OIG
Bureau of Independent Review Semi-Annual Report July – December 2010
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT
JULY – DECEMBER 2010
OFFICE OF THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL
BRUCE A. MONFROSS
INSPECTOR GENERAL (A)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APRIL 2011
C
ONTENTS
FOREWORD......................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................2
SUMMARY OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES........................................................................................3
EXPLANATION OF TABLE FORMAT...............................................................................................14
TABLE OF APPEALED CASES.........................................................................................................19
TABLE OF DEADLY FORCE CASES................................................................................................33
TABLE OF DISTINGUISHED CASES.................................................................................................38
TABLE OF DEFICIENT CASES........................................................................................................51
TABLE OF SATISFACTORY CASES.................................................................................................61
TABLE OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS.................................................................................................120
APPENDIX: DISCIPLINARY ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS..........................................................149
F
OREWORD
The Bureau of Independent Review (bureau) was formed in 2004 to oversee the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s employee disciplinary process, including internal
affairs investigations and discipline decisions. A key component of this mission is to bring
transparency to this critical process. This semi-annual report is the vehicle by which the bureau
provides the public with information about serious allegations of misconduct alleged against
employees of the state correctional system.
This is the 12th semi-annual report to be published by the bureau. Although this report documents
a slight decrease in the department’s performance since the last semi-annual report, it does still
demonstrate an overall improvement in the handling of internal affairs investigations and
employee disciplinary matters since the implementation of the reforms required by the federal
court in the Madrid lawsuit. I am pleased that the bureau has been able to assist the department
in this process.
As Inspector General, I remain committed to furthering our work with the department and its
many stakeholders to ensure the department’s internal affairs investigations and disciplinary
decisions remain thorough, transparent, and fair. The implementation of the Madrid Remedial
Plan has been successful to date through the sustained cooperation of the Office of Internal
Affairs, the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team, the hiring authorities, and the bureau.
Each of these entities has a vital role to play in achieving the kinds of successes that are
demonstrated in this report. Without the sustained cooperation and determined adherence to the
Madrid reforms by all affected parties, the department’s disciplinary process would again be
subject to a substantial risk of failure, and therefore future civil rights litigation.
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.
— BRUCE A. MONFROSS, INSPECTOR GENERAL (A)
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 1
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I
NTRODUCTION
With great pleasure, I present the Bureau of Independent Review’s 12th Semi-Annual Report.
This report documents the bureau’s case monitoring and oversight activities which concluded
during the July 1, 2010, to December 31, 2010 period. This semi-annual report provides the
Governor, the Legislature, and the public with an overview of the bureau’s mission to ensure that
the most serious allegations of misconduct in our state correctional system are investigated and
addressed with integrity.
For the July to December 2010 reporting period, the bureau assessed 289 cases involving the
most serious allegations of misconduct by department employees. Overall, the majority of cases
were found to have a satisfactory outcome. However, for the first time since 2009, the number of
cases resulting in an unreasonable outcome increased and the number of distinguished cases
decreased in this reporting period. Of the 289 cases, 15 were found to have resulted in
unreasonable outcomes. In addition, 46 cases received the bureau’s highest rating of
distinguished, meaning the outcome of the case was reasonable and the department substantially
complied with the policies and procedures mandated by the Madrid court in conducting its
investigation and determining whether discipline should be imposed.
The bureau’s ability to fully carry out its mission, however, remained adversely impacted by the
State of California’s unprecedented fiscal crisis during this reporting period. Since early 2009,
the majority of state agencies, including the bureau, reduced their work hours by almost
15 percent through furloughs. The bureau regained some of its available work hours at the end of
this reporting period and became subject to a 5 percent reduction in November 2010. In addition,
the bureau has been hampered in its recruitment activities by a hiring freeze which has left
15 percent of its authorized positions vacant. Despite this challenge, staff from both the bureau
and department continue to demonstrate an extraordinary dedication to public service.
I wish to thank the bureau’s many talented professionals with whom I am honored to work. I also
want to thank the department’s executives and staff members for their daily cooperation and
support of the bureau’s mission. I look forward to continuing the bureau’s work with the
department and other stakeholders to achieve our mutual goal of creating a model correctional
system for California.
— ROY W. WESLEY, CHIEF ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL (A)
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. The bureau’s evaluation of cases
and critical incidents it monitors are contained in the bureau’s semi-annual reports.
In this report, the bureau reports its initial evaluation of 289 monitored cases and 93 monitored
critical incidents which reached a stage of completion allowing them to be publicly evaluated.1
The bureau also provides updated information regarding 32 monitored cases in which the
discipline imposed by the department has been significantly modified since the case was initially
reported in a prior semi-annual report.
For the first time since 2009, the number of monitored cases reported has increased.
Additionally, this reporting period includes an increase in the percentage of direct action
monitored cases, which are disciplinary action cases without an internal affairs investigation by
the department. This report also contains a decline in the number of critical incidents monitored
by the bureau when compared to the bureau’s last semi-annual report. The bureau reports on 93
critical incidents in this report, while it reported 136 critical incidents in the previous semi-
annual report. This marks the third consecutive semi-annual report with the number of critical
incidents monitored by the bureau declining. This trend is primarily related to the bureau’s
nearly 15 percent decline in available work hours beginning in February 2009 when work
furloughs were mandated and hiring was curtailed due to the state’s unprecedented fiscal crisis.
As a result, the bureau more stringently defined the scope of critical incidents it monitored.
Additionally, in this reporting period, the department delayed in providing the bureau appropriate
notification in 28 percent of the critical incidents reported by the bureau.
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 monitor the process, provide recommendations on central intake
panel determinations, and determine which cases the bureau will accept for monitoring.
1 Monitored cases are those cases approved by the department for an administrative investigation, criminal
investigation, or disciplinary action without an investigation. Critical incidents include serious events, such as riots
or homicides, which require the department’s immediate response.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 3
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Once a case is accepted for monitoring, the bureau follows the case through the various stages of
the disciplinary process. If an internal affairs investigation is conducted, the bureau consults with
the investigators, attends key interviews, reviews evidence, and provides recommendations
regarding the investigative report. Department officials who are responsible for determining
whether or not to impose discipline on an employee are referred to as hiring authorities. When a
hiring authority determines what, if any, discipline will be imposed on an employee, the bureau
provides feedback regarding the hiring authority’s proposed course of action. If the hiring
authority and the bureau representative have a significant disagreement regarding the appropriate
outcome of a case, the matter may be elevated to the next supervisory level through a process
called executive review. If the department’s attorneys have been assigned to provide legal
representation for the case, the bureau consults with them regarding legal issues and reviews any
disciplinary documents drafted on behalf of the department. Once the department’s internal
disciplinary process has concluded, the bureau provides its assessment of the case in the tables
that follow in this report.
Employees who are disciplined have a right to challenge the discipline imposed against them by
filing an appeal with the State Personnel Board, which is an independent state agency. The
bureau continues to monitor cases through this appeal process. If there is a significant change in
the outcome of a case after it has been appealed, the bureau publicly reports the updated
information in the Appealed Cases table of this report.
Monitoring Appealed Cases
The bureau provides an update to a previously reported monitored case when a significant
change to the discipline imposed occurs after the employee challenges the discipline by filing 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 with the employee such
that the employee receives an agreed upon penalty in exchange for withdrawing the challenge to
the disciplinary action.
The Appealed Cases table in this report presents 32 cases in which the discipline initially
imposed by the department was significantly modified after an employee filed an appeal with the
State Personnel Board. During the reporting period, the bureau concurred with the final outcome
in 50 percent of these cases in which the discipline was significantly modified after an appeal
was filed. In the remaining half of these cases, the bureau found the final outcome resulting from
a settlement agreement or decision of the State Personnel Board to be unreasonable. These cases
are labeled deficient outcome or deficient decision in the appeal update section for each case in
the Appealed Cases table. The Appealed Cases table begins on page 19 of this report.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 4
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
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. Department policy provides for criminal and administrative
investigations to be immediately conducted on all deadly force incidents, excluding warning
shots fired in an institutional setting. 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 to evaluate the department’s management of the incident and the department’s
subsequent deadly force investigations.
The bureau also participates as a non-voting member of the department’s Deadly Force Review
Board (DFRB). The DFRB is an independent body comprised of outside law enforcement
officials and one department executive officer. Generally, once the administrative investigation
is complete, the investigative report is presented to the DFRB. The DFRB examines the incident
to determine the extent to which the use of force complied with department policies and
procedures, and to determine the need for department modifications to policy, training, or
equipment. The DFRB’s findings are then presented to the department.
Because the use of deadly force has such serious implications, the department’s use of deadly
force has always received the bureau’s highest level of scrutiny. 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.
The bureau monitored 12 deadly force investigations that concluded during the reporting period,
which included 6 criminal investigations and 6 administrative investigations. The bureau’s
assessment of these investigations are presented in the Deadly Force Cases table beginning on
page 33 of this report. The bureau’s assessment of the department’s initial management of deadly
force incidents are presented, amongst other serious incidents, in the Critical Incidents table
beginning on page 120.
Caseload Trends
This report includes an evaluation of 289 monitored cases completed between July and
December 2010. As the chart on the next page illustrates, the bureau’s number of reported cases
generally increased from January 2006 to June 2009, until the end of 2009 when a decline is seen
as a result of mandated furloughs. In this report, the bureau presents an increased number of
reported cases, including more cases that involved disciplinary action without an internal affairs
investigation. Additionally, the mandated 15 percent work furloughs per month ended after
October 2010; thus during the last two months of this reporting period the bureau was subject to
a lesser 5 percent furlough per month which did not have to be used during that particular month.
This increased the number of work hours available to the bureau for the last third of the reporting
period.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 5
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Semi-Annual Case Reporting Trend
306
295 289
271
260
239 245
221
206
193
Jan - Jul- Jan - Jul- Jan - Jul- Jan - Jul- Jan - Jul-
Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Case Types
Case Types
January - June 2010
July - December 2010
Administrative -
Direct Action Criminal Administrative -
Cases Investigation Direct Action
52 (21%) Cases Cases Criminal
49 (20%) 77 (27%) Investigation
Cases
55 (19%)
Administrative -
Investigation Administrative -
Cases Investigation
144 (59%) Cases
157 (54%)
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 6
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
sesaC
fo
rebmuN
The department characterizes allegations of misconduct as administrative, criminal, or both.
Most of the cases monitored by the bureau involve allegations of administrative misconduct.
This includes cases in which the department conducts an internal affairs investigation, and then
determines if disciplinary action is appropriate. These cases also include direct action cases
wherein the department determines there is enough evidence to impose discipline without an
internal affairs investigation.
In this report, the bureau provides an assessment of 234 administrative cases, including 157
administrative investigation cases and 77 direct action cases. The number of administrative
investigation cases reported by the bureau decreased this reporting period to 54 percent, from 59
percent in the prior reporting period. However, the number of direct action cases increased by 6
percent over the prior reporting period, from 21 percent to 27 percent. The bureau also assesses
55 criminal investigation cases in this report. The percentage of criminal investigations showed
little change from the prior reporting period with only a 1 percent decrease in this reporting
period, for a total of 19 percent of reported cases involving criminal investigations.
Allegation Type Distribution
Consistent with the Madrid remedial plan adopted by the federal court, the bureau focused a
large portion of its monitoring activities during this reporting period on cases involving five
allegation types: (1) improper use of force; (2) dishonesty in official reports or during
investigative interviews; (3) failure to report misconduct; (4) overly familiar conduct between
employees and inmates, wards, or parolees; and (5) sexual misconduct. The first three types of
allegations are of concern because, if true, serious civil rights violations may have occurred. The
other two types of allegations are of concern because they affect the safety and security of a
correctional institution or the exploitation of the potentially vulnerable population served by the
department.
Allegation Type Distribution
140
123
117
120
100
89
84
80
60
46 45 46
37
40
23
20
20
0
Use of Force Dishonesty Failure to Over-Familiarity Sexual
Report Misconduct
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 7
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
snoitagellA
fo
rebmuN
January - June 2010 July - December 2010
The chart above illustrates the number of times each of the five types of allegations were at issue
in the 289 cases assessed in this report, compared to the number of times each allegation type
was at issue in the cases reported in the last reporting period. As illustrated in the chart above,
the number of use of force and dishonesty allegations, the type of conduct central to the concerns
in the Madrid lawsuit, increased during this reporting period.
It is important to note that a single case often addresses many allegations of misconduct, thus, the
number of allegations may exceed the number of cases reported. Additionally, the cases
monitored by the bureau also include other allegations not contained in the five listed above.
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 for which
this critical information was entered and electronically recorded into its case management
computer system. In the last semi-annual report, the bureau reported the department had entered
this information in 98 percent of monitored cases. During this reporting period, the department
continued to improve in this area by entering this information in 99 percent of the cases. This
represents a dramatic improvement since 2008, when the bureau reported this information was
missing in 40 percent of monitored cases.
As shown in the chart below, the department documented allegation findings in its case
management system for 232 of the 234 administrative cases reported. Of the 232 administrative
cases, 54 cases, equal to 23 percent, had no allegations of misconduct sustained by the hiring
authority. At least one allegation of misconduct was sustained in each of the remaining 178
cases.
Administrative Case Findings
Cases Sustained
Cases with Data 178 (77%)
232 (99%)
Cases Without Data
2 (1%)
Cases Not Sustained
54 (23%)
Bureau Assessment
The bureau assesses cases in two ways. One way is by evaluating the disposition, which is the
outcome, of the case. The other way is by assessing the department’s compliance with
disciplinary processes required by the federal court in the Madrid lawsuit. There are three
components to the department’s disciplinary process: (1) investigations; (2) advocacy which is
the legal advice and representation of the department during the disciplinary process from
investigation through appeal; and (3) the hiring authorities, who are department officials
responsible for determining whether or not to impose discipline.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 8
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case Assessments
For this six-month reporting period, the
bureau identified 15 cases as deficient, Distinguished
Cases
which means the initial outcome of the 46 (19%)
case was unreasonable. These cases
include administrative cases for which
the department controls the disciplinary Deficient
Satisfactory Cases
process. Additionally, these deficient Cases 15 (6%)
cases include criminal cases for which 175 (75%)
the department did not complete the
investigation before the deadline to file
criminal charges expired. However, the bureau did not evaluate the disposition of the remaining
criminal investigation cases because the decision to file criminal charges is made by district
attorney’s offices or the attorney general’s office, not the department. The cases found to have a
deficient initial outcome are presented in both the Deficient Cases table, beginning on page 51,
and the Deadly Force Cases table, beginning on page 33. The bureau also found the final
outcome of an additional 16 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
within the Appealed Cases table, beginning on page 19.
The bureau identified 46 administrative cases as being distinguished, which means the initial
outcome of the case was reasonable and the department substantially complied with its
procedures. These cases are presented in the Distinguished Cases table, beginning on page 38.
The bureau assessed 175 administrative cases as satisfactory, meaning the case resulted in a
reasonable outcome despite procedural problems. Theses cases are presented in the Satisfactory
Cases table, beginning on page 61.
For procedural compliance assessment, it should be noted that the bureau does not assess the
department’s procedural compliance in some cases because there is not enough information
available to provide a meaningful assessment. For example, if an employee who is under
investigation resigns before the investigation is completed, the disciplinary process may be
significantly streamlined, leaving too few applicable procedures for the bureau to assess.
Overall, the bureau found the department to be procedurally compliant with department policies
and procedures more often than not in all three components of the disciplinary process. At the
same time, all three components demonstrated a decrease in the number of cases which
substantially complied with their policies and procedures, thus, contributing to an increase in the
percentage of cases found to be in partial compliance. Additionally, an increase in the number of
cases in which the advocacy component failed to comply with policies and procedures occurred
during this reporting period, while the investigative component decreased its number of cases
which failed to comply. This information demonstrating the changes in substantial compliance
and failure to comply are contained in the charts on the following page.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 9
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Percent of Cases Assesed
Failed to Comply
6%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2% 2%
2%
1%
1%
0%
January - June 2010 July - December 2010
Investigation Hiring Authority Advocacy
Percent of Cases Assessed
Substantial Compliance
80%
73% 73%
70% 70%
70%
64%
56%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
January - June 2010 July - December 2010
Investigation Hiring Authority Advocacy
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 10
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The chart below illustrates the overall procedural compliance for investigation as reported by the
bureau since 2007. This reporting period, the bureau found the department to be substantially
compliant in 70 percent of cases, to be partially compliant in 28 percent of cases, and failed to
comply in 2 percent of cases.
Investigation Assessment Ratings
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Jan - Jun Jul - Dec Jan - Jun Jul - Dec Jan - Jun Jul - Dec Jan - Jun Jul - Dec
07 07 08 08 09 09 10 10
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 11
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
tnecreP
Substantial Compliance Partial Compliance Failure to Comply
The chart below shows the overall procedural compliance for advocacy as reported by the
bureau since 2007. This reporting period, the bureau found the department to be substantially
compliant in 56 percent of cases, to be partially compliant in 39 percent of cases, and failed to
comply in 5 percent of cases.
Advocacy Assessment Ratings
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Jan - Jun Jul - Dec Jan - Jun Jul - Dec Jan - Jun Jul - Dec Jan - Jun Jul - Dec
07 07 08 08 09 09 10 10
tnecreP
Substantial Compliance Partial Compliance Failure to Comply
The chart below shows the overall procedural compliance for hiring authorities as reported by
the bureau since 2007. This reporting period, the bureau found the department to be substantially
compliant in 70 percent of cases, to be partially compliant in 28 percent of cases, and failed to
comply in 2 percent of cases.
Hiring Authority Assessment Ratings
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Jan - Jun Jul - Dec Jan - Jun Jul - Dec Jan - Jun Jul - Dec Jan - Jun Jul - Dec
07 07 08 08 09 09 10 10
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 12
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
tnecreP
Substantial Compliance Partial Compliance Failure to Comply
Monitoring Critical Incidents
The department is required to notify the bureau of all critical incidents immediately after the time
of the event. Critical incidents include serious events that require an immediate response by the
department, such as riots, homicides, escapes, uses of deadly force, and unexpected inmate
deaths.
After notification, the bureau monitors the department’s management of the incident, usually 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 120.
Caseload Trends
During this reporting period, the bureau assessed 93 critical incidents, a decrease in reported
critical incidents from the last three reporting periods. The bureau’s critical incident responses
continued to be constrained by work furloughs and vacancies within this reporting period.
Additionally, the number of critical incidents within any period is dependent upon the events
taking place within the department. Further, in order for the bureau to monitor an incident, the
bureau relies on the department to provide notification that an incident meeting the notification
criteria has occurred so that the bureau can determine whether the incident will be monitored.
Critical Incident Responses
160
147
139 136
140
120
93
100
78
74
80
61 61 63
60 48
40
20
0
January - July - January - July - January - July - January - July - January - July -
June December June December June December June December June December
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
During this period, the department failed to provide the bureau with timely notification for 28
percent of the reported critical incidents as required. Failure to notify the bureau of critical
incidents in a timely manner compromises the bureau’s ability to provide robust on-site
monitoring for these very serious events. Despite these notification issues and the bureau’s
limited work hours for most of 2010, the bureau continued to focus on safety and security issues
affecting the department, which are particularly challenging during critical incidents.
Timely Notifications
Cases without
Timely
Notifications
26 (28%)
Cases with Timely
Notifications
67 (72%)
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 13
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 great bodily injury to inmates and wards. Also of note this reporting period was the
increase in the number of critical incidents involving the department’s use of deadly force. The
chart below provides a comparison of the number of critical incidents of each type between this
reporting period and the prior reporting period
Type of Critical Incidents Comparison
45
42
40
35
30
30
30
25
18 18
20
15 14 13 14 13
15
11
10
7
4
5
0
0
Use of Deadly Great Bodily Inmate or Ward In-Custody Inmate or Inmate or Ward Other
Force Injury to Inmate Riot Inmate Death Ward Sexual Suicide
or Ward Assualt
January - June 2010 July - December 2010
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 14
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
E T F
XPLANATION OF ABLE ORMAT
The tables that follow provide the bureau’s assessment of individual cases and critical incidents
it monitored. The Appealed Cases table provides an update regarding the resolution of selected
monitored cases in which discipline was initially imposed and the employee filed an appeal with
the State Personnel Board. The majority of the bureau’s monitoring activities can be found in the
Deadly Force Cases, Distinguished Cases, Deficient Cases, and Satisfactory Cases tables. These
tables provide the bureau’s assessment of the department’s internal affairs investigations and
employee discipline actions related to alleged misconduct. Finally, the Critical Incidents table
provides an assessment of how the department handled a variety of serious incidents.
Format of Appealed Cases Table
The Appealed Cases table provides updated information regarding cases monitored by the bureau
in which the original discipline imposed was significantly modified during the appeal process.
The bureau initially publishes its assessment of a monitored administrative case once the
department determines whether or not to impose discipline on an employee; and, if discipline is
to be imposed, the department serves the employee with a disciplinary action. However,
employees may request a hearing before the State Personnel Board, an independent state agency,
to challenge the discipline taken against them. The bureau continues to monitor the case through
this appeal process. If there is a significant modification in the discipline after an appeal is filed,
the bureau publicly reports this change in the Appealed Cases table.
Each case in the Appealed Cases table is listed in ascending order by the case’s number, as
published in the semi-annual report in which it first appeared. The first two digits of the case
number reflect the year the case was reported, and the second number reflects the order in which
the case was reported during that year. For example, case number 08-0606 was the 606th case
appearing in the 2008 semi-annual reports.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 15
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
It is important to note that only cases in which the final outcome deviates significantly from the
discipline initially imposed are published in the Appealed Cases. Many additional cases are
resolved during the appeal process. However, the majority of these cases are resolved in a
manner that leaves the discipline originally imposed relatively unchanged so they do not appear
in the Appealed Cases table. In addition, the length of time needed to resolve a case once an
appeal has been filed can vary greatly from one case to another. For these reasons, not all cases
in which an appeal is filed will be published in the Appealed Cases table and there are significant
gaps in the number sequence of cases that appear in the Appealed Cases table.
Format of Case Tables
The bureau’s approach to assessing individual cases focuses on the outcome, or disposition, of
each case. A case in which the outcome was reasonable is presented as either a distinguished
case or a satisfactory case, depending on how well the department complied with its policies
and procedures in handling the case. Cases in which the disposition of the case was
unreasonable are presented as deficient cases.
Assessing the Disposition of Cases
The disposition in each case, which includes the allegations, findings, and penalty imposed, if
any, has been given one of the following ratings:
Symbol Rating Explanation
Given the totality of the circumstances, the disposition of the case was reasonable and
substantially consistent with the bureau’s recommendations. In addition, the department
substantially complied with critical policies and procedures applicable to the case.
Given the totality of the circumstances, the disposition of the case was reasonable and
substantially consistent with the bureau’s recommendations. However, the department failed to
comply with some critical policies and procedures applicable to the case.
Given the totality of the circumstances, the disposition of the case was unreasonable and
inconsistent with the bureau’s recommendations.
The disposition of the case was unreasonable and inconsistent with the bureau’s
recommendations but later rectified as the result of executive review, a process that elevates
the unreasonable decision to the hiring authority’s superior within the department; or,
The case eventually resulted in a finding that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct.
However, had actionable misconduct been found, no action could have been taken because the
time for a prosecutor to file charges in a criminal case or for the department to take
disciplinary action in an administrative case expired before the case was resolved.
The case monitored was a criminal case, so there were no administrative charges, findings, or
penalties imposed by the department for the bureau to assess.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 16
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The DISPO column shows the rating for the disposition of each monitored case.
Assessing the Department’s Compliance
This report also provides an assessment of the department’s compliance with policies and
procedures governing its internal investigations and employee discipline. Three critical
components are involved in the department’s disciplinary process: (1) investigation (INV);
(2) legal advice and advocacy (ADV); and the hiring authorities (HA), who determine if
discipline is warranted and if so, the penalty to be imposed.
Each critical entity is assessed with one of the following ratings:
Symbol Rating Explanation
There was substantial compliance with critical policies and procedures.
There was partial compliance with critical policies and procedures.
There was a failure to comply with critical policies and procedures.
There was insufficient data to provide an assessment or, because of the nature of the case,
the individual component was not involved.
The rating for each critical entity appears in the INV, ADV, and HA columns for each case the
bureau monitored.
An explanation of each appears in the “bureau assessment” box.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 17
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
As previously mentioned, unless the case is presented in the Deadly Force Cases table, the
bureau’s monitored cases are presented in separate tables representing the following three
categories:
• Distinguished cases – cases that resulted in reasonable outcomes that were handled well
by each critical entity.
• Deficient cases – cases that initially resulted in unreasonable outcomes or cases in which
the applicable statutory deadline expired before the case was resolved.
• Satisfactory cases – cases that resulted in reasonable outcomes despite not being
handled well by one or more of the critical entities.
Format of Critical Incidents Table
The Critical Incidents table provides a text-based description of the incident, the disposition of
the case, and the bureau’s assessment of how the department responded to the incident. The
bureau’s assessment addresses the following critical components of the department’s response:
• Did the department appropriately respond to the incident?
• Was the bureau properly consulted, as mandated by the Madrid reforms?
• Did the department properly determine whether to refer the matter for investigation?
• If the matter was referred for investigation, did the OIA properly handle the referral?
When the bureau monitors an investigation opened as a result of a critical incident, it is reported
in the case tables of the semi-annual report upon completion of the department’s internal
disciplinary process.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 18
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEALED CASES
Case No. 07-0011 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE From about May 2005 through July 2005, a control booth officer allegedly directed racial slurs, derogatory comments, and other threats
toward inmates; pointed his state-issued firearm at inmates for intimidation purposes; abandoned his post; and used excessive force on an
inmate and failed to document the use of force. A second officer allegedly knew about the first officer's use of force and failed to report it,
was engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the use of force, and moved the inmate allegedly assaulted to another institution without
appropriate reason or documentation. Also, a lieutenant allegedly had knowledge of the first officer's alleged misconduct and engaged in a
conspiracy to conceal the misconduct.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the control booth officer, and the officer was dismissed. The officer appealed the
dismissal, and the appeal is now pending before the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority did not sustain the charges against the
second officer but required that the second officer take additional training on reporting obligations and inmate rehousing procedures. The
hiring authority did not sustain the charge against the lieutenant.
APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer in which he agreed to resign in lieu of dismissal. The officer
also agreed not to seek future employment with the department and to withdraw his appeal. The bureau found the agreement to
be reasonable.
Case No. 07-0102 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On April 23, 2006, an inmate alleged that an officer ordered the inmate to walk on his knees into a holding cell while in leg restraints,
stood on the leg restraint chain and pushed the inmate. As a result, the inmate fell forward and struck his face on the back of the holding
cage, causing in a laceration above his right eye. It was further alleged that the officer failed to report the use of force. In addition, a
sergeant allegedly neglected his supervision duties related to the incident, and a second officer allegedly made false entries in the holding
cell log sheet.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegation against the second officer for false entries was deemed unfounded by the hiring authority. The allegations of incompetence,
neglect of duty resulting in injury, and other failure of good behavior were sustained against the sergeant, and he was demoted from
sergeant to officer. As for the initial officer, allegations were sustained for unreasonable use of force, neglect of duty resulting in an
injury, and discourteous treatment. However, the dishonesty charge was not sustained. He received a 48-day suspension. The initial
officer and the sergeant filed appeals, which are pending with the State Personnel.
APPEAL UPDATE During a pre-hearing motion, the State Personnel Board ruled the department exceeded the time within which to take
disciplinary action against the officer for the use of force. The hiring authority agreed it was in the best interest of the department
to settle the case by reducing the penalty from a 48 working-day suspension to a 24 working-day suspension. The bureau found
the settlement agreement to be reasonable. The sergeant did not pursue his appeal with the State Personnel Board; thus, his
penalty remained unchanged.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 19
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEALED CASES
Case No. 07-0141 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On February 15, 2006, while conducting a security check in a mental health crisis unit, two officers entered a cell occupied by one inmate.
One of the officers allegedly struck the inmate in the head while the other officer applied handcuffs. The officer who applied handcuffs
then allegedly falsified documents by stating that they entered the cell and placed the inmate in handcuffs without incident. It is also
alleged that one of the officers harassed a nurse who witnessed the incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained two allegations of misconduct against the officer who handcuffed the inmate, and three allegations of
misconduct against the officer who used force. The officer who handcuffed the inmate received a 5 percent salary reduction for six
months. The officer who used force received a suspension without pay for 60 working days.
APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT DECISION: Following a hearing, the State Personnel Board determined that the officer who used force did not
strike the inmate and therefore could not be held accountable for failing to document a use of force in his report. However, the
State Personnel Board found that this officer did treat this inmate disrespectfully and reduced the penalty to a letter of
reprimand. The bureau did not concur with the modification. The department entered into a settlement agreement with the
officer who handcuffed the inmate. The department agreed to reduce 5 percent salary reduction for six months to a letter of
reprimand and the officer agreed to withdraw the appeal. The bureau found the settlement agreement to be reasonable.
Case No. 07-0427 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On August 5, 2006, an inmate was medically evaluated and found to have no injuries before being transported by van to the
administrative segregation unit. Afterward, staff members found the inmate to have numerous injuries. The inmate alleged that during the
transport, an officer in the rear of the van beat, kicked, and used a baton on the inmate while two other officers watched, and that one of
the officers struck the inmate with his fist. The three officers did not report the use of force. The two officers were allegedly dishonest in
their investigative interviews by stating that they did not look in the rear of the van and did not hear anything unusual.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority concluded that the two officers who indicated that they did not look in the rear of the van failed to report the use of
force and were dishonest during their investigative interviews. Both officers were dismissed and filed appeals with the State Personnel
Board. The other officer had already been dismissed from the department based on an unrelated case.
APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT DECISION: Following hearings, the State Personnel Board revoked the dismissals of all three officers. The bureau
did not concur with the modifications.
Case No. 07-0447 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE An inmate alleged that on June 28, 2006, an officer, without provocation, addressed him with profanity, pulled out a baton and threatened
the inmate with physical harm.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations against the officer were sustained, and he was dismissed. The officer appealed the dismissal to the State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: The officer requested that the State Personnel Board delay hearing this case until criminal charges
against him in an unrelated case were resolved. The officer was convicted of two misdemeanor counts of abuse under color of
authority in the unrelated case, which he is challenging in the appellate court. After his convictions, the department entered into a
settlement agreement with the officer in this case in which he agreed to resign in lieu of dismissal. The officer also agreed to waive
any right to receive income from the time of his dismissal to the time of the agreement, agreed not to seek or accept future
employment with the department, and agreed to withdraw his appeal. The bureau did not concur with the settlement agreement.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 20
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEALED CASES
Case No. 08-0007 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On July 4, 2007, an officer allegedly failed to take appropriate emergency action when one inmate was stabbing another inmate.
DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation, the hiring authority sustained the allegation of neglect of duty and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six
months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT DECISION: The original allegation for failure to take emergency action was not sustained. However, after the
investigation, the hiring authority sustained an allegation that the officer neglected his duty by failing to properly meet his
quarterly range qualification and imposed the 5 percent salary reduction for six months. On appeal, the State Personnel Board
determined that a 60 day delay in meeting his quarterly range qualification is not the kind of behavior, for a first offense, that
warrants discipline and revoked the penalty. The bureau did not concur with the modification.
Case No. 08-0344 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On May 8, 2007, two sergeants and seven officers allegedly conducted surprise cell searches and used excessive and unnecessary force to
extract the inmates from their cells. The sergeants and officers then allegedly wrote false reports in an attempt to cover up their
misconduct.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against both sergeants and all seven officers. One sergeant and three officers were dismissed
and one sergeant received a 5 percent salary reduction for 36 months. All five have filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Three
officers received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months and another received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. These four
officers did not file appeals with the State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT DECISION: Following a hearing, the State Personnel Board revoked the dismissal of one officer; the bureau did not
concur with the revocation. The State Personnel Board also dismissed the one sergeant's appeal because at the time he was served
with the salary reduction notice in this case, the sergeant had already been dismissed by the department in an unrelated case,
therefore, was not longer a department employee at the time the department attempted to impose the discipline in this case. The
State Personnel Board further upheld the dismissals of one sergeant and one officer. The third officer who was dismissed entered
into a settlement agreement with the department after filing his appeal. He agreed to resign in lieu of dismissal, withdrew his
appeal, and agreed not to seek future employment with the department. The bureau found the settlement agreement to be
reasonable.
Case No. 08-0564 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2007, a parole agent allegedly informed a parolee that outside law enforcement was investigating him for numerous
burglaries in which numerous firearms were stolen. On the same day, a shootout occurred between outside law enforcement officers, the
parolee, and several of his associates. As a result, two suspects were killed. It was also alleged that the parole agent was dishonest when
he documented that he provided drug tests to the parolee.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of neglect of duty and dishonesty against the parole agent. The parole agent was dismissed. He
filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE The department and the parole agent entered into a settlement agreement. The department modified the penalty to a 30 working-
day suspension and the parole agent agreed to withdraw his appeal. Based on the significant evidentiary issues that arose in the
case prior to the hearing, the bureau found the settlement agreement to be reasonable.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 21
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEALED CASES
Case No. 09-0026 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On April 4, 2008, an officer reported that another officer said that during an incident on February 2, 2008, three sergeants and five
officers used unnecessary and excessive force on two-handcuffed inmates by lifting them by their forearms, slamming their heads into the
wall, and kicking them in the groin. It was further alleged that the sergeants and the officers failed to report the force used.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found sufficient evidence to sustain allegations that one sergeant witnessed the use of force but failed to report and
appropriately respond to it. The sergeant was issued a notice of dismissal, which the hiring authority rescinded after a Skelly hearing. The
hiring authority found there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations against the two other sergeants. The hiring authority sustained
allegations that one officer used unnecessary force, failed to report it, and was dishonest during his investigative interview. The officer
was dismissed and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority also sustained allegations against the four other
officers for failing to report the use of force they witnessed. The hiring authority imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months for
one of those officers, which he did not appeal. Another officer received a 60 working-day suspension, which the department later agreed
to modify to a 10 percent salary reduction for 30 months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. One officer
had been promoted to sergeant before the investigation was completed and the hiring authority demoted him back to officer. The final
officer was no longer employed by the department at the time the investigation was completed so disciplinary action could not be taken.
APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT DECISION: The sergeant's case proceeded to hearing before the State Personnel Board. Following the hearing, the
sergeant's penalty of demotion was modified to a 5 percent pay reduction for 12 months. The bureau did not concur with the
modification. The department and one 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 modify the penalty to a
15 month suspension and the officer agreed to withdraw his appeal. The bureau found the settlement agreement to be reasonable.
Case No. 09-0062 (Headquarters)
FACTS OF CASE On May 10, 2007, a sergeant in a housing unit allegedly received an order to move an inmate to a different cell after the inmate reported
that another inmate was causing him psychological harm by verbally badgering him through the ventilation system. However, the
sergeant did not move the inmate for several days and the inmate later attempted suicide. Use of force was required by officers to stop the
suicide attempt. The sergeant also allegedly provided false information to her supervisors concerning her failure to move the inmate. On
May 24, 2007, in the same housing unit, multiple officers allegedly encouraged inmates to forgo showers by offering the inmates coffee
or incidentals in lieu of showers, and they also encouraged inmates to attempt suicide, which in turn would necessitate the use of chemical
agents against the inmates. On May 25, 2007, an inmate in the housing unit alleged that an officer used excessive force by slapping the
inmate and placing tape across the inmate's mouth. Finally, on June 28, 2007, another inmate in the housing unit alleged that an officer
used unnecessary force by kicking a food port; hitting the inmate's hand.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant and served her with a notice of dismissal. The sergeant filed an appeal
with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained the allegations that two officers bartered with the inmates to get them to
forgo showers and served each of them with a notice of dismissal. Both officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. The hiring
authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the remaining officers.
APPEAL UPDATE The State Personnel Board revoked the sergeant's dismissal because it was served after the statutory deadline for taking
disciplinary action had expired. The State Personnel Board also revoked the officers' dismissals based on insufficient evidence
presented at the hearing. The bureau concurred with the modifications.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 22
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEALED CASES
Case No. 09-0164 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On March 20, 2008, a parole agent called outside law enforcement about a vehicle he had been following on a highway and then pulled
up behind the vehicle when it pulled over to the side of the highway. He then allegedly detained the citizen, took her keys, grabbed onto
his weapon, and grabbed the citizen's arm. The agent was also allegedly dishonest with the law enforcement officers that responded to the
scene.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the parole agent inappropriately stopped the
citizen and was discourteous to her, and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The parole agent filed an appeal with the
State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT DECISION: The State Personnel Board revoked the disciplinary action after a hearing, finding that the parole
agent's conduct did not violate the department's policy. The bureau did not concur with the modification.
Case No. 09-0289 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE In March 2007, an officer allegedly directed two inmates to perform a sexual act in return for allowing them to share a cell. The officer
allegedly photographed the act with his mobile phone and forwarded the photographs to a second and third officer. The second officer
allegedly struck one of the inmates with a side-handle baton and sprayed the inmate with a small burst of chemical agent in a playful
manner. None of the officers reported the conduct and all were allegedly dishonest when interviewed about the events.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the three officers and served each of them
with a notice of dismissal. Each officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT DECISION: Following a hearing before the State Personnel Board, the dismissal of the officer who directed the
inmates to engage in a sex act and videotaped them was upheld. The second officer was found to be dishonest in the investigative
interview, but the State Personnel Board reduced the penalty from a dismissal to a suspension without pay for 18 months. The
bureau did not concur with the modification to the second officer's dismissal.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 23
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEALED CASES
Case No. 09-0523 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On February 16, 2007, an officer alleged that she witnessed two other officers use unnecessary force on an inmate 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.
APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT DECISION: After a hearing before the State Personnel Board, the officer who initially used force's penalty was
reduced from a dismissal to a salary reduction of 5 percent for six months and the sergeant's penalty was reduced from a
dismissal to a demotion. The bureau did not concur with these modifications. The lieutenant's dismissal was upheld by the State
Personnel Board; the bureau concurred. One of the two officers who initially used force was dismissed in another case; therefore,
it was unnecessary for the appeal on this case to continue. The officer that received the 55 working-day suspension entered into a
settlement agreement with the department wherein her penalty was reduced to a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months and
she withdrew her appeal. The bureau found the settlement agreement to be reasonable.
Case No. 09-0608 (North Region)
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 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.
APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer in which he agreed to resign in lieu of dismissal. The officer
also agreed to not seek employment with the department and to withdraw his appeal. The bureau found the settlement agreement
to be reasonable.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 24
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEALED CASES
Case No. 09-0697 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On December 29, 2007, it was alleged that a lieutenant ordered the emergency removal of an inmate from his cell 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.
APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into a settlement agreement with the lieutenant. The department withdrew the disciplinary action and
issued him a letter of instruction. The lieutenant withdrew his appeal and agreed to waive all back pay. The bureau found the
settlement agreement to be reasonable because a material witness was unavailable for the hearing.
Case No. 09-0711 (Headquarters)
FACTS OF CASE From March 1 to July 1, 2007, a chief medical officer allegedly approved timesheets for contract doctors that he 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. The appeal was resolved with the chief medical officer resigning his
position with CDCR. He was paid back pay between the date of dismissal and approximately 6 months after.
APPEAL UPDATE The department and the chief medical officer entered into a settlement agreement. The chief medical officer agreed to resign and
withdraw his appeal, and the department agreed to withdraw the action. The bureau found the settlement agreement to be
reasonable.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 25
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEALED CASES
Case No. 09-0723 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On June 10, 2006, it was alleged that a sergeant ordered a male inmate to wear women's underwear after claiming 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.
APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT DECISION: The State Personnel Board revoked the penalty against the sergeant after finding that the action was
barred by the deadline for taking disciplinary action. The bureau did not concur with the modification.
Case No. 10-0038 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On February 4, 2009, it was alleged that a sergeant physically assaulted two restrained inmates while two officers assisted. The sergeant
allegedly failed to report the assault, directed the officers to omit the assault from their reports, and lied during an investigatory interview.
The two officers allegedly did not attempt to stop the assault and did not disclose the assault in the reports they submitted. Further, a third
officer allegedly witnessed the assault and did not attempt to stop it, and failed to report it. A fourth officer witnessed the assault, but
allegedly failed to report it in a timely manner.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant and dismissed him. The
sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the two officers, and
imposed 60 working-day suspensions. Both officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined there
was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the third officer. The hiring authority sustained allegations against the fourth
officer who witnessed the assault but delayed in reporting it and issued the officer a letter of instruction.
APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: The department entered into a settlement agreement with the sergeant in which the department
withdrew the dismissal, the sergeant resigned, and the sergeant agreed to not seek future employment with the department. The
bureau did not concur with the settlement agreement. Following Skelly hearings, the department and the two escorting officers
entered into settlement agreements which modified the 60 working-day suspensions to 10 percent salary reductions for 24 months.
In exchange, the two officers withdrew their appeals and agreed to testify against the sergeant. The bureau found the settlement
agreements with the two officers reasonable.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 26
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEALED CASES
Case No. 10-0058 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE In August 2008, a sergeant allegedly told an officer that another officer who had previously reported staff misconduct was a "rat",
"snitch," and that he wore a "wire".
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and demoted the sergeant to officer. The former sergeant filed an appeal with the State
Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer in which the officer was reinstated to the position of sergeant
after a ten month demotion and waived all claims for back pay. The sole witness to the most significant incident of misconduct in
promoting the code of silence was unavailable for hearing. Under the circumstances, the bureau found the settlement agreement
to be reasonable.
Case No. 10-0062 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On February 2, 2008, it was alleged that two officers removed an inmate from his cell and forced him to the ground. One officer allegedly
held the inmate down, as the other officer beat the inmate with a pepper spray canister. The officers allegedly wrote false reports about the
incident. In addition, another officer and a sergeant allegedly witnessed the incident but failed to report it. Further, a lieutenant allegedly
failed to properly supervise the officers following the incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the two officers who used unnecessary force. Both were dismissed. The allegations
against the other officer who witnessed the force but failed to report it were sustained, and he was also dismissed. The sergeant that failed
to follow departmental training by not reporting the incident was demoted to the position of officer. The lieutenant who failed to perform
within the course and scope of training was demoted to the position of sergeant. All employees who received disciplinary action filed
appeals to the State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT DECISION: Only the appeals by the officers who used force were initially pursued at the State Personnel Board,
however, one of the officer's has passed away. After a hearing regarding the dismissal of the other officer, the State Personnel
Board modified the penalty to a 12 month suspension. The bureau did not concur with the modification.
Case No. 10-0139 (Headquarters)
FACTS OF CASE On April 15, 2009, it was alleged that a youth correctional counselor had been involved in an overly familiar relationship with a ward for
approximately two years, including while the ward was incarcerated and after he was paroled. She also allegedly brought contraband into
the facility and gave the items to the ward. She further allegedly failed to inform the hiring authority of contact with an outside law
enforcement agency.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation regarding the overly familiar relationship and failure to report, but
did not sustain the allegation related to contraband. The hiring authority dismissed the youth counselor, who filed an appeal with the State
Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE The department and the youth correctional counselor entered into a settlement agreement in which the counselor agreed to resign
in lieu of dismissal. The youth correctional counselor also agreed to not seek future employment with the department and to
withdraw the appeal. The bureau found the settlement agreement to be reasonable.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 27
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEALED CASES
Case No. 10-0145 (Headquarters)
FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on April 8, 2009, three youth counselors failed to take appropriate action when they discovered a ward's cell window
covered with paper, obstructing their view into the cell. The ward was later discovered hanging in his cell in an attempt to commit suicide.
It was further alleged they were distracted from their assigned duties when they were watching television in the unit dayroom and
incorrectly reported their security checks in the unit.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of failing to take action when discovering the
covered window and distraction from duty; but did not sustain the allegation of incorrectly reporting the security checks. The hiring
authority imposed a salary reduction of 5 percent for 36 months for one youth counselor and a salary reduction of 10 percent for 12
months for the second counselor. The third counselor had previously received disciplinary action for similar misconduct. As a result, the
hiring authority dismissed him. All three counselors filed appeals with the State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT DECISION: Following a hearing, the State Personnel Board modified the penalties for all three youth correctional
counselors. The disciplinary action for the youth correctional counselor who received salary reduction of 5 percent for 36 months
was revoked. The youth correctional counselor, who received a salary reduction of 10 percent for 12 months, reduced to a 10
percent salary reduction for six months after the hearing. The youth correctional counselor, who was dismissed, had his penalty
reduced to a 30 calendar day suspension. The bureau did not concur with the modifications.
Case No. 10-0187 (Headquarters)
FACTS OF CASE On November 20, 2008, it was alleged that a parole agent requested another parole agent to access a law enforcement computer system to
obtain information on a private citizen. It was alleged that the parole agent did not disclose he wanted this information for personal
reasons.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and imposed a salary reduction of 5 percent for three months. The parole agent filed an
appeal with the State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: The department and the parole agent entered into a settlement agreement. In addition to this case, the
parole agent had another case pending before the State Personnel Board in which he was dismissed. The department allowed the
parole agent to resign in both matters in exchange for him withdrawing his appeals and agreeing to not seek future employment
with the department. The bureau did not concur with the settlement agreement.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 28
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEALED CASES
Case No. 10-0213 (Headquarters)
FACTS OF CASE On July 19, 2008, a parole agent's wife alleged that he struck her in the face multiple times with a closed fist. After several attempts to
contact the parole agent, outside law enforcement contacted the department. Officials from the department made contact with the parole
agent and made arrangements to transport him to the outside law enforcement agency. Despite being off-duty and having stayed in a hotel
the night before, the parole agent arrived in his state-issued vehicle, which contained his firearms. The district attorney's office filed
criminal charges against the parole agent.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the parole agent engaged in domestic violence and inappropriately used his state vehicle
off duty. The parole agent received a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months. He filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE Subsequent to the hiring authority imposing discipline, the district attorney's office dismissed the domestic violence related
criminal charges against the parole agent. Additionally, the parole agent's wife recanted her previous statement and in her new
written statement indicated the parole agent had not harmed her. As a result, the department entered into a settlement agreement
removing the allegations related to the alleged domestic violence, and reducing the penalty to a 5 percent salary reduction for
three months based solely on the misuse of the state vehicle. The bureau found the settlement agreement to be reasonable given
the evidentiary issues presented.
Case No. 10-0424 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On August 8, 2009, an officer allegedly used excessive force by slamming an inmate's hands in a cell food port two times. A second
officer allegedly used excessive force by kicking the food port door closed. Both officers also allegedly failed to report their own and each
other's excessive use of force.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against both officers and dismissed them. Both
officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into a settlement agreement with one of the officers in which the officer agreed to resign in lieu of
dismissal. The officer also agreed to not seek future employment with the department and to withdraw his appeal. The
department did not consult with the bureau prior to entering into the settlement agreement, however, ultimately the bureau
found the agreement to be reasonable. The second officer did not appear for his hearing date, therefore, the State Personnel
Board dismissed his appeal.
Case No. 10-0434 (Headquarters)
FACTS OF CASE Between September 2008 and April 2010, a special agent allegedly violated the department's computer use agreement by viewing
pornographic and other non work-related websites on his state-issued computer. The special agent was also allegedly insubordinate when
he refused to answer questions during his investigatory interview.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. This case was combined with another case against the special agent involving domestic
violence, and the special agent was dismissed. The special agent filed an appeal with State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE The department and the special agent entered into a settlement agreement in which the special agent agreed to resign in lieu of
dismissal. The special agent also agreed to withdraw his appeal and not to seek or accept future employment with the department.
The bureau found the settlement agreement to be reasonable.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 29
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEALED CASES
Case No. 10-0474 (Headquarters)
FACTS OF CASE On April 27, 2010, a special agent allegedly slapped his wife and forcefully removed her from their home by physically carrying her out.
No criminal charges were filed against the special agent.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation. This case was combined with another case against the special agent involving misuse of his
state computer and refusing to answer questions during his investigatory interview, and the special agent was dismissed. The special agent
filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE The department and the special agent entered into a settlement agreement in which the special agent agreed to resign in lieu of
dismissal. The special agent also agreed to withdraw his appeal with the State Personnel Board and not to seek or accept future
employment with the department. The bureau found the settlement agreement to be reasonable.
Case No. 10-0486 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On March 8, 2010, a parolee's mother alleged she was engaging in a sexual relationship with a parole agent in exchange for the parole
agent providing favors to the parolee. On March 19, 2010, the Office of Internal Affairs conducted surveillance of the parole agent at the
residence of the parolee and her mother, at which time the parole agent exposed himself. Subsequently, the parole agent allegedly lied
during his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs about the allegations.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the parole agent. The parole agent
filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: The parole agent attended a State Personnel Board prehearing and settlement conference on another
disciplinary action against the parole agent. Although this case was not before the State Personnel Board that day, the
department and parole agent entered into a settlement agreement regarding both cases in which the parole agent agreed to resign.
The parole agent also agreed to withdraw his appeals of both disciplinary actions and to not seek future employment with the
department. As the conference occurred in another case, the bureau monitor was not present for the settlement, nor was the
bureau consulted before the department entered into the settlement agreement. In fact, the department informed the bureau that
a continuance would be obtained, and instead, settled the case. The bureau did not concur with the settlement agreement.
Case No. 10-0594 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On July 7, 2009, it was alleged that a parole agent had multiple discrepancies in the record of supervision of parolees. Specifically, dates
of home visits allegedly did not match his case list roster, GPS monitoring allegedly lacked updated locations, and there were no
laboratory results from alleged anti-narcotic testing of parolees.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed him. The parole agent filed an
appeal with the State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into a settlement agreement with the parole agent in which he agreed to serve a 60 working-day
suspension in lieu of dismissal. The parole agent also agreed to waive back pay and withdraw his appeal. The bureau found the
settlement agreement to be reasonable based upon potential evidentiary issues regarding the anti-narcotic testing.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 30
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEALED CASES
Case No. 10-0625 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On March 27, 2009, a sergeant allegedly reported to outside law enforcement officers that on his way to work he had been attacked at a
remote rest area, that the assailants mentioned another officer's name during the attack, and that he suspected the attack was related to
gang activity at the institution. The sergeant suffered slashes that required stitches. As a result, outside law enforcement utilized over
1,400 hours and incurred approximately $85,000 in costs to provide the sergeant and the officer with round the clock protection for five
days. On February 2, 2010, the Office of Internal Affairs interviewed the outside law enforcement officers about the attack reported by
the sergeant. Later that same day, the sergeant reported to the outside law enforcement officers that he had again been the victim of a
crime, a hit and run outside of his home. The sergeant reported that while taking out the trash in the morning he was run over by an
unknown vehicle and the assailants made gang-related references to him. The sergeant sustained multiple injuries including slashes on his
leg. When the outside law enforcement officers interviewed the sergeant about the hit and run he had reported, the sergeant admitted that
neither the March 27 attack, nor the February 2 hit and run, had occurred and that he had self-inflicted both sets of wounds.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the officer had been dishonest to outside law
enforcement about both of the incidents and dismissed him. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into a settlement agreement in which the officer agreed to resign in lieu of dismissal. The officer also
agreed to withdraw his appeal and to not seek future employment with the department. The bureau found the settlement
agreement to be reasonable.
Case No. 10-0632 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE Between February and June 2009, the number of sick days used by two officers and a sergeant were significantly reduced in the computer
logs, as compared to the attendance sheets, concealing the actual number of sick days used. It was alleged that the sergeant used his
position to delete the sick days taken by himself and the other two officers. The sergeant also allegedly lied during an investigatory
interview.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the sergeant was served with a notice of dismissal. The sergeant filed an appeal with the
State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE DEFICIENT OUTCOME: The department and the sergeant entered into a settlement agreement. The dismissal was reduced to a
180 working-day suspension. Additionally, the sergeant agreed to voluntarily take unpaid leave for at least 5 months and no more
than a year. Once the sergeant returns from the leave, he will be subject to a demotion and return as an officer. If the sergeant
obtains a transfer and returns to another institution, he may do so as a sergeant. The department entered into the settlement
agreement because of potential evidentiary issues in the case. The bureau did not concur with the settlement agreement.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 31
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEALED CASES
Case No. 10-0668 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE Between June 2007 and December 2009, a chaplain allegedly appropriated inmate funds in a fraudulent manner and used his position
with the state to solicit grant money to fund a personal non-profit business. Additionally, he was allegedly overly familiar with inmates
and their families by facilitating monetary transactions. He was also allegedly dishonest in his investigatory interview.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the chaplain. The chaplain filed an
appeal with the State Personnel Board.
APPEAL UPDATE The department entered into a settlement agreement with the chaplain in which he agreed to resign in lieu of dismissal. The
chaplain also agreed to not seek future employment with the department and to withdraw his appeal. The bureau found the
settlement agreement to be reasonable.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 32
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEADLY FORCE CASES
Case No. 10-0382 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 27, 2010, a riot erupted in the main yard involving as many as 400 inmates. Staff repeatedly ordered DISPO INV ADV HA
the inmates to stop fighting and deployed pepper spray and blast dispersion gas grenades, however, the inmates
continued to riot. A tower officer fired seven to eight lethal rounds with five of the rounds each hitting a different
inmate. The injured inmates were transported to multiple local hospitals and eventually returned to the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation into the use of deadly force. The case was
referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The department also opened an
administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0383 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 28, 2010, a tower officer observed two inmates attacking a third inmate with what appeared to be a DISPO INV ADV HA
stabbing weapon on an exercise yard. The officer fired a single lethal shot at one of the attacking inmates from his
state-issued rifle. Although the shot missed, before he could fire a second shot, other officers on the exercise yard
arrived at the scene of the fight and controlled the attacking inmates. A stabbing instrument was recovered near
the scene of the attack, and the injured inmate sustained multiple serious injuries from the stabbing.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation into the use of deadly force. The case was
referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an
administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0384 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 15, 2010, an officer observed two inmates fighting in their cell. The officer ordered them to stop DISPO INV ADV HA
fighting, but the inmates continued to fight. The officer sprayed the inmates with pepper spray and the inmates
stopped fighting. They were removed from the cell and taken to separate showers to decontaminate. One of the
inmates stated that he was having difficulty breathing. While medical staff evaluated the inmate, he became
unconscious and stopped breathing. Life-saving measures were given, and continued, until the inmate arrived at a
local hospital and a physician declared the inmate 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. 10-0385 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 13, 2010, two inmates attacked another inmate who was quickly overpowered and knocked to the DISPO INV ADV HA
ground. After numerous orders to stop were ignored, an officer fired a less-than-lethal round striking one of the
aggressors. However, the inmates continued assaulting the other inmate who laid defenseless on the ground. The
officer then fired one lethal round to stop the attack. The round missed its intended target and struck the roadway
directly behind the involved inmates. The inmates stopped soon after the shot was fired.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation into the use of deadly force. The matter was
referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The department also opened an
administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 33
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEADLY FORCE CASES
Case No. 10-0386 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On April 1, 2010, special agents from the Office of Correctional Safety assisted outside law enforcement officers DISPO INV ADV HA
with the service of a search warrant at a parolee's residence. When the special agents and officers arrived, the
parolee exited her residence and released a pit bull. The pit bull charged at the special agents. One special agent
fired one round from his shotgun and another special agent fired one round from his handgun. The shotgun round
struck the dog in the right side, killing the dog.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation into the use of deadly force. The matter was
referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The department also opened an
administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0387 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On February 26, 2010, a parole agent assisted outside law enforcement in an investigation at a parolee's DISPO INV ADV HA
residence. While attempting to make sure the residence was secure, the parole agent saw two unrestrained dogs
coming toward him. One dog aggressively charged at the agent. The agent fired one lethal round toward the dog,
which caused it to stop. The round struck the ground and did not injure the animal. Animal control officers were
called to the scene, and the dogs were eventually released unharmed to their owners.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The criminal investigation into the use of deadly force was conducted by outside law enforcement and referred to
the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. 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 exonerated the officer for the use of force. However, the hiring authority provided the officer
with training related to checking the parolee's file before arriving at a home for information related to animals on
the premises and crime scene preservation.
Case No. 10-0388 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On January 27, 2010, a pit bull cornered a parole agent who was making a home visit to a parolee in a remote DISPO INV ADV HA
location. The parole agent repeatedly asked the parolee to restrain the dog without success. The dog lunged at the
parole agent and the parole agent fired one lethal round, killing the dog.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The department's independent Deadly Force Review Board found that the discharge of the lethal round was in
compliance with the department's use of force policy. The hiring authority subsequently exonerated the officer
and the bureau concurred.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 34
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEADLY FORCE CASES
Case No. 10-0389 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 16, 2009, a parole agent accidentally discharged his firearm inside a private residence during a DISPO INV ADV HA
parole search. The parole agent failed to notify the residents of the home and failed to immediately contact both
outside law enforcement or a supervisor. Approximately two hours later at another location in the presence of
other parole agents and outside law enforcement officers, the parole agent discharged his firearm a second time
while performing a safety inspection of his firearm. The parole agent did not immediately notify his supervisor or
report the second discharge to outside law enforcement.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs conducted a criminal investigation into the use of deadly force. The matter was
referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The department also opened an
administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0390 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 16, 2009, a parole agent accidentally discharged his firearm inside a private residence during a DISPO INV ADV HA
parole search. The parole agent failed to notify the residents of the home and failed to immediately contact both
outside law enforcement or a supervisor. Approximately two hours later at another location in the presence of
other parole agents and outside law enforcement officers, the parole agent discharged his firearm a second time
while performing a safety inspection of his firearm. The parole agent did not immediately notify his supervisor or
report the second discharge to outside law enforement.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The department's independent Deadly Force Review Board found that the agent's discharge of his weapon was
not in compliance with policy. The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the parole agent carelessly
handled his firearm resulting in the weapon discharging and that the parole agent failed to perform within the
scope of his training when he failed to immediately notify a supervisor and outside law enforcement. The hiring
authority imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State
Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0391 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 14, 2009, after receiving information that a wanted parolee was at a motel, a parole agent and two DISPO INV ADV HA
outside law enforcement officers responded to the motel. 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 department's independent Deadly Force Review Board found that the agent was in compliance with the
department's use of force policy when he discharged the first round, however, the Board found that the agent was
not in compliance with the policy when he discharged the second round. The hiring authority subsequently
exonerated the agent for the first discharge and sustained the allegation for the second discharge. The hiring
authority imposed corrective action by issuing a letter of instruction to the agent.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau found the hiring authority's decision to impose corrective action unreasonable. The bureau believed
that the serious nature of the conduct warranted formal disciplinary action pursuant to the disciplinary matrix.
There were not sufficient mitigating factors justifying the decision to impose a lesser penalty.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 35
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEADLY FORCE CASES
Case No. 10-0392 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 1, 2009, a parole agent was transporting a parolee to a parole office for a meeting with a licensed DISPO INV ADV HA
clinical social worker. The parolee was unrestrained and sat in the front passenger seat of the agent's state vehicle.
During the transport, the parole agent noticed that the parolee was fixated on the parole agent's firearm and made
several requests to see the weapon. The parole agent quickly swerved onto a freeway off-ramp and exited his
vehicle. The parolee chased the parole agent outside the vehicle and a physical fight ensued. The parole agent
used his pepper spray and sprayed the parolee several times. When the parolee continued his attack, the parole
agent fired one round from his firearm at the parolee. The round travelled near the area of the parolee's legs, but
did not hit the parolee. The parolee continued to advance towards the parole agent in a threatening manner, so the
agent fired another round toward the parolee's torso area. The round struck the parolee and caused the parolee to
fall to the ground. Paramedics arrived and stabilized the parolee before transporting him to a local hospital.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Outside law enforcement conducted a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the district attorney's
office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an administrative investigation. The
department's independent Deadly Force Review Board found that the discharges of the lethal rounds were in
compliance with the department's use of force policy. The hiring authority subsequently exonerated the officer
and the bureau concurred.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 36
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEADLY FORCE CASES
Case No. 10-0393 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 1, 2007, a parole agent assisted officers from two outside law enforcement agencies in pursuing a DISPO INV ADV HA
male parolee. Officers attempted to approach the male parolee who was driving a vehicle with a female parolee as
a passenger. The male parolee refused to stop the vehicle and attempted to run over one of the outside law
enforcement officers. The parole agent and two outside law enforcement officers each discharged a number of
lethal rounds from their weapons at the vehicle, even as the vehicle fled away from them. The male parolee was
able to escape. However, the female parolee was hit by gunfire and died at a local hospital.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The department's Deadly Force Review Board found that the parole agent was in compliance with the
department's use of force policy when he initially fired his weapon to stop an approaching vehicle. However, the
board found that the parole agent was not in compliance with the department's use of force policy when he
continued to fire his weapon after the parolee's vehicle turned away. The hiring authority subsequently exonerated
the parole agent with regard to the initial shots and then sustained the allegation that, with regard to the latter
shots, the parole agent violated policy and used significant and unreasonable force likely to cause serious injury.
However, despite the sustained finding, the hiring authority chose not to discipline the parole agent because the
hinring authority believed the department's current use of force policy does not represent the industry standards as
they relate to officer involving shootings in the community.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority sustained an allegation that the parole agent used excessive force when he fired several
rounds at the parolee's vehicle, yet failed to impose disciplinary action against the parole agent. The bureau
disagreed with the decision not to take any disciplinary action against the parole agent despite the inappropriate
use of excessive force. Therefore, the bureau elevated the issue to the hiring authority's supervisor through the
executive review process, who declined to remedy the unreasonable decision made by the hiring authority. The
bureau did not concur with the department's disposition of this matter because the parole agent should have been
disciplined for an improper use of deadly force, which was very serious misconduct. Additionally, the case
exhibited compliance issues. The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking
disciplinary action. Additionally, the department's attorneys did not timely consult with the investigator and
bureau when modifying the time to take disciplinary action became necessary, failed to coordinate with the
bureau at each critical juncture of the investigatory process, and did not attend interviews of key witnesses to
assess credibility and demeanor. Moreover, the department's attorneys did not provide timely feedback to the
investigator regarding the investigative report, did not provide written confirmation of critical discussions
regarding the investigation to the investigator and the bureau, and did not provide written confirmation of penalty
discussions to the hiring authority and bureau.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 37
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DISTINGUISHED CASES 46
Case No. 10-0394 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 1, 2010, an armed tower officer was allegedly found in possession of marijuana and marijuana DISPO INV ADV HA
paraphernalia at his post. The officer then allegedly made dishonest statements to his supervisors and was
insubordinate when he refused to submit to a urinalysis test. The officer allegedly further violated department
policy by improperly storing a firearm and ammunition in his vehicle parked at the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer. However, the officer retired prior to the
completion of the investigation; therefore, disciplinary action could not be taken. A letter indicating he retired
under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file.
Case No. 10-0395 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 8, 2010, a letter addressed to an inmate, which contained sexually explicit information, was found in an DISPO INV ADV HA
officer's desk.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the officer was
overly familiar with the inmate 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.
Case No. 10-0396 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE In June 2010, an officer allegedly smuggled narcotics and tobacco into the institution for inmates, for which he DISPO INV ADV HA
received cash and money orders from inmates and their family members.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the officer.
However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the officer resigned
pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file.
Case No. 10-0397 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE In May 2010, the department became aware that inmates housed in an institution's behavioral modification unit DISPO INV ADV HA
were allegedly subjected to abuses by staff, during the unit's operation in 2007. Allegedly, in July 2007 the
inmates made their complaints to the department's researchers who were conducting an evaluation of the
behavioral modification unit. On July 16, 2007, the researchers and a branch chief informed an assistant secretary
of the alleged inmate abuse and staff misconduct, and the assistant secretary allegedly failed to act on the
information. Subsequently, the assistant secretary allegedly retaliated against a research program specialist for
reporting the alleged inmate abuses by ensuring he did not get assigned appropriate work, transferring him, not
selecting him for acting positions, and denying him positions for which he applied. After the researcher was
transferred to another branch by the assistant secretary, his new branch chief also allegedly retaliated against him
by failing to give him appropriate work, not selecting him for acting positions, and denying him positions for
which he applied.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the assistant
secretary retaliated against the researcher and that the allegation against the branch chief was unfounded.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 38
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DISTINGUISHED CASES 46
Case No. 10-0398 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between April 2010 and July 26, 2010, an officer was allegedly involved in an overly familiar relationship with DISPO INV ADV HA
an inmate. The officer allegedly kissed and intimately touched the inmate, engaged in sexual intercourse with the
inmate, exchanged letters and gifts with the inmate, and provided confidential information about other officers to
the inmate.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all the allegations, except the allegation that the officer engaged in sexual
intercourse with the inmate. The officer was served 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.
Case No. 10-0399 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On March 8, 2010, a parolee alleged that a parole agent threatened to revoke her parole, and provided her with DISPO INV ADV HA
money and other items in exchange for sex.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations.
Case No. 10-0400 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On or about February 26, 2010, an officer allegedly submitted a misleading report by stating that two inmates DISPO INV ADV HA
who were under observation for contraband did not come out of their cells. A second officer allegedly submitted a
misleading report by stating that he instructed one of the inmates not to cross a line and that he maintained
constant visual observation of the inmate.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against both officers.
Case No. 10-0401 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On February 15, 2010, two inmates started fighting in a dining hall. An officer fired multiple less-than-lethal DISPO INV ADV HA
rounds at the inmates. One of the rounds ricocheted and struck an officer. The officer who fired the rounds
allegedly filed an inaccurate report describing the incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the officer was
inaccurate in his report or that he intentionally endangered other officers. However, the hiring authority issued a
letter of instruction to the officer regarding the use of less-than-lethal weapons, and instructed the officer to attend
weapons training.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 39
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DISTINGUISHED CASES 46
Case No. 10-0402 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On January 21, 2010, it was alleged that the department failed to timely send lay-off notices to thousands of DISPO INV ADV HA
employees costing the state millions of dollars. Three staff services managers allegedly failed to timely send out
the notices, used incorrectly dated envelopes, and failed to include a proof of service with the notices, as required.
It was further alleged that the staff services managers and an associate director failed to notify their supervisors
that the deadline had been missed.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations against two of the staff services managers. One staff services manager
received a 10 percent salary reduction for 18 months. The other received a 10 percent salary reduction for 16
months, which was later reduced to five percent salary reduction for 12 months following a Skelly hearing. Both
staff services managers who were disciplined filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority
determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the third staff services manager and
associate director.
Case No. 10-0403 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE An inmate alleged that on December 27, 2009, an officer struck him in the face with the officer's forearm. The DISPO INV ADV HA
inmate further alleged that another officer witnessed the incident. Finally, both officers allegedly wrote false
reports documenting the incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations of battery on an inmate and dishonesty in an official report were sustained against the officer who
used force, while the allegation that the officer failed to report the use of force was not sustained. The officer was
dismissed and he filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The allegations against the other officer were
not sustained by the hiring authority.
Case No. 10-0404 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 21, 2009, an off-duty officer allegedly knocked on the door of a private residence demanding to DISPO INV ADV HA
speak with the occupant and identifying himself as a peace officer. The officer was allegedly searching for his
stolen mobile phone.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of misuse of authority.
Case No. 10-0405 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 2, 2009, an inmate allegedly informed two officers and a correctional counselor that the inmate was DISPO INV ADV HA
being threatened with a razor and extorted by his cellmate. The officers and counselor allegedly failed to take any
action and the following day the inmate was assaulted by his cellmate. On December 9, 2009, the inmate was also
threatened by another inmate.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the two officers and
the correctional counselor had specific knowledge that the inmate was being threatened and extorted by his
cellmate.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 40
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DISTINGUISHED CASES 46
Case No. 10-0406 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE In December 2009, a supervising parole agent conducted an audit of a parole agent's caseload after the agent DISPO INV ADV HA
transferred to another unit. The audit revealed that between November 2007 and December 2009, the parole agent
allegedly falsified her monthly roster and field book by indicating she met with parolees when she had not done
so, and did not maintain appropriate parole supervision of parolees.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the parole agent was non-punitively dismissed due to
unauthorized absences, before the investigation was completed. A letter indicating the parole agent was non-
punitively dismissed pending disciplinary action was placed in her official personnel file.
Case No. 10-0407 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 30, 2009, a parole office assistant unit supervisor allegedly entered a false date on a parolee's DISPO INV ADV HA
violation report, and entered a false date in the parole revocation scheduling and tracking system. In addition, the
assistant unit supervisor allegedly signed the unit supervisor's name on the violation report.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that while there was insufficient evidence to sustain an allegation of dishonesty
for intentionally falsifying the dates and signature, there was sufficient evidence to sustain an allegation of
neglect of duty for that conduct. The allegation of dishonesty for entering a false date into the system was not
sustained. The parole office assistant unit supervisor utilized the date he completed the handwritten version of the
form, rather than the date it was completed by clerical, and had never been told this was inappropriate. The
assistant unit supervisor actually signed his own name, not the unit supervisor's name, next to the typed version of
the unit supervisor's name. The assistant unit supervisor was served with a letter of reprimand. However,
following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority agreed to reduce the penalty to a letter of instruction.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 41
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DISTINGUISHED CASES 46
Case No. 10-0408 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 29, 2009, an inmate walked away from a confrontation and a sergeant allegedly allowed the inmate DISPO INV ADV HA
to enter an office after being told repeatedly, and refusing, to submit to restraints. While in the office, the inmate
became verbally aggressive and uncooperative, and a forced extraction became necessary. A lieutenant allegedly
failed to ensure that during the extraction proper equipment was issued or utilized by staff. During the extraction,
it was alleged that pepper spray was used inappropriately, and unnecessary force was utilized to place the inmate
in restraints. Further, during the decontamination process, it was alleged an officer continued to pour water from a
hose on the inmate's face even after the inmate asked that the water be stopped. The sergeant allegedly failed to
adequately write a complete report and allegedly included dishonest statements. It was also alleged that another
sergeant was dishonest about the distance from which he sprayed the inmate.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain allegations against the sergeant for
allowing the inmate to walk unrestrained away from the area of a confrontation, not writing a clear report rather
than being dishonest in his report, and cancelling an alarm before he could assess the immediate situation which
was discovered during the investigation. The hiring authority imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24
months on the sergeant, which he appealed to the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority also sustained an
allegation against a lieutenant for failing to ensure that the extraction team sent to detain the inmate was utilizing
proper equipment, and issued a letter of instruction to the lieutenant. The hiring authority determined there was
insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that inappropriate force was used by officers or that an officer
inappropriately continued to pour water on the inmate.
Case No. 10-0409 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 23, 2009, it was alleged an officer sold mobile phones to inmates and that the officer failed to DISPO INV ADV HA
report a mobile phone in an inmate's possession. Additionally, the officer allegedly assisted an inmate with
providing personal information about other officers' activities outside of work to inmates in the administrative
segregation unit.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations.
Case No. 10-0410 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 14, 2009, an off-duty officer allegedly pulled his girlfriend by the hair and struck her face. The DISPO INV ADV HA
officer was arrested for domestic violence. The officer was also allegedly dishonest during the investigation about
the alleged events.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer from his position. The officer filed an
appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 42
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DISTINGUISHED CASES 46
Case No. 10-0411 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 3, 2009, an officer was allegedly discourteous toward another officer when he used profanity DISPO INV ADV HA
toward him and repeatedly called him derogatory names such as "rat." The officer who was allegedly called a
"rat" had previously been a witness in a case against another employee with a close relationship to the subject
officer.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of discrimination or
harassment because the victim could not confirm that the term "rat" was specifically used. However, there was
sufficient evidence the officer made discourteous statements toward the other officer. The hiring authority issued
the subject officer a letter of instruction and arranged on-the-job training.
Case No. 10-0412 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On October 21, 2009, two officers allegedly sent text messages warning other staff members about an DISPO INV ADV HA
undisclosed search for contraband that was going to be conducted as staff entered the institution on the following
day.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations.
Case No. 10-0413 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE In October 2009, it was alleged that a parole regional administrator had been illegally hiring, promoting, and DISPO INV ADV HA
transferring employees. The parole regional administrator, along with another administrator, allegedly promoted
one parole agent to a supervising position and another parole agent to a specialist position based on a personal
relationship. Allegedly, the same two parole agents who had been promoted were conducting a personal business
on state time and from within their offices using state equipment. It was also alleged that the regional
administrator knew about this practice and condoned it because his son also worked for the same business as the
parole agents.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation that one parole agent sent personal emails from his state email
account and provided the agent with corrective counseling. The hiring authority determined the rest of the
allegations were unfounded.
Case No. 10-0414 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 23, 2009, an office assistant alleged that between January and May 2008, a lieutenant allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA
forced entry into her apartment and performed a sexual act in front of her. The office assistant also alleged that in
August 2008, the lieutenant forced the office assistant to orally copulate him while inside an office at the
institution.
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
277 DISTINGUISHED CASES 46
Case No. 10-0415 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 17, 2009, it was discovered that an officer allegedly had engaged in sexual activity with an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA
and had engaged in other overly familiar activities with the parolee since October 31, 2008.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of sexual misconduct with a parolee. However, the officer resigned
prior to the completion of the investigation; therefore, disciplinary action was not taken. A letter indicating the
officer resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in her official personnel file.
Case No. 10-0416 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 2, 2009, an officer allegedly used more force than was necessary when escorting an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA
Specifically, the inmate was handcuffed, with his hands behind his back. The officer allegedly placed his arm
under the inmate's hands and placed his hand on the inmate's back, requiring the inmate to bend slightly forward
at the waist as he was escorted. The officer allegedly failed to report his actions as a use of force. The officer was
also allegedly dishonest when documenting the incident when he claimed that another officer assisted in
controlling the inmate.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the officer's actions did not constitute a use of force and, therefore, the
officer was not required to file a report. The hiring authority also found that the report submitted by the officer
was poorly written, but not dishonest. As a result, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence
to sustain the allegations. The officer received training in the area of proper report writing and escort procedures.
Case No. 10-0417 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 31, 2009, an officer allegedly stole a television, a wrist watch, and sunglasses from mail intended for DISPO INV ADV HA
inmates. The officer then allegedly solicited an inmate to assist him in smuggling the items out of the institution.
The officer was also allegedly dishonest when interviewed by the Office of Internal Affairs about the allegations.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations, and determined the appropriate penalty was dismissal. However,
the officer retired before discipline was imposed. A letter indicating the officer retired under adverse
circumstances was placed in his official personnel file.
Case No. 10-0418 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 25, 2009, a youth correctional counselor allegedly used excessive force by kicking a ward in the head DISPO INV ADV HA
area, while attempting to separate two wards involved in a fight on an inclined portion of the recreation area.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 15 months. The youth
correctional counselor did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 44
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DISTINGUISHED CASES 46
Case No. 10-0419 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 25, 2009, a parolee's ex-wife alleged that a parole agent had attempted to solicit sexual relations from DISPO INV ADV HA
her in exchange for not sending the parolee back to prison.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation that the parole agent was overly familiar with the ex-wife by
engaging in communications and spending time with her. However, the parole agent retired prior to the
completion of the investigation; therefore, disciplinary action was not taken. A letter indicating he retired under
adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file.
Case No. 10-0420 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 18, 2009, while off-duty at a bowling alley, an officer allegedly made rude and discourteous DISPO INV ADV HA
comments regarding other custody staff and inmates.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. This case was
consolidated with another disciplinary action involving use of force, failure to report, and dishonesty, and the
officer was dismissed. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0421 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 16, 2009, while on security detail at an outside hospital, a sergeant allegedly ripped an intravenous DISPO INV ADV HA
device out of an inmate-patient, and grabbed the inmate by the throat, and then submitted a false report regarding
the incident. In addition, an officer who was also on the security detail allegedly failed to properly secure his duty
firearm and ammunition, and submitted an inaccurate report regarding the use of force by the sergeant.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the sergeant and the officer. Both filed appeals with
the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0422 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 13, 2009, an officer was searched prior to entering the secured perimeter of an institution as part of a DISPO INV ADV HA
random search of staff members. The officer had in his possession three mobile phones, three phone chargers,
two bags of tobacco, one bag of rolling papers, two lighters, and a manila envelope disguised to look like inmate
correspondence. It was alleged that the officer was attempting to smuggle in items of contraband for the benefit of
inmates.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and dismissed the officer. 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 45
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DISTINGUISHED CASES 46
Case No. 10-0423 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 11, 2009, an inmate was found hanging in an administrative segregation cell and was later pronounced DISPO INV ADV HA
dead. A sergeant and four officers allegedly failed to perform required 30 minute inmate welfare checks and
failed to complete the required documentation regarding new inmates in the unit.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations of neglect of duty as to the sergeant and two officers and issued an
official letter of reprimand to each of them. One of the officers filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the two other officers.
Case No. 10-0424 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 8, 2009, an officer allegedly used excessive force by slamming an inmate's hands in a cell food port DISPO INV ADV HA
two times. A second officer allegedly used excessive force by kicking the food port door closed. Both officers
also allegedly failed to report their own and each other's excessive use of force.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against both officers and
dismissed them. Both officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0425 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 25, 2009, officers forcibly removed an inmate from his cell and then escorted him to the institution's DISPO INV ADV HA
medical clinic. An officer allegedly used unreasonable force during the escort by pushing the handcuffed inmate
into a wall face first, and failed to report the use of force. A second escorting officer allegedly failed to accurately
report the first officer's use of force. A control booth officer, a sergeant, a correctional counselor, and the officer
who video-recorded the removal from the cell, all allegedly saw the use of force and also failed to report it.
Further, a lieutenant allegedly failed to supervise the removal of the inmate from his cell and failed to conduct the
required video-recorded interview of the inmate following the incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the two escorting officers and served the officers with
notices of dismissal. Following a Skelly hearing, both officers and the hiring authority entered into settlement
agreements. The hiring authority agreed to reduce the penalty for each officer to a 45 working-day suspension.
The officers accepted responsibility for failing to report, and provided additional information explaining the
inmate's actions and their response that the video of the incident was unable to capture. The inmate also died of
causes unrelated to this case and, therefore, would not have been available to testify concerning the officers'
misconduct. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the sergeant and imposed a 24 working-day
suspension, which was appealed to the State Personnel Board. The allegations against the lieutenant were also
sustained and the hiring authority imposed a 30 working-day suspension. The lieutenant filed an appeal with the
State Personnel Board. The hiring authority further sustained the allegation that the officer who conducted the
video-recording failed to report and imposed a 30 working-day suspension, which the officer appealed to the
State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations
against the control booth officer and the correctional counselor.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 46
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DISTINGUISHED CASES 46
Case No. 10-0426 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 21, 2009, a parole agent allegedly falsified entries into his case records, failed to make field contacts with DISPO INV ADV HA
parolees, and failed to file parole violations.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations including dishonesty and dismissed the parole agent. He did not file
an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0427 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 21, 2009, it was alleged that an officer was engaged in bringing mobile phones, tobacco, and other DISPO INV ADV HA
contraband into the institution to sell to inmates. It was also alleged that the officer engaged in overly familiar
behavior with inmates, parolees, and their family members.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the officer,
who did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0428 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 9, 2009, two officers allegedly failed to properly conduct an unclothed body search of an inmate, as well DISPO INV ADV HA
as failed to properly search the inmate's property. The inmate had hidden a weapon that he subsequently used to
stab another inmate.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of neglect of duty and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for two
months as to both officers. Neither officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0429 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 1, 2009, the Office of Internal Affairs and the institution's investigative services unit conducted an DISPO INV ADV HA
unannounced search of incoming staff members for contraband. During the operation, agents discovered that an
officer sent a text message to other officers alerting them of the ongoing searches. During the investigation, it was
discovered that yet another officer brought her personal mobile phone into the institution and used it while on
duty.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation against the officer that sent the text message to other officers
because the department did not have a policy prohibiting such behavior. The hiring authority sustained the
allegation of bringing contraband into the prison for personal use against the other officer and imposed a 5
percent salary reduction for six months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 47
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DISTINGUISHED CASES 46
Case No. 10-0430 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 30, 2009, an inmate was involved in a confrontation with another inmate, then retreated into his cell and DISPO INV ADV HA
closed the door. An officer followed the inmate, opened the door, and entered the cell, where he allegedly kicked
the inmate in the back, knocked the inmate to the ground, and held the inmate's head to the floor with his foot,
allegedly causing a cut to the inmate's right eye. Another officer allegedly observed the incident. Both officers
were allegedly dishonest by failing to fully disclose the extent of the use of force within their reports.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found insufficient evidence that the first officer was dishonest, but sustained the allegation
that the first officer used unnecessary force on the inmate. He received a 5 percent salary reduction for nine
months. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation of dishonesty against the second officer because the
officer's report included the handcuffing of the inmate and the officer believed the use of force was part of the
handcuffing and not a separate incident. However, the hiring authority sustained the allegation that the second
officer failed to report the use of force because it should have been reported as a separate incident from the
handcuffing. The hiring authority imposed a two working-day suspension on the second officer. Neither officer
filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0431 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 21, 2009, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force by placing his foot on the back of a nonresistant DISPO INV ADV HA
inmate lying in the prone position. Initially, the officer allegedly failed to report this use of force. Later when he
was instructed to clarify his initial report, the officer was allegedly dishonest by reporting that his foot was on the
inmate's ankle.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of failing to report a use of force and imposed a 5 percent salary
reduction for three months. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the
remaining allegations. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0432 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 9, 2009, an officer allegedly failed to properly conduct inmate counts during his first watch shift at a DISPO INV ADV HA
conservation camp. As a result, an inmate who had escaped from camp during the night was not discovered until
the next morning. The officer also allegedly falsified the date and time that the inmate escaped to cover the failure
to conduct the inmate count. The camp commander allegedly was insubordinate by discussing the investigation
with the officer after the camp commander was interviewed as a witness.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation that the officer was dishonest in his report, however, did sustain
the allegation of neglect of duty against the officer. The hiring authority imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for
13 months and removed the officer from his camp assignment. The hiring authority also sustained the allegation
of insubordination against the lieutenant, imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 36 months, and removed the
lieutenant from his camp assignment. The officer and lieutenant both filed appeals with the State Personnel
Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 48
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DISTINGUISHED CASES 46
Case No. 10-0433 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On February 2, 2009, a child with visible injuries told school officials that his parents, one of whom was an DISPO INV ADV HA
officer, beat him with a belt and had previously struck him with an electrical cord. The school contacted Child
Protective Services, and the officer told the Child Protective Services representative that she had not laid a hand
on the child. The officer was arrested by outside law enforcement and admitted that she had spanked the child
with a belt. The court ordered the officer to attend parenting classes and to not incur any additional complaints
with Child Protective Services for six months. The officer successfully completed the required parenting classes
and there were no further complaints.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs attempted to question the school official and Child Protective Services
representative; however, they were uncooperative and claimed that the information was confidential. Without
their statements, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations.
Case No. 10-0434 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between September 2008 and April 2010, a special agent allegedly violated the department's computer use DISPO INV ADV HA
agreement by viewing pornographic and other non work-related websites on his state-issued computer. The
special agent was also allegedly insubordinate when he refused to answer questions during his investigatory
interview.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. This case was combined with another case against the special agent
involving domestic violence, and the special agent was dismissed. The special agent filed an appeal with State
Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0435 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 14, 2008, it was alleged that a supervising cook was providing tobacco to inmates, engaging in a DISPO INV ADV HA
sexual relationship with an inmate, was overly familiar with another inmate, and used the institution phone for
personal calls. Two officers were also allegedly overly familiar with inmates, provided contraband to the inmates,
and failed to report misconduct of another employee. Additionally, two supervisors allegedly failed to properly
document and address the allegations of over familiarity. Finally, during the course of the investigation, an
allegation was added that one of the officers brought tobacco into the institution for personal use.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of over familiarity with one inmate and misuse of the phone during
work hours against the cook. The cook was dismissed and did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
One officer admitted smoking while on duty and received a letter of reprimand, which was reduced to a letter of
instruction after a Skelly hearing. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the
remaining allegations against the two officers and the two sergeants.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 49
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DISTINGUISHED CASES 46
Case No. 10-0436 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between October 2007 and October 2009, an associate warden and an office technician allegedly sent DISPO INV ADV HA
inappropriate emails to each other from their state-issued computers. The associate warden also allegedly violated
the nepotism policy by being involved in a personal relationship with the office technician.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of misuse of state equipment and issued letters of reprimand to both
the associate warden and office technician. Neither employee filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The
allegation of nepotism was not sustained after it was determined that the associate warden did not directly
supervise the office technician.
Case No. 10-0437 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between July 13, 2007 and May 9, 2009, a secretary allegedly had contact with two parolees, who were friends of DISPO INV ADV HA
her spouse, and failed to report the contacts.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations were sustained and the hiring authority decided to impose a salary reduction of 5 percent for six
months. However, after a Skelly hearing and prior to any appeal being filed, the secretary and the department
entered into a settlement agreement. The department allowed the secretary to voluntarily demote in exchange for
the secretary agreeing to not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0438 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between August 2006 and August 2010, an officer allegedly engaged in a romantic and overly familiar DISPO INV ADV HA
relationship with an inmate. The inmate attempted or completed more than 14,000 telephone calls to the officer
and the officer sent the inmate money for several years. It was further alleged that the officer was dishonest
during her interview with the Office of Internal Affairs when she denied having an overly familiar relationship
with the inmate.
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 went into effect. A letter indicating
the officer resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in her official personnel file.
Case No. 10-0439 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On various occasions from December 13, 2005 until July 7, 2009, a lieutenant allegedly threatened and yelled at DISPO INV ADV HA
several staff members, including the warden, an associate warden, a sergeant, and the labor relations analyst. He
also allegedly repeatedly violated orders of the warden not to go into certain areas of the institution. He further
allegedly assaulted a sergeant and he threatened to assault another lieutenant because the lieutenant submitted a
request for administrative review regarding one of his close associates.
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 50
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DEFICIENT CASES 13
Case No. 10-0440 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE In May 2010, it was alleged that inmates housed in an institution's behavioral modification unit were allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA
subjected to abuses by staff. The allegations included that in 2007, inmates housed in the unit were subjected to
racial slurs, provoked into fights, denied medical treatment, had their mail tampered with, were not properly cared
for after exposure to pepper spray, were forced to stand in cold weather partially clothed for long periods of time,
and that officers destroyed inmate complaints about these matters. Initially, the Office of Internal Affairs
conducted a preliminary inquiry into the allegations. As a result of the inquiry, the Office of Internal Affairs
subsequently opened a full investigation into the following allegations: several officers and a sergeant used racial
slurs towards inmates; an officer, two sergeants, and an associate warden allowed inmates to be escorted and
remain outside in cold weather without proper clothing; an officer used unnecessary force on an inmate by
striking him with a baton while the inmate was handcuffed; an officer swept an inmate's adult diaper filled with
feces and urine under the door of another inmate's cell; and a licensed vocational nurse inappropriately removed
an inmate from a disability program.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain any of the allegations.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department was did not complete the investigation before the time to take disciplinary action expired.
Although department researchers, a branch chief, and an assistant secretary had been informed about the
allegations in 2007, an investigation was not opened at that time. The Office of Internal Affairs did not become
aware of the alleged misconduct until almost three years later. Because no allegations of misconduct were
sustained, the expiration of the time within which the take disciplinary action did not prevent the department from
taking disciplinary action against an employee for misconduct.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 51
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DEFICIENT CASES 13
Case No. 10-0441 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On January 2, 2010, it was alleged that an office technician assigned to an institution's personnel office was DISPO INV ADV HA
having a sexual relationship with a parolee.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and initially issued the office technician a letter of instruction.
Subsequently, the letter of instruction was withdrawn and the office technician was demoted to an office assistant
position. The office technician did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Initially, the bureau was not involved in this matter. The initial hiring authority issued the office technician a
letter of instruction in conjunction with the department's attorneys, which also transferred her to a new position
because of her conduct. The initial hiring authority retired almost immediately after the letter of instruction was
issued. The bureau then became aware of the improper penalty. Despite the department's attorneys involvement
with the letter of instruction, its language raised issues of legal concern. The bureau invoked the executive
review process and elevated the matter to the hiring authority's supervisor. The supervisor rescinded the letter of
instruction. The supervisor then referred the matter to the new hiring authority, who replaced the retired person,
to determine an appropriate penalty. The bureau recommended that formal discipline be imposed on the office
technician. Despite having been involved in the decision regarding the initial letter of instruction, the
department's attorneys now suggested a very strong penalty be imposed. Because the office technician had not
received proper training and earnestly admitted her conduct, she was ultimately demoted to an office assistant
position. During the course of the disciplinary process, the department's attorneys failed to provide appropriate
legal consultation to the hiring authority, did not provide written confirmation of penalty discussions to the hiring
authority and bureau, and did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 52
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DEFICIENT CASES 13
Case No. 10-0442 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 30, 2009, a parole agent told his supervisor that he was addicted to methamphetamine. An investigation DISPO INV ADV HA
was opened into the parole agent's alleged drug use. During that investigation, it was alleged that the parole agent
had used methamphetamine in the past and that other employees had been aware of his misconduct. Specifically,
in 2007, the parole agent allegedly told another supervisor and another parole agent that he was using
methamphetamine. The supervisor and the other parole agent allegedly failed to report the misconduct.
Additionally, in 2008, four additional parole agents allegedly became aware of his drug use, confronted him at the
office, and failed to report it. It was then alleged that in 2009, the parole region's district administrator became
aware of the parole agent's drug use and failed to report it.
DISPOSITION OF CASE At the beginning of the investigation, the district administrator was removed as a subject because it was
determined that he did report the drug use. The hiring authority determined that the four parole agents also had
reported the misconduct and, therefore, no allegations were sustained against them. No investigation was initiated
regarding the allegations against the supervisor who allegedly failed to report the parole agent's drug use in 2007
because the supervisor had already retired. No investigation was initiated against the other parole agent who
allegedly accompanied the supervisor to the parole agent's home in 2007 because the supervisor to whom he
would have reported the alleged misconduct was present and aware of the situation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The alleged misconduct by the supervisor and the other parole agent occurred in 2007 and the alleged misconduct
by the four parole agents occurred in 2006. Therefore, by the time the investigation was opened, the time period
for taking disciplinary action had already expired. Nevertheless, no allegations were sustained against any current
department employees so no discipline was prevented as a result of the disciplinary time period expiring.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 53
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DEFICIENT CASES 13
Case No. 10-0443 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 7, 2009, an employee relations officer allegedly failed to prepare and serve a disciplinary action on a DISPO INV ADV HA
lieutenant before the time to take disciplinary action expired.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and initially issued a letter of reprimand to the employee relations
officer. However, following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority withdrew the letter of reprimand. Although the
hiring authority determined that misconduct had occurred, no disciplinary action was ultimately imposed on the
employee relations officer.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority did not submit the matter to the Officer of Internal Affairs for approval to take disciplinary
action against the employee relations officer. The bureau disagreed and invoked executive review, which elevated
the matter to the hiring authority's supervisor, an associate director. As a result of the executive review, the
associate director agreed with the bureau and submitted the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Upon the
bureau's urging that the matter required action, the Office of Internal Affairs determined misconduct had occurred
but did not open an investigation. The matter was returned to the associated director to determine the appropriate
action. The associate director determined that disciplinary action was not warranted. The bureau again invoked
the executive review process and elevated the matter to the associate director's supervisor. Following the
executive review, the associate director's supervisor determined disciplinary should be taken and issued a letter of
reprimand. However, after a Skelly hearing, the associate director's supervisor reversed his decision and revoked
the letter of reprimand, imposing no discipline. The bureau determined the decision to revoke the disciplinary
action to be unreasonable. The timely processing of disciplinary actions is a core function of the employee
relations officer's job, has a serious impact on the disciplinary process, and is critical to the reforms mandated by
the federal court in the Madrid litigation. Therefore, this misconduct warranted formal disciplinary action.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 54
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DEFICIENT CASES 13
Case No. 10-0444 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 29, 2009, an inmate suffering a psychotic episode was forcibly removed from his cell. During the DISPO INV ADV HA
removal, the inmate fought with officers and hid under his bed. The inmate was allegedly exposed to chemical
agents, removed from under his bunk by his hair, and placed in wrist and leg restraints. Thereafter, staff allegedly
dragged the inmate down the tier by his restraints and decontaminated him with water while he was lying on the
ground face up. Then, while restrained on a gurney for transportation to medical, an officer allegedly placed a
chemically contaminated tee shirt and the officer's gloved hand over the inmates mouth. Six officers allegedly
engaged in misconduct during the incident. A sergeant and lieutenant allegedly failed to properly supervise the
extraction or to intervene in the incident. The officers, sergeant, and lieutenant allegedly failed to report the use of
force. A captain allegedly failed to be present at the extraction as required by policy. An associate warden, who
reviewed the extraction video, allegedly did not properly act on the incident which exhibited deviations from
policy and procedure.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations against two officers for unreasonable use of force, failing to report use
of force, and neglect of duty. One officer received a 60 working-day suspension and the other received a 10
percent salary reduction for 12 months. Both officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. The hiring
authority sustained allegations against two other officers for failing to report use of force and neglect of duty.
Both officers initially received a 5 percent salary reduction for 6 months. However, following a Skelly hearing,
the hiring authority reduced the penalties to a 5 percent salary reduction for 3 months. The hiring authority did
not sustain any allegations against the two remaining officers. The hiring authority also sustained allegations
against the sergeant for failing to report use of force witnessed and neglect of duty and imposed a 24 working-day
suspension, which he appealed to the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained allegations against the
lieutenant for failure to report unreasonable use of force witnessed and neglect of duty. The lieutenant was
demoted to an officer and he filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority further
sustained allegations against the captain for neglect of duty and imposed a 48 working-day suspension. The
captain did not file and appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined there was
insufficient evidence to sustain allegations against the associate warden, who had brought the incident to the
attention of the warden as required.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Despite delays by the hiring authority in referring the matter for investigation, the Office of Internal Affairs'
assigned special agent diligently completed the complex investigation before the time within which to take action
expired. After the investigation was completed, the hiring authority initially determined that the captain's
misconduct warranted a demotion to officer. The bureau did not concur with the demotion as an appropriate
penalty based on the facts of the case because the captain did not actively participate in the incident. Rather the
captain neglected his duty to be present when the inmate was extracted from the cell. The bureau invoked the
executive review process and elevated the issue to the hiring authority's supervisor, a department executive. The
department's executive agreed with the bureau and imposed an appropriate penalty consisting of a 48 working-
day suspension.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 55
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DEFICIENT CASES 13
Case No. 10-0445 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 15, 2009, an outside law enforcement agency alleged that an officer was involved in an off-duty DISPO INV ADV HA
conspiracy to distribute narcotics. When contacted at the institution, the officer allegedly had drug paraphernalia
in his vehicle. The officer was arrested and criminal charges were filed against the officer.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The department
and the officer entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which the officer agreed to retire, waive his right
to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board, and not seek or accept employment with the department in the
future. The officer later violated the terms of the settlement agreement by failing to submit the paperwork for
retirement. The department then had the settlement agreement set aside anddismissed the officer. The officer did
not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer before the disciplinary action took effect.
The bureau found the department's decision to enter into a settlement unreasonable since the evidence against the
officer supported the officer's dismissal. Subsequently, when the officer violated the settlement agreement, the
department had to file a motion with the State Personnel Board to rescind the settlement and reinstate the original
disciplinary action. The process to reinstate the original dismissal took several months, during which the officer
continued to receive his monthly salary as he was not formally retired or dismissed. Therefore, the department
paid the officer a substantial amount of wages which would have not been necessary had the department pursued
the dismissal.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 56
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DEFICIENT CASES 13
Case No. 10-0446 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 18, 2009, an inmate refused to leave the exercise yard. After affording the inmate opportunities to DISPO INV ADV HA
willingly leave, a calculated extraction was used and videotaped. Staff deployed pepper spray, the inmate was
removed from the yard, and she was carried to a shower for decontamination after refusing to walk. Once in the
shower, staff ordered the inmate to remove her clothing. The inmate partially complied but refused to remove her
underwear while voicing her concerns about being video recorded while disrobing, the number of staff observing
her, and the presence of a male staff member. An officer and psychiatric technician allegedly ordered the inmate
to take off her underwear as a condition of turning on the shower water to allow her to wash off the pepper spray.
The inmate continued to refuse to remove all of her clothing to decontaminate or participate in a medical
evaluation. The video recording then stopped for several minutes to change recording discs. During that time
lapse, an unclothed body search of the inmate was conducted, a medical evaluation completed, the Inmate
removed her underwear, and she put on clean clothing. The inmate then refused to exit the shower, which led to a
forcible extraction to place her in her cell. Medical staff then attempted to complete a second medical evaluation,
however the inmate would not respond to their requests and began to self decontaminate utilizing water from the
sink in her cell. The sergeant and lieutenant allegedly did not appropriately supervise the incident, required the
inmate become completely nude for decontamination, and failed to ensure she was provided water for
decontamination after the use of pepper spray. A captain and associate warden allegedly failed provide
appropriate instruction to the staff who forcibly removed the inmate, failed to ensure the process was properly
video taped, and were not familiar with proper decontamination procedures.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer and
the psychiatric technician. However, the hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant and
lieutenant who were in charge of the incident. The sergeant was issued a letter of reprimand and the lieutenant
received a two working-day suspension. Both filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority
also sustained the allegations against the captain and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for two months. The
captain did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority further sustained the
allegations against the associate warden and issued a letter of instruction.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority did not intend to submit the matter to the Office of Internal affairs for approval to take
disciplinary action or for an investigation. The bureau urged the hiring authority to do so, but the hiring authority
refused. The bureau invoked the executive review process, and elevated the matter to the hiring authority's
supervisor. The supervisor, a department executive, agreed to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
After much urging from the bureau that action should be taken on the case, the Office of Internal Affairs agreed
to approve disciplinary action but declined to authorize an investigation. The supervisor determined the discipline
imposed on the employees involved in the incident. The bureau concurred with the determination for all of the
employees, except the associate warden. The bureau believed that the associate warden should have also received
formal discipline, not simply corrective action in the form of a letter of instruction. However, because the
supervisor made her determinations on the last day before the period for taking disciplinary action expired, the
bureau's ability to invoke the executive review process to elevate the case to the next level of the chain of
command was thwarted.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 57
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DEFICIENT CASES 13
Case No. 10-0447 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 2, 2009, two inmates engaged in a fight. Subsequently, five officers allegedly failed to write rule DISPO INV ADV HA
violation reports for the inmates regarding the fight and a sergeant allegedly failed to ensure the officers wrote the
reports. The sergeant also allegedly failed to ensure that the inmates were no longer housed together after the
fight, and did not properly document the inmates' enemy concerns. Further, a lieutenant also failed to ensure that
the two inmates were housed separately after the altercation. As a result, the inmates remained in the same
housing unit and engaged in a second fight resulting in serious injury to one of the inmates. A correctional
counselor and a captain were allegedly aware of the sergeant's misconduct and failed to report it.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained one allegation against the sergeant for failing to properly document the enemy
concerns of the inmates and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for nine months, which was appealed to the
State Personnel Board. The hiring authority also sustained the allegation against the lieutenant and imposed a 5
percent salary reduction for three months. However, the disciplinary action against the lieutenant could not be
imposed because it was not taken before the deadline. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against
the five officers, the correctional counselor, or the captain.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT After the hiring authority decided to impose discipline, the department was required to serve the lieutenant with a
notice document. The department failed to properly serve the notice document because it was not sent to the
lieutenant's proper mailing address. Before the department could properly serve the notice, the deadline for
imposing action expired, thereby precluding the department from taking disciplinary action against the lieutenant.
Case No. 10-0448 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On March 27, 2009, an officer allegedly threatened his stepdaughter and his soon-to-be ex-wife with a firearm. DISPO INV ADV HA
The officer was arrested and a temporary emergency protective order was issued against him.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The officer
did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority failed to properly refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for approval to take
disciplinary action, however, imposed the salary reduction anyway. Due to the hiring authority's failure to
appropriately comply with procedure in this case, the case did not come to the bureau's attention until the hiring
authority provided a disciplinary notice to the bureau in a monitored case, which mistakenly contained the
information related to this case. Upon receiving the notice, the bureau found the discipline imposed to be
unreasonable based on the serious nature of the misconduct. However, by then, the notice had already been
served on the employee after the time within which to take disciplinary action had expired. Therefore, appropriate
discipline could not be imposed. Moreover, the bureau was precluded from invoking the executive review process
to elevate the unreasonable decision to the hiring authority's supervisor. The hiring authority's violation of the
department's policy requiring the submission of the case to the Office of Internal Affairs circumvented the
process put into place by the Madrid reforms and the monitoring that would have been engaged in by the bureau
throughout this case.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 58
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DEFICIENT CASES 13
Case No. 10-0449 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On March 27, 2009, a supervising cook was stopped by outside law enforcement on her way to work for a traffic DISPO INV ADV HA
violation. The outside law enforcement officer found an unregistered concealable firearm and letters from an
inmate indicating a personal relationship between the inmate and cook within the vehicle.
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 ASSESSMENT The department failed to complete the investigation before the time limit to file criminal charges had expired and
was not conducted with due diligence. The Office of Internal Affairs did not make an appropriate determination
of the existence of probable cause for the criminal charges. The department's investigators also failed to provide
continual real-time consultation with the bureau, did not adequately confer with the department's attorneys upon
case initiation, and did not adequately consult with the bureau and prosecuting agency to determine whether to
concurrently conduct an administrative investigation. The department's investigators also did not adequately
prepare for the investigation, the investigation did not adequately address the relevant issues regarding the
allegations, and the final investigative report did not address all relevant facts. Further, the department's
investigators did not timely forward the draft investigative report to the bureau and did not provide timely case
activity updates in the department's case management system.
Case No. 10-0450 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On March 4, 2009, a registered nurse allegedly engaged in sexual battery of an inmate by fondling the inmate's DISPO INV ADV HA
breasts on three occasions and examined a female inmate without a chaperone in the room. The nurse was also
allegedly dishonest in his internal affairs interview regarding the facts and circumstances of the medical treatment
provided to the inmate.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of sexual misconduct.
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the nurse violated
policy by performing an examination without a chaperone and was dishonest in his interview. The hiring
authority served the registered nurse with a notice of dismissal; however, the registered nurse resigned before the
dismissal took effect. A letter indicating the registered nurse resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in
his official personnel file.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The interviews and investigative report did not adequately address information that arose during the investigation
which related to dishonesty. After reviewing the report, the initial hiring authority did not identify dishonesty as
an allegation in the case. During the course of the disciplinary process evaluation, the department's attorneys did
not provide appropriate legal advice to the hiring authority. The bureau recommended that a dishonesty allegation
be identified and sustained. However, the hiring authority refused to identify a dishonesty allegation. Therefore,
the bureau invoked the executive review process which elevated the case to the hiring authority's supervisor, the
regional level of the nursing chain of command. The department's executive agreed with the bureau. An
allegation of dishonesty was identified and sustained by the executive, who decided to dismiss the registered
nurse.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 59
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 DEFICIENT CASES 13
Case No. 10-0451 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On January 6, 2009, an officer allegedly used excessive force when he struck a handcuffed inmate in the back of DISPO INV ADV HA
the head during an escort, and failed to report the incident. A second officer, who was stationed in the observation
tower, allegedly failed to adequately observe the escort. Moreover, a third officer who responded to the scene,
allegedly failed to provide all relevant information about the incident during the investigation into the matter.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the first officer and dismissed him. The officer did not file
an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined the evidence was insufficient to
sustain the allegation against the officer in the observation tower. As to the third officer, the hiring authority
sustained the allegation and imposed a two working-day suspension. The officer filed an appeal with the State
Personnel Board.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Initially, the hiring authority failed to identify the second and third officers as subjects in the case. Later, the
hiring authority refused to sustain the allegations against the third officer who failed to provide all relevant
information regarding the incident. The bureau found this decision to be unreasonable since the evidence
sufficiently established the misconduct. Therefore, the bureau invoked executive review, elevating the issue to the
hiring authority's supervisor. After the review, the supervisor agreed with the bureau and sustained the allegation.
A two working-day suspension was then imposed against the third officer.
Case No. 10-0452 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 21, 2008, it was alleged that a parole agent requested another parole agent to access a law DISPO INV ADV HA
enforcement computer system to obtain information regarding a private citizen. It was alleged that the parole
agent did not disclose that he wanted the information for personal reasons.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs
also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT For misdemeanor crimes, as alleged in this case, a criminal complaint must be filed within one year of the
misconduct. Although the Office of Internal Affairs received the case for investigation more than nine months
before the deadline expired, the investigation was completed after the deadline expired. Therefore, even though
the investigation established probable cause to believe that the parole agent had committed a crime, the district
attorney was precluded from filing criminal charges due to the deparment's failure to timely complete the
investigation.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 60
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0453 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 1, 2010, during a random search, an armed tower officer was found in possession of marijuana and DISPO INV ADV HA
drug paraphernalia. Staff also confiscated a handgun and 132 rounds of live ammunition found in his vehicle
located on institutional grounds.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which accepted the case for prosecution. The Office of
Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0454 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 18, 2010, an officer was following behind other officers escorting an inmate when he sprayed the DISPO INV ADV HA
inmate with pepper spray and stated "take this bitch." The escorting officers were also struck with the pepper
spray.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The officer
filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0455 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 16, 2010, a newly arrived inmate escaped from an institution by assuming the identity of another inmate DISPO INV ADV HA
who was scheduled to be released. Despite three separate verifications, no officer noticed that the escaping inmate
did not match the photograph on the identification card of the inmate who was scheduled to be released. The first
officer allegedly failed to verify the inmate's identification twice before letting him board the van with other
paroling inmates, once at the vehicle sally port area of the institution, and again when the inmate was handed a
state-issued check by the officer. The second officer allegedly failed to verify the inmate's identification at the
vehicle sally port prior to allowing the van to exit the institution. The third officer allegedly failed to identify
which inmates had stepped into the van he was driving with paroling inmates. A sergeant allegedly failed to
properly supervise the processing of the inmate who escaped and the inmate who was paroling. Ultimately the
escaped inmate surrendered to outside law enforcement and was returned to the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the three officers and the sergeant. The sergeant, the first
officer, and the second officer each received a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The third officer
received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months for his failure to be proactive in the identification process of
inmates. The sergeant and all three of the officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0456 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 14, 2010, while on-duty at an outside hospital, an officer allegedly utilized the restroom without DISPO INV ADV HA
informing his partner, then left his duty weapon and baton unattended in the restroom.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 10 percent
salary reduction for 24 months. However, following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority agreed to reduce the
penalty to a 10 percent salary reduction for 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 61
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0457 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 9, 2010, an officer was arrested by outside law enforcement for allegedly punching his wife, and DISPO INV ADV HA
assaulting his 12-year-old son. He also allegedly made verbal death threats, and would not allow his wife to
leave. The district attorney's office charged him with four felonies for his conduct. The officer pled guilty to
felony spousal abuse and willful cruelty to a child for a guarantee of felony probation and no more than a year in
jail.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The officer was dismissed from the department for being absent without leave while incarcerated and did not file
an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The felony convictions also disqualify him from further employment as
an officer.
Case No. 10-0458 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between June 26, 2010 through July 26, 2010, an officer was allegedly involved in an overly familiar relationship DISPO INV ADV HA
with an inmate by accepting gifts, giving gifts, sending love letters, and engaging in sexual conduct.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, and charges were filed against the officer for illegally
communicating with an inmate. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which
the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0459 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 25, 2010, an officer was arrested for burglary and resisting arrest after he kicked in the front door of an DISPO INV ADV HA
apartment he used to rent.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the officer engaged in inappropriate conduct and imposed a 5
percent salary reduction for six months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0460 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 19, 2010, an officer was arrested for allegedly committing a battery against his girlfriend. The alleged DISPO INV ADV HA
victim reported that the officer grabbed her arms and shook her while he yelled at her. The district attorney's
office did not pursue criminal charges against the officer due to a lack of evidence.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations.
Case No. 10-0461 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 7, 2010, outside law enforcement officers pulled up to a van occupied by an officer and two other males, DISPO INV ADV HA
one of whom was a parolee. One of the males was in possession of methamphetamine and the other had drug
paraphernalia. The officer was found to be under the influence of methamphetamine. All three were arrested.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and would have dismissed the officer. However, the officer
resigned prior to the completion of the investigation; thus, the department indicated that the officer had resigned
under adverse circumstances. Subsequently, the department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement
wherein the department allowed the officer to resign, without the unfavorable circumstances notation, in
exchange for the officer agreeing to not seek or accept future employment with the department.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 62
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0462 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 3, 2010, a parole agent allegedly raised a handcuffed parolee off a couch, pushed him into a wall, and DISPO INV ADV HA
removed him from a residence. The parole agent also allegedly used profanity while addressing the parolee.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 5 percent
salary reduction for 12 months. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0463 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 29, 2010, an officer was ordered by outside law enforcement to leave a park without proper justification. DISPO INV ADV HA
After being ordered to leave the park, the officer walked away. Outside law enforcement then took him to the
ground from behind, he struggled, and outside law enforcement tasered him. Outside law enforcement alleged
that the officer refused an order to leave the park, resisted arrest, and caused them to taser him by struggling. The
district attorney's office did not pursue a criminal case against the officer and dismissed all charges against the
officer.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Based on the totality of the circumstances and the district attorney's decision to dismiss all criminal charges, the
hiring authority exonerated the officer of all allegations.
Case No. 10-0464 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 29, 2010, an officer allegedly committed a battery upon his estranged wife by roughly grabbing her by DISPO INV ADV HA
the wrist and striking her in the head. The officer also allegedly took the telephone from her to prevent her from
contacting outside law enforcement. The district attorney's office declined to prosecute the officer.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation of failure of good behavior and dismissed the officer. This case was
consolidated with another case against the officer for similar conduct for which the hiring authority imposed a 30
working-day suspension. Following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority and the officer entered into a settlement
agreement that the discipline in both cases would be reduced to a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months, the
officer would successfully complete an anger management program, and the officer would submit a letter of
resignation which could be accepted without further notice by the hiring authority should there be any additional
negative contacts with outside law enforcement within 12 months.
Case No. 10-0465 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 24, 2010, an officer allegedly used profanity when talking with an inmate, threatened to harm the inmate, DISPO INV ADV HA
and told the Hispanic inmate to learn English.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. However,
following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority and the officer entered into a settlement agreement. The hiring
authority removed the allegation that the officer used profanity and reduced the penalty to a 5 percent salary
reduction for six months. The officer agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 63
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0466 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 19, 2010, an officer was arrested for committing a battery on his girlfriend and breaking her mobile DISPO INV ADV HA
phone when she attempted to call for help.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 18 months. The
officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0467 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 15, 2010, an off-duty officer allegedly grabbed his girlfriend by the foot and dragged her out of a hotel DISPO INV ADV HA
room into a hall way. The girlfriend sustained several "rug burn" abrasions as a result of the officer's actions. The
officer was arrested for the incident; however, no criminal charges were filed against him. It was also alleged that
the officer failed to notify the department of his arrest, as required.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a two working-day suspension. The officer did not file
an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0468 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 14, 2010, a parole agent allegedly interfered in a homicide investigation conducted by an outside law DISPO INV ADV HA
enforcement agency. Allegedly, the parole agent was briefed on the outside law enforcement agency's plan to
arrest a parolee and conduct a search of his house. It was alleged that the parole agent called the home of the
parolee and let the parolee know the outside law enforcement officers' plans. The parole agent then went to the
parolee's house and arrested the parolee prior to the officers arriving. He also advised the officers that they did not
have to search the house since he had already done it, which was not true. Allegedly, the parole agent has a
friendship with the family of the parolee's girlfriend.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs
also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0469 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 6, 2010, a parole agent allegedly stole prescription medications from a parolee during a visit to the DISPO INV ADV HA
parolee's home.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not
referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation,
which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0470 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 4, 2010, an officer allegedly neglected his duties by ordering a cell door to be opened when the inmate DISPO INV ADV HA
refused to give the officer his food tray, and then spraying the inmate with pepper spray.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the officer
with a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. However, following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority agreed
to settle the case for a letter of reprimand and the officer agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel
Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 64
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0471 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE In May 2010, the department became aware that inmates housed in an institution's behavioral modification unit DISPO INV ADV HA
were allegedly subjected to abuses by staff during the unit's operation in 2007. Allegedly, in July 2007, the
inmates made their complaints to the department's researchers who were conducting an evaluation of the
behavioral modification unit. On July 16, 2007, the researchers and a branch chief informed an assistant secretary
of the alleged inmate abuse and staff misconduct, and the assistant secretary allegedly failed to act on the
information. Subsequently, the assistant secretary allegedly retaliated against the chief of one of the department's
research branches for reporting the alleged inmate abuses by issuing her a negative probation report, precluding
her from performing her duties, and having her reassigned to a position which effectively served as a demotion.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the assistant secretary
retaliated against the branch chief for reporting alleged misconduct.
Case No. 10-0472 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE In May 2010, the department became aware that inmates housed in an institution's behavioral modification unit DISPO INV ADV HA
were allegedly subjected to abuses by staff during the unit's operation in 2007. Allegedly, in July 2007 the
inmates made their complaints to the department's researchers who were conducting an evaluation of the
behavioral modification unit. On July 16, 2007, the researchers and a branch chief informed an assistant secretary
of the alleged inmate abuse and staff misconduct, and the assistant secretary allegedly failed to act on the
information.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the assistant
secretary failed to take appropriate action after being informed of the alleged abuses.
Case No. 10-0473 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE In May 2010, it was alleged that a chief deputy secretary had refused to provide a urine sample for a random drug DISPO INV ADV HA
test in the fall of 2009, as required.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority exonerated the chief deputy secretary. The investigation revealed that the staff responsible
for carrying out the drug testing did not follow proper procedures by failing to contact the chief deputy secretary's
supervisor to determine availability. Had the procedure been followed, the supervisor would have informed the
testing officer that the chief deputy secretary was unavailable. The day of the alleged refusal was not a regular
work day for the chief deputy secretary, but rather the chief deputy secretary stopped by the office to drop off
documents and pick up work on the way out of town for a pre-planned vacation. In addition, the testing officer
excused the chief deputy secretary from the test due to her vacation status. The testing officer was counseled and
provided training on appropriate testing notification procedures.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 65
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0474 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On April 27, 2010, a special agent allegedly slapped his wife and forcefully removed her from their home by DISPO INV ADV HA
physically carrying her out. No criminal charges were filed against the special agent.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation. This case was combined with another case against the special agent
involving misuse of his state computer and refusing to answer questions during his investigatory interview, and
the special agent was dismissed. The special agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0475 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On April 26, 2010, an officer allegedly violated post orders when he released two unrestrained and unescorted DISPO INV ADV HA
inmates from their cells in a secure housing unit. The inmates engaged in a fight resulting in the need to use force
to stop the altercation.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 10 percent
salary reduction for six months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0476 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On April 23, 2010, a sergeant allegedly kicked the door of his girlfriend's apartment and punched her, causing DISPO INV ADV HA
bruises and scratches. The sergeant also allegedly took the victim's mobile phone to prevent her from calling
outside law enforcement. Outside law enforcement officers arrested the sergeant and he was charged with
domestic violence, vandalism, and disruption of wireless communication.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the sergeant with a notice of dismissal. The sergeant did
not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0477 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On April 17, 2010, an outside law enforcement agency was investigating an illegal animal fight in an orange DISPO INV ADV HA
grove. An off-duty officer allegedly drove his vehicle in the orange grove, crashed into a marked patrol vehicle
injuring an outside law enforcement officer, then crashed into an orange tree, and ran from the area. The officer
then allegedly filed a false police report and filed a false insurance claim indicating his vehicle had been stolen.
The officer was arrested for felony hit and run, filing a false police report, defrauding an insurance company, and
being present at an illegal animal fight.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. The officer filed an appeal with the State
Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0478 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On April 10, 2010, a sergeant allegedly kissed an inmate, rubbed her back, and grabbed her buttocks. 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.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 66
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0479 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On April 9, 2010, it was alleged that an off-duty officer had an inappropriate conversation with a server at a DISPO INV ADV HA
restaurant. Previously, the officer's friend, a fellow officer, was arrested and charged with kidnapping and
sexually assaulting another server at the restaurant. Allegedly, the officer implied to the server that his fellow
officer was not guilty and would be acquitted of the charges. Further, the officer continued to comment to the
server about the details of his friend's case causing the server to feel intimidated.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. The officer received a
letter of instruction.
Case No. 10-0480 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On April 3, 2010, an off-duty correctional officer and his friend, an off-duty outside law enforcement officer, DISPO INV ADV HA
allegedly engaged in a kidnap, carjacking and sexual assault. Specifically, they had been drinking heavily at a
restaurant and followed a waitress out of the restaurant as she walked to her car at the end of her shift. As the
correctional officer stood by, his friend pointed a duty weapon at the waitress, forced her into her vehicle, and
ordered her to drive away. The correctional officer failed to intervene or call law enforcement. The friend had the
waitress drive to a secluded area where over the course of the next hour, the friend raped the waitress, forced her
to orally copulate him at gun point, and punched her on the face and back. During the assault, the friend allegedly
took photographs of the victim on his mobile phone and sent the pictures to the correctional officer. After the
waitress escaped from her car, the friend called the correctional officer, who drove to the scene of the crime
where he picked up his friend. The two were arrested the same day after the gun identified as belonging to the
friend was found in the waitress's car. The correctional officer has been criminally charged with kidnapping,
carjacking and aiding and abetting the sexual assault. The correctional officer allegedly failed to notify the
department of his arrest, lied to outside law enforcement regarding the incident, and attempted to alter evidence
related to the incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer.
However, the officer had already been non-punitively dismissed from his employment for being absent without
leave. Therefore, disciplinary action based on this incident could not be taken against the officer as he was no
longer a department employee at the time the discipline would have been imposed.
Case No. 10-0481 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Beginning on or around April 3, 2010, an officer allegedly stole inmate medication on several occasions from an DISPO INV ADV HA
institution's medical clinic.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. Therefore, the case
was not referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative
investigation due to lack of evidence.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 67
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0482 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On March 27, 2010, an officer was arrested after he allegedly grabbed his girlfriend's neck, then threw her onto a DISPO INV ADV HA
bed causing her to strike her head on the headboard.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a salary reduction of 5 percent for six months. The
officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0483 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On March 24, 2010, an inmate complained that his food was cold. An officer allegedly escorted the culinary DISPO INV ADV HA
inmate to the complaining inmate's cell, told the inmate to talk to the culinary inmate, and opened the
complaining inmate's cell door. The inmate physically attacked the culinary inmate, and a fight ensued.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the officer intended
to endanger either of the inmates. The hiring authority determined the officer would be provided training
regarding how to handle situations involving disgruntled inmates.
Case No. 10-0484 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On March 12, 2010, an officer allegedly brought marijuana, tobacco, mobile phones, and heroin into the DISPO INV ADV HA
institution for use by inmates.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not
referred to the district attorney's office. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack
of evidence.
Case No. 10-0485 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On March 8, 2010, a parolee alleged that a parole agent threatened to revoke her parole and provided her with DISPO INV ADV HA
money as well as other items in exchange for sex.
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 also opened an administrative investigation, which the
bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0486 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On March 8, 2010, a parolee's mother alleged she was engaging in a sexual relationship with a parole agent in DISPO INV ADV HA
exchange for the parole agent providing favors to the parolee. On March 19, 2010, the Office of Internal Affairs
conducted surveillance of the parole agent at the residence of the parolee and her mother, at which time the parole
agent exposed himself. Subsequently, the parole agent allegedly lied during his interview with the Office of
Internal Affairs about the allegations.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the parole
agent. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 68
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0487 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On March 1, 2010, it was alleged that a parole agent allowed five parolees to be held in a county jail beyond their DISPO INV ADV HA
parole revocation release dates and falsified documents regarding those parolees.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and decided to dismiss the parole agent. However, the parole agent
retired before the investigation into his misconduct was completed. A letter indicating the parole agent retired
under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file.
Case No. 10-0488 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On February 28, 2010, an officer allegedly improperly opened a cell door in a secure housing unit which allowed DISPO INV ADV HA
one inmate to attack another inmate.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and issued the officer a
letter of reprimand. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0489 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On February 11, 2010, the department received information that in October 2009, an associate warden allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA
slapped an executive secretary on the back of her head. The warden allegedly witnessed the incident and failed to
take appropriate action. The executive secretary allegedly reported the incident to a lieutenant who also allegedly
failed to take appropriate action.
DISPOSITION OF CASE After an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General, the hiring authority determined there was
insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations.
Case No. 10-0490 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On February 4, 2010, a captain allowed an inmate out of his cell without being restrained or searched to counsel DISPO INV ADV HA
him. The inmate then attacked staff with an inmate-manufactured weapon. At the time this occurred, the captain
allegedly knew that the inmate may have been in possession of a weapon and was refusing to exit his cell.
However, the captain did not choose to remove the inmate from the cell through a tactical cell extraction.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the captain failed to perform within the scope of training, and
imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. After the Skelly hearing, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement wherein the department reduced the penalty to a 5 percent salary reduction for three months and the
captain agreed not to appeal the discipline.
Case No. 10-0491 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between February 2010 and May 2010, an officer allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an DISPO INV ADV HA
inmate by allowing the inmate to kiss her. It was further alleged the officer sent the inmate a quarterly package
containing personal and food items.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the officer
with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter
indicating the officer resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in her official personnel file.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 69
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0492 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between February and March 2010, a parole agent allegedly reported that parolees lived locally and came to the DISPO INV ADV HA
parole office but it was physically impossible because the parolees were residing more than 500 miles away. The
parole agent also allegedly reported that she was making home visits to locations that had been vacant for
months, and was dishonest by stating she was at the library doing computer work to monitor the GPS parolees
when she never logged on to the system to verify the parolees' locations.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. However, the parole agent was non-punitively dismissed due to
unauthorized absences before the investigation was completed. A letter indicating the parole agent was non-
punitively dismissed under adverse circumstances was placed in her official personnel file.
Case No. 10-0493 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On January 28, 2010, it was alleged that two officers used unreasonable force on an inmate when they forced the DISPO INV ADV HA
handcuffed inmate to the ground.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against both officers. In an unrelated case, one of the officers was
alleged to have used unreasonable force against another inmate. The hiring authority served the first officer with a
notice of dismissal for the two combined incidents. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
The second officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for nine months. Following a Skelly hearing, the hiring
authority reduced the penalty of the second officer to a letter of instruction, based on the officer's observations of
resistance by the inmate.
Case No. 10-0494 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On January 27, 2010, an institution's investigative services unit received information that an office technician was DISPO INV ADV HA
involved in a romantic relationship with an inmate and smuggled drugs and alcoholic beverages into the
institution. During an interview with the Office of Internal Affairs, the office technician admitted that she was
involved in a romantic relationship with the inmate and that she provided him with money, tobacco, and alcoholic
beverages, but denied providing him drugs.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed criminal charges against the office technician.
The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for
monitoring.
Case No. 10-0495 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On January 27, 2010, an institution's investigative services unit received information that an office technician was DISPO INV ADV HA
involved in a romantic relationship with an inmate and smuggled drugs and alcohol into the institution. During an
interview with the Office of Internal Affairs, the office technician admitted that she was involved in a romantic
relationship with the inmate and that she provided him with money, tobacco, and alcohol but denied providing
him drugs.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the office
technician. The office technician did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 70
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0496 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On January 25, 2010, an inmate alleged he was sexually assaulted by multiple staff members, which he refused to DISPO INV ADV HA
identify. Initially the inmate stated that officers took his property from his cell, then sexually assaulted him while
in the shower. Later the inmate indicated the sexual assault occurred in his cell. At another time the inmate
indicated that officers threw away his property, then as he was being escorted back from the shower, officers
threw him to the ground and inserted fingers and a key into his rectum. After several requests, the inmate
eventually identified the staff members allegedly engaging in the conduct. The inmate also indirectly suggested
that the sexual assault allegations could go away if his property was returned.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable case to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not
referred to the district attorney's office. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack
of evidence.
Case No. 10-0497 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On January 23, 2010, a sergeant was arrested for allegedly punching and assaulting his fiance. Outside law DISPO INV ADV HA
enforcement officers reported that they observed visible injuries and fresh blood on the face and clothes of the
fiance. No criminal charges were filed against the sergeant.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 10 percent
salary reduction for 24 months. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0498 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On January 21, 2010, it was alleged that a supervising cook was smuggling mobile phones, narcotics, and DISPO INV ADV HA
marijuana into the institution for sale to inmates.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not
referred to the district attorney's office. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack
of evidence.
Case No. 10-0499 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On January 21, 2010, two parole agents reported that a female parolee claimed that an officer at a female DISPO INV ADV HA
institution brought contraband to inmates if they exposed themselves to him. During the course of the
investigation, another inmate claimed that in November and December 2009, she engaged in sexual intercourse
and had other sexual contact with the officer. A third inmate claimed that on August 13, 2010, the officer raped
her while she was sleeping in her cell.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed, and the case 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 71
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0500 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On January 15, 2010, it was alleged that an officer had been engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an DISPO INV ADV HA
inmate, and had been smuggling mobile phones and marijuana into the institution for sale to inmates.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not
referred to the district attorney's office. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack
of evidence.
Case No. 10-0501 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On January 12, 2010, an officer allegedly allowed two inmates to enter a third inmate's cell in violation of policy. DISPO INV ADV HA
The inmates attacked the third inmate with an inmate-manufactured weapon and their hands. Responding officers
fired less-than-lethal rounds and used pepper spray and chemical grenades to end the assault.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority initially sustained the allegation against the officer and imposed a salary reduction of 5
percent for nine months. Following a Skelly hearing, it was discovered that the policy the officer allegedly
violated was not in effect at the time of the incident, and that the officer was instructed by another officer to open
the cell door. As a result, the hiring authority revoked the salary reduction and issued the officer a letter of
instruction.
Case No. 10-0502 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On January 10, 2010, three officers allegedly failed to properly secure and escort inmates in a housing unit. An DISPO INV ADV HA
inmate was able to assault another inmate.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the three officers and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction
for three months for each officer. The officers did not file appeals with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0503 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On January 6, 2009, an officer allegedly trafficked heroin into an institution for an inmate. DISPO INV ADV HA
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not
referred to the district attorney's office. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack
of evidence.
Case No. 10-0504 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On January 3, 2010, a lieutenant allegedly allowed the daughter of another employee to enter a secured housing DISPO INV ADV HA
unit in an effort to prevent the daughter from engaging in future criminal activity. The lieutenant confiscated the
girl's jewelry, ordered her to be handcuffed, and transported her to a secured housing unit where the girl was
placed in a cell, given state-issued clothing to wear, and then detained her in a dayroom with numerous wards.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The
lieutenant did not appeal the action.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 72
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0505 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 29, 2009, an accounting technician discovered that an officer had been sending money to an DISPO INV ADV HA
inmate. Following the discovery, a search of the inmate's belongings revealed correspondence which suggested
the inmate and the officer were engaged in a sexual relationship.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which charged the officer with misdemeanor charges for
having sexual contact with the inmate and communicating with the inmate without legal authority. The officer
retired before the department could open an administrative investigation.
Case No. 10-0506 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 29, 2009, a youth counselor was arrested after he allegedly threatened to kill his 14-year-old DISPO INV ADV HA
stepson, pressed a knife against the stepson's neck, and punched him in the abdomen. Additionally, the youth
counselor allegedly failed to notify the hiring authority of his arrest.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the youth counselor with a notice of dismissal. However,
he retired before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the youth counselor retired pending
disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file.
Case No. 10-0507 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 29, 2009, an off-duty officer wearing her department uniform allegedly entered a retail store, DISPO INV ADV HA
loaded a shopping cart with items totaling almost $3,000, and walked out of the store without paying for them.
Outside law enforcement officers searched the officer's home and found the stolen items.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer and served the officer with a notice of dismissal.
However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the officer resigned
pending disciplinary action was placed in her official personnel file.
Case No. 10-0508 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 27, 2009, it was alleged that an officer physically assaulted an inmate while a second officer DISPO INV ADV HA
watched and provided gun coverage. The officer then allegedly filed a report indicating the inmate had attacked
him. In retaliation for the assault, the inmate later slashed an uninvolved officer across his face and neck with an
inmate-manufactured weapon. The injured officer required 68 stitches.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the officer was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed criminal charges of assault
under color of authority and for filing a false report against the inmate. The second officer, who allegedly
provided gun coverage, was not a suspect in the criminal investigation. The case against the inmate, who was
already serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole, was handled in a separate criminal investigation.
The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation into the actions of both officers, which
the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 73
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0509 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 27, 2009, an officer allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship with inmates and brought DISPO INV ADV HA
the inmates marijuana, tobacco, chewing gum, and coffee.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office for review to determine if probable cause existed. The
district attorney's office declined to prosecute. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to
lack of evidence.
Case No. 10-0510 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 27, 2009, a ward refused to get out of a chair located near the officers' station. As a result, an DISPO INV ADV HA
officer allegedly pepper sprayed the ward in the face and failed to activate his personal alarm before using force
on the ward.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer inappropriately used force against the ward and
failed to activate his alarm as required. The officer was issed a letter of reprimand, which was appealed to the
State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0511 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 22, 2009, it was alleged that a parole agent falsified records of supervision when he indicated that DISPO INV ADV HA
he had conducted home visits and face-to-face contacts with parolees, who were in custody at the time of his
alleged contacts with them. Additionally, a supervisor took several of the parole agent's files to review them;
however, when the supervisor was not in his office, the parole agent allegedly removed the files.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and would have dismissed the parole agent. However, the parole
agent resigned before disciplinary action could be taken. A letter indicating the parole agent resigned under
adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file.
Case No. 10-0512 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 16, 2009, it was alleged that a parole agent had engaged in a sexual relationship with a parolee. DISPO INV ADV HA
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not
referred to the district attorney's office. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack
of evidence.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 74
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0513 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 12, 2009, an officer was arrested for allegedly driving under the influence of a prescription DISPO INV ADV HA
medication, and allegedly failed to report her arrest to the department. On December 13, 2009, the officer was
allegedly absent without leave from her assigned post. On December 14, 2009, it was alleged the officer
knowingly operated a state vehicle without a valid California driver's license in her possession and provided a
false statement to a supervisor regarding the status of her driver's license.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all of the allegations against the officer. The officer had previously been non-
punitively dismissed for failure to submit to a job-required tuberculosis test. After being non-punitively
dismissed, the officer resigned from the department precluding the hiring authority from imposing disciplinary
action based on the conduct alleged in this case. A letter indicating the officer resigned under adverse
circumstances was placed in her official personnel file.
Case No. 10-0514 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 9, 2009, it was alleged that an officer was engaged in an overly familiar and sexual relationship DISPO INV ADV HA
with a parolee. Allegedly, the officer met the parolee when the parolee was an inmate incarcerated at the
institution where the officer worked. After being released on parole, the parolee allegedly moved into the officer's
residence and used the officer's money to purchase drugs.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the officer
with a notice of dismissal. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter
indicating the officer resigned pending disciplinary action was placed in her official personnel file.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action. The department's
attorneys also did not timely review the draft investigative report and provide feedback to the investigator, nor did
they provide written confirmation summarizing critical discussions concerning the investigative report.
Case No. 10-0515 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 9, 2009, an officer allegedly had an overly familiar relationship with an inmate and allowed drugs DISPO INV ADV HA
and mobile phones to be smuggled into an institution. During a cell search of a different inmate, a mobile phone
with numerous nude photos allegedly of the officer was discovered.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed, and the evidence did
not clearly establish that the officer personally engaged in criminal misconduct related to the photos. 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 75
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0516 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 9, 2009, an officer allegedly had an overly familiar relationship with an inmate and allowed DISPO INV ADV HA
marijuana, tobacco, and mobile phones to be smuggled into the institution. During a cell search of a different
inmate, a mobile phone with numerous nude photos of the officer was discovered. The officer also allegedly
brought her personal mobile phone into the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer was overly familiar with the inmate by allowing him
to be in possession of her photos and that she brought her mobile phone into the institution on at least one
occasion. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation that the officer smuggled drugs and mobile phones
into the institution. The hiring authority determined that dismissal was the appropriate penalty. However, the
officer resigned before the penalty was imposed. A letter was placed in her official personnel file indicating that
she resigned under adverse circumstances.
Case No. 10-0517 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 8, 2009, a sergeant allegedly was dishonest by forging a lieutenant's signature on an inmate DISPO INV ADV HA
housing assignment change form and then lied to an associate warden about the matter.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of dishonesty for lying
to the associate warden because as soon as the sergeant confirmed that he had signed for the lieutenant on the
document in question, he reported such. The hiring authority determined there was also insufficient evidence to
sustain the allegation that the sergeant was dishonest by inappropriately signing for the lieutenant. The hiring
authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the sergeant was negligent when
he signed the lieutenant's signature without indicating he was signing on behalf of the lieutenant. The hiring
authority issued a letter of instruction to the sergeant.
Case No. 10-0518 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 7, 2009, it was alleged that a parole agent was involved in an overly familiar relationship with a DISPO INV ADV HA
parolee. The parole agent also allegedly used his state-issued vehicle to transport the parolee daily to her
methadone clinic, took the parolee out to lunch, and provided her with money, all the while reminding her that
she was subject to being returned to prison.
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 76
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0519 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 5, 2009, an officer was arrested by outside law enforcement officers for allegedly striking his ex- DISPO INV ADV HA
wife in the face. However, the district attorney's office declined to prosecute the criminal case against the officer.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation of failure of good behavior and imposed a penalty of a 30 working-
day suspension without pay. This case was consolidated with another case against the officer for similar conduct
for which the hiring authority dismissed him. Following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority and the officer
entered into a settlement agreement that the discipline in both cases would be reduced to a 10 percent salary
reduction for 24 months, the officer would successfully complete an anger management program, and the officer
would submit a letter of resignation which could be accepted without further notice by the hiring authority should
there be any additional negative contacts with outside law enforcement within 12 months.
Case No. 10-0520 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE In December 2009, it was alleged that during October and November 2008, an officer allegedly conspired with a DISPO INV ADV HA
parolee to smuggle marijuana, mobile phones, and tobacco into the institution for sale to an inmate.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and determined that the appropriate penalty was dismissal.
However, the officer retired prior to the completion of the investigation. Therefore, no disciplinary action could
be taken. A letter indicating that the officer retired under adverse circumstances was placed in her official
personnel file.
Case No. 10-0521 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between December 2009 and May 24, 2010, a sergeant, an officer, and other staff members assigned to the DISPO INV ADV HA
institution's mailroom, allegedly stole money orders and stamps from inmate mail.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not
referred to the district attorney's office. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack
of evidence.
Case No. 10-0522 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE In December 2009, a parole agent allegedly falsified her case roster regarding anti-narcotic testing of parolees. DISPO INV ADV HA
The parole agent also allegedly failed to maintain the required case contacts and records of supervision for
parolees assigned to her caseload.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the parole agent
falsified records but sustained the allegation of negligence in accurate record keeping. The parole agent received a
letter of instruction.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 77
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0523 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 27, 2007, three parole agents arrested a parolee suspected of selling marijuana. During the arrest, DISPO INV ADV HA
the parole agents discovered a large amount of cash. The currency was turned over to the unit supervisor, who
inventoried the cash and noted the amount as $4,606. One of the parole agents threw the suspected marijuana into
the garbage. On December 3, 2007, one of the agents delivered the $4,606 to an outside law enforcement agency
as evidence for the criminal prosecution of the parolee. However, a parole violation report completed by the
parole agents on December 6, 2007, reflected that approximately $1,000 in cash was seized from the parolee's
person in addition to the approximately $4,600 in cash seized from the parolee's vehicle. On February 23, 2009,
the parolee demanded return of the approximately $1,000 that was not turned over to the outside law enforcement
agency. It was alleged that the parole agents committed a theft of approximately $1,000.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not
referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation,
which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0524 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 26, 2009, an inmate threw a crumpled piece of paper at an officer, accidentally striking him in the DISPO INV ADV HA
face. The incident was not reported by the officer that day. The next day, allegedly following a sergeant's
instructions, two officers stripped the inmate to his boxers and placed the inmate in an outside holding cell in
inclement weather of rain, wind, and cold for over three hours. The inmate alleged that he began to feel pain and
had difficulty breathing due to the conditions. The inmate was then moved to an indoor holding cell where he was
interviewed by the sergeant, who had allegedly instructed the officers to take the inmate to the holding cell, and a
lieutenant. After being informed of the misconduct, the lieutenant told the inmate that the inmate had done
something wrong the night before, the staff had done something wrong now, so "it was a wash and to forget about
it." Additionally, two officers reported in their inmate count that the inmate was in his assigned area during the
time he was in the holding cell. The sergeant allegedly failed to assure the count was done properly.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations against the sergeant that he directed officers to place the inmate in the
outside holding cell in his boxers and failed to ensure that officers conducted the count properly. He was issued a
letter of reprimand, which he appealed to the State Personnel Board. The bureau did not concur with this penalty.
The hiring authority sustained allegations against one of the officers for removing the inmate to an outside
holding cell during inclement weather for one and one half hours, stripping the inmate to his boxers, and failing
to properly count the inmate. The hiring authority sustained allegations against a second officer for failing to
properly count the inmate. Both officers were served with a letter of reprimand. The department and the two
officers entered into settlement agreements. The officers agreed not to appeal the discipline to the State Personnel
Board and the department agreed to remove the letters of reprimand from their personnel files after two years.
The hiring authority did not sustain allegations against the other officers, and found there was insufficient
evidence the lieutenant made the alleged statement to the inmate.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 78
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0525 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 21, 2009, an officer discovered an inmate who had committed suicide. The condition of the DISPO INV ADV HA
inmate's body indicated that the inmate had been dead for more than 30 minutes. The officer was allegedly
dishonest when he indicated that he completed the required inmate welfare checks every 30 minutes.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the officer had
failed to conduct the welfare checks and was dishonest about such.
Case No. 10-0526 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 21, 2009, an inmate attacked a housing unit officer resulting in significant injuries to the officer. DISPO INV ADV HA
The inmate was taken to the medical clinic where he received treatment from a nurse. While at the medical clinic,
four officers allegedly repeatedly struck the inmate, who attacked the housing unit officer. The officers and nurse
allegedly failed to report the officers' use of force in their written reports of the incident. It was also alleged that
the inmate told a lieutenant that he had been beaten by the officers and the lieutenant failed to report the alleged
use of force.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the four officers.
Similarly, the allegation against the nurse for failure to report a use of force was not sustained; however, she was
provided with a letter of instruction because she did not appropriately document the medical care she provided to
the inmate. The hiring authority determined the lieutenant failed to appropriately document the inmate's
allegations of use of force and issued the lieutenant a letter of instruction.
Case No. 10-0527 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 15, 2009, an officer allegedly failed to properly secure the door to an individual exercise module in DISPO INV ADV HA
an administrative segregation unit, which allowed an inmate to open the door, exit, and assault another inmate
who was being escorted by an officer. A second officer allegedly failed to conduct a proper security check of the
same exercise module.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the officer failed to
properly secure the inmate in the exercise module. The officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for one
month. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority did not sustain
allegations against the second officer.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 79
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0528 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 14, 2009, an officer allegedly battered his spouse then broke several phones when she tried to DISPO INV ADV HA
contact police. The officer was arrested on the same date and called in sick November 14 and 15. The officer
failed to notify the department of his arrest, as required. On December 2, 2009, after having been criminally
charged by the district attorney's office, the officer pled no contest to a misdemeanor with a diversion. Hence, if
the officer completed specified conditions, there would be no conviction depsite his plea. The officer was given
no firearms restriction.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 60 working-day suspension. However, prior to filing
an appeal, the department and the officer entered into a settlement agreement. The department agreed to reduce
the penalty to a 45 working-day suspension and the officer agreed to not file an appeal with the State Personnel
Board.
Case No. 10-0529 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 12, 2009, an officer was arrested by outside law enforcement for allegedly pushing his wife into a DISPO INV ADV HA
wall during an off-duty incident. It was further alleged that the officer did not report the arrest to the hiring
authority in a timely manner.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the domestic violence allegation, but
sustained the allegation that the officer neglected to report his arrest in a timely manner. The officer received a
letter of instruction.
Case No. 10-0530 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between November 12, 2009, and March 30, 2010, an officer allegedly had a sexual relationship with a parolee. DISPO INV ADV HA
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which filed criminal charges. The Office of Internal Affairs
also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0531 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 6, 2009, an officer was arrested by outside law enforcement for allegedly making death threats DISPO INV ADV HA
toward his girlfriend and her family. Subsequently, the girlfriend recanted her statement to the police and the
district attorney dismissed all charges.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the officer engaged
in domestic violence.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 80
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0532 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 4, 2009, following a traffic stop, an officer was arrested by outside law enforcement for possession DISPO INV ADV HA
of illegal steroids, vehicle registration fraud, and other traffic violations. During the course of the traffic stop, the
officer displayed his department-issued credentials, allegedly in an attempt to influence the actions of the local
law enforcement officer. It was further alleged that the officer was dishonest during the course of the traffic stop
when he said he had recently purchased his car, and as a result had not been able to register it with the
Department of Motor Vehicles.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that the officer illegally possessed a controlled substance, engaged in
illegal activity, and was dishonest to law enforcement during the investigation. The allegation that the officer had
misused his authority was not sustained. The hiring authority dismissed the officer. The officer filed an appeal
with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0533 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 4, 2009, a lieutenant, two sergeants, and a fourth unknown correctional employee allegedly placed DISPO INV ADV HA
members of two rival groups in the same dayroom while their cells were being searched without proper
precautions. As a result, members of one group attacked members from the other group, requiring staff to use
force to gain control of the inmates.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the staff acted
inappropriately.
Case No. 10-0534 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 2, 2009, it was alleged that an officer physically assaulted a restrained inmate in retaliation for the DISPO INV ADV HA
inmate complaining about the officer. Specifically, the officer allegedly picked up the inmate from the floor
where he was in a prone position and handcuffed, punched the inmate in the face, threw the inmate back onto the
floor, and then placed his foot on the inmate's face.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer. It
was determined that the inmates who reported the misconduct could not have seen the incident as reported and
that the inmates were upset with the officer because he was firm in his dealings with them. In addition, the officer
provided a credible version of the incident during his investigatory interview.
Case No. 10-0535 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 1, 2009, it was alleged that an off-duty officer shot his brother, who was a parolee, and then DISPO INV ADV HA
attempted to flee the scene of the shooting. The officer was convicted of felony negligent discharge of a firearm.
The officer also failed to notify the hiring authority that his brother had previously been an inmate and was
currently a parolee.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, before the
officer could be served with a notice of dismissal, he was dismissed for being absent from work without leave. A
letter indicating the allegations were sustained was placed in his official personnel file.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 81
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0536 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On October 31, 2009, two sergeants allegedly used unnecessary force by pushing an inmate to the ground during DISPO INV ADV HA
a medical escort and then failed to accurately document their use of force.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations.
Case No. 10-0537 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On October 24, 2009, an institution's investigative services unit received an anonymous note alleging that an DISPO INV ADV HA
officer was trafficking drugs and mobile phones into the institution in exchange for money.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Therefore, the case was not
referred to the district attorney's office. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack
of evidence.
Case No. 10-0538 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On October 23, 2009, three officers allegedly forced an inmate to the ground, placed him in handcuffs and carried DISPO INV ADV HA
him to a cell for placement. The inmate resisted entering the cell and one of the officers allegedly placed the
inmate in a choke hold causing him to nearly lose consciousness. It was further alleged that the officers failed to
accurately document their use of force.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against two of the
officers and dismissed them. Both of the officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. The allegation
against the other officer was not sustained.
Case No. 10-0539 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On October 21, 2009, an inmate was found dead in an institution's medical treatment facility. A subsequent DISPO INV ADV HA
autopsy revealed a contributing factor in the cause of death was an overdose of methadone although the inmate
had not been prescribed methadone. It was alleged that a registered nurse administered the methadone to the
wrong inmate.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed as it revealed that the
inmate may have obtained the methadone from another inmate. The case was not referred to the district attorney's
office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative case, which the bureau did not accept for
monitoring.
Case No. 10-0540 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On October 14, 2009, a registered nurse was allegedly under the influence of alcohol while on duty. DISPO INV ADV HA
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and dismissed the nurse,
who filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 82
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0541 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On October 10, 2009, an off-duty officer allegedly was drunk and disorderly, used his position in the department DISPO INV ADV HA
to request leniency from outside law enforcement officers who responded to the incident, and resisted arrest.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 36 months. The officer
filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0542 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On October 9, 2009, an officer and a sergeant allegedly failed to report their use of force on an inmate. The DISPO INV ADV HA
sergeant also allegedly failed to report the officer's use of force.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant and
officer.
Case No. 10-0543 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On October 6, 2009, an inmate alleged that an officer was introducing mobile phones and tobacco into an DISPO INV ADV HA
institution in exchange for money.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations.
Case No. 10-0544 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On October 3, 2009, an off-duty officer allegedly approached a private citizen in a bar, showed the citizen his DISPO INV ADV HA
badge, and punched the citizen in the face and head multiple times, causing injury. The officer then allegedly fled
the scene without contacting outside law enforcement officers, and did not report the incident to the department.
Subsequently, outside law enforcement officers came to the institution and arrested him. The officer was
criminally charged with battery under color of authority. It was also alleged that the officer lied during his
interviews with outside law enforcement and with the Office of Internal Affairs about the incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the officer.
The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0545 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On October 3, 2009, outside law enforcement responded to a sergeant's home where they saw several people in a DISPO INV ADV HA
physical altercation inside a bedroom. The sergeant was alleged to have battered his wife and was arrested for the
incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and initially demoted the sergeant to officer. The district attorney's
office reduced the charges to disturbing the peace, a misdemeanor. Due to evidentiary issues, the hiring authority
and the sergeant entered into a settlement agreement. The hiring authority agreed to reduce the penalty from a
demotion to a 50 working-day suspension and the sergeant agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel
Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 83
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0546 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On October 2, 2009, a sergeant assigned to an inmate transportation bus allegedly entered the inmate area of the DISPO INV ADV HA
bus and used unnecessary force on an inmate by grabbing his neck area, choking him, and pushing him down
causing the inmate to hit his head on the back of a toilet. Two officers allegedly witnessed this unnecessary use of
force and failed to report it.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the sergeant entered the inmate area of the bus without proper
coverage and served him with a letter of reprimand, which he did not appeal to the State Personnel Board. The
hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officers observed the sergeant enter the inmate area of the bus
and failed to report it. The officers were served with letters of instruction. The hiring authority determined there
was insufficient evidence to sustain the use of force allegations.
Case No. 10-0547 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On October 2, 2009, an officer allegedly assaulted and severely injured a private citizen outside of a bar. The DISPO INV ADV HA
officer also allegedly failed to report his arrest to the department.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The investigation
revealed that the officer acted in self-defense and that he was never formally arrested for the incident.
Case No. 10-0548 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 29, 2009, a lieutenant and a sergeant allegedly failed to properly process a razor blade recovered DISPO INV ADV HA
from an inmate as evidence.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations.
Case No. 10-0549 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 29, 2009, a correctional counselor was arrested after being discovered as a passenger in a stolen vehicle DISPO INV ADV HA
while intoxicated. The counselor was criminally charged with vehicle theft, possession of stolen property, and
criminal conspiracy. The district attorney's office dismissed all of the charges except public intoxication to which
the counselor pled no contest.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of failure of good behavior for public intoxication and imposed a 5
percent salary reduction for two months. The correctional counselor did not file an appeal with the State
Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0550 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 29, 2009, an officer allegedly disobeyed a supervisor's order when he used pepper spray on an DISPO INV ADV HA
inmate. The use of the pepper spray was allegedly an unreasonable use of force.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of insubordination and
initially imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. However, following a Skelly hearing, the hiring
authority agreed to reduce the penalty to a 10 percent salary reduction for three months. The hiring authority
determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation regarding unreasonable use of force.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 84
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0551 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 27, 2009, an officer allegedly threatened a sergeant with legal action and harassed him because the DISPO INV ADV HA
sergeant was a witness in an internal affairs investigation that resulted in the dismissal of the officer's son. The
son was also an officer.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations.
Case No. 10-0552 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 27, 2009, an officer allegedly released two inmates from their cell without ensuring the inmates DISPO INV ADV HA
were handcuffed as required by a modified program. The two inmates then attacked an inmate porter who was
affiliated with a different group.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The
officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0553 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 25, 2009, two officers allegedly dragged an inmate into his cell, twisted the inmate's arm and wrist DISPO INV ADV HA
while taking his handcuffs off, and rammed his head into the cell wall. The officers also sexually assaulted the
inmate by fondling his genitals and rubbing a flashlight on his buttocks.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the allegations were unfounded. There was no physical or documentary
evidence to support the allegations and multiple witness statements did not corroborate the claims made by the
inmate.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action, timely consult with
the assigned investigator and the bureau when the deadline needed to be modified, or timely contact the assigned
investigator and the bureau to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation. The department's attorneys also
did not attend investigative interviews of key witnesses to assess demeanor and credibility. The department's
attorneys further did not timely review the draft investigative report and provide feedback to the investigator, nor
did they provide written confirmation summarizing critical discussions concerning the investigative report.
Case No. 10-0554 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 23, 2009, an office technician alleged that in 2006 an associate warden placed his hand inside the DISPO INV ADV HA
front of her pants. The office technician also alleged that in 2008 a lieutenant forced his way into her apartment
and performed a sexual act in her presence, as well as on a separate occasion forced the employee to perform a
sexual act on him on institution grounds.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the lieutenant was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The
investigation against the associate warden 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 against the lieutenant only, 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
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0555 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 23, 2009, an off-duty building maintenance worker at a department youth facility was allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA
involved in a road rage incident while driving on the freeway. During the incident the maintenance worker
allegedly sprayed mace into the citizen's open car window. Both vehicles stopped at a location off the freeway
and outside law enforcement was called. The maintenance worker allegedly threw the mace into a trash can in an
attempt to hide evidence prior to the arrival of law enforcement, and was dishonest when he told law enforcement
that he did not use mace, but instead sprayed air freshener into the citizen's car. The maintenance worker was
subsequently arrested and failed to timely report his arrest to the department. The maintenance worker allegedly
was inappropriately in possession of state-issued mace and misused state property when he sprayed the mace at
the private citizen. The maintenance worker's wife, a youth counselor, allegedly failed to timely return the state-
issued mace canister to the youth facility and allowed her husband to possess it. The maintenance worker's wife,
along with three other youth counselors, allegedly knew about the maintenance worker's arrest but failed to
timely report it.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain all of the allegations of misconduct
against the maintenance worker and dismissed him. The allegations were also sustained against the maintenance
worker's wife who received a 60 working-day suspension. Allegations were sustained against the three other
youth counselors. One of the youth counselors received a 10 percent salary reduction for one month, and two of
the youth counselors received a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. The employees all filed appeals with
the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0556 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 23, 2009, an officer allegedly drove his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and caused an DISPO INV ADV HA
accident. Outside law enforcement arrested the officer who had a blood alcohol level of .23, was found in
possession of his off-duty weapon, and was unable to stand on his own. It was also alleged that the officer did not
report the arrest to the hiring authority, as required.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 18 months. The
officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0557 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 21, 2009, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force and was disrespectful to an inmate when he DISPO INV ADV HA
placed the inmate on the ground and referred to the inmate in a derogatory manner. Additionally, it was alleged
that the officer was negligent when he placed the inmate in a holding cell, which contained sensitive institutional
mail.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer was neglectful in his duties and was discourteous to
an inmate and issued the officer an official letter of reprimand. The allegation that the officer had used
unnecessary force was not sustained. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 86
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0558 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On or about September 17, 2009, an officer allegedly entered into a sexual relationship with an inmate while on- DISPO INV ADV HA
duty, and continued the relationship after the inmate was released on parole.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to two district attorney offices, both of which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal
Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0559 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 11, 2009, an officer allegedly spit at an inmate through the food port of his cell, called the inmate DISPO INV ADV HA
derogatory names, and later failed to fully report his actions. It was also alleged that a second officer observed the
incident and failed to report that the first officer spit at the inmate.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that the first officer used profanity toward the inmate, but determined that there
was insufficient evidence to sustain the remaining allegations. That officer received a letter of instruction. The
hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the second officer.
Case No. 10-0560 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between September 4 and November 26, 2009, an officer allegedly vandalized a vehicle belonging to a sergeant DISPO INV ADV HA
on numerous occasions because the sergeant previously initiated disciplinary action against the officer. At least
one act of alleged vandalism was witnessed by another officer. The officer also allegedly wrote the word "rat" on
a work schedule next to the name of the officer who witnessed the vandalism.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs
also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0561 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 4, 2009, a youth counselor allegedly sprayed a ward in the back of the head with pepper spray as DISPO INV ADV HA
the ward walked away from him. The youth counselor and another youth counselor allegedly failed to accurately
report the event in their incident reports.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations.
Case No. 10-0562 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 1, 2009, an officer, while off-duty, attempted to commit suicide and was transported to a local DISPO INV ADV HA
hospital. He allegedly became combative with hospital staff and then verbally and physically resisted a local law
enforcement officer, who used a taser on him. The officer was placed on a psychiatric hold, which resulted in the
officer being prevented from possessing or having control of any firearm. The officer failed to report the firearms
restriction to the department, as required.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The firearms restriction against the officer expired. The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence
to sustain the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The officer did not file an
appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 87
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0563 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that on September 1, 2009, an officer began introducing mobile phones, tobacco, and narcotics into DISPO INV ADV HA
an institution and was overly familiar with inmates.
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. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative
investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0564 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 31, 2009, an officer allegedly threw down and broke an inmate's compact disc player, and threatened DISPO INV ADV HA
the inmate by remarking, "I dare you hero." The officer was also allegedly dishonest when he reported he
accidently dropped the compact disc player. Another officer allegedly observed the compact disc player being
intentionally thrown and failed to report the misconduct.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer intentionally threw down the inmate's compact disc
player, threatened the inmate, and lied about accidently dropping the compact disc player. The officer was
dismissed. However, disciplinary action could not be imposed since the officer had already been dismissed in
another matter. The hiring authority also sustained the allegation that the other officer failed to report the
misconduct and issued the officer a letter of instruction.
Case No. 10-0565 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 31, 2009, an officer allegedly stole a television, a wrist watch, and sunglasses from inmate mail. The DISPO INV ADV HA
officer also allegedly solicited an inmate to assist him in smuggling the items out of the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs
also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0566 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 28, 2009, an officer allegedly stepped on the back of an inmate, who was handcuffed and on the DISPO INV ADV HA
ground in a prone position.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the officer used
unreasonable force. The officer received a letter of reprimand, which was not appealed to the State Personnel
Board.
Case No. 10-0567 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 28, 2009, an officer ordered an inmate, who was suspected of being under the influence of alcohol, to DISPO INV ADV HA
exit his cell and submit a urine sample. As the cell door opened, the officer allegedly punched the inmate's
cellmate several times in the head without provocation.
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 88
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0568 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 25, 2009, a 27-year-old inmate was allegedly inappropriately housed in the same cell with a 68-year- DISPO INV ADV HA
old inmate, resulting in the 27-year-old inmate killing the older inmate. A sergeant allegedly failed to properly
evaluate the factors required to be considered when housing the inmates together and instead relied simply on the
inmates' consenting to being housed together. The sergeant was also allegedly dishonest about his review of the
case factors during his investigative interview.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the sergeant
negligently performed his duties or was dishonest.
Case No. 10-0569 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 25, 2009, a parolee's ex-wife alleged that a parole agent had attempted to solicit sexual relations from DISPO INV ADV HA
her in exchange for not sending the parolee back to prison.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The matter was not
referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation,
which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0570 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 19, 2009, several officers and a sergeant allegedly hazed a lieutenant who was transferring to a new DISPO INV ADV HA
assignment. Specifically, the officers and the sergeant allegedly had inmates grab and carry the lieutenant to a
fence, where he was then handcuffed and left for a period of time. The participants then allegedly conspired to not
report the incident. In addition, the lieutenant allegedly failed to report the misconduct and made misleading
statements about the incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations against two officers for neglecting their duties and for being
discourteous to the lieutenant. The officers received 5 percent salary reductions for 24 months. The hiring
authority sustained allegations against the sergeant for participating in the event and conspiring not to report it.
The sergeant was demoted to officer. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the lieutenant that he
failed to report the misconduct and made misleading statements about the incident. The lieutenant was demoted
to officer. All four subjects appealed to the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0571 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 18, 2009, an officer was arrested for allegedly hitting his wife, leaving a bruise around her eye. The DISPO INV ADV HA
officer also allegedly failed to report his arrest to the institution, as required.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 10 percent
salary reduction for 12 months. However, following a Skelly hearing, the department and the officer entered into
a settlement agreement. The department reduced the penalty to a 10 percent salary reduction for six months and
the officer agreed to not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 89
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0572 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 18, 2009, it was alleged that a lieutenant was bringing narcotics into the institution for sale to inmates. 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 opened an administrative investigation,
which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0573 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 18, 2009, it was alleged that a lieutenant was bringing tobacco, mobile phones, and heroin into the DISPO INV ADV HA
institution for sale to inmates. It was also alleged that the lieutenant engaged in overly familiar conduct with both
an inmate and a parolee. The lieutenant allegedly utilized the department's inmate information system to obtain
information about the inmate and parolee, and allegedly sent the inmate letters and money. The lieutenant also
allegedly engaged in an extensive relationship with the parolee, which included travelling to Las Vegas together,
picking the parolee up at his home, dining out with the parolee, making over 60 telephone calls to the parolee,
and sending 100 text messages to the parolee. When seen in Las Vegas with the parolee by a sergeant who
recognized the parolee as a former inmate, the lieutenant allegedly lied to the sergeant by indicating he was not
on parole. Additionally, outside law enforcement found the lieutenant travelling in a vehicle with the parolee, and
the lieutenant was allegedly dishonest about his connection to the parolee. Finally, the lieutenant was allegedly
dishonest about the allegations during his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the lieutenant brought contraband
into the institution. However, the hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the
remaining allegations that the lieutenant was overly familiar with both an inmate and a parolee, and was dishonest
to the sergeant, outside law enforcement and the Office of Internal Affairs. The hiring authority dismissed the
lieutenant, who filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0574 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 17, 2009, an officer was alleged to have needlessly used pepper spray on an inmate. The officer and DISPO INV ADV HA
two other officers who witnessed it allegedly failed to report the use of force.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against all of the
officers.
Case No. 10-0575 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 16, 2009, an officer was allegedly at a parolee's residence under the influence of drugs and dishonest DISPO INV ADV HA
with outside law enforcement officers. During the investigation of the officer's alleged misconduct, additional
information was received indicating that the officer allegedly used and bought methamphetamine from a parolee
and his girlfriend.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the officer.
The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 90
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0576 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 13, 2009, an officer allegedly conspired with his girlfriend to commit various crimes involving drugs, DISPO INV ADV HA
check fraud, and stolen property, as well as neglected his duty as a peace officer to report her actions. The officer
was arrested and allegedly failed to report his arrest. Later he allegedly provided false or intentionally misleading
information to outside law enforcement and department investigators.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The allegations that the officer failed to report the girlfriend's activities and provided misleading information to
investigators were sustained. Allegations of actual conspiracy in any of the criminal acts and failure to report his
arrest were not sustained. The department served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the department
allowed him to resign in lieu of dismissal; the officer agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board
and not to seek employment with the department in the future.
Case No. 10-0577 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 7, 2009, an officer allegedly failed to maintain constant and direct observation of an inmate who had DISPO INV ADV HA
allegedly swallowed contraband. The officer also allegedly lied when he said that he had not received direction
from his supervisor regarding the procedures for watching the inmate and that the post orders governing the
observation of inmates were not available during his shift.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the officer had failed
to properly observe the inmate and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 10 months. The hiring authority
determined there was insufficient evidence that the officer had been dishonest about his supervisor's instructions
and also determined that the post orders did not exist. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0578 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 7, 2009, it was alleged that an officer forcefully shoved an inmate's face into a steel door while in the DISPO INV ADV HA
shower, causing an injury to the inmate's cheek. The officer also allegedly threatened another inmate and used
profanity. The officer failed to report the use of force and the inappropriate statements. It was further alleged that
the officer has been engaging in a pattern of overall inappropriate use of verbal and physical intimidation toward
inmates.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer and
dismissed him. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 91
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0579 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 6, 2009, two officers searched the cell of an unruly inmate and his cellmate. After the search, one of DISPO INV ADV HA
the officers allegedly entered the cell and struck one of the inmates several times. The inmate reported that the
officer stomped on his head when the inmate was laying down on the cell floor. The second officer allegedly ran
into the cell and deployed his pepper spray on both inmates, who were lying in a prone position. Both officers
reported that the officer who first entered the cell was dragged into the cell by the inmate after the officer
attempted to grab a book away from the inmate. The officer who struck the inmate reported that he struck the
inmate in self-defense. A control booth officer, who observed the incident, reported that he did not see the officer
and inmate struggle over a book but, rather, observed the officer follow the inmate into the cell. It was further
alleged that both officers lied to investigators when they stated that the inmate dragged the officer into the cell
and that the officer was acting in self-defense, and also that both officers were insubordinate when they discussed
the case with each other prior to being interviewed by investigators.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed both
officers. The officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0580 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 4, 2009, it was alleged that an off-duty officer inappropriately brandished his off-duty weapon during DISPO INV ADV HA
a verbal argument with a cab driver.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation, as the officer drew his
weapon after seeing the cab driver search for something in the passenger compartment of the cab and the officer
did not know if the cab driver was going to draw a weapon. The hiring authority counseled the officer on ways to
deescalate confrontations in the future.
Case No. 10-0581 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 4, 2009, it was alleged that a parole agent engaged in an overly familiar and sexual relationship with a DISPO INV ADV HA
parolee. The parolee alleged that the parole agent touched her breasts and thighs. The parolee also alleged that the
parole agent suggested that they go to a motel room and when the parolee stated she charged for sex, the parole
agent asked about the price for the service.
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. 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 92
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0582 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On August 4, 2009, a parolee alleged that a parole agent had touched her breasts and thighs. The parolee also DISPO INV ADV HA
alleged that the parole agent suggested that they go to a motel room and, when the parolee stated she charged for
sex, the parole agent asked about the price for the service. It was also alleged that the parole agent arrived at
home visits in overly casual dress.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations except an allegation that the parole agent dressed inappropriately
during parole visits and dismissed the parole agent. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel
Board.
Case No. 10-0583 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 30, 2009, a parole agent allegedly admitted he had been using, and was addicted to, methamphetamine. DISPO INV ADV HA
The agent also allegedly failed to properly perform his duties for more than 60 days, and falsified signatures on
official documents.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the parole agent, who filed an appeal with the State
Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0584 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 3, 2009, while off-duty, an officer allegedly discharged a firearm in a bedroom with two other DISPO INV ADV HA
individuals present and failed to report it to the hiring authority. On August 10, 2009, the officer was served with
a temporary restraining order. The officer was allegedly dishonest when he failed to fully report the reasons for
the issuance of the restraining order. In addition, during the investigation, it was revealed that the officer failed to
report that he associated with a family member of an inmate and a parolee.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, he
resigned before the dismissal took effect. A letter indicating that he resigned pending disciplinary action was
placed in his official personnel file.
Case No. 10-0585 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 29, 2009, a group of officers allegedly created a discourteous and hostile work environment for several DISPO INV ADV HA
other officers by failing to assist with duties, failing to respond to requests for aid in securing inmates, and by
informing them that they were on "walk alone" status; meaning that should they need assistance, the other
officers would not provide it. Additionally, it was alleged that one of the officers drew a picture of a rat on
another officer's locker.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that misconduct
occurred by the officers. However, one of the officers received a letter of instruction providing training related to
appropriate behavior in the workplace.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 93
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0586 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 25, 2009, a sergeant was arrested by an outside law enforcement agency for allegedly assaulting her DISPO INV ADV HA
boyfriend, who was also a sergeant in the department. At the time of the incident, a third sergeant and a
correctional counselor were present and provided memorandums to the department regarding the incident. Based
on these memorandums, it was alleged that the sergeant who was assaulted fabricated the incident and filed a
false police report. It was further alleged that the sergeant who committed the assault and the correctional
counselor were dishonest during their investigatory interviews with the Office of Internal Affairs when they were
asked about the details of the incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the sergeant
who was assaulted filed a false police report. The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the sergeant who
was arrested engaged in domestic violence and was dishonest, and that the correctional counselor was dishonest.
Both employees were dismissed and filed appeals with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0587 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 22, 2009, an off-duty officer was arrested by outside law enforcement for allegedly possessing narcotics DISPO INV ADV HA
and for child endangerment because the drugs were allegedly kept in her home and accessible to a child. The
officer pled no contest to child endangerment. The officer also allegedly failed to report her arrest to the hiring
authority.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Based on the officer's conviction, the hiring authority served the officer with a notice of dismissal. However, the
officer resigned before the dismissal took effect. A letter was placed in her official personnel file indicating the
officer resigned pending disciplinary action.
Case No. 10-0588 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 22, 2009, officers allegedly observed a male officer speaking to a female on institution grounds, later DISPO INV ADV HA
determined to be a former inmate. A sergeant asked the officer if the woman with whom he was speaking with
earlier was a parolee and the officer denied that she was a parolee.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the officer was
dishonest or overly familiar with a person on active parole.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 94
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0589 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 22, 2009, a ward who was taking psychotropic medication and on suicide watch, refused to exit his cell DISPO INV ADV HA
to be transported to another facility for a higher level of mental health care. The ward threatened to assault any
staff who attempted to enter the cell. A captain authorized, and a sergeant executed, an emergency cell extraction
during which chemical agents were used to gain the ward's compliance. The captain and sergeant allegedly
inappropriately allowed the use of emergency cell extraction instead of a controlled use of force and allegedly
violated policy by allowing chemical agents to be used against the ward. Additionally, the captain was allegedly
dishonest about whether the chief medical officer approved the use of chemical agents. The chief medical officer
also allegedly inappropriately approved the use of chemical agents and was dishonest about such.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority for the captain and sergeant determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain any of the
allegations against them. Additionally, the hiring authority for the chief medical officer determined there was
insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against him.
Case No. 10-0590 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 21, 2009, it was alleged that an officer was trafficking mobile phones, tobacco, and narcotics into an DISPO INV ADV HA
institution for personal gain.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs
also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0591 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 18, 2009, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force by pushing an inmate and kicking her feet out from DISPO INV ADV HA
under her. The officer also allegedly unholstered a canister of pepper spray and threatened to use it without cause.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations.
Case No. 10-0592 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 17, 2009, it was alleged that an officer had been smuggling marijuana, tobacco, and mobile phones into DISPO INV ADV HA
an institution in exchange for money.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that the officer had committed any crimes. As a
result, the matter was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The department did not open an
administrative investigation due to a lack of evidence.
Case No. 10-0593 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 14, 2009, a sergeant allegedly failed to act when an inmate tried to commit suicide on three occasions. DISPO INV ADV HA
The sergeant also allegedly failed to ensure the required log was documented. It was further alleged that on July
14, 2009, a responding registered nurse committed a security violation by entering a holding cell while the inmate
was unrestrained.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the sergeant and imposed a one working-day suspension. The
hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the registered nurse.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 95
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0594 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 7, 2009, it was alleged that a parole agent had multiple discrepancies in the record of supervision of DISPO INV ADV HA
parolees. Specifically, dates of home visits allegedly did not match his case list roster, GPS monitoring allegedly
lacked updated locations, and there were no laboratory results from alleged anti-narcotic testing of parolees.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed him. The
parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0595 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 2, 2009, a senior youth counselor allegedly pushed a ward. It was also alleged the senior youth counselor DISPO INV ADV HA
failed to properly report the incident, failed to provide the ward with a medical examination after the incident, and
lied during his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority reviewed the video tape of the incident and determined that the alleged use of force was not
significant. However, the hiring authority sustained the allegations that the senior youth counselor failed to
properly report the incident and failed to refer the ward for medical attention, as required by department policy.
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the remainder of the allegations. The
senior youth counselor received a letter of instruction and training.
Case No. 10-0596 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On July 1, 2009, an officer was arrested for allegedly threatening and hitting his girlfriend, holding her against DISPO INV ADV HA
her will, and destroying a mobile phone.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 10 percent
salary reduction for 12 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0597 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 28, 2009, an officer allegedly used excessive force when he struck a restrained but combative inmate DISPO INV ADV HA
five times with a baton.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. However, the officer
was issued a letter of instruction for using the baton in an unsafe manner.
Case No. 10-0598 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 21 2009, a lieutenant allegedly conducted rules violation hearings improperly. Specifically, he failed to DISPO INV ADV HA
provide evidence, address appropriate offenses, or discover misapplied inmate classifications, as required. On
August 2, 2009, the lieutenant also allegedly falsified a rules violation report and assessed an inmate a 181-day
forfeiture of time credits after indicating that the inmate pled guilty to violating prison rules when in fact the
inmate pled not guilty.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained four allegations that the lieutenant failed to properly conduct the hearings.
However, the allegation that he falsified or made misleading statements in official reports was not sustained. The
hiring authority imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 14 months. The lieutenant filed an appeal with the
State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 96
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0599 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 19, 2009, it was alleged that an officer was engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate and DISPO INV ADV HA
provided the inmate with information about institutional activities, such as when the institution's investigative
services unit or gang investigators were going to the inmate's housing unit. The officer also allegedly used her
connection with the inmate to pressure other inmates to withdraw inmate complaints that had been filed against
the officer.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The allegations against the officer originated from a confidential inmate informant, initially interviewed by
institutional investigators. At the request of the hiring authority, the Office of Internal Affairs did not conduct an
interview of the complaining inmate due to the department's fear that further interviews would expose the inmate
as an informant. As a result, no subsequent information was obtained from the inmate that would either
corroborate his initial allegations or assist in the investigation. The department's investigators did not adequately
prepare for the investigation, properly address relevant issues regarding the allegations during interviews, or
adequately address relevant issues in the investigation. The investigative report also failed to address the relevant
facts regarding the allegations. Further, the investigation was not conducted with due diligence and was not
completed within sufficient time for the hiring authority to review the investigative report and take disciplinary
action before the deadline for taking action expired.
Case No. 10-0600 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 15, 2009, an inmate reported to a lieutenant that officers had used unnecessary force on him by hitting DISPO INV ADV HA
him repeatedly with a baton and then kneeing and hitting him in the back of the head. Allegedly, the lieutenant
failed to report the allegations made by the inmate. Further, the inmate alleged that he was interviewed by the
lieutenant three times, the lieutenant failed to document any of the interviews, and the lieutenant inappropriately
documented that the inmate had refused to make a statement. The lieutenant was also allegedly dishonest when he
told the Office of the Inspector General that the inmate refused to make a statement.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the lieutenant failed to document the interview with the inmate
and inappropriately indicated the inmate declined to interview. However, the video equipment malfunctioned so
no recording of the interview existed and when the lieutenant attempted to re-conduct the interview, the inmate
refused on tape. The lieutenant told the Office of the Inspector General that recordings of interviews existed with
the exception of the one when the inmate refused to be interviewed. Later he indicated that an interview had been
conducted but no recording existed as the equipment malfunctioned. The lieutenant was demoted to an officer.
The lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's investigators did not properly address relevant issues regarding the allegations during
interviews or adequately address relevant issues in the investigation. The department investigators also failed to
cooperate with and provide real time consultation with the department's attorneys and the bureau. Further, the
investigation was not conducted with due diligence and was not completed within sufficient time for the hiring
authority to review the investigative report and take disciplinary action before the deadline for taking action
expired.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 97
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0601 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 14, 2009, an officer allegedly stabbed his girlfriend with a pocket-knife resulting in injuries to her leg DISPO INV ADV HA
and arms. Although the officer fled the scene of the attack, he was arrested for the offense on October 27, 2009,
and failed to notify the hiring authority of his arrest.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Due to evidentiary issues, 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. 10-0602 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2009, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force on an inmate. The inmate was being escorted to his DISPO INV ADV HA
cell by several officers when he allegedly became combative and kicked an officer in the chest. After officers
subdued the inmate and had him lying on the ground, an officer allegedly kicked the inmate in the head twice.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the officer was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office
of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0603 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2009, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force on an inmate. The inmate was being escorted to his DISPO INV ADV HA
cell by several officers when he allegedly became combative and kicked an officer in the chest. After officers
subdued the inmate and had him lying on the ground, an officer allegedly kicked the inmate in the head twice.
The officer then allegedly failed to report the use of force, made false or intentionally misleading statements in
his subsequent incident report, and was dishonest during his investigative interview.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations concerning the officer's inappropriate use of force and his failure to
report his use of force. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain dishonesty
allegations. The officer was dismissed and did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0604 (Central Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 5, 2009, it was alleged that two officers in a housing unit failed to follow appropriate procedures DISPO INV ADV HA
concerning the movement of inmates. As a result, an inmate was stabbed by inmates from a rival gang who had
not been properly searched, secured, or escorted in the housing unit as required.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations that both officers were neglectful in the performance of their duties.
The hiring authority imposed a penalty of a 5 percent salary reduction for two months for the first officer, who
had a prior adverse action, and issued a letter of reprimand for the second officer. The first officer filed an appeal
with the State Personnel Board but the second officer did not.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 98
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0605 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 3, 2009, a riot occurred on an exercise yard. Responding officers formed a skirmish line. An officer DISPO INV ADV HA
allegedly violated policy when he ran from the skirmish line into the middle of the riot. The officer fell to the
ground, causing other officers to break from the skirmish line to help him. After the riot ended, the officer
allegedly kicked an inmate two or three times in the shoulder and back area after the inmate was prone on the
ground to prevent the inmate from getting up.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer violated policy by failing to remain in the skirmish
line. Several witnesses reported that the officer did not kick the inmate, but rather placed his foot on the inmate's
back as the inmate was trying to get up. As a result, the hiring authority did not sustain the allegation that the
officer kicked the inmate. However, the hiring authority determined that the officer violated policy by using his
foot to keep the inmate on the ground. The officer received a letter of reprimand. The officer filed an appeal with
the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0606 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 1, 2009, a lieutenant allegedly made derogatory statements to an inmate about the inmate's Arab ancestry DISPO INV ADV HA
and submitted false information to justify placing the inmate in an administrative segregation unit. Also, on June
30, 2009, the lieutenant allegedly used unnecessary and excessive force on an inmate when he shoved an inmate
against a wall and held him there while making a threatening remark.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the lieutenant was
discourteous and made misleading statements to put the inmate in an administrative segregation unit. The
lieutenant received a 10 percent salary reduction for 16 months. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation
of unnecessary force. Following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority agreed to settle the case for a 5 percent
salary reduction for 12 months and the lieutenant agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0607 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between June and September 2009, a director of nursing allegedly sexually battered several of his staff members DISPO INV ADV HA
by touching them inappropriately and threatening to withhold promotions if staff reported his alleged misconduct.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The matter was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal
Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 99
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0608 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between June 2009 and April 2010, an officer allegedly both possessed and used steroids and marijuana. The DISPO INV ADV HA
officer was also allegedly dishonest during his investigatory interview. Another officer had allegedly been aware
of the other officer's use of illegal substances for several years and failed to report the misconduct.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of off-duty use and
possession of controlled substances and dishonesty. The hiring authority 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 the officer's official personnel file. The hiring authority
sustained the allegation against the other officer for failing to report the officer's misconduct and imposed a one
working-day suspension. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0609 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 29, 2009, it was alleged that a parole agent improperly placed a parolee into custody based on the results DISPO INV ADV HA
of a narcotics screening test without confirming the results with a urine test and laboratory results. On June 12,
2009, the parole agent was allegedly a passenger in a vehicle that forced an ex-parolee's vehicle off the road while
the agent yelled derogatory and threatening comments at the ex-parolee. When informed about the parole agent's
alleged conduct toward the ex-parolee, his supervisor allegedly failed to take appropriate action upon receiving
the complaint.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the supervisor failed to take appropriate action when receiving
the complaint about the parole agent, and imposed a one working-day suspension. The supervisor did not file an
appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain
the allegation that the parole agent yelled derogatory and threatening comments at an ex-parolee. The hiring
authority determined that the parole agent did not violate policy when he placed the parolee in custody based on
the results of the screening test because the parolee refused to submit to confirming tests. However, the hiring
authority provided training to the parole agent regarding documentation of events such as the parolee's refusal to
participate in tests. The hiring authority also determined that the department lacks a clear policy governing parole
agents' use of narcotics screening tests. Therefore, the bureau recommended that the department develop such a
policy and provide parole agents with corresponding training.
Case No. 10-0610 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 29, 2009, an officer allegedly failed to properly secure an inmate in a temporary holding cell, after DISPO INV ADV HA
having been ordered to do so by his supervisor. As a result, the inmate who should have been restrained was able
to spit at him. The officer also allegedly used unreasonable force by taking the inmate to the ground during an
escort. Additionally, the officer was alleged to have been discourteous to the inmate by intentionally placing his
food out of reach so the inmate could see the meal, but not reach it.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer was insubordinate and discourteous to the inmate,
but determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the officer used unreasonable force.
The officer received a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. The officer filed an appeal with the State
Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 100
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0611 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 25, 2009, a sergeant allegedly used profanity and the word "rat" during a training class to describe staff DISPO INV ADV HA
who report misconduct. It was further alleged that the sergeant lied during his interview with the Office of the
Inspector General about the allegations.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General, the hiring authority determined there was
sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of discourteous treatment and dishonesty. The sergeant was
dismissed and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0612 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2009, a parole agent allegedly engaged in a verbal dispute with a citizen while both were on the road DISPO INV ADV HA
and driving personal vehicles. The citizen exited his vehicle to further confront the parole agent, at which time the
parole agent displayed his firearm. The parole agent then drove away without identifying himself as a law
enforcement officer. Subsequently, the parole agent allegedly lied to outside law enforcement and the Office of
Internal Affairs regarding the incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations that the parole agent lied to
outside law enforcement. However, the hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain
allegations that the parole agent inappropriately displayed a firearm, that he was discourteous to the private
citizen, and that he was less than honest during his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs. The hiring
authority imposed a 60 working-day suspension. The hiring authority elected not to dismiss the parole agent
because he had years of service without any prior disciplinary issues and the parole agent was prompted to draw
his weapon by a genuine fear for his safety. The parole agent appealed the suspension to the State Personnel
Board.
Case No. 10-0613 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2009, an officer observed an inmate covering his cell window with paper. He ordered the inmate to DISPO INV ADV HA
stop but the inmate refused to comply. The officer then allegedly sprayed the inmate with pepper spray at which
time the inmate complied.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation of using unreasonable force and neglect of duty against the officer
and imposed a penalty of a formal letter of reprimand. Following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority modified
the penalty to a letter of instruction. There was a conflict between the department's policy and the Department of
Mental Health's policy that caused confusion as to the proper procedure for entering an inmate's cell under the
circumstances present in this case. The conflict in policies has been addressed and corrected by the hiring
authority in order to eliminate future confusion.
Case No. 10-0614 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 21, 2009, the department received information that a youth counselor had allegedly engaged in a sexual DISPO INV ADV HA
relationship with a ward in 2008.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs
also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 101
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0615 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 21, 2009, the department received information that a youth counselor had allegedly engaged in a sexual DISPO INV ADV HA
relationship with a ward in 2008.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, the youth
counselor resigned before the investigation was completed. A letter indicating the youth counselor resigned under
adverse circumstances was placed in her official personnel file.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action. The department's
attorneys also did not timely review the draft investigative report and provide feedback to the investigator, nor did
they provide written confirmation summarizing critical discussions concerning the investigative report. Finally,
the department's attorneys failed to coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the disciplinary process.
The hiring authority failed to consult with the bureau regarding the sufficiency of the investigation, prior to
making a final decision regarding allegations and findings, and prior to making a final decision regarding
disciplinary determinations. The hiring authority also did not inform the bureau of significant case developments.
Further, the hiring authority failed to provide the bureau with documentation of critical decisions in the case, as
required.
Case No. 10-0616 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 12, 2009, an officer was arrested after allegedly punching his girlfriend, a fellow officer, in the face and DISPO INV ADV HA
pushing her to the ground during an off-duty incident. He also allegedly threatened to kill his girlfriend if he went
to jail and lost his job and children. Outside law enforcement referred the criminal case to the district attorney's
office, which declined to prosecute. The officer allegedly failed to report his arrest to the institution and he lied
during his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs regarding the allegations.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain all allegations, except that the officer lied
during his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs, and imposed a 60 working-day suspension. The officer
did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0617 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 5, 2009, an officer allegedly conducted a retaliatory search of an inmate's locker after the inmate refused DISPO INV ADV HA
to do as the officer asked and failed to document it in the search log. The officer also allegedly inappropriately
confiscated the inmate's identification card, failed to provide the inmate with a receipt for property confiscated,
and failed to follow a sergeant's orders regarding the confiscated property. The officer was allegedly dishonest
about the property he confiscated from the inmate and about the facts of incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed him. The
officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 102
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0618 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 5, 2009, it was alleged that an officer used unnecessary force on an inmate by spraying him with pepper DISPO INV ADV HA
spray, failed to accurately report the use of force, and was dishonest as to the incident when he wrote his report
and was interviewed. Four other officers who were present were alleged to have failed to report the force they
witnessed.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer failed to report his use of force, but did not find that
the officer used unreasonable force and did not find that the officer made intentionally misleading statements in
his report or in a subsequent interview. The officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months.
Subsequent to filing an appeal, the officer negotiated a stipulated settlement with the department whereby the
salary reduction was reduced to 9 months (from 12) and the adverse action may be removed from his Official
Personnel File after one year. Of the four officers that allegedly witnessed the use of force, the hiring authority
sustained an allegation that one officer failed to report the use of force he allegedly witnessed and imposed a 5
percent salary reduction for three months. This officer negotiated a stipulated settlement after filing an appeal
whereby the penalty remains the same, but the adverse action may be removed from his Official Personnel File
after one year. The hiring authority sustained allegations against a second officer for failing to accurately describe
the use of force he witnessed and for failing to correct discrepancies in his reporting during an interview by the
Office of Internal Affairs. The officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. After filing an appeal,
this officer negotiated a stipulated settlement whereby the penalty was reduced to 9 months (from 12) and
provides for removal of the adverse action from his Official Personnel File after one year. The hiring authority
found that the third officer failed to accurately report the use of force he allegedly witnessed and imposed a 10
percent salary reduction for six months. This officer negotiated a stipulated settlement after filing an appeal
whereby the penalty was reduced to five months (from six) and the adverse action may be removed from his
Official Personnel File after one year. The fourth officer was found to have failed to report the use of force he
allegedly observed and failed to clarify the discrepancies in his report during his interview by the Office of
Internal Affairs. The officer received a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. Following an appeal, this officer
negotiated a stipulated settlement whereby the salary reduction was modified to 9 months (from 12) and the
adverse action may be removed from his Official Personnel File after one year.
Case No. 10-0619 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On April 20, 2009, after an officer's girlfriend vomited in a casino, security guards asked the officer and his DISPO INV ADV HA
girlfriend to leave. The intoxicated officer allegedly became belligerent, waved his departmental badge, and
announced he was an armed law enforcement officer and that if anyone came close to him he would shoot them.
The officer was arrested for disorderly conduct by outside law enforcement.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 10 percent
salary reduction for 24 months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 103
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0620 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On April 11, 2009, a youth counselor allegedly got into an argument with his wife during which he allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA
reached inside a vehicle the wife was sitting in, grabbed the keys out of the ignition, pushed her back, and injured
her fingers by bending them back when she tried to grab the keys. When asked by responding outside law
enforcement about the location of weapons he owned, the youth counselor allegedly initially made misleading
statements, then subsequently provided accurate information. After being arrested for domestic violence, the
youth counselor was allegedly uncooperative with outside law enforcement by slipping the handcuffs to the front
of his body while in the police vehicle. The youth counselor also allegedly failed to report his arrest.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The youth
counselor did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0621 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On April 10, 2009, it was alleged that between 2007 and 2009, a chief psychiatrist had been engaged in a pattern DISPO INV ADV HA
of discourteous treatment toward subordinate staff members. Numerous staff members reported that the chief
psychiatrist demeaned others by calling them "losers," making inappropriate sexual comments, and making rude
gestures. One staff member reported that the chief psychiatrist rudely tapped her on the back of her head on
several occasions. It was further alleged that the chief psychiatrist was dishonest during his interview with the
Office of Internal Affairs.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the chief
psychiatrist. The chief psychiatrist filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0622 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between April 10 and July 6, 2009, a parole agent allegedly falsified his monthly roster and field book by DISPO INV ADV HA
indicating that a parolee was assigned to a drug treatment program, while the parolee was actually in county jail.
He also allegedly misrepresented that parolees had been drug-tested when they had not and failed to properly
supervise parolees.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The hiring authority
determined that the misleading statement in his field book regarding the drug program was attributable to a
failure to review the parolee's file which contained an order changing his status. The hiring authority also found
that records on anti-narcotic testing were not accurately maintained. However, based upon the agent's honesty
during the interview, a statement from his supervisor regarding his significant improvements in performance, and
the parole agent's lack of experience at the time of the errors, the hiring authority suspended the parole agent for
60 working-days. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 104
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0623 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On April 3, 2009, an officer allegedly took an inmate into the sally port to counsel him and threw him up against DISPO INV ADV HA
a wall. The officer then allegedly took the inmate outside and shoved him into a wall. A sergeant allegedly
arrived on the scene, and placed his arm on the inmate to have the inmate transition from a standing to kneeling
position. Additionally, the officer allegedly witnessed the sergeant's use of force and also failed to report it. It was
also alleged the officer violated policy by counseling the inmate in an area that was not within sight of other
officers.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence that the officer engaged in the alleged use of
force, but sustain the allegations that the officer violated policy by counseling the inmate in an inappropriate area
and that he failed to report the sergeant's use of force. The hiring authority initially imposed a 10 percent salary
reduction for 12 months. However, following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority agreed to settle the case for a
salary reduction of 10 percent for seven months and the officer agreed not to file an appeal with the State
Personnel Board. The hiring authority found the sergeant's use of force reasonable, but sustained the allegation
that the sergeant failed to report his own use of force and imposed a salary reduction of 10 percent for nine
months. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0624 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On March 27, 2009, an inmate was stabbed by other inmates on an exercise yard. Two inmates were detained DISPO INV ADV HA
based on their proximity to the stabbed inmate and because they had small specks of what appeared to be blood
on their clothing. It was alleged that a lieutenant was negligent in his duties for failing to have the two inmates
placed in an administrative segregation unit, as required. It was also alleged that a captain and an associate
warden were negligent in their duties for failing to have the two inmates placed in an administrative segregation
unit after learning details of the incident. It was further alleged that a sergeant and an officer working in the
institution's investigative services unit were negligent in their duties for failing to properly document a blood trail
that was reportedly at the scene of the stabbing.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the lieutenant and
the sergeant and they were provided training. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to
sustain the allegations against the captain, associate warden, and officer.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 105
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0625 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On March 27, 2009, a sergeant allegedly reported to outside law enforcement officers that on his way to work he DISPO INV ADV HA
had been attacked at a remote rest area, that the assailants mentioned another officer's name during the attack, and
that he suspected the attack was related to gang activity at the institution. The sergeant suffered slashes that
required stitches. As a result, outside law enforcement utilized over 1,400 hours and incurred approximately
$85,000 in costs to provide the sergeant and the officer with round the clock protection for five days. On
February 2, 2010, the Office of Internal Affairs interviewed the outside law enforcement officers about the attack
reported by the sergeant. Later that same day, the sergeant reported to the outside law enforcement officers that
he had again been the victim of a crime, a hit and run outside of his home. The sergeant reported that while taking
out the trash in the morning he was run over by an unknown vehicle and the assailants made gang-related
references to him. The sergeant sustained multiple injuries including slashes on his leg. When the outside law
enforcement officers interviewed the sergeant about the hit and run he had reported, the sergeant admitted that
neither the March 27 attack, nor the February 2 hit and run, had occurred and that he had self-inflicted both sets
of wounds.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the officer had been
dishonest to outside law enforcement about both of the incidents and dismissed him. The officer filed an appeal
with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0626 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On March 26, 2009, an inmate alleged that officers sexually assaulted him and that officers assisted other inmates DISPO INV ADV HA
in sexually assaulting him.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The department did not open
an administrative investigation due to lack of evidence.
Case No. 10-0627 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On March 23, 2009, an inmate alleged that a lieutenant failed to report significant injuries on an inmate's body DISPO INV ADV HA
that the lieutenant allegedly saw during an unclothed body search of the inmate. It was further alleged that the
lieutenant was dishonest when she filed a report denying that any injuries were noted on the inmate's body.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation revealed that the inmate was not credible after having been found to have been dishonest on
multiple occasions. During one of the interviews of the inmate, the inmate admitted that she had lied to staff
regarding the alleged events. Therefore, the hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain
the allegations.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action, nor timely contact
the assigned investigator and the bureau to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation. The department's
attorneys also did not attend investigative interviews of key witnesses to assess demeanor and credibility. The
department's attorneys further did not timely review the draft investigative report and provide feedback to the
investigator, nor did they provide written confirmation summarizing critical discussions concerning the
investigative report. Finally, the department's attorneys failed to conduct the disciplinary process with due
diligence.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 106
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0628 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between March 19 and September 22, 2009, a parole agent allegedly failed to document any casework activity DISPO INV ADV HA
related to a parolee on his caseload. During that time period, the parolee allegedly abducted and sexually
molested a 15-year-old boy.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the parole agent was
negligent in his supervision of the parolee and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 24 months. At a Skelly
hearing, the parole agent pointed out that he had another disciplinary case which was on appeal at the State
Personnel Board addresing the same conduct, which had been imposed by the previous hiring authority.
Therefore, the hiring authority and parole agent then entered into a settlement agreement resolving both cases in
which the parole agent received a 5 percent salary reduction for six months.
Case No. 10-0629 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On March 13, 2009, two officers allegedly inaccurately completed forms indicating they had conducted 16 30- DISPO INV ADV HA
minute ward welfare checks during their shift. A videotape of the housing unit showed that they actually only
conducted four welfare checks.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 5 percent
salary reduction for 36 months for both officers. Neither of the officers filed an appeal with the State Personnel
Board.
Case No. 10-0630 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On February 23, 2009, an off-duty lieutenant allegedly grabbed his girlfriend's arm and forcibly took her mobile DISPO INV ADV HA
phone from her hand. He also allegedly provided misleading information to law enforcement officers regarding
the incident. The lieutenant was arrested for domestic violence and theft of personal property, and allegedly failed
to report the arrest to his hiring authority.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The
lieutenant did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0631 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On February 17, 2009, an officer found an inmate-manufactured weapon during a cell search and provided it to DISPO INV ADV HA
another officer, who turned it into a sergeant. The sergeant allegedly told the officers to report that the officer
who found it provided it to the sergeant. The sergeant documented that the officer who found it gave it directly to
him in an attempt to simplify the chain of custody because departmental training instructs that the officer who
finds a weapon should be the one who turns it in.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and demoted the sergeant to officer. The sergeant, now officer, did
not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 107
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0632 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between February and June 2009, the number of sick days used by two officers and a sergeant were significantly DISPO INV ADV HA
reduced in the computer logs, as compared to the attendance sheets, concealing the actual number of sick days
used. It was alleged that the sergeant used his position to delete the sick days taken by himself and the other two
officers. The sergeant also allegedly lied during an investigatory interview.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and the sergeant was served with a notice of dismissal. The sergeant
filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0633 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On or about January 23, 2009, it was alleged that an officer was engaged in an overly familiar relationship with DISPO INV ADV HA
an inmate, which included sexual activity. The officer also allegedly brought tobacco, drugs, lighters, and jewelry
into the secured perimeter of the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. However, during his
interview about the allegations, the officer inappropriately referred to an inmate by her first name and stated that
he did not report all inmate requests for favors as required. The hiring authority determined that a letter of
instruction was appropriate. However, the officer retired before the letter of instruction was issued.
Case No. 10-0634 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE During January through April 2009, a parole agent allegedly failed to conduct home visits for her assigned DISPO INV ADV HA
parolees and falsified documents by indicating that she had made those visits.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 10 percent
salary reduction for 18 months. However, following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority agreed to reduce the
penalty to a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel
Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 108
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0635 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 26, 2008, an officer allegedly allowed an inmate to be released early from a fire camp, without first DISPO INV ADV HA
submitting the appropriate paperwork for an inmate release. A second officer also failed to properly conduct,
document, and report the inmate count after the early release. The officers allegedly allowed a fire captain, who
was not an employee of the department, to transport the inmate from the camp to be released in violation of
policy. When the paperwork related to the release was finally sent to the appropriate unit in the institution for
processing, the error was discovered. The officer who released the inmate was contacted, informed that the
inmate should not be released, and asked if the inmate was still at the camp. The officer inaccurately responded
that the inmate was still at the camp. Both officers allegedly failed to promptly notify a supervisor of the early
release and instead personally attempted to locate the inmate.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations against the officer who released the inmate for failing to follow proper
inmate release procedures, allowing a non-department employee to take custody of an inmate, providing
inaccurate information regarding whether the inmate had left the camp, and failing to properly notify his
supervisor of the inmate's early release once it was discovered. The officer received a 10 working-day suspension,
and filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient
evidence to sustain allegations against the second officer.
Case No. 10-0636 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 17, 2008, the department received information that inmates at an institution may not be receiving DISPO INV ADV HA
all of their medications during lock-down periods. The health care manager/chief medical officer allegedly had
knowledge of this and failed to act.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations that the institution's health
care manager/chief medical officer had knowledge that inmates were not receiving all their medications and
failed to take required action.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action, The department's
attorneys also did not timely review the draft investigative report and provide feedback to the investigator.
Further, the department's attorneys failed to coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the
investigative process and did not conduct the discipline process with due diligence.
Case No. 10-0637 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 10, 2008, an officer was allegedly involved in a road rage incident with an outside law enforcement DISPO INV ADV HA
officer who was driving an unmarked vehicle. The officer allegedly attempted to ram the outside law enforcement
vehicle off the road and failed to yield when the outside law enforcement officer activated his vehicle's lights and
sirens. The officer sped away and crashed his vehicle in a ditch. It was further alleged that the officer lied during
his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs about the allegations.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and decided to dismiss the
officer. However, the officer retired before discipline could be imposed. A letter indicating the officer retired
under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 109
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0638 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 4, 2008, an officer was arrested after he allegedly pushed his girlfriend into a mirror, which caused DISPO INV ADV HA
it to break. The girlfriend alleged that the officer then took a piece of the broken mirror and attacked her with it.
Outside law enforcement responded to the disturbance and noted that the victim had injuries consisting of lumps
to her face, a bloody nose, and cuts and scratches to her body.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 60 working-
day suspension. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0639 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On November 12, 2008, a supervising registered nurse allegedly removed institutional prescription medications DISPO INV ADV HA
for personal use. Additionally, it was alleged that another registered nurse was aware of the alleged misconduct,
yet failed to report the incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the supervising nurse and dismissed him. He filed an appeal
with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the other registered nurse failed
to report misconduct and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for nine months. However, following a Skelly
hearing, the hiring authority agreed to the settle the case for a 10 percent salary reduction for six months and the
nurse agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0640 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between November and December 2008, an officer allegedly had sexual contact with an inmate who was DISPO INV ADV HA
assigned to a fire camp.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs
also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0641 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE It was alleged that in November 2008 and December 2008 a parole agent inappropriately accessed law DISPO INV ADV HA
enforcement records from the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System and the California
Department of Motor Vehicles related to his girlfriend and his girlfriend's former boyfriend. He also allegedly
made false entries in the records log that the computer searches were done during the course of an investigation.
It was also alleged that the parole agent allowed his girlfriend to travel with him in his state vehicle and stay with
the parole agent in a hotel while he was attending training for his job. Further, it was alleged that the parole agent
threatened some juveniles with his state-issued rifle outside of his residence.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the parole agent inappropriately accessed law enforcement
records, made false entries in the records log, and allowed his girlfriend to travel in his state vehicle. The hiring
authority imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The parole agent did not file an appeal with the
State Personal Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 110
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0642 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On October 31, 2008, a doctor ordered a urine sample from an inmate. Another medical staff member allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA
reported to the nurse that the inmate would not cooperate with the sample and it may be necessary to request an
order from the doctor to take a forced sample via catheter. Subsequently, the nurse allegedly proceeded with
taking a urine sample via catheter while a sergeant and an officer forcibly restrained the inmate.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the nurse proceeded
with obtaining a urine sample via catheter without a proper order from the doctor. The hiring authority imposed a
5 percent salary reduction for 18 months, which the nurse appealed to the State Personnel Board. The hiring
authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegations that the sergeant, officer and doctor
engaged in misconduct.
Case No. 10-0643 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On October 9, 2008, an inmate was discovered hanging in his cell on his knees with his head slightly forward. DISPO INV ADV HA
Custody staff did not immediately initiate an emergency cell extraction. Instead, unsure if the hanging was a ruse,
they began to assemble a team for a controlled cell extraction. After waiting for a brief time, custody staff entered
the cell, even though a full team had not yet been assembled. The inmate was cut down and removed from the
cell. Neither custody staff, nor the responding registered nurse, commenced CPR at that time. The inmate was
then placed in a wheelchair, rather than on a gurney, with the ligature still around his neck and taken to the
treatment center. At the treatment center, CPR was initiated. It was alleged that officers failed to timely enter into
the cell, failed to initiate CPR and failed to adequately report the incident. It was alleged that the sergeant should
have initiated an emergency cell extraction, and the lieutenant did not properly manage the extraction process or
properly complete the corresponding incident package. It was further alleged that the nurse failed to properly
respond to the medical emergency and failed to adequately document the incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Allegations that four officers failed to initiate CPR and failed to adequately report the incident surfaced, which
were sustained. Three of the officers received letters of instruction, while one officer received a letter of
reprimand. No other allegations were sustained against any officers. An allegation of failing to initiate an
emergency medical cell extraction was sustained against the sergeant, who received a 10 percent salary reduction
for 12 months. Allegations of failure to manage the cell extraction and failure to complete a proper incident
package regarding the incident were sustained against the lieutenant. The lieutenant was given a 10 percent salary
reduction for 12 months. Allegations of failure to properly respond to a medical emergency and failure to
properly document the incident were sustained against the registered nurse. The registered nurse was dismissed.
The lieutenant, sergeant, and registered nurse filed appeals with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 111
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0644 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE In October 2008, a doctor was allegedly dishonest during a State Personnel Board appeal of his dismissal. During DISPO INV ADV HA
that hearing, the doctor allegedly submitted an altered medical record and provided dishonest testimony about
whether he had conducted a particular test on a patient.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations. In the interim, however, the State Personnel Board ruled in the
doctor's favor in the original case which was the subject of the hearing and revoked his dismissal. The department
and the doctor then entered into a settlement agreement in the original dismissal case, wherein the doctor agreed
to resign and the department agreed not to appeal the State Personnel Board's revocation of his dismissal. The
settlement agreement resolved all pending disciplinary actions against the doctor, including any future actions
regarding the doctor's dishonesty alleged in this case.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The hiring authority did not timely submit a request for disciplinary action to the Office of Internal Affairs. The
hiring authority failed to consult with the bureau prior to making a final decision regarding allegations and
findings, and prior to making a final decision regarding disciplinary determinations. The hiring authority also did
not inform the bureau of significant case developments. Further, the hiring authority failed to provide the bureau
with documentation of critical decisions in the case, as required.
Case No. 10-0645 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE In October 2008, a warden allegedly allowed an institutional personnel officer to transfer to a counselor position DISPO INV ADV HA
based on his personal relationship with her. The delegated testing officer allegedly approved the transfer without
verifying the institutional personnel officer met the minimum qualifications for the position.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General, the hiring authority determined that there was
insufficient evidence to sustain any allegations.
Case No. 10-0646 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 30, 2008, an office assistant allegedly forged a doctor's signature on a worker's compensation DISPO INV ADV HA
related medical document which was submitted to the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The criminal investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed;
therefore, the case was not referred to the district attorney's office. An administrative investigation was opened,
which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 112
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0647 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 30, 2008, an office assistant allegedly forged a doctor's signature on a worker's compensation DISPO INV ADV HA
related medical document which was submitted to the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE After the investigation determined that the doctor's signature was authentic, the hiring authority determined that
the allegations were unfounded.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action, nor attend
investigative interviews of key witnesses to assess demeanor and credibility. The department's attorneys also did
not timely review the draft investigative report and provide feedback to the investigator or provide written
confirmation summarizing critical discussions concerning the investigative report. The bureau and hiring
authority were not provided with written confirmation of penalty discussions from the department's attorneys.
Further, the department's attorneys failed to coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the
investigative and disciplinary processes.
Case No. 10-0648 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 21, 2008, four youth counselors allegedly allowed two wards to engage in a fight in a laundry DISPO INV ADV HA
room. One of the wards suffered a broken jaw. Later, the four youth counselors allegedly conspired with another
youth counselor to not cooperate with the investigation regarding the incident. It was further alleged three of the
youth counselors lied during their interviews with the Office of Internal Affairs.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against all the youth
counselors, except the one who allegedly conspired with the four other youth counselors to not cooperate with the
investigation. The hiring authority dismissed the three youth counselors who lied during their interviews with the
Office of Internal Affairs. The hiring authority imposed a 60 working-day suspension without pay against the
youth counselor who was truthful during his investigatory interview. All of the youth counselors filed appeals
with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0649 (Headquarters) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 21, 2008, four youth counselors allegedly allowed two wards to engage in a fight in a laundry DISPO INV ADV HA
room. One of the wards suffered a broken jaw. Later, the four youth counselors allegedly conspired with another
youth counselor to not cooperate with the investigation regarding the incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs
also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 113
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0650 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On September 3, 2008, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force when he punched an inmate during an DISPO INV ADV HA
incident in which the inmate was being forcibly removed from his cell. In addition, the officer allegedly failed to
report his use of force. It was further alleged that five officers and two sergeants saw the force used and failed to
report it as required and that two of the officers were dishonest regarding the incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained allegations of unnecessary use of force, failure to report force used, and dishonesty
against the officer who punched the inmate and he was dismissed. The hiring authority dismissed two of the other
officers after sustaining allegations that they were dishonest and failed to report the force observed. The hiring
authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain an allegation of failure to report force observed
against a third officer; however, the hiring authority determined that the officer failed to properly operate a video
camera during the incident and issued him a letter of reprimand. The hiring authority sustained the allegation of
failing to report force observed against a fourth officer and initially imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six
months. However, following a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority reversed his decision after determining that
there was insufficient evidence that the officer witnessed the force. All the officers who received disciplinary
actions filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient
evidence to sustain the allegations against the fifth officer and the two sergeants.
Case No. 10-0651 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between August 2008 and April 2009 a lieutenant allegedly failed to properly process and serve legal documents. DISPO INV ADV HA
As a result of the lieutenant's failure to properly serve documents in one case, the United States Marshals Service
served the documents and charged the department for the cost.
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 lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0652 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between July 2, 2008 and January 28, 2010, an officer allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship with DISPO INV ADV HA
an inmate by visiting the inmate at the institution where the inmate was housed and writing him letters. The
officer was also allegedly dishonest when interviewed by the Office of Internal Affairs about the allegation.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the officer.
The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 114
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0653 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 20, 2008, an office technician for the Board of Parole Hearings was confronted by agents who had DISPO INV ADV HA
observed her on a video camera placing packages into the trash that was later emptied by an inmate. The office
technician admitted she was paid to bring the packages into the institution, but stated that she never saw the
contents, although she assumed they contained contraband and possibly drugs. Contraband was retrieved from the
institution and drugs were found during a voluntary search of her residence.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation that she brought in contraband. However, the office technician
resigned before the administrative investigation was completed. A notice that the allegation of misconduct was
sustained against the office technician was placed in her official personnel file.
Case No. 10-0654 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 19, 2008, two sergeants and five officers allegedly housed two inmates together who should have been DISPO INV ADV HA
housed individually. The error led to one inmate attacking the other. When interviewed by the Office of Internal
Affairs about the allegation, one of the officers was allegedly dishonest.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained an allegation of neglect of duty against one sergeant and he received a two working
-day suspension. The hiring authority determined that the other sergeant was not present during the incident and,
therefore, exonerated her. The hiring authority sustained allegations of neglect of duty against all five of the
officers; three received two working-day suspensions and two received letters of reprimand. No appeals were
filed with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0655 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 27, 2008, an off-duty sergeant allegedly brandished a firearm and pointed it at a civilian who was DISPO INV ADV HA
attempting to repossess a vehicle.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation after the sergeant was
found not guilty in a criminal jury trial based on the same alleged misconduct.
Case No. 10-0656 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 25, 2008, an off-duty officer allegedly pushed his girlfriend on to a bed during an argument. At the time DISPO INV ADV HA
of the incident, the officer was on misdemeanor probation for a previous domestic violence-related incident and
for driving under the influence. The terms of the officer's probation required that the officer not harm, strike, or
threaten his girlfriend. The officer was sentenced to 30 days in jail. The officer also allegedly admitted to outside
law enforcement that he fired a shotgun at a ceiling during another argument with the same girlfriend a year
earlier.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months. The
officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 115
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0657 (Headquarters) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On May 22, 2008, two parole agents allegedly entered the residence of a private citizen without permission while DISPO INV ADV HA
attempting to locate a parolee-at-large who was wanted in connection with a home invasion robbery.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegation as to one parole agent and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for
12 months. The agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority did not sustain the
allegation as to the second parole agent since the actions were addressed in a separate case that had already been
adjudicated.
Case No. 10-0658 (Central Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On or about May 3, 2008, an officer allegedly paid to access a child pornography internet site. He then allegedly DISPO INV ADV HA
interfered with a criminal investigation by removing a computer from his home when notified about a search
warrant issued to seize it. Between January 1, 2009, and July 28, 2009, the officer also allegedly brought a DVD
player, CDs, and a mobile phone into the secured perimeter of an institution for personal use. Then, on September
17, 2009, the officer allegedly violated a directive prohibiting him from entering the secured perimeter of an
institution. The officer was also allegedly dishonest during his investigative interview about the allegations.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained all the allegations and dismissed the officer. The officer did not file an appeal with
the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0659 (South Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On April 2, 2008, an officer allegedly kicked an inmate who was being held down by other officers. It was also DISPO INV ADV HA
alleged that the officers who allegedly held down the inmate falsified their reports to conceal the use of force.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations.
Case No. 10-0660 (South Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On April 2, 2008, an officer allegedly kicked an inmate who was being held down by other officers. It was further DISPO INV ADV HA
alleged that the officers holding down the inmate falsified their reports to conceal the use of force.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs
also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0661 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On March 18, 2008, it was alleged that an officer was introducing narcotics into an institution, as well as DISPO INV ADV HA
engaging in sales of narcotics outside the institution. It was further alleged that the officer was himself using
illegal narcotics.
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 116
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0662 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between March 2008 and May 2009, a staff services manager allegedly failed to properly serve and process DISPO INV ADV HA
employee discipline cases in a timely manner.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation.
Case No. 10-0663 (North Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE In February and March 2008, a sergeant allegedly committed credit card fraud and theft of currency from a little DISPO INV ADV HA
league organization while acting as its president. Based on his conduct, the sergeant was charged with two
felonies, and pled guilty to misdemeanor theft offenses. The sergeant was sentenced to ten days in jail.
DISPOSITION OF CASE As a result of the jail term, the subject was separated from state service for being absent without leave. A letter
was placed in the subject's personnel file reflecting that he separated under adverse circumstances and that
discipline would be imposed should he reinstate with the department.
Case No. 10-0664 (Headquarters) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 30, 2007, a senior special agent was arrested for allegedly driving his personal vehicle off-duty DISPO INV ADV HA
while under the influence of alcohol and drugs. The senior special agent was also allegedly armed with his duty
firearm at the time of the incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and issued the senior special agent with a letter of reprimand. The
hiring authority determined that the senior special agent had experienced a severe negative reaction to a new
prescription medication the senior special agent had taken. The hiring authority also found that the senior special
agent was forthright in his investigatory interview and had no prior record of misconduct. The senior special
agent did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action or provide written
confirmation of penalty discussions to the hiring authority and bureau. The department's attorneys also did not
provide the bureau with a copy of the draft notice of disciplinary action, nor did they engage in consultation with
the bureau about the notice. Finally, the department's attorneys failed to coordinate with the bureau at each
critical juncture of the disciplinary process.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 117
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0665 (South Region) Direct Action Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 27, 2007, it was alleged a parole agent failed to maintain required records of supervision for nine DISPO INV ADV HA
parolees assigned to his supervision and that he failed to prepare arrest warrants for parolees who had violated
their parole conditions. It was further alleged the parole agent failed to comply with a supervisor's directive to
conduct a review of a parolee who was being considered for release from parole. As a result, the parolee was
allegedly released from parole without the proper review being completed.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Before discipline could be imposed in this case, the parole agent was dismissed in another case, which ultimately
resulted in the parole agent receiving his job back. Once the officer returned to work, the hiring authority moved
forward with the allegations in this case, sustained the allegations and imposed a penalty of a 10 percent salary
reduction for 13 months. The parole agent did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's attorneys did not timely confirm the deadline for taking disciplinary action, nor did they provide
legal consultation to the hiring authority regarding allegations, findings, and disciplinary determinations. The
department's attorneys failed to provide written confirmation of penalty discussions to the hiring authority and
bureau. Additionally, the department's attorneys did not provide the bureau with a copy of the draft notice of
disciplinary action, nor did they engage in consultation with the bureau about the notice. Finally, the department's
attorneys failed to coordinate with the bureau at each critical juncture of the disciplinary process. The hiring
authority failed to timely submit a request for disciplinary action to the Office of Internal Affairs. The hiring
authority did not consult with the bureau prior to making a final decision regarding allegations and findings, and
prior to making a final decision regarding disciplinary determinations. Further, the hiring authority failed to
inform the bureau of significant case developments.
Case No. 10-0666 (Central Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On December 13, 2007, a correctional counselor allegedly committed a sexual battery upon a female inmate by DISPO INV ADV HA
touching her breast.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Although the investigation failed to establish probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed, the case
was referred to the district attorney's office for informational purposes and no charges were filed. The Office of
Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0667 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE On June 6, 2009, a chaplain allegedly misappropriated over $2,600 of inmate funds by transferring inmate DISPO INV ADV HA
donated money to a bank account he managed.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. The Office of Internal Affairs
also opened an administrative investigation, which the bureau accepted for monitoring,
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 118
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
277 SATISFACTORY CASES 218
Case No. 10-0668 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE Between June 2007 and December 2009, a chaplain allegedly appropriated inmate funds in a fraudulent manner DISPO INV ADV HA
and used his position with the state to solicit grant money to fund a personal non-profit business. Additionally, he
was allegedly overly familiar with inmates and their families by facilitating monetary transactions. He was also
allegedly dishonest in his investigatory interview.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the
chaplain. The chaplain filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Case No. 10-0669 (North Region) Criminal Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE From November 2006 through April 2007, a chaplain allegedly falsified timesheets with the intention of DISPO INV ADV HA
defrauding the state for financial gain. Specifically, he submitted timesheets indicating that on approximately 33
occasions, he worked simultaneously at two different prisons on the same day for full pay. In addition, he
allegedly used state owned vehicles to commute to and from his personal residence to the institutions on
numerous occasions and falsified mileage logs to conceal his misuse of the vehicles.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The investigation did not establish probable cause to believe a crime occurred. Therefore, the case was not
referred to the district attorney's office. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation,
which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
Case No. 10-0670 (North Region) Administrative Case BUREAU ASSESSMENT
FACTS OF CASE From November 2006 through April 2007, a chaplain allegedly falsified timesheets with the intention of DISPO INV ADV HA
defrauding the state for financial gain. Specifically, he submitted timesheets indicating that on approximately 33
occasions, he worked simultaneously at two different prisons on the same day for full pay. In addition, he
allegedly used state owned vehicles to commute to and from his personal residence to the institutions on
numerous occasions and falsified mileage logs to conceal his misuse of the vehicles.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the chaplain. However, the chaplain retired before
the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the chaplain retired pending disciplinary action was placed
in his official personnel file.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 119
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0671 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On December 8, 2010, an institution received a bomb threat via telephone. The hiring authority initiated a search of the institution's
outside perimeter and buildings. Canine officers from outside law enforcement agencies assisted in the search and two dogs alerted to a
box located in the warden's suite. A bomb squad from an outside law enforcement agency responded to the institution and determined that
the box did not contain any explosive devices. The entire institution was searched by staff and no other suspicious packages were located.
DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was sufficient; however, the department did not provide timely notification to the
bureau. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0672 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On December 7, 2010, an inmate notified officers that he observed an inmate hanging in one of the cells. The officers responded to the
cell and observed the inmate unconscious with a sheet tied around his neck. The officers activated an alarm, utilized a cut down tool and
performed life-saving measures. Medical staff also provided life-saving measures and transported the inmate to the infirmary. The inmate
was pronounced dead by an on-duty physician.
DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy determined that the inmate's cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the
case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding
the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of
Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0673 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On November 30, 2010, while on an exercise yard, two inmates began hitting another inmate, who was in a wheelchair, with their fists. A
control booth officer ordered all the inmates on the exercise yard to get down. The combatants did not comply. Responding staff arrived,
formed a skirmish line, and gave numerous verbal orders, which were ignored. The combatants continued hitting and kicking the inmate,
who was now on the ground unable to defend himself. The control booth officer fired one lethal round as a warning shot into the concrete
wall of the exercise yard. The combatants still continued their attack. Responding staff then deployed pocket grenades of pepper spray,
which stopped the attack. The inmate survived the attack.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore,
the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department informed the
bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the
matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 120
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0674 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On November 19, 2010, two inmates attacked a third inmate, inflicting serious injury to the attacked inmate. Staff fired multiple less-than
-lethal rounds and deployed chemical agents to stop the altercation. The victim sustained stabs wounds and was sent to a local hospital for
treatment. Two inmate manufactured weapons were located at the scene.
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 adequately notified and consulted
with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of
Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0675 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On November 5, 2010, an inmate committed suicide by hanging himself with a sheet secured to an air vent in his cell. Staff utilized a cut
down tool and initiated CPR in the cell. CPR continued until the inmate was taken to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead.
DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and
sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0676 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On October 24, 2010, an officer discovered an inmate unresponsive and lying in a pool of blood during the early morning inmate count.
The inmate was pronounced dead after life-saving efforts failed. The inmate had been stabbed 170 times. It was suspected the cellmate
stabbed him.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined that the cause of death was due to massive blood loss. The case against the cellmate was referred to the
district attorney's office for prosecution. Potential staff misconduct was identified; therefore, 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 except that after learning the stabbing weapon was passed to the cellmate by an inmate in
another cell, the investigators did not conduct cell searches for evidence. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a
timely and sufficient manner. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau
agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs’ response to the hiring authority’s referral.
Case No. 10-0677 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On October 20, 2010, a mailroom worker at an institution discovered a large envelope making a ticking sound in the incoming inmate
mail. He quickly alerted officers and the immediate area was evacuated and cordoned off. A bomb squad from outside law enforcement
arrived and proceeded to open the package, which contained a battery operated greeting card.
DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notificated and consulted
with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau
agreed.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 121
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0678 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On October 19, 2010, an inmate attacked his cellmate with a suspected inmate-manufactured weapon. Officers heard yells for help
coming from the cell. Responding officers arrived at the cell and found one inmate actively bleeding from numerous cuts on his head,
neck, and back with his hands tied behind his back. Officers conducted an emergency cell extraction and the injured inmate was
transported to a local hospital for further treatment of his injuries. The inmate sustained numerous slash type injuries resulting in the
application of over 200 sutures to close the wounds and was returned to the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution, which filed criminal charges. No staff misconduct
was identified; therefore, the 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. While the department adequately
consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. The bureau agreed with the decision not to
submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0679 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On October 15, 2010, while in the exercise yard during recreational activity, three inmates attacked a fourth inmate. The three inmates
ignored multiple orders by officers for them to get down. The fourth inmate fell on the ground and remained motionless, unable to defend
himself, while the three inmates continued to strike, kick, and make stabbing-type motions to the upper torso and head area of the fallen
inmate. An officer fired one lethal round, as a warning shot, from the observation tower which stopped the attack. No injuries resulted
from the warning shot.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the three 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 informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and
sufficient manner. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0680 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On October 10, 2010, ten to 15 inmates were involved in a riot. An alarm was sounded and responding officers quelled the violence
through the use of pepper spray. Four inmates were transported to local hospitals with serious injuries, including multiple puncture and
stab wounds.
DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was sufficient; however, the department did not provide timely notification to the
bureau. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 122
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0681 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On October 8, 2010, staff noticed some blood on a sheet covering an inmate who was lying on the lower bunk, while the injured inmate's
cellmate was sitting on his bunk. After activating an alarm and placing the cellmate in restraints, staff entered the cell and found the
injured inmate bleeding. The injured inmate was transported to a local hospital for treatment and was found to have seven puncture
wounds to the abdomen and chest area believed to be caused by the cellmate.
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 response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately consulted with the bureau on the incident;
however, it did not timely notify the bureau of the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal
Affairs, and the bureau agreed.
Case No. 10-0682 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On October 4, 2010, staff observed four inmates hitting and kicking another inmate. The inmates ignored officers' orders to stop fighting.
After an officer used pepper spray, two of the inmates stopped their attack and got down on the ground. Officers observed one of the
remaining attackers pass a weapon to the other attacker, who threw the weapon over two perimeter fences. The inmate who was attacked
was transported to a local hospital for treatment of injuries consistent with a slashing-type weapon.
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. Although the department adequately consulted with
the bureau following the incident, it failed to provide timely initial notification when the incident occurred. The bureau concurred with the
hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0683 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On September 30, 2010, a parole agent and an outside law enforcement officer both shot at a pit bull who charged at them while
executing a search warrant. The pit bull was struck, but survived. It was unknown which officer's bullet struck the pit bull.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs dispatched special agents from the deadly force investigation team to the scene. The Office of Internal
Affairs opened both criminal and administrative investigations into the use of deadly force. The bureau accepted the administrative
investigation for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT With the exception of failing to obtain a public safety statement from the parole agent, the department's overall response to the incident
was sufficient. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate
notification.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 123
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0684 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On September 28, 2010, an inmate was allegedly attacked by two other inmates on the exercise yard. The fight escalated into a second
two-on-one fight in the immediate area. Officers activated the audible alarm and discharged one less-than-lethal round. The less-than-
lethal round struck one of the inmates in the facial area causing injury. The inmates continued the assault at which time an officer
discharged a single lethal round as a warning shot into the ground away from inmates and staff. After the warning shot was fired, the
attack stopped and officers secured the scene.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmates was 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 bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. Although the department provided
adequate notification at the time of the incident, it failed to properly provide sufficient consultation during the institution's executive
review of the use of force. Although the bureau was provided notice for the initial use-of-force review for the incident, the bureau was not
provided notice for the final meeting of the Institutional Executive Review Committee. Nonetheless, the bureau ultimately agreed with the
decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0685 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On September 25, 2010, two inmates attacked another inmate. Responding staff used chemical agents in an attempt to stop the attack. The
inmate who was originally assaulted began to choke one of his attackers to the point of unconsciousness. Staffs' baton use was
unsuccessful in stopping the attack. A tower officer then discharged one lethal round which missed the intended target and struck the
choking victim in the head. The inmate was immediately provided medical attention and life-saving efforts were initiated without success.
The inmate was pronounced dead at the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The department opened both criminal
and administrative investigations into the use of deadly force, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and
sufficient manner.
Case No. 10-0686 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On September 25, 2010, an inmate alerted staff that his cellmate was in bed and non-responsive. Officers responded, initiated CPR, and
transported the inmate to the institution's medical clinic where he was pronounced dead. There were no signs of foul play in the cell, and
no visible signs of trauma to the body.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The final autopsy report lists the probable cause of death as asphyxiation and the death was determined to be from natural causes. No staff
misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified
and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs,
and the bureau agreed.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 124
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0687 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On September 16, 2010, an inmate alerted an officer to an emergency at his cell. The cell window was covered, so the officer opened the
door and found the inmate's cellmate hanging from a noose made from a sheet that was tied to a towel rack. Officers cut the inmate down
and began CPR after determining the absence of a pulse and respirations. Medical staff took over the rescue attempt and the inmate began
breathing on his own. The inmate was rushed to a local hospital and placed in the intensive care unit, but died the next day.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined the cause of death to be suicide by ligature hanging. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the
matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the
incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the
bureau agreed.
Case No. 10-0688 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On September 16, 2010, a control booth officer saw an inmate throwing a television inside a cell. The officer sounded an alarm. Upon
reaching the cell, staff discovered an unresponsive inmate lying on the floor face up and blood all over the cell. The injured inmate's
cellmate was standing in the back of the cell with blood all over his body. Staff ordered the cellmate to submit to handcuffs. As the
cellmate walked toward the cell door, he kicked the injured inmate in the head, then submitted to handcuffs and was removed from the
cell. Medical staff arrived and began life-saving measures, which were continued as the inmate was transported to a local hospital. The
inmate was later pronounced dead.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the cellmate was submitted 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.
Case No. 10-0689 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On September 12, 2010, an officer discovered an inmate hanging in his cell during a welfare check. The inmate had tied a noose made
from a sheet to the bed ladder. He was the sole occupant of the cell. Officers cut the inmate down and medical staff began CPR. A
physician pronounced the inmate dead after advanced life-saving efforts failed. Two suicide notes were discovered in the cell.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined the cause of death was due to suicide by ligature strangulation. No staff misconduct was identified;
therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding
the incident, it failed to provide 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 125
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0690 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On August 28, 2010, a condemned inmate was found hanging by the neck from two hooks on his cell wall. He was pronounced dead at
the scene.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Potential staff misconduct was identified; therefore the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. 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 regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the
bureau concurred with this decision. The bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral.
Case No. 10-0691 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On August 27, 2010, a riot erupted in the main yard involving as many as 400 inmates. Staff repeatedly ordered the inmates to stop
fighting and deployed pepper spray and blast dispersion gas grenades, however, the inmates continued to riot. A tower officer fired seven
to eight lethal rounds with five rounds hitting a different inmate. The injured inmates were transported to multiple local hospitals and
eventually returned to the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE No cases against inmates involved in the riot were forwarded to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The Office of Internal Affairs
dispatched members of its deadly force investigation team to the incident. The Office of Internal Affairs opened both criminal and
administrative investigations into the use of deadly force, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified
and consulted with the bureau on the incident.
Case No. 10-0692 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On August 22, 2010, a tower officer saw two inmates attacking another inmate on the institution's exercise yard. The attacking inmates
used an inmate-manufactured weapon to stab the inmate and stomped on his head. The officer fired a lethal round as a warning shot,
which was effective in stopping the attack. The inmate who was attacked was transported in an ambulance to a local hospital, where he
ultimately recovered from his injuries.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution submitted the case against the attacking inmates to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The institution's use-of-
force review committee reviewed the officer's actions and found them to be within departmental policy. 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 126
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0693 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On August 16, 2010, two inmates attacked another with an inmate-manufactured weapon on the exercise yard. Officers utilized less-than-
lethal impact rounds to stop the attack and gain compliance. The victim inmate sustained multiple slash and puncture wounds to his chest
and upper torso. Due to the severity of his injuries, the victim was air-lifted to a local hospital for treatment.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore,
the 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 failed to provide adequate notification, but adequately
consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and
the bureau agreed.
Case No. 10-0694 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On August 11, 2010, while conducting required welfare checks on inmates, an officer discovered an inmate slumped over with the
support chain from his bed wrapped around his neck. Officers removed the inmate from the cell and began CPR. A physician pronounced
the inmate dead after advanced life-saving efforts failed. The inmate was the sole occupant of the cell.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined the cause of death was due to suicide by ligature hanging. No staff misconduct was identified;
therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding
the incident, it failed to provide prompt initial notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal
Affairs, and the bureau agreed.
Case No. 10-0695 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On August 11, 2010, staff observed an inmate on the exercise yard stomping on another inmate's head while wearing his state-issued
work boots. The aggressor inmate continued even after the other inmate appeared unconscious and was unable to defend himself. Two
other inmates ran toward the aggressor inmate, causing him to stop the attack and run. The two inmates began to fight with the aggressor
inmate. When responding staff arrived and ordered the inmates to stop fighting, they complied with the orders. Staff used pepper spray
and an expandable baton to stop the fight. The unresponsive inmate was transported via ambulance to a local hospital for further treatment
of severe head injuries; he was returned to the institution six days later.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the initial aggressor 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 consulted with the bureau about the incident,
but it failed to provide initial timely 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 127
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0696 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On August 9, 2010, an inmate applied a carotid chokehold to another inmate while on an exercise yard. The inmate used the other inmate
as a shield by taking him to the ground and positioning himself underneath the other inmate as he continued to choke him. Officers were
unsuccessful in their attempt to stop the attack with a hydro-force cannon, an instrument that combines water and pepper spray in a large
stream. An officer attempted to stop the attack with three less-than-lethal rounds, but was unsuccessful. The officer finally successfully
stopped the attack by shooting the inmate in the head with a less-than-lethal round after the inmate being choked appeared unconscious
and was no longer struggling. Both inmates survived the incident, but received serious injuries. The aggressor inmate received a fractured
skull and the inmate who was choked received a broken arm from being hit with less-than-lethal rounds.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The district attorney's office investigated the inmate conduct. Potential staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was referred to
the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The institution's overall response to the incident was adequate except for a delay in providing medical attention to the inmates and a
conflict between the information in the reports and video when examined in slow motion. The department provided adequate notification
and consultation to the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority referred the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for
investigation of potential misconduct; the bureau concurred with this decision. The bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs'
response to the hiring authority's referral as submitted. The Office of Internal Affairs determines whether an investigation related to the
use of deadly force will be opened at the time the incident occurs. The bureau recommended this incident be handled as a deadly force
incident because the less-than-lethal round was intentionally fired at the inmate's head in a manner that may have been outside of policy
and created the potential for death; however, the Office of Internal Affairs declined to do so.
Case No. 10-0697 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On August 6, 2010, officers responded to a cell after hearing a loud noise and discovered an inmate with his back to the door and blood
on his upper torso. Both the inmate and his cellmate were removed from the cell without incident. The injured inmate was transported to a
local hospital via ambulance for treatment of multiple stab wounds, and subsequently returned 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 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. 10-0698 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On August 5, 2010, a control booth officer observed three inmates fighting on an exercise yard and ordered the inmates to stop. The
inmates ignored the warning, so the officer fired one less-than-lethal round at the leg of one of the inmates. The round missed the inmate's
leg, but hit an inmate in the chest, which stopped the fight. The inmate was treated and returned to the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's use-of-force review committee determined that the force used was within policy and that the round that struck the inmate
in the chest was not aimed there intentionally. 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 hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 128
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0699 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On August 5, 2010, a riot between 14 inmates occurred in a dayroom of a housing unit. An officer used pepper spray to stop the fighting.
All involved inmates were placed in administrative segregation after receiving treatment for their injuries.
DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding
the incident was sufficient. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0700 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On August 5, 2010, an inmate who shared a cell with another inmate was found unresponsive in their cell. The inmate was taken to the
institution's medical unit and then transported to a local hospital by ambulance. He was unresponsive when he arrived at the hospital and
pronounced dead.
DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy revealed that the inmate died from a heart infection. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred
to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the
incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau
concurred with this decision.
Case No. 10-0701 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On July 20, 2010, an inmate attempted to murder his cellmate by stabbing him multiple times. The injured inmate was transported to a
local hospital for treatment and subsequently 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 Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau
regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0702 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On July 16, 2010, a newly arrived inmate escaped from an institution by assuming the identity of another inmate who was scheduled to be
released. Despite three separate verifications, no officer noticed that the escaping inmate did not match the photograph on the
identification card of the inmate who was scheduled to be released. Escape procedures were enacted and an emergency operation center
was activated. On July 20, 2010, the escaped inmate surrendered to outside law enforcement and was returned to the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Potential staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An
investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department'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 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 129
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0703 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On July 12, 2010, an inmate was found unconscious on an exercise yard with a slash wound to his neck. The inmate was air-lifted to an
outside hospital for treatment and survived. An inmate-manufactured weapon was found near the scene.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case was not referred to the district attorney's office because no suspect could be identified. 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 failed to provide
adequate notification, but adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's
decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0704 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On July 11, 2010, inmates alerted officers to an unresponsive inmate in a cubicle area of a dormitory. Officers located the inmate and
immediately began emergency life-saving measures until they were relieved by medical staff. The inmate was transported to a local
hospital, where he was later pronounced dead.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The inmate died of natural causes. 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. 10-0705 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On July 11, 2010, an officer was assaulted by two inmates on the back dock of a medical treatment center. A nurse activated her alarm
after discovering the injured officer. The officer was transported to a local hospital for a head injury, where he was treated and released.
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. While the department adequately
consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. The hiring authority chose not to refer the
matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision.
Case No. 10-0706 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On July 10, 2010, an inmate was discovered missing from a minimum security facility during an early morning inmate count. The escape
pursuit plan was initiated according to procedure. Staff were unable to locate the inmate that day. However, on July 22, 2010, the inmate
was apprehended and 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 department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide timely initial notification, but
adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the
matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 130
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0707 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On July 10, 2010, three inmates were fighting on a tier of a housing unit. Officers gave a direct order for the inmates to get down but they
continued fighting. Pepper spray and three less-than-lethal rounds were used to stop the fight. One round struck an inmate in the face.
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 failed to provide timely notification, but adequately
consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the
Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0708 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On July 8, 2010, an inmate attempted to murder his cellmate by stabbing him repeatedly in the upper torso area with an unidentified
weapon. The cellmate survived the attack.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the
case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding
the incident, it failed to provide timely notification. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal
Affairs.
Case No. 10-0709 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On July 5, 2010, an officer discovered an inmate hanging in his single person cell during an early morning inmate count. The inmate had
tied a noose made of bed sheets to the air vent and attempted to conceal himself with makeshift curtain. Officers cut the inmate down,
called for an ambulance, and began CPR until relieved by medical staff. A physician pronounced the inmate dead after advanced life-
saving efforts failed.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined the cause of death to be asphyxia by hanging. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter
was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's 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.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 131
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0710 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On July 4, 2010, an inmate was seriously injured after he was attacked by another inmate in their shared cell. An officer used pepper
spray and gave verbal orders to stop; the inmate complied and stopped the attack. The injured inmate told staff that he was being held
against his will by his cellmate, who for two weeks prior to the incident, tortured him and then tried to kill him when staff discovered the
assault in progress.
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 failed to provide adequate notification, but adequately
consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and
the bureau agreed.
Case No. 10-0711 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On July 3, 2010, an officer discovered a single-celled inmate hanging in his cell during a security check. Staff sounded their alarms,
retrieved a cut-down tool, made entry into the cell, and cut the sheet that was tied to a towel rack. Officers started CPR after lowering the
inmate to the ground. Medical staff arrived and took over resuscitation efforts. The inmate was pronounced dead after life-saving efforts
failed.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner determined the cause of death to be suicide by hanging. 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 failed to timely
notify the bureau about the incident, but adequately consulted with the bureau once the bureau was notified. The hiring authority chose
not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision.
Case No. 10-0712 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On July 1, 2010, two inmates attacked another inmate and stabbed him multiple times with an inmate-manufactured weapon. An officer
deployed pepper spray to end the assault. The injured inmate was transported to a local hospital for treatment.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore,
the case was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau
regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed.
Case No. 10-0713 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On June 30, 2010, two inmates were engaged in a fight and refused verbal orders to stop. An officer fired one less-than-lethal round that
struck one of the inmates on the cheek. The inmate was transported to a local hospital for treatment.
DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted
with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 132
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0714 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On June 30, 2010, an inmate assaulted another inmate during the evening meal release. Officers used pepper spray, batons, and physical
force to stop the assault. The assault was finally halted after one of the inmates was inadvertently struck in the head with a baton. The
inmate that was struck in the head with the baton received 16 staples at a local hospital.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The use-of-force review committee determined that the baton strike to the head was an accident that occurred due to the movement of the
inmate. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT With the exception of asking the inmate to walk down a flight of stairs without a medical assessment following his head injury, the
department's overall response to the incident was sufficient. The department consulted with the bureau about the incident, but it failed to
provide sufficient notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed.
Case No. 10-0715 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On June 28, 2010, a tower officer observed two inmates attacking a third inmate with what appeared to be a stabbing weapon on an
exercise yard. The officer fired a single lethal shot at one of the attacking inmates from his state-issued rifle. Although the shot missed,
before he could fire a second shot, other officers on the exercise yard arrived at the scene of the fight and controlled the attacking inmates.
A stabbing instrument was recovered near the scene of the attack, and the injured inmate sustained multiple serious injuries from the
stabbing.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs dispatched special agents from the deadly force investigation team to investigate the incident. The Office of
Internal Affairs opened both administrative and criminal investigations into the use of deadly force, which the bureau accepted for
monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department’s notification and consultation to the bureau regarding
the incident was sufficient.
Case No. 10-0716 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On June 27, 2010, an inmate attempted to murder an officer by stabbing him with an inmate-manufactured weapon. Responding officers
used physical force to stop the attack and pushed the inmate to the floor where he was secured in handcuffs. The officer sustained injuries
consisting of lacerations and swelling to his upper torso area. The inmate sustained minor lacerations.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the
case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department 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 133
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0717 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On June 27, 2010, a tower officer observed two inmates attacking another inmate and ordered them to stop. The attackers continued
hitting the inmate who was entangled in a soccer net attached to goal posts and appeared not to be moving. The officer fired one lethal
round as a warning shot to stop the incident. Responding officers arrived and deployed two chemical grenades which stopped the attack.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore,
the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau
regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this
decision.
Case No. 10-0718 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On June 25, 2010, an inmate stabbed his cellmate approximately 19 times with an inmate-manufactured weapon. The cellmate was air-
lifted to a local hospital for treatment and subsequently returned to the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified;
therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau
regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0719 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On June 25, 2010, two inmates attacked another inmate and began kicking him in the head as he lay motionless on the ground. A tower
officer fired two lethal warning shots, which stopped the assault.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the aggressor inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. The department opened an
administrative investigation into the use of deadly force, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified
and consulted with the bureau. The bureau agreed with the decision to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau
agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs response to the hiring authority’s referral.
Case No. 10-0720 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On June 25, 2010, a condemned inmate battered another condemned inmate with an inmate-manufactured weapon. The inmates refused
verbal commands to stop and get down on the ground. Four officers each fired less-than-lethal rounds and another officer applied pepper
spray to stop the incident. Both inmates sustained head injuries from the rounds. The battered inmate was transported to a local hospital
for further evaluation of a possible collapsed lung and later returned to the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution because of the condemned status of the
suspect. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. 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 134
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0721 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On June 15, 2010, an officer observed two inmates on an exercise yard attack a third inmate with inmate-manufactured weapons. The
inmates stopped their assault as officers responded to the scene, thus force was not necessary to stop the attack. The attacked inmate was
transported to a local hospital for treatment of 14 puncture wounds to his back, neck, and head. He was subsequently returned to the
institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE This case was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution of the attacking inmates. No staff misconduct was identified;
therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Except for the incident report only referencing 12 stab wounds and the medical report indicating 14 stab wounds, the bureau determined
that the department's overall response to the incident was adequate. The department failed to provide timely notification, but adequately
consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the
Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0722 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On June 12, 2010, a riot involving 28 inmates occurred on a facility yard. As responding officers worked to quell the riot, an inmate who
was not involved in the fighting died of cardiac arrest.
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 informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and
sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed.
Case No. 10-0723 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On June 9, 2010, an inmate assaulted his cellmate with his fists and tried to strangle him, while inside their cell. The cellmate was taken
to a local hospital due to having difficulty breathing, where he died as a result of the beating.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the
matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department failed to provide prompt initial
notification, but adequately consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision
not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0724 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On June 7, 2010, an inmate committed suicide by hanging from a noose tied to the overhead light fixture.
DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified
and consulted with the bureau 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 135
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0725 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On June 5, 2010, officers responded to a cell occupied by two inmates after hearing banging noises. Officers then observed an inmate
stomping on the head of his cellmate and hitting him with his fists, while the cellmate was on the cell floor unconscious. The inmate
stopped his assault when ordered to do so. The cellmate was transported to a local hospital where he was treated and later released back to
the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the attacking inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified;
therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. The department informed the
bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal
Affairs, and the bureau agreed.
Case No. 10-0726 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On June 3, 2010, an inmate, who had previously expressed suicide ideation, committed suicide in his cell by hanging himself with a sheet.
Responding staff removed the inmate from the cell and CPR was initiated by custody staff. The inmate was taken to the clinic where CPR
was continued until he was pronounced dead by a physician.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Potential staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An
investigation was opened, which the bureau did not accept for monitoring as the allegations involved medical documentation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter
to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring
authority's referral.
Case No. 10-0727 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On June 3, 2010, an inmate informed an officer that he had killed his cellmate. The officer immediately placed the inmate in handcuffs. A
lieutenant proceeded to the cell and discovered the cellmate unconscious under the bottom bunk. Medical staff responded and transported
the inmate for treatment. A doctor later pronounced the inmate dead.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Potential staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An
investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted
with the bureau. 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 136
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0728 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On May 29, 2010, an inmate was attacked by four other inmates on an exercise yard. Verbal commands and chemical agents were
ineffective in stopping the attack. The assailants were punching and kicking the inmate in the head, who appeared limp and possibly
unconscious. The tower officer fired a lethal round as a warning shot into an empty part of the exercise yard, which did not stop the
assailants. While the officer was preparing to shoot one of the assailants, the inmates stopped the attack. The inmate who was attacked
received moderate injuries from which he has recovered.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate assailants was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified as
the firing of the lethal round was confirmed to have been a warning shot; 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.
Case No. 10-0729 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On May 27, 2010, officers responded to a cell after hearing a loud kicking sound. Upon their arrival, they noticed blood flowing out from
underneath the cell door and an inmate repeatedly striking his cellmate. Pepper spray was used successfully to stop the assault. The
attacked inmate was transported to a local hospital for treatment of multiple stab wounds to his chest and neck and returned to the
institution the next day.
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.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was sufficient. However, the bureau found the documentation regarding medical staff's
directions about how to transport the injured inmate for medical treatment to be incomplete. The department informed the bureau about
the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the
Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0730 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On May 14, 2010, staff discovered an inmate had been repeatedly stabbed by his cellmate. The attacker was handcuffed and removed
from the cell. The attacked inmate claimed he could not walk. An initial medical evaluation revealed the inmate suffered seven life-
threatening stab wounds. The inmate was air-lifted to a local hospital for treatment and returned to the institution two days later.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the
case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau about
the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this decision.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 137
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0731 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On May 11, 2010, officers discovered a single-celled inmate unresponsive in his cell. Medical staff initiated life-saving measures and
were unsuccessful. Outside emergency medical personnel responded to the institution but were unable to revive the inmate, and he was
pronounced dead.
DISPOSITION OF CASE No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. While the department adequately consulted with the bureau regarding
the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs,
and the bureau agreed.
Case No. 10-0732 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On May 11, 2010, an inmate struck a correctional counselor in the arm while being handcuffed. In response, the correctional counselor
struck the inmate in the head with his pepper spray canister. The inmate was treated for a head injury at a local hospital and then returned
to custody.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Potential staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An
investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT 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 to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau agreed with
the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority’s referral.
Case No. 10-0733 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On May 11, 2010, a new inmate was received by an institution. The inmate slipped out of the inmate orientation area in dorm setting
while staff was assisting other inmates and entered the dayroom of the housing unit. According to inmate witnesses, the inmate punched
another inmate in the face with his fist causing the inmate to fall to the floor. Inmate witnesses yelled "man down." One of the housing
unit officers entered the dayroom and discovered an unconscious inmate lying on his back with blood on his face. The inmate was
transported to a local hospital where he was placed on a ventilator and later declared brain dead. The inmate was removed from life
support three days later and pronounced dead. The autopsy report concluded the inmate died as a result of the blunt force trauma to his
head.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate suspect 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 staff's failure to ensure the crime scene and evidence from the suspect was properly preserved, the bureau determined that the
department's response to the incident was adequate. The bureau recommended training for staff related to the crime scene and evidence
preservation deficiencies. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The hiring authority
decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 138
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0734 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On May 9, 2010, inmates called "man down," however, the control booth officer allegedly did not respond for over an hour. When the
floor officer finally responded to the cell, he discovered one of the inmates with an eye injury. The inmate indicated he injured his eye in
an accident. The floor officer escorted the inmate for medical attention and the control booth officer allegedly had inmates clean up the
blood from the injury. The inmate was taken to a local hospital where he had surgery to remove his eye. The next day, the inmate was
found unresponsive in his cell, and it was later determined the eye injury was due to a fight with his cellmate.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner concluded that the death was closely linked to facial trauma. The case was referred to the district attorney's office for
possible prosecution against the cellmate for homicide. Potential staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was referred to the
Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The 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 bureau concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral.
Case No. 10-0735 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On April 29, 2010, officers found an inmate repeatedly stabbing his cellmate. The cellmate was covered in blood, having trouble
breathing, and not responding to verbal commands. The cellmate was transported to a local hospital, where he died from multiple stab
wounds.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. Potential staff misconduct was identified;
therefore, the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An investigation was opened, which the bureau
accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau
regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The
Office of Internal Affairs responded as required to the hiring authority's referral; the bureau agreed with the response.
Case No. 10-0736 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On April 29, 2010, an inmate allegedly struck an officer twice with closed fists in the face. Two officers fired one less-than-lethal round
each striking the inmate in the leg and buttocks. A responding officer used his baton. The officer reported that he attempted to strike the
inmate in the shoulder area but inadvertently hit him on the back of the head. Officers gained control of the inmate and escorted him for
medical treatment. The inmate alleged that he was intentionally hit on the head with the baton by one of the officers and that his wrist was
possibly broken during the escort. The inmate and the injured officer were transported via ambulance to a local hospital.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Possible staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. The Office of
Internal Affairs reviewed the case and determined that officers' response to the incident did not violate departmental polices. As a result,
no investigation was opened.
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 to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The
bureau agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs response to the hiring authority's referral.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 139
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0737 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On April 25, 2010, a sergeant observed an inmate get his neck slashed by another inmate on an exercise yard. The sergeant activated an
alarm causing the suspect to stop his attack without the use of force. The injured inmate was air-lifted to an outside hospital for life-
threatening injuries. Officers recovered an inmate-manufactured weapon during a search of the exercise yard. The injured inmate survived
and 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.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The bureau determined that the department adequately responded to the incident in all critical aspects. While the department adequately
consulted with the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to provide adequate notification. The hiring authority decided not to refer the
matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed.
Case No. 10-0738 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On April 22, 2010, a riot occurred involving 20 inmates. The inmates hit each other in the head and upper torso with their fists. Staff used
verbal commands and pepper spray to stop the riot. There were no serious injuries to staff or inmates.
DISPOSITION OF CASE This case against the inmates involved in the riot was not referred to the district attorney's office. No staff misconduct was identified;
therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the
incident in a timely and sufficient manner. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0739 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On April 13, 2010, two inmates began fighting on an exercise yard outside of a housing unit. Responding officers used pepper spray and
batons to break up the fight. One of the inmates received a fractured bone in his wrist.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The cases against the inmates for assaulting each other were referred to the district attorney's office, which declined to prosecute. No staff
misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau
regarding the incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0740 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On April 6, 2010, staff observed an inmate attempting to cover his unresponsive cellmate with a mattress. An alarm was activated and
responding staff removed the inmate from the cell. Staff observed a cloth ligature tied around the cellmate's neck and immediately cut the
ligature and then began life-saving measures. The cellmate was transported to a local hospital where he was declared brain dead and
placed on a ventilator. Ten days later, the inmate was removed from the ventilator and pronounced dead.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The coroner's office determined the manner of death to be homicide due to asphyxiation. The case against the inmate was referred to the
district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal
Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department consulted with the bureau about the
incident, but it failed to provide sufficient notification. The 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 140
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0741 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On March 23, 2010, an inmate killed his cellmate by strangling him to death with an inmate-made ligature.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore,
the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the
incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed.
Case No. 10-0742 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On March 18, 2010, inmates in a secured housing unit escaped from their cell by defeating the locking mechanism and forcing the door
open. Their actions were immediately observed by staff who sounded an alarm and responded. After a brief physical encounter, the
inmates were re-secured within the housing unit.
DISPOSITION OF CASE After a complete inspection of the cell door, it was determined that the door's locking mechanism was not defective. However, the locking
mechanism was defeated through a specific sequence of maneuvers and unique circumstances. No staff misconduct was identified;
therefore, the matter was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and
sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed.
Case No. 10-0743 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On March 16, 2010, an inmate died while under a physician's care at a local hospital. One hour prior to the inmate's death, while reaching
for a urinal located approximately one foot from his bed, the inmate fell out of his bed and landed on his head, with his legs still restrained
to the bed. The officer observing the inmate turned her head to allow the inmate privacy when he reached for the urinal.
DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy revealed no injury to the inmate's head and concluded the cause of death to be natural causes. Potential staff misconduct was
identified; therefore, the matter was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. Upon review of the case, the Office of Internal Affairs
determined that the matter could be handled without an 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 to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs determined
that an investigation was not warranted and the bureau agreed.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 141
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0744 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On March 16, 2010, an officer fired one less-than-lethal round at an inmate who was fighting another inmate in a dining hall. The officer
inadvertently struck one of the inmates in the back of the head and the inmates continued to fight until two responding officers used
pepper spray to gain compliance. The inmate who was struck in the head sustained a laceration. He was transported to a local hospital for
treatment and later returned to the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was not referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified;
therefore, the case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the
incident. However, the use-of-force review committee initially failed to adequately review the incident and obtain necessary clarifications
regarding the incident reports. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed.
Case No. 10-0745 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On March 8, 2010, an inmate was allegedly pushed off a third floor tier by another inmate. The injured inmate sustained massive head
trauma and later died at a nearby hospital.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the aggressor 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. The
bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0746 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On March 7, 2010, medical staff discovered that an inmate had self-inflicted wounds to his arms and neck area. He told the nurse that he
injured himself in an attempt to commit suicide. He later died of his injuries at a local hospital.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Potential staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An
investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau on the
incident. The bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision 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 142
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0747 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On March 2, 2010, officers escorted a non-compliant inmate back to his cell. Later, the inmate refused to remove a mattress from the door
opening. An officer pushed the mattress into the cell but the inmate kicked it toward the officers causing it to hit the officers on the legs.
As a control booth officer began closing the door, the inmate lunged toward the officers. The inmate became pinned between the cell door
and the door jam. A sergeant ordered the door open and the inmate was forced to the ground. Staff also had to use force to place the
resistive inmate in restraints. The inmate was evaluated by medical staff and taken to a local hospital due to pain to his elbow. The inmate
was evaluated and later returned to the institution. The inmate alleged staff used excessive and unnecessary force in the incident.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the
case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau
regarding the incident. The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed.
Case No. 10-0748 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On March 2, 2010, a sergeant discovered an inmate unresponsive in his cell. Officers activated the alarm, removed the inmate from his
cell, and initiated life-saving measures. The inmate was transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead.
DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy revealed several cellophane wrapped bindles of a controlled substance in the inmate's stomach, which caused the death.
Potential staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An
investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The 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 agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs’ response to the hiring authority’s referral.
Case No. 10-0749 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On February 17, 2010, two inmates began fighting with each other in the dayroom and refused staff orders to stop. Two officers fired a
total of five less-than-lethal rounds striking both inmates but they continued to fight. Responding staff deployed pepper spray striking
both inmates. The inmates stopped fighting and complied with orders to lay in a prone position. One inmate sustained a head injury from
one of the impact rounds and was taken to a local hospital for treatment.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was not referred to the district attorney's office. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was
not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs 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 143
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0750 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On February 17, 2010, an inmate called "man down" regarding another inmate in a nearby cell. Officers immediately responded to the
other inmate's cell where they found him hanging from a sheet tied to an air vent. Staff sounded their alarm, retrieved a cut-down tool,
made entry into the cell, cut the sheet, and lowered the inmate to the ground. Medical staff arrived as the noose was being removed from
the inmate's neck and started CPR. The inmate was subsequently transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead.
DISPOSITION OF CASE A subsequent autopsy ruled the death to be a suicide by asphyxiation. 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 agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0751 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On February 9, 2010, three inmates engaged in a fight with inmate-manufactured weapons on an exercise yard. Officers used lethal and
less-than-lethal force to stop the fight. An officer fired three lethal rounds at one of the attacking inmates, but missed all three times. One
of the bullets struck a concrete path next to the fight and the bullet fragmented. A fragment of the bullet struck an uninvolved inmate in
the eye.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs dispatched special agents from the deadly force investigation team to the scene. The Office of Internal
Affairs opened both criminal and administrative investigations into the use of deadly force, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and sufficient manner.
Case No. 10-0752 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On January 26, 2010, an officer fired three lethal rounds to stop a riot. Two of the rounds were fired as warning shots. The third round
was intended to hit an inmate, but missed. Another officer fired a less-than-lethal round, allegedly striking an inmate in the knee causing a
fractured knee-cap.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The Office of Internal Affairs dispatched special agents from its deadly force investigation team in response to the incident. The Office of
Internal Affairs opened both criminal and administrative investigations into the use of deadly force, which the bureau accepted for
monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and
sufficient manner.
Case No. 10-0753 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On January 24, 2010, custody staff found an inmate unresponsive in his cell. Medical staff initiated live-saving measures, which were
unsuccessful. The inmate was ultimately pronounced dead. The death was treated as suspicious since the inmate was found in his cell
with his cellmate, although there were no outward signs of trauma.
DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy was performed that revealed the inmate died from a heart attack. No staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was
not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's response was satisfactory in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau
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 144
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0754 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On January 12, 2010, two inmates entered a third inmate's cell and attacked him. The attacking inmates used an inmate-manufactured
weapon and their hands to attack the other inmate. Responding officers fired less-than-lethal rounds and used pepper spray and chemical
grenades to end the assault. The attacked inmate was treated for his injuries at a local community hospital and returned to the institution.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The institution's use-of-force review committee found the use of force to be in compliance with department policy. However, staff
misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. The hiring authority was authorized to take
action against the officer without an investigation for leaving the door opened which allowed the attack to occur. The bureau accepted the
case against the officer for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The department's overall response to the incident was adequate in all critical aspects. The department adequately notified and consulted
with the bureau on the incident. The 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.
Case No. 10-0755 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On January 6, 2010, an officer escorted an inmate back to his assigned cell in a security housing unit. The cellmate was handcuffed prior
to the cell door being opened. Once both inmates were secured inside the cell and the officer had removed the handcuffs from both
inmates, the cellmate began stabbing the other inmate with an inmate-manufactured weapon. The inmate was stabbed multiple times in
his upper torso and head area. The officer used pepper spray to stop the attack. The inmate was transported to a local hospital for
treatment of his injuries and returned to the institution five days later.
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 case was not referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau
regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose not to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau concurred with this
decision.
Case No. 10-0756 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On January 5, 2010, two inmates attacked another inmate with inmate-manufactured weapons on the exercise yard. The injured inmate
sustained multiple lacerations to his face, neck, and hand and was air-lifted to a local hospital for treatment.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmates was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. Potential staff misconduct was identified;
therefore, the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs, which declined to open an investigation.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Except for failing to adequately document the incident, and failing to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs in a timely manner,
the bureau determined that the department's response to the incident was adequate. The department failed to adequately notify and consult
with the bureau regarding the incident. The hiring authority chose to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau
concurred with this decision. The Office of Internal Affairs requested further documentation regarding the incident from the involved staff
at the institution and then declined to open an investigation; the bureau disagreed with this decision.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 145
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0757 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On December 30, 2009, officers responded to a cell and observed one inmate hitting the other inmate who was not fighting back. The
officers ordered the inmate to stop striking the other inmate to no avail. Officers then used pepper spray, which stopped the attack.
Following the incident, officers received information that the aggressor also attempted to sexually batter the other inmate. The battered
inmate was treated for his injuries and transported to a local hospital for completion of a sexual assault examination.
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 found that staff failed to process the suspect for evidence in accordance with department policy. In all other respects, the
department's response to the incident was adequate. The department adequately notified and consulted with the bureau regarding the
incident. The bureau agreed with the decision not to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Case No. 10-0758 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On November 27, 2009, an inmate was discovered unresponsive in his cell by an officer during a late-night inmate count. The officer
activated his alarm, removed the inmate from his cell, and began CPR. The inmate was pronounced dead after life-saving efforts failed.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The medical examiner determined 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 Except for their failure to question the cellmate about the drugs found in the cell, the bureau determined that the department's response to
the incident was adequate. The department failed to provide timely 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 with this decision.
Case No. 10-0759 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On November 25, 2009, an inmate reported to two officers that his cellmate assaulted him. One officer walked to the cell to speak to the
inmate and allegedly instructed the control booth officer not to close the cell door. After ordering the inmate to submit to being
handcuffed, the inmate came out of his cell and assaulted the officer. The second officer then responded to the cell to assist the first
officer. During the assault, both officers used their batons to strike the inmate on the head several times, resulting in an injury to the head
requiring 14 sutures and a broken wrist.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Potential staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. An investigation was opened,
which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT The institution's use-of-force review committee failed to fully and timely identify areas needing clarification in reports. Although the
department adequately notified the bureau regarding the incident, it failed to adequately consult with the bureau. After a delay and urging
from the bureau, the hiring authority decided 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 146
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0760 (South Region)
FACTS OF CASE On November 21, 2009, an inmate attacked an officer with a weapon, knocking him unconscious. Officers used pepper spray, less-than-
lethal rounds, and batons to stop the attack. The officer was transported to a local hospital for treatment. The inmate was escorted to the
facility medical clinic for treatment where he alleged that officers uncuffed him, challenged him to a fight, and then punched and slapped
him. The inmate reported the incident to the investigative services lieutenant two days later, but the lieutenant failed to report the
allegations.
DISPOSITION OF CASE The case against the inmate was referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. Potential staff misconduct was identified;
therefore, the case was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted
for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT In response to this incident, the department failed to properly document the incident, the use-of-force review committee failed to
adequately review the incident, and the investigative services unit failed to report allegations of unnecessary or excessive force. The
bureau concurred with the hiring authority's decision to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The bureau agreed with the
Office of Internal Affairs’ response to the hiring authority’s referral.
Case No. 10-0761 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On November 8, 2009, an inmate was found hanging in a culinary area in an institution. Responding staff activated a medical alarm and
began CPR. The inmate was pronounced dead by responding medical personnel.
DISPOSITION OF CASE Potential staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the case was 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 referred the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs; the bureau
concurred with this decision. The Office of Internal Affairs opened an administrative investigation, and the bureau concurred.
Case No. 10-0762 (North Region)
FACTS OF CASE On August 21, 2009, an inmate was found non-responsive in his cell. After removing the inmate from his cell, life-saving measures were
initiated but were unsuccessful. The inmate was pronounced dead at the scene.
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 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 147
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Case No. 10-0763 (Central Region)
FACTS OF CASE On August 16, 2009, a single-celled inmate committed suicide by hanging himself from the top bunk in his cell. An officer found the
inmate hanging from the top bunk and activated his alarm. Responding officers entered the cell and began life-saving measures. The
inmate was transported to an outside hospital where he was pronounced dead.
DISPOSITION OF CASE An autopsy confirmed that the cause of death was suicide by hanging. Potential staff misconduct was identified; therefore, the matter was
referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. An investigation was opened, which the bureau accepted for monitoring.
BUREAU ASSESSMENT Overall, the department's response to the incident was sufficient. The department informed the bureau about the incident in a timely and
sufficient manner. The hiring authority decided to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, and the bureau agreed. The bureau
concurred with the Office of Internal Affairs' response to the hiring authority's referral.
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva PAGE 148
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX
DISCIPLINARY ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS
July through December 2010
The following table contains a list of the department’s disciplinary allegations and findings in each
case the bureau monitored during this reporting period. The table is organized in the same numerical
order as the distinguished, deficient, and satisfactory tables found in the main body of this report.
The information included in this table is derived directly from the department’s case management
system database. Information absent from the database is indicated with an asterisk.
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 149
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
10-0382 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer *
10-0383 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer *
10-0384 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer *
10-0385 North Region (1) Correctional Officer *
10-0386 South Region (1) Special Agent *
(2) Special Agent *
10-0387 Central Region (1) Parole Agent I Weapons Sustained Yes
10-0388 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Weapons Not Sustained Yes
10-0389 South Region (1) Parole Agent III *
10-0390 South Region (1) Parole Agent III Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent III Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent III Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent III Weapons Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent III Weapons Sustained Yes
10-0391 North Region (1) Parole Agent I Use of Force Sustained Yes
10-0392 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Weapons Not Sustained Yes
10-0393 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
10-0394 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Weapons Sustained Yes
10-0395 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0396 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0397 Headquarters (1) CEA Retaliation Not Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 150
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(2) *Other non-Peace Officer Retaliation Not Sustained Yes
10-0398 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Confidential Information Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Criminal Act Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0399 North Region (1) Parole Agent I Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes
10-0400 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
10-0401 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0402 Headquarters (1) C.E.A. III Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Staff Services Manager III Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Staff Services Manager III Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Staff Services Manager III Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Staff Services Manager II (M) Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Staff Services Manager II (M) Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Staff Services Manager II (M) Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(4) Staff Services Manager III Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(4) Staff Services Manager III Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(4) Staff Services Manager III Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0403 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Battery Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 151
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
10-0404 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes
10-0405 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Counselor I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0406 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0407 North Region (1) Parole Agent II Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent II Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent II Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
10-0408 South Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained No
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?
(4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0409 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Confidential Information Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
10-0410 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes
10-0411 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Discrimination/Harassment Not Sustained Yes
10-0412 South Region (1) Correctional Officer *
(2) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes
10-0413 Headquarters (1) Regional Administrator Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes
(1) Regional Administrator Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Parole Agent III Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes
(2) Parole Agent III Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Parole Agent II Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes
(3) Parole Agent II Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(4) Parole Administrator I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0414 Central Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes
10-0415 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct 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?
10-0416 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0417 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Theft Sustained Yes
10-0418 Headquarters (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Use of Force * N/A
(1) Youth Correctional Counselor Use of Force Sustained Yes
10-0419 North Region (1) Parole Agent I Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0420 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
10-0421 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0422 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes
10-0423 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0424 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force 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?
(1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
10-0425 Central Region (1) Correctional Counselor II Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Lieutenant *
(3) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(6) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(7) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0426 North Region (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0427 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0428 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0429 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0430 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 155
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
10-0431 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0432 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Lieutenant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained No
(2) Correctional Lieutenant Insubordination Sustained Yes
10-0433 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes
10-0434 Headquarters (1) Special Agent Insubordination Sustained Yes
(1) Special Agent Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes
(1) Special Agent Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0435 North Region (1) Supervising Cook I Contraband Not Sustained Yes
(1) Supervising Cook I Contraband Not Sustained Yes
(1) Supervising Cook I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Supervising Cook I Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
(1) Supervising Cook I Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 156
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No
(5) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0436 Headquarters (1) Associate Warden Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes
(1) Associate Warden Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes
(2) Office Technician - General Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes
10-0437 Central Region (1) Secretary Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0438 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0439 South Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
10-0440 Headquarters (1) Associate Warden Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(6) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 157
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(7) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(7) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(7) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(7) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0441 North Region (1) Office Technician - Typing Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0442 Headquarters (1) Parole Agent II Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
(2) Parole Agent III Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
(3) Parole Agent II Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
(4) Parole Agent II Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
10-0443 Headquarters (1) <None> Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0444 North Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Use of Force Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty 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?
(5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(6) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(6) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(6) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(7) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(8) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained No
(9) Facility Captain Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(10) Associate Warden Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0445 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0446 North Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(4) Psychiatric Technician Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(4) Psychiatric Technician Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 159
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(5) Associate Warden *
(6) Correctional Counselor III *
10-0447 South Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(6) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(7) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(8) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(9) Associate Warden Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(10) Correctional Counselor III Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(11) Correctional Counselor I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0448 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Sustained No
10-0449 South Region (1) Supervising Cook I Other Criminal Act N/A N/A
10-0450 North Region (1) Registered Nurse Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Registered Nurse Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Registered Nurse Sexual Misconduct Not Sustained Yes
10-0451 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No
(3) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
10-0452 South Region (1) Parole Agent I *
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?
10-0453 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances N/A N/A
(1) Correctional Officer Weapons N/A N/A
10-0454 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
10-0455 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0456 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Weapons Sustained Yes
10-0457 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0458 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A
10-0459 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes
10-0460 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes
10-0461 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0462 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Use of Force Sustained Yes
10-0463 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Not 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?
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes
10-0464 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0465 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
10-0466 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0467 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0468 Headquarters (1) Parole Agent I *
10-0469 North Region (1) Parole Agent II *
10-0470 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
10-0471 Headquarters (1) CEA Retaliation Not Sustained Yes
10-0472 Headquarters (1) C.E.A. III Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
10-0473 Headquarters (1) Deputy Chief Insubordination Not Sustained Yes
10-0474 Headquarters (1) Special Agent Insubordination Sustained Yes
(1) Special Agent Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes
(1) Special Agent Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0475 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0476 South Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0477 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0478 South Region (1) Correctional Sergeant *
10-0479 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior 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?
10-0480 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0481 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances N/A N/A
10-0482 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0483 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0484 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A
10-0485 North Region (1) Parole Agent I Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A
10-0486 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes
10-0487 South Region (1) Parole Agent II Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent II Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent II Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent II Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent II Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0488 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0489 Headquarters (1) Warden Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
(1) Warden Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Associate Warden Battery Not Sustained Yes
(3) Associate Warden Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
10-0490 Central Region (1) Facility Captain Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0491 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct 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?
10-0492 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0493 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
10-0494 South Region (1) Office Technician - Typing Contraband N/A N/A
(1) Office Technician - Typing Other Criminal Act N/A N/A
(1) Office Technician - Typing Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A
10-0495 South Region (1) Office Technician - Typing Contraband Sustained Yes
(1) Office Technician - Typing Contraband Sustained Yes
(1) Office Technician - Typing Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
(1) Office Technician - Typing Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
(1) Office Technician - Typing Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0496 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A
(2) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A
(3) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A
10-0497 South Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0498 Central Region (1) Supervising Cook I Contraband N/A N/A
10-0499 South Region (1) Correctional Officer *
10-0500 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A
10-0501 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0502 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty 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?
(3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0503 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A
10-0504 South Region (1) Lieutenant Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes
(1) Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Lieutenant Use of Force Sustained Yes
10-0505 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A
(1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A
10-0506 South Region (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Youth Correctional Counselor Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0507 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0508 North Region (1) Correctional Officer *
(2) Correctional Officer *
10-0509 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A
10-0510 South Region (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Youth Correctional Counselor Use of Force Sustained Yes
10-0511 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
10-0512 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A
10-0513 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Attendance Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 165
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0514 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Confidential Information Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0515 South Region (1) Correctional Officer *
10-0516 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0517 South Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0518 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A
(1) Parole Agent I Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A
10-0519 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0520 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0521 South Region (1) Sergeant *
(2) Office Assistant I General *
(3) Correctional Officer *
(4) Account Clerk *
(5) Office Assistant General *
(6) <None> *
10-0522 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 166
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0523 Headquarters (1) Parole Agent I *
(2) Parole Agent I *
(3) Parole Agent II *
(4) Parole Agent III *
10-0524 Central Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Failure to Report Not Sustained No
(2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No
(6) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No
10-0525 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0526 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer *
(3) Correctional Officer *
(4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(6) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(6) Correctional Officer Use of Force 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?
(7) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(7) Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0527 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0528 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0529 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes
10-0530 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer *
10-0531 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes
10-0532 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0533 Central Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant *
(2) Correctional Sergeant *
(3) Correctional Sergeant *
(4) <None> *
10-0534 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes
10-0535 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0536 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 168
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(2) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0537 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband N/A N/A
(1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances N/A N/A
10-0538 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0539 Central Region (1) Registered Nurse *
10-0540 North Region (1) Registered Nurse Intoxication Sustained Yes
10-0541 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Intoxication Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0542 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0543 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes
10-0544 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 169
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
10-0545 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0546 Headquarters (1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes
10-0547 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes
10-0548 Central Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0549 North Region (1) Correctional Counselor II Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0550 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0551 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Retaliation Not Sustained Yes
10-0552 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0553 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty 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?
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes
10-0554 Headquarters (1) Correctional Lieutenant *
(2) Correctional Administrator *
10-0555 South Region (1) Building Maintenance Worker Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Building Maintenance Worker Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes
(1) Building Maintenance Worker Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Building Maintenance Worker Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
(1) Building Maintenance Worker Weapons Not Sustained Yes
(2) Youth Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(2) Youth Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Youth Correctional Officer Weapons Sustained Yes
(3) Youth Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(4) Youth Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(5) Youth Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes
10-0556 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Intoxication Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Weapons Sustained Yes
10-0557 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0558 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A
10-0559 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Battery Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 171
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
10-0560 South Region (1) Correctional Officer *
10-0561 South Region (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Youth Correctional Counselor Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
10-0562 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0563 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer *
10-0564 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained No
(1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained No
(2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes
10-0565 North Region (1) Correctional Officer *
10-0566 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
10-0567 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0568 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0569 North Region (1) Parole Agent I *
10-0570 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 172
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Lieutenant Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
10-0571 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0572 North Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Contraband N/A N/A
10-0573 North Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Contraband Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0574 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0575 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 173
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
10-0576 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0577 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0578 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
10-0579 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
10-0580 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Weapons Not Sustained Yes
10-0581 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Misuse of State Equipment or Property N/A N/A
(1) Parole Agent I Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A
(1) Parole Agent I Sexual Misconduct N/A N/A
10-0582 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 174
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Sexual Misconduct Sustained Yes
10-0583 Central Region (1) Parole Agent I Controlled Substances Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0584 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Weapons Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Weapons Sustained Yes
10-0585 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
10-0586 South Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Counselor I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Counselor I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 175
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(3) Correctional Counselor I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Counselor I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
10-0587 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0588 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained No
(1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained No
(1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained No
(1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes
10-0589 Headquarters (1) Captain Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Captain Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(1) Captain Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(3) Chief Medical Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Chief Medical Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0590 North Region (1) Correctional Officer *
10-0591 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0592 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer *
10-0593 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Registered Nurse Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0594 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Insubordination Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 176
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(1) Senior Youth Correctional Neglect of Duty
10-0595 South Region Sustained Yes
Counselor
(1) Senior Youth Correctional Neglect of Duty
Sustained Yes
Counselor
(1) Senior Youth Correctional Use of Force
Not Sustained Yes
Counselor
(1) Senior Youth Correctional Use of Force
Not Sustained Yes
Counselor
(1) Senior Youth Correctional Use of Force
Not Sustained Yes
Counselor
10-0596 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0597 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0598 North Region (1) Lieutenant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0599 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Confidential Information Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes
10-0600 Headquarters (1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0601 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0602 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer *
10-0603 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 177
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
10-0604 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0605 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Battery Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0606 South Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained No
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0607 North Region (1) *Other non-Peace Officer *
10-0608 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0609 Central Region (1) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment Not Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Threat/Intimidation Not Sustained Yes
(2) Parole Agent III Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(2) Parole Agent III Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0610 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 178
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
10-0611 South Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
10-0612 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Not Sustained No
(1) Parole Agent I Weapons Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Weapons Not Sustained No
10-0613 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
10-0614 South Region (1) *Other Peace Officer *
10-0615 South Region (1) *Other Peace Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0616 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained No
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0617 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0618 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 179
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(2) Correctional Officer Use of Force 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 Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
10-0619 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0620 Headquarters (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Youth Correctional Counselor Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0621 South Region (1) Chief Discourteous Treatment Sustained Yes
10-0622 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0623 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Sergeant Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes
10-0624 South Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Captain Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(4) Associate Warden Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0625 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 180
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
10-0626 South Region (1) Correctional Officer *
(2) Correctional Officer *
(3) Correctional Officer *
(4) Correctional Officer *
(5) Correctional Officer *
(6) Correctional Officer *
10-0627 North Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0628 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0629 South Region (1) Youth Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Youth Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Youth Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Youth Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
10-0630 North Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0631 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0632 Central Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 181
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
10-0633 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Not Sustained Yes
10-0634 North Region (1) Parole Agent I Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0635 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0636 Headquarters (1) Chief Medical Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained No
10-0637 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0638 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0639 North Region (1) Supervising Registered Nurse II Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes
(1) Supervising Registered Nurse II Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Registered Nurse Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(2) Registered Nurse Insubordination Not Sustained Yes
10-0640 Headquarters (1) Correctional Officer *
10-0641 Headquarters (1) Parole Agent I Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Misuse of State Equipment or Property Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 182
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(1) Parole Agent I Misuse of State Equipment or Property Not Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Weapons Not Sustained Yes
10-0642 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Psychologist Medical Not Sustained Yes
(4) Registered Nurse Medical Sustained Yes
10-0643 North Region (1) Registered Nurse Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Officer *
(6) Correctional Sergeant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(7) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0644 Headquarters (1) Physician & Surgeon Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Physician & Surgeon Dishonesty Sustained Yes
10-0645 Headquarters (1) Warden Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Counselor I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Associate Governmental Program Neglect of Duty
Not Sustained Yes
Analyst
10-0646 South Region (1) Office Assistant I General *
10-0647 South Region (1) Office Assistant I General Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
10-0648 South Region (1) Youth Correctional Counselor Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
(2) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 183
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(2) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Youth Correctional Counselor Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(3) Youth Correctional Counselor Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(3) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(4) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(4) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(4) Youth Correctional Counselor Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(4) Youth Correctional Counselor Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(5) Youth Correctional Counselor Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(5) Youth Correctional Counselor Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(5) Youth Correctional Counselor Failure to Report Sustained Yes
(5) Youth Correctional Counselor Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(6) Youth Correctional Counselor Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
10-0649 Headquarters (1) Youth Correctional Counselor *
(2) Youth Correctional Counselor *
(3) Youth Correctional Counselor *
(4) Youth Correctional Counselor *
(5) Youth Correctional Counselor *
(6) Youth Correctional Counselor *
10-0650 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 184
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(6) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(7) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(8) Correctional Sergeant Use of Force Sustained Yes
10-0651 North Region (1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Lieutenant Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0652 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0653 South Region (1) Office Technician - General Contraband Sustained Yes
10-0654 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(5) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(6) <None> Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(7) Correctional Officer *
(8) Correctional Sergeant *
10-0655 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained Yes
10-0656 North Region (1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0657 Headquarters (1) Parole Agent I Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 185
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
(1) Parole Agent I Other Failure of Good Behavior Not Sustained No
(2) Parole Agent I Failure to Report Not Sustained Yes
10-0658 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Contraband Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Insubordination Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0659 South Region (1) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(1) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(2) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(3) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Use of Force Not Sustained Yes
(4) Correctional Officer Dishonesty Not Sustained Yes
10-0660 South Region (1) Correctional Officer *
(2) Correctional Officer *
(3) Correctional Officer *
(4) Correctional Officer *
10-0661 Central Region (1) Correctional Officer Controlled Substances N/A N/A
10-0662 North Region (1) Staff Services Manager I Neglect of Duty Not Sustained Yes
10-0663 North Region (1) Correctional Sergeant Theft Sustained Yes
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 186
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. Subject Allegations Findings BIR Concurrence?
10-0664 Headquarters (1) Senior Special Agent Intoxication Not Sustained Yes
(1) Senior Special Agent Other Failure of Good Behavior Sustained Yes
10-0665 South Region (1) Parole Agent I Insubordination Sustained Yes
(1) Parole Agent I Neglect of Duty Sustained Yes
10-0666 Central Region (1) Correctional Counselor II *
10-0667 North Region (1) Protestant Chaplain Misuse of Authority N/A N/A
(1) Protestant Chaplain Misuse of Authority N/A N/A
10-0668 North Region (1) Protestant Chaplain Dishonesty Sustained Yes
(1) Protestant Chaplain Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes
(1) Protestant Chaplain Misuse of Authority Sustained Yes
(1) Protestant Chaplain Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
(1) Protestant Chaplain Over-Familiarity Sustained Yes
10-0669 North Region (1) Chaplain *
10-0670 North Region (1) Chaplain *
Created By: Mylene G. Villanueva
BUREAU OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PAGE 187
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA