Bureau of Independent Review, Semi-Annual Report, July – December 2008

BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JULY – DECEMBER 2008 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DAVID R. SHAW INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA MARCH 2009 C ONTENTS FOREWORD......................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................2 SUMMARY OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES........................................................................................3 EXPLANATION OF TABLE FORMAT...............................................................................................16 TABLE OF DISTINGUISHED CASES.................................................................................................19 TABLE OF DEFICIENT CASES........................................................................................................29 TABLE OF SATISFACTORY CASES.................................................................................................34 TABLE OF APPEALED CASES.......................................................................................................105 TABLE OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS.................................................................................................112 APPENDIX: DISCIPLINARY ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS..........................................................138 F OREWORD Since the Bureau of Independent Review’s first semi-annual report was published in 2005, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has consistently improved its overall handling of internal affairs investigations and employee disciplinary matters. I believe these improvements can be attributed to the close and cooperative relationship between the department and the bureau. As Inspector General, I am committed to continuing this cooperation to ensure the department’s internal affairs investigations and disciplinary actions remain thorough, transparent, and fair. I continue to be encouraged by the department’s progress in carrying out the reforms mandated by the Madrid federal court case. During this reporting period, the department achieved reasonable outcomes for an overwhelming majority of cases monitored by the bureau. However, there remains room for improvement as only a relatively small number of cases have been identified as distinguished. It is my hope that with continued cooperation between the department and the bureau, the majority of cases will one day be reported as distinguished. It is with pleasure that I present this semi-annual report, which includes an assessment of more monitored cases than any other previous report since the bureau’s inception. I am also pleased to report that the bureau’s monitoring duties have expanded in scope to include a new pilot program that provides a review and analysis of in-custody deaths. It is my hope that this new monitoring activity will assist the department in improving its health care system statewide. Despite California’s significant fiscal challenges, we continue to move closer to a shared goal of establishing a model correctional system in California, thanks to the many efforts of my staff, the department’s staff, and our stakeholders. — DAVID R. SHAW, INSPECTOR GENERAL BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 1 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA I NTRODUCTION I am pleased to present the Bureau of Independent Review’s eighth semi-annual report, which documents the bureau’s case monitoring and oversight activities from July 1, 2008, to December 31, 2008. Since its inception in 2004, the bureau has actively assisted the department in implementing many reforms as mandated by the Madrid federal court case. Consistent with its mission to promote integrity, accountability, and transparency within the department, the bureau monitors the investigations of alleged employee misconduct and disciplinary decisions related to misconduct. The department’s investigations and disciplinary decisions are governed by the department’s internal policies and procedures. The bureau evaluates the department’s level of compliance with those policies and procedures. Pursuant to California Penal Code section 6133, the bureau publishes public reports summarizing its monitoring activities that have concluded during each six-month reporting period. In this semi-annual report, you will see that the bureau’s monitoring responsibilities have continued to expand. In this reporting period, the bureau reports more cases than in any previous semi-annual report. The bureau also implemented a new pilot program to provide in-depth review of in-custody deaths. I look forward to presenting the results of the pilot program in future public reports. As this report demonstrates, the oversight model continues to have a significant effect on the department’s operations. During the July through December 2008 reporting period, the department continued to improve its overall compliance with its own policies and procedures. I am indebted to the many talented and experienced professionals who work for the bureau and who make this report possible. I also wish to thank the department’s executives and staff members for their daily cooperation and support of the bureau’s mission. I look forward to continuing the bureau’s work with the department and other stakeholders to achieve our mutual goal of creating a model correctional system for California. — HOWARD E. MOSELEY, CHIEF ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 2 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA S M A UMMARY OF ONITORING CTIVITIES The Bureau of Independent Review’s (bureau) primary function is to monitor the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (department) disciplinary process. This includes monitoring of the department’s internal affairs investigations into alleged employee misconduct, as well as any disciplinary decisions related to alleged misconduct. In addition, the bureau monitors the department’s response to critical incidents and its review of use-of-force incidents. The bureau has also recently developed a pilot program for reviewing the circumstances surrounding the in-custody death of wards and inmates that occur at specified facilities. In this report, the bureau is reporting on its evaluation of 295 monitored cases and 78 critical incidents.1 This represents the bureau’s largest number of cases reported in a semi-annual report. This report also includes an overview of the bureau’s monitoring of the department’s use-of- force review process and medical oversight program. Case Monitoring Activities When it is reasonably believed that employee misconduct may have occurred, the matter is forwarded to the department’s Office of Internal Affairs’ (OIA) central intake panel for evaluation. The central intake panel determines if an internal affairs investigation is warranted, whether enough information exists for the department to proceed with a disciplinary action without an investigation, or if no further action is warranted. The bureau participates in the central intake panel meetings to provide recommendations on central intake panel determinations and to determine which cases the bureau will accept for monitoring. Once a case is accepted for monitoring, the bureau follows the case through the various stages of the disciplinary process. If an internal affairs investigation is conducted, the bureau consults with the investigators, attends key interviews, reviews evidence, and provides recommendations regarding the investigative report. Department managers who are responsible for determining whether or not to impose discipline on an employee are referred to as “hiring authorities.” When a hiring authority determines what, if any, discipline will be imposed on an employee, the bureau provides feedback regarding the hiring authority’s proposed course of action. If the hiring authority and the bureau representative have a significant disagreement regarding the appropriate outcome of a case, the matter may be elevated to the next supervisory level through a process called executive review. If the department’s attorneys have been assigned to provide legal advice for the case, the bureau consults with the attorneys regarding legal issues and reviews any disciplinary documents drafted on behalf of the department. Once the department’s internal disciplinary process has concluded, the bureau provides its assessment of the case in the tables that follow in this report. 1 Monitored cases are those cases approved by the department for an administrative investigation, criminal investigation, or direct disciplinary action without an investigation. Critical incidents include serious events, such as riots or homicides, which require the department’s immediate response. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 3 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Employees who are disciplined have a right to challenge that discipline by filing an appeal with the State Personnel Board, which is an independent state agency. The bureau continues to monitor cases through this appeal process. If there is a significant change in the outcome of a case after the bureau has reported it in a previous report, this updated information is provided to the public in the Table of Appealed Cases found later in this report. Caseload Trends This report includes an evaluation of cases completed between July and December 2008, and consists of 295 monitored cases. As the chart below demonstrates, the bureau’s case-monitoring activities have steadily increased over the last three years. Semi-Annual Case Reporting Trend 295 260 239 221 206 193 January - July - January - July - January - July - June December June December June December 2006 2007 2008 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 4 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA sesaC fo rebmuN Allegations of misconduct Case Types are characterized as either administrative or criminal. Administrative - Criminal Cases Direct Action 55 Most investigations Cases monitored by the bureau 56 involve allegations of administrative misconduct. In some cases, the department determines there is enough evidence to impose discipline on an employee for administrative misconduct without the need for an internal affairs investigation. These cases are referred to as “direct action” cases and are also Administrative - monitored by the bureau. Investigation In this report, the bureau Cases provides an assessment of 184 184 administrative investigations and 56 direct action cases. The remaining 55 cases assessed by the bureau in this report involve allegations of criminal misconduct. Allegation Distribution Consistent with past practice, the bureau focused Allegation Type Distribution a large portion of its monitoring activities during 199 this reporting period on 183 cases involving five allegation types: (1) improper use of force; (2) 106 dishonesty in official reports or during investigative 63 interviews; (3) failure to 33 report misconduct; (4) overly familiar conduct b i a T n n e h m t d e w a ( f e t 5 i e e r ) s s n , s t e e w th x m a r u r e p a d e l l o s t m , y y o e i p s r e e c s p s o a a o n r n f d o d u l e c e t s . ; Us e of F orc e Di s h o nesty Failure t o R e p ort Over-Fa miliarity ex ual Mi sc o nd uct S allegations are of particular concern to the bureau because, if true, serious civil rights violations may have occurred. The final two types of allegations are of concern because the safety and security of a correctional BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 5 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA institution might be at risk, as well the possibility that a potentially vulnerable population is being exploited. It is important to note that a single case often addresses many allegations of misconduct. The chart above illustrates the number of times each of the five allegation types were at issue in the 295 cases assessed in this report. Case Findings One of the most important steps in the disciplinary process occurs when a hiring authority determines whether or not to sustain allegations of administrative misconduct against an employee. Unfortunately, however, data concerning these critical decisions is not readily available in a significant number of cases. Although departmental policies and procedures require hiring authorities to record the findings of each investigation in the department’s case management system, it was not done in 96 of the 240 administrative cases assessed in this report, which equates to 40 percent. Of the 144 cases with findings, no allegations of misconduct were sustained by the hiring authority in 41 cases. At least one allegation of misconduct was sustained in each of the remaining 103 of these cases. Administrative Case Findings Cases Sustained 103 (72%) Cases with Data 144 (60%) Cases Not Sustained Cases Without Data 41 (28%) 96 (40%) BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 6 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Bureau Assessment The bureau assesses cases in two ways. One way is by evaluating the disposition, meaning the ultimate outcome of the case. The other way is by determining whether each of the three entities responsible for implementing the department’s disciplinary process complied with department policies and procedures.2 The three department entities are: • the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA), which conducts the investigations; • hiring authorities (HA), which are management employees who determine whether or not to impose discipline; • the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team (EAPT), which are the department’s attorneys who provide legal advice and represent the department at State Personnel Board hearings. For this six-month reporting period, the bureau identified only 9 administrative cases as deficient, which means the outcome of the case was unreasonable. Of the remaining 231 administrative cases assessed, the bureau identified 32 as being distinguished, which means the outcome of the case was reasonable and each of Case Assessments the three entities substantially complied with department Satisfactory Cases procedures. Distinguished 199 (83%) Cases The remaining 199 32 (13%) administrative cases were found to be satisfactory, meaning the case resulted in a reasonable outcome despite procedural problems. The bureau did not evaluate the disposition of the 55 Deficient Cases monitored criminal cases 9 (4%) because the decision to file criminal charges is made by district attorney’s offices or the attorney general’s office, not the department. Overall, the bureau found the three entities to be procedurally compliant with department policies and procedures more often than not. Sometimes the bureau does not assess the department’s procedural compliance because there is not enough information available to assess. For example, if an employee who is under investigation resigns before the investigation is 2 The department policies and procedures regarding employee discipline are based on the reforms required under the Madrid federal court case. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 7 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA completed, the bureau may not have enough information to evaluate the hiring authority’s compliance with procedures because no disciplinary action can be imposed against that employee. Of the cases in which the bureau assessed OIA’s procedural compliance, the bureau found that OIA was substantially compliant in 82 percent of cases, partially compliant in 18 percent, and failed to comply in less than 1 percent. The department’s hiring authorities were substantially compliant in 76 percent of cases, partially compliant in 20 percent, and failed to comply in 4 percent. Finally, the EAPT was substantially compliant in 55 percent of cases, partially compliant in 35 percent, and failed to comply in 10 percent. The charts that follow compare the assessment ratings for the OIA, HA and the EAPT from this reporting period to those from the bureau’s last five semi-annual reports. OIA Assessment Ratings 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Jul - Dec 06 Jan - Jun 07 Jul - Dec 07 Jan - Jun 08 Jul - Dec 08 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 8 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA tnecreP Substantial Compliance Partial Compliance Failure to Comply HA Assessment Ratings 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Jul - Dec 06 Jan - Jun 07 Jul - Dec 07 Jan - Jun 08 Jul - Dec 08 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 9 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA tnecreP Substantial Compliance Partial Compliance Failure to Comply EAPT Assessment Ratings 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Jul - Dec 06 Jan - Jun 07 Jul - Dec 07 Jan - Jun 08 Jul - Dec 08 tnecreP Substantial Compliance Partial Compliance Failure to Comply All three entities have increased the percentage of substantially compliant cases over the past five reporting periods. In addition, the percentage of cases in which EAPT failed to comply with departmental policies and procedures has been reduced from 48 percent in 2007 to 10 percent in this reporting period. Critical Incident Monitoring Activities The department is required to notify the bureau of all critical incidents shortly after the time of the event. Critical incidents include serious events that require an immediate response by the department, such as riots, homicides, escapes, sexual assaults, hostage situations, uses of lethal force, and unexpected inmate deaths. After notification, the bureau monitors the department’s management of the incident, often by deploying bureau representatives to the site of the incident. More specifically, the bureau evaluates the department’s immediate response to the incident, the subsequent determination of whether the incident should be referred to the OIA, and the OIA’s decision regarding any referral. The bureau’s evaluations of these critical incidents are contained in the Table of Critical Incidents found in this report. Caseload Trends During this reporting period the bureau assessed 78 critical incidents, which represents the largest number reported since 2006. Critical Incident Responses 90 78 80 74 70 61 61 63 60 48 50 40 30 20 10 0 January - June July - January - June July - January - June July - December December December 2006 2007 2008 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 10 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Type of Critical Incident Consistent with past reporting periods, the bureau most often monitored critical incidents involving use of force. As shown in the chart below, a noteworthy statistic is the increase in critical incidents assessed by the bureau involving inmate suicides - from six in the first half of 2008 to 14 in the second half of 2008. Type of Critical Incidents Comparison 16 14 14 13 13 14 12 10 10 10 10 9 10 8 8 8 6 6 5 5 6 4 2 N/A 0 U s e of F or c e s ( e L e of t h F a o l) r c e ( N o n- L et h al) I n m at e n e S x u p i c e i c d t e e d I n m at e D e a I t n h m at e H o mi ci d e S e x u al A s s u alt I n m at e A s s a ult Ot h er U U January - June 2008 July - December 2008 Use-of-Force Incident Review Monitoring Activities The bureau also monitors the department’s internal review of use-of-force incidents that occur in adult institutions and juvenile facilities, as well as use-of-force incidents involving parole agents. The committees that conduct use-of-force reviews serve two purposes: to determine whether a staff member’s use of force comports with departmental policy, and to identify any reporting deficiencies. At times, the initial supervisory review of use-of-force incident reports reveals that potential misconduct occurred and the matter is referred directly to the OIA without a committee review. However, most use-of-force incidents are subject to the committee review process. If the committee determines that misconduct may have occurred, the incident is referred to the OIA for investigation or approval of direct disciplinary action without further investigation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 11 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA During this reporting period, the bureau attended 239 of these committee meetings statewide. At these meetings, the bureau reviewed 1,790 incidents involving use of force by department staff. The chart below shows the number of meetings attended by the bureau and the number of cases reviewed in each region of the state and within the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Use of Force Meetings and Cases Monitored by Region 800 710 700 600 487 500 373 400 300 220 200 100 80 33 100 26 0 NORTH CENTRAL SOUTH DJJ Region BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 12 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA latoT Meetings Cases Level of Force The bureau tracks each use of force by each staff member separately even if more than one use of force occurs within the same incident. The bureau categorizes the force used into six levels, which are (from lowest to highest): physical force, pepper spray, baton, less-lethal projectile, and lethal force. If a staff member uses more than one type of force against an inmate, ward, or parolee, the bureau only notes the highest level of force used. For example, if a staff member uses pepper spray against an inmate and then uses physical force to restrain the inmate, the level of force used is reported as pepper spray. Based on the incidents reviewed by the bureau, the bureau found pepper spray to be the most common type of force used by the department, followed by physical force. More often than not, use of lethal force is immediately referred to the OIA without committee review; thus, this category is generally not reviewed at committee meetings. The frequency of each type of force used in the incidents reviewed by region and the DJJ are reflected in the chart below. Use of Force Reviewed 800 706 633 700 600 500 401 362 400 311 262 300 216 167 200 126 84 49 98 65 100 28 0 1 4 1 2 0 Pepper Spray Physical Force Baton Less Lethal Lethal Type of Force BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 13 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA deweiveR stnedicnI fo rebmuN 0 North Central South DJJ Timeliness of Review The amount of time between the date of the incident and the date of review is important for several reasons. First, department staff deserve prompt review of their actions so as to remove any uncertainty about their conduct. Second, if staff misconduct is identified, the department statutorily has one year to take disciplinary action against peace officers and three years to take disciplinary action against other employees, absent an exception. Finally, if a need for training is identified, it is critical that the training occur promptly to prevent the conduct from reoccurring. The time between the date of the incident and its review by the department varied significantly statewide. The DJJ had the quickest overall review time, averaging 19 days. In contrast, the department’s Division of Adult Institutions (DAI), northern region, had the longest overall review time, averaging 96 days. As shown in the chart below, the DAI’s central and southern regions, along with the DJJ, shortened their review time while the DAI’s northern region’s review time held constant. While the bureau did not evaluate whether the overall length of time to review the cases was adequate, it is important to note that the regions are generally resolving the cases in a shortened period of time. Average Number of Days Between Incident and Review 120 112 95 96 100 82 80 63 58 60 40 27 19 20 0 North South Central DJJ Region BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 14 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA syaD fo rebmuN January - June 2008 July - December 2008 Medical Monitoring Activities Since January 2008, the bureau has also monitored the activities of the department’s Medical Oversight Program (MOP). The MOP is comprised of OIA investigators, department attorneys, and doctors and nurses from the department’s Division of Health Care Services. The MOP reviews and investigates cases involving alleged medical-related misconduct by the department’s health care professionals. In addition, the bureau initiated a pilot program to independently review the department’s response to in-custody deaths. The pilot program was developed by bureau staff after researching in-custody death review programs in other relevant correctional systems. Specifically, the bureau researched the in-custody death review programs in the County of Los Angeles, the federal prison system, and the State of Texas, which was recently released from federal receivership and has an inmate population comparable to California. As currently staffed, the pilot program is able to review every in-custody death that occurs in five northern California adult prisons and any ward death that occurs in the department’s Division of Juvenile Justice statewide. The five adult prisons selected for the pilot are Folsom State Prison; California State Prison, Sacramento; Mule Creek State Prison; Deuel Vocational Institution; and California State Prison, Solano. The pilot program reviews and reports on the circumstances surrounding each death, including an analysis of the health care the inmate or ward received prior to his or her death. Once the bureau receives notice of an in-custody death, the bureau immediately goes to the scene of the death, collects relevant records, attends the autopsy, analyzes all information gathered, and consults with a medical expert retained by the bureau. The bureau analyzes each incident using the factors identified by the federal court in its remedial orders in Marciano Plata, et al, v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. The goal of the program is to complete the entire in-custody death review process within 30 days from the date of the in-custody death. The Inspector General provides the results of the bureau’s independent review to the department’s secretary and the federal receiver so that the information can be used to improve the quality of medical care provided to inmates throughout the state correctional system. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 15 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA E T F XPLANATION OF ABLE ORMAT The tables that follow provide the public with the bureau’s assessment of individual cases and critical incidents monitored by the bureau. The case tables, which appear first, provide the bureau’s assessment of the department’s internal affairs investigations and employee discipline actions related to alleged misconduct. The appealed cases table provides additional information regarding the resolution of cases originally reported in prior semi-annual reports. Finally, the critical incidents table provides an assessment of how the department responded to these serious incidents. Format of Case Tables The bureau’s approach to assessing individual cases focuses on the ultimate outcome, or disposition, of each case. A case in which the outcome was reasonable is presented as either a distinguished case or a satisfactory case, depending on how well the department complied with its policies and procedures in handling the case. Cases in which the disposition of the case was unreasonable are presented as deficient cases. Assessing the Disposition of Cases The disposition in each case, which includes the allegations, findings, and penalty imposed, if any, has been given one of the following ratings: Symbol Rating Explanation Given the totality of the circumstances, the disposition of the case was reasonable and substantially consistent with the bureau’s recommendations. In addition, the department substantially complied with critical policies and procedures applicable to the case. Given the totality of the circumstances, the disposition of the case was reasonable and substantially consistent with the bureau’s recommendations. However, the department failed to comply with some critical policies and procedures applicable to the case. Given the totality of the circumstances, the disposition of the case was unreasonable and inconsistent with the bureau’s recommendations. The disposition of the case was unreasonable and inconsistent with the bureau’s recommendations but later rectified as the result of executive review, a process that elevates the unreasonable decision to the hiring authority’s superior within the department; or The case eventually resulted in a finding that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct. However, had actionable misconduct been found, no action could have been taken because the time for a prosecutor to file charges in a criminal case or for the department to take disciplinary action in an administrative case expired before the case was resolved. The case monitored was a criminal case, so there were no administrative charges, findings, or penalties imposed by the department for the bureau to assess. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 16 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA The DISPO column shows the rating for the disposition of each monitored case. Assessing the Department’s Compliance This report also provides an assessment of the department’s compliance with policies and procedures governing its internal investigations and employee discipline. Three critical entities are involved in the department’s disciplinary process: the OIA, which conducts the investigation (INV); the EAPT, which provides legal advice and advocacy (ADV); and the hiring authorities (HA), which determine the discipline to impose. Each critical entity is assessed with one of the following ratings: Symbol Rating Explanation There was substantial compliance with critical policies and procedures. There was partial compliance with critical policies and procedures. There was a failure to comply with critical policies and procedures. There was insufficient data to provide an assessment or, because of the nature of the case, the individual component was not involved. The rating for each critical entity appears in the INV, ADV, and HA columns for each case the bureau monitored. As mentioned above, the bureau’s monitored cases are presented in the following three categories: Distinguished cases – cases that resulted in reasonable outcomes that were handled well by each critical entity. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 17 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Deficient cases – cases that initially resulted in unreasonable outcomes or cases in which the applicable statutory deadline expired before the case was resolved. Satisfactory cases – cases that resulted in reasonable outcomes despite not being handled well by one or more of the critical entities. Format of Appealed Cases Table The appealed cases table provides updated information regarding cases published in prior semi- annual reports. The bureau initially reports administrative actions when the department has determined whether to impose discipline on an employee; and, if discipline is to be imposed, the department has served the employee with disciplinary documents. However, employees may request a hearing to challenge the disciplinary action before the State Personnel Board, an independent state agency. The bureau continues to monitor the case through this appeal process. If there is a significant modification in the discipline after an appeal is filed, the bureau publicly reports this change in the appealed cases table. Each case in the appealed cases table is listed in ascending order by the case’s original number in a prior semi-annual report. The first two digits of the case number reflect the year the case was reported, and the second number reflects the order in which the case was reported during that year. For example, case number 05-0012 was the twelfth case appearing in the 2005 semi-annual reports. Cases appear in the appealed cases table after resolution, and they complete the appeal process at various times. Therefore, by design, there are gaps in the number sequence of the appealed cases table. Format of Critical Incidents Table The critical incidents table provides a text-based description regarding the facts of the incident, the disposition of the case, and the bureau’s assessment of how the department responded to the incident. The bureau’s assessment addresses the following critical components of the department’s response: • Did the department appropriately respond to the incident? • Was the bureau properly consulted, as mandated by the Madrid reforms? • Did the department properly determine whether to refer the matter for investigation? • If the matter was referred for investigation, did the OIA properly handle the referral? When the bureau accepts an investigation opened as a result of a critical incident for monitoring, it is reported in the case tables of the semi-annual report when the case has completed the department’s internal disciplinary process. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 18 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0324 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 29, 2008, it was alleged that a library technician was providing inmates with mobile phones, cash, and DISPO INV ADV HA other items. It was further alleged that she engaged in sexual misconduct with an inmate and that she was dishonest during interviews with investigators. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained all allegations and dismissed the library technician. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0325 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on January 7, 2008, a physician inappropriately touched the chest and testicles of an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA during a medical exam. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0326 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 10, 2007, it was alleged that an officer was involved in an overly familiar relationship with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. It was also alleged that the officer was trafficking illegal contraband, tobacco, and drugs into the institution for monetary gain. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations against the officer were sustained and the officer was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0327 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 4, 2007, it was alleged that a vocational instructor inappropriately corresponded with inmates. In DISPO INV ADV HA addition, her correspondence indicated that she had been having sexual contacts with them and providing them with mobile phones. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the vocational instructor with a notice of dismissal. However, she resigned before the dismissal took effect. A letter was placed in her personnel file indicating that she resigned under unfavorable circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 19 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0328 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 18, 2007, a sergeant was conducting a videotaped interview with an inmate regarding a use of DISPO INV ADV HA force incident in which the inmate had been hit in the head. It was alleged that the sergeant altered the video and failed to follow policy when conducting the interview. It was also alleged that a second sergeant had been present and failed to document his involvement in the interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations. The investigation revealed that the second sergeant was present, but only after the interview had ended. It was also determined that the sergeant who conducted the interview had never done so before and the video equipment was malfunctioning. He received a letter of instruction and training. Case No. 08-0329 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 16, 2007, an officer allegedly used unnecessary and excessive force on an inmate by hitting him DISPO INV ADV HA in the face while the inmate was handcuffed. The officer allegedly wrote a false and misleading report regarding the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0330 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on November 8, 2007, a lieutenant yelled at an inmate, grabbed him by the face, and slapped DISPO INV ADV HA him. It was further alleged that the lieutenant was dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations of unnecessary use of force and discourteous treatment and issued a letter of reprimand to the lieutenant. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of dishonesty. Case No. 08-0477 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 3, 2007, a physician was arrested for spousal abuse. On December 22, 2007, he was also arrested DISPO INV ADV HA for using his departmental credentials to harass suspected prostitutes. DISPOSITION OF CASE The physician was a probationary employee. The hiring authority ended the physician's employment based on these incidents as well as a subsequent incident, which also resulted in the physician being arrested a third time. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 20 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0331 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 24, 2007, an inmate reportedly complained about his food portions to an officer. As the inmate DISPO INV ADV HA attempted to leave the dining area, the officer allegedly taunted him and struck the inmate on the face. The inmate also alleged that prior to being escorted to the infirmary, he was struck in the face a second time after he was handcuffed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the officer used unnecessary force against the inmate. However, the officer received a letter of instruction for ineffective communication and interpersonal skills in dealing with inmates and confrontational situations. Case No. 08-0332 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 18, 2007, a registered nurse allegedly violated medical policy by giving an inmate Demerol without DISPO INV ADV HA a physician's authorization and, when questioned, intentionally misrepresented to her supervisor that she had received the authorization from a physician. In addition, it was further alleged that the nurse improperly disposed of the excess Demerol. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the nurse. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0333 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 6, 2007, a sergeant allegedly directed a subordinate officer to write a false report regarding a use-of- DISPO INV ADV HA force incident. Later, following an investigation, the subordinate was alleged to have made a false report against the sergeant. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant. The allegations against the subordinate officer were sustained and the officer was dismissed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 21 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0334 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 28, 2007, an officer allegedly removed a piece of paper from an inmate's cell, threw it away, and DISPO INV ADV HA made unprofessional remarks to the inmate. The inmate later responded by kicking over a storage locker and lunging toward the officer while being escorted by two other officers. The officer sprayed the inmate with pepper spray. The officer and the two escorting officers failed to sound an alarm as required, and it was alleged they were dishonest in reporting the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of unnecessary force, dishonesty, or failure to report the incident. However, the hiring authority sustained allegations against the officer for instigating the incident with an improper search of the inmate's cell, not sounding an alarm, and not immediately notifying a supervisor. The officer received a salary reduction of 5 percent for 12 months. The hiring authority also sustained allegations against the two escorting officers for not intervening and stopping the first officer's misconduct and for not sounding an alarm when the inmate became aggressive and was pepper sprayed. The escorting officers both received a salary reduction of 5 percent for three months. Case No. 08-0335 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 27, 2007, during a review of a case file of an inmate being considered for a transfer, an error was DISPO INV ADV HA discovered relating to the location of an enemy of the inmate. An officer alleged she used the department's computer system to determine that the enemy inmate had been paroled. A later review using the same system reflected the enemy inmate's location was the same as the location of the requested transfer and this information was on the system at the time the officer allegedly reviewed it. The officer later admitted she entered the information into the case file without using the department's computer system. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained and the officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0336 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on September 23, 2007, an officer falsely claimed that an inmate visitor threw a headband at DISPO INV ADV HA her, hitting her in the face. It was also alleged that on November 11, 2007, the same officer falsely claimed that an inmate pushed the officer's hand into her chest. The officer also allegedly did not timely file a report concerning the first incident after being ordered to do so. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer failed to timely file a report, as instructed. However, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the other allegations. The officer received a letter of instruction. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 22 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0337 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 20, 2007, an officer allegedly lost his composure when an inmate yelled obscenities at the officer DISPO INV ADV HA and made disparaging remarks about the officer's family. The officer allegedly put his hand on the inmate's face and shoved him. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations of unnecessary use of force were sustained against the officer. The officer was issued a letter of reprimand. Case No. 08-0338 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 20, 2007, it was alleged that an officer got into an argument with an inmate in front of a sergeant, DISPO INV ADV HA while in the sergeant's office. During the argument, the officer allegedly pushed the inmate against a filing cabinet, grabbed his arm, and was trying to get the inmate to fight. It was also alleged that during the incident the officer failed to follow the sergeant's orders to let go of the inmate and stop arguing. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegation of discourteous treatment of the inmate but did not sustain the allegation of insubordination. The hiring authority imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 6 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0339 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 6, 2007, it was alleged that an officer had been sharing food from home with inmates and laundering DISPO INV ADV HA inmate barber smocks at home. It was also alleged that the officer failed to follow inmate count procedures. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 18 months. An appeal was not filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0340 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 13, 2007, a sergeant allegedly physically assaulted an inmate while the inmate was on suicide watch DISPO INV ADV HA after the inmate's failed attempt to commit suicide by hanging. The sergeant allegedly punched the inmate in the face twice while the inmate was in handcuffs. The sergeant failed to report the use of force, as did another officer who witnessed the incident. A nurse tried to determine whether the noose discovered in the cell fit over the inmate's head by placing the noose over the inmate's head. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations against the sergeant who assaulted the inmate and the officer who witnessed the incident. Allegations against the nurse were not sustained. The hiring authority served the sergeant with a notice of dismissal and the officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 24 months. Following Skelly hearings, the penalties were reduced. The sergeant was demoted to officer and the officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months. Appeals were not filed with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 23 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0341 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 28, 2007, an officer allegedly allowed an inmate to enter the cell of another inmate to commit an DISPO INV ADV HA assault. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegation and the officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0342 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 28, 2007, several officers allegedly used unnecessary and excessive force on a resistive inmate when DISPO INV ADV HA they forced him to the ground and caused injuries to his head and then took him to an area out of view of other inmates and repeatedly punched him while he was in handcuffs. The incident commander allegedly prevented a security squad officer from collecting evidence from staff and inmates. The incident commander also allegedly failed to include a security squad officer's report in the incident package. It is further alleged that several of the involved officers failed to accurately describe the amount of force used in the incident and that a licensed vocational nurse failed to document many of the inmate's injuries. A registered nurse later conducted a second evaluation of the inmate and noted numerous additional injuries on the inmate's body. It was further alleged that several officers lied during their interviews with the Office of Internal Affairs. DISPOSITION OF CASE One of the officers involved in the incident ultimately came forward and disclosed that he witnessed several officers use unnecessary and excessive force on the inmate. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the incident commander and demoted him from lieutenant to officer. Allegations were sustained against a sergeant for failing to report unnecessary and excessive use of force and for being dishonest during the investigation. The hiring authority initially dismissed the sergeant but the penalty was later modified to a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months as part of a settlement agreement. Allegations of excessive use of force were sustained against two officers who punched the handcuffed inmate and for being dishonest during the investigation. Both officers were dismissed. Another officer who witnessed the excessive and unnecessary force, failed to report it, and later lied about the incident during the investigation, was also dismissed. The officer who initially denied witnessing excessive force but later reported the misconduct was suspended without pay for 60 working days. However, the suspension was reduced to a 10 percent salary reduction for 30 months as a result of a settlement agreement. Allegations were sustained against the licensed vocational nurse for neglecting her duties, for failing to report all of the inmate's injuries, and for being dishonest during the investigation. The hiring authority dismissed the licensed vocational nurse. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations against six additional officers. The dismissed employees and the lieutenant who was demoted to officer all filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 24 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0343 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 14, 2007, two licensed vocational nurses allegedly failed to secure the clinic and their medication carts, DISPO INV ADV HA resulting in approximately 1,500 prescription medications being stolen. It was alleged they subsequently lied about the events in reports submitted to the department. The reports were prepared by a supervisor who allegedly pressured the nurses to sign the documents, knowing them to be false. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the two licensed vocational nurses for failing to secure the clinic and their medication carts. No other allegations were sustained against the two licensed vocational nurses or any other staff members. One nurse received a letter of reprimand. The other nurse resigned prior to completion of the investigation. The hiring authority placed a letter in her file indicating that she resigned under adverse circumstances. The nurse who received the letter of reprimand filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0344 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 8, 2007, two sergeants and seven officers allegedly conducted surprise cell searches and used excessive DISPO INV ADV HA and unnecessary force to extract the inmates from their cells. The sergeants and officers then allegedly wrote false reports in an attempt to cover up their misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against both sergeants and all seven officers. One sergeant and three officers were dismissed and one sergeant received a 5 percent salary reduction for 36 months. All five have filed and appeal with the State Personnel Board. Three officers received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months and another received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. These four officers did not file appeals with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0345 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between May and October 2007, a parole agent stole prescribed medication from a parolee. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 25 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0346 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 30, 2007, it was alleged that a sergeant used an unauthorized chokehold on an inmate in order to DISPO INV ADV HA retrieve contraband from the inmate's mouth. It was also alleged that a lieutenant, another sergeant, and seven officers failed to report their observation of this use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The sergeant who used force and failed to report it was dismissed. The lieutenant who failed to report the use of force he observed received a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months. The sergeant who failed to report the use of force he observed was demoted to officer. Two officers were dismissed. One of the other officers received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months, one received a 10 percent salary reduction for 6 months, and another received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. In addition, two officers were suspended without pay for two working days and another two officers received letters of instruction. Appeals were filed with the State Personnel Board for everyone who received discipline, with the exception of one dismissed officer. Case No. 08-0347 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 8, 2007, a nurse sexually assaulted an inmate while he was performing a medical DISPO INV ADV HA exam. It was also alleged that in March 2007, the nurse gave his personal phone number to another inmate, gave her tobacco, and later purchased clothing for her and gave her money after she was released on parole. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain any of the allegations. Case No. 08-0348 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 30, 2007, a registered nurse allegedly initiated an unauthorized medical response drill at the DISPO INV ADV HA institution. She directed another nurse to pretend to have been stabbed by an inmate-manufactured weapon while on duty. The unauthorized drill led to serious negative consequences in the areas of staff and inmate welfare, patient care, and community relations. It also resulted in the introduction of contraband into the institution and a waste of taxpayer funds as local emergency response agencies, including a life-flight helicopter, were called to the scene. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations were sustained and the registered nurse was served with a notice of dismissal. However, she was later permitted to resign as part of a settlement agreement. The allegations against the other registered nurse, who posed as the victim, were also sustained and the hiring authority imposed a salary reduction of 10 percent for 12 months for her misconduct. She filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 26 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0349 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 16, 2006, four inmates were found in possession of tobacco as they left a clothing room. An inmate DISPO INV ADV HA laundry worker was seen entering the clothing room with a large bag just before the other inmates came out. A search of the clothing room recovered approximately 1,365 ounces of tobacco, $550 cash, and various food products. The two staff members assigned to the laundry room were allegedly involved in the misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was insufficient evidence to identify who was responsible for providing the inmates with the tobacco. However, on October 17, 2006, the day after the incident, one of the two laundry workers retired from state service. The allegations against the remaining staff member were not sustained. A letter was placed in the retired laundry worker's personnel file indicating that his retirement was under unfavorable circumstances. Case No. 08-0350 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In August 2006, an industrial supervisor allegedly spent time inappropriately socializing with inmates and was DISPO INV ADV HA observed making physical contact with them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation that the industrial supervisor neglected her duty, but determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations that she was overly familiar with inmates. The industrial supervisor received a letter of instruction. Case No. 08-0351 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 14, 2006, an officer discovered a backpack at the institution's shooting range containing marijuana, DISPO INV ADV HA drug paraphernalia, a knife, and other items. A staff member later reported that he had a conversation with a groundskeeper who said he had located a backpack containing contraband. The groundskeeper allegedly said he had hid the backpack and failed to report it. It was also alleged the groundskeeper was dishonest during the investigation. It was further alleged that the groundskeeper supplied and used controlled substances and alcohol with inmates, assisted them in retrieving and transporting contraband into the institution, and took nude photographs of inmate workers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations that the groundskeeper took nude photographs of inmate workers. The remaining allegations were sustained. The hiring authority dismissed the groundskeeper. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 27 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHEDCASES Case No. 08-0352 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 26, 2005, a lieutenant conducted disciplinary hearings for four inmates. Despite receiving DISPO INV ADV HA information from a sergeant that the inmates could not be positively identified, the lieutenant found the inmates guilty of having participated in a riot. It was also alleged the lieutenant was dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation of dishonesty and the lieutenant was dismissed. The lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0353 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 13, 2005, an officer allegedly submitted documents in an investigative report falsely indicating that a DISPO INV ADV HA sergeant had seen a particular inmate participating in a riot. The officer was also allegedly dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegation of dishonesty was sustained and the officer was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0354 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 13, 2005, it was alleged that a doctor failed to keep proper medical records including patient health DISPO INV ADV HA information charts, directives, and requests for medications. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained and the doctor was demoted from the position of chief medical officer. The doctor filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 28 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 08-0355 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 15, 2007, a sergeant was arrested for driving under the influence. The sergeant was involved in a DISPO INV ADV HA single vehicle collision. He allegedly drove his vehicle over a concrete island causing serious damage to the vehicle and then left the scene of the accident. When later contacted by a local law enforcement official at a residence, he allegedly denied being involved in the collision and refused to submit to chemical tests for sobriety. He later admitted to not being honest with the outside law enforcement official. DISPOSITION OF CASE The sergeant pled guilty to reckless driving and his license was suspended because of his refusal to perform a valid test for driving under the influence. The original hiring authority sustained the allegations, including the dishonesty allegation, but determined the sergeant should not be dismissed. The bureau requested an executive review of the decision and the supervising hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the sergeant. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The initial hiring authority did not identify appropriate allegations or select an appropriate level of discipline. The initial level of discipline selected by the hiring authority was, therefore, unreasonable. Case No. 08-0356 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 2, 2007, it was alleged that a senior special agent inappropriately instructed an office technician to DISPO INV ADV HA access the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) to check the criminal history of prospective job candidates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation was sustained and the hiring authority issued a letter of reprimand to the senior special agent. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Although a staff attorney was assigned to the case, the hiring authority planned to draft the letter of reprimand. The hiring authority did not do so promptly. The staff attorney was then advised that the senior special agent was unavailable for service of the letter of reprimand for several days. The staff attorney did not timely request the specific details of the agent's unavailability for purposes of properly calculating the time within which disciplinary action could be taken. The information was eventually requested, but the hiring authority did not respond to the request until after the time period for taking disciplinary action expired. The letter of reprimand, therefore, was not served on the senior special agent. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 29 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 08-0357 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 29, 2007, a deputy regional administrator allegedly wrote two checks using a parole office's revolving DISPO INV ADV HA fund to compensate herself and another employee when their pay checks did not arrive at the office on time rather than using the proper procedure for when pay is delayed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation was sustained and the deputy regional administrator received a formal letter of reprimand, which was not appealed to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The written notice of disciplinary action was not prepared and sent to the deputy regional administrator until just before the time to take action expired. When serving this document by mail, the department is required to send it to the employee's residence address. However, the department sent it to the employee's business address, where the deputy regional administrator refused to accept the document and returned it. The department remedied this mistake by giving the document to the deputy regional administrator in person. However, by the time the department received the document back and provided it to the deputy regional administrator in person, the time for taking disciplinary action had expired. The deputy regional administrator nevertheless accepted the letter of reprimand and did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0358 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 24, 2007, officers allegedly directed an inmate to a secluded area where one of them slammed the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate's head against a wall causing the inmate to lose consciousness. Another officer allegedly participated in the assault. Neither officer reported the use of force incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigation was not conducted in this matter. Therefore, no allegations were sustained and no discipline was imposed. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The institution incorrectly calculated the statutory period for imposing disciplinary action and failed to timely submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. After consultation with the staff attorney and the bureau, the Office of Internal Affairs declined to conduct an investigation into the matter because disciplinary action would have been prohibited due to the expiration of the statutory deadline. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 30 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 08-0359 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 2, 2006, a lieutenant allegedly documented an inmate's attempted battery on an officer, which DISPO INV ADV HA resulted in the use of physical force by three officers. It was alleged that the inmate's injuries were inconsistent with the force reported by the officers. It was also alleged that the three officers failed to search and handcuff the inmate before escorting him, and that a licensed vocational nurse failed to adequately document the inmate's injuries. In addition, it was alleged that a captain did not appropriately review the incident and failed to require training or corrective action regarding the officers' failure to follow appropriate escort procedures. An associate warden also allegedly did not appropriately review the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation. The hiring authority sustained allegations against the officers, however, discipline was not imposed because the statutory deadline for taking disciplinary action had passed. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the licensed vocational nurse, the captain, and the associate warden. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority delayed referring the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation for a year after the officers' misconduct was discovered. The statutory deadline, therefore, expired before the investigation was opened. Case No. 08-0360 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 16, 2006, an inmate confined to a wheelchair alleged that an officer who was pushing him in his DISPO INV ADV HA wheelchair rammed his feet into doors, walls, and a metal cart. The inmate also alleged that the officer harassed and insulted him by calling him a "cripple" and other derogatory and discriminatory names. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the officer made insulting comments to the inmate, but was prevented from imposing discipline because the statutory deadline for taking disciplinary action had passed. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The allegations were documented by the inmate and received by the department on August 16, 2006. However, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs until September of 2007. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation. However, discipline could not be imposed because the statutory deadline for taking disciplinary action had expired. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 31 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 08-0361 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 19, 2006, an inmate alleged that an officer subjected several inmates to harassment and discourteous DISPO INV ADV HA treatment based upon their race, religion, and sexual orientation. It was also alleged that the officer endangered two inmates by locking them into closets for extended periods of time on separate occasions. Two other officers allegedly witnessed the harassment and discourteous treatment, but did not report the incidents. One of the officers who failed to report the misconduct later was allegedly dishonest during her investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer harassed inmates and that he was discourteous to them and initially decided to dismiss the officer. However, after a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority reduced the officer's penalty to a suspension without pay for 60 working days. One of the officers who failed to report the misconduct received a 10 percent salary reduction for three months. The other officer who failed to report the misconduct and was later untruthful during her investigatory interview was dismissed. She filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority reduced the penalty against the officer who harassed the inmates from a dismissal to a suspension without pay for 60 working days, based on the officer's level of remorse. The bureau was not consulted about the settlement offer and found the reduction in penalty to be unreasonable. Case No. 08-0362 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between April 2006 and November 2006, an officer was engaged in a sexual relationship with DISPO INV ADV HA an inmate. It was also alleged that the officer was supplying inmates with alcohol, mobile phones, and two-way radios. DISPOSITION OF CASE Disciplinary action against the officer could not be taken because the statutory deadline for imposing disciplinary action expired shortly after the misconduct was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The officer, however, retired once the investigation was opened. BUREAU ASSESSMENT After the investigation was opened, it was discovered that the misconduct was reported to a supervisor much earlier than originally thought. It was determined that the statutory time period for taking disciplinary action against the officer had expired before the investigation was opened. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 32 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFICIENT CASES Case No. 08-0363 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 17, 2006, a medical technical assistant allegedly failed to administer CPR in a timely manner to an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate who committed suicide by hanging. The medical technical assistant delayed CPR until the inmate was removed from his cell and transported to the institution's medical treatment area. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that additional information was needed before the allegation could be sustained. The hiring authority requested that the medical technical assistant be interviewed to obtain the additional information. However, the information was not obtained before the statutory deadline for imposing discipline passed. Therefore, no discipline was imposed. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority requested that the medical technical assistant be interviewed by the Office of Internal Affairs prior to determining whether or not to sustain the allegation. The statutory deadline for taking disciplinary action passed before the Office of Internal Affairs interviewed the medical technical assistant. Without the interview of the medical technical assistant, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation before the statutory deadline passed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 33 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0364 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 28, 2008, it was alleged that a registered nurse was engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA and trafficking narcotics on his behalf. DISPOSITION OF CASE The registered nurse resigned after she received notice that she was to be interviewed by the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0365 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 28, 2008, the department received information that a registered nurse was allegedly engaged in an DISPO INV ADV HA overly familiar sexual relationship with an inmate and trafficking narcotics on his behalf. DISPOSITION OF CASE During the investigation, the nurse was arrested by agents of the Office of Internal Affairs for attempting to bring narcotics into the institution. The case was referred to the local district attorney's office for prosecution, which filed charges against the nurse. Case No. 08-0366 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 22, 2008, an officer was escorting an inmate back to his cell when the inmate allegedly grabbed the DISPO INV ADV HA officer's wrist and refused to let go of it. The inmate was forcibly taken to the ground and, in the process, hit his head on the concrete floor. The inmate was transferred to an outside hospital where he survived after being treated for a serious head injury. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. Case No. 08-0367 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 9, 2008, an inmate alleged she engaged in sexual acts with an officer on two separate occasions in DISPO INV ADV HA February 2007. Another officer allegedly witnessed the sexual acts and failed to report it. Following the first officer's resignation, the second officer, as well as several additional officers, allegedly threatened and harassed the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The officer resigned prior to the investigation and an administrative investigation was opened into several other officers for failing to report and potential witness tampering, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0368 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In August 2008, it was alleged that an off-duty office technician purchased and used a controlled substance. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined that there was no probable cause to believe a crime was committed and, therefore, did not refer the matter to the district attorney's office. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 34 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0369 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 28, 2008, the department received information that a librarian was allegedly engaged in an overly DISPO INV ADV HA familiar relationship with inmates by providing inmates with tobacco, mobile phones, and drugs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation did not establish probable cause that a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. An administrative case was also opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0370 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 23, 2008, it was alleged a registered nurse was engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate by bringing contraband into the institution and engaging in a sexual relationship with the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The nurse resigned prior to the completion of the investigation. A letter was placed in her personnel file indicating she resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0371 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 23, 2008, it was alleged that a registered nurse was bringing contraband into the institution and was DISPO INV ADV HA engaging in a sexual relationship with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation did not establish probable cause to believe a crime occurred. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0372 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 11, 2008, it was alleged that a materials and stores supervisor was having a sexual relationship with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to file criminal charges. Case No. 08-0373 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 7, 2008, the spouse of a non-sworn employee found evidence that the employee was involved in an DISPO INV ADV HA overly familiar relationship with an inmate and informed the department. Letters from the inmate to the employee corroborated the allegation and indicated there may have also been sexual misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The employee resigned prior to the conclusion of the investigation. A letter was placed in her personnel file indicating that she resigned under unfavorable circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 35 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0374 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 3, 2008, it was alleged that an officer provided an inmate with personal nude photographs of herself, DISPO INV ADV HA letters, and tobacco. It was also alleged that the officer was dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the officer was served with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the dismissal took effect. Case No. 08-0375 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 29, 2008, an inmate alleged that a dental assistant was bringing tobacco into the institution and selling DISPO INV ADV HA it to inmates. Officers conducted a search of the dental office and discovered several bags of tobacco. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation. However, the dental assistant resigned before the disciplinary action dismissing her became effective. A letter was placed in the dental assistant's personnel file indicating that she resigned under adverse circumstances. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau regarding allegations, findings, and disciplinary action prior to making a final decision. The hiring authority also did not inform the bureau of significant developments throughout the case. Case No. 08-0376 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 23, 2008, a materials and stores supervisor allegedly admitted to a special agent and a senior special DISPO INV ADV HA agent that she could probably test positive for methamphetamines. A subsequent urinalysis was positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. DISPOSITION OF CASE The material and store supervisor resigned in lieu of disciplinary action. A letter accepting her resignation under adverse circumstances was placed in her personnel file. Case No. 08-0377 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 19, 2008, the Office of Internal Affairs received information alleging that in August 2007, a DISPO INV ADV HA superintendent allegedly told an officer that he would not request an internal affairs investigation into the officer's involvement in an off-duty incident. It was further alleged that the superintendent then failed to timely request an investigation and concealed information related to the officer's potential off-duty misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the superintendent. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 36 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0378 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 11, 2008, an outside law enforcement agency discovered a marijuana growing operation at an officer's DISPO INV ADV HA residence. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and the officer was dismissed. Case No. 08-0379 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 9, 2008, a licensed vocational nurse allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA by providing the inmate with mobile phones, razor blades, tobacco, and narcotics. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were investigated and only those related to mobile phones and tobacco were sustained. However, the licensed vocational nurse resigned before discipline could be imposed. A letter was placed in her personnel file indicating that her resignation was received under unfavorable circumstances. Case No. 08-0380 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 6, 2008, a large riot occurred on a recreation yard involving over 50 inmates from two rival gangs. Two DISPO INV ADV HA officers discharged two lethal rounds from rifles, one for warning and one for effect. The shot for effect struck an inmate in the shoulder, and the inmate was taken to a local hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the Office of Internal Affairs submitted the case to the local district attorney for evaluation. The district attorney declined to accept the case for prosecution. Case No. 08-0381 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 3, 2008, an office technician was suspected of bringing contraband and drugs into an institution. When DISPO INV ADV HA confronted by special agents, she allegedly admitted to the misconduct. Contraband was retrieved from the institution and drugs were found during a voluntary search of her residence. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed criminal charges. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0382 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 30, 2008, it was alleged that an officer was arrested for inflicting corporal injury on his spouse. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and the officer was issued a letter of reprimand. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 37 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0383 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 30, 2008, an internal affairs agent allegedly misused state property and solicited prostitution. DISPO INV ADV HA Specifically, the agent was seen driving his state issued vehicle in an area known for prostitution. Upon further observation, the agent stopped his car and an unknown female briefly entered the vehicle but moments later got out. The agent then drove off and left the area. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 60 working day suspension. The suspension was later modified to a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months as part of a settlement agreement. Case No. 08-0384 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 29, 2008, a sergeant, who was acting in the capacity of a lieutenant, allegedly neglected his duty by DISPO INV ADV HA prematurely terminating a videotaped interview of an inmate who claimed officers used excessive force causing him head injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and the sergeant received a letter of instruction. Case No. 08-0385 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 23, 2008, an officer was arrested for felony crimes related to child molestation and sexual exploitation. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority dismissed the officer for being absent without leave. Case No. 08-0386 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 19, 2008, it was alleged that an office technician was engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA worker. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation produced no evidence that the employee was engaged in criminal misconduct. The case was not referred to the district attorney's office. The department did not open an administrative investigation. Case No. 08-0387 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 16, 2008, it was alleged that an industrial supervisor was engaging in sexual activity with an inmate on DISPO INV ADV HA the grounds of the institution. In addition, it was alleged that the industrial supervisor was bringing contraband, including mobile phones, into the institution for inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation did not establish probable cause to believe a crime occurred. The case 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 38 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0388 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between May 15 and June 3, 2008, a health records technician was engaged in an overly DISPO INV ADV HA familiar relationship with two inmates. It was also alleged that the health records technician provided inmates with drugs and mobile phones. DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Affairs failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0389 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on May 15, 2008, a fire captain in charge of an inmate fire crew used unnecessary physical DISPO INV ADV HA force on an inmate. It was further alleged that the fire captain failed to report his use of force and instructed other inmates to not report the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The fire captain was employed by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, which found the allegations of misconduct to be true. The fire captain received a salary reduction of 5 percent for three months and training. Case No. 08-0390 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 13, 2008, an officer in a control booth observed two inmates fighting on the second tier of a unit. After DISPO INV ADV HA verbal commands failed, the officer fired one non-lethal round. The officer could not say where the round struck, and one of the inmates sustained a serious wound to his head that was consistent with being struck by a non- lethal round. The fight stopped, and the injured inmate was taken to the hospital and eventually recovered. Because of the seriousness of the head injury, the Office of Internal Affairs conducted a review of the force used. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined that there was no probable cause to believe the force used was unjustified; therefore, the case was not submitted to the district attorney's office. The bureau concurred. Case No. 08-0391 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 12, 2008, an associate warden allegedly gave his personal car keys to an inmate for delivery to another DISPO INV ADV HA staff member. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs completed its investigation and the hiring authority determined the allegation was unfounded. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 39 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0392 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 8, 2008, it was alleged that an officer was selling tobacco to inmates. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs was unable to complete the investigation because a confidential informant inadvertently compromised the undercover operation. Case No. 08-0393 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 2, 2008, federal and local law enforcement officers conducted a search of an officer's home during the DISPO INV ADV HA course of a criminal investigation of the officer's spouse. Drugs and firearms were found in the couple's bedroom. The officer allegedly lied to the law enforcement officers stating she did not have knowledge of the firearms located next to her bed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the dishonesty allegation. Case No. 08-0394 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between May and October 2008, an officer smuggled tobacco, alcohol, and tattoo ink into an DISPO INV ADV HA institution and provided the contraband to inmates in exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations. The officer resigned before he was served with a notice of disciplinary action. A letter was placed in the officer's personnel file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0395 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 28, 2008, it was alleged that a carpenter was trafficking narcotics, tobacco, and mobile phones to DISPO INV ADV HA inmates in exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the carpenter resigned before disciplinary action was imposed. A letter was placed in his personnel file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0396 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 28, 2008, an officer reported that he recognized another officer on a gang-related website. It was DISPO INV ADV HA alleged there were photographs of the officer displaying gang hand signs in the presence of gang members. It was also alleged the officer failed to report his employment with a record company featured on the website to the department when completing his employment application. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer was a probationary employee. The hiring authority rejected the officer during his probationary period. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 40 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0397 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 28, 2008, it was alleged that a carpenter was trafficking narcotics, tobacco, and mobile phones to DISPO INV ADV HA inmates in exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime occurred. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was not opened. Case No. 08-0398 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 24, 2008, it was alleged a vocational plumbing instructor had been allegedly smuggling tobacco and DISPO INV ADV HA illegal drugs into a plumbing class for sale and personal use. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the Office of Internal Affairs determined that probable cause existed to believe a crime had been committed and, therefore, submitted the matter to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0399 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 22, 2008, it was alleged that a parole agent had engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a DISPO INV ADV HA parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined there was no probable cause to believe a crime occurred. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was not opened by the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 41 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0400 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 22, 2008, an officer allegedly provided dishonest or misleading statements concerning his association DISPO INV ADV HA with parolees and gang members to outside law enforcement during an investigation into gang-related homicides. Outside law enforcement allegedly had photographs depicting the officer with parolees and gang members. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned pending the department's investigation. However, the Office of Internal Affairs completed the investigation, and the hiring authority sustained the allegations. The department placed a letter in the officer's personnel file indicating he resigned under unfavorable circumstances. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not confirm the date of the incident and the time period for taking disciplinary action in the department's case management system. They also did not contact the assigned investigator or the bureau to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation and they did not coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the investigation. In addition, the department's attorneys did not review the draft investigative report in a timely manner, nor did they provide a written summary confirming the critical discussions about it. The department's attorneys did not provide legal consultation to both the investigator during the investigative process or the hiring authority regarding the determination of the allegations and findings. The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau regarding the investigation, findings, and allegations prior to making a final decision about the case. Case No. 08-0401 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 21, 2008, an officer improperly opened an occupied cell, allowing another inmate DISPO INV ADV HA access to it. It was alleged the officer failed to ensure the inmate was assigned to that cell. When the cell door opened, the inmate assaulted the inmate who was in the cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation that the officer endangered fellow employees and inmates. The officer received a 5 percent pay reduction for six months. After a Skelly hearing, the discipline was reduced to a letter of reprimand due to mitigating factors. The officer rejected the letter of reprimand and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0402 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 10, 2008, an officer was arrested by local law enforcement officials for possession of stolen property. DISPO INV ADV HA The officer allegedly admitted that he knew the property was stolen when he gained possession of it. In addition, the officer allegedly failed to report his arrest to the department, as required. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 42 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0403 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 5, 2008, it was alleged that an officer was engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate that DISPO INV ADV HA continued after the inmate was released from custody. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned during the investigation. However, the hiring authority sustained the allegation and a letter was placed in her personnel file indicating that she resigned under unfavorable circumstances. Case No. 08-0404 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In April 2008, confidential information concerning a Parole Administrator I written civil service examination DISPO INV ADV HA was forwarded to two high-level managers for final review. The examination was later administrated and out of 162 candidates, only 31 received passing scores. Of these, two parole agent IIIs, received a score of 95 percent. It was alleged that, due to their unusually high scores and similarities in their answers, the examination may have been compromised and that the two parole agent IIIs cheated during the exam process. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs investigated the incident and the hiring authority determined that the allegations were unfounded. Case No. 08-0405 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In April 2008, it was alleged that an office assistant was being flirtatious and overly communicative with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. It was also alleged that the office assistant failed to disclose that she had a sibling who was incarcerated, provided inmate information to persons outside the department, and made dishonest and misleading statements during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE At the conclusion of the investigation, the hiring authority sustained all of the allegations. The office assistant resigned prior to a penalty being imposed. Case No. 08-0406 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 1, 2008, it was alleged that a psychiatric technician was exchanging money and tobacco for methadone DISPO INV ADV HA and morphine with inmates to support his personal drug addiction. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed criminal charges against the psychiatric technician. An administrative investigation was also opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0407 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on March 31, 2008, a medical technical assistant intentionally rubbed his finger between an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate's buttocks after the inmate received an injection in the buttocks. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 43 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0408 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 29, 2008, an inmate alleged that several officers used excessive force against him by choking him DISPO INV ADV HA with a towel and slamming him against a wall. It was further alleged that additional officers witnessed the incident and failed to report the misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation did not establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was also opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0409 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 26, 2008, it was alleged that an officer working an armed post was found with a variety of contraband DISPO INV ADV HA including a mobile phone, a mobile phone charger, a DVD player, and movies. When confronted, the officer initially denied possessing them. In addition, the officer was not wearing the firearm required to be worn at the post. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. After a Skelly hearing, the dishonesty allegation was stricken and the dismissal was modified to a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months, loss of certain work-related privileges, and a three-year prohibition from assuming an armed post. Case No. 08-0410 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that a correctional counselor's ability to perform routine casework had significantly declined, DISPO INV ADV HA jeopardizing the institution's security. In particular, on March 25, 2008, she violated confidential procedures by giving an inmate clerk a department form containing sensitive information on another inmate's violence and sex offenses. In addition, on April 9, 2008, she incorrectly changed the custody level of an inmate who had a prior escape from a secure facility. Also on that date, she erred by misidentifying the custody level of another inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the counselor with a letter of reprimand. She did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 44 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0411 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 19, 2008, it was alleged an officer avoided paying toll road fees 171 times while driving his personal DISPO INV ADV HA vehicle. Because he is a peace officer, the license plates on the vehicle were registered on a confidential basis with the Department of Motor Vehicles to protect his personal information. As a result, the toll road citations were not easily traceable to the officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an investigation, the allegations were sustained. The officer received a salary reduction of 10 percent for 12 months. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys failed to confirm the date of the incident and the time period for taking disciplinary action in the department's case management system. The department's attorneys also did not review the draft investigative report, provide feedback, or provide written confirmation summarizing the critical discussions concerning the investigative report. In addition, the department's attorneys did not confirm discussions regarding potential discipline with the bureau and the hiring authority, they did not coordinate with the bureau through critical periods of the disciplinary process, and they did not attend the Skelly hearing. Case No. 08-0412 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 12, 2008, an officer was arrested for possessing methamphetamine and narcotics paraphernalia. He DISPO INV ADV HA admitted that the drugs and paraphernalia belonged to him. The officer later failed to report his arrest to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer possessed controlled substances and that he neglected his duty by failing to report his arrest to the hiring authority, as required. The officer was dismissed. Case No. 08-0413 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 10, 2008, a physician was arrested for kidnapping, false imprisonment, sexual assault, and battery. DISPO INV ADV HA The physician had previously been arrested for spousal abuse and harassing suspected prostitutes. DISPOSITION OF CASE The doctor was a probationary employee. The hiring authority ended the physician's employment based on this incident and two prior incidents for which the physician was arrested. Case No. 08-0414 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 6, 2008, a warehouse employee was allegedly conspiring with an inmate to smuggle tobacco into the DISPO INV ADV HA institution. It was also alleged that the warehouse employee lied when questioned about his contact with the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the warehouse employee resigned before discipline was imposed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 45 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0415 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 4, 2008, a youth correctional counselor allegedly had unauthorized communications with a parolee. DISPO INV ADV HA Also, it was alleged that she had knowledge that a former youth correctional counselor had an inappropriate sexual relationship with the parolee but failed to report the misconduct to her supervisors. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the youth correctional counselor failed to report an unrelated act of misconduct involving the former counselor but did not sustain the allegation that she had unauthorized communication with a ward. However, she resigned prior to the conclusion of the investigation and, therefore, no action could be taken against her. A letter was placed in her personnel file indicating that she resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0416 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE A parolee's mother alleged that on February 29, 2008, a parole agent and local law enforcement officers DISPO INV ADV HA improperly searched her home and damaged some of her property. It was further alleged that the parolee was not living with his mother at the time and that he had been re-incarcerated a week prior. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0417 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 29, 2008, a supervising parole agent was allegedly given a directive from his superiors to move DISPO INV ADV HA nine sex offender parolees from one transitional house to another by a specified date. It was alleged that the supervising parole agent failed to fully comply with the directive. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation of insubordination and suspended the supervising parole agent for 10 working days without pay. Case No. 08-0418 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 25, 2008, the department received information that a psychiatric technician was engaged in an DISPO INV ADV HA overly familiar relationship with an inmate. Specifically, the technician and inmate allegedly enagaged in inappropriate touching during classes, spoke with each other on the telephone, used the inmate's father to facilitate three-way calls to avoid detection, and corresponded by mail. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. 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 46 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0419 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 25, 2008, it was alleged that a licensed vocational nurse was involved in an overly familiar and DISPO INV ADV HA potentially romantic relationship with an inmate. Allegedly, she gave the inmate letters and cards. Also, she allegedly brought a mobile phone into the secured perimeter of the institution and had conversations with the inmate while at work. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the licensed vocational nurse resigned before disciplinary action was imposed. A letter was placed in her personnel file indicating that she resigned under adverse circumstances. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and did not inform the bureau of significant developments throughout the case. The hiring authority also did not consult with the bureau regarding findings, allegations, and disciplinary action prior to making a final decision. Case No. 08-0420 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 14, 2008, contraband was found in a locked cabinet. A week later, contraband was found in a DISPO INV ADV HA secured locker. A sergeant admitted the contraband had been confiscated and that he secured it in the cabinet and locker until it could be shipped to the investigative services unit. The sergeant's actions allegedly did not comply with policies and procedures for the handling and disposal of contraband. DISPOSITION OF CASE The sergeant was suspended without pay for 15 working days. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0421 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 14, 2008, an officer was asked about her alleged relationship with a parolee who had absconded DISPO INV ADV HA from parole. The officer was allegedly dishonest when she denied knowing the parolee's status and claimed to have disclosed the relationship to the department. It was also alleged that the officer was untruthful during the application process when she initially sought employment with the department. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the officer was served with a notice of dismissal. The officer resigned before the dismissal took effect. A letter was placed in her personnel file indicating she resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0422 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 12, 2008, a lieutenant was arrested for domestic violence and possession of illegal assault rifles. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all of the allegations and the lieutenant was dismissed. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 47 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0423 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 11, 2008, an officer fired one lethal round as a warning shot and another for effect to stop two DISPO INV ADV HA inmates from continuing to stab another inmate. None of the inmates were hit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was no staff misconduct. The case was presented to the department's deadly force review board, which found the officer's use of deadly force was justified and within departmental policy. The bureau concurred with the board's findings. Case No. 08-0424 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 8, 2008, an officer was allegedly living with a parolee and having sexual relations with her. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed a complaint alleging a misdemeanor count of unlawful sexual relations with a parolee, but later dismissed the charges in the interest of justice. An administrative investigation was also opened by the Office of Internal Affairs, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0425 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 6, 2008, following an investigation by local law enforcement officials, an officer was arrested for a DISPO INV ADV HA serious off-duty altercation in which he broke another person's jaw. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. The officer was also criminally charged and convicted for the misconduct. Case No. 08-0426 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 18, 2008, a nurse practitioner allegedly rubbed an inmate's penis and offered to perform fellatio in DISPO INV ADV HA exchange for an increase in the inmate's pain medication. It was further alleged that the nurse practitioner lowered the inmate's pain medication because the inmate refused the sexual advances. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the Office of Internal Affairs determined that there was no probable cause to believe a crime had occurred. Accordingly, no referral to the local district attorney was made. Case No. 08-0427 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 16, 2008, it was alleged that an officer was trafficking marijuana to inmates for personal gain. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime occurred. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 48 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0428 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 16, 2008, a psychiatric technician was allegedly overly familiar with two wards whose mobile DISPO INV ADV HA phones were confiscated during a search. A review of the phones revealed that the home telephone number of the technician was stored in both mobile phones. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all of the allegations. However, the technician resigned before discipline was imposed. The hiring authority placed a letter in the technician's personnel file indicating that the resignation was under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0429 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on January 15 and July 25, 2008, a Muslim chaplain allowed his office to be used for the DISPO INV ADV HA receipt of mail, which contained mobile phones, DVD players, and pornographic videos. The chaplain allegedly accepted money from an inmate in exchange for delivering contraband to inmates in different housing units. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the chaplain was dismissed. The chaplain filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0430 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 14, 2008, two inmates began stabbing an inmate on the exercise yard. After the inmates failed to DISPO INV ADV HA comply with the observation tower officer's verbal order to stop, the officer fired one lethal round, striking the thumb of an attacking inmate and exiting through his upper chest. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was no staff misconduct. The case was presented to the deadly force review board, which determined that the officer's use of force complied with departmental policy. The bureau concurred with the board's finding. Case No. 08-0431 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 14, 2008, an officer allegedly left a cell door unsecured, allowing an inmate to exit the cell and DISPO INV ADV HA assault another inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation, and the officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for four months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 49 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0432 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 14, 2008, it was alleged that two inmates began stabbing a third inmate on an exercise yard. After DISPO INV ADV HA the inmates failed to comply with verbal orders to stop, the observation tower officer fired one lethal round, which struck one of the attacking inmate's right thumb and exited through his upper chest. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an investigation, the matter was referred to the district attorney's office, which determined that the use of force appeared justified. Case No. 08-0433 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 13, 2008, an officer allegedly gave an inmate a food tray containing food items previously discarded DISPO INV ADV HA by other inmates. It was alleged the officer was ordered by his sergeant not to do so. The officer then allegedly lied about the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a salary reduction of 10 percent for 24 months. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0434 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 2, 2008, it was alleged that a counselor forged an inmate's signature on a legal notification form. In DISPO INV ADV HA addition, it was alleged that the inmate did not meet with the counselor who signed the form as a witness. A handwriting expert concluded the counselor forged the inmate's signature on the form. DISPOSITION OF CASE The counselor retired after his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs. A letter was placed in his personnel file indicating that he retired under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0435 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 1, 2008, during a time of ongoing tension between inmates of two races, two correctional officers DISPO INV ADV HA released two inmates who then battered an inmate of the other race. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The first officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. The second officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for four months, which was reduced to a 5 percent salary reduction for three months after a Skelly hearing. Neither officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 50 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0436 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In January 2008, it was alleged that a chaplain was engaging in sexual relations with an inmate. It was further DISPO INV ADV HA alleged that another inmate reported the relationship to a department employee who failed to take appropriate action. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs consulted with the district attorney's office and determined there was insufficient evidence of criminal conduct. Subsequently, an administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0437 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In January 2008, it was alleged that a chaplain was engaging in sexual relations with an inmate. It was further DISPO INV ADV HA alleged that another inmate reported the relationship to a staff member who failed to take appropriate action. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the chaplin engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate. The chaplin resigned prior to the conclusion of the investigation. The hiring authority concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation concerning the failure to report by the staff member; however, training was provided regarding required reporting of misconduct. Case No. 08-0438 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 31, 2007, an officer was arrested by local law enforcement officials for discharging firearms in a DISPO INV ADV HA grossly negligent manner. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority placed the officer on administrative leave and subsequently dismissed him once he was convicted on related charges, which included a conviction for making a false statement to local law enforcement during the criminal investigation. He did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0439 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 21, 2007, a large riot occurred on an institution's yard involving 43 inmates who belonged to rival DISPO INV ADV HA gangs. Numerous inmates suffered slashing and stabbing injuries. Several officers discharged less-lethal rounds in response to the incident. An officer was struck in the left eye area with what is believed to be one of the discharged rounds. Eight inmate-manufactured weapons were recovered as a result of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE After investigation, the hiring authority did not find any excessive or unnecessary force was used. One officer received training on the proper use of the weapon used to launch less-lethal rounds. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 51 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0440 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 16, 2007, an inmate confined in his cell allegedly spit on an officer. When he appeared to be DISPO INV ADV HA attempting to spit again, the officer allegedly used unnecessary force by spraying the inmate with pepper spray instead of moving away from the cell door and out of range of the inmate's spit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of unnecessary use of force and issued a letter of reprimand to the officer. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0441 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 14, 2007, an office technician and an office assistant allegedly used state equipment to photocopy DISPO INV ADV HA and distribute information about a supervisor's discipline case to other staff. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The office technician received a salary reduction of 5 percent for 24 months. The office assistant received a salary reduction of 5 percent for 6 months because the hiring authority determined she had a secondary role in the incident. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0442 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on December 14, 2007, an officer unnecessarily used pepper spray on an inmate and then DISPO INV ADV HA kicked him in the stomach after he was already on the ground in handcuffs. The officer's partner allegedly observed the incident, but failed to report that the inmate was kicked in the stomach. A control booth officer allegedly observed the incident. It was alleged that both officers involved in the incident contacted the control booth officer in an attempt to dissuade him from reporting the misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and both officers were dismissed. Both officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0443 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 13, 2007, two separate riots broke out on two separate yards of an institution. During the course of DISPO INV ADV HA staff's response to the riots, a lethal round was fired into one of the yards as a warning shot. An inmate claimed he was hit in the foot by fragments of a bullet and was sent to an outside hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE It was determined that there was no probable cause to believe the use of lethal force was unjustified. The case, therefore, was not referred to the district attorney's office. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 52 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0444 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 11, 2007, a lieutenant told investigators she conducted a videotaped interview of an inmate who DISPO INV ADV HA had been injured. Rather than place the videotape in evidence, the lieutenant submitted the videotape to the facility captain, who placed the videotape in his desk drawer. It was alleged that the lieutenant failed to properly interview the inmate and that both the lieutenant and captain failed to properly secure the videotape as evidence. On December 14, 2007, it was alleged that an officer was dishonest during an investigative interview related to the injuries sustained by the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, the captain and the lieutenant were provided training related to the handling of videotaped interviews as evidence. Case No. 08-0445 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 10, 2007, an inmate alleged he was pushed by an officer into a wall, a door, and then into a chair. DISPO INV ADV HA It was further alleged the officer failed to report his use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer failed to report his use of force. The officer received a letter of reprimand. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0446 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 8, 2007, a sergeant and an officer allegedly battered an inmate by striking the inmate with closed DISPO INV ADV HA fists. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute the case. An administrative investigation was also opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0447 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 7, 2007, an officer discovered inmate-manufactured weapons during a cell search. The officer was DISPO INV ADV HA told to process the weapons into evidence before the end of the shift. The officer instead took the weapons home because she did not want to miss her vanpool ride home. When contacted at home, the officer admitted not following the instructions. The officer returned and processed the weapons the next day. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained and the officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for nine months. After a Skelly hearing in which the officer honestly admitted the mistake and acknowledged the potential repercussions, the penalty was lowered to a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 53 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0448 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 6, 2007, it was alleged that an officer improperly placed inmates together in a holding cell, which DISPO INV ADV HA resulted in the inmates fighting. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer retired before the investigation was completed and disciplinary action could be imposed. The hiring authority placed a letter in the officer's personnel file indicating that the retirement was under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0449 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on December 5 and December 6, 2007, three officers, a sergeant, and a lieutenant conspired DISPO INV ADV HA to remove a specific inmate from the minimum security facility to a higher level of custody in retaliation for the inmate making negative statements about one of the officers. It was further alleged that the lieutenant failed to timely place the inmate in protective custody after learning that the inmate's safety may be in jeopardy. It was also alleged that two of the officers and the sergeant failed to report the inmate's alleged threat against staff. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain any of the allegations. Case No. 08-0450 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 3, 2007, an inmate housed in the facility gymnasium was assaulted by three inmates who were not DISPO INV ADV HA assigned to that particular gymnasium. Two officers allegedly failed to maintain the security of the gymnasium. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer who was at the entrance to the gymnasium. The officer received a letter of reprimand. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations against the second officer. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau regarding allegations, findings, and disciplinary action prior to making a final decision. In addition, the hiring authority did not keep the bureau informed of significant case developments. Case No. 08-0451 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 3, 2007, an officer allegedly failed to assist other officers as they subdued a violent inmate nearby DISPO INV ADV HA who had attacked another officer. The officer's description of his actions was allegedly not corroborated by other officers who reported that he was within several feet of the incident and did not assist as required. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of neglect of duty against the officer. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the officer was dishonest in his reporting of the incident. The officer initially received a 10 percent salary reduction for 10 months. The penalty was reduced to a 5 percent salary reduction for 10 months according to the terms of a settlement agreement. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 54 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0452 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In December 2007, a licensed psychiatric technician allegedly kissed a ward's neck and accepted gifts from him. DISPO INV ADV HA It was further alleged that the two engaged in sexual acts. In addition, it was alleged that another licensed psychiatric technician was aware of the relationship and failed to intervene or attempt to stop the misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0453 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In December 2007, a licensed psychiatric technician allegedly kissed a ward's neck and accepted gifts from him. DISPO INV ADV HA It was further alleged that the two engaged in sexual acts and that another licensed psychiatric technician was aware of the misconduct and failed to intervene or attempt to stop it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation did not establish probable cause to believe a crime occurred. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau is monitoring. Case No. 08-0454 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE During December 2007, it was alleged that a library technical assistant was having a sexual relationship with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. It was also alleged that the library technical assistant provided other inmates with mobile phones and narcotics. DISPOSITION OF CASE The completed investigation was referred to the district attorney's office, which charged the library technical assistant with five felony counts of unlawful sexual activity with a consenting inmate. An administrative investigation was also opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0455 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between December 1, 2007, and April 3, 2008, an office assistant was living with a parolee. DISPO INV ADV HA It was further alleged that a web page belonging to her depicted her affiliation with gang members. When questioned by a parole agent, the office assistant failed to inform him that she worked for the department. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of over familiarity. Prior to imposing a penalty of dismissal, the office assistant resigned. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 55 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0456 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE During December 2007, it was alleged that a library technical assistant was having a sexual relationship with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. It was also alleged that the technical assistant was providing other inmates with mobile phones and narcotics. DISPOSITION OF CASE The library technical assistant resigned before disciplinary action was imposed. The hiring authority placed a letter in the library technical assistant's personnel file indicating that the resignation was received under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0457 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Beginning in December 2007, a youth correctional counselor allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with a DISPO INV ADV HA ward and continued the relationship after the ward was released from custody. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. Accordingly, the case was submitted to the local district attorney's office. The district attorney's office declined to prosecute the case. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0458 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 30, 2007, it was alleged that a parole agent stole a parolee's prescription drugs between May and DISPO INV ADV HA October of 2007. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined there was no probable cause to believe a crime occurred. Therefore, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative case, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0459 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 30, 2007, it was alleged that two officers, while acting in their capacity as union representatives, DISPO INV ADV HA advised another officer to provide false information during an internal affairs investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not confirm the date of the incident and the time period for taking disciplinary action in the department's case management system. The department's attorneys did not contact the assigned investigator or the bureau to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation, nor did they coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the investigation. The department's attorneys also did not attend investigative interviews for key witnesses or provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator. In addition, the department's attorneys did not timely review the draft investigative report or provide written confirmation summarizing the critical discussions concerning the investigative report. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 56 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0460 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on November 27, 2007, two officers used excessive force and broke an inmate's arm. It was DISPO INV ADV HA also alleged the officers failed to document the incident accurately. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0461 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 27, 2007, it was alleged that on June 27, 2007, two officers used unnecessary force when they DISPO INV ADV HA dragged a non-compliant inmate across the floor to a holding cell. It was also alleged a sergeant also failed to sound an alarm during the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. One officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The other officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months and the sergeant received a letter of instruction. Appeals were filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0462 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 26, 2007, medical staff responded to an inmate who was unresponsive in his cell. Upon DISPO INV ADV HA examination, the inmate had multiple head wounds and he later died of his injuries. His cellmate was later charged with murder. During a medical review of the incident, it was discovered that the inmate had lost a considerable amount of weight prior to his death. It was alleged that custody staff failed to properly classify the inmate and his cellmate prior to housing them together and medical staff failed to observe the deceased inmate's declining health or signs of physical abuse prior to his death. DISPOSITION OF CASE As a result of the administrative investigation, the hiring authority determined that there was no evidence of misconduct identified against any staff member involved in the incident. Case No. 08-0463 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE A review of the inmate telephone tracking system revealed that between November 24, 2007, and February 25, DISPO INV ADV HA 2008, a licensed vocational nurse allegedly received approximately 100 phone calls at her home from inmates housed at two separate institutions. It was alleged the licensed vocational nurse failed to report these contacts. DISPOSITION OF CASE The licensed vocational nurse was a probationary employee. The hiring authority sustained the allegations and notified her that she was being rejected on probation and served her with a disciplinary action dismissing her from state service. The licensed vocational nurse resigned upon receiving the notices. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 57 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0464 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 21, 2007, it was alleged that between June 2006 and July 2007 an electrician provided inmates DISPO INV ADV HA with drugs, tobacco, and mobile phones. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the electrician provided inmates with tobacco and mobile phones and served the electrician with a notice of dismissal. A settlement agreement was later reached, which allowed the electrician to resign. Case No. 08-0465 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 21, 2007, a sergeant and an officer allegedly escorted a handcuffed inmate to a holding cell and DISPO INV ADV HA hit him. They then allegedly left the area, returned, and escorted the inmate from the holding cell with a towel wrapped tightly around his mouth. It was also alleged that several other officers witnessed the incident but failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, the hiring authority directed that one officer receive remedial use of force training. Case No. 08-0466 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 21, 2007, it was alleged that an electrician allegedly provided inmates with drugs and other DISPO INV ADV HA contraband. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined that there was no probable cause to believe a crime occurred. Therefore, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0467 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 20, 2007, the Office of Internal Affairs received information alleging that an officer made DISPO INV ADV HA threatening remarks toward an inmate and challenged him to fight. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations were not sustained; therefore, no action was taken against the officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 58 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0468 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on November 15, 2007, an officer was dishonest during an interview conducted by the Office DISPO INV ADV HA of Internal Affairs. Specifically, the officer denied receiving a phone number from an inmate and denied calling that number. After the interview, the officer's mobile phone records were obtained and revealed that the officer called the phone number on two occasions. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegation of dishonesty and imposed a salary reduction of 10 percent for 24 months. Case No. 08-0469 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 13, 2007, a correctional counselor improperly released a parolee. The parolee was inappropriately DISPO INV ADV HA released to parole supervision when he should have been designated as a high-control parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the correctional counselor was demoted to officer. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0470 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 13, 2007, an institution received information that an officer was depicted as engaging in sexual DISPO INV ADV HA acts on a pornographic web site. It was alleged that the officer lied about his employment in the pornographic industry on his departmental employment application. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer was dishonest in his employment application and dismissed him. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0471 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 13, 2007, a lieutenant authored a memorandum indicating a concerned citizen had provided him DISPO INV ADV HA with information regarding possible misconduct of an officer. The lieutenant was later ordered to provide the identity of the concerned citizen. It is alleged that the lieutenant indicated in a second memorandum that the concerned citizen was actually an officer who wished to remain anonymous. It was alleged the lieutenant was dishonest about the identity of the person who provided him with the information. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority exonerated the lieutenant. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 59 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0472 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on November 12, 2007, two officers placed an inmate in the wrong cell resulting in a fight DISPO INV ADV HA between the inmate and another inmate who was already in the cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, but was precluded from taking further disciplinary action because a supervisor had previously taken corrective action against the officers regarding this incident without the hiring authority's knowledge. There was an inquiry into the circumstance of the supervisor's action, and it was determined that the action was not done in an effort to prevent additional action. The hiring authority subsequently put in procedures to prevent a recurrence of these circumstances. Case No. 08-0473 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 8, 2007, an officer allegedly used pepper spray on an inmate who refused to relinquish his food DISPO INV ADV HA tray and prevented staff from closing the food port on his cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of using unreasonable force and issued the officer a letter of instruction. Case No. 08-0474 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 8, 2007, it was alleged that a lieutenant unnecessarily grabbed an inmate by the face, yelled at DISPO INV ADV HA him, and shoved him to the ground. DISPOSITION OF CASE The information received in the investigation was insufficient to warrant a criminal referral to the district attorney's office. The department opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0475 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on November 6, 2007, an officer and a sergeant failed to properly secure contraband that was DISPO INV ADV HA located during a search of an inmate's cell. Additionally, it was alleged the sergeant was dishonest during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The sergeant was dismissed and the officer received a letter of instruction. The sergeant filed and appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 60 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0476 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 5, 2007, it was alleged that a sergeant was dishonest by failing to report that he witnessed use of DISPO INV ADV HA force used during a cell extraction while he was assigned as the leader of the back-up cell extraction team. The sergeant allegedly did not document witnessing any use of force in his incident report. However, a video of the extraction showed the sergeant entering the area where the cell extraction occurred, and remained there for 14 seconds, in a position where he should have witnessed force. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain any allegations of misconduct. However, the hiring authority determined that corrective action was necessary and issued a letter of instruction to the sergeant. Case No. 08-0478 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on November 3, 2007, a parole agent sexually harassed co-workers and had been asleep while DISPO INV ADV HA on duty. It was additionally alleged that the parole agent was dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the parole agent was dismissed. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0479 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in November 2007, an officer was involved in sexual relationships with an inmate and three DISPO INV ADV HA parolees. The officer was also allegedly dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of over familiarity with the inmate and parolees. The hiring authority also sustained allegations that the officer engaged in sexual misconduct with two of the parolees and that she was dishonest during the investigation. The officer resigned before disciplinary action was imposed. Case No. 08-0480 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 1, 2007, an inmate alleged that two officers used unnecessary and excessive force on him by DISPO INV ADV HA pushing him down and kicking him while they were attempting to handcuff him. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 61 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0481 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 31, 2007, a parole agent allegedly assaulted a youth correctional officer by swinging at him with a DISPO INV ADV HA closed fist. The alleged assault was caught on video tape. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. Accordingly, the case was referred to the local district attorney's office. The district attorney's office filed criminal charges against the parole agent. Case No. 08-0482 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged on October 29, 2007, that an officer intentionally removed and shredded confidential inmate DISPO INV ADV HA health care services request forms. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegation and issued a letter of reprimand. Following a Skelly hearing, the letter of reprimand was reduced to a letter of instruction. Case No. 08-0483 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on October 28, 2007, an officer was arrested for being intoxicated and carrying a loaded DISPO INV ADV HA firearm while off duty. The officer was not authorized to carry his firearm while off duty. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The hiring authority also sustained allegations pending against the officer in two other cases. A salary reduction of 5 percent for 12 months was imposed. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0484 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 25, 2007, an officer and a sergeant allegedly used excessive force against an inmate when they DISPO INV ADV HA punched and choked him. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer and the sergeant. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the investigative process, nor did they review the draft investigative report, provide timely feedback, or provide written confirmation summarizing the critical discussions concerning the investigative report. The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau regarding the sufficiency of the investigation, allegations, findings, or disciplinary action prior to making a final decision. In addition, the hiring authority did not provide the bureau with a completed copy of the department's disciplinary action form and did not keep the bureau informed of significant case developments. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 62 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0485 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 24, 2007, an officer was allegedly under the influence of alcohol when the all terrain vehicle he was DISPO INV ADV HA driving flipped over and broke his wrist. The officer's 9-year-old daughter was a passenger on the vehicle at the time of the accident. The officer was arrested later that day at a hospital for driving under the influence of alcohol and endangering the welfare of a minor. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the officer because there was insufficient evidence that the officer was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Case No. 08-0486 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 23, 2007, a sergeant allegedly used excessive force to restrain a resistive inmate. Specifically, the DISPO INV ADV HA sergeant punched the inmate several times in the head after the inmate stopped resisting. In addition, an officer allegedly failed to assist the sergeant in restraining the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, allegations were sustained against both the sergeant and the officer. The sergeant received a 5 percent salary reduction for 18 months. The officer received a letter of reprimand. Case No. 08-0487 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 20, 2007, it was alleged a sergeant failed to report an incident he witnessed in which an officer used DISPO INV ADV HA inappropriate force against an inmate. He was also allegedly dishonest to a lieutenant when he represented that no use of force occurred. Two other officers were also alleged to have witnessed the use of force and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the sergeant had neglected his duty. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations that the sergeant failed to report a use of force and was dishonest. The sergeant retired before discipline could be imposed. The allegations against the other two officers were not sustained. Case No. 08-0488 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 19, 2007, a former parolee alleged that an officer, who lives with the former parolee's sister, was DISPO INV ADV HA selling cocaine and marijuana at an institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation did not establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. The case was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 63 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0489 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 19, 2007, a former parolee reported that an officer who lives with the former parolee's sister DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly sells cocaine and marijuana at an institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs was unable to locate the former parolee who reported the alleged misconduct. As a result, the Office of Internal Affairs decided not to investigate the matter. Case No. 08-0490 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on October 17, 2007, an officer escorted an inmate from one housing unit to another so that DISPO INV ADV HA the inmate could assault another inmate. The officer allegedly told another officer that she solicited an inmate to give another inmate "thirteen seconds of love," which was a reference to an assault by Hispanic gangs. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegation and the officer was dismissed. An appeal with the State Personnel Board has been filed. Case No. 08-0491 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 14, 2007, it was alleged that an officer conducted retaliatory cell searches resulting in force being DISPO INV ADV HA used on an inmate. The inmate was allegedly resistive when the officer escorted him in handcuffs after the cell search. The officer took the inmate down to the ground with a foot sweep maneuver. It was also alleged that the officer switched assigned positions with another officer for purposes of conducting the retaliatory cell searches, and then made misleading statements about the force used. In addition, it was alleged that another officer was also misleading about the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the force used was reasonable under the circumstances and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations that the officers made misleading statements. The investigation revealed the two officers who switched assignments had authority to do so. The hiring authority determined the initial officer failed to properly follow cell search policies and to timely report inmate misconduct to a supervisor. An allegation against the same officer for insubordination arising from another case was combined with this case and the officer received a salary reduction of 10 percent for 24 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0492 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 9, 2007, it was alleged that an officer was engaged in an overly familiar relationship with inmates. DISPO INV ADV HA The officer was allegedly trafficking tobacco and drugs in exchange for cash and jewelry. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation was closed prior to completion after the complaining inmate was found to be unreliable and there was no additional evidence to corroborate the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 64 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0493 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 5, 2007, it was alleged a sergeant was dishonest when he stated that he stopped inmate programs at DISPO INV ADV HA the request of medical staff. Medical staff documented that they did not request any such program modification. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Case No. 08-0494 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In October 2007, the department received information that a contract food vendor was smuggling narcotics into DISPO INV ADV HA the institution in exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations. There was no evidence of narcotics being brought into the institution by the contract food vendor. Case No. 08-0495 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between October and December 2007, a parole agent failed to make required home visits and DISPO INV ADV HA contacts with parolees, failed to file necessary documents to ensure that non-compliant parolees did not automatically discharge from parole, and neglected his duties when assigned as Officer of the Day. It was also alleged that the parole agent made false or misleading statements in parolees' field files, was dishonest to his supervisor when questioned about his work activities, and was insubordinate when he failed to attend an investigatory interview concerning his alleged misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The parole agent retired from the department during the investigation. However, the hiring authority sustained all of the allegations. A letter was placed in the agent's personnel file indicating that he retired under unfavorable circumstances. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not confirm the date of the incident and the time period for taking disciplinary action in the department's case management system. The department's attorneys also did not contact the assigned investigator and the bureau to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation in a timely manner and they did not coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the investigative process. In addition, the department's attorneys did not provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator. The department's attorneys did not review the draft investigative report in a timely manner, provide feedback, or confirm in writing critical discussions concerning the investigative report. Finally, the department's attorneys did not provide written confirmation of disciplinary discussions to the hiring authority and the bureau. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 65 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0496 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From October 2007 through March 2008, a teacher was allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship DISPO INV ADV HA with an inmate. The inmate was discovered in possession of the teacher's personal information and several greeting cards written by the teacher. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the teacher was dismissed. The teacher filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau regarding the sufficiency of the investigation, allegations, and findings prior to making a final decision. The hiring authority also did not provide the bureau with a completed copy of the department's disciplinary action form, nor did the hiring authority keep the bureau informed of significant case developments. Case No. 08-0497 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In October 2007, the department received information that a contract vendor was allegedly selling controlled DISPO INV ADV HA substances to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined there was no probable cause to believe a crime occurred. An administrative case was also opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0498 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 1, 2007, an informant alleged that a certified nursing assistant was trafficking drugs and tobacco DISPO INV ADV HA into the institution. Further, an officer alleged that the certified nursing assistant disclosed having sexual relations with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The certified nursing assistant was a contract employee. The hiring authority, therefore, terminated her contract before the investigation was completed. On completion of the investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau regarding the sufficiency of the investigation, allegations, or findings prior to making a final decision. The hiring authority also did not inform the bureau of significant case developments. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 66 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0499 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 30, 2007, an officer allegedly used unnecessary physical force to take an inmate to the ground and DISPO INV ADV HA place him in handcuffs even though he had complied with the officer's instructions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation of inexcusable neglect of duty but did not sustain an allegation for excessive use of force. The hiring authority concluded that although the force used was justified, the officer's actions prior to the use of force were not within policy. The hiring authority imposed a salary reduction of 10 percent for 12 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0500 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 29, 2007, an officer escorted two administrative segregation unit inmates from the exercise yard. DISPO INV ADV HA One of the inmates broke free from the escort, returned to the exercise yard, and attacked another inmate. The second inmate, who had been left unattended by the officer, also returned to the exercise yard and participated in the attack. It was alleged that the officer violated policy by escorting two inmates by himself. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer neglected his duty. The officer received a 10 percent reduction in pay for 12 months. Case No. 08-0501 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on September 29, 2007, a lieutenant failed to appropriately document the central files of two DISPO INV ADV HA inmates who had been involved in a fight earlier that day. It was also alleged that due to the lieutenant's negligence, both of the inmates were placed back in the same housing unit and one of the inmates was assaulted, resulting in serious injury. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained an allegation against the lieutenant for neglecting his duty. The lieutenant was issued a letter of reprimand. Case No. 08-0502 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about September 28, 2007, it was alleged that an officer incorrectly filled out an inmate's housing review DISPO INV ADV HA form and forged a sergeant's signature on it. As a result, the inmate was improperly housed, placing the inmate's safety at risk. DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigation revealed that it was common practice for the officers to sign inmate housing review forms for the sergeant. In addition, it was determined that the officer had not received appropriate training and did not intentionally fill out the form inappropriately. The hiring authority sustained an allegation against the officer for neglecting his duty and gave him a letter of instruction. In addition, staff were instructed to immediately end the practice of signing the sergeant's name on inmate housing review forms. The inmate was not harmed as a result of the inappropriate housing assignment. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 67 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0503 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on September 26, 2007, an officer used unreasonable force on an inmate by kicking a food DISPO INV ADV HA port closed on the inmate's arm. Additionally, it was alleged that another officer and a psychiatric technician who witnessed the incident failed to adequately document their observations. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations. The officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. After a Skelly hearing, the penalty was reduced to a letter of instruction. The other officer and psychiatric technician also received letters of instruction. Case No. 08-0504 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 23, 2007, it was alleged that an officer was dishonest when she reported that on September 23, DISPO INV ADV HA 2007, an inmate visitor threw a headband at her, hitting her in the face. It was also alleged that she was dishonest on November 11, 2007, when she claimed that an inmate pushed the officer's hand into her chest. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was investigated and probable cause to believe a crime had been committed was not established. Thus, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. An administrative case was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0505 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 23, 2007, two officers allegedly concealed inmate contraband and prevented it from being DISPO INV ADV HA discovered during housing unit searches. It was also alleged that the officers told inmates when searches were going to be conducted. Neither officer reported the misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of over familiarity, neglect of duty, introducing contraband, and failure to report were sustained against both officers. The officer with the primary role in the misconduct received a 60 working day suspension without pay. That officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The other officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 18 months as part of settlement agreement. Case No. 08-0506 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 20, 2007, an officer and an inmate were allegedly engaged in a loud argument when saliva from DISPO INV ADV HA the inmate's mouth landed on the officer's cheek. The officer then wiped the saliva with his sleeve, unholstered his pepper spray, and sprayed the inmate in the face. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer used unreasonable force on the inmate. The officer received a 5 percent reduction in pay for three months. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 68 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0507 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 19, 2007, a large group of cadets were present at the institution to participate in an on-site DISPO INV ADV HA training. A sergeant was allegedly rude, offensive, demeaning, and unprofessional. In addition, during cell searches, several cadets located suspected narcotics and contraband and the sergeant allegedly told them to place the items back where he or she found them or to place them in a latex glove and throw it in the trash can. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant for being discourteous and for failing to perform within the scope of his training. The sergeant received a letter of reprimand. Case No. 08-0508 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 16, 2007, it was alleged that a correctional counselor forged an inmate's signature on two DISPO INV ADV HA Information Release Authorization forms. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of dishonesty and neglect of duty against a correctional counselor, resulting in a salary reduction of 5 percent for six months. After the Skelly hearing, the discipline was reduced to a 5 percent reduction in salary for three months as part of a settlement agreement. Case No. 08-0509 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 13, 2007, an officer allegedly argued with his girlfriend, grabbed her by an arm, pushed her to the DISPO INV ADV HA ground, and stated, "You are not going to ruin my career by calling the police." Local law enforcement officers later arrested the officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The officer received a 10 percent reduction in pay for 20 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0510 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on September 12, 2007, a sergeant taunted an inmate and challenged him to a fight. The DISPO INV ADV HA sergeant allegedly pushed the inmate in the forehead with his finger and failed to report his use of force. It was also alleged that officers witnessed the incident and improperly documented the incident in written reports. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant, and he received a suspension without pay for two working days. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The allegations against the officers were not sustained. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 69 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0511 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 11, 2007, it was alleged that two officers performed an unauthorized search of an inmate's cell. DISPO INV ADV HA The officers were also allegedly dishonest to a lieutenant when they denied the cell search took place. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded both officers conducted an unauthorized cell search but only one of the officers was dishonest when questioned about the incident. The officer who was dishonest was dismissed. The other officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. Both officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0512 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 10, 2007, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force when he kicked an uninvolved inmate while DISPO INV ADV HA responding to a disturbance on the yard. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against the officer were sustained. He received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The officer initially filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board but withdrew it later. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not confirm the date of the incident and the time period for taking disciplinary action in the department's case management system, nor did they discuss the elements of a thorough investigation with the assigned investigator and the bureau. The department's attorneys also did not coordinate with the bureau during the investigation or timely review the draft investigative report. No written summary confirming critical discussions about the investigative report was provided to the hiring authority. In addition, the department's attorneys did not provide legal consultation to the hiring authority or consult with the bureau regarding the drafting of the written disciplinary notice. The department's attorneys also did not coordinate with the bureau during the disciplinary process. The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau regarding allegations, findings, the sufficiency of the investigation, or disciplinary action prior to making a final decision. The hiring authority also did not inform the bureau of significant case developments or provide the bureau with a completed copy of the department's disciplinary action form. Case No. 08-0513 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 6, 2007, an inmate was scheduled to be released on parole. A sergeant and an officer allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA told the inmate that he had to turn in all of his personal property before he could be released. According to the inmate, he had given away some of his property to other inmates. The inmate allegedly recovered the missing personal items but was told it was too late and he would have to wait until the evening to be released. The inmate was not released until the following day. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant but not against the officer. The sergeant retired during the course of the investigation; therefore, no discipline was imposed. However, a letter was placed in the sergeant's personnel file indicating that he retired under unfavorable circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 70 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0514 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on September 5, 2007, an officer entered a cell then choked and punched an inmate. On DISPO INV ADV HA September 11, 2007, the officer allegedly insulted and shoved a licensed vocational nurse. The licensed vocational nurse also reported the officer tried to trap her in traffic while she was driving home. The officer also reportedly called a fellow officer a rat and intimidated another officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained, the officer was dismissed, and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0515 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 27, 2007, it was alleged that an officer unnecessarily used pepper spray on an inmate and that DISPO INV ADV HA another officer witnessed it but failed to intervene. It was further alleged that both officers falsified their reports to justify the use of force and that one of the officers attempted to dissuade an uninvolved officer from reporting the incident and encouraged that officer to be less than truthful during the investigation. It was additionally alleged that the two officers involved in the incident were dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department referred the case to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. Case No. 08-0516 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 27, 2007, an officer allegedly abandoned her post without supervisor approval and without proper DISPO INV ADV HA relief. It was further alleged that the officer's absence resulted in delayed medical care to an inmate who later died. Also, it was alleged the officer was negligent when she failed to properly secure security equipment. DISPOSITION OF CASE After investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer abandoned her post without proper relief, but did not sustain the other two allegations regarding delayed medical care and failure to secure equipment. The hiring authority imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months, which was reduced to 5 percent for three months in a settlement after a Skelly hearing. Case No. 08-0517 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 24, 2007, it was alleged that an officer failed to properly return a weapon and ammunition to the DISPO INV ADV HA institution after he used it while on duty guarding an inmate at an outside hospital. The weapon and ammunition were left unsecured in a canvas bag. Ultimately, they were returned to the institution's armory without incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined the relevant policy did not clearly state how weapons and ammunition were to be transported back to the institution from outside hospitals. The allegation, therefore, was not sustained. However, the hiring authority indicated the policy would be clarified. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 71 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0518 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 22, 2007, two officers allegedly used unreasonable force on an inmate by removing his shoe to DISPO INV ADV HA retrieve a property receipt and then failing to report the force used. In addition, it was alleged that one of the officers involved had previously confiscated legal materials from the inmate and had destroyed the confiscation slip when the inmate objected. It was further alleged that a third officer had called the inmate an inappropriate name and threatened him. Finally, it was alleged that a lieutenant provided false information during an investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained allegations of discourteous treatment and unreasonable use of force on one of the officers. The hiring authority imposed a salary reduction of 5 percent for six months on that officer. The allegations against the other two officers and the lieutenant were not sustained. Case No. 08-0519 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 22, 2007, an officer in an armed observation post saw one inmate stabbing another inmate. The DISPO INV ADV HA officer fired one lethal round as a warning shot in an attempt to stop the attack. When the attack did not stop, the officer fired an additional lethal round at the attacking inmate and hit him. The inmate who was shot stopped his attack and survived. The inmate who was stabbed died. DISPOSITION OF CASE An administrative investigation was conducted and the department determined there was no staff misconduct. The results of the administrative investigation were presented to the department's deadly force review board, which determined the shooting complied with the department's use of force policy. However, the board expressed strong concern about the officer's failure to complete a written incident report before leaving his shift on the day of the shooting. The bureau concurred with both findings. Case No. 08-0520 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 18, 2007, an officer attempted to move an inmate to another cell while the inmate was exhibiting DISPO INV ADV HA aggressive behavior. It was alleged that the officer failed to use his alarm and then used unnecessary force by taking the inmate to the ground. It was also alleged that two other officers who witnessed the incident failed to report the unnecessary force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The warden determined that the allegations of unnecessary force and failure to report could not be sustained. However, the officer who used force received a letter of instruction for not following training on inmate interaction and situational awareness. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 72 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0521 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 18, 2007, a youth counselor was assaulted by several unknown individuals while off duty at a party. DISPO INV ADV HA The individuals stole the counselor's department-issued badge and a personal firearm. It was alleged that the counselor was displaying his badge and gun to others at the party and that the counselor was dishonest during his interview with local law enforcement and investigators. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the youth counselor, who filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0522 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on August 16, 2007, an officer forced an inmate to the ground during an escort when the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate was not resisting. It was further alleged that the officer used an unauthorized restraint hold on the inmate during the escort and that a lieutenant dissuaded the inmate from reporting the alleged misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation that the officer used unnecessary force on the inmate. However, the hiring authority sustained the allegation that he used an unauthorized escort technique on the inmate. The officer received training regarding proper staff relations with inmates and proper escort techniques. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation that the lieutenant dissuaded the inmate from reporting the alleged unnecessary force. Case No. 08-0523 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 13, 2007, two office assistants were allegedly involved in the robbery of an armored vehicle. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained and both subjects were dismissed. Case No. 08-0524 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on August 12, 2007, and September 10, 2007, an officer was less than alert and appeared to DISPO INV ADV HA be sleeping while on duty. It was further alleged he was discourteous to medical staff. Additionally, it was alleged a second officer and a nurse were aware of the alleged misconduct but failed to report it to a supervisor. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained both allegations against the first officer and he received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The allegation against the second officer was also sustained and he received a letter of reprimand. No allegations were sustained against the nurse. Only the first officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 73 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0525 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 7, 2007, it was alleged that an officer used unnecessary force and filed a false report regarding the DISPO INV ADV HA incident. Allegedly, an officer and other custody staff were performing clothed body searches on inmates as they were released to the yard. During a search, the officer allegedly threw an inmate to the ground. In the officer's report, he indicated that the inmate refused to relinquish his identification card, turned his body to face him, and took a defensive stance. A video tape of the incident did not corroborate the officer's report. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegation of unnecessary use of force but did not sustain the allegation of filing a false report; the hiring authority issued an official reprimand to the officer. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0526 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 6, 2007, an inmate reported that an officer was introducing mobile phones and narcotics into the DISPO INV ADV HA institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that the officer committed a crime. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative investigation. Case No. 08-0527 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 3, 2007, an inmate alleged that an officer used excessive or unnecessary force by pushing the inmate DISPO INV ADV HA into a fence, dragging him along a walkway, and then pushing him into the back of a metal holding cell, bruising his jaw. Three other officers allegedly witnessed the force and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, training on escort procedures and report writing was recommended. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 74 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0528 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 3, 2007, after a medical procedure at an outside facility, an escort officer allegedly removed the DISPO INV ADV HA plastic restraints from the inmate's legs before securing them in metal restraints. Another officer allegedly stood by while the plastic restraints were removed. As soon as the inmate's legs were freed, the inmate ran away from the two officers and out the front door of the facility. The inmate was apprehended shortly thereafter in the parking lot outside the facility. The officers were not carrying their radios at the time of the incident, as required. It was also alleged that one officer was negligent by failing to secure metal restraints before cutting off the plastic restraints, the second officer was negligent in failing to correct the first officer's mistake, and both officers failed to carry the necessary equipment. It was further alleged that the officers' sergeant was negligent for failing to ensure all staff carried their radio equipment. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations against the two officers and the sergeant. The hiring authority found that they failed to observe and perform within the scope of training. The hiring authority determined that the two officers failed to carry the required equipment, specifically radios, during the incident. The sergeant received a letter of instruction, and one of the officers received a suspension without pay for five working days. That officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The second officer, who was a retired annuitant, separated from state service before disciplinary action was taken, but a letter was placed in his personnel file indicating that he separated under adverse circumstances. Case No. 08-0529 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 2, 2007, it was alleged that an officer permitted wards to engage in prearranged fights. It was also DISPO INV ADV HA alleged that the officer provided tobacco, mobile phones, DVD players, and marijuana to wards he supervised. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the officer permitted wards to use his personal mobile phone and DVD player. The hiring authority dismissed the officer. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 75 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0530 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 2, 2007, an institution received an anonymous note in the mail claiming that inmates were going to DISPO INV ADV HA riot against staff. During an investigation into the matter, inmates alleged that three officers were unprofessional in their dealings with the inmates on a daily basis by using profanity, degrading and disrespectful language, and threatening retaliation if the inmates told anyone or filed complaints. It was further alleged that on the date the note was discovered, the three officers were discourteous to supervisors and they refused to accept reassignments and instead went home sick. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. One officer received a 35 working day suspension for using offensive language as well as displaying disruptive behavior relating to the reassignment and being discourteous to his supervisors. Another officer received a six working day suspension for using offensive language. The third officer received a five working day suspension for using offensive language. The officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0531 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 1, 2007, it was alleged that a parole agent failed to properly document the majority of the cases on DISPO INV ADV HA his caseload. It was also alleged that the parole agent's field book was missing pages and some field notes he submitted late were merely duplicates of original records with additional information added. It was also alleged the parole agent was dishonest during his investigatory interview. 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. Case No. 08-0532 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 1, 2007, an inmate allegedly refused to be handcuffed and escorted from a cell. An officer allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA sprayed the inmate with pepper spray using a high-powered device that was not appropriate for the distance between him and the inmate. It was also alleged that supervising officers failed to prevent the officer from using the high-powered device. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. All three officers received corrective training on the proper use of the pepper spray dispenser used in this case. One of the officers retired before receiving the training. Case No. 08-0533 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In August 2007, it was alleged that a sergeant provided drugs, DVD's, and mobile phones to inmates associated DISPO INV ADV HA with a gang. DISPOSITION OF CASE It was determined that there was no probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The case, therefore, was not referred to the district attorney's office. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 76 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0534 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 30, 2007, it was alleged that two officers retaliated against an inmate after the inmate attacked and DISPO INV ADV HA injured another officer with a weapon. It was alleged that the two officers rammed the inmate's head into a wall and took turns hitting and kicking the inmate in the face, resulting in a fractured eye socket and nose. It was further alleged that the officers failed to report any use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to file charges. An administrative case was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0535 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 30, 2007, it was alleged that an officer was dishonest when he falsified reports concerning an incident DISPO INV ADV HA that involved an assault on staff members. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer retired before the dismissal took effect. A letter was placed in the officer's personnel file indicating that he retired under adverse circumstances. Additional allegations of falsifying reports were added against two other officers as a result of the investigation, but the hiring authority found there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0536 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 28, 2007, a riot occurred on an exercise yard among approximately 75 inmates. The control booth DISPO INV ADV HA officer, who positioned himself at a window, saw inmates ignore numerous staff orders to get down and instead run toward each other and begin fighting. The officer fired one lethal round in an unoccupied area as a warning shot. The officer then saw about five inmates assaulting an inmate who was on the ground, unable to defend himself. The officer fired one lethal round striking one of the attacking inmates in the hip. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was no staff misconduct. The case was presented to the department's deadly force review board, which determined that the officer's use of deadly force complied with departmental policy. The bureau concurred with the board's findings. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 77 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0537 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 27, 2007, it was alleged that three officers used excessive force against an inmate who refused to return DISPO INV ADV HA to his cell. During the use of force, the inmate allegedly bit one of the officers and a spit mask was placed over the inmate's head. Following the use of force, the inmate reported that the officers punched him. Injuries to the inmate's face were discovered once the spit mask was removed. The injuries did not appear to be consistent with the use of force reported by the officers. It was also alleged that the officers failed to properly report their use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE After investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0538 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 27, 2007, an officer allegedly struck a resistive inmate in the face with a closed fist several times. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations were sustained and the officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for three months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0539 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 22, 2007, an off-duty officer was arrested by a local law enforcement agency for stalking. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations of failure to accurately report a police contact, discourteous treatment, and failure of good behavior were all sustained. The officer resigned in lieu of dismissal. Case No. 08-0540 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 22, 2007, a sergeant allegedly committed a battery against his spouse, a lieutenant, while they were at a DISPO INV ADV HA casino in Nevada. The sergeant then allegedly got into an altercation with casino security who intervened upon seeing the incident. The sergeant was arrested by outside law enforcement officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant. This case was combined with another case against the sergeant for purposes of imposing discipline and he received a suspension without pay for 60 working days. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 78 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0541 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 22, 2007, two officers covering a yard allegedly abandoned their post without properly notifying a DISPO INV ADV HA supervisor. While they were gone, an inmate was attacked with a slashing instrument by unknown assailants. It was also alleged that one of the officers previously left his assigned post without authorization on July 13, 2007, and that he and a third officer left their assigned posts on June 14, 2007. It was further alleged that one officer was insubordinate because he had previously been ordered not to leave his post without authorization. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against all three officers. One officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months and has filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The other two officers received letters of instruction. Case No. 08-0542 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 21, 2007, during a child custody exchange, a sergeant allegedly made a threatening remark and gesture DISPO INV ADV HA to his ex-wife by making the shape of a gun with his hand. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office filed criminal charges, but later dismissed the case. The hiring authority did not sustain any allegations against the sergeant. Case No. 08-0543 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 17, 2007, an officer allegedly used his department identification card inappropriately to gain access to DISPO INV ADV HA an inmate housed at a county jail. It was alleged that the officer falsely stated to the jail staff that he needed to see the inmate for official business. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer and he was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0544 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 16, 2007, during a routine traffic stop, a local law enforcement officer discovered that an off-duty DISPO INV ADV HA sergeant was driving with a suspended license due to a prior conviction for driving under the influence. The sergeant was cited for the traffic violations and released. The sergeant failed to notify the hiring authority of the incident and that he had a suspended license based on the prior conviction. DISPOSITION OF CASE The sergeant served 10 days in jail for the driving related offenses. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant. This case was combined with another case for purposes of imposing discipline and the sergeant received a suspension without pay for 60 working days. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 79 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0545 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged on July 13, 2007, that a parole agent was inefficient by not conducting proper casework and by DISPO INV ADV HA failing to properly supervise the parolees assigned to his caseload. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of inefficiency and the parole agent received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0546 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 13, 2007, an off-duty officer allegedly brandished a firearm at a citizen during an argument and later DISPO INV ADV HA made threatening statements. The officer also allegedly struck a second person in the face during the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following investigations by local law enforcement and the Office of Internal Affairs, the officer was convicted of disturbing the peace, a misdemeanor. The hiring authority sustained an allegation against the officer for engaging in disorderly conduct. The officer received a suspension without pay for 12 working days, which was later modified to a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months as a result of a settlement agreement. Case No. 08-0547 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 7, 2007, while off duty, a parole agent was arrested for committing an act of domestic violence. It was DISPO INV ADV HA alleged that during an argument, the agent physically struggled with his estranged wife, causing her to fall backward, strike her head against the bed, and fall to the floor. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for four months. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0548 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on July 6, 2007, an officer began shouting at another officer about not being timely relieved DISPO INV ADV HA of her post at the end of her shift. Both officers were providing security for inmates at a local hospital. It was further alleged that the first officer then removed the equipment from her duty belt, including a loaded firearm, and placed it on a table near an inmate and walked out of the hospital and went home. It was also alleged that the officer was untruthful during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE Upon the completion of an investigation, the hiring authority sustained all of the allegations. A 60 working day suspension was imposed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 80 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0549 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 3, 2007, an inmate alleged an officer refused to provide a double meal portion as required by the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate's medical condition. The inmate also alleged the officer used profanity towards him that was witnessed by staff. It was further alleged that when questioned by a supervisor the officer was dishonest about his use of profanity. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined the officer had been discourteous to the inmate and had been dishonest with a supervisor. The officer was served with a disciplinary action imposing a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months, but the officer retired before it took effect. Case No. 08-0550 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE An inmate alleged that in July and August 2007, an officer sexually assaulted her on two occasions and that she DISPO INV ADV HA felt she might be pregnant from the assaults. A pregnancy test and a physical exam revealed the inmate was not pregnant and there were no signs of trauma. Another inmate alleged the officer made several inappropriate comments to her and made sexual gestures toward her and others with his mouth and tongue. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0551 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In July 2007, a statewide parole caseload audit was conducted. During the audit, it was discovered that a parole DISPO INV ADV HA agent failed to document his contacts with parolees assigned to his caseload. An investigation uncovered additional allegations, including falsification of parole supervision records, time sheets, and mileage logs. It was further alleged that the parole agent was dishonest during an investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of neglect of duty and dishonesty and the parole agent was dismissed. Case No. 08-0552 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 28, 2007, an officer was reportedly seen with his jumpsuit down to his waist, without his radio, keys, or DISPO INV ADV HA alarm. Additionally, it was alleged he made inappropriate comments to inmates about their sexual orientation. After a sergeant counseled him about the misconduct, the officer allegedly called the officer who reported the misconduct a "snitch" and "rat." It was also alleged that the officer attempted to intimidate two witnesses during the pendency of the investigation and that he was dishonest during two investigatory interviews. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained all of the allegations and the officer was dismissed. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 81 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0553 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 28, 2007, an officer allegedly allowed an inmate to enter the cell of another inmate to commit an DISPO INV ADV HA assault. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause that a crime occurred so the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. However, an administrative case was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0554 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 27, 2007, an inmate alleged that during a physical examination, a physician sexually assaulted him by DISPO INV ADV HA grabbing his genitals and digitally penetrating his rectum. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Case No. 08-0555 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 27, 2007, an inmate alleged that during a physical examination, a physician sexually assaulted him by DISPO INV ADV HA grabbing his genitals and digitally penetrating him. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined prosecution. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0556 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 19, 2007, it was alleged that an officer used excessive and unnecessary force on an inmate and failed to DISPO INV ADV HA report it. In addition, it was alleged the officer failed to process a videotaped interview with the inmate as evidence. During the investigation, it was further alleged that two sergeants were made aware of the force used and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE On completion of the investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely discuss the elements of a thorough investigation with the assigned investigator and the bureau, nor did they coordinate with the bureau during the investigative process. The department's attorneys also did not attend key investigative interviews or provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator during the investigation. In addition, the department's attorneys did not provide legal consultation to the hiring authority regarding allegations and findings, nor did they provide the hiring authority with written confirmation of critical discussions concerning the investigative report. The hiring authority did not inform the bureau of significant case developments. The hiring authority also did not consult with the bureau regarding the sufficiency of the investigation, allegations, or findings prior to making a final decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 82 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0557 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 18, 2007, an officer allegedly beat an inmate for a minor rule violation. It was also alleged that another DISPO INV ADV HA officer and a sergeant witnessed the beating and did not complete incident reports. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation of dishonesty was sustained against the officer. The original penalty was dismissal, but following the Skelly hearing, the allegation was determined to be unfounded and the action was withdrawn. The allegations against the other officer and the sergeant were not sustained. Case No. 08-0558 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 18, 2007, an officer allegedly threatened two inmates and used excessive force by pushing one of the DISPO INV ADV HA inmates, who was handcuffed, to the ground and by grabbing the other inmate's throat. It was also alleged that the officer failed to report his use of force and was dishonest in a logbook entry regarding the incident. Another officer was present during the incident and allegedly failed to report the excessive use of force. Lastly, it was alleged that a control booth officer neglected his duties when he failed to provide security coverage for the officers while they were with the two inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority initially dismissed the officer who used force and the officer who allegedly observed the use of force but failed to report the incident. After a Skelly hearing, the department and the officer who used force entered into a settlement agreement wherein he was removed from his position as an officer and assumed a clerical position at the institution. After a Skelly hearing, the other officer also entered into a settlement agreement with the department wherein his penalty was reduced from dismissal to a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The control booth officer received a 5 percent reduction in pay for 12 months. The control booth officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0559 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 15, 2007, three officers allegedly failed to verify which inmates should be released to receive DISPO INV ADV HA medication. Inmates were released that should not have been and they attacked another inmate with a weapon. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were investigated and sustained against two of the officers. One officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 18 months and the other officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. One of the two officers filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority found there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the third officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 83 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0560 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on June 9, 2007, an officer failed to properly secure an inmate prior to requesting a cell door DISPO INV ADV HA be opened. The unsecured inmate rushed out of the cell and assaulted the officer. The officer used force to subdue the inmate. It was further alleged that the officer was dishonest in his report of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority believed the investigation was insufficient, but was unable to request further investigation due to time constraints. The hiring authority determined the dishonesty allegation was unfounded and did not sustain any allegations, although training was required for the officer. Case No. 08-0561 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In June 2007, a lieutenant received information alleging that on several occasions in November 2005, an officer DISPO INV ADV HA engaged in sexual relations with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations of sexual misconduct. However, the hiring authority sustained allegations that the officer divulged personal information to an inmate. The officer was initially suspended without pay for 10 working days. Following a Skelly hearing, a settlement agreement was reached reducing the discipline to a letter of reprimand. The hiring authority determined that the officer had improperly discussed personal information in a location where it could be overheard by an inmate, but that she did not actually discuss the information directly with an inmate. Case No. 08-0562 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between June and December of 2007, it was alleged that an officer was engaged in sexual misconduct with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. Also, he allegedly failed to inform his supervisor of his participation in a federal law enforcement investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an investigation by the Office of Internal Affairs, it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove a crime had been committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0563 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on May 23, 2007, an officer used unnecessary and excessive force by striking and kicking an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. The officer was also allegedly dishonest in his report of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations were sustained and the officer was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 84 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0564 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2007, a parole agent allegedly informed a parolee that outside law enforcement was investigating DISPO INV ADV HA him for numerous burglaries in which numerous firearms were stolen. On the same day, a shootout occurred between outside law enforcement officers, the parolee, and several of his associates. As a result, two suspects were killed. It was also alleged that the parole agent was dishonest when he documented that he provided drug tests to the parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of neglect of duty and dishonesty against the parole agent. The parole agent was dismissed. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0565 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2007, an inmate alleged that an officer kicked him in the mouth, resulting in a tooth being knocked DISPO INV ADV HA out. It was further alleged that three other officers witnessed the inmate being forcefully restrained but failed to report it. Also, a control booth officer allegedly failed to have a personal alarm device on him when the incident occurred. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that an officer kicked the inmate in the mouth. However, the hiring authority sustained allegations that the three officers failed to report the force used to restrain the inmate. The hiring authority required the officers to receive on-the-job training. The hiring authority also sustained the allegation against the control booth officer, for which he received a letter of instruction. Case No. 08-0566 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2007, an inmate riot occurred, requiring the removal and re-housing of a large number of inmates DISPO INV ADV HA from a yard to another location within the prison. It was alleged that the staff moved the inmates without properly identifying them. The next day, the inmates were returned to the yard. It was alleged that several officers, sergeants, lieutenants, and two associate wardens failed to follow proper procedures for identifying the inmates as they were moved through the prison. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations against one associate warden, one lieutenant, and one sergeant. All three received letters of reprimand. The hiring authority determined that the remaining involved staff were either following orders or unaware of the policy violations. They were provided training on proper procedures. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 85 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0567 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 20, 2007, an officer was assaulted by several wards during ward movement. Information was received DISPO INV ADV HA before the attack that the ward who initiated the attack mailed all of his personal belongings home and that a treatment team supervisor, a senior youth correctional counselor, and a youth correctional counselor failed to place the ward on temporary detention when this information was learned, as required. It was alleged that an officer abandoned his post during the ward movement and that a sergeant observing the movement from the tower failed to ensure that all staff on the ground were in their proper positions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded there was sufficient evidence to find that the senior youth correctional counselor and the youth correctional counselor failed to put the ward on temporary detention as required after it was learned that he mailed all of his property home. The hiring authority imposed a ten working day suspension on both of the counselors. The hiring authority found that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the treatment team supervisor and the officer. The hiring authority concluded that based on the post orders that existed at the time of the assault, the sergeant was not required to ensure that staff on the ground were in place before authorizing a ward movement. Since this incident, the institution has modified the post orders for tower officers to reflect this additional duty. Case No. 08-0568 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 17, 2007, while escorting an inmate, officers allegedly used excessive force when one officer used his DISPO INV ADV HA body weight to push the inmate to the ground while the other officer assisted. The inmate had allegedly made a kicking motion toward one of the officers and cleared his throat to spit. Subsequently, the officers also allegedly left the inmate in a holding cell for almost 11 hours. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0569 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on May 16, 2007, an officer was allegedly racing another vehicle occupied by two other DISPO INV ADV HA officers when the other vehicle lost control and crashed, killing both officers. The vehicles were allegedly travelling at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour. It was alleged that the officer left the scene of the accident and lied to outside law enforcement officers about his involvement in the accident. The officer was eventually criminally prosecuted for the alleged misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the officer was dismissed. He did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 86 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0570 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on May 15, 2007, a superintendent reassigned a lieutenant to a sergeant's position and denied DISPO INV ADV HA him overtime shifts after the lieutenant was involved in a use-of-force incident the previous day. The superintendent's action was allegedly in retaliation for the lieutenant's reporting of various misconduct at the facility. It was also alleged that the superintendent violated departmental policy by having a case closure letter mistakenly issued to the lieutenant indicating an allegation had been sustained against him. The allegation of misconduct against the lieutenant was actually rejected for investigation by the Office of Internal Affairs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation that the superintendent retaliated against the lieutenant. However, the hiring authority found that the superintendent was neglectful in his duty by authorizing the case closure letter and issued him a counseling memorandum. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not confirm the date of the incident and the time period for taking disciplinary action in the department's case management system. The department's attorneys also did not discuss the elements of a thorough investigation and the need to modify the time period to take disciplinary action with the assigned investigator and the bureau. In addition, the department's attorneys did not coordinate with the bureau during the investigation, nor did they attend key investigative interviews. They also did not timely review the draft investigative report or provide written confirmation of critical discussions concerning the investigative report and potential discipline. Case No. 08-0571 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 15, 2007, an inmate alleged that in 2004 he notified two correctional counselors of a planned assault DISPO INV ADV HA against an inmate but the counselors failed to take appropriate action. The planned assault took place, and an inmate died after the assault. DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigation revealed that the inmate did not disclose the information to the correctional counselors before the incident. Accordingly, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations. Case No. 08-0572 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between May 7 and July 10, 2007, an officer allegedly filed a series of false police reports with local law DISPO INV ADV HA enforcement agencies claiming that he had been a victim of an assault and property damage. It was also alleged that the officer was dishonest during his investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation of dishonesty and the officer was dismissed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 87 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0573 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 7, 2007, a parole district administrator learned that a parole agent's supervision files allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA contained inaccurate and fabricated information. It was alleged the parole agent failed to properly supervise three parolees when he permitted them to remain in custody for significant periods of time after their scheduled release dates. It was also alleged that the parole agent was dishonest when he documented in one of his supervision files that he had administered a drug test to a parolee; however, this was not possible given that the parolee was in custody at the time of the documentation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of neglect of duty and dishonesty and dismissed the parole agent. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not confirm the date of the incident and the time period for taking disciplinary action in the department's case management system. The department's attorneys also did not coordinate with the bureau during the investigative and disciplinary processes, nor did they attend key investigative interviews or the Skelly hearing. In addition, the department's attorneys did not confirm disciplinary discussions with the hiring authority and the bureau. Case No. 08-0574 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 1, 2007, it was alleged that a cook was providing mobile phones to inmates in exchange for money. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The criminal investigation did not establish probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau did not accept for monitoring. Case No. 08-0575 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 30, 2007, an inmate reported that a groundskeeper was overly familiar with inmates DISPO INV ADV HA and smuggled marijuana, tobacco, and mobile phones into the institution for sale and distribution to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations that the groundskeeper was overly familiar with inmates and that he smuggled tobacco and mobile phones into the institution for inmates. The groundskeeper resigned before disciplinary action was imposed. A letter was placed in the groundskeeper's personnel file indicating that he resigned under unfavorable circumstances. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely review the draft investigative report or confirm critical discussions concerning the report with the assigned investigator and the bureau. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 88 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0576 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 27, 2007, a lieutenant was reviewing custody sign-in sheets for the previous day and DISPO INV ADV HA discovered that an officer signed in for a position he did not work. When questioned, the officer allegedly stated he was called in by a sergeant. It was also alleged that the sergeant was untruthful to the lieutenant about the officer's work assignments. Further review uncovered multiple dates the officer was allegedly called in by the sergeant and paid for hours he did not work. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained and the officer and sergeant were dismissed. Both have filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0577 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 26, 2007, two officers allegedly made no effort to aid an inmate who had yelled "man down." It was DISPO INV ADV HA also alleged that, in front of other inmates, the officers verbally harassed the inmate who committed suicide by hanging twenty minutes later. In addition, one officer was allegedly dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The officer who was dishonest was dismissed. The other officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. Both officers filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0578 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 25, 2007, several inmate-manufactured weapons were found in the vocational print shop. The sergeant DISPO INV ADV HA assigned to the print shop allegedly failed to properly secure the weapons in an evidence locker and failed to notify his supervisor about them. In addition, the sergeant was allegedly dishonest during his investigative interview when he claimed that he attempted to contact his supervisor. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations against the sergeant were sustained. The sergeant was issued a 5 percent salary reduction for 18 months. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 89 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0579 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 19, 2007, an outside law enforcement investigator contacted the department to advise that, while DISPO INV ADV HA investigating a domestic violence case against a parolee, a parole agent was suspected of being overly familiar with the parolee and was being provided narcotics from him. The parolee admitted having a personal relationship with the parole agent and produced the agent's personal mobile phone number and described the parole agent as a personal friend. Also, the parole agent allegedly used his state-issued mobile phone to place and accept hundreds of personal phone calls to and from the parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the parole agent was overly familiar with the parolee and that he misused state property, but did not sustain the allegation that the parole agent received narcotics from the parolee. The parole agent received a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not confirm the date of the incident and the time period for taking disciplinary action in the department's case management system. The department's attorneys did not discuss the elements of a thorough investigation with the assigned investigator and the bureau, nor did they coordinate with the bureau during the investigation. The department's attorneys also failed to attend key investigative interviews and did not provide legal consultation to the investigator. In addition, the department's attorneys did not timely review the draft investigative report or confirm critical discussions concerning the investigative report with the investigator and the bureau. In addition, the department's attorneys did not confirm disciplinary discussions with the hiring authority and the bureau, nor did they coordinate with the bureau during the disciplinary process. Case No. 08-0580 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 13, 2007, an officer used unnecessary force on an inmate by striking him several DISPO INV ADV HA times in the face and by forcing him to the ground without justification. It was also alleged that the officer was dishonest when he falsely indicated in his report that the inmate posed a threat to the officer by walking toward him, thus necessitating the officer's use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The officer was suspended without pay for 60 working days. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0581 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 8, 2007, a registered nurse allegedly sexually assaulted an inmate while performing a medical exam on DISPO INV ADV HA her. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined that there was no probable cause to believe a crime occurred. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was initiated, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 90 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0582 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In April 2007, it was alleged that a labor relations analyst, an employee relations officer, and an associate DISPO INV ADV HA warden conspired to commit fraud with a union chapter president. It was alleged that the three staff members allowed employees who had separated from state service to circumvent the labor commission complaint process by granting their appeals for untimely wages and awarded them ten thousand dollars. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office because there was insufficient probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0583 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in April 2007, a labor relations analyst, an employee relations officer, and an associate DISPO INV ADV HA warden conspired to commit fraud with a union chapter president. It was alleged that the three staff members allowed employees who had separated from state service to circumvent the labor commission complaint process by granting their appeals for untimely wages and awarded them ten thousand dollars. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority concluded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not confirm the date of the incident and the time period for taking disciplinary action in the department's case management system. The department's attorneys also did not timely discuss the elements of a thorough investigation and the need to modify the time period for taking disciplinary action with the assigned investigator and the bureau. In addition, the department's attorneys did not coordinate with the bureau during the investigative process, nor did they attend key investigative interviews. The department's attorneys did not provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator or timely review the draft investigative report. Case No. 08-0584 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between April and August 2007, it was alleged that a psychiatric technician was overly familiar with several DISPO INV ADV HA inmates, had romantic relationships with inmates, and provided narcotics to them. Also, it was alleged that she failed to report the misconduct of another staff member. It was also alleged that a second psychiatric technician was also engaged in overly familiar and romantic relationships with inmates and made misleading statements during her investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the first psychiatric technician. Only the allegation of over familiarity was sustained against the second psychiatric technician and she was suspended without pay for 36 working days. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 91 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0585 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 7, 2007, a sergeant took control of one inmate who had been involved in a fight and escorted him to DISPO INV ADV HA the medical office for evaluation. Once inside the medical office, the sergeant allegedly grabbed the inmate by his throat and pushed him against a file cabinet. In addition, it was alleged that the sergeant was dishonest during his investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE After investigation, the hiring authority sustained allegations of unnecessary use of force and dishonesty against the sergeant. The sergeant was dismissed. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0586 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 16, 2007, an officer disclosed that on June 20, 2006, she witnessed two other officers break an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate's nose because he was being argumentative. The inmate was handcuffed at the time. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. Accordingly, the Office of Internal Affairs presented its completed investigation to the local district attorney's office. The district attorney's office accepted the case and filed criminal charges against both officers. One of the officers was found guilty of filing a false report and assault under color of authority and was sentenced to 15 days in jail and three years probation. The other officer was acquitted. Both officers were also terminated as a result of administrative cases which the bureau monitored. Case No. 08-0587 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on February 14, 2007, a sergeant used excessive force by choking an inmate. It was also DISPO INV ADV HA alleged that officers who witnessed the incident failed to report the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain any allegations. Case No. 08-0588 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between February 11 and March 20, 2007, a nurse made inappropriate comments to an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate and touched and fondled her breasts on three separate occasions. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority concluded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the nurse. However, the hiring authority determined that the nurse would receive a letter of instruction regarding the required number of staff members to be present during medical examinations of female patients. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 92 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0589 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 9, 2007, a medical technical assistant and officers arrived at the cell of an inmate who appeared to DISPO INV ADV HA be having a seizure. It was alleged the medical technical assistant later falsely claimed that as she attempted to evaluate the inmate, he suddenly stood up, punched her in the stomach, and almost pushed her over a railing. It was further alleged that the officers failed to report subduing the inmate and failed to report the inmate's battery on the medical technical assistant. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the medical technical assistant and dismissed her. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the other officers. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0590 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In February 2007, an officer allegedly had sexual relations with an inmate on two occasions in a staff restroom. DISPO INV ADV HA It was also alleged that six officers witnessed the inmate and officer go into the restroom and failed to report the misconduct. It was further alleged that the six officers threatened and harassed the inmate because the first officer resigned while a criminal investigation into the misconduct was pending. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer who allegedly had sexual relations with the inmate was the subject of a criminal investigation based on the same alleged misconduct. He resigned before this administrative investigation was opened. The hiring authority sustained an allegation against one of the six officers for discussing the incident with the inmate. Corrective action was provided in the form of on-the-job training. The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations as to the other five officers. Case No. 08-0591 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 29, 2007, an officer was arrested for allegedly brandishing a weapon, making threats, and hitting a DISPO INV ADV HA private citizen. The officer was also charged with trafficking firearms. It was further alleged that the officer was being overly familiar with a convicted felon who was on parole and that he lied during his investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained allegations of brandishing a weapon, making threats, and hitting a private citizen. The hiring authority did not sustain allegations of trafficking weapons and being overly familiar with a felon who was on parole. The hiring authority also sustained the allegation of dishonesty and the officer was served with a disciplinary action dismissing him. The officer retired before the dismissal took effect. A letter was placed in his personnel file indicating he retired under unfavorable circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 93 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0592 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 28, 2007, a registered nurse responded to an emergency medical call to assist an inmate who had DISPO INV ADV HA fallen in her cell and sustained a head wound. It was alleged the nurse failed to provide proper medical care and left the unconscious inmate laying face down on the floor. Within moments of leaving the cell, the nurse was called back because the inmate was convulsing. When the nurse returned to the cell, he allegedly stated that the inmate was "faking" and shut the cell door for a second time, leaving the inmate on the floor unconscious and bleeding. It was further alleged that the nurse failed to prepare any documentation about the incident and was dishonest during the investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained all of the allegations and the nurse was dismissed. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0593 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 16, 2007, it was alleged that a registered nurse attempted to intimidate a licensed vocational nurse DISPO INV ADV HA into not reporting misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the nurse was dismissed. The nurse filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0594 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 3, 2007, it was alleged that a parole agent took part in a search of parolee residences with local law DISPO INV ADV HA enforcement. Before the search, the parole agent allegedly told his supervisor that the parolees to be searched were assigned to the parole agent's unit and that he had notified each of their assigned parole agents of the impending search. During the search of one residence, an outside law enforcement officer discharged his firearm at a private citizen, who was not struck. The parolee at the residence was not assigned to the parole agent's unit. It was alleged that the parole agent admitted he had lied to his supervisor about the parolee's unit assignment and that he had falsified his report indicating he had contacted the other agents about conducting searches on their parolees. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation of dishonesty and the parole agent was dismissed. Case No. 08-0595 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in January 2007, an officer was overly familiar with inmates and brought contraband, DISPO INV ADV HA including mobile phones, tobacco, and alcohol, into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 94 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0596 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In January 2007, it was alleged that an officer conspired with inmates to introduce mobile phones, tobacco, DISPO INV ADV HA marijuana, and alcohol into the institution for personal gain. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. An administrative investigation was also opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0597 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 25, 2006, an inmate refused to take his court-ordered medication. A lieutenant allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA authorized the forcible removal of the inmate from his cell without following protocols. It was also alleged that he failed to require staff to file incident reports regarding the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 5 percent reduction for six months. The lieutenant did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0598 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on five separate occasions between December 4, 2006, and February 4, 2007, a painter at an DISPO INV ADV HA institution was engaged in sexual misconduct with three inmates. The misconduct included acts of touching and oral copulation. It was also alleged the painter provided an inmate with methamphetamine. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs referred the case 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. 08-0599 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in December 2006 and February 2007, a mailroom supervisor allegedly intercepted three DISPO INV ADV HA money orders from inmate mail and wrote his name on the payee line. The supervisor then allegedly deposited the money orders into his personal bank account. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed criminal charges. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 95 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0600 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 30, 2006, an inmate was observed hanging from a sheet that was tied around the metal bar of a DISPO INV ADV HA bunk inside his cell. The inmate was not responsive to verbal commands. An officer deployed a burst of pepper spray toward the inmate's facial area to determine responsiveness before opening the cell door. The cell door was opened and the inmate was removed. It was alleged there was an unreasonable delay in starting CPR and that the officer was untruthful during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE At the conclusion of the investigation the hiring authority sustained allegations that the officer had engaged in an inappropriate use of force and had been untruthful during the investigation. A 60 working day suspension was imposed. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not confirm the date of the incident and the time period for taking disciplinary action in the department's case management system. The department's attorneys also did not timely discuss the elements of a thorough investigation with the assigned investigator and the bureau, nor did they coordinate with the bureau during the investigative process. In addition, the department's attorneys did not attend key investigative interviews or provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator. They did not timely review the draft investigative report or provide written confirmation of critical discussions concerning the report. The department's attorneys also did not provide legal consultation to the hiring authority regarding allegations, findings, or discipline, nor did they confirm disciplinary discussions or consult the bureau regarding the drafting of the written disciplinary notice. Case No. 08-0601 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In November 2006, an officer allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate he supervised. While in DISPO INV ADV HA custody, the inmate obtained a tattoo with the officer's name. The officer continued to communicate with the inmate after she was released on parole and sent her money on two occasions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer died before the investigation was completed. Case No. 08-0602 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In November 2006, an officer allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate he supervised. While in DISPO INV ADV HA custody, the inmate obtained a tattoo with the officer's name. The officer allegedly continued to communicate with the inmate after she was released from custody and sent her money on two occasions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer died before the investigation was completed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 96 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0603 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 26, 2006, a sergeant allegedly interfered with officers attempting to place inmates in administrative DISPO INV ADV HA segregation by falsely claiming that the inmates were needed as part of an unrelated investigation. In addition, it was alleged that the sergeant was dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the sergeant was dismissed. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0604 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 8, 2006, an officer was allegedly arrested for domestic violence and vandalism. She was also DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly prohibited from carrying a firearm. It was further alleged that she failed to report the arrest and the firearm restriction to the hiring authority, as required. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain allegations that the officer committed acts of domestic violence or vandalism. However, the hiring authority did sustain allegations that she was arrested, had a protective order issued against her, failed to report her arrest, and failed to report that she was legally prohibited from carrying a firearm. The officer received a salary reduction of 5 percent for 12 months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0605 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between September 1, 2006, and November 28, 2007, a sergeant was engaged in narcotics DISPO INV ADV HA and contraband trafficking for inmates at an institution. It was also alleged that the sergeant permitted inmates access to other inmates to commit assaults. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed insufficient evidence to support the allegations; the Office of Internal Affairs did not refer the matter to the district attorney's office for prosecution. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 97 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0606 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 24, 2006, inmates assaulted officers during a cell search. As the inmates were taken into custody, other DISPO INV ADV HA inmates housed in three nearby cells made verbal death threats against staff members. The incident commander authorized staff to contact the inmates to determine if they would voluntarily go to administrative segregation. However, several sergeants formulated a plan whereby three teams of officers were to rush into the cells to either contact the inmates for voluntary placement or to conduct cell searches. The existing control booth officer was replaced with another officer who could be "trusted." Four of the sergeants then led the three teams into the housing unit. As the teams approached the three cells, the cell doors opened, necessitating the use of force against four inmates. It was alleged that the officers used unnecessary force while conducting the unauthorized cell extractions. The incident commander was never apprised of the plan prior to its execution and over 40 officers were identified as possible subjects. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained allegations against 29 employees. Three employees were dismissed and five sergeants were demoted. Four employees, including an associate warden, received salary reductions. One employee received a 60 working day suspension. Fifteen employees received letters of reprimand. One action was not served timely and, therefore, did not take effect. After the Skelly hearings, one dismissal was reduced to a salary reduction of 5 percent for 12 months and the salary reduction for the associate warden was reduced to a letter of reprimand. All 28 employees who received discipline filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 98 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0607 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 1, 2006, an inmate was found hanging in his cell. The officer who discovered the inmate allegedly did DISPO INV ADV HA not sound his alarm, but instead contacted his sergeant. The sergeant allegedly did not quickly enter the cell to initiate life saving measures and impeded medical staff's life saving efforts. It was also alleged that the first medical technical assistant to arrive on scene did not take charge of the medical emergency, as required. The medical technical assistant, a registered nurse, and two other medical technical assistants allegedly did not make proper use of the Automatic Emergency Defibrillator (AED) while giving emergency treatment to the inmate. It was further alleged that a lieutenant failed to assist in performing CPR when requested by medical staff. The inmate subsequently died. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer for neglecting his duty. The officer received a letter of reprimand as part of a settlement agreement. The hiring authority also sustained allegations against the sergeant for neglecting his duty and for impeding the efforts of the medical technical assistant. The sergeant was suspended without pay for seven working days as part of a settlement agreement. The hiring authority sustained an allegation against the medical technical assistant for failing to take charge of the medical emergency and she received a letter of reprimand. An allegation against the registered nurse was also sustained for her failure to properly use the Automatic External Defibrillator (AED) and she received a 5 percent reduction in salary for nine months. The registered nurse filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations against the two other medical technical assistants and the lieutenant. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 99 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0608 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between April 2006 and May 2007, a parole agent was engaged in an overly familiar DISPO INV ADV HA relationship with a parolee by hiring him to complete body work on the agent's private vehicle. It was also alleged that the agent used his position to help the parolee obtain an early discharge from parole. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to show the agent was overly familiar with the parolee. Neither of the allegations were sustained. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The investigators did not confer with the bureau upon initiation of the investigation and the investigation did not completely addressed all relevant facts. The investigators did not fully cooperate with the bureau and the department's attorneys and they did not update case activity or timely input the final investigative report into the department's case management system. The final investigative report contained conclusions regarding the disposition of the investigation and the investigation was not conducted with due diligence. The department's attorneys did not confirm the date of the incident and the time period for taking disciplinary action in the department's case management system. The department's attorneys also did not timely discuss the elements of a thorough investigation with the assigned investigator and the bureau, nor did they coordinate with the bureau during the investigative process. The department's attorneys did not timely review the draft investigative report or provide written confirmation of critical discussions concerning the report. Finally, the department's attorneys did not confirm disciplinary discussions with the hiring authority and the bureau. Case No. 08-0609 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between April 2006 and November 2006, an officer was engaged in a sexual relationship with DISPO INV ADV HA an inmate. It was also alleged that the officer was supplying inmates with alcohol, mobile phones, and two-way radios. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 100 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0610 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 8, 2006, telephone calls were intercepted in which an inmate was making arrangements for tobacco DISPO INV ADV HA to be delivered to the institution. Officers later went to the specified location and retrieved the contraband and replaced it with a decoy. They conducted a video surveillance of the area and observed a groundskeeper drive to the location with three work crew inmates. The groundskeeper remained in his truck as the inmates retrieved the decoy. Officers stopped the vehicle and recovered the decoy. The groundskeeper denied knowledge that the crew intended to retrieve tobacco. Upon further investigation, officers received information that the groundskeeper allegedly also supplied marijuana, methamphetamine, and alcohol to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs referred the matter to the district attorney's office for prosecution, but the district attorney declined to file charges. Subsequently, the department conducted an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0611 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 19, 2006, a ward reported that a painter exposed his genitals to him. The painter also allegedly used DISPO INV ADV HA unprofessional language and engaged in verbal horseplay with other wards. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegation that the painter exposed himself to the ward. However, an allegation that the painter failed to properly perform his duties by behaving unprofessionally with the wards was sustained, for which he was counseled. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 101 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0612 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on January 18, 2006, a parole agent lied about her relationship with a parolee to a local law DISPO INV ADV HA enforcement officer who was investigating a string of robberies committed by the parolee and his fellow gang members. It was further alleged that from 2004 to 2006 the parole agent had an overly familiar relationship with the parolee and that she provided confidential law enforcement information to him and to other members of his criminal street gang. It was also alleged that the parole agent lied to internal affairs agents during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the parole agent. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not confirm the date of the incident and the time period for taking disciplinary action in the department's case management system. The department's attorneys also did not timely discuss the elements of a thorough investigation with the assigned investigator and the bureau, nor did they coordinate with the bureau during the investigative process. The department's attorneys did not attend key investigative interviews or provide the assigned investigator with legal consultation during the investigation. The department's attorneys did not timely review the draft investigative report or confirm critical discussions regarding the report. The department's attorneys also did not confirm disciplinary discussions with the hiring authority and the bureau, nor did they coordinate with the bureau during the disciplinary process. Case No. 08-0613 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 2, 2006, an inmate was found unconscious on the floor of his cell. It was alleged that an officer had DISPO INV ADV HA failed to conduct inmate counts, delaying discovery of the inmate. It was also alleged that another officer was less than alert and that multiple officers failed to initiate CPR in a timely manner. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an investigation, the hiring authority sustained an allegation that one of the officers had failed to properly conduct inmate counts and imposed a salary reduction of 10 percent for 12 months. However, after a Skelly hearing, the penalty was reduced to a letter of reprimand. The hiring authority sustained the allegation as to the second officer that he had been less than alert, but withdrew the action after the Skelly hearing. No charges were sustained against the other officers. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not confirm the date of the incident and the time period for taking disciplinary action in the department's case management system. The department's attorneys also did not timely discuss the elements of a thorough investigation with the assigned investigator and the bureau, nor did they coordinate with the bureau during the investigative process. The department's attorneys did not provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator, review the draft investigative report, or confirm critical discussions concerning the report. In addition, the department's attorney did not confirm disciplinary discussions with the hiring authority and the bureau. Finally, they did not consult the bureau regarding the drafting of a written disciplinary notice or coordinate with the bureau through the disciplinary process. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 102 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0614 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From January 2006 through September 2006, a materials and stores supervisor allegedly developed a friendship DISPO INV ADV HA with an inmate whom she supervised. The supervisor also allegedly corresponded with the inmate, who was transferred to another institution until his release from custody. After the inmate's release, he and the supervisor allegedly spent a week together and engaged in sexual activity on multiple occasions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the materials and stores supervisor with a notice of dismissal. However, she resigned before the dismissal took effect. Case No. 08-0615 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From January 2006 through September 2006, a materials and stores supervisor allegedly developed a friendship DISPO INV ADV HA with an inmate whom she supervised. The supervisor also allegedly corresponded with the inmate, who was transferred to another institution until his release from custody. After the inmate's release, he and the supervisor allegedly spent a week together and engaged in sexual activity on multiple occasions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute the matter. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0616 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on November 10, 2005, a sergeant instructed an officer to change her incident report to DISPO INV ADV HA coincide with the reports of two other officers. The officer changed her report, but allegedly failed to report the misconduct of the sergeant. It was further alleged that a second sergeant also ordered the officer to change her report and was discourteous to the other two officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the two sergeants. The hiring authority sustained allegations against the officer for submitting a false report and for failing to report employee misconduct. The officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not confirm the date of the incident and the time period for taking disciplinary action in the department's case management system. The department's attorneys also did not timely discuss the elements of a thorough investigation with the assigned investigator and the bureau, nor did they coordinate with the bureau during the investigative process. In addition, the department's attorneys did not attend key investigative interviews. They also did not provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator, review the draft investigative report, or confirm critical discussions concerning the report. Finally, the department's attorneys did not confirm disciplinary discussions with the hiring authority and the bureau. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 103 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATISFACTORYCASES Case No. 08-0617 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between May 2005 and May 2008, two officers owned and operated a van pool company that DISPO INV ADV HA had direct business dealings with an institution. Allegedly, in April 2005, the officers' request to engage in this business was denied as a conflict of interest. It was further alleged that the officers submitted fraudulent travel reimbursement claims to the state, submitted fraudulent subsidy requests to a state-sponsored grant program, and failed to report the income to the California Franchise Tax Board. It was also alleged that another officer assisted in filing the fraudulent travel reimbursement claims to the state. The officers were also dishonest during their investigatory interviews. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained all of the allegations and dismissed the officers. An appeal has been filed with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 08-0618 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that from January 2005 to June 2007, a parole agent made inappropriate comments of a sexual DISPO INV ADV HA nature to a parolee, put his hands on her waist, and touched her breast. The agent also used his personal vehicle on numerous occasions to visit the parolee on his days off. It was further alleged that the parolee had been living in another parole region for over 18 months without the agent transferring her supervision to the other region. When questioned by his supervisor, the agent falsely claimed the parolee's information in the file was accurate. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained all of the allegations and dismissed the agent. Prior to the effective date of the action, the employee retired. A letter indicating the employee retired pending disciplinary action was placed in his personnel file. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not confirm the date of the incident and the time period for taking disciplinary action in the department's case management system. The department's attorneys also did not timely discuss the elements of a thorough investigation with the assigned investigator and the bureau, nor did they coordinate with the bureau during the investigative process. In addition, the department's attorneys did not attend key investigative interviews, review the draft investigative report, or confirm critical discussions concerning the report. The department's attorneys also did not confirm disciplinary discussions with the hiring authority and the bureau, and the written disciplinary notice was drafted inappropriately. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 104 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 06-0353 (Central Region) 09/16/05 06-0002927-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On September 16, 2005, it was alleged that an officer had engaged in illicit sexual activities with inmates and aided a second officer in concealing that officer's overly familiar relationship with an inmate. It was further alleged that the officer, who is a union steward, attempted to obtain a more favorable result in an employee discipline case by blackmailing an administrator. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations relating to the blackmailing of an administrator and making false statements during the investigation. The allegations relating to sexual misconduct and concealing over-familiarity were not sustained. The officer was dismissed. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE After a hearing, the State Personnel Board reduced the penalty from a dismissal to a 10 percent reduction in pay for 18 months. The bureau did not concur with the decision. Case No. 07-0007 (North Region) 09/01/05 05-0003407-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On September 1, 2005, it was alleged that an officer was trafficking narcotics and tobacco into the institution. It was further alleged that the officer engaged in overly familiar conduct and was negligent by allowing an inmate to climb to the control booth and grab the mini-14 rifle by the barrel. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations of neglect of duty for endangering staff members and suspended the officer without pay for 48 days. APPEAL UPDATE Following the appellate hearing the officer's 48-day suspension was reduced by the State Personnel Board to a Letter of Reprimand. The bureau did not concur with the State Personnel Board's decision. Case No. 07-0105 (South Region) 04/21/06 06-0002768-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On April 21, 2006, an inmate sat down on the floor and refused to move in response to a first officer's direction. A second officer entered the housing unit and allegedly emptied a can of pepper spray onto the inmate when the inmate refused to move in response to the second officer's request. Shortly thereafter, a captain entered the housing unit and noticed a puddle of pepper spray on the floor. The first and second officer provided accounts of the event that differed from the inmate's allegations and were not supported by the captain's observation. The control booth officer in the housing unit saw the second officer use pepper spray on the inmate and allegedly failed to accurately report the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the initial officer was dishonest in the incident report and during the interview with the Office of Internal Affairs. The hiring authority also sustained allegations that the second officer used unnecessary force, and was dishonest in the incident report as well as during the interview with the Office of Internal Affairs. Both officers were dismissed. The hiring authority further concluded that the control booth officer failed to report the use of force and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months. APPEAL UPDATE All allegations were dismissed by the State Personnel Board, which did not believe the inmate's account of events. Additionally, an officer not interviewed during the investigation testified that he cleaned up the pepper spray with a wet mop before the captain arrived. The board concluded that the captain who testified about seeing a puddle of pepper spray on the floor was mistaken. The bureau did not agree with the findings of the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 105 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 07-0147 (Central Region) 02/07/06 06-0002453-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On February 7, 2006, an officer allegedly interfered with an attempt to report staff misconduct by intercepting written allegations by several inmates and then questioning the inmates about the allegations. The officer subsequently provided three different versions of the events to department supervisors. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigative services unit conducted an investigation, and the department dismissed the officer from employment. APPEAL UPDATE A State Personnel Board hearing was held. The officer argued that the department violated her Peace Officer Bill of Rights when a superior officer questioned her. The State Personnel Board agreed with the argument and dismissed numerous allegations against the officer. The State Personnel Board determined that the officer's conduct constituted a failure of good behavior and reduced the penalty from dismissal to a letter of reprimand. The bureau did not concur with the board's decision. Case No. 07-0199 (North Region) 09/06/05 05-0002829-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On September 6, 2005, during the 1200 hours count of inmates, an inmate was discovered non-responsive in a cell. CPR was initiated, but the inmate was pronounced dead. The coroner's office determined that the inmate was killed at approximately 2130 hours on September 4, 2005. The inmate's cellmate confessed to the murder. Despite 11 inmate counts, staff members did not discover the body for two days. DISPOSITION OF CASE Seven officers received discipline ranging from a 5 percent salary reduction for three months to a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months. All seven officers have appealed their adverse actions to the State Personnel Board. The appeals are currently pending. APPEAL UPDATE At the hearing, five of the seven officers settled for salary reductions ranging from 5 percent for 45 days to 10 percent for six months. The bureau concurred with the settlement agreements. After the hearing, the State Personnel Board reversed the discipline on the two remaining officers, finding a lack of a clear policy violation. The bureau did not concur with the State Personnel Board's finding. Case No. 07-0232 (Central Region) 09/09/04 05-0002110-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On September 9, 2004, the department received information that a non-sworn employee allegedly had sexual contact with an inmate. A separate inmate alleged the same employee gave the inmate contraband, including cigarettes. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation. The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the employee. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board reduced the penalty from a dismissal to a 30-day suspension without pay. The bureau did not concur with the modification. Case No. 07-0239 (Central Region) 01/01/04 05-0002770-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE During 2004, an officer allegedly submitted fraudulent military orders to obtain unearned compensation in excess of $10,000. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of fraud and dismissed the officer. An appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE A settlement was reached in which the officer agreed to forfeit any back pay from November 15, 2005, to December 31, 2008, and to reimburse the state for 30 days of pay he received for military orders not submitted in compliance with department policy. The department allowed the officer to return to duty beginning January 1, 2009, pursuant to applicable requirements for reinstatement to service. The bureau concurred with the settlement due to evidentiary issues that arose because of the department's significant delay in completing the hearing. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 106 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 07-0299 (North Region) 05/31/05 05-0001353-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On March 28, 2005, during an investigative interview, a health care administrator acknowledged terminating 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. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board held that the department's attempt to extend the deadline for imposing discipline was procedurally flawed and, therefore, the suspension was revoked. The board's decision was based on an interpretation of a recently published appellate court case. The health care administrator has since retired. Case No. 07-0345 (North Region) 01/22/07 07-0001139-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On January 22, 2007, an inmate alleged that he had an overly familiar relationship with an office technician, 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. At the hearing the parties entered into a stipulated agreement whereby the hiring authority agreed to withdraw the action in return for the technician's resignation and agreement not to seek future employment with the department. APPEAL UPDATE At the hearing, the office technician was permitted to resign in lieu of being dismissed. However, as part of the settlement, it was noted that her resignation was under adverse circumstances and she agreed not to seek re-employment with the department. The bureau concurred. Case No. 07-0369 (North Region) 11/29/06 07-0000530-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On November 29, 2006, a sergeant allegedly struck an inmate in the torso three times with his shoulder while 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. APPEAL UPDATE The department agreed to modify the officer's discipline from a 10 percent salary reduction for 36 months to a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The department did not consult the bureau prior to modifying the officer's penalty and the bureau disagreed with the modification. The department did not modify the sergeant's discipline. After a hearing on the matter, the State Personnel Board upheld the sergeant's dismissal. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 107 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 07-0440 (Central Region) 07/16/06 06-0002632-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On July 15, 2006, it was alleged that a sergeant brought an unauthorized computer flash drive into the 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. APPEAL UPDATE A settlement agreement was reached whereby the department rescinded the dismissal and the sergeant agreed to a suspension without pay for 107 work days, demotion to officer, withdrawal of his claim for unemployment benefits, and not to seek a promotion for two years. The bureau concurred with the settlement because of the evidentiary issues discovered prior to the hearing. Case No. 07-0476 (North Region) 03/27/06 06-0002296-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On or about March 27, 2006, an officer allegedly uttered disrespectful comments and made profane gestures 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. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board reduced the dismissal to a suspension without pay for 15 months. The bureau did not agree with the reduction. Case No. 07-0477 (Central Region) 03/25/06 06-0004051-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On March 25, 2006, two control booth officers allegedly released inmates inappropriately from separate 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. APPEAL UPDATE A settlement agreement was reached, which reduced the 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months to a 5 percent salary reduction for eight months. The bureau concurred with the settlement. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 108 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 07-0492 (North Region) 12/21/05 06-0003390-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On December 21, 2005, a sergeant erroneously housed an inmate in a housing unit reserved for inmates with 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. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board did not sustain the disciplinary action and revoked the letter of reprimand. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the bureau concurred with the decision. Case No. 07-0507 (North Region) 03/10/05 05-0001594-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On March 10, 2005, a wheelchair-dependent inmate alleged that during a transport two officers forced him to 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. APPEAL UPDATE The sergeant settled the case at hearing. He agreed to accept the discipline and the hiring authority agreed to remove the action from his file after thirteen months in his personnel file. The bureau concurred. Case No. 08-0028 (North Region) 01/25/07 07-0000987-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On January 25, 2007, outside law enforcement entered a parolee's residence and discovered her in the embrace of an officer wearing his department uniform. The officer allegedly lied to his supervisor about why he was going to be late for work that day. Four days later, outside law enforcement stopped a vehicle driven by the officer and discovered the same parolee as a passenger. A search of the vehicle revealed a purse under the driver's seat containing methamphetamine and marijuana. The parolee later told outside law enforcement that she had a sexual relationship with the officer and had seen him use drugs in the past. The officer also allegedly lied to the department about information in his background and lied during his internal affairs interview regarding the alleged misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained allegations of sexual misconduct and engaging in an overly familiar relationship with a parolee. Allegations of dishonesty related to why he was late to work and his background were also sustained; however, the allegation of dishonesty during his internal affairs interview was not sustained. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation of use of controlled substances off duty. The officer was dismissed, and he filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE A settlement agreement was reached in which the department withdrew the dismissal and the officer resigned. The bureau concurred with the settlement. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 109 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 08-0088 (North Region) 08/04/07 07-0003712-IR Direct Action Case FACTS OF CASE On August 4, 2007, an officer allegedly informed inmate porters that another inmate had reported they were stealing food. The officer admitted to a lieutenant that he told this information to the inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegations of neglect of duty and sharing confidential information. In addition, the hiring authority sustained allegations against the officer in two other cases that were not monitored by the bureau. As a result of the allegations sustained against the officer in all three cases, he was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The case was settled at a pre-hearing settlement conference. The officer was allowed to resign in lieu of dismissal. The bureau concurred with the settlement. Case No. 08-0208 (Central Region) 02/02/07 07-0004395-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On February 2, 2007, three officers and a nurse allowed an inmate to attempt to revive another inmate using first aid, CPR, and a defibrillator, rather than performing the actions themselves. The inmate had previously been trained as a paramedic and knew how to properly use the medical equipment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation of neglect of duty against the first officer was sustained, and the officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The allegation of neglect of duty against the second officer was sustained, and the officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. The allegation of neglect of duty against the third officer was sustained, and the officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for nine months. All three officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. The allegation of neglect of duty against the nurse was sustained, and the nurse received a 10 percent salary reduction for nine months, which was not appealed. APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into settlement agreements with all three officers. The penalty against the first officer was modified to a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. The penalty against the second officer was reduced to a letter of reprimand. The penalty against the third officer was modified to a 10 percent salary reduction for four months. The bureau concurred with the settlement agreements. Case No. 08-0254 (Central Region) 05/10/06 06-0003092-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On or about May 10, 2006, an officer allegedly allowed a non-sworn staff member to enter a control booth without approval or logging the visit, then sexually battered the staff member. Another officer allegedly witnessed sexual acts between the two employees and failed to intervene or report the conduct. The non-sworn staff member allegedly reported the incident to a sergeant who failed to take appropriate action. DISPOSITION OF CASE This case dealt with the alleged failure to report misconduct of another employee by the non-sworn staff member, the sergeant, and the other officer. The alleged sexual battery was handled in a separate investigation. The non-sworn staff member received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months for failing to report the incident in a timely manner and not disclosing her presence in the control booth. She did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The sergeant received a 10 percent salary reduction for 30 months for a sustained allegation of neglect of duty. The sergeant appealed to the State Personnel Board. The allegation against the other officer was not sustained. APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into a settlement agreement at the time of the hearing resulting in the penalty against the sergeant being reduced from a 10 percent pay reduction for 30 months to a 10 percent pay reduction for 18 months. The bureau concurred with the settlement agreement. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 110 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 08-0255 (Central Region) 04/22/06 07-0002874-IR Administrative Case FACTS OF CASE On or about April 22, 2006, a captain allegedly witnessed an officer forcefully hit an inmate with his shoulder while the inmate was being escorted in handcuffs by another officer. The escorting officer allegedly failed to stop or report the assault. It was also alleged that a third and fourth officer later removed the same inmate from a holding cell and struck him in the face numerous times with closed fists. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against the officer who allegedly assaulted the inmate were sustained, and the hiring authority initially recommended dismissing the officer. However, the officer later agreed to a settlement where he received a suspension without pay for 68 calendar days, followed by a salary reduction of 10 percent for 24 months. The allegations against the escorting officer who allegedly failed to stop or report the use of force were sustained, and he was dismissed. He appealed the dismissal to the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the third and fourth officers who allegedly took the inmate from a holding cell and assaulted him. APPEAL UPDATE The department settled the case with the escorting officer and the penalty was modified from a dismissal to a 10 percent reduction in pay for 12 months. The bureau concurred with the settlement based on evidentiary issues that arose while the case was pending before the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 111 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0619 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 1, 2008, a minimum custody inmate who was assigned a job working with an institution's vehicle services used one of the vehicles to escape. The inmate cut through a barbed wire fence and drove onto a private road belonging to a ranch. An officer was able to confirm that the inmate drove through the ranch after interviewing a witness who described the vehicle and said the inmate was driving fast across the ranch and that he had opened several gates. DISPOSITION OF CASE Outside law enforcement officers found the state vehicle abandoned approximately 50 miles away from the institution. Special agents from the department found and apprehended the inmate without incident within five hours of his escape. The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. There was no staff misconduct identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 08-0620 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 25, 2008, a hidden video camera was discovered in a staff bathroom in the medical area of an institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE Potential staff misconduct was identified and the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau did not accept for monitoring. Case No. 08-0621 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 21, 2008, officers were alerted to an inmate fight in an administrative segregation cell. Officers responded and found that the inmates had stopped fighting. The officers noticed a pool of blood coming from underneath the cell door. One of the inmates received a skull fracture as a result of the altercation and required treatment at a community hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution against the cellmate. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department’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 112 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0622 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 19, 2008, inmates alerted staff that a fellow inmate assigned to their room was unresponsive. Custody staff entered the room and determined the inmate had no pulse. CPR was initiated, medical staff were summoned, and life-saving measures administered. The inmate was transported by ambulance to a local hospital where she was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE A review of the autopsy report revealed the cause of death was by natural causes. There was no evidence of staff misconduct; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0623 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 16, 2008, an inmate was attacked by two other inmates on an institutional yard. Staff responded to the incident and escorted the injured inmate to the medical clinic. During the medical evaluation of the injured inmate, two puncture wounds to the chest and rib cage were discovered. He was transported to a local hospital for treatment and returned to the institution the same day. DISPOSITION OF CASE This case was not referred to the district attorney's office because the injured inmate refused to testify in court. There was no evidence of staff misconduct; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0624 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 12, 2008, an inmate informed an officer he had been stabbed. Staff immediately escorted the inmate to the infirmary for a medical evaluation and it was determined the inmate had five puncture wounds. The inmate was transported to an outside hospital for additional treatment and care. The inmate's wounds were determined not to be life threatening, so he was treated and released after a 24 hour observation period. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department completed an inquiry into the incident, but was unable to identify the assailants. The inmate also alleged he was unable to identify the assailants. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 113 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0625 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 3, 2008, an inmate attempted to commit suicide by placing a noose around his neck made from a bed sheet, tying it to the hand rail, and jumping off the second tier in a housing unit. The bed sheet tore loose and the inmate landed on floor feet first and was transported to a community hospital for his injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate was medically treated and then referred to the mental health department for treatment because of the suicide attempt. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 08-0626 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 31, 2008, outside law enforcement officials arrested a correctional counselor for the murder of his wife. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office filed criminal charges against the correctional counselor. The hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for a criminal investigation because it was being investigated by outside law enforcement officials. The hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for an administrative investigation because the department dismissed the correctional counselor for being absent without leave after his arrest. 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 and the bureau concurred with the department's decision to not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. Case No. 08-0627 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 30, 2008, six inmates attacked two inmates on an exercise yard. At the same time at another location, an inmate attacked another inmate in the institution law library. Four non-lethal impact rounds were fired for effect to stop the fighting on the yard. In addition, four lethal rounds were fired as warning shots by two separate yard observation officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's investigative services unit collected necessary evidence and the institution's use of force review committee determined that no staff misconduct occurred. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open a deadly force investigation into the incident because the four lethal rounds that were fired were determined to have been warning shots. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incidents in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incidents were sufficient. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 114 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0628 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 28, 2008, an inmate reported to the instutution that he had been sexually assaulted by his cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution transported the inmate to a local hospital for examination and conducted a fact-finding inquiry as required. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but failed to provide timely notification. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 08-0629 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 25, 2008, an inmate escaped from the institution's minimum support facility. DISPOSITION OF CASE No potential staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0630 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 24, 2008, two inmates assaulted an officer and a sergeant during a clothed body search outside of a facility dining hall. As officers attempted to gain control of the two combative inmates by employing batons and chemical agents, other inmates inside the dining hall began to attack and throw cups and trays at officers stationed inside. A total of 295 inmates were inside the building at the time of the incident. Forty-four inmates were identified as active participants and placed in administrative segregation. Eight officers suffered injuries and were transported to an outside hospital for treatment. The injuries included bruising, stitches, broken hands and a fractured skull. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department determined that the force used was within departmental policy and training. The matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for Investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT 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. Although the bureau was not notified for six hours after the riot began, it was determined that the department was still in the process of securing the dining hall when the notification was made. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 115 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0631 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 14, 2008, inmates notified officers of a medical emergency after they observed an inmate coughing up blood. Medical staff arrived and began transporting the inmate to the institution's medical treatment area. CPR was started after the inmate quit breathing. An ambulance was called and advanced life-saving efforts were initiated, but were unsuccessful. The inmate was later pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy results concluded the cause of death was by natural causes. There was no staff misconduct identified and the matter was not referred 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 bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0632 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 13, 2008, a nurse found an inmate lying unresponsive on his bed. She alerted staff and checked for a pulse. Responding medical staff assessed the inmate and found no signs of life. A suicide note was found on a table next to the inmate's bed. The inmate was pronounced dead by the chief medical officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following a review of the incident, the department referred the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation of potential misconduct concerning staff's response to the incident. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority 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. 08-0633 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 25, 2008, an inmate housed in administrative segregation was found hanging by the neck from a piece of cloth tied to the upper bunk. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate was pronounced dead after life-saving efforts failed. There was no evidence of foul play or staff misconduct related to the incident. The matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 116 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0634 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 24, 2008, inmates alerted officers to an inmate having a seizure. Medical staff responded to the cell and transported the inmate to the institution's medical treatment area. The inmate went into cardiac arrest and died after life-saving efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The official autopsy results were not immediately available. The hiring authority referred the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 08-0635 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 22, 2008, an officer found an inmate unresponsive in his assigned cell during a security check. When responding staff entered the cell, CPR was immediately administered and continued until the inmate was pronounced dead at a local hospital. Further investigation revealed the inmate had allegedly been injected with a controlled substance by his cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy was performed and the coroner determined the cause of death was by heroin intoxication and the manner of death was undetermined. The case was referred to the local district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. There was no evidence of staff misconduct; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was also sufficient. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0636 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 20, 2008, an inmate was seriously battered and sexually assaulted by his cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office. There was no staff misconduct identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0637 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 14, 2008, an inmate on suicide watch attempted to commit suicide by cutting and slashing his arms and neck. Officers responded immediately and took the inmate to the institution's medical facility, and he was evacuated to a local hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE No misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. However, the department did not adequately notify and consult with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 117 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0638 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 11, 2008, an inmate collapsed on the track. The facility sergeant believed the inmate was suffering a seizure and medical assistance was summoned. A registered nurse arrived and performed CPR. The inmate was transported to central health and taken to an outside hospital where he was later pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE This case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation because there was no evidence of staff misconduct. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 08-0639 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 9, 2008, an inmate was found on an exercise yard with multiple puncture wounds to his face and neck. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution was not able to identify who was responsible for the injuries. As a result, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. There was no staff misconduct identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0640 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 5, 2008, a parolee had a seizure while attending a substance abuse treatment class at a parole office. Responding parole agents cleared the classroom, called 911, and monitored the parolee's condition. When it appeared the parolee stopped breathing, the agents administered CPR until paramedics arrived. Shortly thereafter, the parolee died. DISPOSITION OF CASE The parole administrator promptly notified the bureau of the parolee's death, and subsequently provided the bureau with a report of the incident. There was no staff misconduct identified. 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 did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and the bureau concurred with that decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 118 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0641 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 1, 2008, an inmate alleged that she was sexually assaulted in the middle of the night while she slept. Specifically, she alleged that after awakening she detected the presence of fluid in her vagina that smelled like semen. However, she could not identify anyone or give any details of being aware of anything happening to her. DISPOSITION OF CASE The sexual assault examination resulted in no evidence to support that an assault occurred. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 08-0642 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 31, 2008, an inmate alleged that she was sexually assaulted early in the morning by an officer while she was in her cell in the administrative segregation unit. The inmate was the sole occupant of the cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE Although a preliminary physical examination of the inmate did not produce evidence that a sexual assault occurred, the incident was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 08-0643 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 31, 2008, an inmate was found hanging in his cell. An officer and LVN performed CPR until additional medical staff responded and transported the inmate to the triage and treatment area. Life-saving measures were continued until the inmate was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation because a review failed to indicate staff misconduct occurred. 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 119 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0644 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 30, 2008, while six inmates were fighting inside a facility day room, the control booth officer fired one lethal round for effect. Two inmates were attacking a third inmate, who was on the floor on his back. The officer fired at one of the two attacking inmates, but missed and hit the dayroom floor. DISPOSITION OF CASE On the day of the incident, the department's deadly force investigation team responded to the scene to evaluate the situation and preserve evidence. The Office of Internal Affairs opened both criminal and administrative deadly force investigations into the shooting. 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 informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 08-0645 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 27, 2008, an inmate alleged that he had been sexually assaulted by another inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was insufficient evidence that a crime occurred. As a result, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. Case No. 08-0646 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 26, 2008, a 66-year-old inmate who complained of chest pain was transported to an outside hospital where he died. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy confirmed that the inmate died of complications from a long history of heart disease. There was no indication of staff misconduct and the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau agreed with the decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. Case No. 08-0647 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 22, 2008, an inmate reported that he had been sexually assaulted by another inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigation by the institution's investigative services unit determined that the inmate had not been sexually assaulted and the inmate later recanted the allegation. As a result, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. There was no staff misconduct identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation although it did not timely notify the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority did not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 120 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0648 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 20, 2008, an inmate had been battered by another inmate and was not expected to live. The injured inmate died the following day. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed charges against the inmate. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT With the exception of the first officer who responded to the scene and failed to insure the crime scene was preserved for investigators, the department's overall response to the incident was sufficient. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The bureau did not concur with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0649 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 18, 2008, an inmate reported that he had been sexually assaulted by his cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the matter was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The district attorney's office declined to file charges. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0650 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 18, 2008, a riot erupted on an exercise yard between approximately 70 inmates from two rival prison gangs. The inmates stopped fighting as staff responded to the scene. No force was used by staff as a result of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE After reviewing the incident reports, the hiring authority determined there was no evidence of staff misconduct; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau agreed with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 121 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0651 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 13, 2008, at approximately 0045 hours, the department discovered an inmate missing from a minimum security facility. The department followed procedures and protocols and notified outside law enforcement agencies and residents. Officers conducted a search of the area surrounding the institution and apprehended the inmate at approximately 0955 hours. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority reviewed the incident and did not identify 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 adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the hiring authority's decision to not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0652 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 7, 2008, two inmates were involved in a fight resulting in one of the inmates sustaining a skull fracture. The injured inmate was treated by an outside hospital and returned to the instituion. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to file charges. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 08-0653 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 6, 2008, an inmate escaped from a conservation camp. Staff searched the camp facility grounds and the surrounding community without success. Local law enforcement agencies were notified and assisted in the search. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following a multiple day search by the department and local law enforcement authorities, the escapee was not found. No staff misconduct was identified and, therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the hiring authority's decision to not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 122 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0654 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 3, 2008, during the evening meal, several inmates began fighting on a dayroom floor. The floor officer attempted to quell the situation using OC pepper spray without success. The control booth officer fired non-lethal rounds after verbal commands to stop fighting were ignored. The first round missed all of the combatants, but caused several of them to assume a prone position. A second round was fired at one of the inmates who had continued to punch another downed inmate. This round struck the intended target in the thigh and caused the remaining combatants to assume prone positions. However, one of the inmates then attempted to get to his feet to continue an assault, at which point the control booth officer fired a third round aimed at the inmate's hip, which, due to the inmate's movement, struck the inmate in the forehead. Other officers responded to the floor and stabilized the situation. The inmate who was struck in the forehead was immediately taken to an outside hospital for medical treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was no indication of misconduct or negligence by the department; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The inmate who was struck in the head returned to the institution and recovered from his injuries. On-the-job training was provided to involved staff on thoroughness of reporting. BUREAU ASSESSMENT With the exception of the initial reports not being sufficiently thorough, the department's overall response to the incident was sufficient. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0655 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 27, 2008, an inmate was stabbed by his cellmate after they stepped out of their cell for a morning meal. The inmate was air lifted to a community hospital for emergency medical treatment. The cellmate was placed in the administrative segregation unit pending an investigation for attempted murder. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate survived and signed a statement refusing to testify against his cellmate in court or to provide a statement related to the incident. The case was nevertheless referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution consideration. There was no staff misconduct identified and the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide timely notification of 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 123 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0656 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 27, 2008, a 41-year-old inmate collapsed near a drinking fountain shortly after playing basketball. A sergeant requested the emergency response vehicle after determining the inmate was in medical distress. Medical staff began CPR after discovering a pulse was not present. The inmate was pronounced dead by a physician after life-saving efforts failed. The inmate had a history of high blood pressure and high cholesterol, and the coroner said the inmate had serious blockage in his coronary arteries. DISPOSITION OF CASE Investigators from the department's medical oversight program reviewed the case and referred it to the professional practice executive committee and nursing peer review committee for an evaluation of the medical care provided to the inmate prior to his death. The matter was also referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Except for the medical staff not using an automated external defibrillator, the bureau determined that the department's response to the incident was adequate. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but failed to provide sufficient notification. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an investigation; the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0657 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 26, 2008, an inmate was discovered hanging in his cell. Officers cut the inmate down and began CPR and an emergency medical response was initiated. The inmate was transported by ambulance to a community hospital where he was pronounced dead after life-saving efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined the manner of death was suicide. There was no evidence of foul play or staff misconduct. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office or the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was not satisfactory due to a 7-minute delay in calling 911 and a 15-minute delay in applying the automatic external defibrillator (AED) after CPR was started. The department notified the bureau about the incident but failed to properly engage in consultation. Medical managers at the institution conducted a review of the emergency response and concluded there were no policy violations. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. However, the bureau believes the delays described above should have been addressed. Case No. 08-0658 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 23, 2008, an officer discovered an unresponsive inmate in an administrative segregation cell during a security check. An emergency medical response was initiated. The unresponsive inmate was pronounced dead after life-saving efforts failed. The cellmate refused to answer questions about the deceased inmate's condition. Both inmates were validated members of a gang. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined the cause of death was ligature strangulation and the manner of death was homicide. The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which intends to file murder charges. There was no evidence of staff misconduct; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 124 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0659 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 17, 2008, officers responded to a "man down" call. The officers observed red marks on both inmates housed in the cell. One of the inmates told officers that he had been sexually assaulted by the other inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE A preliminary examination was inconclusive; the results of the forensic evaluation were not immediately available. The inmate accused of committing the sexual assault has been placed in administrative segregation until the results of the forensic evaluation are received. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0660 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 11, 2008, an inmate alleged to a staff member that he woke up the previous night and found his cellmate orally copulating him. DISPOSITION OF CASE Both inmates were medically evaluated and processed for forensic evidence, which was sent to the local criminalist laboratory. The cellmate allegedly admitted that he orally copulated the inmate, but said that it was consensual. The case was referred to the district attorney's office. There was no evidence of staff misconduct; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all key aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0661 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 7, 2008, an inmate reported that he had been sexually assaulted by another inmate. The inmate was taken to an outside hospital for examination and medical treatment. An investigation by the institution's investigative services unit could not corroborate the inmate's allegations. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's investigative services unit identified the alleged attacker. The investigation failed to disclose any corroborating evidence. As a result, no referral to the district attorney's office was made. No staff misconduct was identified and the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 125 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0662 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 2, 2008, three inmates attacked another inmate on the institution's main yard. The three inmates kicked and hit the other inmate's head and torso while he was on the ground in a fetal position. A tower officer fired two lethal rounds as warning shots to stop the attack. Two of the three inmates stopped their attack after the first warning shot. The third inmate initially stopped his attack after the second warning shot, but then got up again and resumed his attack on the inmate. Responding staff used pepper spray to end the third inmate's attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE After a review of the incident, the hiring authority concluded there was no staff misconduct identified. Therefore, the matter was not referred for an internal affairs investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0663 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 24, 2008, an inmate alleged that two inmates had sexually assaulted him eight days earlier in a facility gym that was being used as a housing area. DISPOSITION OF CASE A sexual assault examination was completed by an outside hospital and there was no physical evidence to indicate the inmate had been sexually assaulted. The investigative services unit investigated the incident and did not find any evidence to corroborate the inmate's allegations. The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0664 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 19, 2008, an officer working in a two-story observation tower overlooking an outside yard saw two inmates striking another inmate who was on the ground and unable to defend himself. The attackers ignored orders to get down and cease the attack. The attackers began hitting and kicking the inmate in the head and upper torso as he lay motionless. The officer fired one lethal round as a warning shot. One of the attackers immediately stopped his assault, but the other attacker continued. At that point, responding officers were able to take the two attackers into custody. The inmate recovered from the attack without serious injury. The incident was referred to the district attorney's office for the filing of criminal charges against the attacking inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department reviewed the officer's use of force and found his actions to be in compliance with departmental policy. The matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all key aspects. The department's notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 126 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0665 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE In the early morning hours of June 18, 2008, an inmate serving a life term escaped from his cell by cutting the security bars and metal security mesh surrounding his cell window. The inmate slipped through the opening in the window to the outside of his housing facility, changed into personal clothing, cut multiple internal fences, and traveled throughout the institution for several hours undetected. He was eventually observed to be in a restricted area, at which time he was confined again. The inmate later revealed that he had been planning the escape for years by collecting cutting tools and observing complacent security procedures. At the time of this incident, the facility reportedly housed over 2,000 inmates serving life sentences or equivalent. The institution does not have an electrified fence. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was potential staff misconduct and referred the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The facility still does not have an electrified fence, although plans to install one have been discussed. Case No. 08-0666 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 17, 2008, an inmate alleged that he was forced to orally copulate his cellmate over the course of three days. The cellmate later allegedly sodomized him causing the inmate to report the sexual assaults to a housing unit officer the next day. DISPOSITION OF CASE Both inmates were medically examined at an outside hospital where forensic evidence was collected. Evidence collected from the cell and from both inmates was sent to the local criminalist laboratory for processing. The case was referred to the local district attorney's office. There was no evidence of staff misconduct, therefore; the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all key aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate initial notification. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 08-0667 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 5, 2008, an officer discovered a single-celled inmate with a plastic bag over his head and an altered sheet tied around his neck. Staff entered the cell and removed the plastic bag from the inmate's head. Responding medical staff determined the inmate had no pulse and rigormortis had set in. The inmate was transported to the correctional treatment center where he was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority referred the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation of staff misconduct. The coroner investigator determined the inmate had been dead for four to six hours; therefore, it was alleged that the officer conducting the inmate counts failed to count properly. Additionally, the officer allegedly failed to respond to a handwritten note the inmate had placed in the cell door window which indicated he was suicidal. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 127 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0668 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 4, 2008, an inmate alleged that a sergeant sexually assaulted her on more than one occasion and brought contraband into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigative inquiry was conducted by the institution and it was determined there was evidence of staff misconduct. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department’s notification and consultation with 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. Case No. 08-0669 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 30, 2008, three riots occurred at the institution. Each riot took place at a different time and location, but all three riots occurred in rapid succession in the same general area of the institution. The third riot involved culinary workers, primarily from two different ethnic groups, attacking each other in a dining hall. Ten inmates were injured during this riot. Officers used force, including chemical agents and batons. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department determined that the force used was within departmental policy and training. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department'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. Case No. 08-0670 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 30, 2008, three riots occurred at the institution. Each riot took place at a different time and location, but all three riots occurred in rapid succession in the same general area of the institution. The second riot involved approximately 150 inmates, primarily from two different ethnic groups. Fourteen inmates were injured during this riot; five inmates were transported to an outside hospital for treatment. To quell the riot, four officers used force, including chemical agents and less-lethal force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department determined that the force used was within departmental policy and training. There was no indication of staff misconduct; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department's response to the incident was adequate overall. However, the institution's investigative services unit did not interview an inmate who sustained serious head injuries as the result of another inmate striking him in the head with a crutch, and the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution in a timely manner. 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 128 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0671 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 30, 2008, three riots occurred at an institution. Each riot took place at a different time and location, but all three riots occurred in rapid succession and in the same general area of the institution. The first riot involved approximately 100 to 150 inmates, primarily from two ethnic groups. Seventy-seven inmates were injured during this riot; six inmates were transported to an outside hospital for treatment. Eighteen officers used force, including chemical agents, less-lethal force, physical force, and batons. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department determined that the force used was within departmental policy and training. There was no staff misconduct identified. 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 provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the hiring authority's decision to not refer the incident to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0672 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 25, 2008, a youth correctional counselor stopped and knocked at a ward's cell door because the window was covered. When there was no response, the youth correctional counselor called for help and made a forced entry. The ward fell out of the room motionless with a piece of sheet tied around her neck. Emergency first aid was rendered and she was transported to an outside hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The bureau obtained information indicating the emergency medical equipment taken to the scene may have been inadequate and there may have been a lack of appropriate enforcement of rules governing the covering of cell door windows. As of October 16, 2008, the ward remained in a coma and was released from the department's jurisdiction. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0673 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 24, 2008, an inmate was reported as being sick by his cellmate. A nurse responded and found the inmate moaning on the floor of the cell with no signs of obvious trauma. The inmate was transported to the prison clinic, and life-saving measures were attempted. However, the inmate died shortly thereafter. The cellmate indicated that the inmate had overdosed by ingesting the entire contents of his prescribed inhaler, which was corroborated by staff members who located and seized the empty inhaler from the cell. An autopsy revealed that the inmate had died from cardiac arrhythmia due to albuterol overdose through a prescribed inhaler. The toxicology report showed levels far exceeding the prescribed dosage. The cellmate indicated that the deceased inmate had made comments about trying to kill himself, but the cellmate did not believe it was possible. There was evidence of prior suicide attempts (scarring on the wrists), but the inmate was not considered at risk at the time of the incident, and staff members had been given no indication that his status had deteriorated. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was no indication of staff misconduct or suspicious activity and the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The death was ruled a suicide. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all key aspects. The department's notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 129 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0674 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 16, 2008, six inmates attacked another inmate on the recreation yard. The six inmates punched, kicked, and stabbed the other inmate in the neck with an inmate-manufactured weapon. The inmate sustained a serious puncture wound to the neck and later died. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's investigative services unit processed the scene and conducted an investigation. The department referred the case to the district attorney's office for prosecution. There was no staff misconduct identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department's notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The hiring authority did not refer the case to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau concurred with that decision. Case No. 08-0675 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 9, 2008, an inmate was discovered unconscious in his dormitory. A syringe was found near his body. The inmate died while being transported to a local hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy was performed on the deceased inmate. No definitive cause of death could be determined, although the medical examiner indicated that the inmate may have died of an air embolism. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the hiring authority's decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. Case No. 08-0676 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 4, 2008, a riot erupted involving inmates on a housing unit. The participants refused to comply with a tower officer's verbal orders to get down. The officer fired one less-lethal round that quelled the disturbance. DISPOSITION OF CASE After the hiring authority's review, the use of force was determined to be within policy. No staff misconduct was identified 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 provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 130 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0677 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 22, 2008, an inmate allegedly was a victim of a sexual assault by his cellmate. The cellmate allegedly forced the victim to orally copulate him. The alleged victim alerted staff members that he had evidence of the assault that was collected from him. DISPOSITION OF CASE Both inmates were medically examined, and forensic evidence was collected. The forensic evidence was submitted to the local criminalist laboratory for processing. This case is pending review by the district attorney's office. There was no evidence of staff misconduct; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all key aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify the bureau initially regarding the incident. The hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0678 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 17, 2008, during an institution’s standing count, an officer saw an inmate standing inside a cell with blood on his hands and chest. The inmate's cellmate was lying on the cell floor covered in blood. The cellmate sustained multiple puncture wounds and was flown by helicopter to an outside hospital. The cellmate survived the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's investigative services unit processed the cell as a crime scene, collected incident reports from responding staff members, and referred the matter to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The district attorney's office declined to prosecute. No staff misconduct was identified and, therefore, the matter was not submitted to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. Upon arrival at the scene, the assigned investigative officer from the institution's investigative services unit processed the crime scene and prepared a detailed crime report. The department’s notification to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient; however, the department's response to the bureau's request for documentation was not sufficient. The bureau agreed with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 08-0679 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 2, 2008, several officers allegedly punched and kicked an inmate while he was on the ground. An officer observed the incident and reported it several days later. Other officers allegedly threatened and retaliated against the reporting officer for reporting the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority requested an investigation. The Office of Internal Affairs completed a criminal investigation and referred the matter to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs addressed the hiring authority’s referral, and the bureau concurred with its response. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 131 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0680 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 31, 2008, an officer was arrested for possession of an illegal assault weapon. The officer also allegedly threatened his girlfriend and made reference to being affiliated with a criminal street gang. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following initial notification, the hiring authority initiated an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. The hiring authority chose 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. 08-0681 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 15, 2008, and continuing into the early hours of March 16, 2008, a group of about 75 inmates refused to exit their individual exercise modules. The inmates had organized a prearranged "sit in" to protest new security protocols that had been established at the institution. Because of the inmates' actions, officers were forced to perform a series of cell extractions using pepper spray. All the cell extractions proceeded without incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's use-of-force review committee found the officers' actions to be within policy. No officers or inmates were injured during the cell extractions, although all persons present were exposed to pepper spray. No staff misconduct was identified and the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department'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. 08-0682 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 14, 2008, an inmate attempted suicide by cutting his wrist with broken window glass. The inmate was transported to a local hospital where he received treatment but was released from the hospital and returned to the institution the same day. Upon his return, the inmate was placed on suicide watch. On March 18, 2008, at approximately 0650 hours, staff observed the inmate with a torn towel around his neck. Officers and medical staff responded and rendered aid until outside medical responders arrived, but the inmate did not regain consciousness. The inmate remained hospitalized in critical condition and unconscious until his death on March 20, 2008. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's emergency response review committee reviewed the incident approximately four months after the inmate's suicide. No potential staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department did not have the emergency response review committee review the incident within thirty days, as required. In all other respects the department's response to the incident was adequate. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 132 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0683 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 14, 2008, staff housed two inmates together without first reviewing their files and obtaining supervisory approval, as required. Subsequently, one of the inmates allegedly murdered the other. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority referred the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An administrative investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The 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. 08-0684 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 7, 2008, an inmate was allegedly sexually assaulted by his cellmate over the course of the previous two nights. DISPOSITION OF CASE Both inmates were medically examined, and forensic evidence was collected. The medical examination of the victim revealed signs consistent with sexual assault. The forensic evidence from both inmates and evidence collected at the crime scene was submitted to the local criminalist laboratory for processing. The case has been referred to the local district attorney's office. There was no evidence of staff misconduct; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all key aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it initially failed to timely notify the bureau. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0685 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 2, 2008, an inmate was found unconscious with a noose tied around his neck and the other end secured to a bunk ladder. Staff initiated life-saving measures and the inmate was transported in an ambulance to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department completed a suicide review of this incident. Problems related to a lack of operational procedures and employees not following existing policies and procedures were identified. A corrective action plan was developed to address these problems, which resulted in new and modified operational procedures and training for psychiatric, medical, and custody staff. The hiring authorities determined that further investigation of staff misconduct was not necessary. 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 133 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0686 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 11, 2008, four inmates engaged in a fight in the institution dining hall. Officers fired two less-lethal rounds and two lethal rounds; one as a warning shot and one for effect. No injuries were sustained as a result of the shots fired. DISPOSITION OF CASE The use of lethal force was determined to have been justified, so the case was not referred to the district attorney's office for review. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation to determine whether the use of lethal force complied with departmental policy. The bureau accepted the case for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0687 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE In February 2008, a hiring authority discovered that an institutional personnel officer and a position control analyst approved overpayment of wages to an associate warden. Allegedly, the associate warden had knowledge of the overpayments and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE Once the hiring authority received confirmation of the overpayments, he requested an investigation. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs addressed the hiring authority’s referral, and the bureau concurred with its response. Case No. 08-0688 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 30, 2008, an officer used a baton to break up a fight between inmates using weapons. An inmate suffered a broken arm and was airlifted to an outside hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE This case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs because there was no evidence of staff misconduct. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 134 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0689 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 21, 2007, an inmate was found hanging in his assigned single cell. Staff members cut down the inmate, but they were unsuccessful in life-saving attempts. The inmate was declared dead at an outside hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department completed a suicide report and determined that mental health staff members at two institutions failed to follow mental health protocols while treating the inmate. Recommendations were made for fact-finding inquires to be completed to identify the staff members involved, take disciplinary action if appropriate, and provide remedial training for all staff. 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. 08-0690 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 26, 2007, an inmate was found in his cell unresponsive and with a head injury. His cellmate said that he had rolled off the upper bunk and struck his head on the floor. The inmate appeared to be a victim of an in-cell assault. The inmate was transported to a local hospital and died the following day after being removed from life support. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority referred the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. An investigation was initiated regarding staff members' failure to recognize signs that the inmate was suffering from abuse by his cellmate. The bureau accepted the case for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient, although the department's initial notification and consultation with the bureau was not adequate. 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. 08-0691 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 21, 2007, an inmate was found lying face up on his bed with a plastic trash bag covering his head. Medical staff responded and transported the inmate to the institution's medical treatment area. Emergency medical assistance was continued until the inmate was pronounced dead. A suicide note was found and the inmate had a history of suicide attempts. DISPOSITION OF CASE In reviewing the staff response to the incident, the bureau concluded that there was a delay in initiating CPR by officers who first responded to the scene. The institution provided the officers training in their responsibilities to provide CPR. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau’s findings confirm that the department's overall response was satisfactory, although it was not timely. 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 135 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0692 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 7, 2007, an inmate was observed squatting down outside the culinary building. When contacted by an officer, the inmate stated he felt faint, then laid down. The inmate then began vomiting blood. Medical staff was called and they began treatment while an ambulance was called. The inmate was transported to an outside hospital for treatment, where he was pronounced dead. The cause of death was acute upper gastro intestinal bleeding. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, no administrative investigation was conducted. 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. 08-0693 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 20, 2007, the bureau was notified that parole agents and officers from a local police department were conducting surveillance. A car was pulled over and an ex-parolee got out of the vehicle and fired at police officers. The officers returned fire and the ex-parolee was wounded. DISPOSITION OF CASE It was determined that the parole agents were not involved in the vehicle stop or the shooting. The matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs since no staff misconduct was identified. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Except for failing to promptly notify the bureau and failing to timely determine the depatment's level of involvement in the situtation, the bureau determined that the department's response to the incident was adequate. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 08-0694 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 2, 2007, an inmate alleged she was sexually assaulted by an unknown staff member. The Prison Rape Elimination Act protocols were activated and the inmate was transferred to an outside hospital for examination. Evidence was collected from the inmate for testing. DISPOSITION OF CASE The nurse reported no physical findings to substantiate the inmate's claim of sexual assault and the laboratory results were negative. Staff misconduct was not identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Except for the delay in activating the Prison Rape Elimination Act protocols, the bureau determined that the department's response to the incident was adequate. 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 136 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 08-0695 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 11, 2007, medical staff found an inmate unresponsive in his assigned cell. Additional staff responded to the cell and initiated CPR. Life-saving measures were continued until the inmate was pronounced dead by paramedics who responded to the scene. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy revealed no signs of trauma and the toxicology reports were negative. As of the date of this report, an exact cause and manner of death has not been determined. There was no indication of staff misconduct and the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department 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. 08-0696 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 26, 2007, two inmates were involved in a fight. One of the inmates sustained life-threatening head injuries. The inmate was flown to a community hospital where he received emergency surgery. The inmate died of his injuries the following day. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy report revealed the cause of death was blunt force trauma and the manner of death was homicide. The inmate suspected of causing the death was not properly charged because a lieutenant acting as a senior hearing officer failed to conduct a sufficient review of the incident reports during the disciplinary hearing. The hiring authority took disciplinary action against the lieutenant for the conduct in this case after the bureau reported the misconduct to the hiring authority. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau's findings confirm that the department's response was satisfactory except for ensuring that the supplemental reports of the inmate's death from an outside hospital were included with the original incident packages. As a result, the disciplinary process against the suspect was negatively affected. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide sufficient notification. The hiring authority referred the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs because the senior hearing officer failed to review all the evidence before the suspect's disciplinary hearing, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs addressed the hiring authority's referral, and the bureau concurred with its response. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 137 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPENDIX DISCIPLINARY ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 138 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0324 (Central Region) (1) Library Technical Assistant Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 08-0325 (North Region) (1) Physician & Surgeon Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes 08-0326 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 08-0327 (North Region) (1) Vocational Instructor Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 08-0328 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 08-0329 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 08-0330 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Battery Sustained Yes 08-0331 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A 08-0332 (North Region) (1) Registered Nurse Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Insubordination * N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 139 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0333 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer * 08-0334 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 08-0335 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Counselor II Dishonesty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A 08-0336 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes 08-0337 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force Sustained N/A 08-0338 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Insubordination * N/A Discourteous Treatment * N/A 08-0339 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Contraband * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0340 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A (2) Registered Nurse Discourteous Treatment * N/A (3) Correctional Sergeant Use of force * N/A Use of force * N/A (4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A 08-0341 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Criminal Act Not Sustained N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 140 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained N/A (3) Correctional Officer Other Criminal Act Sustained N/A 08-0342 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Failure to Report * N/A (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A (4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Failure to Report * N/A (5) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Failure to Report * N/A (6) Correctional Lieutenant Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A (7) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Failure to Report * N/A (8) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 141 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A (9) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Failure to Report * N/A (10) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A (11) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Failure to Report * N/A (12) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A (13) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Failure to Report * N/A 08-0343 (Central Region) (1) Supervising Registered Nurse II Dishonesty * N/A (2) Registered Nurse Dishonesty * N/A (3) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Dishonesty * N/A (4) Registered Nurse Dishonesty * N/A (5) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Dishonesty * N/A 08-0344 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 142 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Sergeant Retaliation Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes 08-0345 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Theft Not Sustained Yes 08-0346 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (8) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (9) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (10) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (11) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes (12) Correctional Lieutenant Failure to Report Sustained Yes 08-0347 (Central Region) (1) Registered Nurse Over-familiarity * N/A Sexual Misconduct * N/A 08-0348 (North Region) (1) Registered Nurse Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A (2) Supervising Registered Nurse II Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0349 (North Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Contraband Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 143 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes (2) Materials And Stores Supv I Contraband * N/A 08-0350 (North Region) (1) Industrial Supervisor Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0351 (Central Region) (1) Lead Groundskeeper Over-familiarity Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Controlled Substances Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Other Criminal Act Not Sustained Yes 08-0352 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A 08-0353 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A 08-0354 (North Region) (1) Chief Physician & Surgeon Inexcusable Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0355 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Intoxication * N/A Dishonesty * N/A 08-0356 (Headquarters) (1) Senior Special Agent Confidential Information * N/A 08-0357 (Headquarters) (1) *UNKNOWN Misuse of Authority * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0358 (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 Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 08-0359 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A (2) Correctional Officer * Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 144 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (3) Facility Captain Neglect of Duty * N/A (4) Associate Warden Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A (6) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0360 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Assault * N/A Discourteous Treatment * N/A 08-0361 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discrimination/ Harassment Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained No Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty Sustained Yes Discrimination/ Harassment Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer * 08-0362 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct * N/A Over-Familiarity * N/A Contraband * N/A Misuse of Authority * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0363 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty * N/A (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A (3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty * N/A (4) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty * N/A (5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 145 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (6) Medical Technical Assistant Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0364 (North Region) (1) Registered Nurse Contraband * N/A Contraband * N/A Over-Familiarity * N/A 08-0365 (North Region) (1) Registered Nurse Other Criminal Act N/A N/A Contraband N/A N/A 08-0366 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force N/A N/A 08-0367 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report N/A N/A (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report N/A N/A (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report N/A N/A (4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report N/A N/A (5) Correctional Officer Failure to Report N/A N/A (6) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A (7) Correctional Officer Failure to Report N/A N/A 08-0368 (Headquarters) (1) Office Technician - Typing Other Criminal Act N/A N/A (2) Warden Other Criminal Act N/A N/A 08-0369 (North Region) (1) Librarian Contraband N/A N/A 08-0370 (South Region) (1) Registered Nurse Over-familiarity * N/A 08-0371 (South Region) (1) Registered Nurse Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A Other criminal act N/A N/A 08-0372 (Central Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 08-0373 (Central Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes 08-0374 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 08-0375 (South Region) (1) Dental Assistant Contraband Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 08-0376 (South Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 146 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Controlled Substances Not Sustained Yes 08-0377 (Headquarters) (1) <None> Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 08-0378 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 08-0379 (North Region) (1) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Contraband Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 08-0380 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force N/A N/A (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force N/A N/A 08-0381 (South Region) (1) Office Technician - General Contraband N/A N/A Over-Familiarity N/A N/A 08-0382 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 08-0383 (Headquarters) (1) Special Agent Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes 08-0384 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0385 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A Other Failure of Good Behavior * N/A Sexual Misconduct * N/A 08-0386 (North Region) (1) Office Technician - General Over-Familiarity N/A N/A 08-0387 (North Region) (1) Industrial Supervisor Contraband N/A N/A Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 08-0388 (South Region) (1) Health Records Technician Contraband N/A N/A 08-0389 (North Region) (1) <None> Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes 08-0390 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force N/A N/A 08-0391 (South Region) (1) Associate Warden Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 147 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0392 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes 08-0393 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained No 08-0394 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes 08-0395 (North Region) (1) Carpenter I Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Insubordination Not Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes 08-0396 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 08-0397 (North Region) (1) Carpenter I Contraband N/A N/A 08-0398 (North Region) (1) Vocational Instructor Contraband N/A N/A 08-0399 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 08-0400 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 08-0401 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0402 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 08-0403 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 08-0404 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent III Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes (2) Parole Agent III Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes 08-0405 (North Region) (1) Office Assistant I General Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0406 (North Region) (1) Psychiatric Technician Over-familiarity N/A N/A Over-familiarity N/A N/A Controlled Substances N/A N/A Contraband N/A N/A Over-familiarity N/A N/A 08-0407 (North Region) (1) <None> Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes 08-0408 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report N/A N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 148 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Use of Force N/A N/A Use of Force N/A N/A (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force N/A N/A Use of Force N/A N/A (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report N/A N/A Use of Force N/A N/A (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force N/A N/A (5) Correctional Officer Use of Force N/A N/A Use of Force N/A N/A (6) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force N/A N/A Failure to Reporte N/A N/A (7) Correctional Officer Use of Force N/A N/A 08-0409 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Weapons Sustained Yes 08-0410 (North Region) (1) Correctional Counselor I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0411 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes 08-0412 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 08-0413 (North Region) (1) Physician & Surgeon Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 08-0414 (Central Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Contraband Sustained Yes 08-0415 (North Region) (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Failure to Report Sustained Yes 08-0416 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 08-0417 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent III Insubordination Sustained Yes 08-0418 (North Region) (1) Psychiatric Technician Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 149 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0419 (Central Region) (1) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 08-0420 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0421 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 08-0422 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 08-0423 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Weapons Not Sustained Yes 08-0424 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 08-0425 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 08-0426 (North Region) (1) <None> Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 08-0427 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A 08-0428 (South Region) (1) Psychiatric Technician Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 08-0429 (North Region) (1) Muslim Chaplain Contraband Sustained Yes 08-0430 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Weapons Not Sustained Yes 08-0431 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0432 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force N/A N/A 08-0433 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 08-0434 (South Region) (1) Correctional Counselor I Dishonesty Sustained Yes 08-0435 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained N/A (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0436 (North Region) (1) Catholic Chaplain Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A (2) Supervising Cook I Failure to Report N/A N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 150 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0437 (North Region) (1) Catholic Chaplain Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (2) Supervising Cook I Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 08-0438 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Weapons Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 08-0439 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 08-0440 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes 08-0441 (Central Region) (1) Office Technician - General Confidential Information Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (2) Office Assistant General Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Confidential Information Not Sustained Yes 08-0442 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes 08-0443 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force N/A N/A 08-0444 (South Region) (1) Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Captain Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 08-0445 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 151 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 08-0446 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Battery N/A N/A Dishonesty N/A N/A (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty N/A N/A Battery N/A N/A 08-0447 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0448 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0449 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (5) Litigation Coordinator Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 08-0450 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 08-0451 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0452 (North Region) (1) <None> Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes (2) <None> Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 08-0453 (North Region) (1) <None> Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A (2) <None> Neglect of Duty N/A N/A 08-0454 (South Region) (1) Library Technical Assistant Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 08-0455 (Central Region) (1) Office Assistant General Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 08-0456 (South Region) (1) Library Technical Assistant Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 152 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes 08-0457 (Headquarters) (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Over-familiarity N/A N/A Threat/Intimidation N/A N/A Other Failure of Good Behavior N/A N/A Discourteous Treatment N/A N/A Discourteous Treatment N/A N/A 08-0458 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Theft N/A N/A 08-0459 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained No 08-0460 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 08-0461 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes 08-0462 (Headquarters) (1) <None> Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 08-0463 (South Region) (1) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Contraband Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 153 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0464 (North Region) (1) Electrician I Contraband Sustained Yes 08-0465 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force 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 (6) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 08-0466 (North Region) (1) Electrician I Contraband N/A N/A 08-0467 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes 08-0468 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes 08-0469 (North Region) (1) Correctional Counselor II Discourteous Treatment * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (2) Case Records Analyst * 08-0470 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes 08-0471 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 08-0472 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 154 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0473 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force * N/A 08-0474 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Battery N/A N/A Use of Force N/A N/A 08-0475 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0476 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 08-0477 (North Region) (1) Physician & Surgeon Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0478 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment * N/A Discrimination/ Harassment * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Threat/Intimidation * N/A 08-0479 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 08-0480 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 08-0481 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent I Assault N/A N/A Battery N/A N/A 08-0482 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Medical * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0483 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Intoxication Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 155 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Weapons Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 08-0484 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained N/A Use of Force Not Sustained N/A Use of Force Not Sustained N/A (2) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained N/A 08-0485 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Intoxication Not Sustained No Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained No Dishonesty Not Sustained No 08-0486 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0487 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Use of force * N/A 08-0488 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A 08-0489 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband * N/A 08-0490 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Other Criminal Act * N/A Over-familiarity * N/A Over-familiarity * N/A 08-0491 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 156 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 08-0492 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband * N/A Over-familiarity * N/A 08-0493 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty * N/A 08-0494 (North Region) (1) <None> Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes 08-0495 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0496 (North Region) (1) <None> Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 08-0497 (North Region) (1) <None> Over-Familiarity N/A N/A Contraband N/A N/A 08-0498 (North Region) (1) *UNKNOWN Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 08-0499 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Other failure of good behavior * N/A 08-0500 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0501 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0502 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0503 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 157 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) *Other HCSD Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 08-0504 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty N/A N/A Insubordination N/A N/A Dishonesty N/A N/A 08-0505 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Sergeant * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Correctional Sergeant * (5) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0506 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes 08-0507 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0508 (North Region) (1) Correctional Counselor I Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0509 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 08-0510 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 158 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 08-0511 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 08-0512 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A Use of force * N/A Dishonesty * N/A 08-0513 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant GC19572 (t) Other Failure of Good Behavior * N/A GC19572 (d) Inexcusable Neglect of Duty * N/A (2) Correctional Officer GC19572 (d) Inexcusable Neglect of Duty * N/A GC19572 (t) Other Failure of Good Behavior * N/A 08-0514 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation * N/A Threat/Intimidation * N/A Assault * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Threat/Intimidation * N/A 08-0515 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty N/A N/A Use of Force N/A N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 159 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force N/A N/A Dishonesty N/A N/A 08-0516 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0517 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A Weapons * N/A 08-0518 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 08-0519 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A 08-0520 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained No 08-0521 (South Region) (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Weapons * N/A Other failure of good behavior * N/A Dishonesty * N/A 08-0522 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Use of force * N/A (2) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty * N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 160 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Other failure of good behavior * N/A 08-0523 (South Region) (1) Office Assistant General Theft * N/A Dishonesty * N/A (2) Office Assistant General Other Failure of Good Behavior * N/A Theft * N/A 08-0524 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A (2) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment * N/A Discourteous Treatment * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Discourteous Treatment * N/A (3) Registered Nurse * 08-0525 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes 08-0526 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A 08-0527 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Use of Force Not Sustained No (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained No (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained No Use of Force Not Sustained No (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 08-0528 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Misuse of state equip. or property Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Misuse of state equip. or property Sustained Yes 08-0529 (North Region) (1) Youth Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 161 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 08-0530 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (2) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Discourteous Treatment * N/A Discourteous Treatment * N/A (3) Correctional Officer Insubordination * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Discourteous Treatment * N/A 08-0531 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty * N/A Discourteous Treatment * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A 08-0532 (North Region) (1) Correctional Plant Manager II Neglect of Duty * N/A (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty * N/A (3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty * N/A (4) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty * N/A (5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Use of force * N/A 08-0533 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Sergeant Contraband N/A N/A 08-0534 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force N/A N/A (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 08-0535 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 162 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A 08-0536 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A 08-0537 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 08-0538 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (2) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A Use of force * N/A 08-0539 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes 08-0540 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment * N/A Other failure of good behavior * N/A 08-0541 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0542 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes 08-0543 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority * N/A Dishonesty * N/A 08-0544 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A 08-0545 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Assault Sustained No GC19572 (d) Inexcusable Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes GC19572 (c) Inefficiency Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 163 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? GC19572 (l) Immorality * N/A GC19572 (t) Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 08-0546 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Intoxication * N/A 08-0547 (North Region) (1) *UNKNOWN Other failure of good behavior * N/A 08-0548 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Discourteous Treatment * N/A Insubordination * N/A 08-0549 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 08-0550 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes 08-0551 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A 08-0552 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Misuse of state equip. or property * N/A Retaliation * N/A Discourteous Treatment * N/A 08-0553 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Criminal Act N/A N/A (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer Other Criminal Act N/A N/A 08-0554 (North Region) (1) Physician & Surgeon Sexual Misconduct * N/A 08-0555 (North Region) (1) Physician & Surgeon Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 164 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 08-0556 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (2) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report * N/A (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A 08-0557 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A 08-0558 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Other failure of good behavior * N/A (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A Use of force * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Use of force * N/A Use of force * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0559 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 165 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0560 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A 08-0561 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity * N/A Sexual Misconduct * N/A Sexual Misconduct * N/A 08-0562 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty N/A N/A Insubordination N/A N/A Misuse of State Equipment or Property N/A N/A Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A Over-Familiarity N/A N/A 08-0563 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A (3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty * N/A (4) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0564 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Confidential Information * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0565 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A (2) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A (3) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A (5) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A 08-0566 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant * Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 166 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (2) Correctional Sergeant * (3) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (4) Correctional Administrator * (5) Sergeant Neglect of Duty * N/A (6) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (7) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A (8) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty * N/A (9) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (10) Correctional Administrator Neglect of Duty * N/A (11) Sergeant Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (12) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A (13) Correctional Officer * (14) Correctional Officer * (15) *UNKNOWN Neglect of Duty * N/A (16) Correctional Officer * (17) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty * N/A (18) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (19) Correctional Officer * (20) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A (21) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0567 (South Region) (1) Youth Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A (2) Sergeant Neglect of Duty * N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 167 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (3) *Other Peace Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (4) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (5) Senior Youth Correctional Neglect of Duty * N/A Counselor Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0568 (North Region) (1) Correctional Administrator Neglect of Duty * N/A Use of force * N/A (2) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0569 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 08-0570 (Headquarters) (1) *UNKNOWN Neglect of Duty * N/A Retaliation * N/A 08-0571 (North Region) (1) Correctional Counselor II Failure to Report * N/A (2) Correctional Counselor I Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0572 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A 08-0573 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 08-0574 (South Region) (1) Supervising Cook I Contraband N/A N/A (2) Supervising Cook I * 08-0575 (North Region) (1) Groundskeeper Contraband * N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 168 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Over-familiarity * N/A 08-0576 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A 08-0577 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes 08-0578 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0579 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Over-familiarity * N/A Over-familiarity * N/A Over-familiarity * N/A 08-0580 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Use of force Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 169 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Use of force Sustained Yes 08-0581 (Central Region) (1) Registered Nurse Over-familiarity N/A N/A Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A Contraband N/A N/A 08-0582 (South Region) (1) Associate Warden Other Criminal Act N/A N/A (2) Lieutenant Other Criminal Act N/A N/A (3) Staff Services Manager I Other Criminal Act N/A N/A 08-0583 (South Region) (1) Associate Warden Other Criminal Act * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Other Criminal Act * N/A (2) Lieutenant Other Criminal Act * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Other Criminal Act * N/A (3) Staff Services Manager I Neglect of Duty * N/A Misuse of State Equip. or Property * N/A Misuse of State Equip. or Property * N/A 08-0584 (Central Region) (1) Psychiatric Technician Contraband * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Over-familiarity * N/A (2) Psychiatric Technician * 08-0585 (North Region) (1) Registered Nurse Neglect of Duty * N/A Discourteous Treatment * N/A Other failure of good behavior * N/A (2) Correctional Sergeant Use of force * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Use of force * N/A 08-0586 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force N/A N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 170 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report N/A N/A (3) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report N/A N/A Dishonesty N/A N/A 08-0587 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (8) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (9) Correctional Lieutenant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 08-0588 (Central Region) (1) Registered Nurse Discourteous Treatment * N/A Sexual Misconduct * N/A 08-0589 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A (4) Medical Technical Assistant Dishonesty * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A (5) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A (6) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 171 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (7) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Failure to Report * N/A 08-0590 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A (4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A (5) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A Over-familiarity * N/A (6) Correctional Officer Failure to Report * N/A 08-0591 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Weapons * N/A Battery * N/A Threat/Intimidation * N/A Other criminal act * N/A Over-familiarity * N/A 08-0592 (South Region) (1) Supervising Registered Nurse II Dishonesty Sustained Yes Medical Sustained Yes Medical Sustained Yes 08-0593 (North Region) (1) Registered Nurse Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 08-0594 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Insubordination * N/A 08-0595 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband * N/A 08-0596 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A 08-0597 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0598 (South Region) (1) Painter II Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 08-0599 (South Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv II Theft N/A N/A 08-0600 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 172 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Use of force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Medical Technical Assistant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (5) Medical Technical Assistant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 08-0601 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 08-0602 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 08-0603 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 08-0604 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes Other failure of good behavior Not Sustained Yes 08-0605 (North Region) (1) Sergeant Contraband N/A N/A Other Criminal Act N/A N/A 08-0606 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Use of force * N/A (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Use of force * N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 173 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Use of force * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Use of force * N/A (4) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A Use of force * N/A (5) Correctional Sergeant Use of force * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (6) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Use of force * N/A Failure to Report * N/A (7) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A Use of force * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Use of force * N/A (8) Correctional Officer * (9) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Use of force * N/A Use of force * N/A Use of force * N/A Dishonesty * N/A (10) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A (11) Correctional Officer * (12) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Use of force * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 174 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Use of force * N/A (13) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Use of force * N/A Use of force * N/A (14) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Use of force * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Use of force * N/A (15) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Use of force * N/A Use of force * N/A (16) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Use of force * N/A (17) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty * N/A Use of force * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (18) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A Failure to Report * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (19) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (20) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 175 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Use of force * N/A (21) Correctional Sergeant Use of force * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Use of force * N/A Use of force * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (22) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A (23) Correctional Officer * (24) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Use of force * N/A Use of force * N/A (25) Medical Technical Assistant Use of force * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A (26) Correctional Officer Use of force * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Use of force * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Use of force * N/A 08-0607 (South Region) (1) Registered Nurse Neglect of Duty * N/A (2) Medical Technical Assistant Neglect of Duty * N/A (3) Medical Technical Assistant Neglect of Duty * N/A (4) Medical Technical Assistant Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 176 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (5) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty * N/A (6) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty * N/A (7) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0608 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Over-familiarity * N/A Over-familiarity * N/A 08-0609 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-familiarity N/A N/A Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 08-0610 (Central Region) (1) Lead Groundskeeper Other Criminal Act N/A N/A Over-familiarity N/A N/A 08-0611 (Headquarters) (1) Painter I Discourteous Treatment * N/A Sexual Misconduct * N/A Discourteous Treatment * N/A Discourteous Treatment * N/A Discourteous Treatment * N/A 08-0612 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Other criminal act Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Over-familiarity Sustained Yes 08-0613 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer * Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 177 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (4) Medical Technical Assistant Medical * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Other failure of good behavior * N/A (5) Correctional Sergeant * 08-0614 (North Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes 08-0615 (North Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 08-0616 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty * N/A (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty * N/A (3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty * N/A 08-0617 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A (4) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A (5) Correctional Officer * (6) Correctional Officer Dishonesty * N/A 08-0618 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Over-familiarity * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Dishonesty * N/A Neglect of Duty * N/A Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 178 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA