lethal rounds as warning shots to quell the disturbance. DISPOSITION OF CASE Upon reviewing the incident reports completed by staff members, the hiring authority determined that staff members responded appropriately to the situation, so the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. There was no deadly force investigation into the lethal rounds. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide adequate notification, but it adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The watch commander on duty was unaware of his responsibility to notify the bureau but subsequently received training. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 98 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0562 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 5, 2007, an inmate alleged that an officer raped him while the inmate was housed in the administrative segregation unit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority submitted a request for investigation of the inmate's rape allegation. The Office of Internal Affairs initiated an investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. The hiring authority also reviewed its existing policies and procedures to ensure the inmate's safety. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 07-0563 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 22, 2007, an officer fired one less-lethal round at two inmates after they ignored orders to get down and continued to approach each other with clenched fists following an exchange of punches. The round missed the intended targets and struck an uninvolved inmate near his eye, causing injury and subsequent hospital care. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority submitted a request for investigation to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs declined to open an investigation before the completion of the institution's use-of-force review process. The institution later determined that the force applied was within department policy. The uninvolved inmate who was injured is now legally blind and is assigned to a special needs prison setting. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. Case No. 07-0564 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 19, 2007, an inmate left his institution work assignment under the guise of attending a religious service. The inmate then assaulted another inmate. The assaulted inmate suffered from internal injuries and ultimately died. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy revealed that the inmate died as a result of internal injuries caused during the assault. An outside law enforcement agency conducted a criminal homicide investigation, which is pending with the district attorney's office. The incident was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for administrative investigation. However, the institution provided training to staff members regarding procedures for release of inmates and search of inmates upon return to work assignments. 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 notification to the bureau. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 99 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0565 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 14, 2007, an inmate housed in the administrative segregation unit was found dead in his cell. Information received from the coroner's office indicated that the inmate may have been dead for up to 12 hours before he was discovered. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner concluded that the inmate died from cardiac problems. There was no evidence that the inmate was denied access to medical care. The matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation to determine whether an officer failed to conduct a proper count on the day that the inmate died. It was determined that action could be taken against the officer for failing to conduct a proper count without further investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate except for the following: documentation of the inmate's medical assessment was inadequate; medical staff members failed to document why they did not begin CPR after they learned there was an absence of pulse and respiration; and the investigative services unit was not dispatched to the scene until nearly three hours after the body was discovered. The department neglected to inform the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. Case No. 07-0566 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 7, 2007, an inmate died of a heart attack. The chief medical officer believed that the death might have been prevented if the first responders had training on certain lifesaving devices. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. However, the request for investigation was rejected. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. Case No. 07-0567 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 6, 2007, an inmate was assaulted by another inmate and received a life-threatening head injury. The inmate was transported to an outside hospital for treatment and later returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was not submitted to the district attorney's office because of insufficient evidence to support criminal charges against a particular inmate. However, an inmate was later identified as a suspect and rehoused in the administrative segregation unit. There was no staff misconduct identified; thus, no subsequent investigation was conducted by the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate except for a lengthy delay in the preparation of relevant reports. Specifically, the incident occurred on January 6, 2007, but the relevant reports were not received until April 20, 2007. Furthermore, the department failed to provide adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 100 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0568 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 6, 2007, inmates in the housing unit told staff members that an inmate had collapsed in his cell. Medical and custody staff members attempted to resuscitate the inmate to no avail. The inmate was taking prescribed heart medication before his death. DISPOSITION OF CASE It was determined that the inmate died of a heart attack, so no subsequent internal affairs investigation was opened. However, deficiencies were identified related to health care records and other policies and procedures. Therefore, a corrective action plan was formulated to address revision of the policies and procedures, training of staff members, and independent auditing of the medical department. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 07-0569 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 4, 2007, parole agents and outside law enforcement officers performed a parolee search. One of the outside law enforcement officers discharged his firearm at a parolee who appeared to have a weapon in his hand. One of the parole agents involved in the search was not assigned to the area where the shooting occurred. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority decided to pursue disciplinary action against the parole agent, who was not assigned to the area, after learning she was specifically told not to conduct a compliance check at the parolee's residence. 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 to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. The bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. Case No. 07-0570 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 30, 2006, a riot involving hundreds of inmates took place at the institution. As a result of the riot, 30 inmates were sent to outside hospitals for medical treatment, and 66 inmates were treated at the institution for injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE No evidence of staff member misconduct was identified. The incident was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Except for communication issues between medical and custody staff members as well as between institution staff members and responding outside emergency personnel, the bureau determined that the department's response to the incident was adequate. 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 101 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0571 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 21, 2006, an officer was called to a cell where he found an inmate breathing, but unresponsive and bleeding from deep neck lacerations. The inmate was pronounced dead after lifesaving efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy report concluded that three lacerations to the neck caused the inmate's death. Evidence indicated the death was the result of a suicide. No staff member misconduct was alleged as a result of this incident, so no internal affairs investigation was requested. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 07-0572 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 30, 2006, an inmate committed suicide by hanging. The incident reports indicated that officers used pepper spray to determine how responsive the inmate was before he was cut down. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority referred the incident to the Office of Internal Affairs, and an administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. The department also issued a policy directive precluding the use of pepper spray to establish an inmate’s level of consciousness. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. Case No. 07-0573 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 25, 2006, three inmates attacked three other inmates with inmate-manufactured weapons. Two of the victims had numerous puncture wounds, while the third victim died from his stab wounds. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution of the suspects. The case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs because there was no evidence of staff member misconduct. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department's notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 102 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0574 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 8, 2006, three officers were attacked by six inmates in a housing unit following the confiscation of unauthorized property. The officers sustained moderate injuries. Allegations emerged that the attack was in response to an unauthorized cell search. DISPOSITION OF CASE The initial hiring authority did not submit a request for an internal affairs investigation based on his belief that there was insufficient evidence of employee misconduct. However, a subsequent hiring authority found there was sufficient evidence to support an investigation and submitted the case to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau did not accept for monitoring. 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 to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. Case No. 07-0575 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 29, 2006, an inmate punched an officer in the head. The officer lost consciousness as a result of the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's investigation resulted in criminal charges being filed against the inmate suspected of committing the battery. There was no evidence of staff member misconduct, so 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's notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 07-0576 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 15, 2006, an officer was seriously injured when inmates hit him in the head with a heavy desk chair. DISPOSITION OF CASE This incident did not result in allegations of misconduct against staff members. Therefore, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for administrative investigation. The district attorney's office filed criminal charges against two inmates. 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 hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 103 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0577 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 5, 2006, an officer found an inmate dead in his assigned cell with an inmate-manufactured rope around his neck. Staff members attempted to resuscitate the inmate, but lifesaving efforts were unsuccessful. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined that the inmate died of suicide by hanging. No staff member misconduct was identified, and no subsequent investigation was conducted. 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 notification to the bureau until two hours and forty minutes after the inmate was pronounced dead. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 07-0578 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 28, 2006, an inmate was seen walking on the recreation yard bleeding from his neck. The inmate was airlifted to an outside hospital and survived. Two inmates were identified as the assailants. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution opened a criminal investigation into the inmate's assault. The incident did not result in allegations of misconduct against staff members, and no internal affairs investigation was requested. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide adequate notification, but it adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0579 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 19, 2006, an inmate was found unresponsive in his cell. Medical staff members were summoned, and the inmate was pronounced dead after lifesaving efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE Toxicology and autopsy reports revealed the inmate died of an accidental drug overdose. There was no evidence of staff misconduct; 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. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide timely notification of the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 104 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 07-0580 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 17, 2006, two lethal rounds were fired as warning shots during a riot involving 60 inmates on the recreation yard. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was no deadly force investigation; however, the use-of-force process ultimately determined that the officer's use of lethal force was within policy. As a result of the overall incident review, another officer was alleged to have improperly used force in dispensing pepper spray on inmates within a dormitory. That allegation was sent to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation, and the bureau accepted the case for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT With the exception of late notification to the bureau, the department's overall response to the incident was sufficient. According to institution staff members, the delay in notice to the bureau was the result of confusion regarding the handling of incidents involving a warning shot. The institution now acknowledges that notification is required even for incidents merely involving a warning shot. There was also delay in the submission of incident reports by all staff members involved in 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. 07-0581 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 14, 2005, an inmate housed in a two-person cell was found strangled to death. DISPOSITION OF CASE Outside law enforcement officials investigated the incident, and the case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution of the cellmate for murder. There was no evidence of staff misconduct; 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 on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 07-0582 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 22, 2005, a riot involving about 20 inmates resulted in four inmates receiving treatment at outside hospitals for non-life- threatening injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE No evidence of staff member misconduct was discovered, and 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 failed to provide adequate notification, but it adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 105 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPENDIX DISCIPLINARY ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS JULY 1, 2007 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2007 The following table contains a list of the department’s disciplinary allegations and findings in each case the bureau monitored during this reporting period. The table is organized in the same numerical order as the distinguished, deficient, and satisfactory tables found in the main body of this report. The information included in this table is derived directly from the department’s case management system database. Information absent from the database is indicated with an asterisk. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 106 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0288 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0289 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 07-0290 (Central Region) (1) Senior Radiological Technologist Battery Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Discrimination/ Harassment Sustained Yes Confidential Information Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 07-0291 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I * (2) Parole Agent I * (3) Parole Agent I * (4) Parole Agent III * 07-0292 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0293 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0294 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0295 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I * (2) Parole Agent I * 07-0296 (North Region) (1) Medical Technical Assistant * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 107 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0297 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0298 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 07-0299 (North Region) (1) Chief Medical Officer * (2) Regional Administrator * 07-0300 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained N/A (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained N/A (3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained N/A 07-0301 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I * 07-0302 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 07-0303 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Criminal Act Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Other Criminal Act Not Sustained Yes 07-0304 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Other Criminal Act Sustained N/A Other Criminal Act Sustained N/A 07-0305 (South Region) (1) Teacher - Elementary * 07-0306 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0307 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Sustained Yes Weapons Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Intoxication Sustained Yes 07-0308 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Sustained Yes Intoxication Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 07-0309 (North Region) (1) Staff Service Analyst (Gen) * 07-0310 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Weapons Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 108 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0311 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 07-0312 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0313 (North Region) (1) Clinical Psychologist * 07-0314 (North Region) (1) Clinical Psychologist Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0315 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0316 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity Sustained Yes 07-0317 (South Region) (1) Associate Warden Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes 07-0318 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 07-0319 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0320 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 07-0321 (South Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes 07-0322 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0323 (North Region) (1) Registered Nurse * 07-0324 (South Region) (1) Painter II * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 109 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0325 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0326 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes 07-0327 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes 07-0328 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0329 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes 07-0330 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of force Sustained Yes 07-0331 (North Region) (1) Registered Nurse Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 07-0332 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes 07-0333 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 07-0334 (South Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I * 07-0335 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0336 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes 07-0337 (South Region) (1) *UNKNOWN * (2) Accountant I (Supervisor) * (3) Associate Warden * (4) Associate Warden * (5) Business Manager II * (6) Lieutenant * (7) Procurement & Services Officer II * (8) Staff Services Manager I * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 110 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0338 (South Region) (1) *UNKNOWN * (2) Accountant I (Supervisor) * (3) Associate Warden * (4) Associate Warden * (5) Business Manager II * (6) Lieutenant * (7) Procurement & Services Officer II * (8) Staff Services Manager I * 07-0339 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0340 (North Region) (1) Other Staff * 07-0341 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0342 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes 07-0343 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes 07-0344 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0345 (North Region) (1) Office Technician - General Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes 07-0346 (North Region) (1) Dental Assistant * 07-0347 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0348 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0349 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0350 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 111 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0350 (Central Region) (3) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes 07-0351 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0352 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 07-0353 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0354 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Intoxication Sustained Yes 07-0355 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Intoxication Sustained Yes 07-0356 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 07-0357 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * 07-0358 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I * 07-0359 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes 07-0360 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 07-0361 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent II * 07-0362 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 07-0363 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 112 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0364 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Medical Technical Assistant Use of force Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 07-0365 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0366 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * 07-0367 (Central Region) (1) Prison Canteen Manager II * 07-0368 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0369 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes 07-0370 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 113 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0371 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * 07-0372 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0373 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * * (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Officer * * 07-0374 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 07-0375 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 114 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0376 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I * 07-0377 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0378 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained No Use of force Not Sustained No (3) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained No Use of force Not Sustained No (5) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes 07-0379 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I * 07-0380 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0381 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0382 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0383 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0384 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0385 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Assault Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes 07-0386 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0387 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 115 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0388 (South Region) (1) *UNKNOWN * (2) *UNKNOWN * (3) Office Technician - General * (4) Parole Agent III * (5) Personnel Assistant III * 07-0389 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * 07-0390 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0391 (Headquarters) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I * 07-0392 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Insubordination Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes 07-0393 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes 07-0394 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer GC19572 (d) Inexcusable Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes GC19572 (t) Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * 07-0395 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes 07-0396 (Headquarters) (1) Senior Youth Correctional Counsel * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 116 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0397 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 07-0398 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0399 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 07-0400 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 07-0401 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0402 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes 07-0403 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Captain Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0404 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0405 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 07-0406 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Insubordination Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 117 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0406 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Retaliation Not Sustained Yes 07-0407 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0408 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Excessive Force Not Sustained Yes GC19572 (t) Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes 07-0409 (South Region) (1) Staff Psychiatrist Dishonesty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Medical Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes 07-0410 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 07-0411 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Weapons Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0412 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes 07-0413 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Medical Not Sustained Yes (2) Registered Nurse * 07-0414 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes 07-0415 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * 07-0416 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 118 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0416 (South Region) (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0417 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes 07-0418 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer GC19572 (d) Inexcusable Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes GC19572 (t) Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer GC19572 (d) Inexcusable Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes GC19572 (t) Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer * 07-0419 (North Region) (1) Correctional Captain * (2) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 07-0420 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0421 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0422 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes Assault Sustained Yes 07-0423 (South 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 (5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0424 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Insubordination Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 119 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0424 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Misuse of state equip. or property Sustained Yes Confidential Information Sustained Yes 07-0425 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Sergeant * (4) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0426 (North Region) (1) Medical Technical Assistant Insubordination Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0427 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 07-0428 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0429 (North Region) (1) Correctional Counselor II * 07-0430 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 07-0431 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 07-0432 (Headquarters) (1) Senior Youth Correctional Counsel * (2) Sergeant * 07-0433 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes 07-0434 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 120 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0434 (Central Region) (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes 07-0435 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes 07-0436 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes 07-0437 (North Region) (1) Registered Nurse Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0438 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * 07-0439 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0440 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Misuse of state equip. or property Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0441 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Counselor II * (2) Correctional Lieutenant * (3) Correctional Lieutenant * (4) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0442 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0443 (Central Region) (1) Senior Radiological Technologist Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 121 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0443 (Central Region) (1) Senior Radiological Technologist Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Discrimination/ Harassment Sustained Yes Battery Sustained Yes 07-0444 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0445 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Psychiatric Technician * (5) Registered Nurse * (6) Registered Nurse * 07-0446 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Sergeant * (3) Medical Technical Assistant * 07-0447 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0448 (Headquarters) (1) Youth Correctional Counselor * 07-0449 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0450 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I * (2) Parole Agent I * (3) Parole Agent III Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 07-0451 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 122 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0451 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0452 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 07-0453 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0454 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 07-0455 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0456 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained (4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Use of force Not Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0457 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Theft Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 123 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0458 (Central Region) (1) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 07-0459 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0460 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * * 07-0461 (North Region) (1) Maintenance Mechanic Controlled Substances Not Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes 07-0462 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0463 (Headquarters) (1) Youth Correctional Officer * 07-0464 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Not Sustained Yes 07-0465 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0466 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0467 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes 07-0468 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 124 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0468 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0469 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 07-0470 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0471 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Correctional Officer * (6) Correctional Officer * (7) Correctional Officer * (8) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0472 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0473 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes 07-0474 (North Region) (1) Vocational Instructor * 07-0475 (North Region) (1) Registered Nurse Use of force Not Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 125 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0475 (North Region) (1) Registered Nurse Medical Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0476 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0477 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 07-0478 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 07-0479 (South Region) (1) Chief Deputy Warden * (2) Correctional Officer Confidential Information Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Confidential Information Not Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Not Sustained (4) Correctional Officer Confidential Information Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Not Sustained (5) Correctional Officer * (6) Correctional Officer Confidential Information Not Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Officer Confidential Information Not Sustained Yes (8) Correctional Officer Confidential Information Not Sustained Yes (9) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Misuse of state equip. or property Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes (10) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Not Sustained 07-0480 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Use of force Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 126 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0480 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0481 (South Region) (1) Supervising Cook I * 07-0482 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * 07-0483 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Assault Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 07-0484 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0485 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Misuse of state equip. or property Sustained Yes Theft Sustained Yes 07-0486 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0487 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I * 07-0488 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes Controlled Substances Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other Criminal Act Sustained Yes 07-0489 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0490 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0491 (North Region) (1) Office Technician - General Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 07-0492 (North Region) (1) Correctional Counselor I * (2) Correctional Counselor I * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 127 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0492 (North Region) (3) Correctional Counselor I * (4) Correctional Counselor II * (5) Correctional Sergeant * (6) Facility Captain * 07-0493 (North Region) (1) Captain * (2) Lieutenant * (3) Management Services Technician * 07-0494 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I * 07-0495 (South Region) (1) Correctional Counselor II Misuse of state equip. or property Sustained Yes Misuse of state equip. or property Sustained Yes 07-0496 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0497 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0498 (South Region) (1) Supervising Cook I Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 07-0499 (North Region) (1) Associate Warden * (2) Captain * (3) Chief Deputy Warden * 07-0500 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant * (2) Youth Correctional Counselor * (3) Youth Correctional Counselor * 07-0501 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0502 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0503 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant * (2) Correctional Officer * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 128 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 07-0503 (North Region) (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Correctional Officer * 07-0504 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I * 07-0505 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 07-0506 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 07-0507 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Sergeant * 07-0508 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I * BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 129 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA