Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries

Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in July 2025 Prison Oversight From January 1, 2025, through June 30, 2025, The OIG’s Assessment of the OIG’s Force Investigation Review Team 13 Investigations for January Through June 2025 completed its review of 13 California Department Number of of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR or the Rating Investigations department) closed use-of-force investigation Adequate 1 cases. The OIG evaluated the department’s overall performance in the 13 closed use-of-force Improvement Needed 0 investigations as follows: Inadequate 12 For each investigation monitored, the OIG Totals 13 evaluated the performance of the Office of Source: Analysis prepared by staff of the Office of the Inspector General. Internal Affairs’ investigators to determine whether they conducted thorough and timely investigations. The OIG also evaluated whether hiring authorities made reasonable decisions about those completed investigations. The OIG assessed the entities within the department as follows: The OIG’s Assessment of CDCR’s Performance of 13 Investigations for January Through June 2025 Performance Rating Office of Internal Hiring Affairs Authority Adequate 2 1 Improvement Needed 2 1 Inadequate 9 11 Totals 13 13 Source: Analysis prepared by staff of the Office of the Inspector General. Below we present summaries of five notable closed use-of-force investigations the OIG reviewed during this reporting period. Page 1 of 7 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in July 2025 Prison Oversight OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0001 Incident Summary On April 21, 2023, an officer allegedly slammed an incarcerated person to the floor, ignored his need for medical attention, ordered him to get down on the ground, and did not give him sufficient time to comply before the officer resorted to an unreasonable use of force. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer. The OIG concurred. Overall Assessment Overall, the department’s performance was inadequate. On December 29, 2023, the Office of Internal Affairs provided its report to the hiring authority. The hiring authority did not conduct the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until July 11, 2024, six months and 12 days thereafter. The OIG determined the hiring authority delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference for 12 days beyond the deadline to impose disciplinary action against the officer, if warranted. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs’ performance was adequate. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. On December 29, 2023, the Office of Internal Affairs provided its report to the hiring authority. The hiring authority did not conduct the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until July 11, 2024, six months and 12 days thereafter. The OIG determined the hiring authority delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference for 12 days beyond the deadline to impose disciplinary action against the officer, if warranted. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0002 Incident Summary On June 9, 2024, an officer allegedly deployed pepper spray on an incarcerated person when her back was turned toward the officer and she did not pose an imminent threat. Page 2 of 7 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in July 2025 Prison Oversight Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. The OIG did not concur with the hiring authority’s determination because the investigation was insufficient. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have referred the case back to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Overall Assessment Overall, the department’s performance was inadequate. The investigator did not interview any of the incarcerated people who were potential witnesses who may have observed the incident between the officer and the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint. The investigator failed to request all video-recorded evidence relevant to the investigation. The hiring authority found the investigation to be sufficient even though the investigation was not thorough. The hiring authority should have returned the investigation to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The investigator’s performance was inadequate. The investigator did not interview any incarcerated people who may have witnessed the incident. In addition, the investigator did not obtain all relevant body-worn-camera and surveillance video recordings. The investigator should have requested previous body-worn-camera and surveillance video recordings to observe the initial interaction between the officer and the incarcerated person that led to the incident. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority found the investigation to be sufficient even though the investigator did not interview any incarcerated people who were potential witnesses, and the investigator failed to obtain all body-worn-camera and video-recorded evidence. The hiring authority should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0003 Incident Summary On May 17, 2023, four officers allegedly punched and kicked a handcuffed incarcerated person in the ribs and kicked him in the face and head. One of the four officers allegedly made an inappropriate comment related to the incarcerated person’s gender identity while they searched him during a cell transfer. Page 3 of 7 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in July 2025 Prison Oversight Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG did not concur with the hiring authority’s determination because the investigation was insufficient. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have referred the case back to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Overall Assessment Overall, the department’s performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to interview the four officers who were the subjects and the two sergeants who were potential witnesses of the investigation. The investigator failed to author an adequate investigative report and failed to investigate the allegation the incarcerated person made during his interview that an officer made an inappropriate comment about the incarcerated person’s gender identity. The investigator also failed to the admonish the incarcerated person of the need to keep the investigation confidential while the investigation was pending. The hiring authority failed to identify the investigation was insufficient to determine an appropriate finding and failed to identify an additional allegation of staff misconduct. The hiring authority received the investigation on January 24, 2024, but did not conduct the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until May 14, 2024, 111 days thereafter. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment Overall, the Office of Internal Affairs’ performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to interview the four officers who were subjects and the two sergeants who were potential witnesses of the investigation. The investigator also failed to investigate the incarcerated person’s allegation that an officer made an inappropriate comment about the incarcerated person’s gender identity and failed to prepare a thorough investigative report. In addition, the investigator failed to the admonish the incarcerated person of the need to keep the investigation confidential while the investigation was pending. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority failed to identify that the investigation was insufficient and failed to identify an additional allegation of staff misconduct. The hiring authority delayed conducting the investigative and disciplinary findings conference. The hiring authority received the investigative report on January 24, 2024, but did not conduct the investigative and disciplinary findings conference until May 14, 2024, 111 days after the hiring authority received the completed investigative report. The hiring authority also determined findings without sufficient facts. Page 4 of 7 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in July 2025 Prison Oversight OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0004 Incident Summary On March 22, 2024, an officer allegedly punched an incarcerated person in the lower back two times while the incarcerated person was on the ground and did not pose an imminent threat. Disposition The hiring authority determined that the conduct did occur and that the investigation revealed the actions were justified, lawful and proper. The OIG did not concur with the hiring authority’s determination because the investigation was insufficient. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have referred the case back to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The Office of Internal Affairs investigator failed to interview officers who reported they observed the incident and failed to interview the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint. Furthermore, the investigator, during the audio-recorded interview with the officer who was the subject of the investigation, stated that he reviewed the incident report and video-recorded evidence with the officer prior to the interview. In addition, the investigator failed to request and review the escorting officer’s body-worn-camera footage. The escorting officer witnessed the incident, and his body-worn camera would have captured relevant footage. The hiring authority improperly found that the investigation was sufficient and failed to return the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further review and investigation. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs’ performance was inadequate. The investigator failed to interview officers who reported they observed the incident and failed to interview the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint. Furthermore, the investigator, during an interview with the officer who was the subject of the investigation, stated that he reviewed the incident report and video-recorded evidence with the officer prior to the interview. In addition, the investigator failed to request and review the escorting officer’s body-worn-camera footage. Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority did not identify that the investigator failed to interview officers who reported they observed the incident and failed to interview the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint. Furthermore, the investigator, during an interview with the officer who was the subject Page 5 of 7 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in July 2025 Prison Oversight of the investigation, stated that he reviewed the incident report and video-recorded evidence with the officer prior to the interview. In addition, the investigator failed to request and review the escorting officer’s body-worn-camera footage. The hiring authority improperly found that the investigation was sufficient and failed to return the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further review and investigation. OIG Case Number Rating Assessment Inadequate 0005 Incident Summary On July 4, 2023, a sergeant, an officer, and multiple other unidentified officers allegedly pulled an incarcerated person off a toilet while he was defecating with his pants down. Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant and the officer. The OIG did not concur with the hiring authority’s determination because the investigation was insufficient. Instead of making a finding, the hiring authority should have referred the case back to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Overall Assessment The department’s performance was inadequate. The investigator only interviewed the sergeant and the officer who were subjects of the investigation and physically escorted the incarcerated person out of the restroom but failed to interview additional officers who were present during the incident. In addition, the investigator should have interviewed a lieutenant whom the sergeant consulted regarding a potential controlled use of force to determine what, if any, contact he had with the sergeant, and should have interviewed the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint. The hiring authority failed to identify these deficiencies in the investigation and should have returned the case to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Assessment The Office of Internal Affairs’ performance was inadequate. The investigator only interviewed the sergeant and the officer who physically escorted the incarcerated person out of the restroom and failed to interview additional officers who were present during the incident. The investigator should have interviewed the lieutenant whom the sergeant consulted to determine what, if any, contact he had with the sergeant regarding a potential controlled use of force, and should have interviewed the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint. Page 6 of 7 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Force Investigation Review Team Case Summaries Independent Published in July 2025 Prison Oversight Hiring Authority Assessment The hiring authority’s performance was inadequate. The hiring authority failed to identify that the investigator should have conducted additional interviews. The hiring authority also inappropriately determined that the investigation was sufficient, despite the Office of Internal Affairs investigator’s failure to interview the lieutenant to determine what information the sergeant and the lieutenant exchanged regarding the decision to conduct a controlled use of force during the incident. The hiring authority should have returned the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation. The hiring authority had insufficient evidence to appropriately determine a finding. Page 7 of 7 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov