Bureau of Independent Review Semi-Annual Report July – December 2009

BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JULY – DECEMBER 2009 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DAVID R. SHAW INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APRIL 2010 C ONTENTS FOREWORD......................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................2 SUMMARY OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES........................................................................................3 EXPLANATION OF TABLE FORMAT...............................................................................................14 TABLE OF APPEALED CASES.........................................................................................................18 TABLE OF DEADLY FORCE CASES................................................................................................28 TABLE OF DISTINGUISHED CASES.................................................................................................30 TABLE OF DEFICIENT CASES........................................................................................................49 TABLE OF SATISFACTORY CASES.................................................................................................54 TABLE OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS...................................................................................................99 APPENDIX: DISCIPLINARY ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS..........................................................141 F OREWORD The Office of the Inspector General is the state agency charged with independent oversight of the California Correctional system. The Bureau of Independent Review began its operations in 2004 with a mission to ensure the integrity of internal affairs investigations into allegations of serious misconduct and resulting disciplinary proceedings. This tenth semi-annual report from the Bureau of Independent Review continues to document a positive trend in which the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has consistently improved its overall handling of internal affairs investigations and employee disciplinary matters. I am pleased that with the assistance of the bureau the department has continued to make significant progress. As Inspector General, I am committed to furthering our work with the department and its many stakeholders to ensure the department’s internal affairs investigations and disciplinary actions remain thorough, transparent, and fair. For the July to December 2009 reporting period, the bureau assessed 271 cases involving the most serious allegations of misconduct by department employees. Of the 271 cases, only 5 were found to have resulted in unreasonable outcomes. The remaining 266 cases were found to have resulted in reasonable outcomes, with 66 of them being identified as distinguished cases. I continue to be encouraged by the department’s progress in carrying out the reforms mandated by the Madrid federal court case, as evidenced by the information presented in this report, and I remain steadfastly committed to ensuring this progress continues. On behalf of the management, attorneys, investigators and support staff of the bureau, I invite you to review this semi-annual report and provide us with your feedback. For more information about the Office of the Inspector General, including all reports, please see our website at www.oig.ca.gov. — DAVID R. SHAW, INSPECTOR GENERAL BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 1 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA I NTRODUCTION It is with great pleasure that I present the Bureau of Independent Review’s tenth semi-annual report, which documents the bureau’s case monitoring and oversight activities from July 1, 2009, to December 31, 2009. This report presents the bureau’s highest levels of assessment ever given to administrative cases. The percentages of cases categorized as distinguished has doubled while the percentage of cases categorized as deficient is at a record low. This improvement in the ratio of assessments I attribute to the many dedicated professionals in the department and the bureau. Regrettably, the State of California’s unprecedented fiscal crisis continued to affect the bureau’s statutory mission during this reporting period. Both the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the bureau were required to implement three work furlough days per month for all staff, as well as reduce travel and training expenditures. Despite these challenges, staff from both entities continue to demonstrate an extraordinary dedication to public service. It is important to note that this semi-annual report is the first to present the bureau’s evaluation of the final outcome of cases in which an appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. These evaluations can be found in the Appealed Cases table, listing 20 appealed cases in which there was a significant modification to the discipline originally imposed. Finally, I wish to thank the bureau’s many talented professionals who make this report possible. I also want to thank the department’s executives and staff members for their daily cooperation and support of the bureau’s mission. I look forward to continuing the bureau’s work with the department and other stakeholders to achieve our mutual goal of creating a model correctional system for California. — HOWARD E. MOSELEY, CHIEF ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 2 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA S M A UMMARY OF ONITORING CTIVITIES The Bureau of Independent Review’s (bureau) primary function is to monitor the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (department) disciplinary process. This includes monitoring of the department’s internal affairs investigations into alleged employee misconduct, as well as any disciplinary decisions related to alleged employee misconduct. In addition, the bureau monitors the department’s response to critical incidents and its review of use-of-force incidents. In this report, the bureau is reporting on its evaluation of 271 monitored cases, including 8 cases involving deadly force, plus an additional 139 critical incidents the bureau monitored during the reporting period.1 This represents an 11 percent decline in the number of monitored cases from the bureau’s last semi-annual report, which presented the bureau’s evaluation of 306 monitored cases. It also represents a 5 percent decline in the number of critical incidents monitored by the bureau when compared to the bureau’s last semi-annual report. The decline in the number of cases presented in this semi-annual report are a direct result of the bureau’s nearly 15 percent decline in available work hours since January 2009, when work furloughs were mandated in response to the state’s unprecedented fiscal crisis. Monitoring Employee Misconduct Whenever the department reasonably believes that employee misconduct may have occurred, the matter is forwarded to the department’s Office of Internal Affairs’ (OIA) central intake panel for evaluation. The central intake panel determines if an internal affairs investigation is warranted, whether enough information exists for the department to proceed with a disciplinary action without an investigation, or if no further action is warranted. The bureau participates in the central intake panel meetings to provide recommendations on central intake panel determinations and to determine which cases the bureau will accept for monitoring. Once a case is accepted for monitoring, the bureau follows the case through the various stages of the disciplinary process. If an internal affairs investigation is conducted, the bureau consults with the investigators, attends key interviews, reviews evidence, and provides recommendations regarding the investigative report. Department managers who are responsible for determining whether or not to impose discipline on an employee are referred to as “hiring authorities.” When a hiring authority determines what, if any, discipline will be imposed on an employee, the bureau provides feedback regarding the hiring authority’s proposed course of action. If the hiring authority and the bureau representative have a significant disagreement regarding the appropriate outcome of a case, the matter may be elevated to the next supervisory level through a process called executive review. If the department’s attorneys have been assigned to provide legal representation for the case, the bureau consults with the attorneys regarding legal issues and reviews any disciplinary documents drafted on behalf of the department. Once the department’s 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 internal disciplinary process has concluded the bureau provides its assessment of the case in the tables that follow in this report. Employees who are disciplined have a right to challenge that discipline by filing an appeal with the State Personnel Board, which is an independent state agency. The bureau continues to monitor cases through this appeal process. If there is a significant change in the outcome of a case after it has been appealed, the bureau publishes the updated information to the public in the Appealed Cases table beginning on page 18. Monitoring Appealed Cases The Appealed Cases table provides an update to monitored cases, many of which were previously reported in a semi-annual report. The Appealed Cases table in this report presents 20 cases in which the discipline initially imposed by the department was significantly modified after an employee filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. There are many reasons for the discipline imposed against an employee to be modified during the appeal process. For example, key witnesses may change their statements at hearing or not be available to testify. Facts previously unavailable may also be discovered. In addition, the department may agree to settle a case in which the employee agrees to resign from the department, never to return. There are, however, cases in which the terms of a settlement agreement or the decision of the State Personnel Board result in outcomes that are unreasonable, given the facts of the case and the misconduct alleged. This semi-annual report is the first to present the bureau’s evaluation of the final outcome of these cases. During the reporting period, the bureau found the final outcome deficient in 7 of the 20 appealed cases in which there was a significant modification to the discipline originally imposed. The term “DEFICIENT OUTCOME” appears in the “appeal update” section of the Appealed Cases table for each of these cases. Monitoring Deadly Force Investigations The department defines deadly force as either the use of lethal force, such as a firearm, or any force that is likely to result in death. The department immediately investigates all uses of deadly force, with the exception of some incidents involving the firing of confirmed warning shots in an institutional setting. Criminal and administrative investigations are conducted on all deadly force incidents, excluding some warning shots as described above. Occasionally, an outside law enforcement agency will conduct the criminal investigation. Any time department staff use deadly force, the department is required to promptly notify the bureau. Once the bureau receives notice of a deadly force incident, bureau staff respond to the incident scene and evaluate the department’s management of the incident as well as the department’s subsequent deadly force investigation. The bureau also participates as a non-voting member of the department’s independent Deadly Force Review Board (DFRB). The DFRB is an independent body comprised of outside law enforcement officials and one department executive officer. Generally, once the administrative investigation is completed, the investigative report is presented to the DFRB. The DFRB BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 4 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA examines all aspects of the incident to determine the extent to which the use of force complied with department policies and procedures, and to determine the need for policy, training, or equipment modifications. The DFRB’s findings are then presented to the department. Because the use of deadly force has such serious implications, the department’s use of deadly force has always received the bureau’s highest level of scrutiny and oversight. In addition, the bureau’s assessment of deadly force cases is presented in a separate Deadly Force Cases table so that the cases are publicly identified and easy to distinguish from the other cases the bureau monitors. The bureau monitored 8 deadly force investigations during the reporting period; 3 criminal investigations and 5 administrative investigations. The bureau’s assessment of all eight deadly force investigations it monitored during the reporting period are presented in the Deadly Force Cases table beginning on page 28. The bureau’s assessment of the department’s management of deadly force incidents are presented in the Critical Incident table beginning on page 99. Caseload Trends This report includes an evaluation of cases completed between July and December 2009, and consists of 271 monitored cases. As the chart below demonstrates, the bureau’s case-monitoring activities have generally increased since January 2006, although the number of cases reported during this period has declined by 11 percent from the previous report. As noted above, this decline is directly attributed to the bureau’s nearly 15 percent reduction in available work hours since January 2009, when work furloughs were mandated in response to the state’s unprecedented fiscal crisis. Semi-Annual Case Reporting Trend 306 295 271 260 239 221 206 193 January - July - January - July - January - July - January - July - June December June December June December June December 2006 2007 2008 2009 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 5 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA sesaC fo rebmuN The department characterizes allegations of misconduct as administrative, criminal, or both. Most investigations monitored by the bureau involve allegations of administrative misconduct. In some cases, the department determines there is enough evidence to impose discipline on an employee for administrative misconduct without the need for an internal affairs investigation. These cases are referred to as “direct action” cases and are also monitored by the bureau. In this report, the bureau provides an assessment of 164 administrative investigations and 38 direct action cases. The remaining 69 cases assessed by the bureau in this report involve allegations of criminal misconduct. Case Types Administrative - Criminal Cases Direct Action 69 Cases 38 Administrative - Investigation Cases 164 Allegation Type Distribution Consistent with past practice, the bureau focused a large portion of its monitoring activities during this reporting period on cases involving five allegation types: (1) improper use of force; (2) dishonesty in official reports or during investigative interviews; (3) failure to report misconduct; (4) overly familiar conduct between employees and inmates, wards, or parolees; and (5) sexual misconduct. The first three types of allegations are of particular concern to the bureau because, if true, serious civil rights violations may have occurred. The final two types of allegations are of special concern because the safety and security of a correctional institution might be at risk, as well the possibility that a potentially vulnerable population is being exploited. It is important to note that a single case often addresses many allegations of misconduct. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 6 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Allegation Type Distribution 108 82 54 44 29 Us e of F orc e Di s h o nesty Fail ure t o R e p ort Over- Fa mili arity ex ual Mi sc o nd uct S The chart above illustrates the number of times each of the five allegation types were at issue in the 271 cases assessed in this report. Administrative Case Findings One of the most important steps in the disciplinary process occurs when a hiring authority determines whether or not to sustain allegations of administrative misconduct against an employee. The department is required to document this information in its case management computer system. In 2009 the department dramatically increased the number of cases in which this critical information is entered and electronically recorded. In the last semi-annual report, the bureau reported the department had entered this information in 86 percent of monitored cases. During this reporting period, the department entered this information in 93 percent of the cases. This represents a dramatic improvement since 2008, when the bureau reported this information was missing in 40 percent of monitored cases. Of the 189 administrative cases with allegation findings documented in the department’s case management computer system, 56 had no allegations of misconduct sustained by the hiring authority. At least one allegation of misconduct was sustained in each of the remaining 133 of these cases. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 7 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Administrative Case Findings Cases Sustained 133 (70%) Cases with Data 189 (94%) Cases Without Data 13 (6%) Cases Not Sustained 56 (30%) Bureau Assessment The bureau assesses cases in two ways. One way is by evaluating the disposition, meaning the outcome of the case, prior to any appeals process. The other way is by determining whether each of the three entities responsible for implementing the department’s disciplinary process complied with department policies and procedures.2 The three department entities are: • the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA), which conducts the investigations; • the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team (EAPT), which are the department’s attorneys who provide legal advice and represent the department at State Personnel Board hearings and through the appeals process; • hiring authorities (HA), which are management employees who determine whether or not to impose discipline. For this six-month reporting period, the bureau identified 5 administrative cases as deficient, which means the initial outcome of the case was unreasonable. These cases are presented in the Deficient Cases table, beginning on page 49. As previously mentioned, the bureau also found the final outcome of an additional seven cases to be deficient as a result of penalty modifications that occurred after an appeal was filed with the State Personnel Board. These cases are presented in the Appealed Cases table, beginning on page 18. The bureau identified 66 administrative cases as being distinguished, which means the initial outcome of the case was reasonable and each of the three entities substantially complied with department procedures, as shown on the chart on the next page. 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 8 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA The bureau assessed 131 Case Assessments administrative cases as satisfactory, meaning the case resulted in a reasonable outcome despite Distinguished procedural problems. The bureau did Cases 66 (33%) not evaluate the disposition of the 69 Satisfactory monitored criminal cases because the Cases 131 (65%) 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 Deficient Cases procedures more often than not. 5 (2%) Sometimes the bureau does not assess the department’s procedural compliance because there is not enough information available to provide a meaningful assessment. For example, if an employee who is under investigation resigns before the investigation is completed, there may be fewer applicable procedures for the bureau to assess because no disciplinary action can be imposed against that employee. The charts that follow compare the assessment ratings for the OIA, EAPT, and the HA from this reporting period to those from the bureau’s last five semi-annual reports. The bureau found OIA: • Substantially compliant in 78 percent of cases; a slight decrease for the fourth consecutive reporting period; • Partially compliant in 22 percent of cases; a small increase for the fourth consecutive reporting period; • Failed to comply in none of the cases the bureau monitored. The bureau found EAPT: • Substantially compliant in 61 percent of cases; similar to the previous reporting period; • Partially compliant in 35 percent of cases; a small increase from the reporting period; • Failed to comply in 4 percent of cases; a small decrease from the previous reporting period. The bureau found HA: • Substantially compliant in 83 percent of cases; a small decrease from the last reporting period; • Partially compliant in 16 percent of cases; a small increase from the last reporting period; • Failed to comply in 1 percent of cases; similar to the last reporting period. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 9 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA OIA Assessment Ratings 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Jan - Jun 07 Jul - Dec 07 Jan - Jun 08 Jul - Dec 08 Jan - Jun 09 Jul - Dec 09 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 10 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA tnecreP Substantial Compliance Partial Compliance Failure to Comply EAPT Assessment Ratings 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Jan - Jun 07 Jul - Dec 07 Jan - Jun 08 Jul - Dec 08 Jan - Jun 09 Jul - Dec 09 tnecreP Substantial Compliance Partial Compliance Failure to Comply HA Assessment Ratings 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Jan - Jun 07 Jul - Dec 07 Jan - Jun 08 Jul - Dec 08 Jan - Jun 09 Jul - Dec 09 tnecreP Substantial Compliance Partial Compliance Failure to Comply Monitoring Critical Incidents The department is required to notify the bureau of all critical incidents shortly after the time of the event. Critical incidents include serious events that require an immediate response by the department, such as riots, homicides, escapes, sexual assaults, uses of deadly force, and unexpected inmate deaths. After notification, the bureau monitors the department’s management of the incident, often by deploying bureau monitors to the site of the incident. More specifically, the bureau evaluates the department’s immediate response to the incident, the subsequent determination of whether the incident should be referred to the OIA, and the OIA’s decision regarding any referral. The bureau’s evaluations of these critical incidents are contained in the Critical Incidents table, beginning on page 99. Caseload Trends During this reporting period, the bureau assessed 139 critical incidents, which is a 5 percent decline from the number of critical incidents monitored by the bureau during the last reporting period. The decline is small, especially when compared with the bureau’s nearly 15 percent reduction in available work hours as a result of the state-mandated work furloughs that went into effect in January 2009. Despite more limited hours, the bureau continued to focus on safety and security issues affecting the department, which are particularly challenging during critical incidents. Critical Incident Responses 160 147 139 140 120 100 74 78 80 63 60 48 40 20 0 January - June July - January - June July - January - June July - December December December 2007 2008 2009 BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 11 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, the most noteworthy change is the increase in critical incidents assessed by the bureau involving inmate great bodily injury – up from 50 in the first half of 2009 to 60 in the second half of 2009. Type of Critical Incidents Comparison 70 60 60 50 50 40 30 23 21 17 20 18 17 20 12 9 9 11 12 7 10 0 Use of Inmate Great Inmate Riot In-Custody Inmate Inmate Other Deadly Bodily Injury Inmate Death Sexual Suicide Force Assualt January - June 2009 July - December 2009 In-Custody Death Reviews Beginning in January 2009, the bureau initiated a six-month pilot program to independently review the department’s response to in-custody deaths. The pilot program was developed by bureau staff after researching in-custody death review programs in other correctional systems. Specifically, the bureau researched the in-custody death review programs in the County of Los Angeles, the federal prison system, and the State of Texas, which was recently released from federal receivership and has an inmate population comparable to California. The pilot program team was able to review every in-custody death that occurred in five northern California adult prisons and the Division of Juvenile Justice during the reporting period.3 The five adult prisons selected for the pilot were Folsom State Prison; California State Prison, Sacramento; Mule Creek State Prison; Deuel Vocational Institution; and California State Prison, Solano. The pilot program was designed to review and report on the circumstances surrounding each death, including an analysis of the health care the inmate received prior to his or her death. 3 There was no in-custody death of a ward during the period of July through December of 2009. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 12 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA The bureau’s in-custody death review pilot program has now ended. The bureau is in the process of documenting and evaluating the pilot program so that it can be reinstated or expanded statewide, should resources be made available in the future. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 13 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 Appealed Cases Table The appealed cases table provides updated information regarding cases that have been published in the bureau’s 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 a disciplinary action. 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 number, as published in the semi-annual report in which it first appeared. The first two digits of the case number reflect the year the case was reported, and the second number reflects the order in which the case was reported during that year. For example, case number 08-0606 was the 606th case appearing in the 2008 semi-annual reports. The updated information appears in the “Appeal Update” section. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 14 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Cases appear in the Appealed Cases table only if the final outcome is a significant modification of the discipline initially imposed. In addition, the length of time needed to resolve a case once an appeal has been filed can vary greatly from one case to another. For these reasons, not all cases in which an appeal is filed will be published in the Appealed Cases table and there will be significant gaps in the number sequence of cases that appear in the Appealed Cases table. Format of Case Tables The bureau’s approach to assessing individual cases focuses on the 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. The DISPO column shows the rating for the disposition of each monitored case. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 15 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 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. An explanation of each appears in the “bureau assessment” box. 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 16 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 Critical Incidents Table The Critical Incidents table provides a text-based description regarding the facts of the incident, the disposition of the case, and the bureau’s assessment of how the department responded to the incident. The bureau’s assessment addresses the following critical components of the department’s response: • Did the department appropriately respond to the incident? • Was the bureau properly consulted, as mandated by the Madrid reforms? • Did the department properly determine whether to refer the matter for investigation? • If the matter was referred for investigation, did the OIA properly handle the referral? When the bureau monitors an investigation opened as a result of a critical incident, it is reported in the case tables of the semi-annual report when the case has completed the department’s internal disciplinary process. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 17 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 07-0365 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 1, 2006, an officer was allegedly aware that an inmate was being battered in the bathroom but failed to take action, failed to properly report the incident, and was dishonest in a report about the incident. Another officer investigated the matter and allegedly failed to report the initial officer's involvement. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of dishonesty, failure to report, discourteous treatment, and neglect of duty against the initial officer. He was dismissed. The hiring authority sustained allegations of failure to perform for the investigating officer, who received a six working day suspension without pay. Both officers appealed to the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the initial officer entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the dismissal was reduced to a 120 working-day suspension and the allegation of dishonesty was dismissed. The department and the second officer entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the six working-day suspension was reduced to a letter of reprimand. Both officers withdrew their appeals as part of the settlement agreements. The department entered into the settlement agreements because three years had passed since the misconduct occurred, which created some evidentiary problems. In addition, the inmate who was battered and other inmate witnesses recanted their testimony. The bureau concurred with the settlements because of the evidentiary problems. Case No. 07-0432 (Headquarters) FACTS OF CASE On July 30, 2006, a youth correctional counselor was allegedly made aware of a potential pact between wards to hurt themselves, and a senior youth correctional counselor was also reportedly informed of this pact. Neither counselor took appropriate action. Later that evening, the wards injured themselves. The youth correctional counselor was also allegedly dishonest during the internal affairs investigative interview about the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained against both counselors. The youth correctional counselor who was dishonest during the investigative interview was dismissed. The senior youth correctional counselor received a suspension for two working days. Both have appealed their discipline to the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE Due to evidentiary problems that developed after service of the disciplinary action, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the youth correctional counselor. The department agreed to reduce the penalty from dismissal to a suspension without pay for 19 pay periods in exchange for the counselor agreeing to withdraw his appeal. The bureau concurred with the terms of the settlement agreement. The senior youth correctional counselor's case was presented to the State Personnel Board, which upheld the two working-day suspension. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 18 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 07-0497 (Headquarters) FACTS OF CASE On November 10, 2005, an officer allegedly made a false report that an inmate was engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior. Thereafter, the officer allegedly uttered profanities and made an inappropriate gesture toward the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer, who appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: After a hearing, the State Personnel Board administrative law judge found the department failed to prove that the officer submitted a false report. However, the judge found the officer did utter profanities toward the inmate and was dishonest when questioned about it. The judge reduced the dismissal to a 10 working-day suspension. Thereafter, the department petitioned the State Personnel Board to rehear the matter. After rehearing, the State Personnel Board rejected the judge's decision and instead modified the dismissal to a 45 working-day suspension. The bureau did not concur with the penalty modifications. Case No. 07-0498 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 10, 2005, information was received alleging that a supervising cook allowed an inmate to touch her breast, provided tobacco to inmates, failed to report a physical altercation between two inmates, released inmates from the kitchen without the knowledge and approval of custody staff members, and failed to follow medical protocol by allowing an inmate experiencing respiratory distress to return to the housing unit. In addition, dishonesty was alleged based on statements the cook made during her investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all the allegations except for the allegation that the cook provided tobacco to inmates. The hiring authority imposed the penalty of dismissal. The cook appealed the penalty to the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: The State Personnel Board found the cook had been grossly negligent when she introduced contraband candy into the institution for inmates and that she had engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate. Despite this significant misconduct compromised the safety and security of the institution, the State Personnel Board reduced the penalty from dismissal to a 180 working-day suspension. The bureau did not concur with the modification of the penalty. Case No. 08-0003 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 29, 2007, an officer allegedly left the scene of a home invasion robbery before outside law enforcement arrived. The officer also allegedly failed to cooperate with the criminal investigation conducted by outside law enforcement officers and made false or misleading statements to them. The officer was further allegedly dishonest during the department's administrative investigation of the alleged conduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE All the allegations against the officer were sustained. He was dismissed as a result of the allegations in this case as well as those from an unrelated case. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement after several evidentiary issues were discovered that weakened the department's case against the officer. As a result, the department agreed to allow the officer to resign lieu of dismissal in exchange for the officer agreeing to withdraw his appeal with the State Personnel Board and to not seek or accept future employment with the department. In addition, the officer waived all back pay resulting from the dismissal being rescinded. The bureau concurred with the settlement. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 19 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 08-0005 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 28, 2007, an officer was ordered to take a random drug test, pursuant to the department's policy. After providing a suspicious urinalysis sample, the officer refused to provide another sample as requested. DISPOSITION OF CASE All allegations were sustained. This case was combined with another pending case involving dishonesty, and the officer was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement after several evidentiary issues were discovered that weakened the department's case against the officer. As a result, the department agreed to allow the officer to resign lieu of dismissal in exchange for the officer agreeing to withdraw his appeal with the State Personnel Board and to not seek or accept future employment with the department. In addition, the officer waived all back pay resulting from the dismissal being rescinded. The bureau concurred with the settlement. Case No. 08-0036 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 2, 2008, an inmate alleged that a materials and stores supervisor allowed inmates to watch movies on a laptop computer that she brought into the institution, gave inmates food, allowed inmates to use a telephone, and gave an inmate a piece of jewelry. In addition, she allegedly spent time alone in a bathroom with one of the inmates and allowed him to use her personal mobile phone. It was further alleged that she knew about an unsecured weapon in the work area but failed to notify anyone. DISPOSITION OF CASE All the allegations were sustained, and the materials and stores supervisor was dismissed. She filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the materials and stores supervisor entered into a settlement agreement. The department allowed the materials and stores supervisor to retire in lieu of dismissal in exchange for her agreeing to withdraw her appeal and to not seek or accept future employment with the department. The bureau concurred with the settlement. Case No. 08-0238 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 8, 2006, an inmate rules violation hearing occurred. The inmate requested that a correctional counselor testify on his behalf. The lieutenant, who presided over the hearing, reported that the counselor had been contacted and that the inmate had been given an opportunity to ask questions of the counselor. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the allegations of dishonesty and neglect of duty were sustained because, although the lieutenant tried to contact the counselor, the inmate did not have an opportunity to question the counselor. The hiring authority dismissed the lieutenant, who appealed the penalty to the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: Following a hearing before the State Personnel Board, all of the charges alleging dishonesty against the lieutenant were dismissed. The Board sustained the remaining allegations and reduced the penalty from a dismissal to a 30 working-day suspension without pay. The bureau did not concur with the State Personnel Board's decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 20 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 08-0256 (Headquarters) FACTS OF CASE On February 23, 2006, an inmate who was a sex offender was released to parole, and because of his medical condition, he was transported directly to a convalescent hospital. The parolee normally would have been placed in one parole region, but the hospital willing and able to accommodate his care was located in a different region. Thus, the original parole region initiated transfer paperwork, which was rejected by the parole region where the hospital was located because the hospital was too close to a school. The deputy director of parole allegedly ordered the receiving region to accept supervision, but that did not occur. For several months, the two parole regions continued to try to resolve the issue of who would supervise the parolee. During this time, the parolee was not supervised or registered as a sex offender. Around October 2006, the deputy director learned that her order had not been followed. The situation was resolved at that time, and the receiving region took on supervision. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the regional administrator over the original parole region received a letter of reprimand for failing to take appropriate action regarding the supervision dispute between the two regions. She did not appeal the discipline to the State Personnel Board. The receiving parole region's first-line supervisor received a 5 percent salary reduction for three months for failing to ensure proper supervision of a parolee he knew was within his area. He did not appeal the discipline to the State Personnel Board. The receiving parole region's parole administrator received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months for failing to ensure proper supervision of a parolee within his area and failing to elevate the dispute between the regions to upper-level management. He did not appeal the discipline to the State Personnel Board. The receiving region's deputy regional administrator initially received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months for failing to ensure that a parolee within her area was properly supervised. After a Skelly hearing, the penalty was reduced to a 5 percent salary reduction for three months, which she appealed to the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: The department agreed to modify the deputy regional administrator's penalty of a 5 percent salary reduction for three months to a letter of reprimand pursuant to a settlement agreement because the hiring authority determined that a policy relevant to the misconduct was not issued until after the misconduct occurred in this case. It is the bureau's position that a smaller reduction in penalty would have been more appropriate; however, the bureau did not find the settlement to be unreasonable. It was also subsequently discovered that the parole administrator filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board contesting his 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The State Personnel Board revoked the discipline based on a credibility determination and because the department failed to identify a policy that had been violated. Because the department did not notify the bureau of the pending appeal until the first day of the State Personnel Board hearing, the bureau was not able to independently evaluate the evidence at hearing. However, based on the State Personnel Board's recitation of the evidence presented at hearing, the bureau concurred with the State Personnel Board's decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 21 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 08-0567 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 20, 2007, an officer was assaulted by several wards during ward movement. Information was received 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. APPEAL UPDATE On the first day of the State Personnel Board hearing on this case, the department withdrew the disciplinary actions against the senior youth correctional counselor and the youth correctional counselor. The newly-assigned department attorney spoke with witnesses in preparation for the hearing and recommended to the hiring authority that the disciplinary actions be withdrawn because the senior youth correctional counselor and the youth correctional counselor were being singled out for punishment. The hiring authority subsequently determined that a variety of additional staff members could have put the ward on temporary detention status, including the officer who was attacked. Given the expected testimony of the other staff members, the bureau concurred with the disciplinary actions being withdrawn. Case No. 08-0573 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 7, 2007, a parole district administrator learned that a parole agent's supervision files allegedly 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. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: A State Personnel Board hearing was held. The State Personnel Board reduced the penalty from a dismissal to a 30 working-day suspension. The State Personnel Board precluded the department from presenting evidence concerning the more serious misconduct after determining that the department had repeatedly ignored discovery requests in the case. The bureau did not concur with the outcome of the case. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 22 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 08-0606 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 24, 2006, inmates assaulted officers during a cell search. As the inmates were taken into custody, other 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. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: While the matter was pending before the State Personnel Board, the department withdrew 23 of the 28 disciplinary actions. Also, the letter of reprimand for the associate warden was reduced to a letter of instruction. The department proceeded to hearing on four employees; an officer who was suspended for 60 working days, a sergeant who was demoted, and a sergeant and officer who were dismissed. During the State Personnel Board hearing, the department entered into settlement agreements with all four employees. The department modified the wording of the disciplinary action for the officer who was suspended. The department modified the sergeant's demotion to a temporary demotion. The sergeant and officer who were dismissed each agreed to receive a 60 working-day suspension. The department's attorneys were not prepared to represent the department before the State Personnel Board. As a result, the bureau concurred with the modifications, given the limited options available at the time. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 23 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 09-0013 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 8, 2008, a facility received a phone call from an anonymous female who refused to identify herself. The caller stated that at the request of an inmate, she sent $500 to a post office box registered to a department employee. The caller further stated the inmate was pressuring her to send more money and threatened someone would come after her if the money was not sent. Shortly thereafter, a package containing numerous mobile phones, tobacco, cash, and a money order was delivered to a post office box registered to an arts in corrections facilitator employed at the institution. It was alleged that the arts in corrections facilitator was smuggling the contraband into the institution for monetary gain. It was further alleged that the arts in corrections facilitator threatened an agent during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the arts in corrections facilitator with a notice of dismissal. An agreement was initially entered into allowing the arts in corrections facilitator to resign prior to the effective date of the dismissal. However, the arts in corrections facilitator rescinded the agreement, was dismissed, and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The arts in corrections instructor and the department entered into another settlement agreement after the instructor filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The department agreed to allow the instructor to resign in exchange for the instructor agreeing to not seek or accept future employment with the department and withdrawing his appeal with the State Personnel Board. The bureau concurred with the settlement. Case No. 09-0075 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 22, 2008, a nurse attempted to enter a facility on his day off while mumbling remarks about an inmate. Officers observed a bulge resembling a handgun under the nurse's shirt. Officers directed the nurse to stand by, but he ignored the directive and sped off in his vehicle. The nurse drove to his residence located on department property and, as he exited his vehicle, an officer observed a handgun protruding from his waist line. A short time later, the nurse exited his residence with his hands raised. A shotgun, handgun, and multiple rounds of ammunition were found inside the residence. The nurse was arrested and taken into custody by outside law enforcement. During the investigation of the incident, the nurse was allegedly dishonest and inappropriately contacted a witness. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the nurse with a notice of dismissal. The nurse filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the nurse entered into a settlement agreement. The department agreed to allow the nurse to resign in exchange for the nurse agreeing to not seek or accept future employment with the department and withdraw his appeal to the State Personnel Board. The bureau concurred with the settlement. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 24 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 09-0122 (Headquarters) FACTS OF CASE On June 6, 2008, it was alleged that a program director used racial slurs and made extremely offensive and disparaging remarks to his staff. It was also alleged that he violated the department's nepotism policy when he hired a close family friend and a relative as subordinate employees. He also allegedly circumvented the competitive hiring process when hiring another employee and he was allegedly dishonest during his investigatory interviews. In addition, it was alleged that he inappropriately obtained and used an undercover state law enforcement vehicle, inappropriately rejected an employee during a probationary employment period, and allowed staff to claim mileage reimbursement for their commutes to work. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all allegations except the allegations that he inappropriately rejected a probationary employee and that he allowed employees to claim mileage reimbursement for commuting to work. The hiring authority served the program director with a notice of dismissal, and he filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into a settlement agreement with the program director at a State Personnel Board pre-hearing settlement conference. The program director withdrew his appeal and resigned. The bureau concurred with the settlement. Case No. 09-0154 (Headquarters) FACTS OF CASE On April 4, 2008, an officer allegedly transported tobacco, cocaine, and marijuana into a youth facility for use by wards. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the officer resigned pending disciplinary action was place in his official personnel file. APPEAL UPDATE Although the officer resigned prior to the effective date of the dismissal, he still filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The department subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with the officer. The department agreed to allow the officer to resign in lieu of dismissal in exchange for the officer withdrawing his appeal and agreeing to not to seek or accept future employment with the department. The bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0200 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 24, 2008, an officer allegedly fabricated a receipt documenting the search of an inmate's cell, which was submitted as evidence in a disciplinary hearing against the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: After a hearing, the State Personnel Board reduced the dismissal to an official letter of reprimand. The board determined that the department did not meet its burden of proof on the two dishonesty allegations. First, the board found that the department did not provide evidence to counter the officer's credible testimony that he had in fact prepared an original cell search receipt. The evidence presented showed only that there was a poorly maintained cell search binder that was accessible to inmates and other staff in an unsecured staff office. The officer admitted that he reproduced a duplicate cell search receipt. The board dismissed the other dishonesty charge after determining that the officer did not intend to be dishonest when he signed the name of another officer on the duplicate cell search receipt. The board determined that the officer failed to properly document the cell search in the weekly and daily cell search logs. In addition, the board found that the officer had no history of prior disciplinary action and that he was unlikely to reoffend. The bureau did not concur with the State Personnel Board's decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 25 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 09-0262 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 25, 2007, it was alleged that a male youth counselor had passed a ward notes, blew her kisses, grabbed her buttocks, and masturbated while looking at a photograph of her. It was further alleged that a parole agent was told about the alleged misconduct but did not report it until several days later. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the youth counselor and served him with notice of dismissal. The youth counselor filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority also sustained the allegation against the parole agent and issued him a letter of instruction. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the youth counselor entered into a settlement agreement. The department agreed to accept the youth counselor's resignation in lieu of dismissal in exchange for the youth counselor agreeing to withdraw his appeal before the State Personnel Board and to not seek or accept future employment with the department. The bureau concurred with the settlement. Case No. 09-0285 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 25, 2007, an officer negligently discharged his personal firearm while on duty at an unarmed post. A second officer allegedly removed some medication from the scene that the officer had brought to work. It was also alleged that the second officer and a third officer drove the officer's personal vehicle off prison grounds so that it could not be searched as part of the initial investigation into the discharged firearm incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer who negligently discharged his firearm was disciplined in a separate case. The officer who removed the medication container and assisted with the removal of the officer's vehicle was suspended without pay for 60 working days. The third officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months. Each officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The department and the second officer entered into a settlement agreement. The department agreed to modify the penalty from a 60 working-day suspension to an equivalent reduction in pay in exchange for the officer agreeing to withdraw his appeal with the State Personnel Board. The department also entered into a settlement agreement with the third officer. The department agreed to reduce the penalty from a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months to a letter of reprimand in exchange for the officer agreeing to withdraw his appeal. Evidentiary problems developed regarding the third officer which justified the terms of the settlement agreement. The bureau concurred with the terms of both settlement agreements. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 26 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEALED CASES Case No. 09-0519 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 1, 2007, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force on an inmate by grabbing him and pushing him onto a desk. It was also alleged that the officer failed to report the incident. A second officer, a supervising cook, a nurse, and a sergeant also allegedly witnessed the use of force and failed to report the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against everyone except the nurse. The officer who used force was dismissed. The second officer received a 60 working-day suspension. The supervising cook received a 5 percent salary reduction for 18 months. The sergeant initially received a notice of dismissal. However, following a Skelly hearing the sergeant and the hiring authority entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which the penalty was reduced to a one-year demotion to officer, as well as a 15 working-day suspension. Both officers and the supervising cook filed appeals with State Personnel Board. APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board upheld the dismissal of the officer who used the unreasonable force. While the appeal was pending, however, the department and the second officer entered into a settlement agreement. The department agreed to reduce the penalty from a 60 working-day suspension to a 30 working-day suspension in exchange for the officer withdrawing his appeal. The department and the supervising cook also entered into a settlement agreement. The department agreed to reduce the discipline from a 5 percent salary reduction for 18 months to a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months in exchange for the supervising cook withdrawing his appeal. The bureau concurred with the terms of the settlement agreements. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 27 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEADLY FORCE CASES Case No. 09-0454 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 11, 2009, three inmates started fighting on an exercise yard. Two of the inmates were stabbing and DISPO INV ADV HA slashing the third inmate with an inmate-manufactured weapon. Officers used chemical agents but it did not stop the attack. Officers then fired three less-than-lethal rounds, which stopped the attack. One of the rounds hit one of the attacking inmates in the head, fracturing the inmate's skull and causing cranial bleeding. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate who was hit in the head suffered partial paralysis. The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation into the use of force. The matter was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The department also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0455 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 11, 2009, three inmates started fighting on an exercise yard. Two of the inmates were stabbing and DISPO INV ADV HA slashing the third inmate with an inmate-manufactured weapon. Officers used chemical agents but it did not stop the attack. Officers then fired three less-than-lethal rounds, which stopped the attack. One of the rounds hit one of the attacking inmates in the head, fracturing the inmate's skull and causing cranial bleeding. DISPOSITION OF CASE Due to the seriousness of the inmate's injuries, the incident was reviewed by the department's independent Deadly Force Review Board, which found the officer's use of force to have been in compliance with departmental policies. The hiring authority subsequently determined there was no staff misconduct and the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0456 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 12, 2009, staff were placing an inmate who was agitated and yelling into a holding cell when he spit on DISPO INV ADV HA a sergeant. The inmate made gestures suggesting he may spit again and the sergeant sprayed the inmate with pepper spray. The inmate was decontaminated, evaluated by medical staff, and found to not be in medical distress. However, shortly thereafter, he stopped breathing. Life-saving efforts were initiated and the inmate was transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation into the use of force. The matter was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The department also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0457 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 12, 2009, a riot took place involving nearly 130 inmates who attacked approximately 20 other DISPO INV ADV HA inmates on an exercise yard. Four of the attacked inmates were observed unconscious on the ground being kicked in the head and upper torso area. Officers first used chemical agents in an attempt to control the riot. An officer then fired one lethal round, which did not strike anyone but it successfully ended the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that the use of lethal force violated criminal law. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 28 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEADLY FORCE CASES Case No. 09-0458 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 12, 2009, a riot took place involving nearly 130 inmates who attacked approximately 20 other DISPO INV ADV HA inmates on an exercise yard. Four of the attacked inmates were observed unconscious on the ground being kicked in the head and upper torso area. Officers first used chemical agents in an attempt to control the riot. An officer then fired one lethal round, which did not strike anyone but it successfully ended the riot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department's independent Deadly Force Review Board found that the discharge of the lethal round was in compliance with the department's use of force policy. The hiring authority subsequently determined there was no staff misconduct and the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0459 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 21, 2008, an officer allegedly pushed a handcuffed inmate to the concrete floor while he was being DISPO INV ADV HA escorted to his cell. As a result, the inmate received a serious brain injury. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0460 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 16, 2008, officers participated in a calculated cell extraction of an inmate at the request of mental DISPO INV ADV HA health staff members. It was alleged that the officers used unreasonable force when they used pepper spray and physical force to remove the inmate from his cell. A spit mask was applied to the inmate following his removal from the cell and he was brought outside the building to await emergency transport to the institution's medical facility. It was alleged that the officers failed to adequately decontaminate the inmate. It was further alleged that an officer failed to properly record the event when the video camera he was using failed to capture several minutes of the cell extraction. At the institution's medical facility, the inmate stopped breathing and efforts to revive him were unsuccessful. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department's independent Deadly Force Review Board determined that the use of force was within policy. The hiring authority subsequently did not sustain the allegations and the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0461 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 24, 2007, it was alleged that a tower officer used unreasonable force during an inmate riot when he DISPO INV ADV HA discharged one lethal round from a Ruger Mini-14 rifle as a warning shot. It was further alleged that the officer was negligent when he fired the warning shot through a basketball backboard, which compromised the safety of inmates who were present in the area of impact. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not find sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of unreasonable use of force, but did find sufficient evidence to sustain the neglect of duty allegation. The hiring authority issued a letter of instruction to the officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 29 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0462 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 18, 2009, an anonymous complaint was received alleging a warden promoted two non-peace officer staff DISPO INV ADV HA members to the peace officer classification of correctional counselor, when they did not meet the minimum qualifications for that position. It was also alleged that the warden ordered staff and inmates to make a large barbecue using state time and materials and then used it for a fundraiser held at the warden's home. In addition, it was alleged that the warden used state time and resources to prepare food for a golf tournament and gave the profits from the tournament to a state employee. The warden was also alleged to have ordered staff to work overtime to build and install cabinets and remodel a bathroom in the warden's office. Finally, it was alleged that the warden was engaged in an inappropriate relationship in his office with another staff member. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the two staff members met the minimum qualifications for correctional counselor. However, the hiring authority determined that not all required hiring processes were followed and issued the warden a letter of instruction. The hiring authority found the remaining allegations were unfounded or were justified, lawful, and proper. The hiring authority also determined the investigation conclusively proved that the warden was not in engaged in an inappropriate relationship with another staff member. Case No. 09-0463 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 28, 2009, it was alleged that an officer in the investigative services unit was compromising searches and DISPO INV ADV HA sting operations by tipping off inmates about the times and locations of the actions. The officer was also allegedly providing an inmate with contraband such as clothing and food items. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Case No. 09-0464 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 13, 2009, the department discovered that a supervising cook allegedly was engaged in an overly familiar DISPO INV ADV HA relationship with an inmate from December 2008 to June 2009. The cook and inmate allegedly exchanged numerous letters. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation. However, the cook resigned prior to the completion of the investigation; therefore, disciplinary action was not taken. A letter indicating the cook resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in the cook's official personnel file. Case No. 09-0465 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 29, 2009, an officer allowed an unlicensed parolee to drive the officer in her personal DISPO INV ADV HA car. Outside law enforcement stopped the car after it failed to stop at a stop sign. The law enforcement officer allegedly saw the parolee and the officer change seats in the car and smelled marijuana coming from the interior of the car. The law enforcement officer proceeded to search the car and allegedly found a marijuana cigarette behind the driver's seat. It was further alleged the officer was dishonest to outside law enforcement and during her investigative interview with the Office of Internal Affairs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the dismissal took effect. A letter was placed in her personnel file indicating she resigned under unfavorable circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 30 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0466 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 15, 2009, it was alleged that an officer was overly familiar with an inmate by meeting with the inmate in DISPO INV ADV HA a staff restroom. It was also alleged that the officer acted outside the scope of training and was negligent in the performance of her duties. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the officer acted outside the scope of her training and neglected her duty when she failed to report an inmate was out of bounds and in a restricted area. However, disciplinary action could not be taken in this case because the officer had already been dismissed as a result of another unrelated case. The hiring authority placed a letter in the officer's official personnel file indicating the allegations were sustained. Case No. 09-0467 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 9, 2009, a supervising cook was found to be in possession of 33.4 grams of marijuana, 15.8 grams of DISPO INV ADV HA methamphetamine, and an unauthorized knife on institution grounds. The supervising cook received the drugs from an inmate's girlfriend and was paid $200 to deliver them to the inmate at the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the supervising cook. However, he retired before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the supervising cook retired pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0468 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 6, 2009, a sergeant informed the investigative services unit that she lost an unauthorized flash drive at DISPO INV ADV HA the institution containing possible confidential staff and inmate information. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and issued the sergeant a letter of instruction. Case No. 09-0469 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 10, 2009, it was alleged that a plumber was engaging in sexual activity with the wife of an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA housed at the institution where the plumber worked. In addition, it was alleged that the plumber was bringing contraband, including mobile phones and tobacco, into the institution for inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the plumber with a notice of dismissal. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened a criminal investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0470 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 6, 2009, a parole unit supervisor was allegedly engaging in sexual conduct with a janitor at the parole DISPO INV ADV HA office. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 31 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0471 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 14, 2009, it was alleged that an officer compromised the identity and safety of an inmate who was DISPO INV ADV HA working as a confidential informant by confronting the inmate about sensitive information in the presence of other inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0472 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on or about December 24, 2008, a captain, a lieutenant, a sergeant, and two correctional DISPO INV ADV HA counselors intentionally falsified an inmate's record by removing references to the inmate's rules violations in order to improve the inmate's chances for being released on parole. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. All staff received on-the-job training regarding the proper procedures for documenting inmate records. Case No. 09-0473 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 23, 2008, the institution's investigative services unit received information indicating that a DISPO INV ADV HA supervising cook was allowing a parolee to live at his house. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the supervising cook with a notice of dismissal. Following a Skelly hearing, the supervising cook was reinstated pursuant to a settlement agreement that recognized the parolee no longer resided with him. The discipline was reduced to a 5 percent salary reduction for 24 months and the supervising cook agreed not to appeal the discipline. Case No. 09-0474 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 4, 2008, it was alleged that a chief medical officer failed to properly screen a contract physician DISPO INV ADV HA prior to allowing him to work at an institution. It was alleged that the contract physician did not have the required professional credentials. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the contract physician started working at the institution prior to the date the chief medical officer was appointed to his position. Therefore, the allegation was not sustained. Case No. 09-0475 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In December 2008, a parole administrator alleged that in February 2008 another parole administrator suggested DISPO INV ADV HA that they inappropriately initiate an internal affairs investigation against a parole agent. It was also alleged that the parole administrator and a deputy parole administrator heard the suggestion and did not report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined the conversation did not occur as alleged and that the internal affairs investigation opened against the parole agent was appropriate. The hiring authority, therefore, determined the allegations were unfounded. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 32 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0476 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From December 2008 to April 2009, an officer allegedly engaged in an overly familiar sexual relationship with DISPO INV ADV HA an inmate and brought the inmate contraband such as tobacco and electronic devices. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating she resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in her official personnel file. Case No. 09-0477 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 21, 2008, it was alleged that a sergeant was insubordinate when he became argumentative and DISPO INV ADV HA refused a lieutenant's orders to return to the institution the following week to turn in a particular form. It was further alleged that the sergeant lied in a memorandum when he said the warden threw a piece of paper at him. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0478 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 12, 2008, an officer allegedly kicked an inmate's feet during a clothed body search and applied DISPO INV ADV HA handcuffs too tightly causing swelling to the inmate's wrists. The officer also allegedly failed to report his use of force. Three other officers reportedly observed the incident but failed to report the use of force. It is also alleged that the three other officers failed to report threats the inmate reportedly made against staff. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers. Case No. 09-0479 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 6, 2008, an officer allegedly dragged a recently killed deer from another person's property onto his DISPO INV ADV HA relative's property. The next day he allegedly illegally skinned the deer's head and removed the antlers. Later, on November 19, 2008, the officer allegedly lied to a game warden during the criminal investigation regarding the deer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board, but thereafter resigned and withdrew his appeal. Case No. 09-0480 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From November 2008 through March 2009, a facility captain allegedly conspired to negatively affect the mission DISPO INV ADV HA of the court compliance unit at an institution by encouraging unit staff to refuse assignments. The captain had previously been assigned as the supervisor of the court compliance unit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 33 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0481 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 1, 2008, an officer was arrested for assault, false imprisonment, and conspiracy after a female who DISPO INV ADV HA attended a Halloween party at the officer's house alleged she was beaten and held against her will by the officer and others at the party. The assault on the female resulted in a fractured eye socket. It was further alleged that the officer failed to report the arrest. When questioned about the incident, the officer allegedly lied to outside law enforcement and later to Office of Internal Affairs investigators during an investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office filed felony charges against the officer for assault, false imprisonment, and conspiracy but later dismissed all charges for lack of sufficient evidence. Following an investigation by the Office of Internal Affairs, the hiring authority sustained allegations against the officer for failing to report the arrest and dishonesty during the investigation by outside law enforcement as well as the Office of Internal Affairs. The officer was served with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the dismissal took effect. A letter was placed in the officer's file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 09-0482 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 24, 2008, it was alleged that a sergeant engaged in sexual relationships with inmates. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0483 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 22, 2008, an officer allegedly attempted to deny an inmate medical care when he inappropriately told DISPO INV ADV HA a licensed clinical social worker that a particular inmate was no longer housed in the building. The inmate also alleged that the officer dissuaded him from seeking medical treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0484 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In October 4, 2008, chemical agent grenades, batons, pepper spray, and handcuffs were discovered missing from DISPO INV ADV HA a facility within the institution. Some of the equipment was allegedly signed out to staff who were not on duty. Some of the off-duty officers who worked on the facility were allegedly contacted and given the choice of providing combinations to their lockers, coming in, or having the locks cut off of their lockers in an effort to locate the missing equipment. Other officers were allegedly not contacted. A lieutenant, assisted by two sergeants, allegedly searched the personal lockers of several officers. The following day, the lieutenant allegedly spoke to the officers and instructed them that the matter "had to go away now, and go away quietly." DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the searches of the lockers were proper and necessary to ensure the safety and security of the institution. In addition, the hiring authority determined that the lieutenant's alleged statement was made to address staff's continued discussion about the searches and to re-focus the staff on their work. The hiring authority exonerated the lieutenant and both sergeants of any wrongdoing. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 34 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0485 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 3, 2008, it was alleged that an officer was negligent when he entered an inmate's cell, used profanity, DISPO INV ADV HA called the inmate a derogatory name, and was threatening toward the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0486 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 2, 2008, a parolee was released from custody and ordered to register as a sex offender within five DISPO INV ADV HA business days. The parolee reported to the parole office on October 3, 2008, but was incorrectly classified and was assigned to be monitored by a non-sex offender parole unit. On October 14, 2008, a supervising parole agent who was not in charge of the sex-offender unit discovered that the parolee was improperly classified and ordered the parolee to report to the parole office. After several failed attempts to make contact with the parolee, the parolee reported to the parole office on October 21, 2008. The parolee possessed paperwork documenting an appointment to register as a sex offender with a local law enforcement agency on October 27th. It was alleged that the supervising parole agent allowed the parolee to remain out of custody even though the parolee had failed to register as a sex offender within five business days as required by law. The supervising parole agent also allegedly told a subordinate agent to rewrite a memorandum regarding the incident so that it would contain fewer details. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Specifically, the hiring authority found that the supervising parole agent lacked training on the proper supervision of sex-offender parolees and that there was evidence suggesting that he properly exercised his discretion in allowing the parolee to remain out of custody because the parolee was making efforts to comply with his registration requirement. In addition, the hiring authority determined that the supervising agent's request to have the parole agent rewrite his report to be less detailed was not an attempt to cover up the incident, but rather to make the report more concise. Case No. 09-0487 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between October 2008 and March 2009, it was alleged that an officer was introducing contraband including DISPO INV ADV HA tobacco, drugs and alcohol into the institution. It was also alleged that he was obtaining sexual favors from an inmate and allowing inmates to make calls on his personal mobile phone. On March 22, 2009, the officer was searched at the institution's entrance and was found to have tobacco taped to his leg. He admitted to previously bringing in alcohol and tobacco, that he allowed inmates to use his mobile phone, and that he masturbated while on duty. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain all allegations except sexual misconduct, and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. A settlement was reached allowing the officer resign in lieu of dismissal, and a letter indicating this was placed in his official personnel file. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 35 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0488 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in October 2008 and February 2009, an officer brought narcotics into an institution and DISPO INV ADV HA provided them to an inmate. It was further alleged that prior to October 2008 and until the end of February 2009, the officer engaged in an overly familiar relationship with inmates, provided inmates with mobile phones, tobacco and heroin, and received and distributed money to several inmates relating to narcotics transactions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all the allegations. However, the officer resigned before being served with a notice of dismissal. It was noted in the officer's official personnel file that the resignation was under unfavorable circumstances. Case No. 09-0489 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 29, 2008, it was alleged that an officer did not timely respond to an inmate who was found hanging DISPO INV ADV HA in his cell. It was further alleged that the officer failed to carry a personal alarm, as required. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0490 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on September 15, 2008, an officer improperly entered a holding cell, put his hands around an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate's neck, and pushed the inmate toward the rear of the holding cell. It was also alleged that the officer was dishonest during his investigative interview. In addition, four other officers and a sergeant allegedly improperly documented the incident. Three of the officers and the sergeant were also allegedly dishonest during their investigative interviews. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. The officer who entered the cell and put his hands on the inmate's neck was dismissed and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. One of the three officers who was allegedly dishonest in his investigative interview retired before the investigation was completed and, therefore, no discipline was imposed against him. The remaining two officers and the sergeant who were initially found to have been dishonest in their investigative interviews were served with notices of dismissal. However, after a Skelly hearing during which the credibility of a critical witness was substantially undermined, the department reduced the imposed discipline and entered into settlement agreements with the two officers and the sergeant. One of the officers received a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. The other officer received a one working-day suspension. The sergeant was demoted to an officer. The remaining officer who was not found to have been dishonest, initially received a two working-day suspension for failing to write a report, which was later reduced to a one working-day suspension. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 36 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0491 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 12, 2008, a parole agent allegedly failed to enforce a condition of parole that prohibited the parolee DISPO INV ADV HA from having contact with a child. The parolee was then accused of sexually molesting the child. The parole agent was also allegedly dishonest to a supervisor when questioned about his supervision of the parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the parole agent with a notice of dismissal. However, the employee resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the parole agent resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0492 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged on August 30, 2008, a warden attended a retirement party where he embraced and kissed a case DISPO INV ADV HA records analyst without her permission. It was further alleged that the warden kissed a parole service associate without her permission and that he was publicly intoxicated. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the warden engaged in sexual misconduct but did not sustain the allegation of public intoxication. The warden was demoted to a correctional administrator and received a 26 working-day suspension. The warden filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0493 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 25, 2008, an inmate who had been seen walking in his cell earlier, allegedly stood from his wheelchair DISPO INV ADV HA and sat at a dayroom table instead of returning to his cell as required. Two officers independently ordered the inmate to return to his cell, but he refused. When officers attempted to place him in restraints, the inmate jerked away and clinched his fist. A third officer responded. The inmate continued to refuse orders. One officer attempted to physically force the inmate to the ground, but the inmate broke the officer's hold. The officer grabbed the inmate's arm and forced him to the ground. He was ordered to lay in a prone position, but refused. The officers struck the inmate multiple times with expandable batons, but the inmate was still non-compliant. An officer then used his hands to force the inmate to lie on the floor on his stomach, while another officer grabbed the inmate's wrist and, despite the inmate's resistance, applied handcuffs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the officers' use of force complied with departmental policy and, therefore, no allegations were sustained. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 37 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0494 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 23, 2008, several items of contraband were discovered unsecured in a desk which was readily DISPO INV ADV HA accessible to inmates. The contraband included radios, CD's, pornographic magazines, and hygiene items. An officer claimed he was conducting an undercover operation regarding drug trafficking and allowed inmates to drop off contraband items in the desk without repercussions and that the officer would remove the items from the institution without reporting it. The officer claimed an inmate told him to check the desk but that he failed to do so before he went home and the items were discovered by other staff members. It was also alleged the officer fabricated the story about the undercover operation and that he was dishonest when he stated other officers knew about the operation and were acting in concert with him. During an interview with the Office of Internal Affairs, the officer was allegedly dishonest when questioned about his conduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained and the hiring authority served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the dismissal became effective. The department placed a letter in his personnel file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. Case No. 09-0495 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 21, 2008, a sergeant was photographed running a red light and received a citation through the mail for DISPO INV ADV HA the infraction. Subsequently, in October 2008, the sergeant allegedly approached a discharged parolee and asked the parolee to claim that he, the parolee, was driving and to take responsibility for the ticket. The parolee agreed and executed a declaration falsely indicating that he was the driver of the vehicle. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the sergeant. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0496 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 11, 2008, it was alleged that a custodian was soliciting bribes from inmates in exchange for tobacco DISPO INV ADV HA and marijuana. The investigative services unit conducted an investigation and caught the custodian bringing tobacco into the institution and also found marijuana in his vehicle. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and entered into a settlement agreement with the custodian allowing him to resign prior to the completion of the administrative investigation. The Office of Internal Affairs opened a criminal investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0497 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 4, 2008, it was alleged that a teacher fondled the breast of an office technician and licked and kissed DISPO INV ADV HA her earlobe. It was also alleged that a supervisor knew of the misconduct and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations against the teacher and the supervisor and served each of them with a notice of dismissal. However, both the teacher and the supervisor retired prior to the actions taking effect. A letter was placed in each of their official personnel files indicating that their retirement was under unfavorable circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 38 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0498 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 24, 2008, the department received information that a cook was accepting letters and phone calls from an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. Thereafter, on December 24, 2008, the department received additional information alleging that the cook was selling tobacco, mobile phones, and marijuana to inmates. It was further alleged that the cook sent money to the inmate and engaged in sexually explicit telephone conversations with the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the cook engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate, failed to report that the inmate possessed a mobile phone, and was dishonest during her investigative interview. The hiring authority dismissed the cook, who did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0499 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on July 16, 2008, an officer brought marijuana, tobacco, and mobile phones into the institution DISPO INV ADV HA and provided these items to inmates. It was further alleged that the officer was engaged in a conspiracy with family members of inmates to bring tobacco, mobile phones, and marijuana into the institution for inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0500 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on June 30, 3008, an officer used unnecessary and excessive force on an inmate by shoving the DISPO INV ADV HA inmate against a window, pulling the inmate's shirt over his head, covering his face, forcibly pulling the inmate's underwear up, and hitting the back of the inmate's head, forcing the inmate to slam into the window three times. It is also alleged that the officer did not report the use of force, nor did three other officers who allegedly witnessed it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers. Case No. 09-0501 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 25, 2008, two captains were allegedly dishonest when questioned about an employee's move from one DISPO INV ADV HA work station to another. They reportedly had a conversation with the affected employee but denied it when questioned by their supervisor. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 39 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0502 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 25, 2008, an officer allegedly grabbed an inmate's wrist before applying handcuffs and failed to DISPO INV ADV HA document the incident as a use of force, as required. It was also alleged that a second officer and a lieutenant who were standing nearby failed to document that they witnessed the officer grabbing the inmate's wrist. Finally, a sergeant who reviewed the officer's rules violation stemming from the incident allegedly failed to identify the officer's conduct as a use of force incident that needed to be reported. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the two officers and both were issued letters of instruction. The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant and the lieutenant. Case No. 09-0503 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 22, 2008, it was alleged that an officer brought tobacco into an institution and sold it to an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0504 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 17, 2008, a parole agent allegedly provided a false alibi for his son, who was being investigated by DISPO INV ADV HA outside law enforcement. The parole agent also allegedly engaged in disruptive and uncooperative behavior with the outside law enforcement officers. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the parole agent was dismissed. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0505 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 9, 2008, it was alleged that a psychiatric technician was bringing methamphetamine, marijuana, and DISPO INV ADV HA tobacco into the institution. The psychiatric technician allegedly had tobacco and a controlled substance when entering an institution on February 28, 2009. In addition, he admitted that he had previously delivered tobacco to an inmate on at least 10 occasions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the psychiatric technician retired prior to the completion of the investigation; therefore, disciplinary action was not taken. A letter indicating the psychiatric technician retired under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 40 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0506 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on June 5, 2008, an officer assigned to an administrative segregation unit failed to check on the DISPO INV ADV HA welfare of inmates every 30 minutes, as required. In addition, the officer allegedly counted the inmates twice without realizing that one of the inmates had died. It was also alleged that the officer documented that he had completed the inmate welfare checks, when he had not. The officer also failed to notice a note the deceased inmate posted in a window on his cell door indicating his intent to commit suicide. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer failed to perform the inmate welfare checks and failed to ensure the inmates he counted were alive. However, the hiring authority determined that the officer documented the inmate welfare checks in advance of conducting them and that the officer intended to do them, but his attention was diverted and he later failed to go back and correct the record. The hiring authority imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0507 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 3, 2008, it was alleged that a supervising cook was involved in an overly familiar personal relationship DISPO INV ADV HA with a parolee. In addition, it was alleged that an account supervisor and an office technician were aware of the relationship and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the supervising cook. However, because she was a contract employee, disciplinary action could not be taken. Instead, her contract was terminated. The hiring authority also sustained the allegation against the office technician and issued her a letter of reprimand, which she did not appeal to the State Personnel Board. The allegation against the account supervisor was not sustained. Case No. 09-0508 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 24, 2008, an officer allegedly left a control booth to counsel an inmate. He then allegedly used DISPO INV ADV HA inappropriate force by grabbing the inmate by the shoulder and throwing him against a wall prior to being searched, threw the inmate's yarmulke on the ground, and used anti-Semitic remarks toward the inmate. The officer also allegedly conducted a retaliatory cell search. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the officer left his assigned post without being properly relieved and conducted a retaliatory cell search. The officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months, which he did not appeal to the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations regarding the use of force, throwing of the yarmulke, and inappropriate remarks. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 41 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0509 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2008, two officers allegedly violated an institution's cell extraction policy when they entered an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate's cell and sprayed him with pepper spray when he refused to exit his cell. In addition, they were allegedly dishonest in their reports documenting the incident. It was also alleged that a sergeant failed to write a report documenting the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority initially sustained allegations that the two officers used unnecessary force, violated the cell extraction policy, and that the sergeant failed to document the incident. The officers received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. After a Skelly hearing, it was clarified that the officers did not enter the inmate's cell. As a result, it was determined they did not violate the institution's cell extraction policy. The officers' salary reductions were revoked. However, the officers and sergeant received letters of instruction regarding appropriate procedures precipitating cell extractions and reporting writing. Case No. 09-0510 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 20, 2008, an inmate allegedly faked chest pains and told the responding sergeant that he needed to leave DISPO INV ADV HA the housing unit due to safety concerns. The inmate then provided staff with a written note stating his life was in danger over drug and gambling debts; thus, he could no longer stay in his housing unit. The information was allegedly provided to a lieutenant, who initiated the process for moving the inmate into an administrative segregation unit for his protection. Upon being told that no cell was available, the lieutenant allegedly decided to confine the inmate to his current cell until another cell could be identified. At the end of his shift, the lieutenant allegedly left paperwork to initiate the inmate's move and a note explaining that the inmate was confined to his cell. The next day, another lieutenant allegedly saw the paperwork and asked an officer to locate an administrative segregation cell and instructed that the inmate be brought to his office. Two officers allegedly opened the inmate's cell door, and the inmate was subsequently stabbed by other inmates. The inmate was treated for his non life-threatening injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain an allegation against the lieutenant for failing to ensure the inmate was moved to a different housing unit. The department joined this case with another disciplinary action and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months, which he appealed to the State Personnel Board. The allegations were not sustained against the sergeant because she appropriately conveyed the inmate's safety concerns to the lieutenant. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the two officers who let the inmate out of his cell because they were not aware of the inmate's safety concerns. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 42 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0511 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 17, 2008, four officers escorted an inmate in waist restraints and a wheelchair from the law library to his DISPO INV ADV HA cell. During the escort, the inmate was agitated and verbally abusive, and kept placing his hands on the wheels of the wheelchair in an effort to stop the escort. One of the officers ordered the inmate to remove his hands from the wheels, but the inmate refused. That same officer grabbed the inmate's left wrist and attempted to place his hands on the armrest of the wheelchair, but the inmate pulled away. The officer placed his hands on the inmate's chest to stabilize him. Eventually, the inmate was escorted to his cell. The inmate alleged that the officer had choked him, causing abrasions and bruising around his neck. The officers did not prepare written reports about the incident until the next day. While all four officers reported that force was used to stabilize the inmate, none reported that an officer had choked the inmate. All the officers were charged with failing to initially report use of force and for making intentionally misleading statements once they had completed their written reports. The officer accused of choking the inmate was also charged with excessive use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that one of the officers used minimal force when stabilizing the inmate and that this force should have been immediately reported by all the officers. The hiring authority required the officers to attend training for report writing. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the remainder of the allegations. Case No. 09-0512 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 5, 2008, it was alleged that a licensed vocational nurse verbally harassed an inmate while treating him at DISPO INV ADV HA the institution's medical facility. It was alleged that the inmate threatened the licensed vocational nurse and the escorting officer who allegedly heard the threats failed to take action. It was further alleged that the escorting officer failed to properly search the inmate prior to escorting him to the medical facility. It was alleged that a second officer searched the inmate and located an inmate-manufactured handcuff key hidden in the inmate's hair, but did not properly store the key in evidence. Also, it was alleged that a lieutenant failed to ensure the key was logged into evidence. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the nurse. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the escorting officer and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the second officer for neglect of duty and gave him a letter of instruction and imposed training. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation against the lieutenant. However, the lieutenant will be given training on evidence control and securing evidence. Case No. 09-0513 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE An inmate alleged that on March 25, 2008, a teacher engaged in sexual activities with her. The teacher also DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly brought tobacco into the institution and gave it to the inmate in exchange for the sexual favors. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 43 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0514 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 19, 2008, a former parolee was arrested by outside law enforcement officers at a parole agent III's DISPO INV ADV HA home. It was alleged that the parole agent III knew that there was a warrant out for the former parolee's arrest based on his suspected involvement in a sexual assault and failed to notify the department or other law enforcement officials. It was also alleged that the parole agent III failed to report the former parolee's arrest to her supervisor as required and was dishonest with outside law enforcement officers about her relationship with the parolee. It was further alleged that the parole agent III gave the parolee confidential information, was involved in an overly familiar relationship with him even after he returned to prison, and failed to report another officer's overfamiliarity with inmates. In addition, it was alleged that the parole agent III was dishonest in her investigative interview and in a letter she submitted to her supervisor describing her relationship with an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of overfamiliarity and dishonesty. The parole agent was served with a notice of dismissal. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0515 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In March 2008, an officer allegedly brought contraband mobile phones into a secure area of the institution and DISPO INV ADV HA provided the phones to an inmate in exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating he resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in the officer's official personnel file. Case No. 09-0516 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on February 6, 2008, an officer punched an inmate in the face after the inmate had been DISPO INV ADV HA resistive to being placed in handcuffs and then failed to report the use of force. It is also alleged that the officer had an inmate write his incident report in violation of his duty and training. During the investigation, it was further alleged that the officer failed to provide the institution with current contact information, as required, and that he disclosed confidential information to an inmate. The officer also allegedly disobeyed a direct order to report for his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs. A second officer allegedly had an inmate write his incident report, disclosed confidential information to an inmate, and lied during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the officer for not reporting for his investigative interview, having an inmate write his incident report, not providing the institution with current contact information, and disclosing confidential information to an inmate. The hiring authority dismissed the officer. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the second officer for disclosing confidential information to an inmate and having an inmate write his incident report. The hiring authority initially imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. After a Skelly hearing, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the second officer, pursuant to which he received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 44 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0517 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 13, 2007, it was alleged that a correctional counselor used his finger to rub against an inmate's DISPO INV ADV HA breast while she was restrained in a holding cage. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0518 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 28, 2007, it was alleged that an officer used unnecessary force when he struck an inmate in the DISPO INV ADV HA stomach and head while the inmate was in restraints. In addition, the officer was allegedly dishonest during his investigative interview. It was also alleged that a sergeant used unnecessary force when he sprayed the inmate with pepper spray while decontaminating the inmate from a previous exposure to pepper spray. In addition, it was alleged that the sergeant retaliated against the inmate by tampering with the inmate's lunch. Finally, it was alleged that a second sergeant failed to properly document the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer and dismissed him. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant who used force and initially served him with a notice of dismissal. However, after a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority and the sergeant entered into a settlement agreement. The hiring authority agreed to reduce the penalty from a dismissal to a demotion from sergeant to officer because the sergeant was honest about his role in the misconduct and was remorseful. The sergeant agreed to not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the other sergeant. Case No. 09-0519 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 1, 2007, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force on an inmate by grabbing him and pushing him DISPO INV ADV HA onto a desk. It was also alleged that the officer failed to report the incident. A second officer, a supervising cook, a nurse, and a sergeant also allegedly witnessed the use of force and failed to report the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against everyone except the nurse. The officer who used force was dismissed. The second officer received a 60 working-day suspension. The supervising cook received a 5 percent salary reduction for 18 months. The sergeant initially received a notice of dismissal. However, following a Skelly hearing the sergeant and the hiring authority entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which the penalty was reduced to a one-year demotion to officer, as well as a 15 working-day suspension. Both officers and the supervising cook filed appeals with State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0520 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 10, 2007, a licensed vocational nurse intentionally failed to report an inmate's DISPO INV ADV HA complaint of sexual misconduct against a registered nurse. It was further alleged that the licensed vocational nurse lied during her investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the licensed vocational nurse failed to report the misconduct and issued the licensed vocational nurse a letter of reprimand. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 45 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0521 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on March 28, 2007, a chaplain violated institutional policies and procedures by delivering a DISPO INV ADV HA package that contained approximately eight grams of marijuana, tobacco and other contraband to an inmate at the institution. The chaplain later requested a return of the package and admitted he had previously circumvented established procedures when accepting packages delivered for inmates. The chaplain then attempted to contact the inmate to whom the package had been delivered. He was ordered to have no contact with the inmate and was prohibited from going into the administrative segregation unit. He violated the order by attempting to go into the administrative segregation unit and contacting the inmate. It was also alleged that the chaplain allowed inmates to generate institutional out count slips and conduct institutional counts, in violation of policy. It was also alleged that he made degrading, rude and sexual comments to inmates and narrated demeaning and vulgar jokes to them and that he discussed his sexual practices with them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation the chaplain possessed controlled substances. The remaining allegations were sustained. The hiring authority selected a penalty of dismissal, however the employee had previously been dismissed in an unrelated action. Case No. 09-0522 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that during the month of March 2007, a material and stores supervisor was overly familiar and DISPO INV ADV HA engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate. It was further alleged that the material and stores supervisor was dishonest during her investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the material and stores supervisor engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate, had delivered an unauthorized communication to an inmate, and had been dishonest during her investigatory interview. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the material and stores supervisor engaged in a sexual relationship with the inmate. The material and stores supervisor was dismissed and has filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The bureau concurred in the findings and penalty imposed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 46 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0523 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 16, 2007, an officer alleged that she witnessed two other officers use unnecessary force on an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA who was being argumentative. It was alleged that while the inmate was restrained, officers used force on the inmate, breaking his nose. It was further alleged that when the reporting officer told a sergeant who was present, he refused to take any action and told the officer to leave the area. It was also alleged that the sergeant told other staff in the facility to not say or do anything in front of this officer, since she would report them. A lieutenant in charge of the incident was also alleged to have been involved in covering up the incident. Other officers who allegedly witnessed the incident were alleged to have failed to report the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations against the two officers who initially used force and dismissed them. The hiring authority also sustained allegations against the sergeant and lieutenant and dismissed them. All four filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained an allegation against one of the officers for neglecting his duty after he claimed that he did not witness the incident, although he was supposed to be providing coverage for the incident. The officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. After a Skelly hearing, the penalty was modified to 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months pursuant to a settlement agreement. The hiring authority initially sustained allegations against another officer for failing to report the incident and for being dishonest and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, after a Skelly hearing, the dishonesty allegation was dismissed and the penalty was reduced to a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. Another officer received 55 working-day suspension for failing to report the incident and for being dishonest. She filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0524 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged in November 2006, a youth counselor assaulted his domestic partner. It was further alleged on May DISPO INV ADV HA 22, 2007, the youth counselor violated a restraining order. On February 19, 2009, the youth counselor was found guilty of both the assault and violating the restraining order. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Prior to imposing discipline, the youth counselor was dismissed for failing to report to work as a result of being in custody on a different, but related, criminal matter. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 47 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DISTINGUISHED CASES 64 Case No. 09-0525 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 28, 2005, it was alleged that a physician inserted his entire hand into an inmate's rectum while DISPO INV ADV HA attempting to reposition the inmate's intestine and attach a clamp. It was also alleged that on October 17, 2006, the physician subjected inmates to prolonged exposure of their breasts during physical examinations. During April and May 2007, it was alleged that the physician inappropriately examined and touched inmates and brushed up against inmates with his body and his erect penis. It was alleged that on November 7, 2007, the physician thrust a speculum hard into an inmate's cervix. In November 2007, it was alleged that the physician acted inappropriately by using the back of his hand to hit inmates on the buttocks, stared at inmates' genital areas, and squeezed the inmates' nipples after the exams were complete. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of discourteous treatment toward inmates and imposed a 12 working-day suspension. Subsequently, the Professional Practice Executive Committee (PPEC), a peer review body for physicians providing care and treatment of the department's inmates, sustained all the allegations and identified additional misconduct. The PPEC revoked the physician's privileges with the department and dismissed him. As a result of the action by PPEC, the suspension by the hiring authority was stayed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 48 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DEFICIENT CASES 5 Case No. 09-0526 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on July 15, 2008, a sergeant forcibly removed an inmate from his cell using emergency DISPO INV ADV HA procedures, which were not warranted given the circumstances. It is also alleged that the sergeant directed four officers to remove information from their reports so that the misconduct would go unnoticed. It was further alleged that the four officers removed the information from their reports and then submitted the reports to supervisors. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant and demoted him to officer. The hiring authority also sustained the allegations against three of the officers and issued each of them a letter of reprimand. The hiring authority determined the fourth officer did not alter his report and, therefore, did not sustain the allegations against him. Following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority withdrew the disciplinary action against the three officers and issued each of them a letter of instruction. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau did not agree with the hiring authority's decision to reduce the officers' discipline from letters of reprimand to letters of instruction because letters of instruction are not considered formal discipline. It was the bureau's position that the officers' misconduct was egregious and, therefore, warranted formal discipline. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 49 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DEFICIENT CASES 5 Case No. 09-0527 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 15, 2008, it was alleged that a sergeant failed to timely respond to a "battery upon a peace officer" DISPO INV ADV HA incident in his area of responsibility. He also allegedly failed to secure a crime scene, failed to obtain detailed reports from all involved staff, and made false statements in his report and during his investigative interview. It was further alleged that the first officer who responded to the scene of the incident failed to submit a complete and accurate report, inappropriately escorted the uncooperative inmate into an infirmary room and closed the door, giving the appearance that the inmate was gong to be subjected to an inappropriate use of force. He also allegedly failed to submit a complete report and made false statements in his investigative interview. It was also alleged that a second officer failed to submit a complete and accurate report of the incident and that she was dishonest during her investigatory interview. A licensed psychiatric technician also allegedly failed to submit a complete and accurate report of the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant. However, the statutory time period for taking disciplinary action expired before the notice of dismissal was served. Therefore, no disciplinary action was taken against the sergeant. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the first officer and served him with a notice of dismissal. Following a Skelly hearing, the allegations that he made false statements were removed and the discipline was modified to a 30-day suspension. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the second officer and served her with a notice of dismissal. After a Skelly hearing, the allegations that she was dishonest during her investigative interview were removed and the discipline was reduced to a salary reduction of 5 percent for 18 months. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the licensed psychiatric technician. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department mailed the notice of disciplinary action against the sergeant to an old address, although his current address was on file with the hiring authority's personnel office. The statutory time period for taking disciplinary action expired before the error was discovered. Therefore, disciplinary action against the sergeant could not be taken. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 50 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DEFICIENT CASES 5 Case No. 09-0528 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 23, 2008, a clinical psychologist allegedly told custody staff that an inmate would benefit from having a DISPO INV ADV HA cellmate without first determining why the inmate was designated to be housed alone. As a result, an officer allegedly violated department policy when he moved the inmate into a cell with another inmate, based on the clinical psychologist's recommendation and the inmate's statement that he could be housed with the cellmate. The inmate had been designated to be housed alone based on concerns for his safety and his prior suicide attempts. In addition, the clinical psychologist allegedly failed to follow the department's Prison Rape Elimination Act procedures when the inmate later stated that he had been inappropriately touched by his cellmate. It was also alleged that a sergeant did not appropriately document the inmate's housing status when the inmate first arrived at the institution on May 7, 2008. Finally, another officer allegedly did not take action to ensure the inmate's safety after being informed of the inmate's claims of being inappropriately touched by his cellmate, as required by the Prison Rape Elimination Act. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the sergeant appropriately determined that the inmate should be housed alone when he first arrived at the institution, but that the sergeant documented the inmate's housing status on the wrong form. As a result, the inmate's housing status was not properly documented and, therefore, not accessible to housing staff. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the sergeant and the sergeant received corrective action. The hiring authority determined that the allegations against the clinical psychologist and the officer who moved the inmate were unfounded. The allegation against the other officer for not ensuring the safety of the inmate was initially not sustained. However, upon further review, the allegation was sustained and he received a 5 percent salary reduction for 3 months, which he appealed to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Initially, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the officer who failed to ensure the inmate's safety. The bureau found this initial decision to be unreasonable since the evidence sufficiently established the misconduct. Therefore, the bureau elevated the case to department executives, who reviewed the case and determined that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and impose a salary reduction of 5 percent for 3 months. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 51 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DEFICIENT CASES 5 Case No. 09-0529 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on May 16, 2008, a parole agent was dishonest when he reported to a supervisor that he had DISPO INV ADV HA completed a mandatory training class. In addition, the parole agent was allegedly dishonest during his investigative interview. It was also alleged that the parole agent misled another parole agent into vouching for his attendance at the training and that a third parole agent was dishonest when he told a supervisor that the first parole agent attended the class. Further, it was alleged that a supervising parole agent was dishonest when she told another employee that the first agent had attended the class. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all of the allegations against the parole agent who failed to attend the class and imposed a 60 working-day suspension. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained an allegation of inefficiency against the second parole agent but determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the dishonesty allegation. The hiring authority also determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the supervising parole agent. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau found the discipline imposed against the parole agent who failed to attend the class to be unreasonable, due to the parole agent's dishonesty and his attempt to have others help conceal his misconduct. It was the bureau's position that the allegations sustained by the hiring authority warranted more significant discipline, based on the department's policy governing employee misconduct. The hiring authority, however, determined that the discipline imposed was appropriate in light of the parole agent's lengthy service and because the parole agent's underlying misconduct of missing a class was relatively insignificant. The bureau did not request executive review of the hiring authority's decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 52 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 DEFICIENT CASES 5 Case No. 09-0530 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 27, 2006, it was alleged that a parole agent previously received gifts such as professional basketball DISPO INV ADV HA game tickets and jerseys, champagne, and DVDs from a parolee in exchange for overlooking parole violations. It was also alleged the parole agent told the parolee's relatives when outside law enforcement officers were going to perform a search of the parolee's home. It was further alleged the parole agent was dishonest during his investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation was closed without being completed and no disciplinary action was taken. BUREAU ASSESSMENT During the course of the investigation it was discovered that the alleged misconduct occurred more than three years before the investigation was opened by the Office of Internal Affairs. However, the misconduct was initially discovered as the result of an outside criminal law enforcement investigation before the three-year deadline had expired. The department did not act quickly enough to initiate and complete its administrative investigation within the applicable three-year time period. It was, therefore, determined that the department was precluded from taking disciplinary action against the parole agent. In addition, the department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action, nor did they timely contact the assigned investigator and the bureau to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation. In addition, the department's attorneys did not provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator, nor did they coordinate with the bureau during the investigation. The department's attorneys also did not attend the interviews of key witnesses. They also did not timely review the draft investigative report or provide written confirmation summarizing critical discussions concerning the investigative report and potential discipline. Finally, the department's attorneys did not coordinate with the bureau regarding the disciplinary process in this case. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 53 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0531 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 17, 2009, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force when he pushed an inmate into a cell without DISPO INV ADV HA provocation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Case No. 09-0532 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 15, 2009, an officer allegedly opened an inmate's cell door and allowed four other inmates to DISPO INV ADV HA assault him. The assaulted inmate received no injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Case No. 09-0533 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In November 2008, information was received that a chief medical officer failed to properly manage pharmacy DISPO INV ADV HA staff. Specifically, he allegedly signed inaccurate timesheets for a pharmacist, did not complete the proper paperwork for overtime worked by the pharmacist, failed to follow procedures for employing contract pharmacy staff, failed to ensure that contract pharmacy staff received appropriate training, did not ensure that staff signed in when arriving for work, and told one staff member not to sign in. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0534 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 13, 2009, the institution received information that an officer was providing mobile phones, tobacco, DISPO INV ADV HA and narcotics to inmates. On November 2, 2009, the Office of Internal Affairs searched his vehicle and found a loaded firearm, inmate correspondence, and prescription drugs. The officer admitted bringing in tobacco for inmates on approximately 18 occasions in exchange for $7,000. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation established probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed charges. Case No. 09-0535 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on September 18, 2009, two officers smuggled drugs, mobile phones, and tobacco to inmates DISPO INV ADV HA in exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed; therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative investigation. Case No. 09-0536 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 16, 2009, it was alleged that an officer stole various computer components from a Best Buy store DISPO INV ADV HA and was arrested. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Prior to imposing discipline, however, the officer was dismissed for failing to report to work. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 54 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0537 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 13, 2009, a parole agent II was allegedly involved in a solo traffic collision. Shortly after the DISPO INV ADV HA collision, the parole agent was found walking by the side of the road 50 feet from the accident by outside law enforcement officers. When the officers attempted to contact the parole agent, he allegedly ran into an open field and refused multiple orders to stop until he was told that a canine unit was responding. The parole agent allegedly laid down in the field, but only until the officers approached him, at which time he stood and ran further into the field. As the officers approached again, the parole agent stopped again, apologized, and fell on his back. He then allegedly reached into his pant pocket where a knife was clipped, causing one of the officers to draw his firearm. The parole agent then allegedly identified himself as "a cop" and removed a state-issued parole agent badge from his pocket. The parole agent was transported to a local hospital, where he allegedly refused to take a blood alcohol test, used profanity, kicked at the officers and medical staff, attempted to reach for an officer's gun and taser, splattered blood by flaying his arms around, and refused to be handcuffed. The officers used taser darts and physical force to subdue the parole agent and handcuff him to the hospital bed. DISPOSITION OF CASE For disciplinary purposes, this case was combined with another case against the parole agent that involved another, unrelated incident of off-duty misconduct. The agent was served a notice of dismissal. However, he resigned prior to the effective date of the dismissal. Case No. 09-0538 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 5, 2009, an officer allegedly brought controlled substances into the institution and sold them to DISPO INV ADV HA inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE This case was in the investigation stage when the officer was arrested in another matter. That case was accepted for felony prosecution by the district attorney's office. Therefore, the investigation in this case was stopped before it was completed. Case No. 09-0539 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 2, 2009, a parolee reported to his parole agent that an officer, whom he knew while incarcerated, DISPO INV ADV HA had solicited him to commit a murder. The Office of Internal Affairs and outside law enforcement agencies initiated an undercover operation to verify the information. On September 9, 2009, during the undercover operation, the officer solicited an undercover agent to murder his ex-girlfriend. 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. 09-0540 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In September 2009, an officer allegedly trafficked marijuana into the institution for financial gain. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned before the criminal investigation was completed. The Office of Internal Affairs determined there was insufficient evidence of criminal activity to continue the investigation and closed it. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 55 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0541 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 5, 2009, an associate warden was arrested for an allegation of domestic violence. It was alleged he had DISPO INV ADV HA pushed his estranged wife during an argument and that children in the home called 911. The district attorney's office declined to file charges due to insufficient evidence. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain an allegation of domestic violence, but issued the associate warden a letter of instruction for bringing discredit to the department. Case No. 09-0542 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 03, 2009, an officer allegedly obtained confidential information from an inmate's central file and then DISPO INV ADV HA used it to reveal the identity of a confidential inmate informant. It was also alleged that from about December 2008 until about August 19, 2009, the officer had an overly familiar relationship with an inmate and was negligent in the performance of her duties because she focused her time and attention on the inmate during work hours. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. However, the department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement. The department allowed the officer to resign in exchange for the officer agreeing to not seek or accept future employment with the state and not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0543 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In August 2009, it was alleged an officer was introducing contraband including tobacco, drugs, and mobile DISPO INV ADV HA phones into an institution. Subsequently, the officer was observed removing a package of tobacco from his boots and placing it in his desk drawer. The officer admitted he was exchanging the tobacco for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed; therefore, 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. 09-0544 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 28, 2009, the Office of the Governor received a complaint through its Waste Watchers Program that an DISPO INV ADV HA acting warden had inappropriately spent about $54,000 in state funds to remodel the warden's residence and another residence located on facility property. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed that the expenditures were for necessary maintenance to the structures and were not excessive. As a result, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0545 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 21, 2009, a senior special agent with the department's Office of Internal Affairs allegedly used profanity DISPO INV ADV HA and made derogatory remarks to another senior special agent. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations and served the senior special agent with a letter of reprimand. The senior special agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 56 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0546 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 21, 2009, an officer was convicted of felony hit-and-run with injury and driving under the influence of DISPO INV ADV HA alcohol as a result of an off-duty incident on October 24, 2008. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, following his conviction, the officer resigned before discipline could be imposed. A letter indicating he resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0547 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 15, 2009, an officer allegedly consumed a large amount of alcohol and grabbed her daughter and DISPO INV ADV HA threatened to kill her. The officer's husband freed the child. The officer then tried to stab her husband with a 13 inch butcher knife. The officer was arrested. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the officer resigned before disciplinary action was taken. A letter indicating the officer resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in her official personnel file. Case No. 09-0548 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 2, 2009, Office of Internal Affairs' agents searched a cook entering an institution and found two plastic DISPO INV ADV HA bags containing tobacco and rolling papers. Subsequently, the cook admitted trafficking contraband into the institution, threatened to kill himself, and acknowledged possessing weapons at home. The agents searched his home and took possession of several handguns and an assault rifle. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed that the cook legally purchased the handguns and assault rifle and, therefore, failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation to address the cook's alleged trafficking of tobacco and rolling papers, which the bureau did not accept for monitoring. Case No. 09-0549 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 10, 2009, a parole agent II was arrested for allegedly choking his girlfriend and threatening to kill her. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE For disciplinary purposes, this case was combined with another case involving a separate, unrelated incident of off-duty misconduct by the parole agent. The parole agent was served a notice of dismissal. However, he resigned prior to the effective date of the dismissal. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 57 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0550 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 2, 2009, an informant alleged that an officer was involved in trafficking mobile phones, tobacco, and DISPO INV ADV HA narcotics into an institution for inmates associated with a prison gang. He also reportedly destroyed evidence. Several days later, the officer was found with a mobile phone in his lunch bag. During a search of the officer's vehicle, agents recovered a loaded handgun, a knife, and gang paraphernalia. In addition, the officer allegedly provided false information during a pre-employment background investigation when he denied being involved in gang activity in his personal history statement. Lastly, the officer refused to comply with an order to cooperate in the investigation and provide a statement regarding the allegations. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. However, the officer resigned prior to the dismissal becoming effective. A letter was placed in his personnel file indicating that he resigned pending disciplinary action. Case No. 09-0551 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or before May 15, 2009, a licensed vocational nurse allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0552 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 13, 2009, information was discovered that a supervising cook allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship DISPO INV ADV HA with an inmate from October 2008 to January 2009. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed; 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. 09-0553 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 10, 2009, an off-duty captain was arrested for driving under the influence while carrying a firearm that DISPO INV ADV HA he was allegedly not qualified to carry. As a result of that case, it was later discovered that two department range masters allegedly signed and backdated the captain's firearms qualification card so that it would appear that he was qualified to carry the firearm at the time he was arrested. In addition, a sergeant was reportedly made aware of this potential misconduct, and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the range masters falsified the captain's firearms qualification record. The investigation revealed that the captain had qualified to carry an off- duty weapon, although the institution's records did not specify the off-duty weapon the officer qualified with. Therefore, it could not be determined if the officer was actually qualified to carry the weapon he had at the time he was arrested. As a result of this case, the institution improved its firearms qualification record-keeping practice. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 58 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0554 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 6, 2009, it was alleged that from July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2003, a counselor and a staff services analyst DISPO INV ADV HA misappropriated $1,963.88 in community project grant funds awarded to an institution by a county. DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Affairs failed to establish sufficient evidence that a crime had been committed. An administrative case was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0555 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 1, 2009, a supervising registered nurse allegedly stole 58 morphine sulphate tablets from the institution's DISPO INV ADV HA medical department. Seven days later, the supervising registered nurse allegedly reported to work under the influence of a controlled substance and tested positive for opiates and morphine. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation established probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed felony possession of morphine and misdemeanor theft charges against the supervising registered nurse. An administrative investigation was not opened because the supervising registered nurse resigned from the department. Case No. 09-0556 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 1, 2009, a supervising registered nurse allegedly stole 58 morphine tablets from an institution's medical DISPO INV ADV HA department. The nurse also allegedly tested positive for morphine and was found to be under the influence of a controlled substance. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the employee with a notice of dismissal. However, the nurse resigned before the dismissal took effect. A letter stating that she resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in her personnel file. Case No. 09-0557 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 10, 2009, it was alleged that a plumber was engaging in sexual activity with the wife of an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA housed at the institution where the plumber worked. In addition, it was alleged that the plumber was bringing contraband, including mobile phones and tobacco, into the institution for inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs closed the criminal case after it determined that there was no probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0558 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 3, 2009, a materials and stores supervisor was found in possession of tobacco and mobile phones while DISPO INV ADV HA entering an institution. He was interviewed and admitted to trafficking contraband for profit and $3,150 in cash was found in his car on the same day. DISPOSITION OF CASE The materials and stores supervisor resigned prior to completion of the investigation. The hiring authority sustained the allegations and a letter was placed in the materials and stores supervisor's official personnel file. The matter was also referred to the district attorney's office, which filed charges. The materials and stores supervisor pled guilty to bringing contraband into a correctional institution for inmates' use. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 59 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0559 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 2, 2009, a correctional counselor forged her supervisor's signature on three forms used for processing DISPO INV ADV HA sexually violent predators in order to expedite the processing of their cases. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and imposed a 49 working-day suspension. Following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority modified the penalty from a suspension to a salary reduction of 10 percent for 27 months. Case No. 09-0560 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 2, 2009, it was alleged that an officer was arrested for driving under the influence and fleeing the scene DISPO INV ADV HA of an accident. It was further alleged that the officer made dishonest statements to outside law enforcement officers during his arrest and to the Office of Internal Affairs officer during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board which the bureau will continue to monitor. Case No. 09-0561 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 25, 2009, the institution received information that a supervising cook was allegedly bringing DISPO INV ADV HA narcotics and tobacco into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The employee was arrested on institution grounds after being found in possession of methamphetamine and marijuana that were intended for delivery to an inmate. The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which accepted the case for prosecution. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0562 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 24, 2009, the investigative services unit received information alleging that from January 2007 DISPO INV ADV HA through February 2009, an officer provided an inmate with tobacco and a mobile phone. It was further alleged that she engaged in a sexual relationship with him once he was released on parole. 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 department did not open an administrative investigation due to the lack of evidence. Case No. 09-0563 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 11, 2009, a control booth officer allegedly neglected his duty by opening an inmate's cell door while DISPO INV ADV HA another inmate from a rival gang was unrestrained nearby. The two inmates immediately began fighting until separated by staff. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of neglect of duty and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 15 months. Following a Skelly hearing in which additional mitigating information was presented, the department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement. The department agreed to decrease the length of the salary reduction from 15 to 13 months and the officer agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 60 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0564 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 6, 2009, it was alleged that an officer filed a false police report in which he stated that his vehicle DISPO INV ADV HA had been stolen when in fact his wife had wrecked the car. In addition, it was alleged that the officer lied to outside law enforcement officers when questioned regarding the matter. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer. However, prior to disciplinary action being taken, the officer was dismissed for being absent without leave for more than five consecutive days. Case No. 09-0565 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 3, 2009, sheriff's deputies observed a correctional officer engaged in sexual intercourse with a 13- DISPO INV ADV HA year old female in a vehicle. The deputies arrested the correctional officer for lewd acts with a minor. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer and served him with a notice of dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0566 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 2, 2009, an institution received information that a janitor was engaged in a sexual relationship with a DISPO INV ADV HA parolee. It was alleged that the relationship likely began when the parolee was incarcerated at the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE Shortly after the investigation was initiated, the department dismissed the janitor for unrelated misconduct. Therefore, the Office of Internal Affairs closed this case before the investigation was completed. The investigative work that had been completed revealed no probable cause to believe that a crime occurred, and the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. Case No. 09-0567 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 30, 2009, it was alleged that a plumber brought marijuana, heroin, crystal methamphetamine, and DISPO INV ADV HA tobacco on institutional grounds for inmates in exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which filed criminal charges. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0568 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 21, 2009, an officer allegedly engaged in a verbal dispute with his ex-wife while off duty. During the DISPO INV ADV HA dispute, he allegedly grabbed her face and squeezed it tightly, leaving her cheek red and scratched. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. In addition, the incident was reported to outside law enforcement and the district attorney's office declined to file charges against the officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 61 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0569 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 17, 2009, outside law enforcement officers found a registered nurse employed by the department DISPO INV ADV HA engaged in sexual intercourse with a parolee in a vehicle at a park. The officers also found Vicodin and Xanax pills in an unmarked pill bottle in the vehicle. The nurse claimed that the pills belonged to her although she did not have the prescription with her at the time. The nurse and parolee informed the officers that they met while at an institution and that the parolee had been released from custody only two days before the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the city attorney's office for review. The Office of Internal Affairs also initiated an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0570 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 17, 2009, outside law enforcement officers found a registered nurse employed by the department DISPO INV ADV HA engaged in sexual intercourse with a parolee in a vehicle at a park. The officers also found Vicodin and Xanax pills in an unmarked pill bottle in the vehicle. The nurse claimed the pills belonged to her although she did not have the prescription with her at the time. The nurse and parolee informed the officers they met while at an institution and that the parolee had been released from custody only two days before the incident. It was alleged that the nurse lied to investigators. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, the nurse resigned before completion of the investigative report. Case No. 09-0571 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 14, 2009, it was alleged that a cook was engaged in an on-going sexual relationship with a parolee. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0572 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 14, 2009, it was alleged that a cook at a juvenile facility was engaged in an ongoing sexual DISPO INV ADV HA relationship with an adult parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation was sustained. The hiring authority determined that the cook was unaware that her relationship with a parolee, who had been released from an adult institution, was prohibited. In addition, the hiring authority determined that the cook's relationship with the parolee developed through family connections, not through her work at the juvenile facility. The department imposed a 60 working-day suspension, and the cook filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 62 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0573 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 6, 2009, the department received information that an employee working in an institution's inmate DISPO INV ADV HA canteen store was allegedly providing inmates with heroin and allowing the inmates to take canteen items without paying for them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to the lack of evidence. Case No. 09-0574 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 5, 2009, it was alleged that an officer was bringing marijuana, tobacco, and other controlled DISPO INV ADV HA substances into the institution for inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committee; 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. 09-0575 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on January 3, 2009, two officers became involved in a domestic argument off duty at one of DISPO INV ADV HA their residences resulting in police contact and the arrest of one officer for domestic violence. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and issued the officer a letter of reprimand. Case No. 09-0576 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 2, 2009, an officer engaged in a physical fight with his son while off-duty. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegation, however, the officer retired before discipline was imposed. A letter indicating he resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0577 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In January 2009, the investigative services unit received information that an officer was allegedly trafficking DISPO INV ADV HA mobile phones, tobacco and marijuana into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE During the course of the criminal investigation by the Office of Internal Affairs, the officer admitted to smuggling marijuana, tobacco and mobile phones into the institution. A search of the officer's residence revealed marijuana packaged in 47 individually wrapped bindles. The officer was arrested and the case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative case, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 63 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0578 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In January 2009, the department received information that an officer was allegedly bringing mobile phones, DISPO INV ADV HA tobacco, and marijuana into the institution for inmates and providing inmates with advanced warning of planned cell searches. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer brought contraband into the institution and was overly familiar with inmates. The officer was new to the position and was, therefore, on probationary status. The hiring authority rejected the officer from obtaining permanent employment status and also served him with a notice of dismissal. The officer did not appeal the rejection on probation or the dismissal to the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau regarding the sufficiency of the investigation. The hiring authority also did not consult with the bureau concerning the allegations, findings, and potential discipline prior to making a final decision in this case. The hiring authority did not inform the bureau of significant case developments. Case No. 09-0579 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 31, 2008, an inmate alleged that a supervising cook offered to smuggle drugs, mobile phones, and DISPO INV ADV HA other contraband into the institution in exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish evidence that a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office, nor was an administrative investigation opened. Case No. 09-0580 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 31, 2008, an inmate alleged that a materials and stores supervisor was smuggling drugs, mobile DISPO INV ADV HA phones, and other contraband to inmates in exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish evidence that a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office, nor was an administrative investigation opened. Case No. 09-0581 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on or about December 29, 2008, a vocational instructor was involved in a sexual relationship DISPO INV ADV HA with an inmate and provided the inmate with mobile phones and tobacco in exchange for sexual favors. DISPOSITION OF CASE The vocational instructor admitted to being involved in a sexual relationship with the inmate; however, she denied providing the inmate with mobile phones or tobacco. The Office of Internal Affairs determined there was probable cause to believe a crime was committed. The case was submitted to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 64 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0582 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 25, 2008, it was alleged that an officer was involved in a domestic dispute and was issued a citation DISPO INV ADV HA for domestic battery. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. Case No. 09-0583 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 25, 2008, a youth counselor allegedly used excessive force by hitting a ward twice while he was on DISPO INV ADV HA the ground. The counselor was also allegedly dishonest in his report about the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0584 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 15, 2008, an institution's investigative services unit obtained information alleging that an officer DISPO INV ADV HA was bringing tobacco and other contraband into the institution in exchange for money and morphine. On January 23, 2009, the officer was observed purchasing several cans of tobacco on his way to work. Upon his arrival at the institution, a search of the officer revealed several bags of tobacco secreted in his lunch bag. In addition, the officer tested positive for morphine in his system. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned before his scheduled interview with the Office of Internal Affairs. The hiring authority subsequently sustained the allegations and a letter indicating the officer resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0585 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 14, 2008, it was alleged that an officer and a parolee were involved in a verbal altercation at a DISPO INV ADV HA convenience store. As a result, outside law enforcement was contacted, and the parolee fled in the officer's car. It was alleged that the officer and parolee were involved in a sexual relationship and that they had met while the parolee was incarcerated. 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 did not accept for monitoring. Case No. 09-0586 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 13, 2008, it is alleged that an unknown inmate threw a rock and hit an officer on the back of the DISPO INV ADV HA head while out on an exercise yard at an institution. As a result, the officer had 25 inmates stand against a wall for clothed body searches. When one of the inmates cursed at a responding officer, the officer who was hit with the rock allegedly put his hand on the inmate's throat and pushed him against the wall. Responding officers allegedly stepped in to separate the officer from the inmate. It was also alleged that the officer did not accurately report the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, disciplinary action could not be imposed in this case because the officer was already dismissed as the result of another case. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 65 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0587 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 13, 2008, it was alleged that while at an off-duty banquet, a warden forcefully grabbed the shoulder DISPO INV ADV HA of a food manager to express his displeasure with the food service he was receiving. It was further alleged that the warden was dishonest during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations; however, the warden retired before discipline was imposed. Case No. 09-0588 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 13, 2008, an officer allegedly stepped on an inmate's back twice while handcuffing the inmate, DISPO INV ADV HA while the inmate was laying in a prone position on the ground. The officer then allegedly failed to report his use of force. It was further alleged that a second officer witnessed the incident and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0589 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on December 9, 2008, a parole agent provided false testimony in a superior court hearing. It DISPO INV ADV HA was alleged that the parole agent testified he did not locate any narcotics in a parolee's house, but a video tape recording showed the parole agent located the narcotics in the parolee's bedroom and advised outside law enforcement officers participating in the search of the narcotics' location. Allegedly, the parole agent discovered his erroneous testimony but failed to notify the prosecuting agency of his error. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of dishonesty. However, the hiring authority issued a letter of instruction to the parole agent for failing to notify the prosecuting agency of his error when testifying. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority did not consult with the bureau regarding the sufficiency of the investigation. The hiring authority also did not consult with the bureau concerning the allegations, findings, and potential discipline prior to making a final decision in this case. The hiring authority did not provide the bureau with written documentation of the disciplinary decisions in this case, nor did the hiring authority inform the bureau of significant case developments. Case No. 09-0590 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 7, 2008, an officer was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. It was further alleged DISPO INV ADV HA that the officer lied to outside law enforcement officers during the investigation and to agents from the Office of Internal Affairs during her investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. However, the officer resigned before the discipline took effect. A letter indicating the officer resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in her official personnel file. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 66 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0591 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on December 3, 2008, an academic teacher informed an associate warden that he had DISPO INV ADV HA overheard an officer make verbal threats against then President-elect Obama. It was also alleged that the associate warden failed to take appropriate timely action in response to the report. The United States Secret Service later determined the threat was not credible. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Both the officer and the associate warden received letters of instruction. Case No. 09-0592 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From December 2008 to April 2009, an officer allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation established probable cause to believe a crime was committed. The case was referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0593 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 29, 2008, it was alleged that an inmate threw a red substance out through the food port of her DISPO INV ADV HA closed cell door hitting an officer on his uniform. The officer ordered the inmate to submit to being handcuffed. When the inmate refused, it was alleged that the officer used unnecessary force when he sprayed the inmate with pepper spray through the food port. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and issued an official letter of reprimand to the officer. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0594 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 28, 2008, medical staff discovered a video camera hidden in the office restroom located where it DISPO INV ADV HA could record images of staff members using the toilet. It was alleged that the camera belonged to the chief physician assigned to that office. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The district attorney's office filed criminal charges against the chief physician for illegally recording and destroying evidence. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0595 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 28, 2008, medical staff discovered a video camera hidden in the office restroom. The camera was DISPO INV ADV HA located in a position where it could record images of staff members using the toilet. It was alleged that the camera belonged to the chief physician assigned to that office. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the chief physician resigned prior to completion of the investigation; therefore, disciplinary action was not taken. A letter was placed in his official personnel file indicating he resigned under adverse circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 67 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0596 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 19, 2008, an officer allegedly opened multiple cell doors at a time when officers were under orders DISPO INV ADV HA to restrict inmates from being outside of their cells. Inmates came out of their cells and began fighting one another. The officers used less-than-lethal rounds, pepper spray, and physical force to stop the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and issued the officer a letter of instruction. Case No. 09-0597 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 15, 2008, an officer allegedly punched his wife in the face during an argument. Outside law DISPO INV ADV HA enforcement responded to the residence and arrested him. The officer failed to report his off-duty arrest to the hiring authority. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. He did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0598 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 13, 2008, information was received that a sergeant and five officers had been conspiring with DISPO INV ADV HA certain inmates for several months to assault other inmates and steal their property. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0599 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 13, 2008, an officer allegedly pushed an inmate into a wall and caused the inmate's nose to bleed. DISPO INV ADV HA Another officer reportedly observed the conduct, but failed to report it. A lieutenant and sergeant also allegedly failed to report the incident when they became aware of the misconduct. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0600 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 7, 2008, a psychiatric technician allegedly violated the department's policy concerning DISPO INV ADV HA overfamiliarity by visiting a ward who was incarcerated in a county jail. The psychiatric technician also allegedly smuggled tobacco and drugs into the institution for wards. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the psychiatric technician contacted the ward when he was in a county jail. However, the ward was not under the department's jurisdiction at the time. Therefore, the contact was not prohibited by departmental policy. In addition, the hiring authority found there was no corroborating evidence to support the allegation that the psychiatric technician gave wards contraband. The hiring authority, therefore, did not sustain the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 68 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0601 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between November 2008 and June 2009, an officer was providing inmates with mobile phones DISPO INV ADV HA in exchange for money. It was also alleged that inmates had asked the officer to provide them with drugs. On June 16, 2009, the officer was discovered inside the institution with four mobile phones and four chargers taped to the inside of his thighs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined there was no probable cause to believe a crime was committed because it is not illegal for an officer to provide inmates with mobile phones. As a result, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0602 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In November 2008, a sergeant allegedly conspired with an inmate to have another inmate assaulted. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0603 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between November 2008 and June 2009, an officer was providing inmates with mobile phones DISPO INV ADV HA in exchange for money. On June 16, 2009, the officer was discovered inside the institution with four mobile phones and four phone chargers taped to the inside of his thighs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer resigned before the investigation was completed. Nevertheless, the hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. A letter indicating the officer resigned under unfavorable circumstances was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0604 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between November and December 2008, an officer had sexual contact with an inmate who was DISPO INV ADV HA assigned to a fire camp. It was further alleged the officer gave the inmate his phone number and talked to her on the phone after she was released on parole. The officer allegedly failed to report his contacts with the inmate as required. It was also alleged that the officer was dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter was placed in the officer's official personnel file indicating that he resigned pending disciplinary action. Case No. 09-0605 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in November 2008, an officer provided inmates with confidential information about the DISPO INV ADV HA operations of an institution's investigative services unit, as well as information about a sergeant's personal life and his alleged transfer to another institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 69 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0606 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on October 28, 2008, a sergeant used unnecessary force on an inmate by hitting his face, DISPO INV ADV HA throwing him on the ground, and kicking him in the ribs. It was also alleged that another sergeant witnessed the use of force and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the sergeants. Case No. 09-0607 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 24, 2008, two supervising parole agents allegedly told a parole agent to lie during an American with DISPO INV ADV HA Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance audit so that the parole region would appear to be in compliance with the ADA. The parole agent allegedly reported the misconduct to the regional administrator, who did not further investigate the matter. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0608 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 23, 2008, an officer allegedly poured hot coffee on an inmate's head after the inmate took a cup of DISPO INV ADV HA coffee from a staff coffee pot. The officer then allegedly grabbed the inmate and another inmate, who also took coffee, and placed them in a one person holding cell. The officer allegedly failed to report his use of force and failed to seek medical attention for the inmate who was burned by the coffee. In addition, the officer was allegedly dishonest during his investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations including dishonesty and dismissed the officer. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0609 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 17, 2008, a youth counselor allegedly picked up a handcuffed ward and slammed him to the ground DISPO INV ADV HA face first, then proceeded to kick and punch him. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0610 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on October 17, 2008, an officer was associating with gang members and became involved in a DISPO INV ADV HA battery outside of a bar. It was alleged that the officer and his friends approached two females outside of a bar and the officer's friends yelled gang slurs at the females. During the contact, two officers from another institution approached the group and they asked the officer and his friends to leave. The friends of the officer shouted additional gang slurs and assaulted one of the officers from the other institution while the officer fled the scene. It was further alleged that the officer was dishonest during the investigation by outside law enforcement into the battery and he was dishonest during the investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Affairs. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations against the officer and he was served with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the dismissal took effect. A letter was placed in the officer's official personnel file indicating that he resigned under adverse circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 70 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0611 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 13, 2008, a nurse discovered an inmate unresponsive, checked for a pulse, and notified staff. DISPO INV ADV HA Additional medical staff arrived and assessed the inmate for signs of life. A sergeant allegedly interfered by ordering medical staff to leave the cell while they were still determining the inmate's condition. The inmate was later pronounced dead. A suicide note was found on a table next to the inmate's bed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation against the sergeant was not sustained. The hiring authority determined that the sergeant did not interfere with medical staff's emergency response because medical staff were able to independently determine when to stop life-saving efforts and did not object to the sergeant's order to leave the cell. Case No. 09-0612 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 12, 2008, two officers allegedly falsified reports documenting their search of an inmate, during which DISPO INV ADV HA they found marijuana. The report allegedly misidentified which officer actually seized the marijuana from the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against both officers. One officer initially received a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months. However, following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority agreed to reduce the penalty to a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months and the officer agreed not to file an appeal. The other officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for eight months and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0613 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on October 9, 2008, three officers conspired to plant an inmate-manufactured weapon inside DISPO INV ADV HA the cell of two inmates. Specifically, on the day of the incident, the entire housing unit was being searched for contraband and weapons. Prior to their cell being searched, the inmates told staff that they believed the three officers were going to 'set them up' by planting a weapon inside their cell. The cell was subsequently searched and a weapon was located. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to show that the three officers planted a weapon inside the cell. As a result, the allegations were not sustained. Case No. 09-0614 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between October 8, 2008, and February 27, 2009, it was alleged that an officer engaged in overfamiliarity with DISPO INV ADV HA six inmates by writing them love letters, placing money into their accounts and making phone calls to them on their mobile phones during which the officer discussed personal information as well as information relating to her official duties. It was further alleged that the officer failed to inform the institution that she was living with a parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the officer resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in her official personnel file. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 71 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0615 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On Thursday, September 4, 2008, an officer was arrested and charged with smuggling narcotics across the border DISPO INV ADV HA between the United States and Mexico. He was also charged with transporting and selling controlled substances. DISPOSITION OF CASE On September 30, 2009, the district attorney's office dismissed the charges against the officer. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0616 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In October 2008, an inmate allegedly asked a sergeant and officers if he could "have a freebee," when another DISPO INV ADV HA inmate returned to the housing unit. He was told not to do anything. When the other inmate returned to the housing unit he was allegedly assaulted. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0617 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in October 2008 and February 2009, an officer brought narcotics into an institution and DISPO INV ADV HA provided them to an inmate. It was further alleged that prior to October 2008 and until the end of February 2009, the officer engaged in an overly familiar relationship with inmates, provided inmates with mobile phones, tobacco and heroin, and received and distributed money to several inmates relating to narcotics transactions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative case, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0618 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was discovered on October 1, 2008, that on July 6, 2006, a parole agent allegedly improperly accessed the DISPO INV ADV HA California Law Enforcement Teletype System to obtain a criminal check on his estranged wife's boyfriend. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and imposed a one working-day suspension without pay. The parole agent did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0619 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 22, 2008, an officer was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon and spousal abuse. Specifically, DISPO INV ADV HA it was alleged that the officer was discourteous and brought discredit to the department when he injured the mother of his child during a physical fight in front of his home. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a salary reduction of 10 percent for 13 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 72 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0620 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on September 19, 2008, two officers brought marijuana, mobile phones, tobacco, and lighters DISPO INV ADV HA into the institution and sold them to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. Case No. 09-0621 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 16, 2008, an anonymous letter was found alleging that a correctional counselor conspired with an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate to have her husband, a lieutenant at the institution, murdered. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined the allegation was unfounded. Case No. 09-0622 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 9, 2008, it was alleged that a lieutenant and a sergeant failed to ensure administrative forms were DISPO INV ADV HA completed before assigning two inmates to the same cell in an administrative segregation unit. Shortly after the inmates were placed in the same cell, one inmate attacked the other inmate. The attacked inmate was seriously injured. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficent evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0623 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 4, 2008, it was alleged that two officers were engaging in overly familiar behavior with inmates by DISPO INV ADV HA providing them tobacco, food, CD's, and unapproved clothing. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0624 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 4, 2008, it was alleged that an officer was associating with members of an outlaw motorcycle DISPO INV ADV HA group in April of 2008. It was alleged he attended two events sponsored by the group and was wearing clothing associated with the group. It was alleged that his association with the group was potentially incompatible with his position as a peace officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The hiring authority determined the local members of the group were not engaged in criminal activity, nor was the officer aware of the group's alleged ties to criminal activity. It was determined that the officer was assisting the group in conducting two charity events, that he was loaned a vest from the group, which he wore on two occasions, and that he was never a member of the group. After learning that the group's origins were potentially criminal, the officer stopped all contact with them. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 73 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0625 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In September 2008, it was alleged that a parole agent failed to properly maintain records of supervision for DISPO INV ADV HA parolees he was assigned to supervise. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation that the agent failed to perform within the scope of his training and issued a letter of instruction. Allegations of dishonesty and falsification of records were not sustained. Case No. 09-0626 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between September 2008 and April 2009, an officer introduced mobile phones, tobacco, and DISPO INV ADV HA narcotics to inmates in exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed; therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative investigation. Case No. 09-0627 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On September 1, 2008, a parole agent allegedly falsified records by documenting that parolees had urinalysis tests DISPO INV ADV HA when they had not. On January 1, 2009, the parole agent allegedly allowed a parolee to live in a residence with children, which was prohibited by the terms of the parolee's parole. As a result, the parolee was discovered breast feeding a child to whom she was not related. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, the parole agent resigned prior to the conclusion of the investigation; therefore, disciplinary action was not taken. A letter indicating the parole agent resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0628 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on August 27, 2008, two officers used unnecessary physical force while escorting an inmate, DISPO INV ADV HA causing red marks and bruising to his neck. It was also alleged that the inmate was escorted into a program office with his shorts around his ankles and a sergeant had to pull one of the officers away from the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate refused to cooperate with investigators or disclose information to further the investigation. As a result, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0629 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on August 23, 2008, a supervising cook had sex with an inmate in the institution's kitchen. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed felony charges against the cook. In addition, the cook resigned and it was noted in her official personnel file that the resignation was under adverse circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 74 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0630 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 22, 2008, a lieutenant allegedly forged an inmate's signature on a rules violation report and then was DISPO INV ADV HA dishonest during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The lieutenant resigned while the investigation was pending. The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. A letter indicating that the lieutenant resigned under unfavorable circumstances was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0631 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on August 18, 2008, two officers assaulted an inmate who was handcuffed by slamming his DISPO INV ADV HA head into the wall and then ramming his head into the ground. It was further alleged that the officers failed to report the use of force and that the inmate did not receive medical attention for his injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0632 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on August 15, 2008, a licensed vocational nurse was providing mobile phones and controlled DISPO INV ADV HA substances to an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed; therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0633 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 14, 2008, an inmate told an officer who was investigating a rules violation action against the inmate DISPO INV ADV HA that, a few weeks earlier, a lieutenant allegedly choked him and slapped him in the face. When the officer approached the lieutenant and asked him about the matter, the lieutenant admitted to choking the inmate and made a comment suggesting that his report of the incident was dishonest. It was also alleged that another officer saw the lieutenant choke the inmate and failed to report it and that the officer denied the inmate access to a wheelchair. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the lieutenant. However, the lieutenant retired before disciplinary action could be taken. A letter indicating that the lieutenant retired under unfavorable circumstances was placed in his official personnel file. The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations against the officer for witnessing the incident and failing to report it; however, the hiring authority determined the officer neglected his duty by not observing the incident. The hiring authority also found that the officer improperly denied the inmate access to a wheelchair. The officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 75 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0634 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 12, 2008, an officer was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon, spousal battery, and criminal DISPO INV ADV HA threats. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation. However, before discipline was imposed the officer was dismissed as a result of being absent without leave for more than five consecutive days. Case No. 09-0635 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on August 10, 2008, an officer allowed an inmate to orally copulate him. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined there was no probable cause to believe a crime was committed. The case was not referred to the district attorney's office. Case No. 09-0636 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 1, 2008, it was alleged that an associate warden violated confidentiality rules when he disclosed DISPO INV ADV HA information to a lieutenant. The associate warden served as the department's Skelly hearing officer for a disciplinary action taken against the lieutenant. The associate warden allegedly disclosed the outcome of the Skelly hearing to the lieutenant. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and required the associate warden to attend training. Case No. 09-0637 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between August and October 2008, an officer provided mobile phones to inmates in exchange DISPO INV ADV HA for money. It was also alleged that the officer was overly familiar with certain inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE Prior to the completion of the investigation, the officer was dismissed from state service for failing to report to work. However, the investigation was completed and the hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0638 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about August 1, 2008, it was alleged that a sergeant intentionally omitted the names of several officers in a DISPO INV ADV HA report regarding a use of force incident. A lieutenant noticed the error and requested that the sergeant obtain the missing reports from the officers. The sergeant allegedly forged reports from the other officers and submitted them to the lieutenant. The reports were nearly identical and even included the same typographical errors. It was also alleged that the sergeant was dishonest during his investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the sergeant. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 76 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0639 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 1, 2008, a sergeant and an officer allegedly engaged in unprofessional conversations and physical DISPO INV ADV HA conduct of a sexual nature with each other. It was further alleged that the officer tried to touch the buttocks of another officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the sergeant. The allegations against the officer were sustained and she received a salary reduction of 5 percent for six months. Case No. 09-0640 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 30, 2008, the Office of Internal Affairs received information from a staff member at an institution that a DISPO INV ADV HA former office technician was involved in smuggling drugs and mobile phones into the institution with the help of another office technician who was still employed by the department. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative investigation. Case No. 09-0641 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 28, 2008, it was alleged a sergeant failed to ensure administrative forms were completed before assigning DISPO INV ADV HA two inmates to the same cell in an administrative segregation unit. Shortly after the inmates were placed in the same cell, one inmate allegedly sexually assaulted the other inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the sergeant. Case No. 09-0642 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 24, 2008, an electrician allegedly brought alcohol onto institution grounds. It was alleged that while DISPO INV ADV HA being questioned by a special agent from the Office of Internal Affairs, the agent used duress and exerted undue influence on the electrician causing him to resign from his position. Allegedly, the special agent told the electrician that he would be taken to jail if he did not resign from his position. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the special agent with a letter of reprimand. The hiring authority also committed to provide training to special agents statewide on the inappropriateness of obtaining an employee's resignation under duress. The agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0643 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 24, 2008, the department received information that a cook was receiving letters and phone calls from an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate. Thereafter, on December 24, 2008, the department received additional information alleging that the cook was selling tobacco, mobile phones, and marijuana to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed; 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 77 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0644 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 24, 2008, an officer allegedly threatened another officer, used profanity, and referred to him as a "snitch" DISPO INV ADV HA due to his participation in another internal affairs investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer was discourteous when he used profanity and issued him a letter of instruction for his misconduct. Case No. 09-0645 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 21, 2008, outside law enforcement stopped a car that had been reported stolen. The driver of the car was DISPO INV ADV HA a discharged parolee who alleged that her boyfriend, a parole agent, had given her permission to drive the car. It was alleged that the parole agent was in an overly familiar relationship with the parolee that he had been supervising and that he was intentionally misleading when he reported the car had been stolen. It was further alleged the parole agent was dishonest to his supervisor when he claimed that he had only maintained a professional relationship with the parolee while supervising her. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain all of the allegations and served the parole agent with a notice of dismissal. The parole agent did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0646 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 20, 2008, an officer allegedly slammed a handcuffed inmate to the ground and another officer used DISPO INV ADV HA pepper spray on the inmate's face after the inmate was taken to the ground and no longer resisting. The officers allegedly lied about the incident in written reports. It was also alleged that the officers violated an order not to discuss the case after receiving notice they were under investigation and that they lied during their investigative interviews. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed both officers. They both filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0647 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 18, 2008, inmates allegedly came to the cell of another inmate and tried to hit him, but missed. The DISPO INV ADV HA inmates were allegedly acting on behalf of a sergeant. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 78 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0648 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on July 18, 2008, a youth counselor left his assigned post to make phone calls on his personal DISPO INV ADV HA mobile phone. It was further alleged that on July 18, 2008, the counselor provided a ward a controlled substance and also allowed the ward to use his personal mobile phone. On that same date two knives, a black pocket knife four to five inches in length closed, and a dagger-type knife eight to nine inches in length, were allegedly found in the counselor's personal vehicle, which was parked on institutional grounds. Additionally, the counselor was allegedly found with two mobile phones while on institutional grounds. He was also allegedly rude and discourteous during the on-site search and dishonest during his investigatory interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations that the youth counselor gave a controlled substance to a ward and allowed that ward to use his personal mobile phone were not sustained because there was no reliable and corroborating evidence to support the allegations. However, the allegations that the counselor brought his personal mobile phone inside the perimeter of the institution and used it while on duty were sustained. Also sustained were the allegations that the counselor was rude and discourteous during the on-site search and dishonest during his investigatory interview. The counselor was served with a notice of dismissal, for which he filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0649 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 17, 2008, it was alleged that a sergeant convinced an inmate to drop his complaint against an officer in DISPO INV ADV HA exchange for the sergeant dropping a rules violation filed against the inmate. It was further alleged that the sergeant failed to properly report a complaint of a sexual assault by another inmate. Also, it was alleged that the sergeant was dishonest during an investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that although the sergeant had been misleading during an investigative interview, the misconduct did not rise to the level of dishonesty. Therefore, the hiring authority sustained allegations against the sergeant for being misleading as well as for failing to properly report his actions and for failing to follow established procedures for reporting allegations of sexual assault. The sergeant was demoted to officer. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0650 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 13, 2008, a lieutenant, three sergeants, and six officers allegedly conducted an unauthorized cell DISPO INV ADV HA extraction, used unnecessary force by using pepper spray on the inmate, allowed the inmate to repeatedly fall to the ground, and failed to completely document the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the lieutenant approved an unauthorized cell extraction. The department joined this case with another disciplinary action pending against the lieutenant and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months, which he appealed to the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the sergeants and officers. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 79 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0651 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 11, 2008, a parole agent allegedly divulged confidential information regarding an anti-gang operation DISPO INV ADV HA involving multiple law enforcement agencies to a parolee. It was also alleged that the parole agent knew that the parolee resided with an officer, yet failed to report the officer's misconduct to the department. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the parole agent failed to report that a parolee resided in an officer's home. The parole agent received a letter of reprimand and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0652 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 9, 2008, an inmate attempted to escape from an outside hospital. Officers apprehended the inmate in a DISPO INV ADV HA nearby parking lot. It was alleged that four officers were negligent in allowing the inmate to escape. In addition, another officer allegedly punched the inmate after the inmate was apprehended and restrained. Lastly, all of the officers allegedly completed false reports concerning their involvement in the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the two officers who were directly responsible for supervising the inmate at the time he escaped. Both officers were dismissed. One officer resigned prior to the discipline becoming effective. The other officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The allegations against the other two officers were not sustained. The allegations against the officer who allegedly punched the inmate and who reportedly falsified his report were sustained. He was dismissed from state service and he filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0653 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 8, 2008, an outside law enforcement officer allegedly saw a parole agent jump out of a car just before the DISPO INV ADV HA car exploded and was completely destroyed. It was further alleged that the car was a state vehicle assigned to the parole agent and that the parole agent was driving it even though he was off-duty on medical leave at the time. It was also alleged that the parole agent was driving with an expired driver's license and was under the influence of drugs at the time of the incident. In addition, it was alleged that the parole agent was using a state-issued credit card to purchase gasoline while he was on medical leave. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and the parole agent was dismissed. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action, nor did they timely contact the assigned investigator and the bureau to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation. In addition, the department's attorneys did not provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator, nor did they coordinate with the bureau during the investigation. The department's attorneys also did not attend the interviews of key witnesses. They also did not timely review the draft investigative report or provide legal consultation to the hiring authority regarding the determination of allegations, findings, and discipline, nor did they provide written confirmation summarizing critical discussions concerning potential discipline in this case. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 80 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0654 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On July 4, 2008, an officer allegedly failed to notify her supervisor that wards were flooding a living unit. On that DISPO INV ADV HA same date, the officer allegedly failed to timely count wards, as required; therefore, she was unaware that a ward had attempted to hang himself. In addition, the officer was charged with failing to accurately document a hall check sheet. The officer was also allegedly dishonest during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department sustained all the allegations against the officer. The officer was dismissed and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0655 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on June 23, 2008, while escorting an inmate to his cell, five officers used physical force to DISPO INV ADV HA subdue the inmate and stop him from kicking the officers and then placed him in a holding cell. The officers allegedly failed to activate an alarm, alert the control booth officer of the incident, contact a supervisor, report the use of force, and request medical attention for the inmate in the holding cell. It was also alleged that upon discovery of the incident, the officers provided false or misleading statements about it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Four of the five officers received corrective action to address their failure to have a personal alarm with them at the time of the incident. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not attend investigative interviews for key witnesses, nor did they provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator. The department's attorneys also did not timely review the investigative report or provide written confirmation summarizing the critical discussions concerning it. Finally, the department's attorneys did not provide written confirmation summarizing critical discussions about the disciplinary decisions made in this case. Case No. 09-0656 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 21, 2008, it was alleged that a youth counselor watched two wards engage in consensual sexual DISPO INV ADV HA misconduct and did not stop or report the misconduct. Additionally, the youth counselor allegedly attempted to dissuade another youth counselor from reporting the wards' misconduct and made false or intentionally misleading statements during an investigative interview. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the youth counselor. The youth counselor filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0657 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that from June 15, 2008, to December 29, 2008, a parole agent misused his state-issued fuel card DISPO INV ADV HA by purchasing gasoline for his personal vehicles. It was alleged that the unauthorized purchases totaled almost $800. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed criminal charges. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 81 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0658 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that from June 15, 2008, to December 29, 2008, a parole agent misused his state issued fuel card by DISPO INV ADV HA purchasing gasoline for his personal vehicles. It was alleged that the unauthorized purchases totaled about $800. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the parole agent with a notice of dismissal. However, the parole agent retired before the dismissal took effect. Case No. 09-0659 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 11, 2008, it was alleged that an office supervisor was engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate. It DISPO INV ADV HA was also alleged that she was providing the inmate with tobacco and mobile phones. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and entered into a settlement agreement with the office supervisor allowing her to resign prior to the imposition of disciplinary action. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened a criminal case, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0660 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 9, 2008, an inmate alleged an officer choked him and pulled his hair. It was also alleged that the inmate DISPO INV ADV HA reported the incident to two housing officers who failed to take action. The inmate later sought medical care and reported the allegation to a physician who also allegedly failed to take action. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the unnecessary use of force allegation. The hiring authority found that the two officers failed to report the inmate's allegations and they were issued letters of instruction. The physician received a two working-day suspension for failing to report the inmate's allegation. Case No. 09-0661 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 4, 2008, a counselor allegedly falsified his time record and was dishonest about it when he was later DISPO INV ADV HA questioned by his supervisor. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the counselor with a notice of dismissal. After a Skelly hearing, the department and the counselor entered into a settlement agreement. The department agreed to reduce the penalty to a 60 working-day suspension without pay because the counselor admitted to his misconduct and expressed genuine remorse. The counselor agreed to not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0662 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between June 2008 and May 2009, it was alleged that an office assistant was having a sexual relationship with a DISPO INV ADV HA parolee. It was further alleged that the sexual relationship may have continued during a time period when the parolee was incarcerated for violating the terms of his parole. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed; therefore, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau did not accept for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 82 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0663 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 24, 2008, it was alleged that an officer provoked an inmate resulting in the unnecessary use of pepper DISPO INV ADV HA spray and physical force on the inmate. It was further alleged that in his written report of the incident, the officer failed to truthfully describe his conduct leading up to the use of force. It was also alleged that the officer was dishonest during the investigative interview. Also, it was alleged that a second officer failed to intervene to prevent the misconduct by the first officer and failed to accurately report the first officer's use of force. It was further alleged that a third officer failed to accurately report the first officer's use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the first officer and served him with a notice of dismissal. The first officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the second officer and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the third officer and she received a letter of reprimand. Case No. 09-0664 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 15, 2008, it was alleged that a sergeant was dishonest during an interview being conducted as part of a DISPO INV ADV HA grievance when he denied restricting officers from leaving the assigned work area during their lunch period. Several officers further alleged that the sergeant routinely left the assigned work area early. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the sergeant left the work area early and issued the sergeant a letter of instruction. Case No. 09-0665 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 14, 2008, it was alleged that a Prison Industry Authority supervisor was bringing heroin into the DISPO INV ADV HA institution to sell to inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0666 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on May 5, 2008, a teacher was involved in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate by DISPO INV ADV HA bringing mobile phones, tobacco, and food into the institution for him. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of over familiarity and served the teacher with a notice of dismissal. However, the teacher retired prior to the dismissal taking effect. A letter was placed in the teacher's official personnel file noting her retirement was under unfavorable circumstances. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 83 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0667 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On May 4, 2008, it was discovered that a rifle magazine containing fifteen rounds of ammunition was missing DISPO INV ADV HA from a yard control booth. It was alleged that three officers failed to properly conduct an equipment inventory and failed to notify their supervisors of the missing equipment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations against all three officers for failing to properly conduct an equipment inventory. The hiring authority also sustained allegations against one of the officers for failing to report the alleged misconduct. One of the officers received a letter of reprimand and has filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Another officer received a salary reduction of 5 percent for three months. The officer against whom both allegations were sustained received a salary reduction of 5 percent for five months. He also filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0668 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between May and October 2008, an officer provided inmates with tobacco, alcohol, and tattoo DISPO INV ADV HA ink in exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0669 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in May 2008, a clerk stole a payroll warrant payable to an officer. It was further alleged that DISPO INV ADV HA the clerk cashed the stolen warrant at a local convenience store. 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 did not accept for monitoring. Case No. 09-0670 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between May and June 2008, a parole agent falsified official records when he documented DISPO INV ADV HA numerous contacts with a parolee who had been deceased since April 2008. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and the parole agent was served with a notice of dismissal. However, the agent retired before the dismissal took effect. A letter indicating that he retired with disciplinary action pending was placed in his official personnel file. Case No. 09-0671 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 28, 2008, an officer allegedly exposed an inmate's penis to another officer and also exposed his own DISPO INV ADV HA penis. He allegedly waved it in front of the inmate's face and tried to get the inmate to perform oral copulation. Two other officers were allegedly present during the incident and failed to report it. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 84 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0672 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 24, 2008, a chaplain was arrested for domestic violence while living on institutional grounds. He DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly choked his wife with his hands and an electrical cord. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and served the chaplain with a notice of dismissal. Subsequently, the department and the chaplain entered into a settlement agreement. The department agreed to give the chaplain time to move out of his residence and retire before the dismissal became effective. Case No. 09-0673 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 21, 2008, a librarian was allegedly overly familiar with an inmate. A video showed her holding hands, DISPO INV ADV HA kissing, and engaging in sexual acts with the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and served the librarian with a notice of dismissal. However, the librarian resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the librarian resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in her official personnel file. Case No. 09-0674 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 10, 2008, an officer allegedly failed to properly process mobile phones seized during a search of DISPO INV ADV HA inmates' cells and was allegedly overly familiar with inmates by discussing personnel affairs and providing newspapers to them. The officer was also allegedly dishonest when he denied telling inmates of a pending investigation concerning mobile phones. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of overly familiar behavior, providing the inmates with contraband, and failing to properly process the phones. The officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0675 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 8, 2008, it was alleged that an officer shoved another officer in retaliation for his reporting unneccessary DISPO INV ADV HA force used on an inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined there was probable cause to believe a crime was committed and referred the matter to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 85 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0676 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 8, 2008, it was alleged that two officers got into a shoving match on duty after one of the officers called DISPO INV ADV HA the other officer a "rat" for reporting misconduct several days earlier. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the one officer called the other officer a "rat." The hiring authority sustained allegations against both officers for shoving one another. The officer who allegedly called the other officer a "rat" received a 5 percent salary reduction for ten months, which he has appealed to the State Personnel Board. The other officer initially received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. However, this case was later combined with other disciplinary actions pending against him. He and the department entered into a settlement agreement for all the cases, pursuant to which he received a 10 percent salary reduction for 20 months. Case No. 09-0677 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On April 3, 2008, an inmate alleged that an officer brought him tobacco and methamphetamine on four separate DISPO INV ADV HA occasions. DISPOSITION OF CASE Despite attempts by the Office of Internal Affairs to arrange and record a drug transaction between a confidential inmate informant and the officer, no evidence was obtained to indicate that the officer was involved in drug trafficking. Therefore, the allegation against the officer was not sustained. Case No. 09-0678 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on or about April 1, 2008, an officer engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA and a member of his family. It was also alleged that the officer smuggled tobacco products and marijuana into the institution for monetary gain. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action, nor did they provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator. The department's attorneys also did not timely review the draft investigative report or provide written confirmation summarizing critical discussions concerning the investigative report and potential discipline. Case No. 09-0679 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE An inmate alleged that on March 25, 2008, a teacher engaged in sexual activities with her. The teacher also DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly brought tobacco into the institution and gave it to the inmate in exchange for the sexual favors. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs referred the matter to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The district attorney's office declined to file charges. An administrative investigation was opened by Office of Internal Affairs, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 86 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0680 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 25, 2008, an inmate reported he and an officer were selling heroin at an institution. In addition, on DISPO INV ADV HA January 28, 2009, special agents from the Office of Internal Affairs approached the officer in the institution parking lot in an attempt to interview him as part of the investigation. The special agents discovered the officer had an unauthorized firearm in his vehicle. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer violated policy by bringing his firearm onto the institution grounds and not properly storing the firearm. The officer initially received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. However, after a Skelly hearing, the officer and the department entered into a stipulation wherein his penalty was reduced to a 5 percent salary reduction for four months. The allegation that the officer was involved with selling heroin to inmates was the subject of a criminal investigation monitored by the bureau. Case No. 09-0681 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 9, 2008, an inmate cut his wrists and neck and was taken to the institution's medical treatment area. DISPO INV ADV HA After a nurse examined the inmate, the nurse had a telephone conversation with a psychiatrist regarding the inmate's fear of being assigned to his housing unit. The psychiatrist concluded the inmate needed to be relocated and he was moved to another housing unit. The inmate was later found hanging in his cell and died. It was alleged that the psychiatrist and the nurse failed to take appropriate action following the inmate's initial attempted suicide. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, a letter of instruction was issued to the psychiatrist regarding the proper procedure to be used when modifying psychiatric care instructions. Case No. 09-0682 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 6, 2008, it was alleged that an officer repeatedly struck an inmate's head against a wall during an DISPO INV ADV HA argument. It was also alleged that, during the same incident, another officer struck a compliant inmate with his baton. The reporting officer allegedly completed a false written report regarding the incident. However, approximately one month after the incident, he reported that he observed the officers use excessive force on the inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers who allegedly used excessive force on the inmates. However, the hiring authority determined that the reporting officer failed to timely report the incident. The reporting officer initially received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. However, the disciplinary action in this case was combined with other pending disciplinary actions against the officer. The hiring authority and the officer entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 20 months. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 87 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0683 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between March 2008 and September 2008, a materials and stores supervisor engaged in an DISPO INV ADV HA overly familiar relationship with an inmate, including sexual intercourse and oral copulation on four occasions. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0684 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In March of 2008, a case records analyst allegedly emailed personal information about several inmates to her DISPO INV ADV HA sister-in-law. It was also alleged that the analyst failed to report that she had family members in the custody of the department. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a salary reduction of 5 percent for three months. Case No. 09-0685 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 26, 2008, it was alleged that a teaching assistant was engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a DISPO INV ADV HA ward, and that she brought pornography, tobacco, and over-the-counter-medication on institutional grounds. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0686 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 22, 2008, an officer allegedly used excessive force when he used pepper spray on an inmate and DISPO INV ADV HA then kicked the inmate while he was on the ground. It was also alleged that three other officers involved in the incident falsified their reports to justify the use of force against the inmate. Additionally, the officer who reported the incident allegedly did not report his observations to a supervisor until April 2, 2008. It was also alleged that the reporting officer neglected his duties when he failed to respond to assist the other officers during the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer who allegedly used excessive force. The hiring authority exonerated the officers who allegedly falsified their reports to justify the use of force. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the reporting officer for failing to timely report the incident and for not responding to the incident. The officer originally received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. However, this case was combined with other disciplinary actions against the officer and a settlement was reached in which the officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 20 months. Case No. 09-0687 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It is alleged that on February 20 and 21, 2008, a kitchen staff worker was involved in a sexual relationship with DISPO INV ADV HA an inmate. The inmate allegedly performed oral sex on the staff member on two separate occasions in exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute due to lack of sufficient evidence. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 88 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0688 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On February 5, 2008, a lieutenant allegedly grabbed the throat of his ex-girlfriend and then choked and shook her DISPO INV ADV HA before pushing her to the ground. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 20 months. The lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0689 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 28, 2008, it was alleged that a medical technician was smuggling tobacco and marijuana into an DISPO INV ADV HA institution and selling them to an inmate. On that date, the medical technician was contacted and admitted to being paid to bring in tobacco and marijuana on at least one occasion. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office and criminal charges were filed. The medical technician pled guilty to felony charges for being an accessory to possession of narcotics. An administrative case was also opened against the medical technician resulting in his dismissal, which the bureau did not accept for monitoring. Case No. 09-0690 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On January 19, 2008, a case records manager allegedly failed to review an abstract of judgment and released an DISPO INV ADV HA inmate from the institution to parole seven months early. The manager reportedly told subordinate staff to improperly process inmate records and failed to follow orders from her supervisor to reconcile case records that were missing abstracts of judgment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0691 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on January 17, 2008, a sergeant committed a battery on another officer while off institutional DISPO INV ADV HA grounds. It was also alleged that the sergeant lied to the local law enforcement during the investigation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority initially sustained the allegations. These allegations were combined with other unrelated allegations and the sergeant was dismissed. Following the Skelly hearing, the hiring authority and the sergeant entered into a settlement agreement and this case was withdrawn and the sergeant was demoted from sergeant to officer for a period of one year, and a 15 working-day suspension. The penalty imposed on the sergeant was not based on this case, but on other allegations against the sergeant. Case No. 09-0692 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in 2008 and 2009, an officer smuggled drugs, mobile phones, and tobacco to inmates in DISPO INV ADV HA exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed; therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative investigation. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 89 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0693 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in 2008 and 2009 an officer smuggled drugs, tobacco, and mobile phones to inmates in DISPO INV ADV HA exchange for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined there was no probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. In addition, there was no administrative investigation opened due to insufficient evidence. Case No. 09-0694 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in 2008, a supervising cook was providing marijuana to inmates in exchange for money. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0695 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in 2008 and 2009, an officer engaged in sexual intercourse with two parolees. DISPO INV ADV HA DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation uncovered photographs and video tapes of the officer engaged in sexual acts with one of the parolees. In addition, the officer and the two parolees admitted to the conduct. The district attorney's office declined to file criminal charges. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0696 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in 2008 and 2009, an officer engaged in sexual intercourse with two parolees. It was also DISPO INV ADV HA alleged that the officer used methamphetamine. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the officer. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 90 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0697 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On December 29, 2007, it was alleged that a lieutenant ordered the emergency removal of an inmate from his cell DISPO INV ADV HA after the inmate placed drops of his own blood throughout his cell, said that he was leaving his DNA for investigators to find, and refused to allow his cellmate to exit the cell. It was alleged that the lieutenant ordered the emergency removal of the inmate without contacting the administrative officer of the day, as required. While removing the inmate, a sergeant was allegedly negligent when he fired a less-than-lethal round from a distance of less than ten feet. Also, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force when he hit the inmate with a closed fist while later transporting him to the institution's medical clinic. It was further alleged that two other officers used unnecessary force when they lifted the inmate by his restraints when placing him on a gurney. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain any of the allegations against the sergeant or the three officers. The hiring authority determined that the lieutenant failed to contact the administrative officer of the day and initially imposed a salary reduction of 5 percent for six months. However, the penalty was reduced to a salary reduction of 5 percent for three months after the Skelly hearing. The lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0698 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on December 19, 2007, an officer gave misleading information during an investigative DISPO INV ADV HA interview regarding her failure to report for a random drug test and the actions of a another officer in 2006. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the time period for taking disciplinary action for the misconduct that occurred in 2006 expired. The officer initially received a 60 working-day suspension for the misleading statements she made during the investigative interview in December 2007. The discipline was later modified to a 12 working-day suspension and a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months as the result of a settlement agreement. Case No. 09-0699 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On or about November 7, 2007, a parole agent allegedly engaged in overly familiar conduct by dating the DISPO INV ADV HA roommate of a parolee he supervised. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and the parole agent received a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months. Case No. 09-0700 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On November 4, 2007, it was alleged that a parole agent improperly used a parolee as an informant, falsely DISPO INV ADV HA denied using the parolee as an informant, erased his telephone number from the parolee's mobile phone and was untruthful with the district attorney's office. DISPOSITION OF CASE After conclusion of a criminal investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Affairs, the case was submitted to the local district attorney's office for prosecution. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 91 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0701 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE In November 2007, a Prison Industry Authority superintendent allegedly purchased products from a company not DISPO INV ADV HA approved as a State of California vendor. Further, in February 2008, the superintendent allegedly violated procurement policies and instructions by securing vehicle repairs prior to obtaining appropriate estimates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Case No. 09-0702 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On October 29, 2007, it was alleged that a parole agent misused the California Law Enforcement DISPO INV ADV HA Telecommunications System (CLETS) to access law enforcement records on two of his associates who were not parolees. One of the associates was allegedly on the federal government's "terrorist watch list." DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0703 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between September 2007 and September 2008, it was alleged a youth parole agent falsified reports documenting DISPO INV ADV HA he had face-to-face contacts with a parolee when he had not. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the parole agent retired before the investigation was completed and a letter was placed in his personnel file indicating he retired under unfavorable circumstances. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action, nor did they timely contact the assigned investigator and the bureau to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation. In addition, the department's attorneys did not provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator, nor did they coordinate with the bureau during the investigation. The department's attorneys also did not attend the interviews of key witnesses. They also did not timely review the draft investigative report or provide written confirmation summarizing critical discussions concerning the investigative report. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 92 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0704 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 1, 2007, an officer allegedly removed an inmate from a cell for spitting on him. Two other officers DISPO INV ADV HA allegedly used unnecessary and excessive force on the handcuffed inmate when they took him to the ground. The inmate allegedly received several injuries, including teeth that were knocked out, a cut on the left side of his face, and a bloody mouth. Another officer ws allegedly present at this time and failed to report the use of force observed. The officers allegedly threatened the inmate and told him he would receive "special treatment" if he did not lie and say that another inmate caused the injuries. It was also alleged that a control booth officer failed to witness the use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations against the two officers for unnecessary and excessive force. The hiring authority initially sustained the allegation that the officers violated the institution's spit mask policy, but withdrew the allegation after it was determined that there were conflicting policies regarding the use of spit masks at the institution. The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the control booth officer neglected his duties by failing to observe and report the use of force incident. The control booth officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. He did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the two officers who allegedly failed to report the use of force. One officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The other received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months, which he has appealed to the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0705 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that from approximately July 1, 2007, to July 8, 2008, an officer was smuggling mobile phones and DISPO INV ADV HA other contraband to inmates in exchange for payments from the inmates' families. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the officer had smuggled contraband to inmates and accepted a gratuity from an inmate's family. However, the officer retired before discipline could be imposed. Case No. 09-0706 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 1, 2007, it was alleged that a mailroom employee committed theft of inmate mail, photographs and DISPO INV ADV HA magazines. It was also alleged that the mailroom employee misrepresented himself as a peace officer to the public and participated in a scheme to steal inmate money orders. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed four counts of receiving stolen property against the mailroom employee. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0707 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in May 2007, an officer was involved in a sexual relationship with an inmate. It was also DISPO INV ADV HA alleged that the officer falsified orders for military duty, submitted them to the department, and received pay for military leave even though he was retired from military duty. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was submitted to the United States Attorney General's Office for prosecution. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 93 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0708 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between May 1, 2007, and June 19, 2008, a materials and stores supervisor was engaged in DISPO INV ADV HA overly familiar relationships with inmates by providing them with drugs, mobile phones, and by engaging in sexual acts with them. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation. However, the materials and stores supervisor resigned prior to the completion of the investigation. A letter indicating the materials and stores supervisor resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in her official personnel file. Case No. 09-0709 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 25, 2007, an officer allegedly brought his loaded personal firearm to his assigned post just outside the DISPO INV ADV HA secure perimeter of an institution. The officer was allegedly cleaning the firearm when it accidentally discharged into a housing unit located nearby inside the secure perimeter. Further, it was alleged that the officer had unauthorized reading materials and movies at his post. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and the officer was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action. They also did not provide legal consultation to the hiring authority regarding the allegations and findings in this case. The department's attorneys did not provide written confirmation of penalty discussions and they did not attend the Skelly hearing. Finally, the department's attorneys did not draft the disciplinary action appropriately in this case. Case No. 09-0710 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On March 4, 2007, a contract officer at a private contract facility allegedly grabbed an inmate by the neck, turned DISPO INV ADV HA her around, and kissed her. The inmate then allegedly performed two acts of oral copulation on the contract officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which filed charges. The officer plead guilty to sexual relations with an inmate, and was sentenced to 180 days in jail and three months of probation. Because the officer was a contract employee, the Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative investigation. The department revoked the contract officer's security clearance, denying him access to inmates in the future. Case No. 09-0711 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE From March 1 to July 1, 2007, a chief medical officer allegedly approved timesheets for contract doctors that he DISPO INV ADV HA knew included hours the doctors did not actually work. The chief medical officer's actions allegedly resulted in five doctors receiving pay for services they did not render. Combined, the five doctors were allegedly overpaid approximately $160,000. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the chief medical officer. The chief medical officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 94 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0712 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between February 1, 2007, and April 30, 2007, a sergeant was overly familiar with parolees, DISPO INV ADV HA one of whom was a relative, by using them to help an officer move his personal residence. It was further alleged that the sergeant failed to report his relationship to the parolee to the department as required. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the sergeant was overly familiar with the parolees and failed to report his relationship. The allegations in this case were combined with other unrelated allegations and the sergeant was dismissed. Following the Skelly hearing, the hiring authority and the sergeant entered into a settlement agreement and the sergeant was demoted from sergeant to officer for a period of one year, and a 15 working-day suspension. Case No. 09-0713 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that beginning in 2007, a parole agent III made false allegations of misconduct against the father of DISPO INV ADV HA his granddaughter in an effort to negatively effect the father's employment with an outside law enforcement agency. It was also alleged that the parole agent III encouraged others to make similar false allegations and that the agent used his position with the department in an effort to influence child custody proceedings. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined there was no probable cause to believe a crime had been 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. Case No. 09-0714 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in 2007, a cook was overly familiar with inmates and introduced narcotics, mobile phones, and DISPO INV ADV HA tobacco into the institution for monetary gain. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation was closed due to a lack of evidence and the matter was, therefore, not referred to the district attorney's office. Case No. 09-0715 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in 2007, a plumber introduced narcotics and tobacco into the institution in exchange for DISPO INV ADV HA money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack of evidence. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 95 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0716 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that starting in 2007, a parole agent III made false allegations of misconduct against the father of DISPO INV ADV HA his granddaughter in an effort to negatively effect the father's employment with an outside law enforcement agency. It was also alleged that the parole agent III encouraged others to make similar false allegations and that the agent used his position with the department in an effort to influence child custody proceedings. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to show the parole agent III made false allegations or encouraged others to do the same. As a result, the hiring authority determined one allegation was unfounded and did not sustain the other two. Case No. 09-0717 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in 2007, a cook was overly familiar with inmates and introduced narcotics, mobile phones, and DISPO INV ADV HA tobacco into the institution for monetary gain. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation; however, due to a lack of any evidence of administration misconduct, the investigation was closed. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened a criminal investigation into the allegations, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action in this case, nor did they coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the investigative process or provide legal consultation to the assigned investigator. Case No. 09-0718 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between November 2006 and March 2007, an officer allegedly was introducing mobile phones, DVD players, DISPO INV ADV HA games, tobacco, and drugs into the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. Case No. 09-0719 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between October 2006 and June 2008, a supervising cook smuggled approximately 30 mobile DISPO INV ADV HA phones and numerous packages of tobacco to inmates for money. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed criminal charges against the inmates for allegedly bribing the supervising cook. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 96 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0720 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE Between September 2006 and May 2008, it was alleged that an office technician was having a sexual relationship DISPO INV ADV HA with a parolee and loaned the parolee money to purchase a car. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the office technician with a notice of dismissal. However, the office technician resigned before the dismissal took effect. A letter indicating she resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in her official personnel file. Case No. 09-0721 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On August 21, 2006, two inmates were transported in a van from one institution to another. Both inmates had DISPO INV ADV HA significant pre-existing medical conditions. The trip took over nine hours on a day in which the outside temperatures exceeded 100 degrees. The air conditioning in the rear of the van stopped working during the transport. Upon arriving at the receiving institution, one of the inmates was found unconscious on the van's floor with a very high temperature. The inmate later died of complications related to excessive heat. It was alleged that four officers and a sergeant were neglectful. In addition, two of the officers were allegedly dishonest during their investigative interviews and a lieutenant allegedly delayed emergency medical care. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed two of the officers. Two other officers and the sergeant received 48 working-day suspensions and the lieutenant received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The officers and the lieutenant filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. Case No. 09-0722 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that between July 2006 and October 11, 2008, an associate warden subjected an office assistant to DISPO INV ADV HA sexual harassment and a hostile work environment when he touched the office assistant inappropriately by giving her hugs, touching her breast, and rubbing her buttocks. During the same period, a lieutenant also allegedly subjected the office assistant to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment when he touched her inappropriately. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs determined there was insufficient evidence to support criminal charges. An administrative investigation was initiated, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 97 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 263 SATISFACTORY CASES 194 Case No. 09-0723 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE On June 10, 2006, it was alleged that a sergeant ordered a male inmate to wear women's underwear after claiming DISPO INV ADV HA he had been raped. It was also alleged that the sergeant failed to appear for an investigative interview when ordered to do so. Also, two lieutenants were allegedly negligent when they failed to seize the underwear worn by the inmate as evidence, and two officers were allegedly untruthful about their actions and observations regarding the incident when interviewed by investigators. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the sergeant made a male inmate wear women's underwear. The hiring authority sustained the allegation related to the sergeant's failure to appear for an investigative interview and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the lieutenants; however, they were ordered to receive training related to the proper handling of evidence. Case No. 09-0724 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that from March 2006 through December 2007, a painter and an independent contractor carpenter DISPO INV ADV HA provided various contraband items such as lighters, tobacco, gum, and a wrist watch to inmates in exchange for sexual favors. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which filed criminal charges. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 98 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0725 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 17, 2009, staff received confidential information that an inmate was sexually battered by her cellmate 14 days before. Medical evaluations were completed on both inmates with negative results for injuries. Staff completed interviews of other inmates and there were no witnesses or evidence to support the allegation. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate who allegedly sexually battered her cellmate was not referred to the local district attorney's office because it did not meet the district attorney's referral criteria. 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 provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to initially notify the bureau regarding the incident in a timely manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0726 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 6, 2009, a ward attempted to commit suicide in his cell by hanging himself and by slashing his wrists. Staff discovered the ward alone on the floor of his cell. The ward was removed from the cell and transported to an outside hospital for medical evaluation. The ward was not seriously injured and was returned to the facility the next day and placed on suicide watch. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0727 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 7, 2009, an inmate stabbed another inmate 11 times, including once in the chest. Officers used chemical agents, including an instantaneous blast chloroacetophenone grenade and pepper spray, to stop the fight. Officers immediately transported the injured inmate to a local hospital for medical treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmate was referred to the district attorney’s office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 99 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0728 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 1, 2009, two inmates were fighting and refused to comply with officers' orders to stop. An officer fired three less-than- lethal rounds to stop the incident. The first two rounds missed the intended target; however, the third round struck one of the inmates in the wrist and stopped the fight. The inmate that was struck with the round was transported to a local hospital for injuries he suffered in the fight and received four sutures to close a wound to his mouth. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0729 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 29, 2009, an inmate lost consciousness while being escorted to his housing unit by an officer. The officer began CPR after determining the inmate had stopped breathing and did not have a pulse. A medical emergency response was requested and 9-1-1 was called. Officers and medical staff continued life-saving efforts until paramedics arrived. The inmate was pronounced dead after advanced life-saving efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined an autopsy was not necessary because the inmate's medical history supported that the death was a result of natural causes. Staff misconduct was not identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0730 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE October 25, 2009, an inmate who was returning from work in the dining hall called for officers to respond to his cell. Officers immediately responded to the cell and observed an inmate hanging by the neck from the shelving unit in the cell. Officers lifted the inmate to relieve the pressure from his neck, cut the ligature, and initiated CPR. Medical staff arrived and continued CPR while transporting the inmate to the medical treatment facility for further treatment. Medical staff were unable to revive the inmate and he was pronounced dead by the attending physician. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 100 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0731 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 23, 2009, three inmates attacked a fourth inmate while on an exercise yard. The inmate being attacked was laying on his back as the three attackers continued to kick him in the head and torso. The yard observation officer fired two less-than-lethal rounds at one of the assailants, missing the intended target both times. The observation officer then fired another less-than-lethal round that had no effect. Responding officers used pepper spray to end the fight. The injured inmate was transported to a local hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmates was referred to the district attorney’s office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but failed to provide timely initial notification. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0732 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 23, 2009, two inmates attempted to murder another inmate by stabbing him multiple times with an inmate-manufactured weapon. An alarm was sounded and all inmates on the exercise yard were ordered to get down on the ground. All inmates complied. The inmate who was attacked was taken to the institution's medical treatment facility and was found to have multiple stab wounds to his back and stomach area. An inmate-manufactured knife was found embedded in his back. The inmate who was attacked was transported via ambulance to a local hospital for further treatment. The victim sustained 21 stab wounds and a severe injury to his spinal cord. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. There was no use of force by staff because the inmates complied with verbal commands to get down. 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. 09-0733 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 21, 2009, an inmate was found dead in an institution's medical treatment facility. A subsequent autopsy revealed a contributing factor in the cause of death was an overdose of methadone although the inmate had not been prescribed methadone. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs, which opened an investigation. The bureau accepted the case for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response to the incident was satisfactory. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. The bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 101 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0734 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 20, 2009, an inmate assaulted officers while being removed from his cell for a cell move. Officers used their batons to defend against the attack resulting in a hit to the inmate's head and right arm. The inmate was taken to a local hospital where he was treated for a broken wrist and received eight stitches to his head. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The 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. 09-0735 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 7, 2009, two inmates stabbed another inmate 27 times in the upper torso, head, and neck. An officer stopped the attack by shooting the aggressors in the legs with less-than-lethal rounds. The inmate who was attacked was transported via ambulance to a local hospital where he was treated before being returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the two inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was indentified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0736 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On October 1, 2009, an inmate notified officers that he had been sexually assaulted by his cellmate. The department initiated Prison Rape Elimination Act protocols by processing the cell as a crime scene and transporting the inmate that alleged the assault to an outside hospital for a forensic medical examination. Although the inmate initially agreed to be examined, he refused the examination at the local hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE This case against the inmate was not referred to the district attorney's office because of insufficient evidence. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 102 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0737 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 30, 2009, two inmates attempted to murder another inmate by stabbing him numerous times. The inmate was transported to a local hospital where he was treated and released the following day. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the two inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide timely initial notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0738 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 30, 2009, two inmates were involved in a fight on an exercise yard. The tower officer fired a less-than-lethal round at the combatants to stop the fight, but missed. One of the inmates fell to the ground and struck his head on the asphalt and was unable to defend himself. Responding officers restrained the remaining combatant and medical staff provided emergency medical care. The injured inmate was treated for a head injury at a local hospital and then returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified, therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0739 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 29, 2009, an inmate was discovered alone in a cell with a shoe string tied around his neck and attached to an air vent. The inmate was unresponsive. Medical staff pronounced the inmate dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE An investigation found no evidence of foul play. The autopsy determined cause of death to be suicide by asphyxiation. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose to not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0740 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 21, 2009, several inmates attacked four inmates at three different locations within the dayroom of a housing unit. Officers used pepper spray and less-than-lethal rounds to stop the attack. One of the inmates that was attacked was admitted and treated for multiple stab wounds at a local hospital and returned to the institution three days later. The three inmates who were attacked were treated for their injuries and re-housed at the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 103 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0741 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 14, 2009, an inmate alerted staff of a "man down" in his cell. Officers responded to the cell and found the inmate's cellmate lying on the lower bunk with a blood soaked towel over his chest. Officers immediately activated their alarm and summoned medical staff. The inmate was transported to a local hospital where he was admitted and underwent surgery for a collapsed lung, a lacerated liver, and a perforated diaphragm. The inmate was returned to the institution approximately 10 days later. Three inmates were identified as suspects and were placed in administrative segregation housing pending investigation of attempted murder. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide timely initial notification. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0742 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 14, 2009, a parole agent and two outside law enforcement officers responded to a motel after receiving information that a parolee who was wanted on an arrest warrant was there. Upon arriving at the motel, the parolee was found in the parking lot. The parolee attempted to evade the parole agent and outside law enforcement officers by getting into his car and backing up at a high rate of speed toward the parole agent. The parole agent reportedly fired shots at the parolee's car as he drove away. The shots did not hit the parolee. DISPOSITION OF CASE The parolee was apprehended in a nearby vacant apartment after a car and foot pursuit. The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation into the parole agent's use of deadly force. The matter was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The department also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and the bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs’ response to the hiring authority’s referral. Case No. 09-0743 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 14, 2009, an officer discovered a ward hanging from a noose in his cell. The officer cut down the ward and medical staff responded and examined the ward. The ward was alive and sent via ambulance to a local hospital for observation. Approximately one hour later, a second ward covered his window and did not comply with staff orders to uncover his window until security staff responded. He then walked to his desk and ingested multiple bottles of unknown substances, which were later determined to be shampoo and peroxide. Medical staff examined the ward and found no life-threatening injuries. Minutes after the second suicide attempt custody staff discovered that a third ward had ingested antibiotic ointment. Medical staff examined him and found no life-threatening injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incidents was sufficient in all critical aspects. Additionally, the department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau. The bureau concurred with the department's determination that staff's response to the incident complied with departmental policies and procedures. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 104 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0744 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 14, 2009, an inmate was found unresponsive in his cell. He was transported to a local hospital where he later died. It was alleged that a nurse mistakenly gave the inmate liquid methadone instead of his prescribed medication, Benadryl. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. 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 regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0745 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 12, 2009, two inmates began striking another inmate in the head and upper torso with closed fists on an exercise yard. A control booth officer twice ordered the assailants to get down without effect. The officer shot one less-than-lethal round that struck one of the assailants in the thigh. The assailants stopped the attack and got on the ground in a prone position. Responding medical staff provided first aid to the inmate who was attacked. He suffered multiple stab wounds. Two inmate-manufactured weapons were found at the scene. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was sufficient in all critical aspects. Additionally, the department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau. The bureau concurred with the department's determination that the use of force and staff's response to the incident complied with departmental policies and procedures. Case No. 09-0746 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 8, 2009, two officers were transporting an inmate for medical care when their van suffered a right rear tire blowout causing the transportation vehicle to become unstable. As the driver was attempting to maintain control of the vehicle, it became unbalanced causing it to roll over. The inmate complained of neck and back pain and received medical care for his complaints. The officers did not receive any injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide timely initial notification. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0747 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 8, 2009, officers saw an inmate with multiple stab wounds to his back and right shoulder blade areas. The inmate was treated at a local hospital and returned to the institution. The inmate would not identify his assailants. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 105 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0748 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 7, 2009, a riot occurred in a housing unit at an institution. Fourteen inmates attacked seven inmates using inmate- manufactured weapons. One inmate suffered severe head, facial, and chest lacerations requiring him to be air-lifted to a local hospital. The injured inmate was treated and returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Except for conflicting information in the incident report, the bureau determined that the department's response to the incident was adequate. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0749 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 5, 2009, an officer discovered an inmate performing CPR on his cellmate during a security check. The officer requested a medical response and began CPR after verifying the inmate was not breathing and did not have a pulse. The inmate was pronounced dead after life-saving efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined that the cause of death was from a heroin overdose. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0750 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 3, 2009, an inmate was attacked and stabbed by two other inmates using inmate-manufactured weapons. The attacked inmate received 16 stab wounds. Officers used pepper spray to stop the attack. The inmate who was attacked was taken to an outside hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The inmate who was attacked recovered and was returned to the institution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects, although the department did not adequately notify and consult with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0751 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 1, 2009, an inmate alleged that he was sexually assaulted by his cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the cellmate was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. However, the department failed to timely notify the bureau, although it adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident once notice was provided. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 106 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0752 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 1, 2009, a parole agent was transporting a parolee when the parolee reached for the parole agent's gun. A struggle ensued outside the vehicle and the agent used commands and pepper spray in an attempt to gain compliance. The parolee continued to advance on the parole agent and stated repeatedly he was going to take the agent's gun and kill him. The agent shot the parolee to stop the assault. The parolee suffered a nonfatal gun shot wound to the stomach. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs dispatched special agents from its deadly force investigation team to conduct an investigation into the incident. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation into the parole agent's use of deadly force, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 09-0753 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 1, 2009, a fight involving five inmates occurred on an exercise yard. Responding staff used chemical agents and expandable batons to stop the fighting. One inmate was severely injured as a result of the fight and was transported to an outside hospital via ambulance for treatment of his injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified so the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in most critical aspects, although the department failed to adequately notify and consult with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0754 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 30, 2009, two inmates attempted to kill another inmate while on the exercise yard. Responding staff utilized one less-than- lethal round to stop the incident. During the attack, the victim received extensive facial fractures and was stabbed several times with an inmate-manufactured weapon. The inmate was transported to an outside hospital via ambulance. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified so 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 regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 107 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0755 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 27, 2009, three inmates attacked three officers in a dining hall. The officers ordered the inmates to stop their attack, but they did not. One officer was punched in the face repeatedly. The officers used pepper spray and physical force and when that did not stop the attack, one of the officers used his expandable baton. One of the inmates moved just as a baton strike hit him, causing the baton to hit the inmate in the head. The inmate received a cut on his head that required eight staples. The officers and the involved inmates were medically evaluated and treated. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates 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 The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department sufficiently notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0756 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 25, 2009, an inmate strangled his cellmate to death with a bed sheet. DISPOSITION OF CASE Outside law enforcement conducted an investigation and the case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0757 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 25, 2009, an officer found an inmate hanging by a sheet from a top bunk. The inmate did not have a cellmate. The officer activated his personal alarm device and announced a medical emergency on the institutional radio. Responding staff immediately cut down the inmate and began life-saving measures. The inmate was transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE The autopsy revealed the cause of death was hanging and the manner of death was suicide. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department sufficiently notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 108 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0758 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 21, 2009, an inmate attempted to kill an officer by stabbing him with two weapons. The inmate staged a suicide in his cell by placing a dummy made from his clothing and paper in his wheelchair with a noose tied around what appeared to be his neck. Staff performed an emergency medical cell extraction. As an officer removed blankets that had been hung to the light fixtures to block the light, the inmate jumped from behind the blanket and stabbed the officer in the left arm, causing three deep stab wounds, requiring 18 sutures to close the wounds to the forearm and the back of the arm. The inmate stated he intended to kill the officers who came into the cell but then stopped his attack when he learned that the officer he stabbed was one who performed his job with respect toward the inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office conducted an investigation into the inmate's actions and filed criminal charges. No staff misconduct was identified, so 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 hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0759 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 20, 2009, a tower officer observed two inmates fighting on an exercise yard. One of the inmates was observed making horizontal striking motions against the other inmate who had blood stains on his neck and abdomen area. The injured inmate ran away from the aggressor who chased after him. The tower officer then fired one lethal round as a warning shot. After the inmates stopped fighting officers saw one of the inmates throw an inmate-manufactured weapon to the ground. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was indentified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. Case No. 09-0760 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 20, 2009, staff responded to a cell because of loud noises coming from the area and they observed an inmate laying on his back unresponsive. The cellmate then allegedly picked up the unresponsive inmate's prosthetic leg and used it to beat the inmate on the head. The cellmate stopped the assault when ordered to do so by staff and was removed from the cell. The unconscious inmate was transported to a local hospital where he was treated for a skull fracture and was placed in intensive care. The inmate recovered from the attack and was returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's investigative services unit completed the investigation and referred the case to the district attorney's office for prosecution of the attacking inmate. There was no staff misconduct identified as a result of the incident, so 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. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide timely initial notification. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 109 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0761 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 19, 2009, a riot occurred in a dayroom involving over 40 inmates. Responding officers used pepper spray and less-than-lethal rounds to successfully stop the riot. Numerous inmates suffered minor injuries. Two inmates suffered puncture wounds to the stomach and back areas. One inmate was transported to a local hospital for medical evaluation of a head wound resulting from being assaulted by other inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0762 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 19, 2009, an inmate punched an officer in the face and knocked the officer to the ground, causing the officer to lose consciousness. The officer suffered several injuries including a laceration to his lip requiring 15 sutures. Responding officers used physical force and batons to stop the inmate from continuing the assault on the officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department referred the matter to the district attorney's office for criminal prosecution of the attacking inmate. The institution reviewed the incident and determined that there was no staff misconduct regarding the use of force. Thus, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0763 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 19, 2009, an inmate alleged his cellmate attempted to sexually assault him two weeks earlier. The inmate and his cellmate were transported to an outside hospital for forensic examinations, but the inmate refused to consent to an examination. The cellmate was examined. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the cellmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT 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 concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 110 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0764 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 18, 2009, two inmates were fighting on the top tier of a housing unit. The control booth officer ordered the inmates to get down, but the inmates did not comply. There were no other floor officers in the immediate area to assist in stopping the fight; therefore, the control booth officer fired a less-than-lethal round at the lower body of the closest inmate. As a result of the inmates continual movement, the round struck one of the inmate's in the back of the head. The injured inmate was transported to a local hospital and was later returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification, but failed to adequately consult with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0765 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 15, 2009, a racially motivated riot broke out on an institution's exercise yard involving over 250 inmates. Four officers and a sergeant used pepper spray to successfully stop the riot. No injuries were sustained as a result of the use of force. Three inmates were sent to local hospitals for medical care due to puncture and slash wounds. One inmate sustained a punctured lung. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmates was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0766 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 14, 2009, there was a riot between inmates associated with two rival prison gangs. Chemical agents were deployed and one lethal round was fired as a warning shot to stop the incident. No injuries resulted from the warning shot. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. Case No. 09-0767 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 14, 2009, two wards in adjacent cells attempted suicide by hanging themselves from fire sprinklers. Staff intervened and stopped the suicide attempts. Both wards were transported to a local hospital for medical treatment and returned to the facility. Neither ward sustained serious injuries. Neither ward had a cellmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 111 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0768 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 13, 2009, a single-celled inmate committed suicide by hanging himself with a shoelace from an upper cell bunk. Responding staff initiated emergency life-saving measures, which were unsuccessful. The coroner responded to the institution and ruled the death a suicide. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the incident was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0769 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 11, 2009, an inmate was found in his cell hanging by a sheet that was tied to a light fixture. Emergency procedures were implemented and the inmate was taken to the medical facility where he was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department 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 Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 09-0770 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 10, 2009, an inmate stopped breathing. Medical staff were notified and began performing life-saving measures with negative results. The inmate was transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE The cause of death was determined to be septic shock, liver disease, and Hepatitis C. There was no potential staff misconduct identified, so the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide timely notification to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0771 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 8, 2009, an inmate was sitting in the dining hall when another inmate came up from behind him and slit his throat. The inmate who was attacked was transported to a local hospital for treatment where he received multiple sutures to his neck. Following treatment, he was transported back to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The attacking inmate was never identified so there was no referral 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 provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 112 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0772 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 6, 2009, a ward was observed with a sheet wrapped around his neck, hanging from a top bunk. Custody and medical staff responded to the cell. The sheet was removed and the ward was laid on his bed. The ward was conscious but would not verbally respond so he was transported to an outside hospital via ambulance and was later returned to the facility. The ward did not have any injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined the officers were required to do welfare checks on the ward and the officers failed to conduct all of the checks in the hours leading up to the incident. The officers received a work improvement discussion, which was documented and placed in their official personnel files for one year. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0773 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE An inmate alleged that on August 4, 2009, his cellmate jumped on his back and sexually assaulted him while he was asleep. When the inmate resisted, his cellmate allegedly forced him to orally copulate him. The institution initiated Prison Rape Elimination Act protocols. A medical examination was performed on the inmate and his cellmate, and no injuries were observed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's investigative services unit conducted an investigation of the assault allegations and failed to uncover any evidence to corroborate the allegations. The department referred the matter to the district attorney's office for criminal prosecution of the inmate. The district attorney's office declined to prosecute. 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 bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0774 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 4, 2009, an inmate attacked two officers on an exercise yard. Responding officers used pepper spray and physical force to stop the attack. Afterwards, officers escorted the inmate to a program office instead of immediately decontaminating the inmate, as directed. The inmate allegedly resisted escorting officers and hit an officer, requiring an officer and a sergeant to use additional physical force to control the inmate. The inmate was then escorted by uninvolved staff to a shower for decontamination. Following a medical evaluation, the inmate was transported to a local hospital where he was treated for a variety of injuries to his face and hands. The inmate was returned to the institution after he spent three days in the hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. The case against the inmate for attacking the two officers on the yard was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide initial timely notification. 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. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 113 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0775 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 4, 2009, an inmate was seriously injured after he was attacked by another inmate. The assault was stopped after several officers responded to the incident. DISPOSITION OF CASE The injured inmate was treated at a local hospital and returned to custody. The district attorney's office declined to prosecute because the victim refused to cooperate. Staff misconduct was not identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0776 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 31, 2009, an inmate riot occurred in a dayroom. Officers used pepper spray and less-than-lethal rounds to stop the incident, although no inmates were struck by the less-than-lethal rounds. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office. Training was provided to one officer who failed to use pepper spray correctly. No other 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 sufficiently notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0777 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 31, 2009, an inmate alleged that he was sexually assaulted by his cellmate the night before. The inmate was escorted to the medical clinic and later transported to a local hospital to be forensically examined. The cellmate was also transported in a separate vehicle to a local hospital to be forensically examined. Both inmates were evaluated for psychiatric concerns and rehoused in separate housing units. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the cellmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, based on the evidence retrieved from the cell and the inmate's statements. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department provided 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 Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 114 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0778 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 31, 2009, an officer heard stomping noises coming from the top tier of a dorm housing unit. When the officer stepped out of the office, he saw an inmate rush away from an area on the top tier, remove his shirt, and toss it on the floor. The officer alerted his partner to the suspicious activity and they both responded to the top tier, where they found an inmate lying unconscious in a pool of blood with severe head trauma. One of the officers activated the building alarm and requested emergency response to the building via institutional radio. Medical staff arrived and the injured inmate was transported by ambulance to an outside hospital for treatment. The inmate died approximately two months later as a result of his injuries. Three inmates were eventually identified as taking part in the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The autopsy report listed the cause of death as complications from blunt force trauma to the head and the manner of death as a homicide. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0779 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 30, 2009, two inmates were observed fighting in their assigned cell. Staff responded to the cell and used pepper spray to stop the fight. One inmate received a deep laceration to the front and back of his neck and was transported via ambulance to an outside hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0780 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 29, 2009, an inmate informed a psychologist that he had been sexually assaulted by his cellmate the previous night. In accordance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act, both the inmate and his cellmate were processed for evidence at a local hospital. Upon return to the institution, the inmates were housed separately. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate is pending forensic examination results and will be referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution if the examination results establish probable cause to believe that a crime 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 consulted with the bureau about the incident, but failed to provide timely notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 115 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0781 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 26, 2009, three inmates attempted to murder another inmate by repeatedly stabbing him. An officer gave several orders for the inmates to stop their attack, but they did not comply. The officer then fired a less-than-lethal round, hitting one of the aggressors and stopping the attack. The inmate who was attacked suffered 34 puncture wounds and was immediately removed from the exercise yard and transported to a local hospital for further treatment. The inmate recovered from his injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0782 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 23, 2009, a correctional captain allegedly shot and killed his spouse in their home, and then shot and killed himself. His spouse was also a correctional officer. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was investigated by the local sheriff's office and coroner's office. It was determined to be a murder-suicide. It was determined that both died of gunshot wounds inflicted by the same weapon. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. Case No. 09-0783 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 22, 2009, officers discovered an inmate lying on the ground with a stab wound to the chest. The inmate was air-lifted to a local hospital for emergency surgery. The inmate was treated and later returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate assailants was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide timely initial notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0784 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 20, 2009, an inmate requested medical attention for chest pains. While in the institution's medical treatment center waiting to be transported to a local hospital, the inmate stopped breathing and staff performed CPR. The inmate was later pronounced dead at the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined that the inmate died from a drug overdose. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 116 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0785 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 17, 2009, two inmates attempted to murder another inmate with inmate-manufactured weapons. A less-than-lethal round was fired at the attackers, and the inmates stopped their attack. The inmate being attacked sustained multiple stab wounds to the neck, back, and chest and had to be air-lifted to a local hospital for further treatment. The inmate survived the attack and was returned to the institution after he spent five days in the hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0786 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 10, 2009, officers found an inmate who was unresponsive and was having difficulty breathing in his cell. Medical staff transported the inmate to the institution's medical treatment facility. The inmate stopped breathing upon arrival at the institution's medical treatment facility. The inmate was pronounced dead after advanced life-saving efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined the inmate died as a result of a stroke caused by high blood pressure. 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 consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide timely initial notification. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0787 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 9, 2009, an inmate was attacked and stabbed multiple times by another inmate with an inmate-manufactured weapon. The inmate who was attacked suffered a punctured lung and other serious injuries and was flown by air ambulance to an outside medical facility where he received treatment. The inmate survived and returned to the institution. The attacker suffered a serious laceration to his hand. The attacker was taken to a local hospital where he received treatment and was released back to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmate was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed charges. In addition, the hiring authority determined that two officers responsible for performing unclothed searches of the inmates prior to the attack may have failed to perform the searches. As a result, potential staff misconduct was identified and the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 117 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0788 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 6, 2009, an officer and a sergeant were driving an inmate from one institution to another when their van went off the road and crashed into an irrigation canal. Both the officer and the sergeant were injured and the sergeant was hospitalized. The inmate suffered severe head trauma and was flown to a local hospital for treatment. All three survived the crash. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An administrative investigation was opened by the Office of Internal Affairs, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide timely initial notification, but adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 09-0789 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 5, 2009, an inmate alleged that his cellmate had sexually assaulted him while he was asleep during the previous night. The institution implemented the protocols of the Prisoner Rape Elimination Act and the inmate was forensically examined by a sexual assault nurse. The forensic evidence was forwarded to the Department of Justice for processing. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate is pending the analysis of the forensic evidence to confirm whether or not a sexual assault case can be filed by 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 failed to forensically examine the suspect and the collection of the victim and suspect's clothing was not completed in accordance with procedure. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0790 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 5, 2009, two inmates attacked another inmate by striking him in the face and torso with their fists. An officer gave verbal orders to stop the attack, but they refused to comply. The officer fired a total of two less-than-lethal rounds at the legs of the assailants, but because of their movement the round struck one inmate in the head. The assailants continued their attack on the inmate, so another officer sprayed both of the assailants with pepper spray and they complied with orders to stop. The assailant that was struck in the head was medically evaluated at the institution and at a local hospital, then returned to the institution. The other attacking inmate received no injuries, and the inmate that was attacked was medically treated for his injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 118 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0791 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On July 3, 2009, an inmate was struck by his cellmate with an inmate-manufactured weapon. The attacked inmate received numerous serious lacerations to his abdomen, chest, and arms. The inmate was flown to a local hospital for treatment and returned to the institution the following day. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified, therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0792 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 30, 2009, two inmates were being escorted in handcuffs across an exercise yard by an officer. One of the inmates slipped out of one of his handcuffs and began hitting the other inmate who was still in handcuffs. The officer gave orders for the inmate to stop, but he did not comply. The officer used physical force on the inmate to stop the attack. The inmate who was attacked suffered a broken rib. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. Staff misconduct was identified; therefore the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The Office of Internal Affairs referred the matter to the hiring authority for training, corrective action, or disciplinary action without further investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 09-0793 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 29, 2009, officers found an unresponsive inmate in his cell. The inmate was pronounced dead after life-saving efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined that the inmate died of a drug overdose. Staff misconduct was not identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0794 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 29, 2009, two inmates attacked another inmate on an exercise yard with inmate-manufactured weapons. An officer shot one less- than-lethal round to stop the attack, striking one of the attacking inmates in the back of the leg. The inmate that was being attacked suffered multiple cuts and stab wounds to the neck, stomach, left arm and back, and he was air-lifted to a local hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was referred to the district attorney's office for possible charges of attempted murder against the two attacking inmates. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with the decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 119 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0795 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 26, 2009, a riot involving 17 inmates from two rival prison gangs occurred on an exercise yard. Staff used chemical agents and four less-than-lethal rounds to control the incident. One inmate received a life-threatening injury that required transportation via ambulance to an outside hospital. Staff recovered nine inmate-manufactured weapons from the exercise yard after the riot ended. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide sufficient initial notification. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0796 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 26, 2009, an inmate hit another inmate with his fists causing severe head trauma. The battered inmate was transported to a local hospital where he was air-lifted to another hospital for treatment. The inmate recovered from his injuries after spending 10 days in the hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution because the injured inmate was unwilling to testify. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide initial timely notification. Case No. 09-0797 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 26, 2009, in the dayroom of a housing unit, three inmates assaulted another inmate by punching and stabbing him and then stomping on him when he went to the ground. An officer fired one less-than-lethal round, which stopped the attack. The victim suffered stab wounds to his shoulder and ear, lost consciousness, and was transported to a local hospital for treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's investigative services unit investigated the assault and the case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution of the attacking inmates. The inmate who was assaulted recovered and was returned to the institution. No staff misconduct was identified relating to the force used. However, it was determined that staff failed to adequately search for the weapons that were used in the assault, and training was provided. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department's response to the incident was adequate. 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, although the bureau agreed that staff failed to properly conduct a search for the weapons prior to the attack. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 120 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0798 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 21, 2009, two inmates used a weapon to attack another inmate on an exercise yard. An officer in the control booth witnessed the attack and gave orders to the inmates to stop, but they refused. The officer fired one less-than-lethal round, which stopped the incident. The inmate who was attacked sustained six puncture wounds and was transported to a local hospital for further treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's 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. 09-0799 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 20, 2009, officers used physical force to restrain an inmate after the inmate assaulted a sergeant. The inmate received a head injury as a result of the use of force and was transported to a local hospital for further evaluation. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified, therefore, the case was not referred to the Officer of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0800 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on June 18 or June 19, 2009, an inmate was sexually assaulted by his cellmate while in an administrative segregation unit. The institution initiated Prison Rape Elimination Act protocols, as required. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate did not report the incident until more than a week after it allegedly occurred. As a result, the investigation into the case against the cellmate failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed; therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. Although the department provided sufficient consultation with the bureau, it failed to timely notify the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0801 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 18, 2009, a riot involving five inmates resulted in the discharge of two less-than-lethal rounds. One round struck an inmate who was on the ground in the head, ricocheted off the concrete floor, and hit another inmate in the face. The other round hit a third inmate in the back. The inmate who was hit in the head was transported to a local hospital for further treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the involved inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide sufficient notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 121 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0802 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 16, 2009, an inmate was found hanging in his cell and subsequently pronounced dead by outside medical personnel. The inmate had previously refused to attend a medical appointment and did not have a cellmate. In addition, the inmate was serving his 13th day in a special disciplinary cell for having refused to attend the medical appointment at the time of his death. DISPOSITION OF CASE There was no evidence of staff misconduct; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. However, during a review of the inmate's housing status at the time of his death, it was determined he should have been released from the disciplinary cell three days before his death. The bureau recommended policy changes to ensure inmates are timely released from disciplinary cells. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0803 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 13, 2009, an inmate stabbed his cellmate numerous times resulting in life-threatening wounds to the cellmate's upper torso. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was indentified; 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 hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0804 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 11, 2009, an inmate began kicking at officers while he was restrained in handcuffs. One of the officers used an expandable baton and pepper spray to subdue the inmate. The inmate received a broken forearm and elbow as a result of the force used. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was satisfactory. The department initially failed to adequately notify the bureau of the incident, but adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and the bureau agreed with the decision. Case No. 09-0805 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 10, 2009, an inmate approached staff and reported that for the past week he and his cellmate had engaged in mutual sexual acts. However, during one such encounter the previous night, he told his cellmate to stop, but the cellmate refused and completed the sex act. Sexual assault protocols were initiated and the inmate was medically evaluated. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the cellmate was referred to the local district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 122 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0806 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 10, 2009, an inmate riot occurred between rival prison gangs. During the riot, two inmates sustained potentially life-threatening injuries caused by multiple stab wounds and had to be air-lifted to local hospitals. The inmates recovered from their injuries and were returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the 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 failed to promptly notify the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the department's decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0807 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 10, 2009, an inmate was using the exercise yard punching bag when he collapsed. Officers and medical staff immediately responded to the scene and life-saving measures were initiated. The inmate was transported code three by ambulance to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy determined that the inmate died from a heart attack. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department’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. 09-0808 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 9, 2009, officers saw an inmate on the exercise yard remove a weapon from his waistband and stab another inmate several times. Officers ordered the inmates to get down and all of the inmates complied except for the two inmates involved in the incident. As officers responded to the scene, the inmate with the weapon threw the weapon down and lay in a prone position. Officers saw that the inmate who had been stabbed was actively bleeding and immediately escorted him to the medical clinic for evaluation. Subsequently, the injured inmate was transported by ambulance to the local hospital for treatment for four days, after which he was returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to promptly initially notify the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 123 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0809 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 7, 2009, an inmate was stabbed multiple times by another inmate while on an exercise yard. An alarm was sounded, officers responded, and the attack was stopped without the use of force. The injured inmate was taken to a local hospital for treatment and returned to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmate was referred to the district attorney for prosecution, which declined to file charges. Staff misconduct was not identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0810 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On June 5, 2009, three parole agents were conducting a series of parolee compliance checks in conjunction with outside law enforcement. During a check of the residence of a high control parolee, the parolee ran from the house carrying a firearm. An outside law enforcement officer shot the parolee resulting in the parolee's death. DISPOSITION OF CASE It was determined that the parole agents were not involved in the shooting. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation; the bureau concurred. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department sufficiently notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0811 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 26, 2009, two inmates engaged in mutual combat. After being separated and placed in holding cells, a sergeant found one of the inmate's unresponsive and was sent to a local hospital for a puncture wound to his chest. Subsequently, a stabbing weapon was found in the exercise yard where the fight occurred. DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate recovered and was returned to the institution. The district attorney's office declined to file criminal charges stating that they could not identify the aggressor. The hiring authority provided on-the-job training to the officer who placed the injured inmate in the holding cell for failure to immediately summon medical staff when he noticed blood on the inmate's clothing. The sergeant also received on-the-job training for failing to immediately contact the investigative services unit so that they could properly collect evidence and conduct the investigation for potential attempted murder. There was no staff misconduct warranting an investigation; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The institutional response was inadequate because medical staff did not review the inmate's injury in a more timely manner. In addition, reports regarding the incident were inconsistent and incomplete. The investigative services unit was not contacted to conduct a proper criminal investigation. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide timely initial notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 124 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0812 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 27, 2009, two parole agents and three outside law enforcement officers responded to a call from a parolee's mother that the parolee was acting in a bizarre manner and that he might be under the influence of narcotics. The outside law enforcement officers placed the parolee in handcuffs at which time they noticed the parolee was having trouble breathing. The outside law enforcement officers removed the handcuffs and began to administer CPR, but the parolee died on the way to a hospital a short time later. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all key aspects. The department's notification and consultation with the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. Special agents from the Office of Internal Affairs' deadly force investigation team responded to the scene and, once it was determined that the department's staff were not involved in any use of force, concluded their role in the investigation. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0813 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 26, 2009, an inmate struck an officer in the face with a clenched fist, breaking the officer's nose. The officer also received an abrasion to his left elbow as a result of the incident. Another responding officer used pepper spray to stop the attack and the inmate received minor abrasions. The injured officer received treatment at a local hospital and was released. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. However the bureau was not initially notified in a timely manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs as there was no misconduct identified. Case No. 09-0814 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 26, 2009, two inmates assaulted another inmate. The inmates were given several orders to stop fighting and get on the ground but refused. The two inmates punched and kicked the inmate in the head and body while he was on the ground defenseless and appeared to be incoherent. An officer discharged a lethal round as a warning shot. The attacking inmates stopped their attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office conducted an independent investigation into the criminal actions by the inmates. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 125 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0815 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 23, 2009, an officer was alerted that an inmate was having difficulty breathing. The officer responded to the inmate's assigned bunk and discovered the inmate was unresponsive. The officer activated a personal alarm device and announced a medical emergency via the institutional radio. Staff responded to the scene and initiated life-saving measures that continued throughout the transport of the inmate to a local hospital, where the inmate was later pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy revealed the inmate died of a heart attack. 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 informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0816 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 21, 2009, 67 inmates participated in an inmate riot at an institution. A tower officer discharged one lethal round as a warning shot. Additionally, other officers discharged less-than-lethal rounds and pepper spray grenades in an effort to stop the riot. Three inmates sustained serious injuries, including one inmate who suffered an eye injury. Several other inmates sustained moderate to minor injuries, including lacerations, scratches, and cuts. The injuries suffered by the inmates were not incurred as a result of the officers' use of force. None of the officers sustained injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was not identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation; the bureau concurred. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department's notification and consultation with the bureau regarding the incident was inadequate. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0817 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 17, 2009, two inmates attacked a third inmate while on an exercise yard. The observation officer announced the incident over the radio, activated the alarm, and ordered all inmates to get down. A responding officer hit one of the aggressor inmates on the shoulder with an expandable baton, causing the inmates to stop fighting and assume a prone position. The inmate being attacked received multiple injuries including fractured ribs and a punctured lung. He was taken to a local hospital for medical treatment. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the two aggressor inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 126 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0818 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 16, 2009, two inmates attacked another inmate and refused the officers' orders to stop the attack. The control booth officer fired a less-than-lethal sponge round, striking one of the inmates in the knee, which stopped the attack. The inmate injured during the attack was transported to a local hospital for evaluation and treatment of puncture wounds to the upper torso, swelling to the right eye and neck, and active bleeding of his nose. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the two inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0819 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 16, 2009, two inmates attacked a third inmate with a razor blade. Officers used pepper spray to stop the attack. The injured inmate was transported to a local hospital where he was treated and released back to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the two inmates who attacked the third inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0820 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 14, 2009, inmates alerted officers in a dormitory that an inmate was not breathing. Inmates immediately began CPR on the inmate but were quickly relieved by responding officers and medical staff. Paramedics arrived and began advanced life-saving techniques. The inmate was pronounced dead at a local hospital after life-saving efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined that the cause of death was heart failure. Staff misconduct was not identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0821 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 13, 2009, a fight occurred involving several inmates from two different racial groups. Officers used pepper spray to stop the incident. Two inmate-manufactured weapons were discovered on the floor and another was discovered in an inmate's sock. Two inmates received cuts to the head. One inmate was stabbed in the rib cage and received a puncture wound. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 127 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0822 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 11, 2009, officers discovered an inmate hanging in his cell. The inmate was the only occupant of the cell and had tied the door shut with linen to prevent officers from opening the door. After entering the cell, officers cut the inmate down and began CPR. A physician pronounced the inmate dead after advanced life-saving efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined that the death was a suicide by hanging. Staff misconduct was not identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide timely initial notification. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0823 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 10, 2009, an inmate told an officer he could not wake up another inmate in a dormitory bunk. The officer located the inmate and confirmed he was unresponsive. The officer initiated an emergency medical response and began CPR. Paramedics arrived and began advanced life-saving procedures. The inmate was pronounced dead after life-saving efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined that the inmate died of a heart attack. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0824 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 7, 2009, officers discovered blood on an inmate as he exited his cell. It was later determined that the inmate was stabbed nine times by his cellmate. The inmate received treatment at a local hospital and was released back to the institution. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the cellmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the 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 chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0825 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 6, 2009, an inmate attempted to murder another inmate using an inmate-manufactured slicing weapon comprised of six razor blades tied together. Pepper spray was used to stop the attack. The injuries to the inmate who was attacked were not life threatening. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate who used the inmate-manufactured weapon was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which filed criminal charges. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 128 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0826 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On May 4, 2009, a minimum security inmate who worked in the institution's vehicle maintenance shop drove through a fence and escaped in a state-owned vehicle. Emergency escape procedures were activated, which included alerting outside law enforcement of the escape and vehicle description. The stolen vehicle was recovered and the inmate was apprehended two days later by the department's fugitive apprehension team. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0827 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 29, 2009, during an evening meal, two inmates began assaulting a third inmate. An officer fired a less-than-lethal round at one of the attackers. The round struck one of the attackers in the wrist area and ricocheted, striking another inmate who was not involved in the assault under his eye. The injured inmate was transported to a local hospital where he was treated for his injury. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0828 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 28, 2009, two inmates attacked a third inmate in a gymnasium. The observation officer fired a less-than-lethal round at one of the attackers; however, the inmates continued to fight. A second officer sprayed the attackers with pepper spray and the fight stopped. Although the injured inmate sustained a laceration to the back of his head, it could not be determined whether the laceration was caused by the direct impact round or by the attacking inmates. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney’s office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide timely notification to the appropriate bureau regional office. The bureau agreed with the hiring authority's decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 129 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0829 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 28, 2009, five inmates attacked another inmate on the main exercise yard at an institution. During the course of the attack, the inmate who was attacked fell to the ground and was being kicked and punched. An officer in an observation tower saw the fight and thought that the attacked inmate's life was in danger. The officer fired a single lethal round as a warning shot from a rifle into a safe area to stop the attack, which it did. The inmate who was attacked was treated for his injuries. No staff or inmates were injured as a result of the shot. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmates was not referred to the district attorney's office. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0830 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 24, 2009, an inmate was found lying on the floor of a dormitory housing unit breathing but unresponsive. Life-saving measures were initiated and the inmate was transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an autopsy, it was determined that the inmate died as a result of heart disease. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0831 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 23, 2009, an inmate alleged that he had been sexually assaulted by another inmate four days earlier. The department initiated a sexual assault investigation, but a medical exam was not conducted as too much time had passed since the sexual assault allegedly occurred. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which declined to prosecute. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 130 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0832 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 22, 2009, two inmates attacked another inmate with inmate-manufactured stabbing weapons on the exercise yard. The tower officer ordered the inmates on the exercise yard to get down on the ground, however the assault continued and the inmate who was being attacked was not able to defend himself. The officer fired a lethal warning shot into an unoccupied area of the exercise yard. The attacking inmates immediately ceased their attack and got down on the ground. The attacked inmate was treated for multiple stab wounds at the institution's medical facility and returned to his cell. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0833 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 20, 2009, two inmates punched and kicked another inmate resulting in serious head trauma. When staff sounded the alarm, the attacking inmates stopped the attack. The injured inmate was treated at an outside hospital where his injuries were determined to be serious but not life-threatening. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0834 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 18, 2009, an inmate alleged that he was sexually assaulted by another inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was not identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The case against the inmate was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate except that staff failed to properly complete an administrative form. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 131 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0835 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 12, 2009, staff were placing an inmate who was agitated and yelling into a holding cell when he spit on a sergeant. The inmate made gestures suggesting he may spit again and the sergeant sprayed the inmate with pepper spray. The inmate was decontaminated, evaluated by medical staff, and found to not be in medical distress. Shortly thereafter, he stopped breathing. Life-saving efforts were initiated and the inmate was transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead. DISPOSITION OF CASE The department opened both administrative and criminal investigations into staff's use of force, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The Office of Internal Affairs addressed the hiring authority’s referral, and the bureau concurred with its response. The institution's review of staff's use of force was deferred until the department's independent Deadly Force Review Board completes its review. Case No. 09-0836 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 1, 2009, an inmate was being discharged from a local hospital when he allegedly fell and hit his head while trying to step from a wheelchair to a transport vehicle. The inmate was readmitted to the hospital and subsequently died on May 11, 2009, from complications of blunt force head injuries. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was alleged; therefore, the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department did not sufficiently advise the bureau about the incident, nor was it handled adequately. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response. Case No. 09-0837 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 29, 2009, an officer used less-than-lethal rounds to stop a fight between two inmates. Both combatants stopped fighting after they were struck by the rounds. A non-involved inmate required treatment at a local hospital after he was struck in the left eye with a round that ricocheted. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was not identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office 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. 09-0838 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 26, 2009, an inmate with a history of assaulting staff alleged that officers and other inmates sexually assaulted him. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority chose to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. The bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs’ response to the hiring authority’s referral. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 132 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0839 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 22, 2009, an inmate was found unresponsive in his cell by his cellmate. The cellmate notified staff who initiated life-saving measures and called for emergency medical services. The inmate was transported to the medical treatment facility and life-saving measures were continued until an ambulance arrived. The inmate was pronounced dead by a physician from a local hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The coroner determined that the inmate died of an accidental overdose of heroin and anti-epileptic medication. Therefore, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department 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. 09-0840 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 18, 2009, officers were alerted to an inmate who was on the floor of a dormitory with a head injury from an apparent assault. The inmate was transported to a local hospital where life-saving procedures were successful. DISPOSITION OF CASE The injured inmate was uncooperative with the investigation; therefore, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department failed to provide adequate initial notification, but adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred. Case No. 09-0841 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 10, 2009, an inmate alleged she had been forced to perform oral sex on another inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE Prison Rape Elimination Act protocols were initiated and the inmate was taken to an outside hospital for examination. The case was referred to the district attorney's office for review. There was no evidence of staff misconduct; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0842 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 8, 2009, an inmate attacked and attempted to kill an officer with a inmate-manufactured weapon. Officers controlled the inmate with pepper spray and transferred him to a nearby institution for housing in an administrative segregation unit. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's investigative services unit conducted an investigation into the incident and referred the matter to the local district attorney's office for prosecution. The district attorney's office accepted the case and filed charges. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate except for the delay in reviewing the use of force. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 133 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0843 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On March 7, 2009, an inmate reported that he had been sexually assaulted numerous times during the preceding two months by his cellmate. The inmate claimed the most recent assault had occurred in late February, 2009. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department neglected to inform the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0844 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 28, 2009, an inmate had a seizure in a work change area, causing him to collapse and fall to the ground. Medical staff responded and began emergency medical treatment. The inmate was transferred to a medical center where he died several days later. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined that the inmate died as a result of a ruptured blood vessel in the brain. There was no staff misconduct identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0845 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 9, 2009, an inmate who was off prison grounds receiving medical care at a local hospital attempted to escape from escort officers. The inmate got free by slipping free of some of his mechanical restraints. After a brief foot chase, the inmate was re-captured. No staff members were injured. DISPOSITION OF CASE Staff misconduct was identified for failing to properly restrain the inmate; therefore, the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs opened a case, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department provided sufficient consultation; nevertheless, it failed to initially notify the bureau in a timely manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 134 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0846 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 4, 2009, an inmate called officers to a dormitory for a medical emergency. Officers responded and found two inmates performing CPR on an unresponsive inmate. Officers relieved the inmates, continued CPR, and called 911 for emergency assistance. Paramedics arrived and began advanced life-saving procedures. The inmate was pronounced dead after life-saving efforts failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined that the inmate died of a heart attack. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau found the department's response satisfactory except that the physician's death report was completed by a sergeant instead of a physician. At the bureau's request, a physician completed a second death report. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0847 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On February 2, 2009, a control booth officer observed two inmates on the ground fighting. The officer saw that one inmate had his arm around the other inmate's neck and appeared to be choking him. The inmate who was being choked did not appear to be moving. The officer sounded his alarm and ordered the inmates to separate. The inmates did not comply, so the officer fired three less-lethal rounds. The officer ordered the inmates to separate after each round, but they did not comply. Finally, after the third round was fired and responding staff arrived, the inmates complied with orders to stop fighting. The control booth officer stated in his report that the first two shots missed and that he did not see where the third shot struck. The inmate who had his arm around the neck of the other inmate sustained a laceration above his right eye and said that he was struck by one of the less-than-lethal rounds. DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's use of force committee reviewed the incident and noted that the control booth officer targeted the attacking inmate's upper arm, which is not an authorized target area when using less-than-lethal rounds. However, the officer adequately described in his report that he believed the choked inmate's life was in danger and that the only target area visible to him was the attacker's upper arm. Therefore, the committee determined that the force used was reasonable and necessary. 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 although the department failed to adequately notify and consult with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0848 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 31, 2009, two inmates attacked another inmate on an exercise yard by striking him in the head and upper torso. An officer fired less-than-lethal rounds to stop the attack. Although the officer reported he was aiming for a lower extremity, one less-than-lethal round struck one of the aggressors in the head. The injured inmate was treated at a local hospital and then returned to custody. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The hiring authority determined that the force used during the incident was within departmental policy and the bureau agreed. Staff misconduct was not 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 consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide timely notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 135 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0849 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 30, 2009, an inmate alleged his cellmate sexually assaulted him. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate will be referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0850 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 28, 2009, 13 inmates participated in a riot on an exercise yard. The inmates ignored officers' orders to get down. As a result, pepper spray as well as an instantaneous blast dispersion grenade was used to stop the fighting. After the riot ended, officers recovered five inmate-manufactured weapons. Several inmates were injured as a result of the fighting, including one inmate who was treated at a local hospital for stab wounds. No inmates were injured as a result of the officers' use of force. DISPOSITION OF CASE Cases against some of the involved inmates were referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide timely notification. Case No. 09-0851 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On January 17, 2009, an inmate tried to ram his head into an officer who was helping the inmate stand up. The inmate was restrained with handcuffs. The officer used physical force to control the inmate. As a result, the inmate fell and broke his hip. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office Internal Affairs for investigation. The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney for prosecution, but no charges were filed because the officer was not injured. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects except that the review of the use of force was not timely. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the hiring authority's decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0852 (North Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 29, 2008, a riot occurred in the dining hall of an institution. During the course of the riot, two inmates were observed stabbing another inmate with inmate-manufactured weapons. Staff used batons to stop the riot. No inmates or staff were seriously injured. DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not reffered to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 136 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0853 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 24, 2008, an inmate collapsed shortly after arriving at a prison. Officers and medical staff responded and began CPR. After the inmate arrived at the institution's medical treatment facility, a physician began advanced life-saving efforts. The inmate was pronounced dead after life-saving efforts at the institution failed and he was transported to a local hospital. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined that the inmate's death was due to cancer. The inmate had a tumor in his heart blocking blood flow to the lungs. 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 most critical aspects, except for a six minute delay in calling 9-1-1. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. Case No. 09-0854 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 13, 2008, an inmate told officers that he was not able to wake up his cellmate. The officers investigated and activated an alarm after determining the cellmate was unresponsive. Medical staff arrived and assessed the cellmate after he was removed from the top bunk and began CPR. The cellmate was later pronounced dead after life-saving measures failed. DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined that the cellmate died of a heroin overdose. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was sufficient, with the exception of a 15 minute delay in calling 911 after determining the cellmate was not breathing. The department sufficiently consulted with the bureau, although it initially failed to properly notify the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with the decision. Case No. 09-0855 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On December 8, 2008, an inmate alleged to a mental health staff member that he had been sexually assaulted by his cellmate two days earlier. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident was sufficient. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Case No. 09-0856 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 14, 2008, an inmate was discovered unresponsive in his cell. He was removed from his cell and given immediate medical treatment. He was then transported to an outside medical facility where he died on November 15, 2008. DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined the inmate's death was from natural causes. There was no indication of staff misconduct; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of the Internal Affairs for an investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide timely notification, but adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 137 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0857 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 13, 2008, two inmates attacked and stabbed another inmate inside a housing unit. The inmate being attacked sustained numerous stab wounds to his chest and back. The injured inmate was transported to a local hospital for treatment of his injuries. The department conducted an investigation into the two attacking inmates as well as three other inmates believed to have conspired in the attack. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney’s office, which filed criminal 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 overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects except that the department failed to timely notify and consult with the bureau regarding the incident. Case No. 09-0858 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 13, 2008, an inmate alleged that he was sexually assaulted by another inmate. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the aggressor inmate was referred to the district attorney's office. The district attorney's office is awaiting the outcome of the Department of Justice's analysis of the evidence in the case before it makes a decision whether or not 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 to the incident was sufficient. The bureau was notified in a timely manner and the department adequately consulted with the bureau. As a result of this matter, the bureau recommended that the department improve its communication with the Department of Justice to assure receipt of timely evidence analysis. Case No. 09-0859 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On November 12, 2008, officers observed two inmates attacking a third inmate. The officers stopped the attack with pepper spray. One inmate was treated for a stab wound to his neck and then returned to custody. DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to provide timely initial notification. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 138 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0860 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On September 4, 2008, a gang-related riot occurred on an exercise yard. Officers used pepper spray and less-than-lethal direct impact rounds to stop the riot. Seven inmates with serious injuries were transported to a local hospital for emergency treatment. One of the seriously injured inmates alleged that he was shot in the head with a less-than-lethal direct impact round. DISPOSITION OF CASE The evidence did not support the inmate's claim that he was shot in the head with a less-than-lethal round. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall initial response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the incident. The department did not complete their use of force review until nine months after the incident and initially failed to conduct video-taped interviews of several inmates with head injuries as required by policy. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. Case No. 09-0861 (South Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 25, 2008, an inmate claimed that her cellmate pulled up her shirt and licked her bare breast. DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigative services unit initiated protocols required by the Prison Rape Elimination Act, collected evidence, and submitted it to the Department of Justice for examination and testing. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all 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. Case No. 09-0862 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On August 22, 2008, an inmate being escorted to his cell struggled with an officer. As the officer attempted to gain control of the inmate, the inmate fell to the ground and struck his head on a concrete floor in the housing unit. As a result, the inmate was hospitalized and sustained permanent brain injury. DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs dispatched special agents from the deadly force investigation team to conduct investigations into the incident. The Office of Internal Affairs opened both criminal and administrative investigations into the use of deadly force, which the bureau accepted for monitoring. BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 139 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CRITICAL INCIDENTS Case No. 09-0863 (Central Region) FACTS OF CASE On April 3, 2008, two inmates attacked two sergeants and an officer with inmate-manufactured stabbing weapons. The officers defended themselves with a variety of force options, including physical force, batons, and pepper spray. As a result of the attack, staff sustained serious injuries consisting of stab wounds, significant loss of blood, cuts, and bruising. DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department provided adequate notification and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 140 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPENDIX DISCIPLINARY ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS July through December 2009 The following table contains a list of the department’s disciplinary allegations and findings in each case the bureau monitored during this reporting period. The table is organized in the same numerical order as the distinguished, deficient, and satisfactory tables found in the main body of this report. The information included in this table is derived directly from the department’s case management system database. Information absent from the database is indicated with an asterisk. Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 141 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0454 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 09-0455 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0456 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Sergeant * 09-0457 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0458 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0459 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes 09-0460 (Central Region) (1) <None> Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0461 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0462 (Headquarters) (1) Warden Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained No 09-0463 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0464 (North Region) (1) Supervising Cook I Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0465 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0466 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty 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? Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0467 (North Region) (1) Supervising Cook I Contraband Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 09-0468 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Confidential Information Sustained Yes 09-0469 (South Region) (1) Plumber II Contraband Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 09-0470 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent III Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes 09-0471 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Confidential Information Not Sustained Yes 09-0472 (Central Region) (1) Facility Captain Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Counselor II Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Counselor II Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0473 (North Region) (1) Cook I Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0474 (North Region) (1) Chief Medical Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0475 (Headquarters) (1) Deputy Reg. Parole Admin. Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (2) Deputy Reg. Parole Admin. Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes (3) Parole Administrator I Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 09-0476 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0477 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty 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? 09-0478 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0479 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0480 (North Region) (1) Facility Captain Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes 09-0481 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0482 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0483 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer * 09-0484 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 144 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0485 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 09-0486 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent III Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 09-0487 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 09-0488 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Controlled Substances Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 09-0489 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes 09-0490 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 145 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes 09-0491 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0492 (Headquarters) (1) Warden Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Intoxication Not Sustained No 09-0493 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0494 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0495 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 146 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0496 (Central Region) (1) Janitor Controlled Substances Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0497 (Central Region) (1) Teacher - Elementary Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes (2) Principal Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes 09-0498 (North Region) (1) Cook I Contraband Not Sustained No Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0499 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Controlled Substances Sustained Yes 09-0500 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force 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? 09-0501 (North Region) (1) Facility Captain Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Fire Captain Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0502 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Lieutenant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes 09-0503 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0504 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes 09-0505 (North Region) (1) <None> Contraband Sustained Yes 09-0506 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0507 (North Region) (1) Supervising Cook II Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes (2) Accountant I (Supervisor) Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (3) Office Technician - Typing Failure to Report Sustained Yes 09-0508 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0509 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 148 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained No Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes 09-0510 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0511 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes 09-0512 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (4) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0513 (Central Region) (1) Teacher - High School Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 149 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0514 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent III Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes 09-0515 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 09-0516 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Confidential Information Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Confidential Information Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0517 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Counselor II Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes 09-0518 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Sergeant * (3) Correctional Sergeant * 09-0519 (Central Region) (1) Supervising Cook I * (2) Correctional Sergeant * (3) Correctional Officer * (4) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) * (5) Correctional Officer * 09-0520 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 150 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0521 (Central Region) (1) Chaplain * 09-0522 (Central Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I * 09-0523 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 09-0524 (South Region) (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Battery Sustained Yes Other Criminal Act Sustained Yes Battery Sustained Yes 09-0525 (Central Region) (1) Physician & Surgeon Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 09-0526 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Insubordination Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0527 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Psychiatric Technician Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty 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? (4) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0528 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Clinical Psychologist Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0529 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Parole Agent I Insubordination Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Parole Agent II Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0530 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I * 09-0531 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0532 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0533 (Headquarters) (1) Chief Medical Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0534 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A 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? 09-0535 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * 09-0536 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Theft Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0537 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent II Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes 09-0538 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A 09-0539 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0540 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A 09-0541 (Central Region) (1) Associate Warden Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained No 09-0542 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Confidential Information Sustained Yes Confidential Information Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0543 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A 09-0544 (Headquarters) (1) Warden Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes 09-0545 (Headquarters) (1) Senior Special Agent Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 09-0546 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Intoxication Sustained Yes 09-0547 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0548 (North Region) (1) Cook II * 09-0549 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent II Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0550 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband 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? Contraband Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 09-0551 (North Region) (1) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A Contraband N/A N/A 09-0552 (North Region) (1) Supervising Cook I * 09-0553 (North Region) (1) Correctional Captain Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0554 (South Region) (1) Correctional Counselor II Theft N/A N/A (2) Staff Services Analyst (Gen) * 09-0555 (North Region) (1) Supervising Registered Nurse II Controlled Substances N/A N/A Controlled Substances N/A N/A 09-0556 (North Region) (1) Supervising Registered Nurse II Controlled Substances Sustained Yes Controlled Substances Sustained Yes 09-0557 (South Region) (1) Plumber II * 09-0558 (Central Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Contraband Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0559 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Counselor I Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0560 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Intoxication 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? Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0561 (North Region) (1) Supervising Cook I Controlled Substances N/A N/A Contraband N/A N/A 09-0562 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A 09-0563 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0564 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0565 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0566 (North Region) (1) Janitor Supervisor II Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 09-0567 (Central Region) (1) Plumber I Contraband N/A N/A 09-0568 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes 09-0569 (South Region) (1) Registered Nurse Controlled Substances N/A N/A Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 09-0570 (South Region) (1) Registered Nurse Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0571 (North Region) (1) Cook I Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 09-0572 (Headquarters) (1) Cook I Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0573 (North Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Contraband N/A N/A Theft N/A N/A Controlled Substances N/A N/A 09-0574 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A 09-0575 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0576 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0577 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0578 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 155 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0579 (South Region) (1) Supervising Cook I * 09-0580 (South Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I * 09-0581 (South Region) (1) Vocational Instructor Contraband N/A N/A 09-0582 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes 09-0583 (North Region) (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0584 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Controlled Substances Sustained Yes 09-0585 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0586 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0587 (Headquarters) (1) Warden Dishonesty Sustained Yes Battery Sustained Yes 09-0588 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) *Other Peace Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0589 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Not Sustained No 09-0590 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Intoxication Sustained Yes 09-0591 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes (2) Associate Warden Failure to Report Sustained Yes 09-0592 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 09-0593 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes 09-0594 (Central Region) (1) <None> * 09-0595 (Central Region) (1) Chief Physician & Surgeon Discourteous Treatment 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? Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0596 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0597 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes 09-0598 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Clinical Social Worker * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Correctional Officer * (6) Correctional Officer * 09-0599 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0600 (North Region) (1) Psychiatric Technician Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes 09-0601 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0602 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0603 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0604 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct 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? Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0605 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0606 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0607 (Headquarters) (1) <None> Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (2) Parole Agent III Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (3) Parole Agent III Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 09-0608 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Battery Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0609 (North Region) (1) Youth Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0610 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0611 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant * 09-0612 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0613 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0614 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 158 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0615 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes 09-0616 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 09-0617 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A Controlled Substances N/A N/A 09-0618 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Confidential Information Sustained Yes 09-0619 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 09-0620 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances N/A N/A Contraband N/A N/A 09-0621 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Counselor I Contraband Not Sustained Yes 09-0622 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0623 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes Contraband Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0624 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0625 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Insubordination Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0626 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0627 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 159 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? 09-0628 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained No (2) Correctional Officer * 09-0629 (Central Region) (1) Supervising Cook I Over-Familiarity N/A N/A Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 09-0630 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0631 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0632 (Central Region) (1) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) * (2) Correctional Sergeant * 09-0633 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Assault Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Medical Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Medical Sustained Yes 09-0634 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0635 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 09-0636 (South Region) (1) Associate Warden Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0637 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0638 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 160 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0639 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes 09-0640 (Headquarters) (1) <None> * 09-0641 (South Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0642 (Headquarters) (1) Special Agent Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0643 (North Region) (1) Cook I * 09-0644 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 09-0645 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0646 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Dishonesty 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? (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Insubordination Sustained Yes 09-0647 (Headquarters) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0648 (Headquarters) (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Dishonesty Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained No Contraband Not Sustained No 09-0649 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained No Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0650 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (6) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (7) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (8) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (9) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 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? (10) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes 09-0651 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes 09-0652 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0653 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Intoxication Sustained Yes Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes Intoxication Sustained Yes Misuse of State Equipment or Property 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? Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0654 (Headquarters) (1) Youth Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0655 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 164 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? (5) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes 09-0656 (South Region) (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Dishonesty Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0657 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent I * 09-0658 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent I Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes 09-0659 (Central Region) (1) Off Serv Supervisor II - General Contraband Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0660 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes (4) Medical Doctor Failure to Report Sustained Yes 09-0661 (North Region) (1) Correctional Counselor I Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0662 (South Region) (1) Office Assistant I Typing * 09-0663 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 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? Dishonesty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Use of Force Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes Use of Force Not Sustained Yes 09-0664 (North Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes 09-0665 (Central Region) (1) Industry Supervisor Contraband N/A N/A 09-0666 (Central Region) (1) Teacher - Elementary Contraband Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0667 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0668 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A 09-0669 (Central Region) (1) Account Clerk II * 09-0670 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 166 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0671 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer * (3) Correctional Officer * 09-0672 (North Region) (1) Muslim Chaplain Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0673 (Central Region) (1) *Other non-Peace Officer Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes 09-0674 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0675 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) <None> * 09-0676 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Battery Sustained Yes Battery Not Sustained No Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained No (2) Correctional Officer Battery Sustained Yes 09-0677 (North Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A 09-0678 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0679 (Central Region) (1) Teacher - High School Contraband N/A N/A Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 09-0680 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0681 (South Region) (1) Staff Psychiatrist Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Medical Not Sustained Yes (2) Registered Nurse Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 167 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0682 (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 (3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes 09-0683 (Central Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 09-0684 (South Region) (1) Case Records Analyst Confidential Information Sustained Yes Confidential Information Sustained Yes Confidential Information Sustained Yes Confidential Information Sustained Yes Failure to Report Sustained Yes 09-0685 (North Region) (1) *Other non-Peace Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes 09-0686 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0687 (Headquarters) (1) Supervising Cook I * 09-0688 (North Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes 09-0689 (Central Region) (1) <None> Contraband N/A 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? (2) <None> * (3) <None> * (4) <None> * 09-0690 (North Region) (1) Manager Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0691 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes 09-0692 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0693 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0694 (South Region) (1) Supervising Cook I * 09-0695 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0696 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Controlled Substances Sustained Yes 09-0697 (South Region) (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No Use of Force Not Sustained No Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes (2) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes (3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes (4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes (5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0698 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes 09-0699 (North Region) (1) Parole Agent I Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes 09-0700 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I * 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? (2) Parole Agent I * 09-0701 (North Region) (1) Industrial Superintendent II Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes 09-0702 (Headquarters) (1) Parole Agent I Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes 09-0703 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes 09-0704 (Central Region) (1) Other Staff * 09-0705 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Counselor II Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Contraband Sustained Yes 09-0706 (South Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I * 09-0707 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0708 (South Region) (1) Materials And Stores Supv I * 09-0709 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * 09-0710 (North Region) (1) *Other non-Peace Officer * 09-0711 (Headquarters) (1) Chief Medical Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes Dishonesty Sustained Yes Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0712 (Central Region) (1) Correctional Sergeant Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes 09-0713 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent II Misuse of Authority N/A N/A 09-0714 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 09-0715 (South Region) (1) Plumber I * 09-0716 (South Region) (1) Parole Agent II Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 170 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence? Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes 09-0717 (South Region) (1) Cook I * 09-0718 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 09-0719 (South Region) (1) Supervising Cook I * 09-0720 (South Region) (1) Office Technician - Typing Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes 09-0721 (South Region) (1) Correctional Officer * (2) Lieutenant * (3) Sergeant * (4) Correctional Officer * (5) Chief Medical Officer * (6) Correctional Officer * (7) Correctional Officer * (8) Correctional Sergeant * 09-0722 (Central Region) (1) Associate Warden Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A (2) Lieutenant Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A 09-0723 (South Region) (1) Other Staff * 09-0724 (Central Region) (1) Painter II * (2) <None> * Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 171 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA