OIG
OIG Semi-Annual Report Volume I January-June 2013
Robert A. Barton Office of the Inspector General
Inspector General
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT
January–June 2013
Volume I
October 2013
Office of the Inspector General
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT
January–June 2013
Volume I
Robert A. Barton
Inspector General
Roy W. Wesley
Chief Deputy Inspector General
James C. Spurling
Chief Counsel
Renee L. Hansen
Executive Director,
California Rehabilitation Oversight Board
Public Information Officer
October 2013
FOREWORD
This 17th Semi-Annual Report covers the time period of January through June 2013. Pursuant to
California Penal Code section 6125 et seq., the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is required
to report semi-annually on its oversight of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s (CDCR or the department) Office of Internal Affairs investigations and the
employee discipline process. Traditionally, our semi-annual reports have primarily served this
purpose. In addition to its oversight of CDCR’s employee discipline process, the Legislature
relies on the OIG to use our real-time monitoring model to provide oversight and transparency in
several other areas within the state prison system. Therefore, we are now publishing our
semi-annual reports in a two-volume format to allow readers to more easily distinguish the
various categories of oversight activity.
This is the second report using the two-volume modified format. In the new format, Volume I is
a summary of monitored cases in the employee discipline process. Cases are reported at the end
of the Investigative “Pre-Disciplinary” Phase and again at the end of the Disciplinary Phase; or,
if the matter was resolved entirely within the reporting period, there is a combined assessment.
An appendix for each assessment is included in this report. We also include any
recommendations made in each phase as we continually strive to add value to the review process.
We also assess the sufficiency of each case based on CDCR’s overall handling of the case. Our
assessment of a case may be based on process, outcome, or both. Since we are assessing the
department as a whole, our ratings do not differentiate between entities within the department
such as hiring authorities, investigators, or attorneys. However, the reader can determine the
cause for a deficiency by reading our assessments in the appendices.
Volume II is a summary of OIG monitoring activities other than employee discipline monitoring.
Volume II reports our monitoring and assessment of the department’s handling of critical
incidents, including its handling of incidents involving deadly force. It also reports our
monitoring of CDCR’s adherence to its contraband surveillance policy, and our monitoring of
use-of-force reviews within the department. Since each of these activities is monitored on an
ongoing basis, we have combined them all into one report to be published every six months in
this two-volume semi-annual report.
We encourage feedback from our readers and strive to publish reports that meet our statutory
mandates, as well as offer all concerned parties a useful tool for improvement. For more
information about the Office of the Inspector General, including all reports, please visit our
website at www.oig.ca.gov.
— ROBERT A. BARTON, INSPECTOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLU ME I
DISCIPLINE MONITORING ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 1
THE EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE PROCESS ...................................................................................... 1
MONITORING THE INVESTIGATIVE PHASE .............................................................................. 3
Monitoring Central Intake ................................................................................................................... 3
Allegation Type Distribution ................................................................................................................ 7
MONITORING THE DISCIPLINARY PHASE ................................................................................. 8
Findings and Penalties ......................................................................................................................... 8
Executive Review .................................................................................................................................. 8
CASE SUFFICIENCY RATINGS ...................................................................................................... 10
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 13
RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 14
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................................... 15
(LISTED BY GEOGRAPHICAL REGION)
A – Investigative Case Summaries ................................................................................................................ 16
B – Disciplinary Case Summaries ................................................................................................................. 63
C – Combined Phase Case Summaries....................................................................................................... 135
DISCIPLINE MONITORING ACTIVITIES
The Office of the Inspector General’s Discipline Monitoring Unit is responsible for monitoring
CDCR’s employee discipline process. The OIG monitors and assesses the department’s internal
affairs investigations of alleged employee misconduct as well as the disciplinary decisions
related to cases where employee misconduct was sustained and any subsequent appeal. In
Volume I, we summarize OIG monitoring activities for both administrative and criminal
investigations conducted by the department.
We report cases in two separate phases, the Investigative or “Pre-Disciplinary” Phase and the
Disciplinary Phase. If the investigation of a case has concluded, either by submission to the
department for disciplinary findings in an administrative case, or to the district attorney’s office
for review in a criminal case, it is logged into the Investigative Phase table (see appendices). In
the Disciplinary Phase, cases are reported once the department has made its decision to impose
discipline and after resolution or conclusion of any appeal process. The two phases may be
reported in our Combined Phases table if both concluded during the six-month reporting period.
This report provides an assessment of 271 monitored cases the OIG closed during the reporting
period of January 1 through June 30, 2013. Most cases monitored by the OIG involve allegations
of administrative misconduct. This includes cases for which the department conducted an
internal affairs investigation and then determined if disciplinary action was appropriate as well as
direct action cases wherein the department determined there was sufficient evidence to impose
discipline without an internal affairs investigation or with a subject-only interview.
The number of cases reported does not correlate to the number of cases the department’s Office
of Internal Affairs opened during the reporting period. It is only a reflection of the number of
cases we monitored that came to a conclusion and were, therefore, reportable by the OIG during
this period.
THE EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE PROCESS
Whenever the department reasonably believes employee misconduct may have occurred, it is the
responsibility of the hiring authority to request an investigation in a timely manner.
The matter is referred to the department’s Central Intake Panel, which then determines if an
internal affairs investigation is warranted, whether enough information exists for the department
to proceed with a disciplinary action without an investigation, if a subject-only interview is
needed, or if no further action is warranted. The OIG participates in the Central Intake Panel
meetings to monitor the process, provide recommendations on Central Intake Panel
determinations, and determine which cases the OIG will accept for monitoring. The following
table is the OIG guide for determining which cases we accept for monitoring.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY–JUNE 2013 PAGE 1
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Madrid-Related
OIG Monitoring Threshold
Criteria
Use of force resulting in, or which could have resulted in, serious injury or death or
Use of Force
discharge of a deadly weapon when the discharge does not constitute a warning shot.
Perjury; material misrepresentation in an official law enforcement report; failure to
Dishonesty report a use of force resulting in, or which could have resulted in, serious injury or
death; or material misrepresentation during an internal affairs investigation.
Intimidating, dissuading, or threatening witnesses; retaliation against an inmate or
Obstruction against another person for reporting misconduct; or the destruction or fabrication of
evidence.
Sexual Misconduct Sexual misconduct prohibited by Penal Code section 289.6.
Cases involving alleged misconduct by high-ranking department officials; misconduct
by any employee causing significant risk to institutional safety and security, or for
High Profile
which there is heightened public interest, or which results in significant injury or death
to an inmate, ward, or parolee (excluding medical negligence).
Unorthodox punishment or discipline of an inmate, ward, or parolee; or purposely or
Abuse of Position or
negligently creating an opportunity or motive for an inmate, ward, or parolee to harm
Authority
another inmate, staff, or self, i.e. suicide.
Trafficking of items prohibited by the Penal Code or criminal activity that would
prohibit a peace officer, if convicted, from carrying a firearm (all felonies and certain
Criminal Conduct
misdemeanors or wobblers such as those involving domestic violence, brandishing a
firearm, and assault with a firearm).
Once a case is accepted for monitoring, it is followed through the entire process. If an internal
affairs investigation is conducted, the assigned OIG Special Assistant Inspector General consults
with the investigators and the department attorney, if one is designated, throughout the process.
When the investigation is complete, the hiring authority is required to review the investigative
report within 14 days of receipt of the report. Policy requires the hiring authority to consult with
the assigned Special Assistant Inspector General on the discipline decision. If the Special
Assistant Inspector General believes the hiring authority’s decision is unreasonable, the matter
may be elevated to the next supervisory level through a process called executive review.1
Employees who receive discipline have a right to challenge the discipline imposed against them
by filing an appeal with the State Personnel Board, an independent state agency. The OIG
monitoring continues through this appeal process. During this process, a case can be concluded
by way of settlement (a mutual agreement between the department and employee), a unilateral
action by one party withdrawing the appeal or disciplinary action, or a State Personnel Board
decision after a contested hearing. In cases where the State Personnel Board decision is
subsequently appealed in a superior court, the OIG continues to monitor the case until final
resolution.
1 Pursuant to Department Operations Manual, Chapter 3, section 33030.14, when there is a disagreement over a
hiring authority’s decision concerning findings, penalty, or settlement, the OIG, or other designated stakeholders,
can elevate that decision to a higher level of managerial review.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY–JUNE 2013 PAGE 2
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
MONITORING THE INVESTIGATIVE
PHASE
The Investigative “Pre-Disciplinary” Phase starts with either the request for investigation by the
hiring authority or direct initiation by the Office of Internal Affairs. This phase involves hiring
authorities, the Central Intake Panel, assigned investigators, and department attorneys if
assigned.2
MONITORING CENTRAL INTAKE
The department’s Central Intake Panel meets weekly to review the referrals for investigation
submitted from throughout the entire department. Within the
OIG’s Discipline Monitoring Unit are Special Assistant The OIG reviewed 1,092 cases
Inspectors General assigned to attend the weekly Central referred to the OIA. Twenty-six
Intake Panel meetings and also review the investigation percent of those cases met the
referrals. They make recommendations to the department OIG’s criteria, and the OIG
regarding whether the case should be opened for investigation accepted 280 cases for monitoring.
and the level of investigation needed. The Special Assistant
Inspector General also informs the department which cases the OIG will accept for monitoring.
In this six-month reporting period, the OIG reviewed 1,092 cases forwarded to the department’s
Central Intake Panel for evaluation. This report reveals two areas where delays in the
pre-disciplinary process are of concern.
Chart 1: Cases Referred to the Central Intake Panel by the Hiring Authority Within 45 Days
The first area of concern
is warden referrals to the 2011-2 2012-1 2012-2 2013-1
85%
Central Intake Panel. The
department currently has
80%
no set timeliness
standard for referring
75%
cases for investigation.
Failure to timely refer a
70%
matter for investigation
can severely compromise
65%
the quality of the
investigation. The OIG
60%
recommends the
department set a time
55%
frame of 45 days as a
reasonable timeliness
50%
standard to refer cases to
2011-2 2012-1 2012-2 2013-1
the Central Intake Panel.
SAR Reporting Period
2 Not every case is assigned to a department attorney in the Investigative “Pre-Disciplinary” Phase.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY–JUNE 2013 PAGE 3
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Of the cases being reported this reporting period, the hiring authority timely referred 63 percent
to the Central Intake Panel within 45 days. In the second reporting period of 2011, the hiring
authority had an 80 percent timely referral rate within 45 days. In the first reporting period of
2012, the hiring authority timely referred 72 percent of reported cases to the Central Intake Panel
within 45 days, and in the second reporting period of 2012, timely referred 75 percent of reported
cases.
The current reporting period timely referral rate of 63 percent of the cases forwarded to the
Central Intake Panel within 45 days represents the lowest rate of the past three reporting periods.
Because there is no requisite time frame for submission by hiring authorities, there is no
consequence for what appears to be a dilatory trend, other than the negative consequence to the
investigative process, which is shortened and then results in potential negative outcomes.
A second area of delay in process with potential for negative impact is within the Office of
Internal Affairs. Although departmental policy requires the Central Intake Panel to make a
determination on a particular case within 30 days of referral to the Office of Internal Affairs,
only 78 percent of the cases closed and reported in this time frame had timely determinations
when they went through the Central Intake Panel process. Again, failure to make a timely
determination on a case may severely impact the quality of the investigation. In the second
reporting period of 2011, 70 percent of cases had timely determinations. In 2012, the Office of
Internal Affairs had timely determinations on 71 percent of our reported cases in the first
reporting period, and 88 percent in the second reporting period. This reporting period represents
a 10 percent decline in timely determinations from the prior reporting period.
Chart 2: Percent of Cases with Timely Determinations by the Office of Internal Affairs
2011-2 2012-1 2012-2 2013-1
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
2011-2 2012-1 2012-2 2013-1
SAR Reporting Period
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY–JUNE 2013 PAGE 4
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The OIG has noticed reluctance by the Office of Internal Affairs to include dishonesty
allegations in some cases where appropriate despite the OIG’s recommendations to include such
allegations. Between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2013, there were eight such cases the OIG
recommended should include dishonesty allegations. The Office of Internal Affairs Central
Intake Panel was reluctant to add the allegation or, in some cases, removed a dishonesty
allegation requested by the hiring authority.
Frequently, the Central Intake Panel argues the hiring authority can add dishonesty subsequent to
the investigation when determining the allegations and penalty; however, hiring authorities defer
to the central intake process to make those types of determinations pursuant to departmental
policy. As a result, hiring authorities do not routinely add allegations, especially dishonesty, if
such were not already approved by the Office of Internal Affairs. Additionally, failure by the
Central Intake Panel to add dishonesty allegations results in an investigation that does not
address the factors needed to sustain or absolve an officer of a charge of dishonesty. In one of the
eight cases, an officer signed another officer’s name and identification number on the employee
attendance record. This was the only one of the eight cases where the hiring authority added a
dishonesty allegation during the Disciplinary Phase even though the Office of Internal Affairs
refused to allege dishonesty at the Central Intake Panel.
The Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel is reluctant to add dishonesty allegations and
instead alleges “neglect of duty.” Calling dishonesty “neglect of duty” is sophistry at its worst.
Three such cases involved falsification of official documents, including two cases of falsification
of time records. In one such case, a certified nurse assistant wrote on her employee attendance
record that she had worked when other departmental logs documented that she had left early or
did not work at all.
In another case involving falsification of official documents, the Office of Internal Affairs
initially refused to add dishonesty when an officer documented in an official report that she
never left an inmate during a double-escort when she had in fact left the escort. As a result of the
officer leaving the escort, the inmate assaulted the remaining officer. The Office of Internal
Affairs ultimately agreed to add a dishonesty allegation after the OIG’s insistence arguing the
seriousness of events. This was the only case in which the OIG was able to prevail upon the
Central Intake Panel to do so.
Five other cases involved conduct even more clearly dishonest. In one case, a sergeant and
lieutenant falsified a performance report for an officer to present as mitigating evidence at his
Skelly hearing. The hiring authority included a dishonesty allegation when submitting the matter
to the Office of Internal Affairs; however, the Office of Internal Affairs decided to change the
allegation from dishonesty to simple neglect of duty. Another case involved an electrician who
copied monthly logbook entries from one month into the next month’s logbook. There was no
question about the facts, but dishonesty was not alleged. The sixth case involved a materials and
stores supervisor who was found in a canteen with the door closed and windows covered. When
the materials and stores supervisor opened the door, there was cigarette smoke in the room. A
search discovered cigarette ashes in the staff restroom. When submitting the matter to the Office
of Internal Affairs, the hiring authority alleged dishonesty for the supervisor denying he had been
smoking. The Office of Internal Affairs struck the dishonesty allegation.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY–JUNE 2013 PAGE 5
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A seventh case involved numerous officers falsifying official reports by documenting that
confiscated mobile phones were properly processed into evidence lockers when in fact they were
not. The OIG urged the Office of Internal Affairs to include dishonesty allegations but the
Central Intake Panel refused. In all these cases, the OIG consistently argued that dishonesty
should either remain or be added as an allegation, yet the Office of Internal Affairs Central
Intake Panel refused, in all but one case.
Finally, an eighth case involving dishonesty was rejected entirely by the Office of Internal
Affairs on the grounds that there was no reasonable belief that misconduct occurred. This case
involved a parole agent who was allegedly dishonest when she falsely told outside law
enforcement that her ex-significant other’s dog had bitten their son and their son’s school called
her to report the bite. The OIG believed there was a reasonable belief that misconduct occurred,
and argued the case should be opened to at least interview the parole agent. The Office of
Internal Affairs refused to do so.
As the previous eight cases demonstrate, the Office of Internal Affairs has failed to allege
potential incidents of dishonesty, refusing to classify them as such, or by striking the dishonesty
allegation and replacing it with a “neglect of duty” or other less arrant allegation. The OIG does
not presuppose what the outcomes would be, but if there is evidence warranting an investigation,
the serious nature of potential dishonesty demands the matter be examined.
It should also be noted that we are not saying the Office of Internal Affairs never investigates or
alleges dishonesty at the Central Intake Panel. As Chart 3 indicates, dishonesty is the second
highest allegation type we monitor. However, the department should be properly alleging
misconduct, especially dishonesty, 100 percent of the time. Even if these eight cases are a small
percentage of total cases reviewed at the Central Intake Panel this reporting period, it is
something that needs to be addressed.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY–JUNE 2013 PAGE 6
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ALLEGATION TYPE DISTRIBUTION
Consistent with prior reporting periods, the OIG focused a large portion of its monitoring
activities on cases involving core Madrid issues. The core Madrid allegations involve
unreasonable use of force, officer dishonesty, failure to report misconduct, and code of silence.
Chart 1 provides a summary of the types of allegations in the OIG closed cases this reporting
period for the core Madrid allegations of misconduct and the most frequent other allegation types
monitored. It is important to note that a single case often contains many allegations of
misconduct; therefore, the number of allegations may exceed the number of cases reported. This
chart does not reflect any trends regarding CDCR discipline issues, but rather is only a reflection
of the allegation distribution for the OIG-monitored closed cases during the reporting period.
Chart 3: Core Madrid Allegations for Cases Closed by the OIG January–June 2013
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY–JUNE 2013 PAGE 7
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
MONITORING THE DISCIPLINARY PHASE
The Disciplinary Phase starts with the hiring authority’s determination whether or not to sustain
the allegations. If the allegations are sustained, the hiring authority must impose a penalty
consistent with the provisions of CDCR’s policies and procedures.
FINDINGS AND PENALTIES
A critical step in the administrative disciplinary process is when a hiring authority determines
which allegations should be sustained, if any, and the appropriate penalty. Based on the evidence
presented, the hiring authority must: 1) determine whether there is enough evidence to make a
finding; 2) find that the allegations are either not sustained, unfounded, or exonerated; or 3) find
that the allegations are sustained. If the allegations are sustained, the hiring authority must
determine the appropriate penalty. The appropriate penalty must be drawn from the “disciplinary
matrix,”3 which sets out penalty ranges for each category of misconduct found in CDCR’s
policies and procedures. The hiring authority consults with the department attorney (on cases
where an attorney is assigned) and the SAIG monitoring the case. The hiring authority considers
each case on its own merits to determine penalty, while taking into consideration any
aggravating or mitigating factors.
EXECUTIVE REVIEW
If either the Special Assistant Inspector General or the department attorney believes the hiring
authority has made an unreasonable decision as to findings or penalty, executive review can be
sought pursuant to CDCR’s policies and procedures. In the executive review, the hiring
authority’s supervisor, the department attorney’s supervisor, and an OIG supervisor conduct the
disciplinary process.
Executive review is a critical part of the discipline process. It is designed to be used sparingly
and only when there are significant differing opinions that cannot be resolved at the initial hiring
authority level. The fact that there are only three being reported for this time frame indicates that
the department and the OIG are able to work together in adherence to the matrix and discipline
policies in the majority of cases.
Overall, for the last four reporting periods, 17 out of 20 executive reviews were ultimately
decided consistent with the OIG recommendation. We continue to believe executive review is a
valuable tool, and will invoke it whenever necessary. Chart 4 provides a comparison of executive
review requests between this reporting period and prior reporting periods. In the current
reporting period, executive review was requested three times: twice by the OIG and once by the
3 Department Operations Manual, Chapter 3, section 33030.17 states “Sufficient evidence establishing
preponderance is necessary before any disciplinary action can be taken. The Employee Disciplinary Matrix shall be
the foundation for all disciplinary action considered and imposed by the Department and shall be utilized by the
Hiring Authority to determine the penalty to impose for misconduct.” The Disciplinary Matrix is located in the
Department Operations Manual, Chapter 3, section 33030.19.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY–JUNE 2013 PAGE 8
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
department. In the two instances the OIG requested executive review, the department changed its
position prior to an ultimate decision being reached by the Executive Review Committee. The
one case that the department requested executive review was decided consistent with the OIG’s
position.4
Chart 4: Executive Review
OIG Did Not
Executive Review
Department Concur with OIG Requested Total Number of
Decision
Reporting Period Requested Department's Executive Requests for
Consistent with
Executive Review Request for Review Executive Review
OIG's Position
Executive Review
Jan–June 2013 1 0 2 3 3 3
July–Dec 2012 0 0 2 2 0
Jan–June 2012 0 0 6 6 5
July–Dec 2011 4 4 5 9 9
20 17
4 In the two cases the OIG requested executive review, the department modified its position in conformance with
OIG’s recommendation prior to a final decision being made by the Executive Review Committee.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY–JUNE 2013 PAGE 9
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CASE SUFFICIENCY RATINGS
The OIG and the department continue to work collaboratively to improve the internal affairs
investigation and employee discipline processes. The OIG assesses each case to determine, on
the whole, whether the Investigative “Pre-Disciplinary” or Disciplinary Phase sufficiently
complied with department policies. Minor deviations will not result in an insufficient rating. The
south region still has the highest insufficiency rating of the regions at 46 percent for the
Investigative Phase and 41 percent for the Disciplinary Phase. Not all cases were designated to
be handled by a department attorney. In addition, the Investigative “Pre-Disciplinary” Phase also
includes the hiring authority and Central Intake Panel who may be responsible for the
insufficiency. The same is true for the Disciplinary Phase involving the hiring authority, or,
when assigned, the department attorney. Either entity may be responsible for an insufficiency.
The individual assessments in the appendices give the reader specific reasons for each case
rating.
Of the cases assigned a department attorney in the south region, the assistant chief counsel has
recently put forth a strong effort to improve the performance of the department attorneys in his
region. He has strengthened the training program for the south department attorneys, which has
included in-house training as well as training by other well-respected organizations. He has also
established guidelines and benchmarks for elevating the performance of south region department
attorneys. Moreover, the assistant chief counsel is to be commended for his willingness to work
collaboratively with the OIG and to seriously consider the recommendations of the OIG both in
individual cases and those regarding the overall workings of the region. It is hoped these
measures will result in improvement of the south region’s attorneys’ performance in the
Disciplinary Phase of cases.
Chart 5 groups our assessments by region for both the Investigative “Pre-Disciplinary” Phase
and Discipline Phase assessments. As depicted in Chart 7 and Chart 8, these insufficiencies
resulted in bad outcomes in 41 percent of the disciplinary phase, and these ratings are discussed
in detail for each case in Appendix A, B, or C.
Chart 5: Department Case Sufficiency Ratings by Region
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY–JUNE 2013 PAGE 10
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Chart 6 compares investigative and disciplinary overall sufficiency ratings during the previous
and current reporting periods. Overall, 64 percent of investigations and 69 percent of the
disciplinary cases monitored statewide were assessed as sufficient. In this reporting period,
sufficient case ratings for the Investigative “Pre-Disciplinary” Phase dropped by 6 percent, and
sufficient case ratings for the Disciplinary Phase dropped by 6 percent. The specific reasons for
the 36 percent and 31 percent insufficiencies in each case are detailed in Appendices A, B, and
C.
Chart 6: Department Overall Case Sufficiency Ratings Comparison
Current Reporting Period Previous Reporting Period
Jan–June 2013 Jul–Dec 2012
75%
70% 69%
64%
36%
30% 31%
25%
Sufficient Insufficient Sufficient Insufficient
Investigative Case Ratings Disciplinary Case Ratings
Chart 7 demonstrates that of the 49 insufficient cases in the Disciplinary Phase, 29 deficiencies
(59 percent) stemmed from process issues, 16 deficiencies (33 percent) were due to outcome
issues, and the remaining four deficiencies (8 percent) were due to a combination of process and
outcome issues. While the cases with process issues may still have had satisfactory outcomes,
they need to be addressed because of the potential for failed outcomes in the future if processes
continue to break down.
Chart 7: Causes for Deficiencies in the Disciplinary Phase
Both Outcome and
Process Issues
8%
Outcome Issues
33% Process Issues
59%
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY–JUNE 2013 PAGE 11
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Chart 8 demonstrates that of the 63 insufficient cases in the Investigative “Pre-Disciplinary”
Phase, 42 insufficiencies (67 percent) were due to process issues, and 21 deficiencies (33
percent) were a combination of outcome and process issues.
Chart 8: Causes for Deficiencies in the Investigative “Pre-Disciplinary” Phase
Both Outcome
and Process Issues
33%
Process Issues
67%
Over the past four reporting periods, the sufficiency ratings for both investigative and
disciplinary cases have declined. In 2011, 74 percent of investigative cases received sufficient
ratings, and 82 percent of disciplinary cases were rated sufficient. In the 2012 reporting period,
the sufficiency rating dropped 5 percent in investigative cases and 6 percent in disciplinary cases,
for sufficiency ratings of 69 percent and 76 percent, respectively. The current reporting period
represents the lowest sufficiency rating of the three prior periods at 64 percent for investigative
cases and 69 percent for disciplinary cases. These downward trends may not signal a particular
entity is wholly responsible, be it hiring authorities, the Office of Internal Affairs, or department
attorneys. As previously noted it also does not necessarily translate into automatic failed
outcomes. However, the downward trend for the department as a whole, regardless of these
factors, needs to be addressed.
Chart 9: Department Overall Case Sufficiency Ratings Comparison
85%
82%
80%
76%
75%
75%
74% Disciplinary
69% Case Ratings
Percent 70%
Sufficient 69% 70% Investigative
Case Ratings
65%
64%
60%
55%
2011-1 2012-2 2012-1 2013-1
SAR Reporting Period
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY–JUNE 2013 PAGE 12
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CONCLUSION
The OIG serves a vital oversight role in CDCR’s investigation and employee discipline process.
This report signals some disturbing trends. The first is the increase in delayed referrals for
investigation submitted by hiring authorities. The OIG is recommending the department set a
reasonable required minimum time frame for such referrals. The OIG has previously identified
this gap in the internal affairs process and in order to gauge timeliness, has imposed what we
believe to be a reasonable time frame of 45 days. However, since the department has no required
time frame, failure to submit matters to investigation has no consequence for those who delay.
The OIG recommends that the department adopt a requirement that hiring authorities refer cases
of misconduct for investigation within 45 days of discovery of potential misconduct.
Unfortunately, one of the consequences of such delays may be a partial factor in the next trend,
to wit, the decline in sufficient assessments for the department since the Madrid lawsuit ended in
2011. Certainly a shorter time frame to complete such matters because of a delay in referral has a
negative impact on sufficiency ratings.
Another cause for concern that directly impacts the insufficient ratings of the department in the
Investigative “Pre-Disciplinary” Phase is the 10 percent decrease in cases not being processed by
the Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel within the 30-day time frame required by
policy. It is recognized that the Office of Internal Affairs has had significant staffing challenges
since 2011, which have sometimes resulted in process deficiencies. During this reporting period,
43 percent of line investigator positions, 50 percent of supervisory positions, and 50 percent of
support staff positions in the Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel are vacant. The
Office of Internal Affairs has an overall agent vacancy rate of 24 percent, and 29 percent
supervisor vacancy as of this reporting period. In addition, proper training for investigators has
been severely impacted. The Office of Internal Affairs training budget has been cut 80 percent by
the department. While some of this may be attributed to staffing issues, regardless of cause, the
effect is that cases are sent out with less time to complete investigations. The Central Intake
Panel dropped from 88 percent to 78 percent of cases being timely processed since the last
reporting period, and hopefully can instaurate the trend going forward. The OIG recommends
that the department develop a plan to adequately staff the Office of Internal Affairs and to
provide appropriate training for thorough investigations.
These problems with process may not always negatively impact outcomes as demonstrated in
this report. Nevertheless, they always have the potential. Of larger concern than these process
insufficiencies is the reluctance to label and investigate potential dishonesty. There appears to be
a fundamental difference in the definition of that allegation between the Office of Internal
Affairs central intake agents and OIG representatives. We have therefore described those cases in
this report. It is our position that if dishonesty did not occur, an appropriate investigation will
establish that fact. However, if potential dishonesty is not alleged, too often the investigation is
not undertaken in a manner to address the issue at all, thus leaving it unresolved. This is a
significant concern we are continuing to address with the department. By providing transparent
monitoring and consistent reporting, we continually strive to preserve the progress achieved
under the Madrid lawsuit and maintain the public’s trust in the corrections system.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY–JUNE 2013 PAGE 13
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
VOLUME I RECOMMENDATIONS
The OIG recommends the department implement the following three recommendations from the
Volume I Semi-Annual Report, January–June 2013.
The hiring authority failed to refer 37 percent of cases within 45 days to the Central Intake
Panel, representing a marked decrease in timeliness since the previous reporting period and a
general downward trend in timely referrals.
1.1 The OIG recommends the department set a time frame of 45 days or some reasonable
timeliness standard to refer cases to the Central Intake Panel.
There were eight cases during this reporting period where the Office of Internal Affairs initially
declined to add dishonesty allegations despite clearly dishonest misconduct. The Office of
Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel has demonstrated reluctance to add dishonesty allegations
and instead alleges “neglect of duty.” The OIG was only successful in persuading the Central
Intake Panel to allege dishonesty in one of the eight cases.
1.2 The Office of Internal Affairs should implement a directive to its agents that cases
involving possible dishonest misconduct include dishonesty as an allegation. If the
hiring authority identifies dishonesty, the Office of Internal Affairs should not change
the allegation absent good cause. If the hiring authority fails to identify dishonesty
where dishonesty is a possibility, the Office of Internal Affairs should add dishonesty as
an allegation.
A cause for concern that directly impacts the insufficient ratings of the department in the
Investigative “Pre-Disciplinary” Phase is the 10 percent decrease in cases not being processed
by the Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel within the 30-day time frame required by
policy. As stated, some of this may be attributed to staffing issues, but regardless of cause, the
effect is that cases are sent out with less time to complete investigations.
1.3 The OIG recommends that the department develop a plan to adequately staff the Office
of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel or explore other ways to achieve the 30-day time
frame required by policy.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY–JUNE 2013 PAGE 14
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPENDICES
Appendix A contains the assessments for 99 incidents monitored during this reporting period,
listed by geographical region.
Appendix B contains the assessments for 95 investigative case summaries monitored during the
reporting period, listed by geographical region.
Appendix C contains the results and outcomes of 77 combined phase case summaries monitored
during the reporting period, listed by geographical region.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY–JUNE 2013 PAGE 15
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX A 99
INVESTIGATIVE PHASE CASE SUMMARIES
CENTRAL REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2010-02-01 11-0740-IR
Incident Summary
Between February 1, 2010, and February 14, 2011, a licensed psychiatric technician allegedly engaged in a sexual relationshipwith an
inmate, engaging in sexual intercourse with the inmate on six to twelve separate occasions. The licensed psychiatric technician also
allegedly provided the inmate with contraband such as tobacco. The investigation failed to establish sufficient evidence for a probable cause
referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause determination. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an
administrative investigation due to lack of evidence.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2010-09-22 11-2606-IR
Incident Summary
On September 22, 2010, a supervising cook allegedly brought controlled substances into the institution for personal gain. On October 6,
2010, the supervising cook also allegedly brought mobile phones into the institution for personal gain. The Office of Internal Affairs
conducted an investigation and found sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the
probable cause determination. The supervising cook resigned prior to the conclusion of the criminal investigation; therefore,no
administrative investigation was opened. The department entered into an agreement with the supervising cook in which the department
accepted her resignation and she agreed to never seek future employment with the department. The signed agreement was placed in her
official personnel file.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative process. After discovering the
potential misconduct, the hiring authority delayed over a year before referring the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.Additionally,
there was a period of inactivity when no substantive investigative work was conducted.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The date of discovery was September 22, 2010; however, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs
until September 30, 2011, more than one year after the date of discovery.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
No substantive investigative work was conducted from November 14, 2011, to February 8, 2012.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 16
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2010-11-01 11-0379-IR
Incident Summary
Between November 1, 2010, and January 4, 2011, a licensed psychiatric technician allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with an
inmate. The licensed psychiatric technician also allegedly brought contraband such as mobile phones, tobacco, and narcotics into the
institution for inmates in exchange for money. The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation and found sufficientevidence for a
probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause determination. The Office of Internal Affairs did
not open an administrative investigation since the licensed psychiatric technician resigned before the investigation concluded. However, a
letter indicating the licensed psychiatric technician resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in her official personnel file.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative process. There was
a nearly two-year period of investigative inactivity from May 11, 2011, to March 14, 2013.
Assessment Questions
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
Between May 11, 2011, and March 14, 2013, a nearly two-year period, there was no investigative work.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Contraband
2011-03-28 11-3028-IR 2. Other Failure of Good Behavior
3. Possession of Controlled
Substances
Incident Summary
On March 28, 2011, an officer allegedly provided contraband to inmates including narcotics, mobile phones, and food. On March15, 2012,
while off-duty, the same officer was arrested by outside law enforcement for alleged transportation and sales of narcotics.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority failed to comply with the department’s policies and procedures governing the investigative process. After discovering
possible misconduct, the hiring authority delayed over six months before referring the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on May 09, 2011, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal
Affairs until November 16, 2011, 191 days after the date of discovery.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2011-12-01 12-0921-IR
Incident Summary
On December 1, 2011, an officer allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with at least one inmate. The officer also allegedly provided
contraband such as mobile phones and tobacco to inmates for personal financial gain. The investigation failed to establish sufficient
evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause determination. Thedepartment
did not open an administrative investigation due to lack of evidence.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 17
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2011-12-04 12-0740-IR 2. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On December 4, 2011, two officers allegedly failed to properly search inmate workers as they left the kitchen area, thereby allowing several
inmates to conceal in their clothes contraband food items and a mobile phone. It was further alleged that the two officers were dishonest
when they initially reported the incident.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and the Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. After discovering possible misconduct, the hiring authority delayed almost three months before referring the matter
to the Office of Internal Affairs. Additionally, the investigation was completed with less than 35 days left before the deadline to take
disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The date of discovery was December 4, 2011. However, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs
until February 27, 2012, 85 days after the date of discovery.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was December 3, 2012. The investigation was completed on November 7, 2012, only 26 days
before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Other Failure of Good Behavior
2012-05-15 12-2487-IR 2. Discourteous Treatment
Incident Summary
On May 15, 2012, an off-duty officer allegedly misused his authority when he made inappropriate comments at a school board meeting
after flashing his peace officer badge identifying himself as an officer. It was also alleged that on August 27, 2012, after identifying himself
as an officer, the off-duty officer made intimidating comments toward a member of the audience at a city council meeting.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-07-20 12-2954-IR 2. Unreasonable Use of Force
3. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On July 20, 2012, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force when he used pepper spray on an inmate who refused to move to another
bed. The officer was also allegedly dishonest when he submitted a second report which included details not included in his first report. It
was further alleged that a lieutenant and sergeant failed to report the inconsistencies in the officer's two reports. Additionally, the
lieutenant allegedly failed to properly document his verbal request to have the officer clarify his report.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 18
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-08-19 12-2631-IR 2. Neglect of Duty
3. Falsification of an Official
Document
Incident Summary
On August 19, 2012, an officer allegedly made false entries into an inmate observation log, claiming to have completed required
observations of an inmate at the institution even when that inmate had already been taken to an outside hospital.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The special
agent failed to discover critical documents which confirmed that the officer had been dishonest during his interview with thespecial agent.
These documents were not included in the investigative report. However, the institution later obtained these documents. Additionally, OIA
Central Intake took 60 days to decide that an investigation was appropriate for this case. This delay may have impacted the investigation as
key witnesses could no longer recall certain details.
Assessment Questions
Did OIA Central Intake make a determination regarding the case within 30 calendar days?
OIA Central Intake received the request for investigation on September 7, 2012, but did not take action until November 7, 2012, two
months after the receipt of the request.
Was the investigation thorough and appropriately conducted?
The institution produced documents that the special agent did not obtain during the investigation which confirmed that the officer had
been dishonest during his investigative interview. Although the special agent noted that shift sign-in sheets indicated that a particular
sergeant was not assigned to the officer's unit on the day of the incident, the special agent failed to discover routine documentation
which confirmed that sergeant was not even working that day. This critical information confirmed that the officer could not have
consulted with the sergeant as claimed by the officer. The special agent also failed to discover triage treatment area logs which
confirmed the inmate had been transported off-grounds earlier than the officer had claimed, making the officer's second observation
of the inmate at the triage treatment area impossible.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Other Failure of Good Behavior
2012-09-17 12-2484-IR
Incident Summary
On September 17, 2012, an off-duty officer allegedly possessed a concealed firearm at a county fair and a local nightclub while under the
influence of alcohol. It was further alleged that as the officer left the nightclub, he discharged several rounds from his firearm while seated
as a passenger in a vehicle. Outside law enforcement arrested the officer immediately following the incident.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures. The special agent’s report was thorough and
provided the hiring authority sufficient information to properly assess the allegations.
OIG Recommendation
The department does not have a consistent statewide policy to revoke a concealed weapons permit. The OIG recommends the department
implement a uniform policy.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 19
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2009-03-01 12-0871-IR
Incident Summary
Between March 2009 and March 2012, a sergeant allegedly falsified his timesheets resulting in receipt of over $190,000 of overtime pay for
time that he did not work. The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation and found sufficient evidence for a probable cause
referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause determination. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an
administrative investigation, which the OIG accepted for monitoring.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Other Failure of Good Behavior
2010-11-20 11-1939-IR
Incident Summary
On November 20, 2010, an officer allegedly downloaded and stored child pornography on his personal computer on a network shared file
providing access to others.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The hiring authority failedto refer the
matter to the Office of Internal Affairs until almost six months after the date of discovery. The department attorney failed to assess the
deadline for taking disciplinary action and failed to respond to the special agent's requests for legal advice concerning theinvestigation.
Finally, the investigation was not conducted with due diligence as it took over two years and three months to complete.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 20
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on January 19, 2011, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Officeof
Internal Affairs until July 12, 2011, almost six months after the date of discovery.
Did the special agent adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and prior to finalizing the investigative plan?
The special agent did not confer with the OIG upon case initiation or prior to finalizing the investigative plan.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make an entry into CMS within 21 days of assignment confirming the date of the incident, the date of
discovery, or the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Did the department attorney appropriately determine that the deadline for taking disciplinary action as originally calculatedshould be
modified and consult with the OIG and special agent?
The department attorney failed to modify the deadline for taking disciplinary action once the prosecuting agency notified the
department that the case could proceed administratively.
Did the special agent appropriately enter case activity in CMS?
The special agent did not enter case activity in CMS until after the investigation was completed.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The special agent began the investigation on January 19, 2011, when the officer was interviewed and evidence was seized; however,
the investigation was not completed until May 3, 2013, over two years and three months later.
Did the special agent cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG?
The special agent did not provide the OIG with consistent updates on case status.
Did the special agent cooperate and provide real-time consultation with the department attorney throughout the investigative phase?
The special agent did not provide the department attorney with consistent updates on case status.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2011-01-01 13-0305-IR
Incident Summary
It was alleged that since January 2011, a native American spiritual leader had been smuggling tobacco and drugs into the institution. The
Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation and found sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The
OIG concurred with the probable cause determination. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the
OIG accepted for monitoring.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 21
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Failure to Report
2011-01-01 13-0502-IR 2. Contraband
3. Misuse of Authority
4. Over-Familiarity
Incident Summary
It was alleged that beginning in January 2011, a Native American spiritual leader smuggled tobacco, mobile phones, and drugs into the
institution. It was further alleged that the spiritual leader was overly familiar with the inmates and their families. In addition, it was alleged
that the spiritual leader misused his authority when he used his position with the department to gain outside employment performing
Native American spiritual services for inmates' families. It was also alleged that he failed to report his outside employment.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2011-04-04 13-0029-IR 2. Over-Familiarity
Incident Summary
Between April 4, 2011, and December 16, 2011, an officer allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate by making
arrangements for the inmate to contact her upon the inmate's release. It was further alleged that after the inmate's release,the officer
provided false or misleading statements to a supervisor regarding the nature of her relationship with the former inmate. The officer also
allegedly provided false or misleading statements during an investigative interview.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures. The hiring authority delayed over nine months before submittingthe matter
to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. OIA Central Intake delayed making a determination regarding the request.Consequently,
the investigative report was completed only eight days prior to the deadline for taking disciplinary action. Further, due to time constraints
and scheduling conflicts the department attorney was unable to attend key witness interviews to assess witness demeanor and credibility.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 22
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on February 11, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of
Internal Affairs until November 13, 2012, nine months after the date of discovery.
Did OIA Central Intake make a determination regarding the case within 30 calendar days?
OIA Central Intake received the request for investigation on November 19, 2012, but did not take action until January 2, 2013, 45 days
after receipt of the request.
Did the department attorney attend investigative interviews for key witnesses to assess witness demeanor and credibility?
Due to time constraints and scheduling conflicts, the department attorney did not attend key witness interviews to assess witness
demeanor and credibility. However, the department attorney telephonically attended the witness interviews and personally attended
the officer's interview.
Did the department attorney provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 11, 2013. The investigation was not completed until February 4, 2013, only eight
days before the deadline to take action.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Neglect of Duty
2011-06-01 12-0145-IR
Incident Summary
Between June 1, 2011 and November 21, 2011, a department attorney was allegedly less-than-alert or asleep on multiple occasions while
attending interviews conducted by the Office of Internal Affairs and during a meeting with a hiring authority and other departmental
personnel.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2011-06-29 11-1937-IR
Incident Summary
On June 29, 2011, an officer allegedly kneed and kicked a restrained inmate who was on the ground, and pulled a large piece of hair from
the inmate's head. The officer also allegedly failed to report the use of force. Four other officers and a sergeant allegedlywitnessed the use
of force, but also failed to report it. The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation and found sufficient evidence for a probable
cause referral to the federal and district attorney's offices. The OIG concurred with the probable cause determination. The Office of Internal
Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the OIG accepted for monitoring.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 23
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2011-08-12 12-2627-IR
Incident Summary
Between August 12, 2011, and December 15, 2011, a correctional supervising cook was allegedly involved in the sale of illegaldrugs while
off duty, and introducing mobile phones and drugs into the institution for personal gain. The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an
investigation and found sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause
determination. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the OIG accepted for monitoring.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Sexual Misconduct
2011-09-01 13-0509-IR 2. Other Failure of Good Behavior
3. Misuse of State Equipment or
Property
Incident Summary
From September 1, 2011, through February 28, 2013, an associate information systems analyst allegedly used his work computer to view
child pornography and to transmit pornographic movies to his personal mobile phone. During the same time period, the associate
information systems analyst also viewed pornography and masturbated in a workplace restroom on multiple occasions.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2011-09-24 11-2892-IR
Incident Summary
On September 24, 2011, three officers and a sergeant allegedly conspired to retaliate against an inmate for writing a complaint against
custody staff. Two of the officers allegedly made inappropriate comments over the public address system in the housing unit regarding the
complaint. The same two officers also allegedly coerced other inmates to assault the complaining inmate. When the assault occurred, the
officers allegedly failed to intervene, investigate, or document the assault. The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation and
found sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause determination.
The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the OIG accepted for monitoring.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. The Office of Internal Affairs failed to timely make a determination regarding the request for investigation. The
department attorney failed to properly confirm the relevant deadlines, failed to contact the special agent and OIG to discussthe
investigative plan, and failed to attend any interviews.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 24
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did OIA Central Intake make a determination regarding the case within 30 calendar days?
OIA Central Intake received the request for investigation on October 25, 2011, but did not take action until November 30, 2011, 36
calendar days after receipt of the request.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make any entry into CMS confirming relevant dates.
No later than 21 calendar days following assignment of the case, did the department attorney contact the assigned special agent and
the monitor to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation of the alleged misconduct?
The department attorney did not contact the assigned special agent or monitor to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation.
Did the department attorney attend investigative interviews for key witnesses to assess witness demeanor and credibility?
The Office of Internal Affairs interviewed 32 witnesses, the three officers, and the sergeant. The department attorney did not attend
any interviews.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2011-09-28 12-0397-IR 2. Failure to Report
3. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On September 28, 2011, an officer allegedly escorted an inmate to a holding cell rather than a medical evaluation where the inmate was to
be evaluated for suicidal ideations. The officer also allegedly failed to search the holding cell prior to securing the inmate in the cell and
failed to complete the holding cell log. A second officer allegedly failed to conduct a proper search of the holding cell, failed to follow
departmental policy when he opened the holding cell door without notifying other custody staff, and failed to report his own use of physical
force. A third officer allegedly failed to report his use of force and the use of physical force he witnessed. A fourth officer allegedly provided
false or misleading information on the holding cell log, submitted a false or misleading report, forged the signatures of twoofficers, and
provided false or misleading statements during his investigatory interview. A sergeant allegedly ordered the inmate to be placed in a
holding cell rather than escorted for a medical evaluation for suicidal ideations. A lieutenant allegedly failed to ensure the use of physical
force by two officers was reported and failed to follow up with medical staff to determine whether the inmate had in fact attempted
suicide.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs failed to make a timely determination regarding the request for investigation and failed to complete the
investigation in a timely manner.
Assessment Questions
Did OIA Central Intake make a determination regarding the case within 30 calendar days?
OIA Central Intake received the request for investigation on December 19, 2011, but did not take action until February 1, 2012, 44 days
after receipt of the request.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was October 28, 2012. The investigative report was not completed until October 3, 2012, 25
days before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 25
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2011-10-01 12-2598-IR 2. Sexual Misconduct
3. Contraband
4. Over-Familiarity
5. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
Between October 2011 and February 2012, an officer was allegedly overly familiar with two inmates by sending writings, conspiring to
provide the inmates mobile phones, and engaging in inappropriate touching. The officer also allegedly neglected her duties byengaging in
conversations of a personal nature where inmates could overhear, and was dishonest in her investigative interview.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Sexual Misconduct
2011-10-03 13-0501-IR 2. Over-Familiarity
3. Insubordination
Incident Summary
Between October 3, 2011, and October 15, 2012, an officer was allegedly engaged in an overly familiar and sexual relationshipwith an
inmate, including mobile phone communications with the inmate. The officer was also allegedly insubordinate when she failed to appear
for her scheduled investigative interviews on May 9, 2013, and May 29, 2013.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2011-11-01 12-1437-IR 2. Sexual Misconduct
3. Failure to Report
4. Contraband
5. Over-Familiarity
6. Neglect of Duty
7. Nepotism
Incident Summary
Between November 2011 and April 2012, an officer allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate, which included
kissing and clothed touching. It was further alleged that the officer brought the inmate contraband food items and failed to report that the
inmate had access to a mobile phone. The officer also allegedly authored a false memorandum and was dishonest during the investigation.
Also, the officer reported a threat to her safety to a sergeant, but the sergeant allegedly failed to take action. The sergeant was also
allegedly romantically involved with the officer in violation of departmental policy. Another officer allegedly neglected hisduty by revealing
personal information about the first officer to inmates.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The department attorney failed to
provide and document appropriate feedback regarding the investigative report. The Office of Internal Affairs failed to timelycomplete the
investigation and only 15 days remained until the deadline to take disciplinary action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 26
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Within 21 calendar days following receipt of the investigative report, did the department attorney review the report and provide
appropriate substantive feedback addressing the thoroughness and clarity of the report?
The draft report was sent to the department attorney on March 20, 2013; however, the department attorney did not document in CMS
that the report was reviewed and did not provide appropriate substantive feedback addressing the thoroughness and clarity of the
report.
Did the department attorney provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 2, 2013. The investigation was completed on April 17, 2013, only 15 days before the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Neglect of Duty
2011-11-07 12-2880-IR
Incident Summary
Between November 7, 2011, and December 28, 2011, a warden, a population management chief, two classification services
representatives, and two correctional counselors participated in a classification process resulting in two inmates being transferred from a
general population yard to a sensitive needs yard. It was alleged the two inmates did not meet eligibility criteria for the reclassification and
transfer. After the inmates were transferred to the sensitive needs yard, one of the inmates was stabbed twice, sustaining life-threatening
injuries. During the investigation it was learned that the population management chief allegedly inappropriately used his position to initiate
a transfer of another inmate at the request of the chief's girlfriend. The inmate was the son of the girlfriend's co-worker.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures. The special agent's report was thorough and
provided the hiring authority with sufficient information to properly assess the allegations.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Sexual Misconduct
2011-12-01 13-0403-IR 2. Over-Familiarity
3. Insubordination
4. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
Between December 1, 2011, and October 17, 2012, a case records technician allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate. The
case records technician also allegedly shared personal information, exchanged letters, cards, and jewelry, and reportedly kissed the inmate.
It was further alleged that the case records technician was insubordinate during an ongoing internal affairs investigation when she
discussed the case with a potential staff witness.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 27
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2011-12-02 12-0732-IR
Incident Summary
It was alleged that on December 2, 2011, an analyst was discovered viewing child pornography on his state computer. The Office of Internal
Affairs conducted an investigation and found sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred
with the probable cause determination. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the OIG accepted
for monitoring.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2012-01-01 12-2593-IR
Incident Summary
It was alleged that between January 1, 2012, and January 23, 2012, an officer introduced mobile phones into the secure perimeter of the
institution for an inmate. It was further alleged that between January 1, 2012, and October 15, 2012, the officer engaged in sexual relations
with an inmate. The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation and found sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the
district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause determination. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative
investigation, which the OIG accepted for monitoring.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2012-01-01 12-2646-IR
Incident Summary
Between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2012, a case records technician was allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship withan inmate.
The case records technician also allegedly provided the inmate letters, compact discs, and downloaded confidential parole hearing
information. The investigation failed to establish sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred
with the probable cause determination. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the OIG accepted
for monitoring.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 28
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Contraband
2012-01-01 13-0567-IR 2. Over-Familiarity
3. Insubordination
Incident Summary
Between January 1, 2012, and February 25, 2013, an officer allegedly brought mobile phones into the institution for financialgain. Further,
between the same dates, the officer was allegedly overly familiar with an inmate's wife by calling her on his personal mobilephone. The
officer was also allegedly insubordinate on May 3, 2013, when he refused to participate in an administrative interview with the Office of
Internal Affairs.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-01-04 12-2944-IR 2. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
Between January 4, 2012, and September 7, 2012, an officer allegedly neglected his duties by agreeing to switch shifts with five other
officers and then failed to work those shifts, instead paying the officers cash or store credit. It was further alleged that the five officers
neglected their duties when they agreed to switch shifts with the first officer, failed to have the first officer work the shifts, and accepted
cash or store credit from the first officer after he failed to work the shifts. On October 1, 2012, the first officer was allegedly dishonest when
he told his supervisor his absences were covered under the Family Medical Leave Act when they were not. That officer also allegedly
neglected his duties by failing to turn in his time cards as was required for nine out of ten months in 2012.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The hiringauthority
delayed over four months before referring the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. In addition, the first department attorney assigned to
the case failed to accurately assess the deadline for taking disciplinary action. Further, the investigation was completed only 13 days before
the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on July 4, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal
Affairs until November 15, 2012, over four months after the date of discovery.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney made an entry into CMS. However, he did not list the date of the incident nor the discovery date, andthe
deadline for taking disciplinary action was not accurate.
Upon completion of the investigation, was a draft copy of the investigative report timely forwarded to the OIG to allow for feedback
before it was forwarded to the HA or prosecuting agency?
The OIG was not provided with a draft copy of the investigative report.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was July 3, 2013. The investigation was completed on June 20, 2013, only 13 days before the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 29
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Failure to Report
2012-01-25 12-1474-IR 2. Unreasonable Use of Force
3. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On January 25, 2012, an officer allegedly improperly handcuffed an inmate in front rather than using waist restraints that were medically
necessary. The officer also allegedly obstructed the inmate's cellmate from leaving the cell to attend exercise yard, shoved him back into
the cell as he tried to leave, denied the cellmate exercise yard, and failed to report his use of force. A second officer allegedly witnessed the
use of force but failed to report it. The first two officers and a third officer allegedly failed to document the denial of exercise yard in the
logbooks.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The hiring authority delayed referring
the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Despite the OIG's insistence, the department attorney failed to determine the appropriate
deadline for taking disciplinary action. The Office of Internal Affairs and the department attorney failed to timely identifyand interview a
key witness. As a result, the investigation was not completed until after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on March 14, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal
Affairs until May 24, 2012, 71 days after the date of discovery.
Did the department attorney appropriately determine that the deadline for taking disciplinary action as originally calculatedshould be
modified and consult with the OIG and special agent?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action calculated by OIA Central Intake was January 26, 2013. The department attorney's initial
assessment was consistent with that date; however, the department attorney later calculated the deadline for taking disciplinary
action as February 6, 2013. The OIG recommended changing the deadline date back to January 26, 2013, but the department attorney
declined to do so.
Did the special agent adequately prepare for all aspects of the investigation?
The special agent failed to identify and interview a key witness.
Within 21 calendar days following receipt of the investigative report, did the department attorney review the report and provide
appropriate substantive feedback addressing the thoroughness and clarity of the report?
The department attorney provided feedback but failed to identify that a key witness had not been identified and interviewed.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The Office of Internal Affairs opened the investigation on June 20, 2012, and completed interviews by November 14, 2012. However,
the investigative report was not completed until January 17, 2013, only eight days before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The initial investigative report was completed and submitted to the hiring authority only eight days before the deadline to take
disciplinary action. The hiring authority deemed the investigation insufficient and the final investigative report was not completed until
February 4, 2013, nine days after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.
Did the deadline for taking disciplinary action expire before the investigation was completed?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action was January 26, 2013. The initial investigative report delivered to the hiring authority on
January 17, 2013, was deemed insufficient. The final investigative report was delivered to the hiring authority on February 4, 2013,
nine days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Was the investigation thorough and appropriately conducted?
The investigation was not thorough because a key witness was not timely identified and interviewed.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 30
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-02-22 12-0570-IR 2. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On February 22, 2012, an officer allegedly neglected his duties when he failed to protect an inmate after he was informed theinmate was
the target of a planned assault. The inmate subsequently was the victim of homicide. It was further alleged the officer was dishonest during
the investigatory process.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Failure to Report
2012-02-28 12-0870-IR 2. Unreasonable Use of Force
3. Discourteous Treatment
Incident Summary
On February 28, 2012, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force when he slapped an inmate on the head, pushed him downwardinto a
chair, and failed to document his use of force. The officer also allegedly made racially derogatory statements directed at the inmate. A
sergeant and another officer allegedly observed the incident but failed to follow departmental policies by not properly documenting the
officer's use of force.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department’s policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The Office
of Internal Affairs opened the investigation on April 10, 2012; however, the report was not completed and submitted to the hiring authority
until January 29, 2013, 294 days after the initiation of the case. The delay left the hiring authority with only 29 days before the deadline to
take disciplinary action. Further, the department attorney did not provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about
the investigative report to the special agent with a copy to the OIG.
Assessment Questions
Did the department attorney provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
OIA Central Intake opened the investigation on April 10, 2012; however, the report was not completed and submitted to the hiring
authority until January 29, 2013, 294 days after the initiation of the case.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The report was completed and submitted to the hiring authority with only 29 days left before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Insubordination
2012-03-03 12-2543-IR
Incident Summary
Between March 3, 2012, and September 19, 2012, a special agent was allegedly insubordinate when he continued to be involved in an
investigation conducted by outside law enforcement after his supervisor issued written direction to cease further involvement.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 31
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-03-07 12-1440-IR 2. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On March 7, 2012, a registered nurse allegedly neglected her duties when she failed to timely begin life-saving measures on an
unresponsive inmate. The nurse was also allegedly dishonest when she falsified records relating to the incident.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures. The special agent's report was thorough and
provided the hiring authority with sufficient information to properly assess the allegations.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2012-04-01 12-2031-IR
Incident Summary
It was alleged that between April 2012 and July 2012, an officer brought contraband, including mobile phones, narcotics, and tobacco, into
the institution for personal gain. The investigation failed to establish sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral tothe district
attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause determination. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative
investigation due to lack of evidence.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-05-09 12-1697-IR 2. Failure to Report
3. Unreasonable Use of Force
4. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On May 9, 2012, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force when he put his arm in a food port and sprayed an inmate with pepper spray
because the inmate would not relinquish his food tray. It was further alleged that the officer neglected his duty when he failed to announce
his intention to use the pepper spray, failed to secure the food port, handcuffed the inmate while his cellmate was unrestrained, and
allowed inmates to pick up food trays. The officer also was allegedly dishonest in his report and during the investigative interview. It was
alleged that two additional officers witnessed the use of force and failed to report it.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. The special agent did not provide real-time consultation and failed to cooperate with the OIG. The special agent did
not properly prepare for all aspects of the investigation because he failed to identify appropriate witnesses and failed to obtain all relevant
evidence prior to the interview of a key witness. Some interviews were not thorough and failed to address all of the allegations. The special
agent did not begin substantive work on the investigation until approximately six months after assignment; therefore, did notcomplete the
investigative report until six days before the deadline to take disciplinary action. The department attorney improperly calculated the
deadline to take disciplinary action and failed to attend key witness interviews.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 32
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the special agent adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and prior to finalizing the investigative plan?
The special agent did not adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and prior to finalizing the investigative plan.
Did the department attorney appropriately determine that the deadline for taking disciplinary action as originally calculatedshould be
modified and consult with the OIG and special agent?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action originally calculated by the department attorney was May 9, 2013, and the OIG agreed with
that determination. The OIG reminded the department attorney of the approaching deadline several times prior to May 9, 2013, but
the department attorney advised that she had performed a new calculation and that the new deadline for taking disciplinary action
was May 13, 2013. On May 13, 2013, the department attorney made an entry in CMS inappropriately modifying the deadline for
taking disciplinary action.
Did the special agent adequately prepare for all aspects of the investigation?
The special agent did not adequately prepare for all aspects of the investigation. The special agent failed to obtain a copy of a prior
videotaped interview of the inmate against whom the force at issue had been used prior to the interview of the inmate, and the
videotape was only obtained later at the OIG's suggestion. The special agent also failed to arrange an interview of an inmatewho had
witnessed the use of force until after the OIG suggested the interview.
Were all of the interviews thorough and appropriately conducted?
The interviews were not thorough or appropriately conducted. The special agent failed to establish foundational facts during some
interviews, asked primarily leading questions, and failed to address all relevant issues with all witnesses.
Did the department attorney attend investigative interviews for key witnesses to assess witness demeanor and credibility?
The department attorney did not attend the investigative interview of the complaining witness to assess witness demeanor and
credibility. She did attend all of the officers' interviews.
Did the department attorney provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG?
The department attorney provided a document regarding the investigative reports, but the department attorney did not summarize
any discussions regarding the investigative reports.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The investigation was not conducted with due diligence. The Office of Internal Affairs opened the investigation on July 20, 2012, but
the special agent only performed minimal tasks. However, the special agent did not begin substantive work on the investigation until
January 28, 2013. The special agent did not complete the investigation until May 3, 2013, six days before the deadline to take
disciplinary action.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The report was completed and submitted to the hiring authority only six days before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the special agent cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG?
The special agent did not cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG. The special agent failed to
coordinate the initial case conference with the OIG. The special agent also discouraged OIG participation in some critical interviews.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 33
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-05-24 12-1797-IR 2. Over-Familiarity
3. Insubordination
Incident Summary
On May 24, 2012, it was discovered that a sergeant allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate's visitor and that the
visitor was residing with the sergeant. The sergeant was allegedly dishonest with two lieutenants regarding the nature of therelationship
with the visitor and dishonest during the investigation. A second sergeant was allegedly insubordinate during the investigation when he
discussed the substance of his Office of Internal Affairs interview with the first sergeant's ex-wife after being admonished not to do so.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Neglect of Duty
2012-05-26 12-2030-IR
Incident Summary
On May 26, 2012, a locksmith allegedly failed to repair a chapel door lock which resulted in a chaplain being confined in a restroom
overnight. It was further alleged that five officers and three sergeants failed to audit log books and equipment to make surethat all visitors
had left the institution. In addition, they failed to conduct searches, return keys, and ensure the repair of a restroom doorin the chapel.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and the Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department’s policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. The hiring authority referred the matter for investigation nearly two months after the incident occurred. The special
agent did not complete the investigation until nearly eight months after being assigned to the case. The delay resulted in the hiring
authority having only 19 days to review the investigation and make factual and disciplinary determinations in the case.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The date of discovery was May 27, 2012; however, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs until
July 24, 2012, almost two months after the date of discovery.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The special agent was assigned to the case on September 11, 2012; however, the investigation was not completed and delivered to the
hiring authority until May 7, 2013 nearly eight months after assignment.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The report was completed and submitted to the hiring authority with only 19 days left before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Direct Action with Subject 1. Neglect of Duty
2012-06-12 12-1996-IR Only Interview (SOI)
Incident Summary
On June 12, 2012, an officer allegedly failed to report a use-of-force incident she observed. When ordered to write the report, the officer
allegedly failed to accurately document the use of force she witnessed.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 34
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Failure to Report
2012-06-26 12-2017-IR
Incident Summary
On June 26, 2012, an officer allegedly observed another officer strike an inmate on the back of the head while the inmate wasresisting, but
failed to document the force observed in his official report.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. OIA Central Intake failed to make an appropriate initial determination and an appropriate determination upon a
request for reconsideration. The department attorney failed to properly confirm the relevant dates, and failed to provide anddocument
feedback regarding the investigative report.
Assessment Questions
Did OIA Central Intake make an appropriate initial determination regarding the case?
The hiring authority requested that OIA Central Intake approve an investigation or at the very least interview the officer. However, OIA
Central Intake returned the matter to the hiring authority to take action without an investigation or an interview.
If the case was submitted to OIA Central Intake or to the Chief of OIA for reconsideration, was an appropriate decision made
regarding the request?
The hiring authority requested that OIA Central Intake grant an investigation. However, OIA Central Intake returned the matter to the
hiring authority to take action without an investigation or interview of the officer. The hiring authority requested OIA Central Intake
reconsider the request and at least interview the officer. OIA Central Intake again rejected the hiring authority's request. However,
subsequently, through the persistent efforts of the chief deputy warden, OIA Central Intake granted an interview of the officer. The OIG
and department attorney agreed with the hiring authority's requests.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney made an entry into CMS documenting the deadline to take disciplinary action. However, he did not document
the date of discovery or the date of the reported incident.
Within 21 calendar days following receipt of the investigative report, did the department attorney review the report and provide
appropriate substantive feedback addressing the thoroughness and clarity of the report?
The draft report was sent to the department attorney on February 7, 2013; however, the department attorney did not document in
CMS that the report was reviewed and did not provide appropriate substantive feedback addressing the thoroughness and clarityof
the report.
Did the department attorney provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation to the OIG summarizing critical discussions about the investigative
report. Also, the department attorney did not make any entries in the case management system indicating any discussions with the
special agent regarding the investigative report.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Other Failure of Good Behavior
2012-07-11 13-0164-IR
Incident Summary
On July 11, 2012, an officer allegedly pointed a firearm at her ex-husband during a child custody exchange.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 35
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Unreasonable Use of Force
2012-07-19 12-2182-IR 2. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
It was alleged that on July 19, 2012, an officer used unreasonable force on an inmate when he sprayed the inmate with pepper spray in the
inmate's cell, without warning, absent an immediate threat.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures. The special agent's report was thorough and
provided the hiring authority with sufficient information to properly assess the allegations.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Neglect of Duty
2012-07-23 13-0030-IR
Incident Summary
On July 23, 2012, three officers allegedly neglected their duties by failing to conduct appropriate institutional counts and security checks for
their assigned unit. Later, an inmate was found dead in a sitting position in his cell. The coroner's report indicated the inmate was dead
during the time the counts and checks were conducted.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-07-28 12-2458-IR 2. Failure to Report
3. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On July 28, 2012, an inmate that was housed in administrative segregation was found in his cell hanging from a light fixture by a sheet. The
inmate was later pronounced dead. It was alleged that an officer fell asleep on duty, failed to perform security checks and complete logs as
required, entered false information into a database, opened a cell door without adequate staff being present, failed to activate his personal
alarm device in an emergency, failed to sign his post orders, and made false statements in an official report. It was allegedthat a second
officer failed to intervene and wake up the officer who was asleep, violated policy when she gave equipment to another officer without
supervisor approval, violated policy when she opened a cell door without sufficient custody staff being present, failed to activate a personal
alarm during an emergency, failed to report the misconduct of the other officer, discouraged the officer from speaking about his
misconduct, and made false statements in an investigative interview. It was alleged that a lieutenant and a sergeant failed to ensure that
the inmate was initially placed in an intake cell upon arriving in administrative segregation. It was also alleged that a second sergeant failed
to ensure that officers completed all mandatory logs and documentation, that he improperly handled photographs, and that he failed to
report the misconduct of another officer. It was alleged that a second lieutenant failed to properly document the incident.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 36
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2012-08-01 13-0318-IR
Incident Summary
It was alleged that between August 2012 and February 2013, an officer brought mobile phones and tobacco into the institution for personal
gain. The investigation failed to establish sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with
the probable cause determination. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the OIG accepted for
monitoring.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Discourteous Treatment
2012-08-13 12-2428-IR 2. Weapons
Incident Summary
On August 13, 2012, a parole agent allegedly drew his weapon, pointed it at a parolee's wife and her dog, and threatened to shoot the dog
in the head. The parole agent was also allegedly discourteous to the parolee's wife when he made her sit in the dirt outside her residence in
100 degree heat after she had major surgery, and that he used vulgar and profane language when speaking to her.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Sexual Misconduct
2012-08-15 12-2434-IR 2. Misuse of State Equipment or
Property
Incident Summary
Between August 15, 2012, and October 5, 2012, a parole agent II was allegedly overly familiar and engaged in sexual misconduct with a
parolee. The agent also allegedly misused his state computer to store sexually explicit images and his phone to send text messages soliciting
sexual activity.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Direct Action with Subject 1. Dishonesty
2012-09-19 12-2429-IR Only Interview (SOI)
Incident Summary
On September 19, 2012, an officer was allegedly dishonest to personnel staff in order to obtain his pay check and avoid a deduction for an
account receivable he owed to the State of California. As a result, he received his full pay check without deduction or satisfaction of the
account receivable.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 37
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-10-22 13-0031-IR 2. Other Failure of Good Behavior
Incident Summary
On October 22, 2012, an officer was allegedly involved in an off-duty motor vehicle accident and fled the scene. She was also allegedly
dishonest to outside law enforcement when she denied being the driver of the vehicle. She also allegedly failed to cooperate with outside
law enforcement by failing to produce her vehicle for photographing and failing to provide contact information for the peoplenamed in her
alibi.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2012-11-01 13-0359-IR
Incident Summary
Between November 2012 and February 21, 2013, a parole agent allegedly engaged in sexual activity with a parolee he was supervising. The
investigation failed to establish sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the
probable cause determination. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative investigation due to lack of evidence. The parole
agent resigned while the investigation was pending.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2012-11-02 12-2715-IR
Incident Summary
On November 2, 2012, an officer allegedly carried a loaded handgun into the institution in his lunch bag. The Office of Internal Affairs
conducted an investigation and found sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the
probable cause determination. The district attorney declined prosecution. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative
investigation, which the OIG accepted for monitoring.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The
investigation was not thorough or appropriately conducted. The special agent was unprepared at times. Several witness interviews were
inadequate, the investigative report was incomplete, and the special agent failed to cooperate with and provide continual real-time
consultation with the OIG.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 38
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the special agent adequately prepare for all aspects of the investigation?
The special agent did not adequately prepare for all aspects of the investigation. The original investigative plan included interviews of
only two witnesses, and additional witnesses were only added at the suggestion of the OIG. The special agent appeared unprepared
for some of the witness interviews conducted.
Were all of the interviews thorough and appropriately conducted?
Several of the interviews were not thorough or appropriately conducted. The special agent failed to read the standard admonishments
and fully advise several witnesses of their rights prior to interview, and failed to note who was present for some interviews. The special
agent also failed to question a witness about items missing from an evidence log until the OIG suggested it. The special agent also
failed to ask clarifying questions of one witness whose statements were unclear.
Was the investigative draft report provided to the OIG for review thorough and appropriately drafted?
The report incorrectly indicated that all witnesses were read advisements of rights. The report was incomplete and did not address the
source of certain information or the circumstances under which that information was obtained. The special agent declined to locate
and interview the source of that information.
Was the final investigative report thorough and appropriately drafted?
The report incorrectly indicated that all witnesses were read advisements of rights. The report was incomplete and did not address the
source of certain information or the circumstances under which that information was obtained. The special agent declined to locate
and interview the source of that information.
Did the special agent cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG?
The special agent did not cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG. The special agent failed to
coordinate critical witness interviews with the OIG.
Was the investigation thorough and appropriately conducted?
The special agent was unprepared at times. Several witness interviews were inadequate, the investigative report was incomplete, and
the special agent failed to cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-11-02 13-0160-IR 2. Contraband
3. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
It was alleged that on November 2, 2012, an officer carried a loaded handgun, a mobile phone charger, and two metal spoons into the
secure perimeter of the institution in his lunch bag. It was further alleged that the officer had a mobile phone on his person within the
secure perimeter, and that he had live ammunition in his vehicle on institution grounds. In addition, the officer allegedly had left his
personal handgun in his vehicle on institution grounds previously, rather than securing the handgun in the tower. The officeralso allegedly
was not range qualified with his personal handgun and was dishonest during the investigative interview. It was also alleged that two
entrance gate officers failed to adequately search the lunch bag and that they had a custom and practice of failing to adequately search
employees' personal items.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 39
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Neglect of Duty
2012-11-08 13-0196-IR
Incident Summary
It was alleged that on November 8, 2012, three officers released an inmate from his cell without properly restraining the inmate and
without the required number of escort officers thereby providing the inmate the opportunity to attack another inmate.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-11-30 13-0165-IR 2. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On November 30, 2012, an officer allegedly neglected his duties by failing to have the ammunition for the Mini-14 rifle he took with him on
a medical transport. The officer also allegedly failed to conduct a proper equipment inventory prior to leaving the institution, had two
revolvers in his possession, one of which he improperly locked in the vehicle glove box, and was allegedly dishonest in his memorandum to
the captain regarding the events.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 40
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2009-02-01 12-0456-IR
Incident Summary
Between February 1, 2009, and October 31, 2011, an officer allegedly introduced heroin, mobile phones, and tobacco into the institution,
and also allegedly engaged in sexual intercourse with an inmate. The investigation failed to establish sufficient evidence for a probable
cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause determination. The department did not openan
administrative investigation due to lack of evidence.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs, hiring authority, and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies andprocedures
governing the investigative process. The hiring authority delayed referring the case to the Office of Internal Affairs. The department
attorney failed to timely contact the special agent and the OIG to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation, and failed to timely
document her assessment of the deadline to take action on the case. The special agent did not exercise due diligence as he failed to conduct
any interviews until 98 days after being assigned.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The date of discovery was August 23, 2011; however, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs until
January 18, 2012, nearly five months after the date of discovery.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make an entry into CMS confirming the date of the reported incident, the date of discovery, the
deadline for taking disciplinary action, or any exceptions to the deadline within 21 calendar days of assignment.
No later than 21 calendar days following assignment of the case, did the department attorney contact the assigned special agent and
the monitor to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation of the alleged misconduct?
The department attorney did not contact the special agent and the OIG to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation within 21
calendar days following assignment.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The case was assigned to a special agent on March 26, 2012; however, the agent did not conduct any interviews until July 3, 2012, 98
days after being assigned.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2009-04-01 11-2594-IR
Incident Summary
Between April 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010, a supervising cook allegedly had a sexual relationship with an inmate that produced a child
born in September 2011. Between April 2012 and May 2012, the supervising cook also allegedly introduced mobile phones and tobacco into
the institution for inmates. The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation and found sufficient evidence for a probable cause
referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause determination. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an
administrative investigation, which the OIG accepted for monitoring.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The Office
of Internal Affairs failed to timely conduct and complete the investigation. The Office of Internal Affairs also failed to make timely entries in
the case management system, preventing the OIG from monitoring activity during the investigation, and prepared a deficient draft
investigative report.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 41
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
No later than 21 calendar days following assignment of the case, did the department attorney contact the assigned special agent and
the monitor to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation of the alleged misconduct?
The department attorney was assigned on October 31, 2011, and an initial case conference with the special agent was not held until
December 14, 2011, 45 days after the department attorney was assigned.
Did the special agent appropriately enter case activity in CMS?
The special agent did not make timely entries in CMS. Entries for activity in August, October, November, and December 2012 were
made on January 24, 2013. No entries were made for activity in June, July, or September 2012.
Was the investigative draft report provided to the OIG for review thorough and appropriately drafted?
The draft report was not thorough and failed to include available facts and information establishing a legal basis to supportsome of
the charges. In addition, the report contained detailed statements and information about purported confidential reliable informants
that would cause them to be identified upon a motion by defense counsel.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
A special agent was assigned on November 17, 2011. On February 15, 2012, the special agent obtained a copy of a birth certificate
which corroborated the sexual misconduct allegation. The special agent did not execute a search warrant of the supervising cook's
home and obtain DNA samples until May 4, 2012. On the same date, the special agent interviewed the supervising cook, who admitted
all allegations. The DNA tests results confirming the sexual misconduct were completed on September 27, 2012. However, the
investigative report was not completed and submitted to the district attorney until February 14, 2013, more than one year after the
agent was assigned.
Did the special agent cooperate and provide real-time consultation with the department attorney throughout the investigative phase?
The department attorney was not informed about the supervising cook's interview either before or after the interview.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2010-03-20 11-3196-IR
Incident Summary
Between March 20, 2010, and December 31, 2011, an officer allegedly introduced marijuana and mobile phones into the institution. The
investigation failed to establish sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the
probable cause determination. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack of evidence.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2010-05-01 12-1538-IR 2. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
From May 1, 2010, until April 25, 2012, a parole agent allegedly failed to properly supervise a parolee, failed to prepare record of
supervision notes documenting his supervision of the parolee, and failed to submit monthly caseload rosters to his supervisors. From June
1, 2011, until April 21, 2012, the parole agent allegedly falsified his monthly caseload roster when he noted that the parolee was in custody
when he was not. On April 24, 2011, the parole agent allegedly failed to take action and complete forms required upon learning of a
parolee's arrest and later absconding from parole. When contacted by his supervisor, the parole agent claimed not to have known about
the parolee's arrest until months after it took place. However, a supervisor found a note written by the parole agent indicating the parole
agent's awareness of the arrest months earlier. On December 10, 2012, the parole agent was allegedly dishonest to the Office of Internal
Affairs about the note found in the file.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 42
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs and the department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. The Office of Internal Affairs failed to exercise due diligence in conducting the investigation, and the special agent's
report was not thorough and appropriately drafted. The department attorney failed to make an entry into the case management system
confirming relevant dates.
Assessment Questions
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make an entry into CMS confirming relevant dates.
Was the investigative draft report provided to the OIG for review thorough and appropriately drafted?
The draft investigative report failed to contain an allegation of dishonesty which was supported by the evidence obtained during the
investigation.
Was the final investigative report thorough and appropriately drafted?
The final report failed to contain an allegation of dishonesty which was supported by the evidence collected during the investigation.
The OIG recommended that the allegation be added to the investigative report. The Office of Internal Affairs failed to add the
allegation; however, the hiring authority agreed with the OIG and added the dishonesty allegation.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The special agent was assigned to the case on July 9, 2012, but no interviews occurred until November 9, 2012, four months after the
special agent was assigned.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Direct Action with Subject 1. Dishonesty
2010-06-01 12-1030-IR Only Interview (SOI) 2. Failure to Report
3. Over-Familiarity
4. Misuse of State Equipment or
Property
Incident Summary
Between June 1, 2010, and December 8, 2011, a parole agent allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship with the half-sister of a
parolee. The parole agent also allegedly failed to immediately report the relationship and was allegedly dishonest when he finally did report
the relationship. It was also alleged the parole agent used a state-issued mobile phone to make approximately 151 personal phone calls to
the parolee's half-sister within a six-month period. During the investigative interview on May 22, 2012, the parole agent was also allegedly
dishonest to the Office of Internal Affairs regarding his relationship with the half-sister.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative process by failing to request
an investigation for nearly nine months after the parole agent authored a memorandum disclosing an overly familiar relationship with the
half-sister of a parolee the parole agent was supervising. The delay in reporting caused a rushed investigation. The Office of Internal Affairs
completed the investigation only 23 days prior to the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The date of discovery was June 22, 2011, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs until April 2,
2012, over nine months after the date of discovery.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The report was completed and submitted to the hiring authority with only 23 days remaining before the deadline to take disciplinary
action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 43
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2010-07-01 12-0372-IR
Incident Summary
From July 1, 2010, through February 28, 2011, an officer allegedly confiscated marijuana from an inmate and did not turn it in or report the
incident. In addition, the officer allegedly allowed inmates and their visitors to enter a closet in the visiting room to engage in sexual activity
and assessed $250 per incident. The investigation failed to establish sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney.
The OIG concurred. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack of evidence.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the investigative process.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2010-07-01 12-2506-IR 2. Insubordination
3. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
Between July 1, 2010, and August 31, 2012, a parole services associate allegedly failed to properly supervise a parolee, failed to document
her supervision of the parolee, and destroyed confidential law enforcement documents pertaining to the parolee. Between June 1, 2011,
and August 31, 2012, the parole services associate also allegedly failed to properly supervise another parolee and was allegedly dishonest in
documenting her supervision of the parolee, reporting the parolee was in custody between August 17, 2011, and June 29, 2012, when he
was not. Between July 10, 2012, and August 12, 2012, the same parole services associate allegedly failed to prepare proper documentation
as instructed by a supervisor and failed to properly document contacts with another parolee. On August 6, 2012, the parole services
associate was allegedly insubordinate when she failed to prepare a discharge review report regarding one of the parolees as instructed by a
supervising parole agent. Between June 9, 2012, and August 17, 2012, a parole agent allegedly failed to properly document hiscontacts
with the same parolee. Between June 1, 2011, and August 31, 2011, the parole agent allegedly failed to properly supervise a parolee. On
August 17, 2011, the parole agent allegedly improperly transferred supervision of the parolee to a federal immigration agency. Between
July 1, 2011, and August 31, 2011, the parole agent also allegedly failed to properly document his supervision of the parolee. The
whereabouts of both parolees, who are illegal immigrants, is unknown.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department's investigative process failed to comply with policies and procedures. The hiring authority delayed submittingthe request
for investigation to OIA Central Intake, the Office of Internal Affairs failed to exercise due diligence in conducting the investigation, and the
department attorney failed to document the deadline for taking disciplinary action against the parole agent.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on August 6, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal
Affairs until October 15, 2012, 70 days after the date of discovery.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make an entry into CMS regarding the deadline for taking disciplinary action against the parole
agent.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The special agent was assigned on November 13, 2012, but did not conduct the first interview until March 13, 2013, four months after
assignment. Although only four witnesses were interviewed, the investigation was not completed until June 21, 2013, over seven
months after assignment. The delay in conducting the investigation resulted from the department attorney's unavailability, incomplete
documents supplied by the parole region, and the special agent's failure to diligently advance the investigation.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 44
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2010-12-29 11-0575-IR
Incident Summary
On December 29, 2010, an inmate alleged that an officer was introducing heroin, alcohol, tobacco, and mobile phones into the institution.
On August 21, 2012, the officer attempted to enter the institution with four sealed packages of tobacco concealed within his protective vest
and a mobile phone in his lunch bag. From December 29, 2010, until August 21, 2012, the officer allegedly conspired with inmates to
introduce alcohol, tobacco, and mobile phones for inmates on multiple occasions. The Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation
and found sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause
determination. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the OIG accepted for monitoring.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The special
agent failed to make timely CMS entries. In addition, the draft and final investigative reports contained numerous critical deficiencies.
Assessment Questions
Did the special agent appropriately enter case activity in CMS?
The special agent failed to make timely CMS entries. The special agent made entries regarding significant events from one to several
months after the events occurred, making real-time monitoring difficult.
Was the investigative draft report provided to the OIG for review thorough and appropriately drafted?
The report submitted contained numerous deficiencies, evidence that could cause confidential informants to be revealed, superfluous
information, and omitted an interview of an important witness.
Was the final investigative report thorough and appropriately drafted?
The final investigative report had many of the same deficiencies and reliance on statements made by those without personal
knowledge.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2011-01-01 11-3197-IR
Incident Summary
From January 1, 2011, through March 31, 2013, an officer allegedly introduced marijuana, mobile phones, and tobacco into the institution.
The investigation failed to establish sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the
probable cause determination. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack of evidence and becausethe time
for opening an administrative case had expired.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and the Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. The hiring authority failed to timely refer the case to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs did not
consult with the OIG or the appropriate prosecuting agency to determine if an administrative investigation should be conducted
concurrently with the criminal investigation. The special agent did not conduct a timely investigation and consequently, the deadlines for
filing misdemeanor charges and taking administrative action expired.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 45
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on June 10, 2011, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office ofInternal
Affairs until August 2, 2011, 54 days after the date of discovery.
Did the OIA adequately consult with the OIG, department attorney (if designated), and the appropriate prosecuting agency to
determine if an administrative investigation should be conducted concurrently with the criminal investigation?
The Office of Internal Affairs did not consult with the OIG, the department attorney, or the appropriate prosecuting agency to
determine if an administrative investigation should be conducted concurrently with the criminal investigation. The deadline for taking
administrative action expired before any significant investigation was conducted.
Did the special agent adequately prepare for all aspects of the investigation?
The special agent did not timely investigate the case and consequently, the deadline for taking administrative action expiredas well as
the deadline for filing misdemeanor charges.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The special agent conducted no interviews until more than a year elapsed after discovery of the possible criminal activity. The delay in
investigation caused the deadlines for taking administrative action and filing misdemeanor criminal charges to expire. On August 15,
2012, over a year after the deadline for taking administrative action passed, the special agent indicated to the OIG that he would begin
conducting interviews; however, another seven months elapsed before the first interview was conducted on March 18, 2013.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The special agent did not timely investigate the case and consequently, the deadline for filing misdemeanor criminal charges and for
taking administrative disciplinary action expired.
Did the deadline for taking disciplinary action expire before the investigation was completed?
The special agent did not timely investigate this case and consequently, the deadline for filing misdemeanor charges and for taking
administrative disciplinary action expired.
Was the investigation thorough and appropriately conducted?
The investigation was not appropriately conducted because the time frame elapsed for filing misdemeanor criminal charges and taking
administrative disciplinary action.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2011-01-27 12-1417-IR 2. Insubordination
3. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
Between January 27, 2011, and December 14, 2011, a parole agent allegedly failed to adequately supervise parolees on her caseload and
falsified numerous caseload documents, including forms indicating that she had completed her required parolee contacts and visits when,
in fact, she had not done so. Additionally, the agent failed to transfer several files from her caseload after being instructed to do so
numerous times by her supervisor.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs, department attorney, and the hiring authority failed to comply with the department's policiesand procedures
governing the investigative process. The hiring authority did not submit the request for investigation until 138 days after discovering the
misconduct. The department attorney did not attend the parole agent's interview and the special agent did not complete the investigation
until 13 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 46
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on January 6, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal
Affairs until May 23, 2012, 138 days after the date of discovery.
Did the department attorney attend investigative interviews for key witnesses to assess witness demeanor and credibility?
The department attorney did not attend the interview of the parole agent.
Upon completion of the investigation, was a draft copy of the investigative report timely forwarded to the OIG to allow for feedback
before it was forwarded to the HA or prosecuting agency?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action was January 6, 2013. The OIG did not receive the draft report until December 21, 2012.
Upon completion of the investigation, was a draft copy of the investigative report timely forwarded to the department attorney to
allow for feedback before it was forwarded to the HA or prosecuting agency?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action was January 6, 2013. The department attorney did not receive the draft report until
December 21, 2012.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The special agent was assigned on June 28, 2012; however, the investigation was not completed until December 24, 2012, 13 days
before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action was January 6, 2013; however, the investigation was not completed until December 24,
2012, 13 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2011-03-01 12-2120-IR
Incident Summary
From March 1, 2011, until September 30, 2012, an officer allegedly introduced marijuana, mobile phones, and pornography into the
institution, and also allegedly engaged in sexual intercourse with an inmate. The investigation failed to establish sufficient evidence for a
probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause determination. The department didnot open an
administrative investigation due to lack of evidence.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Over-Familiarity
2011-04-01 12-1582-IR 2. Disclosure of Confidential
Information
3. Misuse of State Equipment or
Property
Incident Summary
From April 1, 2011, until April 30, 2012, a parole agent allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship with the wife of an inmate. The
parole agent allegedly used his state vehicle to transport the wife of the inmate for personal purposes, provided money and gifts to the
inmate's wife and child, and accessed and provided confidential state information to assist the inmate's wife in locating a relative.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 47
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. The department attorney failed to make any entry into the case management system confirming relevant dates. The
special agent conducted investigative activities without notifying the OIG or the department attorney, and failed to respond to requests for
status updates from the OIG and the department attorney. The special agent failed to provide the department attorney and the OIG
sufficient time to review the investigative report and provide recommendations, and did not complete the investigation until March 20,
2013, only 27 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make any entry into CMS confirming relevant dates.
Did the special agent appropriately enter case activity in CMS?
The special agent failed to make entries in CMS from October 9, 2012, to February 12, 2013, despite investigative efforts occurring
during that time. The special agent did not make entries until February 12, 2013, regarding investigative efforts performed during
October, November, and December 2012.
Upon completion of the investigation, was a draft copy of the investigative report timely forwarded to the OIG to allow for feedback
before it was forwarded to the HA or prosecuting agency?
The special agent forwarded a draft investigative report to the OIG on February 27, 2013. However, on March 1, 2013, only twodays
later, the special agent notified the department attorney and the OIG stating that the final investigative report had been sent to the
hiring authority without review by either the OIG or the department attorney.
Upon completion of the investigation, was a draft copy of the investigative report timely forwarded to the department attorney to
allow for feedback before it was forwarded to the HA or prosecuting agency?
The special agent forwarded a draft investigative report to the department attorney on February 27, 2013. However, on March 1,
2013, only two days later, the special agent notified the department attorney and the OIG stating that the final investigative report
had been sent to the hiring authority without review by either the OIG or the department attorney.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 16, 2013. The investigation was completed on March 20, 2013, only 27 days before
the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the special agent cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG?
The special agent conducted some field work and interviews without notifying the OIG. On February 13, 2013, the special agent
interviewed the inmate's wife without notifying the OIG. The special agent did not respond to requests for status updates during this
time frame, preventing the OIG from performing monitoring responsibilities. On February 14, 2013, after all witness interviews were
completed, the special agent provided a status of the investigation to the department attorney and the OIG. The special agentfailed to
timely provide the draft investigative report to the OIG before sending it to the hiring authority.
Did the special agent cooperate and provide real-time consultation with the department attorney throughout the investigative phase?
The special agent conducted some field work and interviews without notifying the department attorney. On February 13, 2013, the
special agent interviewed the inmate's wife without notifying the department attorney. On February 14, 2013, after all witness
interviews were completed, the special agent provided a status of the investigation to the department attorney and the OIG. The
special agent also failed to timely provide the draft investigative report to the department attorney before sending the report to the
hiring authority.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 48
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2011-08-01 12-0823-IR 2. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
Between August 1, 2011, and January 31, 2012, a parole agent allegedly failed to properly supervise and properly document hissupervision
of a parolee. The parole agent allegedly failed to update the parolee's known address changes, falsely documented home visitsof the
parolee, and falsely documented information regarding the collection of samples for anti-narcotic testing.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative process by failing to
timely conduct and complete the investigation. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 22, 2013, but the investigation was not
completed until January 31, 2013, only 22 days before the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The special agent was assigned to investigate this matter on April 24, 2012, but no interviews were conducted until October 25, 2012,
six months after case assignment. On October 25, 2012, the OIG expressed concern to the supervising agent regarding the pace of the
investigation and was assured that the investigation would be completed no later than 35 days before the deadline for taking
disciplinary action on February 22, 2013.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 22, 2013. The investigation was completed on January 31, 2013, 22 days before
the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2011-08-01 12-2675-IR 2. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
Between August 1, 2011, and January 9, 2012, a parole agent allegedly failed to properly supervise a high-control parolee by failing to make
a single home visit and other required contacts. The parole agent also allegedly made false entries in the parolee's file indicating the parole
agent made contact with the parolee when he had not.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2011-08-12 11-2651-IR
Incident Summary
On August 12, 2011, a painter allegedly introduced methamphetamine, a hacksaw blade, and reciprocating saw blades into the institution
for an inmate. The investigation failed to establish sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG
concurred with the probable cause determination. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative investigation due to lack of
evidence.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 49
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2011-09-11 12-0277-IR 2. Failure to Report
3. Unreasonable Use of Force
4. Neglect of Duty
5. Code of Silence
Incident Summary
On September 11, 2011, a sergeant and two officers approached an inmate in a housing unit to confront the inmate about being disruptive
during a prior watch. The sergeant allegedly used unreasonable force on the inmate when the inmate was taken to the ground without
justification. The sergeant, the two accompanying officers, and a third officer allegedly engaged in a code of silence by falsely reporting in
writing and in their interviews that the inmate physically assaulted the sergeant, justifying the use of force. The control booth officer
reported that the sergeant took the inmate to the ground without provocation.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Neglect of Duty
2012-01-01 12-2424-IR 2. Discourteous Treatment
Incident Summary
From January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012, a senior youth counselor was allegedly overly familiar and discourteous towards wards
when he referred to them as "baby boy" and told the wards that he "loved" them. The senior youth counselor also allegedly leered at the
wards while they were showering and told the wards that he liked their hair.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. OIA Central Intake initially incorrectly rejected the request for an investigation. Furthermore, the investigation was
not conducted with due diligence and was not completed timely. Additionally, the department attorney failed to attend any witness
interviews, including the interview of the complainant.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 50
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did OIA Central Intake make an appropriate initial determination regarding the case?
OIA Central Intake initially rejected the hiring authority's request for investigation, stating there was insufficient evidence to open an
investigation.
Would the appropriate initial determination or reconsideration determination have been made by OIA Central Intake and/or OIA
Chief without OIG intervention?
The OIG provided OIA Central Intake with additional information it did not initially have which, upon reconsideration, resulted in their
decision to open an investigation.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney was assigned to the case on October 30, 2012, but did not make an entry into CMS regarding the deadline
for taking disciplinary action until December 3, 2012, 34 calendar days after assignment.
No later than 21 calendar days following assignment of the case, did the department attorney contact the assigned special agent and
the monitor to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation of the alleged misconduct?
The department attorney did not contact the special agent within 21 days. The special agent initiated contact and the initialmeeting
did not occur until 34 days after the department attorney was assigned to the case.
Did the department attorney attend investigative interviews for key witnesses to assess witness demeanor and credibility?
The department attorney only attended the senior youth counselor's interview, but did not attend any of the 12 witness interviews.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The initial special agent was assigned to the case on November 13, 2012. No significant investigative work was completed in
November, December, or January. The case was reassigned to a second special agent on January 23, 2013. No significant investigative
work was completed until May 2013.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The investigative report was completed and submitted to the hiring authority with only 20 days left before the deadline to take
disciplinary action.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-02-17 12-2611-IR 2. Insubordination
3. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On February 17, 2012, a sergeant and an officer allegedly left a fire camp unattended for approximately one hour while they went on a hike
with an inmate. Additionally, the officer, with the sergeant's permission, allegedly placed handcuffs on the inmate as a practical joke. The
inmate was not injured. The officer also allegedly falsified the camp register when he noted that he conducted a count of allinmates during
the time he was away from the camp. The officer was allegedly insubordinate when he did not write a memorandum concerning the
incident as ordered by his lieutenant. The sergeant's report allegedly did not include the fact that the inmate was handcuffed.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative
process. The hiring authority waited almost eight months after the date of discovery to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for
an investigation. The department attorney did not attend any interviews, did not timely provide the special agent with feedback regarding
the sufficiency of the investigative report, did not provide written confirmation of discussions with the special agent, and failed to consult
with the OIG for the duration of the investigation.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 51
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on February 19, 2012; however, the matter was not referred to the Office of InternalAffairs
until October 16, 2012, nearly eight months later.
Did the department attorney attend investigative interviews for key witnesses to assess witness demeanor and credibility?
The department attorney did not attend any investigative interviews.
Within 21 calendar days following receipt of the investigative report, did the department attorney review the report and provide
appropriate substantive feedback addressing the thoroughness and clarity of the report?
The department attorney did not timely review the report and provide appropriate substantive feedback to the special agent.
Did the department attorney provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG.
Did the department attorney cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG throughout the investigative
phase?
Aside from the initial case conference, the department attorney had no contact with the OIG throughout the investigative phase.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-02-22 12-1216-IR 2. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On February 22, 2012, a sergeant allegedly utilized pepper spray on an inmate while not in compliance with mandatory use-of-force
training. On April 10, 2012, the sergeant was allegedly dishonest to the warden when he claimed to have attended the mandatory use-of-
force training and presented the warden with falsified evidence of the completed training which he claimed had been misfiled.On January
4, 2013, the sergeant was allegedly dishonest to the Office of Internal Affairs about the matter.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2012-02-23 12-2231-IR
Incident Summary
From February 23, 2012, until June 29, 2012, an officer allegedly introduced methamphetamine, marijuana, mobile phones, and DVDs into
the institution for various inmates in exchange for money. The investigation failed to establish sufficient evidence for a probable cause
referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause determination. The department did not open an administrative
investigation due to a lack of evidence.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs and hiring authority failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative
process. The hiring authority did not refer the case to the Office of Internal Affairs until five months after the date of discovery of the alleged
misconduct. Additionally, the Office of Internal Affairs did not complete the investigation in a timely manner and as a result, the deadline for
filing charges expired for the allegation that the officer was bringing mobile phones into the institution.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 52
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on March 2, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office ofInternal
Affairs until August 27, 2012, over five months after the date of discovery.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
One of the allegations was that the officer introduced mobile phones into the institution. The deadline for filing charges for that
allegation was March 2, 2013. However, the investigation was not completed until March 22, 2013.
Did the deadline for taking disciplinary action expire before the investigation was completed?
The deadline for filing charges for the allegation of introducing mobile phones into the institution expired on March 2, 2013. The
investigation was not completed until March 22, 2013.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2012-03-01 13-0118-IR
Incident Summary
Between March 1, 2012, and January 10, 2013, an officer allegedly smuggled methamphetamine, marijuana, heroin, and mobile phones
into the institution. The investigation failed to establish sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the districtattorney. The OIG
concurred with the probable cause determination. The Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative investigation due to lack of
evidence.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-03-01 13-0597-IR 2. Contraband
3. Misuse of Authority
4. Over-Familiarity
5. Dissuade a Witness
Incident Summary
From March 2012 to April 2013, an officer was allegedly overly familiar with inmates when he brought mobile phones into an institution,
selling them to certain inmates for personal gain. During that time, the officer also allegedly confiscated mobile phones, money, and
scheduled appointment passes during cell searches and either kept the items for himself or redistributed them to other inmates. From
October 2, 2012, to March 13, 2013, the officer allegedly tried to dissuade witnesses from reporting incriminating information about the
officer. On October 8, 2012, the officer allegedly submitted a false report about his conversation with an inmate, omitting several key
details. On April 18, 2013, the officer was allegedly dishonest when interviewed by the Office of Internal Affairs.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 53
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2012-03-20 12-1806-IR
Incident Summary
On March 20, 2012, an inmate alleged that an officer introduced heroin and mobile phones into the institution. The investigation failed to
establish sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause
determination. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack of evidence.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-03-23 12-2000-IR 2. Failure to Report
3. Other Failure of Good Behavior
4. Code of Silence
Incident Summary
On March 23, 2012, a sergeant allegedly attempted to watch his 15-year old stepdaughter, who was nude and bathing, by lying on the floor
outside her bathroom door. That same day, the sergeant's brother, also a sergeant, allegedly failed to report the incident and also tried to
dissuade the mother of the alleged victim, an officer, from reporting the incident to outside law enforcement. The first sergeant was
arrested on March 25, 2012. On October 24, 2012, the officer was allegedly dishonest to the Office of Internal Affairs when she denied that
the second sergeant attempted to dissuade her from reporting the incident to outside law enforcement. On January 16, 2013, and January
30, 2013, the first sergeant was allegedly dishonest during his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the investigative process.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Over-Familiarity
2012-04-04 12-1933-IR 2. Neglect of Duty
3. Other Failure of Good Behavior
4. Disclosure of Confidential
Information
5. Solicitation for Murder
Incident Summary
Between April 4, 2012, and June 6, 2012, a parole agent allegedly solicited a parolee, who was a registered sex offender, to kill or seriously
hurt another parolee supervised by the same parole agent, and provided confidential information to the parolee about the targeted
parolee. The parole agent also allegedly permitted the parolee to violate the terms of his parole by allowing him to possess a mobile phone
and to travel away from his residence without his required GPS tracking device. During this same time period, the parole agent allegedly
failed to properly review the GPS tracking data for the targeted parolee, allowing that parolee to violate his parole terms by living at a
location other than his registered address and allowing him to commit another felony offense.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. The department attorney failed to adequately document relevant dates and provide written feedback regarding the
investigative report to the special agent and the OIG. The Office of Internal Affairs failed to exercise due diligence in conducting the
investigation.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 54
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney made an entry in CMS confirming the deadline for taking disciplinary action but did not confirm any other
relevant dates.
Did the department attorney provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The parole agent was placed on administrative leave on June 7, 2012, during the criminal investigation related to this case. An
administrative investigation was not approved until August 20, 2012, 74 days after the parole agent was placed on administrative
leave. The investigative report was completed and forwarded to the hiring authority on October 30, 2012, 145 days after the parole
agent was placed on administrative leave.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Neglect of Duty
2012-04-07 12-1863-IR
Incident Summary
On April 7, 2012, a lieutenant and sergeant allegedly violated policy when they handled a calculated cell extraction as an emergency cell
extraction. The lieutenant also allegedly failed to obtain and review staff reports within 24 hours of the incident. The sergeant allegedly
failed to provide a lieutenant with complete information regarding the inmate's condition before the lieutenant authorized the emergency
cell extraction. Both the lieutenant and the sergeant allegedly failed to ensure that officers who participated in the cell extraction wore
proper safety gear. As a result of the lieutenant's and sergeant's alleged misconduct, the officers sustained injuries.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The hiring authority failedto timely refer
the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs failed to timely make a determination regarding the case. The
department attorney did not make any entry into CMS confirming relevant dates. The Office of Internal Affairs completed its investigation
only 23 days before the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on May 11, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal
Affairs until July 2, 2012, 52 days after the date of discovery.
Did OIA Central Intake make a determination regarding the case within 30 calendar days?
OIA Central Intake received the request for investigation on July 6, 2012, but did not take action until August 8, 2012, 33 days after the
receipt of the request.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make any entry into CMS confirming relevant dates.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The Office of Internal Affairs completed its investigation only 23 days before the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 55
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2012-05-01 12-1679-IR
Incident Summary
From May 1, 2012, until February 7, 2013, a materials and stores supervisor allegedly smuggled heroin, marijuana, tobacco, and mobile
phones into the institution. The investigation failed to establish sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The
OIG concurred with the probable cause determination. The department did not open an administrative investigation due to lack of
evidence.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-05-15 12-1540-IR 2. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On May 15, 2012, a youth counselor allegedly attempted to minimize the misconduct of two wards and was dishonest when he described
their interaction in an incident report as "horseplay" rather than fighting.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Failure to Report
2012-05-22 12-1399-IR 2. Unreasonable Use of Force
3. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On May 22, 2012, a sergeant allegedly used unreasonable force against an inmate without cause, punching the inmate's face four times. On
the fourth punch, the inmate fell to the ground and the sergeant allegedly kneed the inmate in the ribs and then kicked the inmate in the
stomach. The sergeant, a second sergeant, and an officer allegedly witnessed the use of force, but failed to report it. The second sergeant
also allegedly failed to maintain proper cell logs following the incident.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-06-01 13-0362-IR 2. Contraband
3. Over-Familiarity
Incident Summary
Between June 1, 2012, and September 28, 2012, a supervising cook was allegedly involved in a romantic and overly familiar relationship
with an inmate who worked in the kitchen. The supervising cook also allegedly provided tobacco, mobile phones, and jewelry tothe inmate.
Additionally, the supervising cook was allegedly dishonest when she filed a false complaint against an officer and was dishonest during her
interview with the Office of Internal Affairs.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 56
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Failure to Report
2012-06-08 13-0563-IR 2. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On June 8, 2012, a fire broke out on a housing unit. A ward failed to comply with orders to leave the unit, resulting in the use of a pepper-
ball launcher. A sergeant and four officers allegedly failed to report the force that they witnessed. A lieutenant also allegedly failed to list in
official reports the identities of the staff who witnessed or participated in the use of force.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The hiring authority waitedover nine
months to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation. The Office of Internal Affairs completed its report only eight
days before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The hiring authority was directed by his immediate supervisor to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs on October 4, 2012;
however, the matter was not referred until March 25, 2013, more than five months later, and more than nine months after the date of
discovery.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The investigative report was completed and submitted to the hiring authority with only eight days left before the deadline totake
disciplinary action.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-06-11 12-2234-IR 2. Failure to Report
3. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On June 11, 2012, a captain allegedly falsified the date on a rules violation report against an inmate to avoid missing a deadline. Between
June 11, 2012, and July 14, 2012, the captain allegedly failed to disclose the false date, allowing an improper hearing to occur. An officer
was allegedly dishonest and negligent in the preparation and handling of the same rules violation documents, delivered the false
doucmetation for signature, served the inmate with the false documentation, and failed to report the misconduct of the captain in altering
the rules violation documents. On August 22, 2012, the captain allegedy failed to report a suspected alteration to another official document
related to the rules violation report documents. On January 30, 2013, the officer was allegedly dishonest during his interview with the Office
of Internal Affairs. On April 23, 2013, the captain was also allegedly dishonest during her interview with the Office of Internal Affairs.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 57
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2012-06-12 12-1431-IR
Incident Summary
On June 12, 2012, a library technical assistant was found in possession of three plastic water bottles containing vodka as she entered the
institution. Officers searched her vehicle and found seven mobile phones, three wireless ear pieces, and 79 ounces of tobacco. A search of
her home yielded additional bottles of alcohol, another mobile phone wrapped in a vacuum-sealed bag, and several disposable lighters. The
Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation and found sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The
OIG concurred with the probable cause determination. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation which the
OIG accepted for monitoring.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative process because
the special agent failed to exercise due diligence in completing the investigation and the final investigative report was notsubmitted to the
appropriate prosecuting agency until March 2013, more than six months after completion of the investigation.
Assessment Questions
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The special agent failed to exercise due diligence in conducting the investigation. All interviews were completed on the dateof the
incident, June 12, 2012, and all further investigative efforts concluded on August 10, 2012. However, despite numerous reminders from
the OIG, the special agent did not produce a draft of the investigative report until February 11, 2013, and the final investigative report
was not submitted to the appropriate prosecuting agency until March 2013, more than six months after completion of all investigative
efforts.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Neglect of Duty
2012-06-14 12-2033-IR
Incident Summary
On June 14, 2012, an officer allegedly left an inmate who was on contraband watch alone in his cell in order to use the restroom. A control
booth officer allegedly opened a secure door to allow the other officer to use the restroom and also allegedly left the inmate's cell door
open.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures. The special agent's report was thorough and
provided the hiring authority with sufficient information to properly assess the allegations.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Neglect of Duty
2012-06-15 13-0593-IR
Incident Summary
On June 15, 2012, a lieutenant and a sergeant allegedly left an inmate in his cell unattended with an inmate-manufactured weapon, failed
to make proper notifications to supervisors of the situation, and failed to act to remove the inmate from his cell and confiscate the inmate-
manufactured weapon. Instead, both the lieutenant and sergeant left the situation to the next shift of officers. Also, an officer allegedly
incorrectly documented the time when the inmate-manufactured weapon was first observed.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 58
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and the Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. The hiring authority failed to timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and OIA Central Intake failed to
make a timely decision regarding the request. The special agent failed to complete all necessary interviews prior to completing the draft
investigative report and the investigation was completed only two days prior to the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on June 15, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office ofInternal
Affairs until March 18, 2013, nine months and three days after the date of discovery.
Did OIA Central Intake make a determination regarding the case within 30 calendar days?
OIA Central Intake received the request for investigation on March 21, 2013, but did not take action until April 24, 2013, 34days after
receipt of the request.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The initial report was completed and submitted to the hiring authority with only 16 days left before the deadline for taking disciplinary
action. The supplemental report was completed and submitted to the hiring authority with only two days left before the deadline for
taking disciplinary action.
Was the investigation thorough and appropriately conducted?
During the course of the investigation, the special agent determined that the officer might have committed misconduct potentially
relevant to the disciplinary action against the lieutenant and the sergeant. The special agent indicated that he would re-interview the
officer, but failed to do so prior to completing the draft investigative report. After consultation with the OIG, the specialagent did re-
interview the officer and provided a supplemental report.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Unreasonable Use of Force
2012-06-26 12-1932-IR 2. Neglect of Duty
3. Discourteous Treatment
Incident Summary
On June 26, 2012, an officer allegedly forced a ward to the ground even though the ward was complying with orders to get down. On July
13, 2012, the same officer allegedly used unreasonable force on a ward when he forced the ward's handcuffed arms up toward the ward's
neck and pulled the ward by his wrists from a prone position on the ground to a standing position. A second officer at the scene allegedly
yelled at a third officer to "stay out of it" when the third officer tried to intervene to stop the first officer's force on the ward.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2012-07-01 12-2233-IR
Incident Summary
From July 1, 2012, until July 31, 2012, a supervising cook was allegedly involved in a sexual relationship with an inmate. The investigation
failed to establish sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause
determination. The Office of Internal Affairs also opened an administrative investigation, which the OIG accepted for monitoring.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 59
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-07-02 12-2122-IR 2. Insubordination
3. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On July 2, 2012, an officer allegedly failed to report to his job assignment after being directed to do so by a supervisor and failed to review
the personnel movement sheet reflecting a new assignment. On July 3, 2012, the officer was allegedly dishonest to a sergeant about a job
change. On May 1, 2013, the officer was allegedly dishonest to the Office of Internal Affairs about the incident.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The Officeof Internal
Affairs did not complete its investigation until 27 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action. Additionally, the department attorney
attended only two of six interviews and, during the officer's interview, the department attorney was less than alert as he fell asleep at
various times during the interview.
Assessment Questions
Did the department attorney attend investigative interviews for key witnesses to assess witness demeanor and credibility?
The department attorney attended the officer's interview and one witness interview, but failed to attend four additional witness
interviews. Additionally, during the officer's interview, the department attorney was less than alert as he fell asleep at various times
during the interview.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was July 1, 2013. The investigation was not completed until June 4, 2013, only 27 days before
the deadline.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-07-10 12-2426-IR 2. Discourteous Treatment
3. Carrying Unauthorized Weapon
Incident Summary
On July 10, 2012, an officer was allegedly in possession of a concealed firearm he was not qualified or authorized to carry when contacted
by outside law enforcement for driving over the speed limit, failing to yield to law enforcement, and failing to have a frontlicense plate. The
officer allegedly made demeaning comments to the outside law enforcement officers, and cursed and yelled at them. On August 10, 2012,
the officer was allegedly dishonest when he told the investigative services unit that he was not in possession of a weapon during the July 10,
2012, incident.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 60
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2012-09-06 13-0553-IR 2. Failure to Report
3. Contraband
4. Over-Familiarity
5. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
Between September 6, 2012, and March 27, 2013, an officer allegedly introduced a mobile phone into the institution, took photographs of
himself and another officer holding weaponry while on duty, photographed secure areas within the institution, posted those photographs
while on duty on his public social networking site, engaged in overly familiar relationships with inmates when he accepted personalized
artwork from them, and was dishonest during his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs. During that same period, threeother officers
allegedly introduced mobile phones into the institution for their personal use, posed for photographs, and took photographs of one another
within the institution's secure perimeter. The officers allegedly failed to report the misconduct of the other officers.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Direct Action with Subject 1. Unreasonable Use of Force
2012-09-25 13-0298-IR Only Interview (SOI)
Incident Summary
On September 25, 2012, an officer allegedly used pepper spray on an inmate who was in a cell and not posing a threat.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act
2012-12-28 12-2955-IR
Incident Summary
On December 28, 2012, a television specialist allegedly smuggled heroin and methamphetamine into the institution. The Office of Internal
Affairs conducted an investigation and found sufficient evidence for a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred
with the probable cause determination. The television specialist resigned prior to the conclusion of the criminal investigation; therefore, the
Office of Internal Affairs did not open an administrative investigation.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 61
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Case Type Allegations
Date Number
Administrative Investigation 1. Dishonesty
2013-01-02 13-0419-IR 2. Failure to Report
3. Contraband
4. Over-Familiarity
5. Neglect of Duty
6. Other Failure of Good Behavior
Incident Summary
On January 2, 2013, an officer allegedly abandoned his post, went to another area of the prison, and provided tobacco to an inmate.
Another officer reportedly saw the transaction, located the tobacco, and reported the incident to a lieutenant and captain. The lieutenant
allegedly failed to properly secure the tobacco as evidence. The first officer also allegedly told a sergeant that if the first officer lost his job,
the reporting officer would need to "watch his back." The sergeant allegedly failed to report the first officer's threat. On March 21, 2013,
during his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs, the first officer was allegedly dishonest on multiple occasions. Additionally, the first
officer allegedly failed to report secondary employment to his hiring authority and helped a friend avoid making child support payments by
putting his friend's business in the first officer's name. The first officer was also allegedly aware that a parolee was engaged in business
transactions at the business that was in the first officer's name and did not report it.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the investigative process.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 62
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX B 95
DISCIPLINARY PHASE CASE SUMMARIES
CENTRAL REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2011-04-28 11-1653-IR 2. Failure to Report 2. Sustained
3. Other Failure of Good 3. Sustained
Behavior 4. Not Sustained
4. Over-Familiarity
Incident Summary
On April 28, 2011, it was alleged a correctional counselor discovered photographs on a social networking website depicting anofficer and a
case records technician allegedly associating with a parolee and an outlaw motorcycle gang. The officer and case records technician also
allegedly lied to the Office of Internal Affairs when questioned regarding the allegations.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer and the case records technician,
dismissing both of them. The OIG concurred with these determinations. Both the officer and the case records technician filed appeals with
the State Personnel Board. At the pre-hearing settlement conference, settlements were negotiated with both the officer and case records
technician. Ultimately, though, the officer withdrew her acceptance of her settlement. The officer's appeal hearing proceededand the State
Personnel Board sustained the officer's dismissal. The department entered into a settlement agreement with the case records technician,
whereby the disciplinary action would be withdrawn and the case records technician would receive four months of back-pay; in exchange,
the case records technician would resign and never seek employment with the department again. The department agreed to the settlement
because evidentiary issues were raised regarding difficulty in holding an off-duty non-sworn employee accountable for associating with
outlaw motorcycle gang members. The OIG concurred due to the evidentiary issues and the case records technician leaving the department.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Over-Familiarity 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2011-08-01 12-0188-IR 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Sustained Reduction
3. Sexual Misconduct 3. Not Sustained
Incident Summary
During August 2011, an officer was allegedly engaged in a sexually overly familiar relationship with a parolee. On November 11, 2011,
outside law enforcement stopped the officer for allegedly having an expired vehicle registration. As outside law enforcement spoke to the
officer, they suspected the officer of driving while under the influence of a controlled substance. The officer also failed to provide any
identification. The officer's front-seat passenger was then identified as the same parolee.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of overfamiliarity with a parolee and neglect of
duty, and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of
sexual misconduct with a parolee. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. However, the officer resignedbefore
disciplinary action could be imposed. A letter indicating the officer resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in her official
personnel file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 63
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal Resignation in
2011-11-23 12-2266-IR 2. Other Failure of Good 2. Sustained Lieu of
Behavior Termination
Incident Summary
On November 23, 2011, a sergeant allegedly filed a fraudulent claim with his insurance company when he reported his motorcycle stolen. It
was further alleged that the motorcycle was never stolen and that the sergeant did not actually own the motorcycle since there was a lien
on it and a finance company held the title.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the sergeant. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. At a Skellyhearing, the sergeant expressed great remorse about disgracing the
department and his family. He candidly spoke about family and financial hardships that had overwhelmed him. He was also forthcoming
and cooperative with the district attorney's office. In light of this mitigation, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the
sergeant, agreeing to accept the sergeant's resignation in lieu of dismissing him. In exchange, the sergeant agreed to withdraw his appeal
and agreed to never seek future employment with the department. The OIG concurred due to the mitigating factors presented andbecause
the ultimate goal of terminating the sergeant's employment was achieved.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary Modified
2012-04-19 12-1300-IR 2. Misuse of Authority 2. Not Sustained Reduction Salary
Reduction
Incident Summary
On April 19, 2012, two officers allegedly conspired with an inmate to have the inmate attack his cellmate. In return, one of those officers
allegedly instructed a property officer to release a package to the inmate attacker even though that inmate was not yet eligible to receive
packages in the administrative segregation unit where he was housed. Additionally, a sergeant allegedly failed to notify his supervisor about
the in-cell attack and properly document the incident.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain an allegation for neglect of duty against the sergeant and one of
the officers, imposing a 5 percent salary reduction for six months against each. The OIG concurred. After the officer's Skellyhearing, it was
confirmed that certain package restrictions did not apply to the involved inmate. Consequently, the hiring authority withdrewthe
disciplinary action against that officer. The OIG concurred. After the sergeant's Skellyhearing, the hiring authority reduced the penalty to a 5
percent salary reduction for three months because of the sergeant's satisfactory work record and assurance that misconduct would not
recur, and new information presented about the involved inmates. The hiring authority and department attorney failed to consult with the
OIG regarding the penalty modification. However, the OIG would have concurred due to the factors presented at the Skellyhearing. The OIG
recommended that the modification be offered as a settlement to avoid the possibility of the sergeant filing an appeal with the State
Personnel Board on the modified penalty. However, the hiring authority had already served the amended disciplinary action. The sergeant
did file an appeal, following which the State Personnel Board sustained the modified penalty. The hiring authority determinedthere was
insufficient evidence to sustain the misuse of authority allegation against either officer. The OIG concurred.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The hiring authority and department
attorney failed to consult the OIG before modifying the sergeant's penalty and failed to secure a settlement agreement in exchange for the
modification.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 64
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the HA consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable) before modifying the penalty or agreeing to a settlement?
The OIG was not consulted before the sergeant's penalty was modified and the modification was not obtained through a settlement
agreement.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The OIG was not consulted prior to modifying the sergeant's penalty.
Did the HA cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG throughout the disciplinary phase, until all
proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The OIG was not consulted prior to modifying the sergeant's penalty.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Failure to Report 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-04-23 12-1810-IR Imposed
Incident Summary
On April 23, 2012, four officers used batons and other physical force on an inmate because he was resisting their orders to submit to a
search. The officers allegedly failed to report their use of force.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers. The OIG concurred with the
hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-04-26 12-1654-IR Behavior Reduction
Incident Summary
On April 26, 2012, an off-duty officer and his girlfriend began arguing. To prevent his girlfriend from leaving her apartment, the officer
allegedly took his girlfriend's computer, purse, and car keys, refusing to return them. The officer then allegedly struck hisgirlfriend's hand
with the bedroom door as he shut the door behind him. The officer also allegedly pushed his girlfriend's son backward out of the door into a
door jamb. The next morning, the officer returned his girlfriend's property. The officer was arrested and charged with misdemeanor
domestic violence. The criminal charges were later dismissed.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for six
months. The OIG concurred. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The officer failed to appear at the pre-hearing
settlement conference and the appeal was dismissed.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 65
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on July 20, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG and department attorney
regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative findings did not occur until October 23, 2012, more thanthree
months after receipt of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on July 20, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG and department attorney
regarding the disciplinary determinations did not occur until October 23, 2012, more than three months after receipt of the case.
Was the OIG provided with a draft of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement prior to it being filed?
The OIG was not provided with a draft of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement prior to it being filed.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-05-02 12-1651-IR 2. Failure to Report 2. Sustained
3. Driving Under the 3. Sustained
Influence
Incident Summary
On May 2, 2012, an off-duty officer was arrested for allegedly driving while intoxicated when he was contacted by outside law enforcement
while parked in an alley notorious for narcotics activity. The officer also allegedly had a suspended driver's license at thetime of his arrest. It
was further alleged that the officer was dishonest when talking to outside law enforcement and the institution about his suspended driver's
license. Additionally, the officer failed to report to the institution when his driver's license was previously suspended andalso failed to
report that his driver's license was again suspended as a result of the current arrest.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain allegations that the officer was intoxicated while driving, failed to
report his suspended driver's license, and was dishonest when asked to provide proof of a valid driver's license. The allegation that the
officer was dishonest about knowing at the time of his arrest that he had a suspended driver's license was not sustained. Thehiring
authority decided to dismiss the officer. However, the hiring authority non-punitively terminated the officer since the officer did not have a
valid driver's license, which is a job requirement. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. A letter indicating the officer
was pending disciplinary action was also placed in his official personnel file. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel
Board.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-06-17 13-0168-IR Reduction
Incident Summary
On June 17, 2012, a sergeant allegedly failed to follow mandatory procedures to ensure evidence collection and crime scene preservation
after an inmate was allegedly sexually assaulted.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 66
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Disposition
The OIG urged the hiring authority to submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs which subsequently resulted in disciplinary action.
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for one
month. The OIG concurred. The sergeant did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Discourteous Treatment 1. Sustained Salary Letter of
2012-07-28 12-2265-IR Reduction Instruction
Incident Summary
On July 28, 2012, an off-duty correctional counselor allegedly yelled profanities at a neighbor after the neighbor yelled at the correctional
counselor's daughters. On July 29, 2012, the correctional counselor allegedly handed a baseball bat to her husband who allegedly used it to
strike the neighbor when the neighbor came to the correctional counselor's home to apologize for the previous incident. Outside law
enforcement responded to the second incident. The correctional counselor's husband and the neighbor were both allegedly intoxicated
during the two incidents.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six
months. The OIG concurred. At the Skellyhearing, the correctional counselor explained that the neighbor was intoxicated when he yelled
and used profanity at her daughters. The correctional counselor also expressed remorse, had no prior disciplinary actions, and was recently
promoted. Due to these factors the hiring authority elected to withdraw the disciplinary action and instead issued a letter of instruction. The
OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The disciplinary officer failed to document
assessing the relevant deadlines and failed to provide the draft letter of instruction to the OIG for review. In addition, the findings and
penalty conference was not held timely and the department failed to timely serve the disciplinary action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 67
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the disciplinary officer make an entry into CMS prior to the findings conference accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
There are no CMS entries from the disciplinary officer confirming relevant dates prior to the findings conference.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on September 26, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG and disciplinary officer
regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative findings did not occur until November 21, 2012, 56 calendar days
after receipt of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on September 26, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG and disciplinary officer
regarding the disciplinary determinations did not occur until November 21, 2012, 56 calendar days after receipt of the case.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The disciplinary officer did not provide a draft copy of the letter of instruction to the OIG until after it was already served on the
correctional counselor.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to timely conduct the investigative findings and disciplinary determinations. Additionally, the department failed
to timely serve the disciplinary action. The findings and penalty conference was held on November 21, 2012; however, the disciplinary
action was not served until January 17, 2013, 57 days later.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Unreasonable Use of 1. Sustained Letter of No Change
2012-09-06 13-0155-IR Force Instruction
Incident Summary
On September 6, 2012, a sergeant allegedly used unreasonable force when he discharged pepper spray at an inmate through a food port
when the inmate refused orders to submit to handcuffs, choosing instead to crouch under the hospital bed inside the cell.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation, but decided to issue the sergeant a letter of
instruction instead of taking disciplinary action against him. The OIG concurred.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-09-10 12-2638-IR Behavior Imposed
Incident Summary
On September 10, 2012, an officer was allegedly involved in an off-duty domestic disturbance in which he allegedly threatened to kill his
wife. Outside law enforcement responded to the incident and arrested the officer for the alleged threats and arrested the officer's wife for
allegedly brandishing a firearm at the officer. It was later confirmed that the officer was the reporting party who contactedoutside law
enforcement. The officer's wife also admitted to pointing a firearm at the officer.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 68
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority's
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The Office of Internal Affairs failed to
make a timely determination regarding the request for investigation, the department attorney failed to provide continual real-time
consultation with the OIG, and the hiring authority failed to conduct the investigative findings conference in a timely manner.
Assessment Questions
Did OIA Central Intake make a determination regarding the case within 30 calendar days?
OIA Central Intake received the request for investigation on October 1, 2012, but did not take action until November 7, 2012,37 days
after receipt of the request.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on November 15, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG and department
attorney regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative findings did not occur until April 4, 2013, more than four
months after receipt of the case.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The officer's criminal court case which arose from this incident was dismissed on November 26, 2012. This information was notshared
with the OIG until March 15, 2013, despite several OIG inquiries to the department attorney about the status of the criminal court
case.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to conduct the investigative findings in a timely manner.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-09-30 12-2841-IR 2. Other Failure of Good 2. Sustained
Behavior 3. Sustained
3. Attendance
Incident Summary
On September 30, 2012, an officer was allegedly dishonest when she called in before her work shift, claiming sick family leave to excuse her
absence. However, instead of caring for a sick family member that night, the officer allegedly went out drinking and was subsequently
contacted by outside law enforcement. The officer attempted to hide an open alcoholic beverage container in her possession and admitted
to being intoxicated. On October 9, 2012, the same officer was again allegedly dishonest when she claimed sick leave for the day, but
actually surrendered to a local county jail to serve a pre-scheduled court ordered sentence.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the officer. The OIG concurred. The
officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 69
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-10-16 12-2842-IR Reduction
Incident Summary
On October 16, 2012, an officer allegedly jeopardized the safety and security of the institution by leaving his department issued green jacket
in the bathroom of a dormitory. On October 19, 2012, upon returning from his days off, the officer allegedly failed to immediately notify his
supervisor that the jacket was missing from the dormitory bathroom. The officer did not report the missing jacket until October 22, 2012.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12
months. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-10-29 12-2844-IR Behavior 2. Sustained Reduction
2. Carrying a Weapon 3. Not Sustained
While Intoxicated
3. Carrying an
Unauthorized Weapon
Off Duty
Incident Summary
On October 29, 2012, an off-duty officer was arrested by outside law enforcement for allegedly being drunk in public and carrying a
concealed firearm. It was further alleged that the officer was not authorized to carry the off-duty firearm because he had not previously
qualified with it.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the officer was publicly intoxicated and
carried a firearm while under the influence of alcohol, and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for one month. The allegation that the
officer carried an unauthorized weapon was not sustained. The OIG concurred in the hiring authority's determinations. The officer did not
file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-11-01 12-2953-IR Behavior
Incident Summary
In November 2012, an officer allegedly used marijuana. On November 9, 2012, the officer submitted to a random drug urinalysistest. On
November 14, 2012, the officer's drug test was verified as positive for marijuana.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and dismissed the officer. The OIG concurred with
the hiring authority's determinations. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 70
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-11-15 13-0222-IR 2. Misuse of Authority 2. Sustained
3. Other Failure of Good 3. Sustained
Behavior 4. Sustained
4. Discourteous Treatment 5. Sustained
5. Battery
Incident Summary
On November 15, 2012, an off-duty officer allegedly assaulted his girlfriend by intentionally throwing a hot cup of coffee at her during an
argument at a casino, causing a burn to the girlfriend. During his resulting arrest, the officer allegedly attempted to use his position as an
officer to gain leniency. The officer was also allegedly dishonest when questioned by the arresting officer.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations. These allegations were combined with two unrelated cases pending against the officer and
the officer already had two prior criminal convictions for driving under the influence. The hiring authority determined dismissal was the
appropriate penalty. The OIG concurred. Additionally, the hiring authority served the officer with a non-punitive dismissal because his
driver's license was suspended, which was a requirement of employment. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action or
non-punitive dismissal took effect. A letter indicating the officer resigned under unfavorable circumstances was placed in his official
personnel file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Unreasonable Use of 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-12-07 13-0292-IR Force Imposed
Incident Summary
On December 7, 2012, a lieutenant allegedly used unreasonable force when he used pepper spray on a restrained inmate who was inside a
holding cell. The lieutenant allegedly used the pepper spray because the inmate continued to spit on staff members and make snorting
sounds after the inmate already spit on two people.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
OIA Central Intake failed to initially identify that an investigation was needed. Despite a request for reconsideration to approve an interview
of the lieutenant, OIA Central Intake still determined that an interview was unnecessary even though available reports did not provide
sufficient information. As a result, no allegations were sustained.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 71
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Assessment Questions
Did OIA Central Intake make an appropriate initial determination regarding the case?
OIA Central Intake did not make an appropriate initial determination as an investigation should have been conducted to clarify
inconsistencies in the reporting of the incident.
If the case was submitted to OIA Central Intake or to the Chief of OIA for reconsideration, was an appropriate decision made
regarding the request?
OIA Central Intake did not make an appropriate decision following a request for reconsideration. The OIG recommended that the
lieutenant be interviewed to clarify inconsistencies in the reporting of the incident. OIA Central Intake denied the request and returned
the matter to the hiring authority to take action without an interview.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. Sustained Letter of No Change
2012-12-14 13-0276-IR Behavior Reprimand
Incident Summary
On December 14, 2012, an officer was arrested by outside law enforcement for allegedly pushing his wife during an argument.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and issued a letter of reprimand to the officer. The
OIG concurred with the hiring authority's decision. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-12-22 13-0275-IR Reduction
Incident Summary
On December 22, 2012, an officer assigned to an outside hospital allegedly left his state-issued firearm and ammunition unsecured in a
hospital restroom. Hospital staff discovered the firearm and ammunition, prompting an alarm to which outside law enforcement
responded.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the officer and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for nine months. The OIG
concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the department agreed to remove the
disciplinary action from the officer's official personnel file at 24 months instead of the customary 36 months. In return, the officer agreed
not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The OIG concurred as the settlement did not reduce the actual penalty. Additionally,
the officer was remorseful and had no prior disciplinary action.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 72
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary Modified
2013-01-29 13-0496-IR Reduction Salary
Reduction
Incident Summary
On January 29, 2013, a water and sewage treatment supervisor allegedly failed to properly supervise and account for two inmates, resulting
in the inmates being left, unsupervised, outside of the water treatment plant's secure perimeter.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the water and sewage treatment supervisor
and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The OIG concurred. At his Skellyhearing, the water and sewage treatment
supervisor explained that he had been distracted because of a gas leak. He also advised that new protocols were implemented, requiring
identification cards of inmate-workers to be displayed on a board in the work area so that inmates still working in the field could be
accounted for and not be left behind. Due to this mitigating information, the hiring authority decided to enter into a settlement agreement
with the water and sewage treatment supervisor, modifying the penalty to a 5 percent salary reduction for one month. In exchange, the
water and sewage treatment supervisor agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The OIG concurred based onthe
information presented at the Skellyhearing.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the hiring authority sufficiently complied with the department's policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2013-02-01 13-0482-IR Behavior 2. Sustained
2. Driving under the
influence
Incident Summary
On February 1, 2013, an off-duty officer was arrested for allegedly driving while under the influence of alcohol.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegation. This allegation was combined with two unrelated cases pending against the officer and the
officer already had two prior criminal convictions for driving under the influence. The hiring authority determined dismissalwas the
appropriate penalty. The OIG concurred. Additionally, the hiring authority served the officer with a non-punitive dismissal because his
driver's license was suspended, which was a requirement of employment. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action or the
non-punitive dismissal took effect. A letter indicating the officer resigned under unfavorable circumstances was placed in his official
personnel file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Unreasonable Use of 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2013-02-23 13-0606-IR Force Imposed
Incident Summary
On February 23, 2013, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force by kicking an inmate twice in the torso area after the inmate punched
the officer in the face, pushed the officer to the ground, and repeatedly punched the officer in the face while the officer was on the ground.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 73
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the officer. The OIG concurred with the
hiring authority's determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 74
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Discrimination 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2009-01-01 12-1277-IR Imposed
Incident Summary
Between January 2009 and August 2011, a staff services analyst allegedly subjected a co-worker to discrimination based on sexual
orientation. The staff services analyst allegedly wore provocative clothing, used offensive and derogatory language, and displayed
inappropriate pictures on her work computer.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations because the conduct did not constitute
discrimination. The OIG concurred. However, this case was combined with another case in which the hiring authority determinedthere was
sufficient evidence to sustain allegations that the staff services analyst was discourteous, misused state issued equipment, and threatened
coworkers. The staff services analyst resigned from the department before disciplinary action could be imposed.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2009-03-16 10-2160-IR 2. Misuse of State 2. Sustained
Equipment or Property 3. Sustained
3. Discourteous Treatment 4. Sustained
4. Overfamiliarity
Incident Summary
On March 16, 2009, a supervising correctional cook allegedly engaged in discourteous treatment toward an officer by hugging the officer in
the presence of other staff. On April 30, 2009, the supervising correctional cook also allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship
with an inmate when the cook received a wrapped gift from an inmate. Between April 11, 2009 and April 30, 2009, the cook alsoallegedly
misused state property by furnishing bleach and extra food to inmate kitchen workers, engaged in a pattern of discourteous and
disrespectful conduct towards co-workers and engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate by giving preferential treatment to
the inmate. The cook also allegedly referred to inmates by inappropriate names. The cook was also allegedly dishonest during his
investigatory interview.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain allegations of over-familiarity, discourteous treatment, misuse of
state property, and dishonesty. Based on the dishonesty allegations the hiring authority dismissed the supervising correctional cook. The
hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the remaining allegations of discourteous treatment and over-
familiarity. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The supervising correctional cook filed an appeal with the State
Personnel Board. After a hearing, the State Personnel Board upheld the department's findings and the dismissal.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 75
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal Resignation in
2010-03-01 12-1682-IR 2. Insubordination 2. Sustained Lieu of
Termination
3. Unauthorized absences 3. Sustained
Incident Summary
Between March 2010 and October 2010, an officer allegedly falsified employee attendance records and a supervisor's signature.The officer
also allegedly failed to provide required medical verification for sick leave on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and New Year'sEve in 2010. The
officer was also allegedly insubordinate for failing to follow a lawful instruction to attend an investigatory interview.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served the officer with a noticeof dismissal.
This case was combined with the officer's two other disciplinary cases. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determination. The
officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Prior to the State Personnel Board hearing, the department entered into a settlement
agreement with the officer whereby he resigned in lieu of dismissal, agreed to withdraw his appeal, and agreed never to seek employment
with the department in the future. The OIG concurred as the ultimate goal of separating the officer was achieved. The department
eliminated the risk that the officer would prevail and be eligible to return to work.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority failed to timely conduct the findings and penalty conferences, and failed to timely serve the disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The hiring authority conducted two findings and penalty conferences. Initially, the Office of Internal Affairs completed its investigation
and referred the matter to the hiring authority on January 24, 2012. The hiring authority did not consult with the departmentattorney
and the OIG regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative findings until July 19, 2012, more than fivemonths
after receipt of the case. Thereafter, the Office of Internal Affairs gathered additional information and provided the hiringauthority a
supplemental report on October 10, 2012. The hiring authority did not consult with the department attorney and the OIG regarding the
sufficiency of the supplemental investigative report and the investigative findings until October 26, 2012, 16 days after receipt of the
supplemental report.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The hiring authority conducted two findings and penalty conferences. Initially, the Office of Internal Affairs completed its investigation
and referred the matter to the hiring authority on January 24, 2012. The hiring authority did not consult with the departmentattorney
and the OIG regarding the disciplinary determinations until July 19, 2012, more than five months after receipt of the case. Thereafter,
the Office of Internal Affairs gathered additional information and provided the hiring authority a supplemental report on October 10,
2012. The hiring authority did not consult with the department attorney and the OIG regarding the disciplinary determinationsuntil
October 26, 2012, 16 days after receipt of the supplemental report.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority failed to conduct the findings and penalty conferences in a timely manner. In addition, the department failed to
timely serve the disciplinary action. The final decision to take disciplinary action was made on October 26, 2012; however, the
disciplinary action was not served until December 20, 2012, almost two months after the decision to impose disciplinary action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 76
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Misuse of State 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2010-04-01 12-1362-IR Equipment or Property 2. Sustained Reduction
2. Discourteous Treatment 3. Sustained
3. Threat/Intimidation
Incident Summary
Between April 2010 and April 2011, a staff services analyst was allegedly discourteous to her male coworkers by referring to them in
derogatory terms. It was further alleged that the staff services analyst threatened her coworkers by telling them her ex-husband was a
special agent with the Office of Internal Affairs, and displayed inappropriate nude photographs of men on her state-issued computer.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations and determined that a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months was the appropriate penalty.
However, the staff services analyst transferred to another state department before the disciplinary action could be imposed. The OIG
concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Suspension No Change
2010-04-05 11-2433-IR
Incident Summary
It was alleged between April 5, 2010, and April 26, 2010, an acting warden, two chief deputy wardens, a captain, a lieutenant, and a
sergeant failed to determine whether circumstances existed to warrant the continued placement of 77 inmates on restricted cell status with
loss of all privileges. It was further alleged the acting warden, two chief deputy wardens, the captain, the lieutenant, and sergeant deprived
the same inmates of showers, toilet paper, and other items while on restricted cell status.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained allegations against the acting warden, two chief deputy wardens, the captain, the lieutenant, and the
sergeant. The acting warden was redirected to his prior position and served a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The chief deputy
wardens were each served a six working-day suspension. The hiring authority imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 18 months against
the captain. The lieutenant was served a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The sergeant was issued a counseling memorandum.
However, following a Skellyhearing, the hiring authority reduced the first chief deputy warden's penalty to a two working-day suspension,
the captain's penalty to a 10 percent salary reduction for nine months, and the lieutenant's penalty to a letter of reprimand. The two chief
deputy wardens did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The acting warden, captain, and lieutenant filed appeals with the
State Personnel Board and subsequently entered into settlement agreements with the department in which they agreed to withdraw their
appeals from the State Personnel Board. The department agreed to strike dishonesty from the acting warden's disciplinary action, but did
not modify the salary reduction. The department agreed to remove the settlement agreement from the captain's official personnel file nine
months after the effective date of the disciplinary action, but did not modify the salary reduction. The department agreed toremove the
letter of reprimand from the lieutenant's official personnel file at the time of the settlement agreement. The OIG concurred with the
modifications and settlement agreements because the acting warden, chief deputy warden, captain, and lieutenant accepted responsibility.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 77
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary No Penalty
2010-05-09 10-2185-IR Reduction Imposed
Incident Summary
On May 9, 2010, an officer was allegedly negligent by failing to respond to inmates' calls for assistance for approximately 90 minutes, which
arose due to an in-cell fight between two inmates, resulting in one inmate losing an eye. The officer allowed one of the involved inmates
back into the cell so that he could clean the blood, which compromised evidence collection and processing. The inmate who lost an eye died
after being admitted to a hospital due to injuries sustained during the fight.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 13
months. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The State Personnel Board revoked the penalty and the department
filed a petition for rehearing. The State Personnel Board denied the petition for rehearing.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to timely conduct the findings and penalty conference and timely serve the disciplinary action. Also atthe State
Personnel Board hearing the department attorney rested his case prior to having all necessary evidence moved into evidence.
Assessment Questions
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The report was sent to the hiring authority on December 7, 2010; however, the consultation with the OIG and department attorney
regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and investigative findings did not occur until February 3, 2011, 58 days later.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The report was sent to the hiring authority on December 7, 2010; however, the consultation with the OIG and department attorney
regarding disciplinary determinations did not occur until February 3, 2011, 58 days later.
Did the department’s advocate appropriately have necessary evidence presented at the hearing moved into evidence?
The department attorney rested his case prior to having all necessary evidence moved into evidence. The judge denied his request to
reopen the case for the purpose of admitting the evidence.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner. In addition, the decision to take
disciplinary action was made on February 3, 2011; however, the officer was not served the action until May 6, 2011, only two days
before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. Sustained Demotion No Change
2010-05-31 10-3776-IR Behavior 2. Not Sustained
2. Battery
Incident Summary
On May 31, 2010, an off-duty sergeant allegedly choked his wife, held a knife to her throat, and threatened to injure her. The sergeant also
allegedly left the residence and initially failed to stop his vehicle when outside law enforcement officers attempted to stophim. The
sergeant eventually pulled his vehicle over but allegedly failed to comply with the law enforcement officers' commands to exit the vehicle
and display his hands. The sergeant was acquitted of the domestic violence charge but was convicted of resisting arrest.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 78
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegation the sergeant evaded the police and was uncooperative when stopped. However, thehiring
authority did not sustain the allegation that the sergeant battered his wife because a jury acquitted him of this allegation.The sergeant was
demoted to correctional officer. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's determinations. The sergeant filed an appeal withthe State
Personnel Board. Following a hearing, the State Personnel Board upheld the penalty.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority waited more than five months before submitting the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and failed to timely conduct
the findings and penalty conference. The Office of Internal Affairs failed to render a timely decision regarding the hiring authority's request
for action. The department attorney failed to enter information into the case management system, provide written documentation
concerning the findings and penalty conference, and provide a draft pre-hearing settlement conference statement to the OIG.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to the OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The date of discovery was May 31, 2010; however, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs until
November 2, 2010, more than five months after the date of discovery.
Did OIA Central Intake make a determination regarding the case within 30 calendar days?
OIA Central Intake received the request for investigation on November 4, 2010, but did not take action until December 15, 2010, 41
days after receipt of the request.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney made an entry into CMS. However, she merely stated that she assessed the date of the incident, discovery
date, and the deadline for taking disciplinary action without indicating the actual dates.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The Office of Internal Affairs referred the matter to the hiring authority on December 16, 2010. The hiring authority did notconsult
with the OIG and department attorney regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and investigative findings until February11, 2011,
58 days after receipt of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The Office of Internal Affairs referred the matter to the hiring authority on December 16, 2010. The hiring authority did notconsult
with the OIG and department attorney regarding the disciplinary determinations until February 11, 2011, 58 calendar days after
receipt of the case.
Did the department attorney provide to the HA and OIG written confirmation of penalty discussions?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation of the penalty discussions to the OIG or the hiring authority.
Was the OIG provided with a draft of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement prior to it being filed?
The department attorney did not provide a draft copy of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement prior to it being filed.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority failed to timely submit the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and failed to conduct the findings and penalty
conference in a timely manner.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 79
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Failure to Report 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2010-06-01 12-2448-IR 2. Over-Familiarity 2. Sustained
3. Insubordination 3. Sustained
4. Neglect of Duty 4. Sustained
Incident Summary
It was alleged that between June 2010 and May 2012, an electrician was overly familiar with inmates when he conspired to smuggle mobile
phones and tobacco into the institution. It was further alleged that the electrician was insubordinate when he refused to cooperate during
the investigation. A second electrician allegedly knew of the misconduct but failed to report or stop the misconduct.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain all allegations and dismissed both electricians. TheOIG concurred.
However, the first electrician resigned prior to the completion of the investigation; therefore, disciplinary action was not taken. A letter
indicating the electrician resigned under adverse conditions was placed in his official personnel file. The electrician who allegedly failed to
report the first electrician's misconduct filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The department entered into a settlement
agreement with the electrician allowing him to resign in lieu of dismissal. The OIG concurred with the settlement because theelectrician
agreed never to seek employment with the department again and documentation of his misconduct was to remain in his official personnel
file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The hiring authority delayedconducting
the findings and penalty conference. The disciplinary officer failed to analyze the deadline for taking disciplinary action, appropriately draft
the draft disciplinary action, and complete the CDC Form 3021.
Assessment Questions
Did the disciplinary officer make an entry into CMS prior to the findings conference accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The disciplinary officer failed to make an entry in CMS regarding the relevant dates.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on August 22, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG regarding the sufficiency of
the investigation and the investigative findings did not occur until October 26, 2012, 65 calendar days after receipt of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on August 22, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG regarding the disciplinary
determinations did not occur until October 26, 2012, 65 calendar days after receipt of the case.
Was the draft disciplinary action provided to the OIG for review appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The draft disciplinary action provided to the OIG for review was not appropriately drafted because the list of supporting documents did
not include the recorded witness interviews.
If the case settled, did the department attorney or disciplinary officer properly complete the CDC Form 3021?
The disciplinary officer did not complete the CDC Form 3021.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 80
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Letter of No Change
2010-08-17 12-0144-IR Reprimand
Incident Summary
It was alleged that between August 17, 2010, and September 18, 2010, a department attorney failed to consult with a hiring authority on a
discipline case and allowed the time for taking disciplinary action to expire.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegation and issued a letter of reprimand. The OIG concurred. The department attorney did not file an
appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to sufficiently comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The hiring authority failed to
timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for review, failed to adequately prepare for and timely conduct thefindings and
penalty conference, and failed to timely serve the disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to the OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the alleged misconduct on October 20, 2010; however, despite numerous requests by the OIG, the hiring
authority did not refer the matter to Office of Internal Affairs until December 16, 2011, more than one year after the discovery date.
Did the disciplinary officer make an entry into CMS prior to the findings conference accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The disciplinary officer did not make any entries into CMS confirming relevant dates.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on January 13, 2012; however, the hiring authority did not consult with the OIG
regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and investigative findings until June 4, 2012, more than four months later.
If the HA consulted with the OIG concerning the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative findings, was the HA adequately
prepared?
The hiring authority did not obtain the necessary information regarding the alleged misconduct prior to the findings and penalty
conference.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on January 13, 2012; however, the hiring authority did not consult with the OIG
regarding the disciplinary determinations until June 4, 2012, more than four months later.
Was the draft disciplinary action provided to the OIG for review appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The draft disciplinary action failed to contain all relevant exhibits.
Was the disciplinary action served on the employee(s) appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The disciplinary action served on the employee failed to contain a relevant exhibit.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority failed to timely conduct the investigative findings and disciplinary determinations, and failed to timely serve the
disciplinary action. The investigative findings and disciplinary determinations took place on June 4, 2012; however, the disciplinary
action was not served until January 23, 2013, over seven months later.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 81
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary No Penalty
2011-03-13 11-1725-IR 2. Dishonesty 2. Not Sustained Reduction Imposed
Incident Summary
On March 13, 2011, three officers were allegedly dishonest by failing to accurately and completely describe the events regarding an
inmate's attempted suicide.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of neglect of duty against the sergeant and one
officer. The hiring authority imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months for the sergeant and a 5 percent salary reduction for six
months for the officer. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the dishonesty allegationsagainst the
sergeant and both officers. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The sergeant and one officer filed appeals with
the State Personnel Board. Following a hearing, the State Personnel Board revoked the penalties for the sergeant and officer.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Insubordination 1. Sustained Salary Resignation in
2011-03-13 11-1859-IR 2. Misuse of Authority 2. Not Sustained Reduction Lieu of
Termination
3. Discourteous Treatment 3. Not Sustained
4. Threat/intimidation 4. Not Sustained
toward inmate
Incident Summary
On March 13, 2011, an officer allegedly made threatening, intimidating, and profane statements toward an inmate. Between March 28,
2011, and April 4, 2011, the officer allegedly told other inmates to "handle" the same inmate, meaning to attack her. On April 4, 2011, the
officer allegedly used profane language and made intimidating comments toward the same inmate after spraying her with pepper spray. On
November 29, 2011, the officer allegedly failed to follow orders to contact a special agent to inform the agent he would not attend an
investigatory interview as directed in the interview notice.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of insubordination and imposed a 10 percent salary
reduction for 24 months. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the other allegations. This case was
combined with the officer's two other disciplinary cases wherein the penalty was dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State
Personnel Board. Prior to the State Personnel Board hearing, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer whereby
he resigned in lieu of dismissal and agreed never to seek employment with department in the future. The OIG concurred with the
settlement agreement as the ultimate goal of separating the officer was achieved. The department further eliminated the risk that the
officer would prevail and be eligible to return to work.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to timely conduct the findings and penalty conference. Neither of the two assigned department attorneysmade an
entry into CMS accurately confirming relevant dates. Furthermore, the department failed to timely serve the disciplinary action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 82
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The first department attorney was assigned on July 27, 2011, and a second department attorney was assigned on December 21, 2011.
Neither attorney made an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported incident, the date of discovery, the deadline
for taking disciplinary action, or any exceptions to the deadline.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The Office of Internal Affairs completed its investigation and referred the matter to the hiring authority on June 5, 2012. The hiring
authority did not consult with the department attorney and the OIG regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative
findings until July 19, 2012, 44 days after receipt of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The Office of Internal Affairs completed its investigation and referred the matter to the hiring authority on June 5, 2012. The hiring
authority did not consult with the department attorney and the OIG regarding disciplinary determinations until July 19, 2012,44 days
after receipt of the case.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority failed to timely conduct the findings and penalty conference. Furthermore, the department failed to timely serve
the disciplinary action. The decision to take disciplinary action was made on July 19, 2012, but the officer was not served until
December 20, 2012, nearly five months after the decision to take action.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary No Penalty
2011-03-22 11-2013-IR 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Sustained Reduction Imposed
Incident Summary
It was alleged that on March 22, 2011, a sergeant was discourteous when he referred to a visiting attorney as a "thing." It was further
alleged that the sergeant neglected his duty when he ordered officers under his supervision to restrict access to attorneys, and that he
discussed discipline of an officer in front of other custody staff.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 24
months. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Following the hearing, the State Personnel Board struck one allegation based on timeliness and found inadequate evidence to support the
other two allegations. The State Personnel Board revoked the salary reduction and ordered the department to provide back pay to the
sergeant.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to timely conduct the findings and penalty conference, failed to adequately consult with the OIG, failed to accurately
calculate the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and failed to be adequately prepared to present a legally sufficient case at hearing.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 83
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney was not assigned to the case but did actively participate by representing the department at two hearings.
The department attorney did not make any entry into CMS confirming relevant dates.
Did the disciplinary officer make an entry into CMS prior to the findings conference accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The disciplinary officer did not make an entry into CMS confirming the date of the reported incident, the date of discovery, the deadline
for taking disciplinary action, or any exceptions to the deadline.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer appropriately determine that the deadline for taking disciplinary action as
originally calculated should be modified and consult with the OIG about the decision to modify?
Neither the department attorney nor the disciplinary officer appropriately determined that the deadline for taking disciplinary action
as originally calculated should be modified, despite discussions with the OIG.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on August 5, 2011; however, the consultation with the OIG regarding the sufficiency of
the investigation and the investigative findings did not occur until April 10, 2012, more than eight months after receipt of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on August 5, 2011; however, the consultation with the OIG regarding disciplinary
determinations did not occur until April 10, 2012, more than eight months after receipt of the case.
Did the deadline for taking disciplinary action expire before the department completed its findings and served appropriate disciplinary
action?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action expired on March 29, 2012, but the department did not complete its findings and serve the
appropriate disciplinary action until April 18, 2012, 20 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action expired.
Was the OIG provided with a draft of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement prior to it being filed?
The OIG was not provided with a draft of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement prior to it being filed.
Did the department’s advocate who appeared at the pre-hearing settlement conference have full familiarity with the facts and issues
in the case?
The department attorney who appeared at the pre-hearing settlement conference was not fully familiar with all of the facts and issues.
The department attorney was not prepared with the legal citations to case law cited, argued with the administrative law judge, was
not aware what policies and procedures applied to the sergeant's post, and was not familiar with prior disciplinary actions against the
sergeant.
Did the department’s advocate adequately subpoena and prepare available witnesses for the hearing?
The disciplinary officer failed to adequately subpoena and prepare witnesses for trial. When a key witness could not be located, the
disciplinary officer failed to timely request a continuance so that the witness could be located and prepared for hearing.
Did the department’s advocate adequately and appropriately address legal issues prior to and during the SPB hearing?
The disciplinary officer failed to raise a claim of due process violation on behalf of the department in the appropriate legal terms,
although a continuance was requested. Furthermore, the disciplinary officer failed to adequately defend the claim that the deadline for
taking disciplinary action had expired prior to service of the action.
Did the department’s advocate present the necessary available evidence regarding the allegations at the hearing?
The disciplinary officer failed to locate and prepare a key witness, who did not appear at the hearing. The disciplinary officer also failed
to present adequate evidence and witnesses to refute the claim that the deadline for taking disciplinary action had expired prior to
service of the action, and failed to present witnesses to support one of the allegations of misconduct.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 84
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
If the SPB’s decision did not uphold all of the factual allegations sustained by the HA, did the OIG concur with the SPB’s decision?
The State Personnel Board's decision did not uphold all of the factual allegations sustained by the HA. The OIG concurred with this
decision because it was a reasonable conclusion based upon the evidence provided by both parties as well as the available witness
testimony.
If the penalty modification was the result of an SPB decision, did the OIG concur with the modification?
The OIG concurred with the penalty modification that resulted from the State Personnel Board decision because it was reasonable to
find that the department had not met its burdens of proof given the evidence presented at hearing and the testimony of the witnesses.
It was also reasonable to conclude that the deadline for taking disciplinary action had expired prior to service of the disciplinary action
on the evidence presented.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The department attorney failed to notify the OIG of a motion to dismiss and the hearing on the matter until after the OIG discovered
from an independent source that a hearing was scheduled. The department attorney also refused to conduct a conference call with the
OIG and the hiring authority and instead instructed the OIG that the monitor could have a separate conversation with the hiring
authority. The disciplinary officer failed to take appropriate action to adjust the deadline for taking disciplinary action despite the OIG's
recommendation, and failed to provide the pre-hearing settlement conference statement to the OIG prior to the conference. The
disciplinary officer also did not provide the OIG with all of the pertinent documents prior to trial.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to serve the disciplinary action in a timely manner. The State Personnel Board determined that the deadline for
taking disciplinary action had expired prior to service of the disciplinary action.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary Resignation in
2011-03-27 11-2025-IR 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Sustained Reduction Lieu of
Termination
Incident Summary
On March 27, 2011, an officer allegedly pushed an inmate's locker causing the locker to fall over. An inmate was injured whenthe towel bar
on the locker hit her. During the same incident, the same officer allegedly threw a book at another inmate's head causing injury. The officer
also allegedly failed to arrange medical treatment for the two injured inmates.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of neglect of duty and one of the allegations of
discourteous treatment, and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient
evidence to sustain the second allegation of discourteous treatment. This case was combined with the officer's two other disciplinary cases
wherein the penalty was dismissal. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Prior to the State Personnel Board hearing,
the department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer whereby he resigned in lieu of dismissal and agreed neverto seek
employment with department in the future. The OIG concurred with the settlement agreement as the ultimate goal of separating the officer
was achieved. The department further eliminated the risk that the officer would prevail and be eligible to return to work.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The department failed to timely serve the
disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to timely serve the disciplinary action. The decision to take disciplinary action was made on July 19, 2012;
however, the officer was not served the action until December 20, 2012, nearly five months after the decision to take the action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 85
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2011-04-01 12-1083-IR 2. Other Failure of Good 2. Sustained Reduction
Behavior 3. Not Sustained
3. Controlled Substances
Incident Summary
Between April 2011 and April 2012, an officer allegedly applied for, and received, an out-of-state medical marijuana registry identification
card, was involved in the illegal use of controlled substances and prescription medication, left a voice message threatening a doctor, and
failed to report that he was taken into custody for being a danger to himself or others and held for evaluation. It was further alleged that
the officer threatened to shoot his wife and failed to report that he was subject to a restraining order prohibiting him frompossessing
firearms or ammunition.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the officer had applied for, and received, a
medical marijuana registry identification card, that he failed to report he was served with a restraining order prohibiting him from
possessing firearms, and that he left a threatening voicemail. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the
allegations that the officer improperly used prescription medication or illegal controlled substances, that he threatened to kill his wife, and
that he failed to report that he was taken into custody for a psychiatric evaluation. The hiring authority served the officerwith a 10 percent
salary reduction for 12 months. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The officer filed an appeal with the State
Personnel Board, but later withdrew the appeal and retired.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures by failing to timely serve the disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to timely serve the disciplinary action. The deadline for taking disciplinary action was October 28, 2012. The
decision to take disciplinary action was made on September 7, 2012, but the officer was not served the disciplinary action until October
18, 2012, 42 days later and only ten days before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Over-Familiarity 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2011-05-12 11-2307-IR 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Sustained
3. Disclosure of 3. Sustained
Confidential Information 4. Not Sustained
4. Discourteous Treatment
Incident Summary
It was alleged on May 12, 2011, an officer engaged in sexual misconduct with an inmate. It was also alleged two other officers allowed the
officer direct access to the inmate after the inmate reported the incident. One of those officers also allegedly impeded an internal affairs
investigation by notifying the alleged perpetrator of the inmate's allegations. It was also alleged that on May 12, 2011, a sergeant made
inappropriate comments to the inmate by saying, among other things, the inmate was an adult, she could say no to the officer when he
forced her to engage in sexual acts, and that because of her complaint, she would be placed in administrative segregation.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 86
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the three officers and determined that
dismissal was the appropriate penalty for the alleged perpetrator. However, the alleged perpetrator was non-punitively terminated before
disciplinary action could be imposed. A letter indicating that he was terminated under adverse circumstances was placed in his official
personnel file. The hiring authority imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 30 months against the second officer, and a oneworking-day
suspension against the third officer. The hiring authority also determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of neglect
of duty against the sergeant and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient
evidence to sustain the allegation of discourteous treatment against the sergeant. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's
determinations. The third officer did not appeal the adverse action. The officer who received the salary reduction and the sergeant filed
appeals with the State Personnel Board. Prior to a hearing, the officer and the department entered into a settlement agreement wherein
the penalty was reduced to a 5 percent salary reduction for 20 months because the officer expressed remorse and an appreciation of the
potential consequences of his actions. Furthermore, the officer presented additional information at a Skellyhearing which tended to
mitigate his misconduct. The officer agreed to withdraw his appeal. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations based on
the foregoing factors. Following a hearing, the State Personnel Board revoked the action against the sergeant. The administrative law judge
ruled the evidence was insufficient to counter the sergeant's assertions that he had not violated departmental policy.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The hiring authority failed to conduct the
findings and penalty conference in a timely manner, and failed to timely serve the disciplinary actions on the officers and the sergeant.
Assessment Questions
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The Office of Internal Affairs completed the investigation on February 2, 2012. The hiring authority did not consult with theOIG and
the department attorney regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative findings until March 26, 2012, and March
29, 2012, 53 and 56 days after receipt of the cases.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The Office of Internal Affairs completed the investigation on February 2, 2012. The hiring authority did not consult with theOIG and
the department attorney regarding the disciplinary determinations until March 26, 2012, and March 29, 2012, 53 and 56 days after
receipt of the cases.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner. In addition, the department failed to
timely serve the disciplinary actions on the officers and the sergeant. The decisions to take disciplinary action were made on March 26,
2012, and March 29, 2012; however, the disciplinary actions were not served on the officers and sergeant until May 31, 2012, 63 days
after the last decision to take disciplinary action.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. Sustained Suspension No Change
2011-06-14 11-2243-IR Behavior 2. Sustained
2. Discourteous Treatment
Incident Summary
On a June 14, 2011, a chief medical officer allegedly vandalized an employee's car and left a threatening note on the car windshield.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations and determined that a 10 percent salary reduction for three months was the appropriate
penalty. However, prior to taking the disciplinary action, the chief medical officer engaged in additional misconduct and thehiring authority
combined the two cases. The hiring authority ultimately imposed a 10 working-day suspension in the combined cases. The OIG concurred
with the hiring authority's determinations. The chief medical officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 87
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority waited over two months before referring the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. After the case wasreturned to the
hiring authority, the hiring authority delayed over seven months before conducting the findings and penalty conference. Thereafter, the
department attorney delayed nearly eight months before preparing the disciplinary action and the draft disciplinary action provided to the
OIG cited an incorrect legal authority for taking disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to the OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The date of discovery was June 14, 2011; however, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs until
August 16, 2011, 64 days after the date of discovery.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make any entry into CMS confirming the relevant dates.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on September 9, 2011; however, the consultation with the OIG and department attorney
regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative findings did not occur until April 20, 2012, over seven months after
receipt of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on September 9, 2011; however, the consultation with the OIG and department attorney
regarding disciplinary determinations did not occur until April 20, 2012, over seven months after receipt of the case.
Did the department attorney provide to the HA and OIG written confirmation of penalty discussions?
The department attorney did not provide the OIG or hiring authority written confirmation of penalty discussions.
Was the draft disciplinary action provided to the OIG for review appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The draft disciplinary action cited the incorrect government code to take disciplinary action.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Suspension No Change
2011-07-24 12-0731-IR
Incident Summary
On July 24, 2011, an officer and a certified nurse assistant found an inmate unresponsive with no pulse and signs of rigor mortis in his cell in
the outpatient medical unit. The inmate had a history of seizures and his jaw was wired shut to repair a fracture. It was alleged that in July
2011, the chief medical and nurse executives neglected their duties by failing to ensure adequate procedures were in place requiring
nursing staff to conduct welfare checks on inmates every 30 minutes in the outpatient medical unit. It was also alleged that in July 2011, a
registered nurse neglected her duties by failing to ensure that the nursing care plan for the inmate properly addressed the prevention of
choking. Also on July 24, 2011, an officer allegedly neglected her duties by failing to conduct proper welfare checks by ensuring that the
inmate was breathing during each check.
Disposition
The hiring authorities determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the registered nurse and the officer. The
hiring authority did not sustain the allegations against the chief nurse executive and the chief medical executive. The OIG concurred with
the determinations. The hiring authorities imposed a one-working day suspension for the registered nurse and the officer. The registered
nurse did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board, but the officer filed an appeal. Prior to a State Personnel Board hearing, the
hiring authority entered into a settlement agreement with the officer wherein the hiring authority agreed to withdraw the disciplinary
action from the officer's official personnel file in one year and the officer agreed to withdraw her appeal.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 88
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authorities failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The hiring authorityfailed to conduct
the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner for the registered nurse. The other hiring authority failed to consultwith the
department attorney and the OIG before entering into a settlement agreement with the officer.
Assessment Questions
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
There were two hiring authorities in this case. The warden timely consulted with the OIG and the department attorney regarding the
sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative findings. However, the chief executive officer did not timely consult with the OIG
and the department attorney. The Office of Internal Affairs completed the investigation and provided the investigative reportto the
chief executive officer on August 3, 2012. The chief executive officer did not consult with the OIG and the department attorney
regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative findings until October 26, 2012, more than two months after receipt
of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
There were two hiring authorities in this case. The warden timely consulted with the OIG and the department attorney regarding
disciplinary determinations. However, the chief executive officer did not timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney. The
Office of Internal Affairs completed the investigation and provided the investigative report to the chief executive officer on August 3,
2012. The chief executive officer did not consult with the OIG and the department attorney regarding the disciplinary determinations
until October 26, 2012, more than two months after receipt of the case.
If the case settled, did the department attorney or disciplinary officer properly complete the CDC Form 3021?
The disciplinary officer did not complete the CDC Form 3021.
Did the HA consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable) before modifying the penalty or agreeing to a settlement?
The hiring authority entered into a settlement agreement with the officer without consulting the department attorney or the OIG.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The disciplinary officer negotiated a settlement agreement with the officer without consulting the department attorney or theOIG.
Did the HA cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG throughout the disciplinary phase, until all
proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The hiring authority failed to consult with the department attorney and the OIG prior to entering into a settlement agreementwith the
officer.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The chief executive officer failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference for the registered nurse in a timely manner.
OIG Recommendation
The OIG recommended to the hiring authority that the institution not house inmate patients with wired jaws in any facility that does not
have a functioning call system.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 89
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Unreasonable Use of 1. Sustained Demotion No Change
2011-09-11 11-3178-IR Force 2. Sustained
2. Neglect of Duty 3. Not Sustained
3. Dishonesty
Incident Summary
On September 11, 2011, a sergeant allegedly violated departmental policy when he failed to notify a supervisor that an inmatewould not
return his food tray. It was further alleged that the sergeant violated departmental policy when he ordered a control booth officer to open
the cell door even though the inmates were not restrained. The control booth officer allegedly opened the cell door in violation of
departmental policy. It was further alleged that an officer and the sergeant used unreasonable force when they consecutively sprayed one
of the inmates with pepper spray. The sergeant allegedly failed to prevent the unreasonable use of force of the first officer, and the first
officer allegedly failed to prevent the unreasonable use of force by the sergeant. Two other officers allegedly failed to prevent the
unreasonable force used by the first officer and the sergeant. A licensed vocational nurse was allegedly dishonest when she falsified the
holding cell logs subsequent to the use of force.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations of neglect of duty and unreasonable use of force against the sergeant and served him with a
notice of demotion. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of failure to intervene to stop
the unreasonable use of force of another. The OIG concurred with these determinations. The hiring authority determined there was
insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the other officers and the licensed vocational nurse. The OIG concurred with this
determination for the responding officers and the nurse, but did not concur regarding the control booth officer. The sergeantfiled an appeal
with the State Personnel Board. Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the sergeant accepted the demotion and agreed not to seek
employment with the department in the future if his medical retirement was granted. The department agreed to remove two allegations
unrelated to the conduct herein from the disciplinary action. The OIG concurred with the settlement agreement because the penalty was
not reduced.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to sufficiently comply with policies and procedures. The hiring authority failed to appropriately determine the
investigative findings for each allegation. The department attorney failed to provide appropriate legal consultation to the hiring authority.
The department attorney also failed to adequately cooperate and consult with the OIG, and failed to complete the appropriate
departmental form.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 90
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the VA provide appropriate legal consultation to the HA regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and investigative findings?
The department attorney failed to provide appropriate legal consultation regarding one allegation for one of the officers when she
recommended that the allegation not be sustained despite the officer admitting to knowingly violating departmental policy on orders
from a sergeant.
Did the HA, who participated in the findings conference, appropriately determine the investigative findings for each allegation?
The hiring authority did not appropriately determine the investigative findings for each allegation when he failed to sustain an
allegation that was proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer provide the OIG with a copy of the draft disciplinary action and consult with the
OIG?
The department attorney did not provide the OIG with a copy of the draft disciplinary action and consult with the OIG.
Was the OIG provided with a draft of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement prior to it being filed?
The OIG was not provided with a draft of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement prior to it being filed.
If the case settled, did the department attorney or disciplinary officer properly complete the CDC Form 3021?
The department attorney did not complete a CDC Form 3021.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The department attorney failed to consult with the OIG or provide drafts of the disciplinary action and pre-hearing settlement
conference statement.
OIG Recommendation
The OIG and department attorney recommended to the hiring authority a revision of the holding cell logs and applicable policyto make it
clear which medical staff are to sign the logs and under what circumstances.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal Resignation in
2011-10-10 12-0071-IR 2. Contraband 2. Sustained Lieu of
Termination
3. Over-Familiarity 3. Sustained
Incident Summary
Between October 10, 2011, and November 10, 2011, it was alleged a dental assistant engaged in an overly familiar relationshipand
smuggled a mobile phone to an inmate. It was also alleged that on December 14, 2011, the dental assistant was dishonest during her
interview with the Office of Internal Affairs.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a penalty of dismissal. The OIG
concurred. However, pursuant to a settlement agreement, the dental assistant resigned in lieu of dismissal and agreed never to seek
employment with the department in the future. The OIG concurred because the ultimate goal of terminating the dental assistant's
employment was achieved and the settlement agreement will remain in the dental assistant's official personnel file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 91
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Suspension No Change
2011-10-23 12-1087-IR
Incident Summary
On October 23, 2011, a psychologist allegedly refused to see an inmate and conduct an evaluation after a nurse informed the psychologist
that the inmate reported he had demons inside of him and that the devil was making him say things he did not want to say. Theinmate
subsequently committed suicide.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 28 working-day suspension. The OIG
concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The psychologist did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary Letter of
2011-10-23 12-2032-IR 2. Dishonesty 2. Not Sustained Reduction Reprimand
3. Failure to Report 3. Not Sustained
4. Discourteous Treatment 4. Not Sustained
5. Battery on Inmate 5. Not Sustained
Incident Summary
On October 23, 2011, an officer allegedly battered an inmate by burning his hand with a lighter and neglected his duties by failing to secure
medical treatment for the inmate. During the investigatory interview, the officer was allegedly dishonest regarding the incident. A second
officer allegedly witnessed the battery and neglected his duties by failing to report the incident and secure medical treatment for the
inmate. It was further alleged that on November 27, 2011, a third officer was discourteous to the inmate when she sang a songmocking his
injury.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of neglect of duty against the first officer and
imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The allegations of battery and dishonesty were not sustained. The allegations against
the second and third officers were not sustained. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The first officer filed an
appeal with the State Personnel Board. The department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer wherein the penalty was
reduced to a letter of reprimand and the officer waived the five months of salary reduction he had already received. The settlement did not
reflect the gravity of the misconduct and the risk of harm to the public service if such misconduct were to recur. Further, the employee had
been served with a prior disciplinary action. However, OIG concurred with the settlement agreement due to evidentiary issues in the case.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department attorney failed to confirm the relevant dates in the department's case management system, provide written confirmation
of penalty discussions, list all witnesses on the pre-hearing settlement conference statement, and the settlement agreement did not comply
with departmental policy.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 92
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the department attorney provide to the HA and OIG written confirmation of penalty discussions?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation of penalty discussions to the hiring authority and the OIG.
Did the department file a written pre-hearing settlement conference statement with the SPB containing all required information
including, but not limited to, a summary of stipulated facts, time estimate, number of witness with a brief statement of expected
testimony, list of documentary evidence, and statement of significant evidentiary issues?
The department attorney filed a pre-hearing settlement conference statement with the State Personnel Board, but it did not contain all
of the required information as it failed to list the burned inmate as a witness.
Was the OIG provided with a draft of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement prior to it being filed?
The OIG was not provided with a draft of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement prior to it being filed with the State
Personnel Board.
Did the department’s advocate adequately and appropriately address legal issues prior to and during the SPB hearing?
The department attorney did not adequately and appropriately address legal issues prior to the State Personnel Board hearing as the
pre-hearing settlement conference statement did not list all necessary witnesses.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The department attorney failed to provide the OIG with a draft of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Unreasonable Use of 1. Sustained Salary Modified
2011-11-06 11-3121-IR Force 2. Not Sustained Reduction Salary
2. Neglect of Duty 3. Not Sustained Reduction
3. Discourteous Treatment
Incident Summary
On November 6, 2011, a visiting control booth officer allegedly switched positions with a visiting floor officer without authorization. It was
further alleged that during inmate visitation, the switching officer attempted to terminate an inmate visit and, after the inmate refused to
get out of his chair, the officer used unreasonable force by using pepper spray on the inmate while he remained passively seated. The
inmate stood up and walked away from the officer; however, the officer allegedly sprayed the inmate two additional times before the
inmate stopped and submitted to handcuffing. There were 41 people in the visiting room exposed to the pepper spray.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegation of unreasonable use of force against the officer and imposed a 5 percent salaryreduction for
12 months. The hiring authority did not sustain the remaining allegations. The OIG concurred. The officer filed an appeal with the State
Personnel Board. At a pre-hearing settlement conference, the hiring authority reduced the penalty against the officer to 5 percent salary
reduction for six months and agreed that the disciplinary action could be removed from the officer's official personnel file after one year.
The OIG did not concur with the settlement; however, the terms of the settlement did not merit a higher level of review because the officer
acknowledged his misconduct and accepted disciplinary sanctions.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 93
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Suspension Modified
2011-11-17 12-0460-IR Suspension
Incident Summary
On November 17, 2011, during meal deliveries an officer noticed the window of the inmate’s cell covered with a sheet and toldthe inmate
to remove the sheet, allegedly continuing delivering meals without taking action to have the sheet removed. The officer laterreturned to
the cell and found that the sheet was not removed. The officer again ordered the inmate to remove the sheet and continued meal delivery.
The officer eventually returned to the cell, took action to remove the sheet, and discovered the inmate hanging and unresponsive. Custody
and medical staff applied life-saving measures but the inmate was later declared dead. Another officer allegedly performed improper
security and inmate welfare checks earlier that day.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegation of neglect of duty against the officer who performed improper security and inmate welfare
checks and imposed a 29 working-day suspension. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation
against the officer who discovered the cell door covered with a sheet and the deceased inmate. The OIG concurred with the hiring
authority's determinations. The disciplined officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. At the pre-hearing settlement conference,
the department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer wherein the penalty was reduced to a 15 working-day suspension and
the removal of the disciplinary action from his personnel file after two years because the officer acknowledged his actions violated policy.
The OIG concurred because the officer acknowledged his misconduct.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2011-11-24 12-0573-IR Reduction
Incident Summary
On November 24, 2011, a sergeant allegedly neglected his duty by failing to follow departmental procedures when he was notified that an
inmate had covered his window.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for seven
months. The OIG concurred. The sergeant did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority failed to timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and failed to timely conduct the findings and penalty
conference. In addition, the disciplinary officer failed to analyze and document the deadline for taking disciplinary action,and failed to
provide the OIG with a copy of the draft disciplinary action or consult with the OIG prior to serving the disciplinary actionon the sergeant.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 94
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to the OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The date of discovery was November 24, 2011; however, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of InternalAffairs
until February 6, 2012, 74 calendar days after the date of discovery.
Did the disciplinary officer make an entry into CMS prior to the findings conference accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The disciplinary officer did not make any entry into CMS confirming the date of the reported incident, the date of discovery,the
deadline for taking disciplinary action, or any exceptions to the deadline.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on March 13, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG regarding the sufficiency of
the investigation and the investigative findings did not occur until October 19, 2012, more than seven months after receipt of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on March 13, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG regarding the disciplinary
determinations did not occur until October 19, 2012, more than seven months after receipt of the case.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer provide the OIG with a copy of the draft disciplinary action and consult with the
OIG?
The disciplinary officer did not provide the OIG with a copy of the draft disciplinary action and consult with the OIG.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The disciplinary officer failed to provide the OIG with a draft disciplinary action and consult with the OIG prior to serviceon the
sergeant.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2011-12-04 12-0124-IR Behavior 2. Not Sustained Reduction
2. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On December 4, 2011, an off-duty officer was arrested for domestic violence. The officer allegedly engaged in a verbal dispute with his
estranged wife and then punched her in the mouth causing a laceration to her lip. It was further alleged that the officer failed to report his
arrest to the hiring authority.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the domestic violence allegation and imposed a 10 percent salary
reduction for 24 months. The failure to report the arrest allegation was not sustained. The OIG concurred. The officer filed an appeal with
the State Personnel Board, which dismissed the officer's appeal when he failed to appear for his pre-hearing settlement conference.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures. The hiring authority failed to timely conduct the findings and penalty
conference, and failed to timely serve the disciplinary action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 95
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on June 6, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG and department attorney
regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative findings did not occur until July 6, 2012, 31 calendar days after
receipt of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on June 6, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG and department attorney
regarding disciplinary determinations did not occur until July 6, 2012, 31 calendar days after receipt of the case.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner. In addition, the department failed to timely
serve the disciplinary action. The decision to take disciplinary action was made on July 6, 2012; however, the officer was not served the
action until October 9, 2012, over three months later.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal Resignation in
2011-12-11 12-0513-IR 2. Over-Familiarity 2. Sustained Lieu of
Termination
3. Neglect of Duty 3. Sustained
4. Threat/Intimidation 4. Not Sustained
Incident Summary
On December 11, 2011, it was alleged an officer neglected his duties by failing to promptly apply handcuffs to an inmate after being
instructed by a supervisor to do so, by failing to search an inmate after being told the inmate possibly possessed a weapon, and by removing
the handcuffs after being told the inmate possibly possessed a weapon. It was further alleged the officer used intimidating or threatening
remarks toward an inmate by telling the inmate to assault another inmate. It was also alleged the officer was overly familiarwith an inmate
by whispering to the inmate in Spanish when the inmate was fluent in English. Additionally, it was alleged that the officer was dishonest
during his investigative interview on October 22, 2012.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer neglected his duties, was overly familiar with an inmate, andwas dishonest,
and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustainthe allegation
that the officer used intimidating or threatening remarks toward an inmate. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Prior to State Personnel Board proceedings, the department entered into a
settlement agreement with the officer whereby he resigned in lieu of dismissal and agreed never to seek employment with the department.
The OIG concurred as the desired goal of separating the officer was achieved.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 96
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary Modified
2011-12-13 12-0676-IR 2. Other Failure of Good 2. Sustained Reduction Salary
Behavior 3. Sustained Reduction
3. Discourteous Treatment
Incident Summary
On December 13, 2011, an officer and a counselor allegedly questioned two inmates on separate occasions about their past conduct
involving masturbation, eating feces, and homosexuality. The officer and counselor reportedly called the inmates separately into a room
and posed as investigators when they questioned them about their past. One of the inmates reported feeling anxious and humiliated. A
couple of weeks later, the same inmate made suicidal statements and was transferred to an acute medical unit.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for nine
months for the officer and counselor. The OIG concurred. At their Skellyhearings the officer and counselor each presented further
mitigating factors of acknowledgement of wrongdoing, remorse, and no past discipline. Based on these factors the department entered into
settlement agreements with each for a 5 percent salary reduction for three months and each waived their rights to appeal to the State
Personnel Board. The OIG concurred based on the mitigating factors.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2011-12-14 12-0822-IR Reduction
Incident Summary
On December 14, 2011, a lieutenant allegedly neglected his duties when he failed to stop inmate movement during count which resulted in
an inaccurate count. It was further alleged that two sergeants and an officer neglected their duties by exchanging a usernameand password
to correct the inmate count. Finally, it was alleged the lieutenant neglected his duties by failing to stop the sergeants andofficer from
exchanging the password.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegation of neglect of duty against the lieutenant for failure to stop inmate movement during count and
imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the
allegation of neglect of duty for failing to prevent the exchange of the password. The OIG concurred with these determinations. The
lieutenant did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the two sergeants
and the officer, and imposed letters of reprimand. The OIG concurred. However, following Skellyhearings for each, the hiring authority
agreed to withdraw the letters of reprimand and instead issued letters of instruction. The OIG concurred with the modification because the
sergeants and the officer acknowledged their actions violated policy and expressed remorse for their conduct.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 97
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Failure to Report 1. Sustained Salary Modified
2011-12-29 12-1085-IR 2. Unreasonable Use of 2. Sustained Reduction Salary
Force 3. Not Sustained Reduction
3. Dishonesty
Incident Summary
On December 29, 2011, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force when he fired a less-lethal weapon at a ward who was lying on the
ground, face down, with his feet spread apart and his hands behind his back, not posing an immediate threat. In addition, theofficer was
allegedly dishonest by failing to accurately report that use of force. A youth counselor and a sergeant allegedly failed to report that they
witnessed the use of force.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegation of unreasonable use of force against the officer, but not the dishonesty allegation, and
imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The OIG concurred. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Due to
the officer accepting responsibility and expressing remorse, the department entered into a settlement agreement reducing the penalty to a
10 percent salary reduction for 12 months and removing the disciplinary action from his official personnel file upon request no sooner than
18 months. In exchange, the officer agreed to withdraw the appeal. The OIG concurred with the settlement agreement due to the
additional mitigating factors. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the youth counselor and issued a letter of instruction. The
OIG concurred. The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the sergeant and the OIG concurred.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary Modified
2012-01-04 12-1471-IR Reduction Salary
Reduction
Incident Summary
On January 4, 2012, a control booth officer allegedly neglected his duties when he allowed an unrestrained inmate out of his assigned cell to
deliver packages while at the same time he allowed another unrestrained inmate out of his cell to retrieve a breakfast tray. The officer also
allegedly failed to maintain visual contact of both inmates in violation of department policy. It was further alleged that two floor officers
neglected their duties by allowing the inmates out of their cells in violation of departmental policy.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the control booth officer and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for12 months. The
hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the two floor officers. The OIG concurred with
the hiring authority's decisions. After a Skellyhearing, the hiring authority and the control booth officer entered into a settlement
agreement wherein the hiring authority agreed to reduce the penalty to a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. The officer agreed
not to appeal. The OIG found the agreement to be reasonable because the officer was remorseful and had worked for the department for
23 years with no prior disciplinary actions.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority failed to timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and failed to timely consult with the OIG and
department attorney regarding the findings and penalty conference. OIA Central Intake failed to make an appropriate initial determination.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 98
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to the OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on January 4, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal
Affairs until May 9, 2012, 125 calendar days after the date of discovery.
Did OIA Central Intake make an appropriate initial determination regarding the case?
OIA Central Intake approved the case for disciplinary action without an investigation for all three officers. The determination was
appropriate in the case of the control booth officer. However, OIA Central Intake should have opened an investigation regarding the
allegations against the other two officers.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make any entry in CMS confirming the relevant dates.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The Office of Internal Affairs referred the matter to the hiring authority on May 30, 2012. The hiring authority did not consult with the
OIG and department attorney regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative findings until December 13, 2012,
more than six months after receipt of the case.
If the HA determined additional investigation was necessary, was additional investigation requested?
The hiring authority determined that additional investigation was necessary as there was insufficient information to address the
allegations against two officers. However, the hiring authority did not request additional investigation because there was insufficient
time to complete an investigation before the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Did the VA provide appropriate legal consultation to the HA regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and investigative findings?
The department attorney was assigned to the case on September 25, 2012, but failed to provide appropriate legal consultation
regarding the sufficiency of the investigation until December 13, 2012. On that date, there was not sufficient time to complete an
investigation prior to the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The Office of Internal Affairs referred the matter to the hiring authority on May 30, 2012. The hiring authority did not consult with the
OIG and department attorney regarding the disciplinary determinations until December 13, 2012, more than six months after receipt
of the case.
Did the department attorney provide to the HA and OIG written confirmation of penalty discussions?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation of the penalty discussions to the hiring authority and the OIG.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority failed to timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and failed to timely conduct the findings and
penalty conference.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-02-04 12-0981-IR Imposed
Incident Summary
On February 4, 2012, a tower officer assigned to supervise inmates on an exercise yard allegedly failed to respond and intervene while an
inmate attacked another inmate with an inmate-manufactured weapon. An officer assigned to observe a different exercise yard saw the
attack and sounded an alarm. Responding officers fired less-lethal rounds to stop the attack. The inmate who was attacked sustained two
puncture wounds to his upper torso and was sent to an outside hospital for medical treatment.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 99
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority’s
determination
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Discourteous Treatment 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-02-23 12-0768-IR Reduction
Incident Summary
It was alleged that on February 23, 2012, an officer physically assaulted a member of the public during a union meeting.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for three
months. The OIG concurred with the decision. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The department failed to timely serve the
disciplinary action. The department attorney failed to make an entry into CMS confirming relevant dates. In addition, the department
attorney delayed drafting the disciplinary action for five months, causing an unnecessary delay in the resolution of the case. Finally, the
department attorney failed to draft a disciplinary action that accurately depicted the facts of the misconduct. This deficiency was raised to
the department's assistant chief counsel, who refused to make any corrections to the disciplinary action. Ultimately, the officer did not file
an appeal of the disciplinary action to the State Personnel Board. However, had an appeal been filed, the disciplinary actionlikely would
have been overturned as written.
Assessment Questions
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make an entry in CMS confirming the date of the reported incident, the date of discovery, or the
deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Was the draft disciplinary action provided to the OIG for review appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The disciplinary action failed to fully and accurately describe the facts of the officer's misconduct.
Was the disciplinary action served on the employee(s) appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The disciplinary action failed to fully and accurately describe the facts of the officer's misconduct.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to timely serve the disciplinary action. The decision to take disciplinary action was made on October 23, 2012;
however, the officer was not served the action until February 13, 2013, almost four months later.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Suspension No Penalty
2012-04-09 13-0409-IR Imposed
Incident Summary
On April 9, 2012, two parole agents allegedly engaged in a vehicle pursuit in violation of departmental policy. In addition, one of the parole
agents allegedly improperly handled evidence at the crime scene.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 100
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a two-working day suspension against
both parole agents. The OIG concurred. After the Skellyhearings, it was discovered that one of the parole agents did not actually engage in
a pursuit, but followed at a safe distance and obeyed all traffic rules. In addition, he did not utilize his lights or siren.As such, the hiring
authority elected to withdraw the disciplinary action against that parole agent. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority’s determination.
The hiring authority, however, sustained the suspension against the other parole agent as he did engage in a pursuit and utilized his lights
and siren. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Prior to the hearing, and without consultation with the OIG, the
hiring authority and department attorney unilaterally withdrew the disciplinary action. The OIG did not concur with this decision as no
factors changed to indicate that the parole agent had not engaged in misconduct.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and department attorney failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The
department attorney failed to make entries regarding relevant dates in CMS and failed to provide written confirmation of penalty
discussions. Both the hiring authority and the department attorney failed to consult with the OIG prior to withdrawing one ofthe
disciplinary actions.
Assessment Questions
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney made no entries in CMS confirming the date of incident, the date of discovery nor the deadline for taking
disciplinary action.
Did the department attorney provide to the HA and OIG written confirmation of penalty discussions?
The OIG did not receive any written confirmation regarding penalty discussions from the department attorney.
Did the HA consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable) before modifying the penalty or agreeing to a settlement?
The department attorney, in consultation with the hiring authority, chose to withdraw the disciplinary action of the second parole
agent without consultation with the OIG.
If the penalty was modified by department action or a settlement agreement, did OIG concur with the modification?
The OIG did not concur with the withdrawal of the disciplinary action as there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of
misconduct.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The department attorney, in consultation with the hiring authority, chose to withdraw the disciplinary action of the second parole
agent without consultation with the OIG.
Did the HA cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG throughout the disciplinary phase, until all
proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The department attorney, in consultation with the hiring authority, chose to withdraw the disciplinary action of the second parole
agent without consultation with the OIG.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Unreasonable Use of 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-04-16 12-1322-IR Force Imposed
Incident Summary
On April 16, 2012, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force when he sprayed an inmate with pepper spray. The officer and his partner
were conducting a random cell search and ordered the inmate and his cellmate to submit to restraints. Both inmates refused tocomply and
began to dispose of unknown items in the cell toilet. The officer then allegedly used his pepper spray through the food port,striking one
inmate in the upper torso.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. The OIG concurred.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 101
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner. The disciplinary officer failed to assess and
document the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Did the disciplinary officer make an entry into CMS prior to the findings conference accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The disciplinary officer did not make any entry into CMS confirming the relevant dates.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on June 1, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG regarding the sufficiency of the
investigation and the investigative findings did not occur until February 22, 2013, nearly nine months after receipt of the case.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-04-18 12-1856-IR Reduction
Incident Summary
It was alleged that on April 18, 2012, a sergeant allegedly falsified a signature on an inmate’s rules violation report indicating that the
inmate had received his final copy of the report.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 13
months. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board, which she subsequently withdrew.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Training No Change
2012-05-01 13-0068-IR 2. Attendance 2. Sustained
Incident Summary
Between May 2012 and September 2012, an officer was allegedly excessively absent by missing 28 days. On September 6, 2012, the officer
neglected his duties when he violated the shift exchange policy by paying cash instead of working the exchanged shifts. It was also alleged
that five other officers neglected their duties when they violated the shift exchange policy by receiving cash for shifts they worked for the
officer.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the first officer and identified corrective training as the appropriate action. However,
the officer retired prior to the findings and penalty conference. Therefore, training was not provided. The hiring authority determined there
was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the other officers. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner, and the department attorney failed to
document assessing the relevant deadlines and failed to provide written confirmation of the penalty discussions.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 102
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make an entry into CMS within 21 days of assignment confirming the date of the incident, the date of
discovery, or the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The Office of Internal Affairs referred the matter to the hiring authority on November 14, 2012. The hiring authority did notconsult
with the OIG and department attorney regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative findings until April 16, 2013,
nearly five months after receipt of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The Office of Internal Affairs referred the matter to the hiring authority on November 14, 2012. The hiring authority did notconsult
with the OIG and department attorney regarding the disciplinary determinations until April 16, 2013, nearly five months afterreceipt
of the case.
Did the department attorney provide to the HA and OIG written confirmation of penalty discussions?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation of penalty discussions.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Insubordination 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-05-31 12-1995-IR 2. Other Failure of Good 2. Sustained
Behavior 3. Sustained
3. Discourteous Treatment
Incident Summary
Between May 31, 2012, and July 30, 2012, an officer on administrative leave and under specific orders not to enter departmentpremises or
communicate with employees was allegedly insubordinate, displayed disorderly conduct in public, and was discourteous toward the public
and other employees. The officer allegedly called the facility numerous times disrupting operations, drove onto the premises,and drove in
an unsafe manner requiring the response of outside law enforcement. The officer also allegedly threw two bags of fast food atanother
officer, striking him in the chest.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and determined dismissal was the appropriate
penalty. The OIG concurred. However, the officer was deemed unfit for duty and terminated before disciplinary action could beimposed.
After the officer appealed the fitness for duty termination, the officer and the department entered into a settlement agreement in which
the officer withdrew the appeal and retired.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 103
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal Suspension
2012-07-04 12-2945-IR 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Sustained
Incident Summary
On July 4, 2012, an officer was allegedly discourteous to an inmate by telling him, in the presence of other inmates, “Don’t talk to me, you
child molester.” The officer was also allegedly dishonest to a lieutenant when she denied making the statement.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The OIG concurred. At her Skellyhearing, the
officer accepted responsibility for her actions, demonstrated remorse, gained insight into her behavior, and requested redemption. Due to
these mitigating factors, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer wherein the dismissal was reduced to a 60
working-day suspension. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority’s determinations based on the factors learned at the Skelly hearing.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, determine the request for investigation, and consult with
the OIG and department attorney regarding the sufficiency of the investigation, investigative findings, and disciplinary determinations. Also,
despite the OIG's recommendation that an additional officer be added, the hiring authority initially disagreed and failed to properly
determine whether additional investigation was necessary to address this issue. The department attorney was not initially prepared to
address the need to expand the investigation, resulting in a 17-day delay in rendering a decision on the case. The department attorney also
failed to provide written confirmation of the penalty discussion to the hiring authority and the OIG.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 104
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to the OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on July 6, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal
Affairs until November 7, 2012, 124 days after the date of discovery.
Did OIA Central Intake make a determination regarding the case within 30 calendar days?
OIA Central Intake received the request for investigation on November 15, 2012, but did not take action until December 17, 2012, 32
days after receipt of the request.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The Office of Internal Affairs returned the matter to the hiring authority on December 28, 2012. The hiring authority did notconsult
with the OIG and department attorney regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative findings until February 8,
2013, 42 calendar days after receipt of the case.
Did the HA properly determine whether additional investigation was necessary?
The OIG recommended that the hiring authority add a second officer because the officer allegedly witnessed the misconduct andfailed
to report it to his superiors. Despite the OIG's recommendation, the hiring authority initially failed to add the second officer and
properly determine if additional investigation was necessary to address this issue. After further urging by the OIG, the hiring authority
eventually agreed to refer the second officer to the Office of Internal Affairs for possible misconduct.
Did the VA provide appropriate legal consultation to the HA regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and investigative findings?
At the initial consultation, the department attorney was not prepared to provide appropriate legal consultation regarding whether
additional investigation was necessary to address the involvement of another officer who allegedly witnessed the misconduct but
failed to report it to his superiors. Seventeen days later, the meeting was reconvened and the department attorney was then able to
address the sufficiency of the investigation and make recommendations.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The Office of Internal Affairs returned the matter to the hiring authority on December 28, 2012. The hiring authority did notconsult
with the OIG and department attorney regarding the disciplinary determinations until February 25, 2013, 59 calendar days after
receipt of the case.
Did the department attorney provide to the HA and OIG written confirmation of penalty discussions?
The department attorney failed to provide the hiring authority and the OIG written confirmation of penalty discussions.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs, determine the request for investigation, and consult
with the OIG and department attorney regarding the sufficiency of the investigation, investigative findings, and penalty
determinations.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary Training
2012-07-24 12-2855-IR Reduction
Incident Summary
On July 24, 2012, two officers and a sergeant allegedly neglected their duties by failing to immediately initiate emergency medical response
procedures after finding an unresponsive inmate in his cell. The inmate was discovered with a cloth noose tied around his neck and was
pronounced dead at the scene.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 105
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12
months against the sergeant and a 5 percent salary reduction for two months against each officer. The OIG concurred. However,following
the Skellyhearings, the hiring authority rescinded the actions against the sergeant and two officers, and ordered training. The OIG
concurred because new information was presented at the hearings that indicated the sergeant and officers' actions were reasonable under
the circumstances including the inmate's recent history of violence and non-compliance with staff orders. Further, the officers were unable
to see the noose around the inmate's neck, did not have reason to believe the inmate was in medical distress, and had not received
consistent training in the emergency medical response system.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
OIG Recommendation
The OIG recommended that the hiring authority provide institution-wide training in the emergency medical response system.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Unreasonable Use of 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-07-29 13-0194-IR Force Imposed
Incident Summary
On July 29, 2012, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force when he pushed a ward to the ground to stop a fight when the ward was
refusing to comply with orders to stop and get down.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority’s
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Insubordination 1. Sustained Suspension No Change
2012-08-09 12-2723-IR 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Sustained
Incident Summary
On August 9, 2012, a chief medical officer allegedly refused to complete a mandatory advanced cardiac life support training class. It was
further alleged that he made inappropriate remarks during the training class by telling the instructor that if she saved him he would sue her
and take her money, take her first born child, and give her child to a rapist.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations but initially did not impose any penalty. Instead, the hiring authority decided to combine the
allegations with a disciplinary action already pending against the chief medical officer, but which had not yet been served. When the OIG
learned that the hiring authority did not impose any penalty the OIG accepted the case for monitoring and urged the hiring authority to
reconsider imposing a penalty. Ultimately, the hiring authority converted the initial penalty in the first case from a 10 percent salary
reduction for three months to a six working-day suspension, and imposed a four working-day suspension in this case, resulting in a 10
working-day suspension. The chief medical officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The OIG did not concur with the
hiring authority's initial determination, but after the hiring authority reconsidered the matter and imposed a penalty, the OIG concurred
with the hiring authority's final determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner, and identify the appropriate penalty. Further,
the draft disciplinary action the department attorney prepared cited incorrect legal authority for taking disciplinary action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 106
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on September 19, 2012; however, the hiring authority did not consult with the
department attorney regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and investigative findings until November 15, 2012, 58 calendar
days after receipt of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on September 19, 2012; however, the hiring authority did not consult with the
department attorney regarding the disciplinary determinations until November 15, 2012, 58 calendar days after receipt of the case.
Did the HA, who participated in the disciplinary conference, select the appropriate penalty based on the sustained allegations?
The hiring authority sustained all of the allegations, but initially did not impose any penalty.
Was the draft disciplinary action provided to the OIG for review appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The draft disciplinary action cited the incorrect government code to take disciplinary action.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-08-13 12-2775-IR Reduction
Incident Summary
On August 13, 2012, an officer allegedly failed to properly process and report the discovery of an inmate-manufactured weapon found in an
inmate’s cell. The inmate later attempted suicide with another weapon.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The OIG concurred. The officer filed
an appeal with the State Personnel Board. At the pre-hearing settlement conference the officer withdrew his appeal and agreed to accept
the salary reduction and that he would not be permitted to bid for an assignment in the building where the incident occurred until 12
months after the effective date of the disciplinary action. In return, the department agreed to remove the disciplinary action from the
officer's personnel file in 24 months and allow the officer to bid for assignments in other buildings nine months after the effective date of
the disciplinary action. The OIG concurred with the terms of the settlement agreement because the penalty was not reduced andthe other
provisions were sufficient to protect the safety and security of the institution.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. Sustained Salary Modified
2012-09-09 12-2847-IR Behavior Reduction Salary
Reduction
Incident Summary
On September 9, 2012, an off-duty officer was allegedly involved in a verbal dispute and struck a citizen in the eye causing minor injury.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 107
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegation and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for six months. The OIG concurred. However,
following a Skellyhearing, the hiring authority agreed to reduce the penalty to a 5 percent salary reduction for six months and the officer
agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The OIG concurred because during the Skellyhearing, the officer presented
new mitigating information, accepted responsibility for his actions, and expressed remorse.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority failed to timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and failed to timely conduct the investigative findings
and penalty conference. Additionally, the department attorney failed to assess and document the deadline to take disciplinaryaction and
failed to provide the hiring authority written confirmation of the penalty discussions.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to the OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on September 10, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of
Internal Affairs until November 26, 2012, 78 days after the date of discovery.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make an entry into CMS within 21 days of assignment confirming the date of the incident, the date of
discovery, or the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on December 13, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG and department attorney
regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative findings did not occur until January 14, 2013, 32 days after receipt
of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on December 13, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG and department attorney
regarding the disciplinary determinations did not occur until January 14, 2013, 32 days after receipt of the case.
Did the department attorney provide to the HA and OIG written confirmation of penalty discussions?
The department attorney failed to provide the hiring authority and the OIG written confirmation of the penalty discussions.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to conduct the investigative findings and disciplinary determinations in a timely manner.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Letter of No Change
2012-09-21 12-2771-IR Instruction
Incident Summary
On September 21, 2012, an officer allegedly neglected his duties by failing to perform an unclothed body search on an assaultive inmate
and failing to call for an escort officer before removing the inmate from the cell.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and issued a letter of instruction. The OIG concurred.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs failed to make a timely determination on the case and the hiring authority failed to timely conduct the findings
and penalty conference.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 108
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did OIA Central Intake make a determination regarding the case within 30 calendar days?
OIA Central Intake received the request for investigation on October 24, 2012, but did not take action until December 5, 2012, 42 days
after the receipt of the request.
Did the disciplinary officer make an entry into CMS prior to the findings conference accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The disciplinary officer did not make any entry into CMS prior to the findings conference confirming the date of the reportedincident,
the date of discovery, or the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on December 5, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG regarding the sufficiency
of the investigation and the investigative findings did not occur until April 12, 2013, over four months after receipt of thecase.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on December 5, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG regarding the disciplinary
determinations did not occur until April 12, 2013, over four months after receipt of the case.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary Modified
2012-09-22 12-2846-IR Reduction Salary
Reduction
Incident Summary
On September 22, 2012, an officer allegedly failed to immediately sound his alarm for a medical emergency when he discovered an inmate
unresponsive and slumped forward head first on the floor in his cell during a security check. Instead, the officer left the scene and reported
his observations to a sergeant who instructed him to immediately sound the alarm. Medical staff responded and administered life-saving
measures, but the inmate was pronounced dead by the institution's physician a short time later.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six
months. The OIG concurred. The Officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority entered into a settlement
agreement in which the officer withdrew his appeal and the penalty was reduced to a salary reduction of 5 percent for three months. The
OIG concurred with the settlement because the officer accepted responsibility for his actions.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Threat and Intimidation 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-10-08 12-2703-IR
Incident Summary
On October 8, 2012, an officer allegedly made intimidating statements and threatened to kill staff members.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 109
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and determined dismissal was the appropriate
penalty. The OIG concurred. However, the officer resigned before disciplinary action could be imposed.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The hiring authority delayedmaking
investigative and disciplinary determinations. The officer remained on paid administrative leave until he ultimately retired before
disciplinary action could be taken.
Assessment Questions
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on November 28, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG and department
attorney regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative findings did not occur until January 22, 2013, 56 days after
receipt of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on November 28, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG and department
attorney regarding the disciplinary determinations did not occur until January 22, 2013, 56 days after receipt of the case.
Did the department attorney provide to the HA and OIG written confirmation of penalty discussions?
The department attorney failed to provide written confirmation of the penalty discussions to the hiring authority and the OIG.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Unreasonable Use of 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-11-01 12-2874-IR Force 2. Sustained Reduction
2. Neglect of Duty
Incident Summary
On November 1, 2012, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force when he punched a ward in the shoulder to retrieve a bag ofpeanuts
the ward took from the officer's work area. The officer also allegedly failed to utilize intervention and de-escalation strategies to effectively
minimize the situation.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a salary reduction of 5 percent for four months. The officer did not file an appeal
with the State Personnel Board.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-12-01 13-0481-IR 2. Dishonesty 2. Not Sustained Reduction
Incident Summary
On December 1, 2012, it was alleged an officer neglected his duties when he used paid time off to take the sergeant's examination when
the time off was not necessary. It was further alleged the officer was dishonest when he failed to report to his supervisor that he no longer
needed the time off and also failed to correct his time card.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 110
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of neglect of duty and imposed a 5 percent salary
reduction for six months. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of dishonesty. The OIG
concurred. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 111
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2009-05-31 11-2226-IR 2. Other Failure of Good 2. Sustained
Behavior 3. Sustained
3. Conviction of a Moral
Turpitude Crime
Incident Summary
Between May 31, 2009, and March 31, 2010, an officer allegedly caused his vehicle to be destroyed, dishonestly reported to local law
enforcement that his car had been stolen, and then allegedly filed a fraudulent insurance claim. On June 3, 2011, the officerpled guilty to a
felony violation of insurance fraud, which was later reduced by the court to a misdemeanor.
Disposition
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. The State Personnel Board sustained the penalty of dismissal.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the disciplinary
process. The hiring authority failed to timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and failed to timely conduct the findings and
penalty conference. The department attorney failed to timely enter the relevant deadlines into the case management system, failed to
provide written confirmation of penalty discussions to the hiring authority and to the OIG, and failed to provide the OIG with a draft pre-
hearing settlement conference statement before it was filed. The department attorney also failed to timely provide documentary evidence
to the officer or his attorney thereby resulting in that evidence being excluded from the State Personnel Board hearing.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 112
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to the OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on March 30, 2011, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal
Affairs until August 8, 2011, more than four months after the date of discovery.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make an entry within 21 days of assignment confirming the date of the incident, the date of
discovery, or the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on August 31, 2011; however, the hiring authority did not consult with the OIG and
department attorney regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and investigative findings until February 24, 2012, more than five
months later.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on August 31, 2011; however, the hiring authority did not consult with the OIG and
department attorney regarding the disciplinary determinations until February 24, 2012, more than five months later.
Did the department attorney provide to the HA and OIG written confirmation of penalty discussions?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation of penalty discussions to the hiring authority or the OIG.
Was the OIG provided with a draft of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement prior to it being filed?
The OIG was not provided with a draft of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement before it was filed.
Did the department’s advocate present the necessary available evidence regarding the allegations at the hearing?
The department attorney did not provide certified copies of the court documents regarding the officer's conviction to the officer or the
officer's attorney before the hearing. Therefore, those documents were not admitted into evidence at the hearing.
Did the department’s advocate appropriately have necessary evidence presented at the hearing moved into evidence?
The department attorney did not provide certified copies of the court documents regarding the officer's conviction to the officer or the
officer's attorney before the hearing. Therefore, those documents were not admitted into evidence at the hearing.
Did the SPB impose any sanction or penalty on the department for failure to comply with the SPB regulations, or deem any filing by
the department untimely?
The department attorney had not previously provided certified copies of the court documents regarding the officer's conviction to the
officer or the officer's attorney and, therefore, the State Personnel Board granted the officer's motion for sanctions pursuant to which
the department was not allowed to have the certified copies admitted as evidence at the hearing.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority failed to timely conduct the findings and penalty conference.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 113
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2010-07-26 10-3787-IR 2. Failure to Report 2. Sustained
3. Discourteous Treatment 3. Sustained
4. Neglect of Duty 4. Not Sustained
Incident Summary
On July 26, 2010, a parole agent allegedly made a threat to a parolee that was observed and not reported by another parole agent. That
same day the two parole agents allegedly observed unnecessary use of force against the parolee by outside law enforcement officers and
failed to report the incident. It was alleged that each parole agent was dishonest in their respective Office of Internal Affairs interviews
regarding the two incidents. It was further alleged that after being ordered not to discuss the matter by the Office of Internal Affairs, the
two parole agents discussed the incidents in violation of the order. It was also alleged that on July 28, 2010, a supervisor was told about the
use of force against the parolee by an outside law enforcement agency and failed to act. Two other parole agents were allegedto have
observed the same use of force on the parolee by outside law enforcement officers and failed to report the incident.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the parole agent who initially made the
threat for dishonesty, failure to report misconduct, and discourteous treatment. The hiring authority determined that a 60 working-day
suspension was appropriate as the parole agent was forthright during the investigation. The hiring authority also determined there was
sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the parole agent who observed the threat for dishonesty and failure toreport
misconduct, and dismissed that parole agent. No allegations were sustained as to the remaining two parole agents or the supervising parole
agent. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The two parole agents with sustained allegations filed appeals with the
State Personnel Board. However, prior to State Personnel Board proceedings, the department entered into a settlement agreement with
the parole agent who made the threat wherein the hiring authority agreed to reduce the penalty from a 60 working-day suspension to a 30
working-day suspension because of the parole agent's early voluntary admission of wrongdoing and extreme remorse. For these reasons,
the OIG concurred. Following a hearing, the State Personnel Board sustained the allegations against the parole agent who observed the
threat and upheld the dismissal.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2010-10-27 11-1713-IR Behavior 2. Sustained Reduction
2. Weapons
Incident Summary
On October 27, 2010, a private citizen allegedly contacted outside law enforcement because he had been in a business dispute with his
business partner and he was fearful because the business partner had a handgun in his possession. Upon responding, outside law
enforcement discovered the business partner had a semi-automatic firearm, three high capacity magazines, and 274 rounds of law
enforcement-only ammunition. It was alleged that the business partner was not allowed to have a firearm because of his criminal history. A
records check of the firearm showed that it was registered to a parole agent. Outside law enforcement contacted the parole agent and he
allegedly stated he sold the firearm to the business partner. It was alleged the parole agent had not gone through appropriate transfer
requirements mandated by federal and state law regarding the transferring of firearms.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24
months. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The parole agent retired before the disciplinary actiontook effect. A
letter indicating the parole agent retired under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 114
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the disciplinary
process. The hiring authority failed to timely conduct the findings and penalty conference. The department attorney provided inadequate
legal advice to the hiring authority, which was contrary to the evidence. The department attorney also failed to provide written
confirmation of penalty discussions to the hiring authority and OIG, failed to fully consult with the OIG concerning the disciplinary action,
and failed to timely prepare the action, resulting in the action being served just two days before the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The Office of Internal Affairs completed its investigation and referred the matter to the hiring authority on August 8, 2011.The hiring
authority did not consult with the OIG and department attorney regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative
findings until September 13, 2011, 36 calendar days after receipt of the case.
Did the VA provide appropriate legal consultation to the HA regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and investigative findings?
The department attorney originally recommended that none of the allegations be sustained despite evidence that the parole agent
illegally sold the firearm to a person unauthorized to possess firearms.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The Office of Internal Affairs completed its investigation and referred the matter to the hiring authority on August 8, 2011.The hiring
authority did not consult with the OIG and department attorney regarding the disciplinary determinations until September 13, 2011,
36 calendar days after receipt of the case.
Did the department attorney provide appropriate legal consultation to the HA regarding disciplinary determinations?
The department attorney failed to provide appropriate legal advice to the hiring authority given the evidence developed during the
investigation.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer provide the OIG with a copy of the draft disciplinary action and consult with the
OIG?
The department attorney failed to timely prepare the draft disciplinary action for review. The draft was not provided to the OIG until
one week before it had to be served.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The department attorney failed to adequately or timely consult with the OIG regarding preparation of the disciplinary action.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority failed to conduct the findings and penalty conference in a timely manner. Also, the disciplinary action was not
served until two days before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2011-01-01 11-1305-IR 2. Over-Familiarity 2. Sustained
3. Neglect of Duty 3. Sustained
4. Contraband 4. Not Sustained
Incident Summary
Between January 1, 2011, and March 21, 2011, an officer allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate and also
allegedly provided the inmate contraband including a mobile phone. A search of the inmate's cell revealed he was in possession of a mobile
phone that he attempted to destroy upon the initiation of the cell search. It was further alleged that during the cell search, a childhood
photograph of the officer and love letters written by the officer were also discovered.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 115
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of neglect of duty, over-familiarity with an inmate,
and dishonesty regarding the officer's relationship with the inmate. The hiring authority did not sustain allegations that the officer was
overly familiar with a second inmate, failed to report a use of force, allowed an inmate access to a control booth, allowed an inmate to fill
out inmate time cards, and introduction of contraband into the institution. The hiring authority dismissed the officer. The OIG concurred
with the hiring authority's determinations. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The State Personnel Board sustained
the allegations and upheld the penalty after an evidentiary hearing.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the hiring authority and department attorney sufficiently complied with the department's policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Discourteous Treatment 1. Sustained Salary Letter of
2011-01-03 11-1183-IR Reduction Reprimand
Incident Summary
On January 3, 2011, a sergeant allegedly yelled and used profanity toward an inmate.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for nine months. The OIG concurred with the hiring
authority's determination. The sergeant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Following the hearing, the State Personnel Board
found the penalty to be excessive and reduced the penalty to a letter of reprimand.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. Sustained Dismissal Resignation in
2011-04-06 12-0852-IR Behavior Lieu of
Termination
Incident Summary
On April 6, 2011, an officer allegedly violated a restraining order by making harassing phone calls to and following an ex-girlfriend in his car,
coming within 150 yards of the ex-girlfriend.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegation, combined the case with another disciplinary action against the officer, and dismissed the
officer. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. However,
pursuant to a settlement agreement, the officer resigned in lieu of dismissal and agreed to not seek employment with the department in
the future. The department accepted a letter of resignation from the officer and agreed to seal the disciplinary action, the stipulation, and
all attachments, leaving only the officer's letter of resignation visible to potential future employers. The OIG did not concur in the overall
settlement but was not afforded an opportunity to seek a higher level of review as the settlement terms were agreed upon without proper
consultation with the OIG.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The
department attorney failed to provide the hiring authority with sound and consistent legal advice regarding the officer's past misconduct,
did not provide written confirmation of penalty discussions, and filed an inadequate pre-hearing settlement conference statement that
could not be amended because of an untimely motion to amend.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 116
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the VA provide appropriate legal consultation to the HA regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and investigative findings?
The department attorney recommended adding an allegation that was previously addressed by the hiring authority in a separate
action.
Did the department attorney provide to the HA and OIG written confirmation of penalty discussions?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation of penalty discussions.
Did the department file a written pre-hearing settlement conference statement with the SPB containing all required information
including, but not limited to, a summary of stipulated facts, time estimate, number of witness with a brief statement of expected
testimony, list of documentary evidence, and statement of significant evidentiary issues?
The department attorney failed to include a custodian of records as a witness so that critical evidence could be introduced, failed to list
certified copies of critical court documents as documentary evidence, failed to obtain and list as evidence proof that a restraining order
had been served on the officer, and failed to list documents that would prove the restraining order was in place and known bythe
officer for all relevant dates.
Did the SPB impose any sanction or penalty on the department for failure to comply with the SPB regulations, or deem any filing by
the department untimely?
The State Personnel Board denied the department attorney's request to amend the pre-hearing settlement conference statement as
untimely.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
A draft pre-hearing settlement conference statement was not provided to the OIG in sufficient time to review. After the OIG reviewed
the statement and made recommendations the department attorney sought to amend the statement, but the State Personnel Board
denied the department attorney's request as untimely.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2011-04-25 11-2161-IR 2. Failure to Report 2. Sustained
3. Unreasonable Use of 3. Sustained
Force 4. Not Sustained
4. Attempt to dissuade a
witness
Incident Summary
On April 25, 2011, two officers allegedly used unnecessary force when they slammed an inmate face first onto the floor and struck the
inmate with fists, causing injury to the inmate. Each officer allegedly lied in their respective interviews with the Office of Internal Affairs. A
medical staff person who allegedly observed some of the use of force also allegedly failed to report the observations and then lied during
the Office of Internal Affairs interview.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers and served notices of dismissal.
The OIG concurred. The officers each filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Following a hearing, the State PersonnelBoard
sustained the dismissals of both officers. The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the
senior radiological technician and served a notice of dismissal. The OIG concurred. However, the senior radiological technician resigned
before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the senior radiological technician resigned pending disciplinary action was
placed in his official personnel file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and department attorneys failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The hiring
authority for the senior radiological technician failed to conduct a timely findings and penalty conference, primarily due todelays by the
department attorney. The department attorneys failed to timely and properly draft the disciplinary action, failed to adequately prepare for
and present the case at the State Personnel Board hearing, and failed to cooperate with the OIG by not providing draft documents with
sufficient time for adequate review.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 117
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The hiring authority for the senior radiological technician received the investigative report on April 26, 2012, but did not conduct the
findings and penalty conference until October 15, 2012, five months and 19 days after receipt of the report.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The hiring authority for the senior radiological technician received the investigative report on April 26, 2012, but did not conduct the
findings and penalty conference until October 15, 2012, five months and 19 days after receipt of the report.
Was the draft disciplinary action provided to the OIG for review appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The draft disciplinary actions for the two officers failed to accurately reflect the facts of the case as told by the independent witness
despite the fact that the hiring authority relied on the independent witness's version of facts.
Was the disciplinary action served on the employee(s) appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The disciplinary actions for the two officers failed to accurately reflect the facts of the case as told by the independent witness despite
the fact that the hiring authority relied upon the independent witness's version of facts.
Was the OIG provided with a draft of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement prior to it being filed?
The OIG was not provided a copy of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement until it was already served on opposing counsel
and filed.
Did the department’s advocate adequately subpoena and prepare available witnesses for the hearing?
The department attorneys failed to ensure the inmate was present to testify at the State Personnel Board hearing until directed to do
so by the supervisor after consultation with the OIG. The department attorneys also failed to let witnesses review prior statements
they made prior to testifying, and failed to timely act on the disciplinary action against the senior radiological technicianso that the
disciplinary actions against the senior radiological technician and the two officers could be joined and heard as one case.
Did the department’s advocate adequately and appropriately address legal issues prior to and during the SPB hearing?
The department attorneys failed to provide required discovery until the day of the State Personnel Board hearing. The department
attorneys failed to recognize, despite the OIG's comments and repeated comments of the administrative law judge, that the case was
about the lack of need for any force rather than the amount of force used. The administrative law judge repeatedly stated he did not
want evidence presented regarding managerial reviews of the incident. Nonetheless, the department attorneys introduced evidence of
a manager review about the amount of force used until stopped by the administrative law judge.
Did the department’s advocate present the necessary available evidence regarding the allegations at the hearing?
The department attorneys failed to provide the parties with copies of evidence the department presented at the hearing, including a
compact disc of the Office of Internal Affairs' interviews and a videotaped witness interview. The department attorneys also failed to
conduct meaningful re-direct examination of their key witnesses to rehabilitate or clarify issues raised on cross-examination, and failed
to prepare any diagrams or present photos of the incident location despite the critical nature of the location. Finally, the department
attorneys called witnesses to testify without any clear purpose.
Did the department’s advocate appropriately have necessary evidence presented at the hearing moved into evidence?
The department attorneys failed to provide a copy of recorded evidence to be presented at the hearing, including a compact disc of the
Office of Internal Affairs interviews and a videotaped witness interview, and failed to have a transcript of either the compact disc or
videotaped interview.
Did the department’s advocate appropriately object to evidence presented by appellant(s) at the hearing?
The department attorneys failed to object to numerous inappropriate questions and did not understand the evidence code related to
character witnesses, past recollection recorded, refreshing the memory of a witness, the need for a witness to have personal
knowledge, or cumulative evidence and medical confidentiality laws. The department attorneys were also unprepared in allocating
responsibility among themselves for examining known witnesses to be called by opposing counsel until the moment the witness was
called.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 118
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The department attorney provided the draft disciplinary action only two days before the deadline for taking disciplinary action and
provided the pre-hearing conference statement for review after it was already served on opposing counsel.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority for the senior radiological technician received the investigative report for review on April 26, 2012, but did not
conduct the findings and penalty conference until October 15, 2012, five months and 19 days after receipt of the report. The delays
were largely due to the department attorneys' failures to be prepared for the conference. Although the findings and penalty
conference was held on October 15, 2012, a draft disciplinary action was not prepared until March 27, 2013, and not served until April
12, 2013, five months and 28 days after the findings and penalty conference.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Failure to Report 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2011-05-23 11-2595-IR 2. Insubordination 2. Sustained
3. Retaliation 3. Sustained
4. Dishonesty to OIA 4. Sustained
5. Dishonesty in Report 5. Sustained
6. Altering Evidence 6. Sustained
7. Neglect of Duty 7. Not Sustained
8. Dishonesty 8. Exonerated
Incident Summary
Between May 23, 2011, and August 15, 2011, a sergeant allegedly falsified the date on drug test results received from a laboratory testing
facility. It was also alleged the sergeant created false reports based on the altered evidence, lied to the Office of Internal Affairs about the
matter, and retaliated against the individual who reported the alleged misconduct. It was also alleged a lieutenant failed totimely report
the sergeant's alleged misconduct and then lied about the incident to the Office of Internal Affairs. It was further alleged a warden failed to
follow the department's policies and procedures when he did not submit a timely request for an investigation regarding the lieutenant's
misconduct to the Office of Internal Affairs.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant and dismissed him. The hiring
authority sustained the allegation that the lieutenant failed to timely report misconduct, but not that he was dishonest to the Office of
Internal Affairs, and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegationagainst the
warden, but decided that the warden would be served an employee counseling record. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's
determinations regarding the sustained allegations but not the allegations that were not sustained. However, the OIG did not seek a higher
level of review because the warden still received an employee counseling record and the lieutenant received a penalty. The sergeant and
the lieutenant filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. Following a hearing, the State Personnel Board sustained the dismissal of the
sergeant. The State Personnel Board revoked the lieutenant's salary reduction, finding that he did timely report the sergeant's misconduct.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 119
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal Resignation in
2011-06-25 11-2224-IR 2. Other Failure of Good 2. Sustained Lieu of
Behavior 3. Sustained Termination
3. Discourteous Treatment
Incident Summary
On June 25, 2011, an officer allegedly called and sent text messages to his ex-girlfriend, harassing her at various times during the day and
night. Additionally, the officer was allegedly dishonest with outside law enforcement and the Office of Internal Affairs whenhe denied
sending the ex-girlfriend harassing phone calls and text messages, denied illegally entering her apartment and taking her phone, and denied
sending her 15-year-old son sexually explicit photographs of the ex-girlfriend.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained all allegations except one allegation of discourteous treatment and imposed a penalty of dismissal. The OIG
concurred. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. However, pursuant to a settlement agreement, the officer resigned in
lieu of dismissal and agreed to not seek employment with the department in the future. The department agreed to accept a letter of
resignation from the officer and agreed to seal the disciplinary action, the stipulation, and all attachments, leaving only the officer's letter of
resignation visible to potential future employers. The OIG did not concur in the settlement but could not seek a higher levelof review as the
settlement terms were agreed upon without consulting the OIG.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department attorney and hiring authority failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the disciplinary
process. The department attorney was not prepared for the findings and penalty conferences, failed to provide the hiring authority with
sound and consistent legal advice, failed to provide written confirmation of penalty discussions, failed to timely provide a draft disciplinary
action to the OIG, and filed an inadequate pre-hearing settlement conference statement that could not be amended because of an untimely
motion to amend. The hiring authority failed to appropriately consider the factual allegations prior to determining the appropriate penalty.
The department attorney and hiring authority failed to consult with the OIG at critical points.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 120
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the VA provide appropriate legal consultation to the HA regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and investigative findings?
The department attorney did not provide adequate legal advice to the hiring authority at the findings and penalty conferences. The
department attorney provided contrary opinions related to the sufficiency of the facts and the law related to the dishonesty allegations
at each review. The department attorney was unfamiliar with the facts and rendered advice based on incorrect knowledge or
interpretation of fact.
Did the HA, who participated in the findings conference, appropriately determine the investigative findings for each allegation?
The hiring authority reviewed the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative findings on three separate occasions. Initially,
the hiring authority sustained most allegations, including dishonesty, and imposed a penalty of dismissal. The OIG concurred with the
hiring authority with respect to the sustained findings and the penalty, but did not concur with the findings that were not sustained.
Upon reconsideration, the hiring authority sustained fewer allegations and did not sustain the most serious allegations, including all
dishonesty allegations. The hiring authority then imposed a salary reduction. The OIG did not concur. The OIG requested a higher level
of review. Before the higher review occurred, the hiring authority conducted a third conference and sustained all allegations, including
all allegations related to dishonesty, and did not sustain only one allegation. The hiring authority imposed a penalty of dismissal.
Did the department attorney provide appropriate legal consultation to the HA regarding disciplinary determinations?
The department attorney provided inappropriate legal advice regarding the dishonesty allegations. The department attorney's advice
was designed to support the stated outcome sought by the hiring authority which was to avoid allegations resulting in dismissal. When
the department attorney's legal advice could not eliminate all dishonesty allegations, the department attorney advised that the facts
were insufficient to support the remaining dishonesty allegations.
Did the HA, who participated in the disciplinary conference, select the appropriate Employee Disciplinary Matrix charges and causes
for discipline for each sustained allegation?
At each of the three findings and penalty conferences, the hiring authority made appropriate penalty determinations based on the
sustained allegations . However, during the second findings and penalty conference, the hiring authority identified a desiredpenalty
and sustained only the allegations that supported that penalty.
Did the department attorney provide to the HA and OIG written confirmation of penalty discussions?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation of penalty discussions.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer provide the OIG with a copy of the draft disciplinary action and consult with the
OIG?
The department attorney provided a copy of the draft disciplinary action to the OIG for review just hours before the deadlinefor taking
disciplinary action. There was insufficient time for either review by or consultation with the OIG.
Did the department file a written pre-hearing settlement conference statement with the SPB containing all required information
including, but not limited to, a summary of stipulated facts, time estimate, number of witness with a brief statement of expected
testimony, list of documentary evidence, and statement of significant evidentiary issues?
The department attorney failed to include a custodian of records as a witness so that critical evidence could be introduced, failed to list
certified copies of the critical court documents as documentary evidence, failed to obtain and list as evidence proof that a restraining
order had been served on the officer, failed to list documents that would prove the restraining order was in place and known by the
officer for all relevant dates, and failed to list relevant police reports and an outside agency officer as a witness.
Did the HA consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable) before modifying the penalty or agreeing to a settlement?
Although the hiring authority consulted with the OIG at the beginning of settlement negotiations, after agreeing upon the settlement
terms the hiring authority consulted with the department attorney without the OIG and settled the case on terms contrary to what the
hiring authority and department attorney had previously established after consulting the OIG.
If the penalty was modified by department action or a settlement agreement, did OIG concur with the modification?
The OIG did not concur with the settlement agreement entered into by the department.
Did the SPB impose any sanction or penalty on the department for failure to comply with the SPB regulations, or deem any filing by
the department untimely?
The State Personnel Board denied the department attorney's request to amend the pre-hearing settlement conference statement as
untimely.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 121
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The department attorney failed to consult with the OIG at critical points. The hiring authority conducted three separate findings and
penalty conferences. After the second conference, the OIG requested a higher level of review. Before the higher level of review
occurred, the OIG was notified that a third findings and penalty conference took place in which the hiring authority made thefinal
penalty decisions. Neither the department attorney nor the hiring authority consulted with the OIG. The department attorney did not
provide a draft disciplinary action to the OIG for review until August 9, 2012, the deadline for taking disciplinary action. After the
parameters of settlement were agreed upon, the hiring authority and department attorney consulted without the OIG and settledthe
case on terms contrary to what the hiring authority and department attorney had previously established after previous consultation
with the OIG.
Did the HA cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG throughout the disciplinary phase, until all
proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The hiring authority failed to provide real-time consultation with the OIG at critical points. The hiring authority conducted three
separate findings and penalty conferences. Initially, the hiring authority sustained most allegations, including dishonesty, and imposed
a penalty of dismissal. Upon reconsideration, the hiring authority sustained fewer allegations and did not sustain the most serious
allegations, including dishonesty, to avoid the penalty of dismissal that was previously decided. The hiring authority instead imposed a
salary reduction. After the second findings and penalty conference, the OIG requested a higher level of review. Before the higher level
of review occurred, the hiring authority conducted a third findings and penalty conference in which the hiring authority madethe final
penalty decisions. Neither the department attorney nor the hiring authority consulted with the OIG. Following the officer’s appeal, the
hiring authority and department attorney consulted without the OIG and settled the case on terms that were outside the parameters
of settlement that the hiring authority and department attorney established after previous consultation with the OIG.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to conduct the disciplinary phase in a timely manner. The hiring authority received the investigative report on
June 29, 2012, but did not determine the final investigative findings and penalty until August 6, 2012, just three days before the
deadline to take disciplinary action. The department attorney failed to provide the draft disciplinary action and draft pre-hearing
settlement conference statement to the OIG with sufficient time for review. The State Personnel Board denied the department
attorney's request to amend the pre-hearing settlement conference statement as untimely.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Penalty
2011-07-03 11-2670-IR 2. Failure to Report 2. Sustained Imposed
3. Unreasonable Use of 3. Sustained
Force 4. Sustained
4. Code of Silence
Incident Summary
On July 3, 2011, an officer allegedly used unnecessary force when, during an attempt to counsel an inmate, he slapped the inmate's hand
and then slapped him in the face. The officer acknowledged culpability to a lieutenant, but allegedly falsified his written report and provided
a different version of events regarding the incident. Two sergeants and two officers witnessed the incident and allegedly prepared false
written reports. One of the sergeants also allegedly encouraged officers to orchestrate their reports. It was also alleged the officers and
sergeants lied during their interviews with the Office of Internal Affairs.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained all allegations against the officer who used force and dismissed him. The hiring authority sustained a
dishonesty allegation against one of the sergeants and against one of the other officers and dismissed them also. The hiring authority did
not sustain any allegations against the other sergeant and the other officer. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's decisions. The
officers and sergeants filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. Following a hearing, the State Personnel Board revoked the dismissals
of the two officers and the sergeant. The administrative law judge made a credibility determination and ruled the evidence was insufficient
to counter the officers' denials.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 122
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The
department attorney failed to provide a draft disciplinary action and closing brief for OIG review. The department attorney failed to prepare
a sufficient pre-hearing settlement conference statement and was not familiar with the facts of the case at the pre-hearing settlement
conference. The department attorney failed to adequately prepare witnesses for the State Personnel Board hearing, failed to present
adequate evidence at the hearing, failed to properly utilize transcript evidence, and submitted a poorly-drafted and poorly-argued closing
brief.
Assessment Questions
Did the department file a written pre-hearing settlement conference statement with the SPB containing all required information
including, but not limited to, a summary of stipulated facts, time estimate, number of witness with a brief statement of expected
testimony, list of documentary evidence, and statement of significant evidentiary issues?
The pre-hearing settlement conference statement did not contain sufficiently detailed statements regarding the expected testimony of
several witnesses.
Did the department’s advocate who appeared at the pre-hearing settlement conference have full familiarity with the facts and issues
in the case?
The department attorney did not have full familiarity of the facts in the case as she was not familiar with the expected testimony of a
principal witness and some of the subjects.
Did the department’s advocate adequately subpoena and prepare available witnesses for the hearing?
The department attorney failed to adequately prepare key witnesses based on anticipated questions of opposing counsel.
Did the department’s advocate adequately and appropriately address legal issues prior to and during the SPB hearing?
The department attorney prepared a closing brief that poorly outlined the department's position, failed to adequately utilizethe facts
presented at hearing, and failed to include an in-depth legal analysis of the legal issues raised.
Did the department’s advocate present the necessary available evidence regarding the allegations at the hearing?
The department attorney failed to prepare any photos or diagrams of the scene to assist the administrative law judge in understanding
the facts, failed to elicit sufficient detail from witnesses to support the allegations, and failed to elicit testimony to rehabilitate
department witnesses. The department attorney also failed to prepare a cohesive and persuasive closing brief.
Did the department’s advocate appropriately have necessary evidence presented at the hearing moved into evidence?
The department attorney was not adequately prepared to use transcripts of statements made by the officers during their investigative
interviews and was not able to successfully introduce the documents.
If the SPB’s decision did not uphold all of the factual allegations sustained by the HA, did the OIG concur with the SPB’s decision?
The department attorney failed to elicit sufficient evidence from witnesses to support the allegations, failed to elicit or even present
evidence to rehabilitate the department's witnesses, failed to adequately lay a foundation for introduction of the recordingsof the
Office of Internal Affairs' interviews of the officers, and failed to call as a witness the interviewing special agent who was subpoenaed
and present for the State Personnel Board hearing.
If the penalty modification was the result of an SPB decision, did the OIG concur with the modification?
The department attorney failed to present sufficient evidence to support any allegation.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The department attorney failed to provide a draft of the closing brief for review by the OIG despite requests to do so and failed to
consult with the OIG regarding the closing brief.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 123
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Insubordination 1. Sustained Suspension No Change
2011-08-01 12-0637-IR 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Sustained
3. Dishonesty 3. Not Sustained
Incident Summary
From August 2011 to January 31, 2012, a parole agent allegedly falsely documented information regarding required contact witha parolee,
permitted the parolee to reside in another county without following proper policy and procedures, and failed to maintain record of
supervision forms.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain all allegations, except the dishonesty allegation, and imposed a 20
working-day suspension. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The parole agent filed an appeal with the State
Personnel Board. Prior to the State Personnel Board proceedings, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the parole
agent wherein the penalty remained, but the department agreed to remove the disciplinary action from the parole agent's official personnel
file upon proof that the parole agent retired from the department, which the agent anticipated within six months. The OIG concurred
because the parole agent would no longer be working for the department and, therefore, would no longer pose a risk for the department.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the disciplinary
process. The disciplinary officer failed to properly complete the CDCR Form 402. The department attorney failed to provide written
confirmation of the penalty discussions to the hiring authority and to the OIG. The department attorney also failed to timelyprovide drafts
of the disciplinary action and pre-hearing settlement conference statement to the OIG.
Assessment Questions
Was the CDCR Form 402 documenting the findings properly completed?
The disciplinary officer incorrectly listed the sustained allegations.
Did the department attorney provide to the HA and OIG written confirmation of penalty discussions?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation of penalty discussions.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer provide the OIG with a copy of the draft disciplinary action and consult with the
OIG?
Although the department attorney provided a draft of the disciplinary action to the OIG, it was not sent until the afternoon of the day
the disciplinary action was served on the parole agent. The department attorney did not consult with the OIG regarding the draft
disciplinary action.
Was the OIG provided with a draft of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement prior to it being filed?
The OIG was not provided a draft of the pre-hearing settlement conference statement.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The department attorney did not timely provide a draft of the disciplinary action and failed to consult with the OIG regarding the
document. The department attorney did not provide the OIG with a draft of the pre-hearing settlement conference before it was filed
with the State Personnel Board.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department attorney did not complete or provide to the OIG a draft of the disciplinary action until the date it was served on the
parole agent.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 124
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal Salary
2011-10-20 12-0683-IR 2. Over-Familiarity 2. Sustained Reduction
3. Insubordination 3. Sustained
4. Secondary Employment 4. Not Sustained
Incident Summary
Between October 20, 2011, and October 31, 2012, an officer allegedly engaged in unauthorized communications with a parolee via a social
networking website, engaged in secondary employment without providing notice to the institution, discussed the investigation with another
officer after she was ordered by the Office of Internal Affairs not to do so, and was dishonest in her interview with the Office of Internal
Affairs. On October 16, 2012, a second officer allegedly discussed the investigation with the first officer after he receiveda notice that he
was a witness in the first officer's investigation. Between January 11, 2011, and November 30, 2012, a third officer was allegedly dishonest
when she claimed that someone anonymously placed a copy of the unauthorized communication between the first officer and the parolee
on the third officer's car, was dishonest during her interview with the Office of Internal Affairs when she denied printing the allegedly
unauthorized communication and fabricating how she came to be in possession of the unauthorized communication, and discussed the
investigation with her daughter after she had been ordered by the Office of Internal Affairs not to do so.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain allegations against the first officer, except that she engaged in
secondary employment, and imposed a salary reduction of 10 percent for 18 months. The hiring authority sustained the allegation of
insubordination against the second officer and imposed a salary reduction of 5 percent for six months. The hiring authority sustained all
allegations against the third officer and dismissed the officer. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. However,
following a Skellyhearing, the hiring authority agreed to reduce the dismissal to a salary reduction of 10 percent for 25 months and the
officer agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The OIG found the agreement to be reasonable because of new
evidence presented at the Skellyhearing when the officer, for the first time, indicated that she had just learned that it was her daughter
who put the copy of the unauthorized communication on the officer's car.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Unreasonable Use of 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2011-10-24 12-1498-IR Force Reduction
Incident Summary
On October 24, 2011, a youth counselor allegedly used unreasonable force when he used pepper spray on a ward's face after theward
threw water out of the cell food port and refused to comply with orders to stop his behavior.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12
months. The OIG concurred. The youth counselor filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Prior to the hearing, the hiring authority
settled the case by reducing the penalty to a salary reduction of 5 percent for nine months. The hiring authority failed to consult with the
OIG regarding the settlement.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The hiring authority did notrefer the case
to the Office of Internal Affairs until almost seven months after the date of discovery of the misconduct and subsequently failed to timely
conduct the findings and penalty conference. Additionally, the disciplinary officer failed to enter the relevant information concerning the
deadline for taking disciplinary action in the case management system. Further, the hiring authority failed to timely consultwith the OIG
concerning settlement.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 125
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to the OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The date of discovery was October 26, 2011; however, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs until
May 25, 2012, almost seven months after the date of discovery.
Did the disciplinary officer make an entry into CMS prior to the findings conference accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The disciplinary officer did not make any entry into CMS confirming relevant dates.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on June 20, 2012; however, the hiring authority did not consult with the OIG regarding
the sufficiency of the investigation and investigative findings until September 14, 2012, 86 days after receipt of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on June 20, 2012; however, the hiring authority did not consult with the OIG regarding
the disciplinary determinations until September 14, 2012, 86 days after receipt of the case.
Did the HA consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable) before modifying the penalty or agreeing to a settlement?
The department did not consult with the OIG before entering into an agreement to settle the case.
If the penalty was modified by department action or a settlement agreement, did OIG concur with the modification?
The OIG did not concur with the settlement agreement because it was not consistent with the department's policies and procedures.
There were no grounds to settle the case.
Did the HA cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG throughout the disciplinary phase, until all
proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The hiring authority failed to timely consult with the OIG concerning the settlement agreement.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority did not timely refer the case to the Office of Internal Affairs and failed to timely conduct the findings and penalty
conference.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2011-11-01 12-2232-IR 2. Failure to Report 2. Sustained
3. Contraband 3. Sustained
4. Over-Familiarity 4. Sustained
Incident Summary
From November 2011 to June 2012, a supervising cook allegedly engaged in an overly familiar relationship with an inmate and provided the
inmate with contraband consisting of two mobile phones, men's body spray, and greeting cards and love letters authored by thecook. It
was also alleged that between June 2012 and September 2012, the cook utilized a mobile phone to communicate with the inmate. On
August 30, 2012, the cook was allegedly dishonest when she told the Office of Internal Affairs that she did not provide the inmate with
mobile phones, did not write cards or letters to him, and that she was aware of the identity of an employee who was writing those cards
and letters to the inmate, but would not identify that employee. The cook was also allegedly dishonest when she told the Office of Internal
Affairs that she did not rent the post office box, and that someone else rented it in her name.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the supervising cook. The OIG
concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The supervising cook filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board, but failed to
appear at the hearing and the appeal was dismissed.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 126
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Insubordination 1. Sustained Salary No Penalty
2011-11-14 12-1041-IR 2. Failure to Report 2. Not Sustained Reduction Imposed
Incident Summary
On November 14, 2011, an office assistant allegedly disobeyed a supervisor's order requiring the office assistant to discloseinformation
about another employee's alleged misconduct.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the insubordination allegation, but not the failure to report
allegation, and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for three months. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determination. The
office assistant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Following a hearing, the State Personnel Board revoked the disciplinary
action after the administrative law judge made a determination that the supervisor was not credible.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Salary Modified
2011-12-24 12-0686-IR 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Sustained Reduction Salary
Reduction
Incident Summary
On December 24, 2011, it was alleged two officers neglected their duties when they left an inmate unattended in his hospital room at an
outside hospital for approximately an hour-and-a-half. During this alleged unattended time period, the inmate used a hospital telephone
and made 31 phone calls to members of the public.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against both officers and imposed a 10 percent
salary reduction for 13 months for one officer and a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months for the other officer. The OIG did not concur
with the hiring authority's determination to sustain dishonesty as the dishonesty allegations were not supported by the evidence. Both
officers filed appeals with the State Personnel Board. At the pre-hearing settlement conferences, the hiring authority agreed to remove the
dishonesty allegations as to both officers and to reduce the penalty of one officer from a 10 percent salary reduction for 13months to a 5
percent salary reduction for 13 months and to reduce the penalty of the other officer from a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months to a 5
percent salary reduction for six months. The OIG did not concur with the settlement agreements because the penalties were reduced in half
without a reasonable explanation provided by the department. The OIG did not seek a higher level of review as the officers acknowledged
that their actions violated policy and that they should have been more attentive.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. At the findings and penalty
conference, the hiring authority inappropriately sustained dishonesty allegations against both officers although not supported by evidence.
However, although the hiring authority sustained dishonesty allegations against both officers, she failed to select the appropriate penalty
based on the sustained allegations and instead chose to impose salary reductions. The hiring authority later entered into settlement
agreements with both officers which were not consistent with the department's policies and procedures as the penalties were reduced in
half without a reasonable explanation provided by the department.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 127
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the HA, who participated in the findings conference, appropriately determine the investigative findings for each allegation?
The hiring authority sustained dishonesty allegations against both officers although not supported by evidence.
Did the HA, who participated in the disciplinary conference, select the appropriate Employee Disciplinary Matrix charges and causes
for discipline for each sustained allegation?
The hiring authority failed to select the appropriate employee disciplinary matrix charges and causes for discipline for the
inappropriately sustained dishonesty allegations against both officers.
Did the HA, who participated in the disciplinary conference, select the appropriate penalty based on the sustained allegations?
Although the hiring authority sustained dishonesty allegations against both officers, she failed to select the appropriate penalty based
on the sustained allegations and instead chose to impose salary reductions.
If there was a settlement agreement, was the settlement consistent with the DOM factors?
The hiring authority entered into settlement agreements with both officers which were not consistent with departmental policyas the
penalties were reduced in half without a reasonable explanation provided by the department. The penalty for one of the officers was
reduced from a 10 percent salary reduction for 13 months to a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months and the other officer's penalty
was reduced from a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months to a 5 percent salary reduction for six months.
If the penalty was modified by department action or a settlement agreement, did OIG concur with the modification?
The OIG did not concur with the modifications because the penalties were reduced in half without a reasonable explanation provided
by the department.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Discourteous Treatment 1. Sustained Letter of No Change
2012-01-05 12-0820-IR 2. Failure to Perform 2. Sustained Instruction
Within Scope of Training 3. Not Sustained
3. Misuse of Authority
Incident Summary
Between January 5, 2012, and April 30, 2012, two officers allegedly stopped speaking to a sergeant who previously reported misconduct of
transportation team members, called him a "rat," and made other discourteous statements to him. Two other sergeants allegedlyspread
rumors that the reporting sergeant was dishonest in his reporting of the misconduct. The two sergeants also allegedly made discourteous
statements and ostracized the reporting sergeant. On January 9, 2012, the reporting sergeant, while off duty, observed a department
transportation van at a shopping center and off the scheduled route. On February 8, 2012, and February 10, 2012, after the sergeant
reported the possible misconduct, a lieutenant and third sergeant allegedly distributed copies of the sergeant's memorandum and called
the sergeant a "rat." A fourth sergeant allegedly released confidential information that the reporting sergeant should have handled the
possible misconduct differently.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the two officers treated anotherco-worker
discourteously by using profane language to him, but not that they ostracized the sergeant for his reporting the misconduct. The hiring
authority issued letters of instruction to both officers. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation against one of the sergeants for
improper transmittal of confidential information but issued a letter of instruction to the sergeant for his failure to adequately document
training he had allegedly provided. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the
lieutenant and other three sergeants for their alleged transmittal of confidential information and ostracizing the reporting sergeant. The
OIG concurred with all of the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 128
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Domestic Violence 1. Sustained Salary Modified
2012-01-17 12-0636-IR Reduction Salary
Reduction
Incident Summary
On January 17, 2012, an officer was arrested after he allegedly struck his girlfriend's head against a wall several times, causing a laceration
to her head.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24
months. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Prior to
the State Personnel Board proceedings, the hiring authority entered into a settlement agreement wherein the penalty was reduced to a 5
percent salary reduction for 24 months. The OIG concurred with the settlement because of evidentiary problems as the department was
unable to locate a key witness.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-04-21 12-1215-IR Behavior Reduction
Incident Summary
On April 21, 2012, an officer was arrested by local law enforcement after he allegedly entered the home of his estranged spouse without
permission and damaged her mobile phone when he slapped it from her hand.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 13
months. The officer did not file an appeal. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Failure to Report 1. Sustained Dismissal Demotion
2012-05-12 12-2423-IR 2. Driving Under the 2. Sustained
Influence of Alcohol
Incident Summary
On May 12, 2012, an officer allegedly drove his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Shortly after his arrest, the officer was
involuntarily detained because it was determined he was a threat to himself. As a result, the officer's ability to lawfully carry a firearm was
prohibited until 2017. Additionally, the officer allegedly failed to report his arrest and firearms restriction to the hiringauthority.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained all disciplinary allegations; however, a penalty was not imposed because the hiring authority non-punitively
terminated the officer due to the firearms restriction. The officer appealed the non-punitive termination to the State Personnel Board. Prior
to State Personnel Board proceedings, the entire matter was settled for a one working-day suspension and the officer was allowed to return
to work as a supervising cook. As the officer had no prior discipline, was extremely remorseful, and agreed to return to workin a non-peace
officer position, the OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 129
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The hiring authority failed to timely refer
the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and timely complete the findings and penalty conference. The case was returned to the hiring
authority on October 26, 2012. The officer was non-punitively terminated due to the firearm restriction at the end of November 2012.
However, the findings and penalty conference was not held until January 30, 2013. The disciplinary officer was not fully familiar with the
facts of the case at the pre-hearing settlement conference and did not include key information in the settlement agreement.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to the OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The hiring authority discovered the alleged misconduct on June 8, 2012; however, the matter was not referred to the Office ofInternal
Affairs until October 1, 2012, nearly four months after the date of discovery.
Did the disciplinary officer make an entry into CMS prior to the findings conference accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The disciplinary officer did not make an entry in CMS regarding the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on October 26, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG regarding the sufficiency of
the investigation and the investigative findings did not occur until January 30, 2013, more than three months after receipt of the case.
Did the department’s advocate who appeared at the pre-hearing settlement conference have full familiarity with the facts and issues
in the case?
The disciplinary officer was not fully familiar with the facts of the case. She did not include two of the sustained allegations in the
settlement agreement.
If there was a settlement agreement, did the settlement agreement include the key clauses required by DOM?
The disciplinary officer did not include two of the sustained allegations in the settlement agreement.
If the case settled, did the department attorney or disciplinary officer properly complete the CDC Form 3021?
The disciplinary officer did not provide the OIG with the CDC Form 3021.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority discovered the alleged misconduct on June 8, 2012; however, the matter was not referred to the Office ofInternal
Affairs until October 1, 2012, nearly four months later. The case was returned to the hiring authority on October 26, 2012. The officer
was non-punitively terminated due to the firearm restriction at the end of November 2012. However, the findings and penalty
conference was not held until January 30, 2013.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 130
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary Modified
2012-06-30 12-1807-IR 2. Other Failure of Good 2. Sustained Reduction Salary
Behavior 3. Sustained Reduction
3. Discourteous Treatment 4. Sustained
4. Drunk or Disorderly 5. Sustained
Conduct in Public
6. Sustained
5. Domestic Violence
7. Not Sustained
6. Assault Without Intent
to Inflict Serious Injury
7. Battery with Intent to
Cause Injury
Incident Summary
On June 30, 2012, while off duty, a sergeant was allegedly intoxicated and became involved in a verbal and physical altercation with his wife
and mother-in-law. The officer allegedly struck his mother-in-law in the head multiple times and pushed his wife into a cactus plant. During
the physical altercation, the sergeant also dropped his department badge, which was recovered by outside law enforcement whenthey
responded to the scene and found the sergeant passed out on the ground, smelling of alcohol. The sergeant was arrested for domestic
violence and disorderly conduct.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain all allegations against the officer, except the allegation that the
officer committed battery with the intent to cause serious bodily injury, and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 17 months. However,
following a Skellyhearing, 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. Given the sergeant's acceptance of responsibility, his remorse, and the
voluntary counseling he had undertaken since the underlying incident, the OIG concurred with the settlement agreement.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the disciplinary
process. The hiring authority improperly determined that additional investigation was necessary and submitted the case to OIACentral
Intake for reconsideration. The department attorney incorrectly advised the hiring authority that the additional interview ofthe sergeant
was necessary. The request unnecessarily delayed the disciplinary process. The hiring authority also incorrectly completed the forms
regarding the findings and penalty.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 131
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the HA properly determine whether additional investigation was necessary?
The hiring authority improperly determined that an interview of the sergeant was necessary and submitted the case to OIA Central
Intake for reconsideration. OIA Central Intake properly rejected the request. There was no need for the interview as the sergeant
already provided a full statement to local law enforcement. The request delayed the discipline process by 52 days.
Did the VA provide appropriate legal consultation to the HA regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and investigative findings?
The department attorney advised the hiring authority that additional investigation was necessary and recommended that the hiring
authority submit a request to OIA Central Intake for an interview of the sergeant. There was no need for an interview of the sergeant
as he already provided a full statement to local law enforcement. The request, which was denied, unnecessarily delayed the discipline
process.
Was the CDCR Form 402 documenting the findings properly completed?
The CDCR Form 402 failed to include a complete list of allegations and the findings for each allegation.
Was the CDCR Form 403 documenting the penalty properly completed?
The CDCR Form 403 failed to detail the reasoning used in arriving at the penalty.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority incorrectly determined that additional investigation was necessary and submitted the case to OIA CentralIntake
for reconsideration, requesting an interview of the sergeant, who already provided a full statement to local law enforcement.OIA
Central Intake properly rejected the request. The request delayed the discipline process by 52 days and resulted in an unnecessary
expenditure of state time and resources.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-08-28 12-2612-IR 2. Other Failure of Good 2. Not Sustained Reduction
Behavior
Incident Summary
On August 28, 2012, an officer allegedly left his post early without being properly relieved and without supervisor approval.The officer also
allegedly left his emergency equipment including pepper spray, baton, handcuffs, and radio in an unattended office.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain all allegations except that the officer left his post early, and
imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 13 months. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The officerfiled an
appeal with the State Personnel Board, but withdrew the appeal prior to the pre-hearing settlement conference.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-09-15 13-0476-IR 2. Discharge of Lethal 2. Sustained
Weapon
Incident Summary
On September 15, 2012, an officer allegedly negligently discharged his firearm while off-duty. On September 17, 2012, the officer allegedly
submitted a document to his supervisor falsely stating that the firearm was accidentally discharged while attempting to dislodge a round
from the chamber.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 132
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations and determined that dismissal was the appropriate penalty. The OIG concurred. However, the
officer had been terminated pursuant to another disciplinary action before disciplinary action could be imposed on this case.A letter was
placed in his official personnel file indicating that, should the officer return to state employment, disciplinary action forthis case would then
be imposed.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Misuse of Authority 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-09-20 12-2418-IR 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Sustained Reduction
3. Driving Under the 3. Sustained
Influence
Incident Summary
On September 20, 2012, an officer was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and, during his contact with outside law
enforcement, the officer allegedly displayed his department-issued badge on his lap in an attempt to prevent outside law enforcement from
arresting the officer.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24
months. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Vandalism 1. Sustained Salary Letter of
2012-09-28 12-2422-IR Reduction Instruction
Incident Summary
On September 28, 2012, an off-duty officer was arrested for vandalism after he cut the branches of four city-owned trees, requiring the
trees to be replaced.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six
months. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determination. However, after a Skellyhearing, the hiring authority modified the
penalty to a letter of instruction. The OIG did not concur with the modification, but was precluded from seeking a higher level of review
because the hiring authority modified the penalty without consulting the OIG.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The hiring authority failed to timely
conduct the findings and penalty conference and failed to consult the OIG regarding modification of the penalty from a salaryreduction to a
letter of instruction. Additionally, the disciplinary officer failed to enter required information confirming the deadline for taking disciplinary
action into the case management system.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 133
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the disciplinary officer make an entry into CMS prior to the findings conference accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The disciplinary officer did not make any entry into CMS confirming relevant dates.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on October 26, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG concerning the
investigative findings did not occur until February 21, 2013, almost four months after receipt of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The case was returned to the hiring authority on October 26, 2012; however, the consultation with the OIG concerning the disciplinary
determinations did not occur until February 21, 2013, almost four months after receipt of the case.
Did the HA consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable) before modifying the penalty or agreeing to a settlement?
After a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority unilaterally decided to modify the penalty from a salary reduction to a letter of instruction.
The OIG was not consulted until after the hiring authority made its decision and conveyed that decision to the officer.
If the penalty was modified by department action or a settlement agreement, did OIG concur with the modification?
The OIG did not agree with the modification. Although some new evidence was presented at the Skelly hearing, it did not warrant
modifying the penalty from disciplinary action to a letter of instruction.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The disciplinary officer failed to timely notify the OIG that the hiring authority was reconsidering the penalty.
Did the HA cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG throughout the disciplinary phase, until all
proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The hiring authority failed to timely consult with the OIG regarding modification of the penalty.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority failed to timely conduct the findings and penalty conference.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 134
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX C 77
COMBINED PHASE CASE SUMMARIES
CENTRAL REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2009-10-01 12-2044-IR 2. Over-Familiarity 2. Not Sustained Imposed
Incident Summary
In October 2009, an officer allegedly engaged in an overly familiar sexual relationship with a parolee. It was further alleged that on April 19,
2011, during a separate investigation, the officer was dishonest to a special agent when questioned about her relationship with the parolee.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority's
determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Failure to Report 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2011-08-18 12-0579-IR 2. Unreasonable Use of 2. Not Sustained Imposed
Force 3. Not Sustained
3. Neglect of Duty 4. Not Sustained
4. Discourteous Treatment
Incident Summary
On August 18, 2011, an officer allegedly made derogatory statements towards an inmate and used unreasonable force when he grabbed
the inmate by the shirt and tried to force the inmate against a wall. The officer allegedly failed to report his use of force. On October 11,
2011, the officer was again allegedly discourteous to the same inmate when the officer stapled through some of the inmate's photos that
were in an envelope. Additionally, the officer allegedly failed to forward that same inmate's personal items when the inmate transferred to
another institution. The officer was also allegedly discourteous to other inmates when he forced them to stand with their faces against a
wall as punishment.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority’s
determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 135
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Letter of No Change
2011-10-10 12-0347-IR Reprimand
Incident Summary
On October 10, 2011, an officer allegedly failed to require an inmate to stand as required during standing inmate count. As aresult, an
inmate who was dead was accounted for as alive.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative process. OIA
Central Intake failed to make a timely decision regarding the request for investigation and the investigation was completed only 18 days
before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Did OIA Central Intake make a determination regarding the case within 30 calendar days?
OIA Central Intake received the request for investigation on November 22, 2011, but did not take action until February 1, 2012, 71
days after receipt of the request.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was October 9, 2012. The investigation was completed on September 21, 2012, only 18 days
before the deadline.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a letter of reprimand. The OIG
concurred. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Disclosure of 1. Sustained Salary Modified
2011-10-10 12-0850-IR Confidential Information Reduction Salary
Reduction
Incident Summary
On October 10, 2011, and October 11, 2011, an officer allegedly posted confidential information regarding an in-custody homicide onto a
mixed martial arts website. The homicide involved an inmate of some notoriety who was a former mixed martial arts fighter. The officer
allegedly supported the veracity of his initial posting by identifying himself as an officer and providing more details aboutthe homicide. The
officer's postings were allegedly seen by over 72,000 viewers and quoted by over 50 news websites.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative process. OIA
Central Intake delayed over two months before deciding to open an investigation and the investigation was completed only 20 days before
the deadline to take disciplinary action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 136
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Assessment Questions
Did OIA Central Intake make a determination regarding the case within 30 calendar days?
OIA Central Intake received the request for investigation on November 22, 2011, but did not take action until February 1, 2012, 72
days after receipt of the request.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was October 10, 2012. The investigation was completed on September 20, 2012, only 20days
before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12
months. The OIG concurred. At a Skellyhearing, the officer was very apologetic and acknowledged that his actions violated policy. He also
explained that when he posted the information, he did not realize the magnitude of attention his actions would generate. Additionally, the
officer claimed that he had learned from the incident so there was a low chance of recurrence. Due to this mitigating information the hiring
authority modified the penalty to a 5 percent salary reduction for nine months. In exchange, the officer agreed not to file an appeal with the
State Personnel Board. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determination based on the factors learned at the Skellyhearing.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Letter of No Change
2011-11-19 12-0638-IR Reprimand
Incident Summary
On November 19, 2011, three licensed vocational nurses allegedly failed to provide life-saving measures during a medical emergency. The
first licensed vocational nurse also failed to retrieve the facility gurney that had been left at the triage treatment area during a prior
emergency. The second licensed vocational nurse also failed to retrieve the gurney and also failed to properly equip the automated external
defibrillator.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain allegations against the second licensed vocational nurse for failing
to retrieve the gurney and failing to properly equip the automated external defibrillator, but did not sustain an allegation for failing to
provide life-saving measures during the medical emergency. The hiring authority decided to issue a letter of reprimand to him. The second
licensed vocational nurse did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority also determined that there was
sufficient evidence to sustain an allegation against the first licensed vocational nurse for failing to retrieve the same gurney, but did not
sustain any other allegation against her. The hiring authority issued a letter of instruction to the first licensed vocational nurse instead of
taking disciplinary action. No allegations were sustained against the remaining licensed vocational nurse. The OIG concurred with all of the
hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 137
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2011-12-22 12-0687-IR Imposed
Incident Summary
On December 22, 2011, a second watch control booth officer and a second watch floor officer allegedly failed to notice an in-cell assault
that was later discovered during cell searches on third watch. The third watch lieutenant allegedly failed to take prompt action when
notified about the possible in-cell assault.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the lieutenant, control booth officer, and
floor officer. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority’s determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal Resignation in
2012-01-06 12-1514-IR 2. Over-Familiarity 2. Sustained Lieu of
Termination
3. Insubordination 3. Sustained
4. Neglect of Duty 4. Sustained
Incident Summary
On January 6, 2012, and March 9, 2012, an officer assigned to the dining facility was allegedly overly familiar with inmates when she
allowed inmates to have extra food which resulted in a food shortage. On April 21, 2012, the officer was allegedly dishonest when she
reported that she had accounted for and secured all culinary utensils, even though they had not been secured. The officer also allegedly
failed to complete required logs regarding the inmates she supervised. Additionally, the officer allegedly endangered staff by not properly
securing inmates. On May 14, 2013, the officer allegedly failed to complete training as ordered on over-familiarity, ethics, and food service
policies.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained all the allegations against the officer, except the allegation that the officer endangered staff, and dismissed
the officer. The OIG concurred with these determinations. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. After asecond Skelly
hearing, the hiring authority decided to accept the officer's resignation because it ensured that the officer would never work for the
department again and avoided possible risk inherent with further litigation. The department entered into a settlement agreement with the
officer in which she agreed to resign and agreed not to seek future employment with the department. The officer also agreed to withdraw
her appeal. The OIG was not informed of the settlement terms prior to the settlement agreement being signed.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to serve the disciplinary action with necessary supporting documents, resulting in a Skellyviolation which required a
restoration of back pay to the officer. Additionally, the OIG was not informed about the settlement agreement until it had already been
signed.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 138
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the disciplinary action served on the employee(s) appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The disciplinary action served on the employee did not include a copy of the Office of Internal Affairs investigation report.This failure
was a Skelly violation and resulted in restoring back pay to the officer.
Did the HA consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable) before modifying the penalty or agreeing to a settlement?
Although the department attorney and disciplinary officer had prior discussions with the OIG regarding possible plans for settlement,
the OIG was not actually consulted during the settlement discussions by the hiring authority or the department attorney. The OIG was
notified of the settlement after the settlement agreement had already been signed.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The department attorney informed the OIG that a settlement had been reached after the settlement agreement had already been
signed.
Did the HA cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG throughout the disciplinary phase, until all
proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The OIG was not notified of the settlement until after the settlement agreement had been signed.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-01-07 12-2036-IR
2. Attendance 2. Sustained
Incident Summary
Between January 7, 2012, and May 26, 2012, an officer was allegedly inefficient in his duties when he was absent from work on25
occasions. On May 26, 2012, the officer was allegedly dishonest when he used leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, but was actually
participating in a drag racing event. On June 10, 2012, the officer was again allegedly dishonest when he used leave under the Family
Medical Leave Act, but was actually participating in another racing event.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations and determined that dismissal was the appropriate penalty. The OIG concurred. However, the
officer resigned prior to the completion of the investigation; therefore, disciplinary action was not taken. A letter indicating the officer
resigned under unfavorable circumstances was placed in his official personnel file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Retaliation 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-01-30 12-2267-IR Imposed
Incident Summary
On January 30, 2012, a lieutenant allegedly moved an officer from a second watch position to a third watch position in retaliation of the
officer reporting possible misconduct by other officers. It was further alleged that a facility captain and an associate warden were aware of
and condoned the lieutenant's retaliation against the officer.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 139
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and the Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. After possible misconduct was discovered, the hiring authority delayed almost seven months before referring the
matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. This long delay negatively impacted the case, resulting in the investigation being
completed with less than 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The date of discovery was January 31, 2012; however, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs until
August 17, 2012, almost seven months after the date of discovery.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 30, 2013. The investigation was completed on January 2, 2013, only 28 days
before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the lieutenant, the facility captain, and the
associate warden. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary Modified
2012-02-03 12-0833-IR 2. Misuse of State 2. Sustained Reduction Salary
Equipment or Property 3. Sustained Reduction
3. Inexcusable Absence 4. Not Sustained
without Leave
4. Dishonesty
Incident Summary
On February 3, 2012, an officer allegedly obtained a supervisor's pay code to access an office computer. The officer then allegedly, without
permission, accessed the staffing database system on that computer, approving himself for sick leave on February 5, 2012. On February 5,
2012, the officer allegedly failed to report for duty.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain allegations that the officer misused state equipmentand had an
unauthorized absence. The allegation of dishonesty was not sustained. The hiring authority imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12
months. The OIG concurred. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. At a Skellyhearing, the officer accepted
responsibility and showed remorse by acknowledging he should have spoken to his supervisor first. Additionally, the officer had enough sick
leave available. It was also confirmed that custody staff could readily access the supervisor's computer and the staffing database. As a
result, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer reducing the penalty to a 5 percent salary reduction for ten
months. In exchange, the officer agreed to withdraw his appeal. The OIG concurred based on these mitigating factors and because the
modification was not a significant penalty reduction.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the hiring authority sufficiently complied with the department's policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 140
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Over-Familiarity 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-02-17 12-2843-IR 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Sustained Reduction
Incident Summary
From February 17, 2012, to August 22, 2012, an officer was allegedly overly familiar with inmates, allowing certain inmates to pass notes
and other items to one another. It is further alleged that during this time, the officer opened cell doors and allowed inmates to walk,
unrestrained, between cells and housing sections without any escort or custody staff being present.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and the Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. The hiring authority delayed almost eight months before requesting an investigation and OIA Central Intake took 44
days to decide if an investigation should be opened. These delays significantly impacted the investigation which was completed with only 16
days left before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The date of discovery was February 18, 2012; however, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of InternalAffairs
until October 15, 2012, 240 days after the date of discovery.
Did OIA Central Intake make a determination regarding the case within 30 calendar days?
OIA Central Intake received the request for investigation on October 22, 2012, but did not take action until December 5, 2012, 44 days
after the receipt of the request.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 17, 2013. The investigation was completed on February 1, 2013, only 16 days
before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the officer and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 18 months. The OIG
concurred. At the Skellyhearing, the officer accepted the penalty, but requested that his post and bid rights be restored since changes in his
work schedule would impact his family's childcare schedule. Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the officer's bid rights wererestored. In
exchange, the officer agreed not to bid for a tower or control booth position for the next three years. The officer also agreed to waive his
right to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The OIG concurred because the settlement did not modify the actual penalty and
because the officer was forthright and accepted responsibility.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Training No Change
2012-02-20 12-0997-IR
2. Failure to Report 2. Not Sustained
3. Unreasonable Use of 3. Not Sustained
Force
Incident Summary
On February 20, 2012, a sergeant and four officers allegedly used unreasonable force on an inmate by pulling on the inmate's handcuffs
through the food port, using a safety triangle lanyard. The sergeant and the four officers then allegedly used batons to strike the inmate and
failed to report their use of force. It was further alleged, the sergeant failed to notify a supervisor and failed to accurately document the
incident in a log book. One of the officers also allegedly failed to obtain permission to leave before leaving the incident.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with polices and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 141
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain allegations for neglect of duty against the sergeantand one of the
officers. The hiring authority ordered on-the-job training for the sergeant and officer instead of taking disciplinary action. No allegations
were sustained against the other three officers. The OIG concurred with these determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. Sustained Salary Modified
2012-03-17 12-1001-IR Behavior Reduction Salary
Reduction
Incident Summary
On March 17, 2012, a male officer and a female officer who were dating were allegedly involved in an altercation while on vacation. The
male officer allegedly blocked the female officer from leaving their hotel room and grabbed her wrists. The female officer allegedly struck
the male officer in the nose. Hotel security responded to the scene and arrested the male officer after other hotel guests reported the
commotion.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the male officer and imposed a 5 percent
salary reduction for 12 months. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the
female officer. The OIG concurred. At a Skellyhearing, the male officer presented evidence that he attended anger management and
alcohol abuse classes of his own volition. He also acknowledged that his actions violated policy and brought discredit to thedepartment.
Due to this mitigating information, the department entered into a settlement agreement wherein the department reduced the penalty to a
5 percent salary reduction for six months and the officer agreed not to file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The OIG concurred
with the settlement agreement based on the factors learned at the Skellyhearing.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-03-18 12-1291-IR Behavior 2. Sustained Reduction
2. Discourteous Treatment 3. Not Sustained
3. Dishonesty
Incident Summary
On March 18, 2012, an off-duty officer who had been dating a sergeant allegedly grabbed the sergeant's genitals during an argument,
causing injury to the sergeant. Outside law enforcement responded to the sergeant's home where the incident occurred and arrested the
officer for causing corporal injury to her boyfriend. It was further alleged that the officer was dishonest in a statement tooutside law
enforcement.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 142
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain allegations against the officer for causing injury to her boyfriend
and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. The hiring authority did not sustain the dishonesty allegation against the officer.
The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The officer initially filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board, but later
withdrew her appeal.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Failure to Report 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-03-28 12-1441-IR 2. Unreasonable Use of 2. Not Sustained Imposed
Force
Incident Summary
On March 28, 2012, a sergeant allegedly used unreasonable force on an inmate when he allegedly slammed the inmate’s head to the floor
several times and repeatedly punched the inmate in the back of the head. The sergeant also allegedly failed to report his useof force. A
second sergeant and three officers allegedly witnessed the use of force and also failed to report it.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The hiring authority delayed referring
the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and the Office of Internal Affairs completed the investigation only 17 days before the deadline to
take disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on March 29, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal
Affairs until May 23, 2012, nearly two months after the date of discovery.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 28, 2013. The investigation was completed on March 11, 2013, only 17 days before
the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority's
determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 143
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Discourteous Treatment 1. Sustained Letter of No Change
2012-04-01 12-2041-IR 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Not Sustained Instruction
3. Other Failure of Good 3. Not Sustained
Behavior
Incident Summary
Between April 2012 and May 2012, after a supervising nurse made inquiries about an officer being less than alert, a licensed psychiatric
technician reported that an officer had been sleeping on duty. On June 6, 2012, a second officer spoke to the licensed psychiatric technician
in an allegedly discourteous and intimidating manner about her reporting the first officer. During that conversation, the second officer
allegedly made comments that he would delay providing security assistance to the supervising nurse who inquired about the first officer.
The second officer then allegedly made disparaging remarks against that supervising nurse. On June 14, 2012, a third officer allegedly
endangered the same licensed psychiatric technician when he turned his back to her as she conducted group counseling sessionswith
inmates. On July 10, 2012, the first officer was allegedly less than alert while on duty.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The special
agent failed to provide adequate notice of interviews which included a key witness. Additionally, no substantive investigative work was
conducted between October 24, 2012, and January 7, 2013.
Assessment Questions
Did the department attorney attend investigative interviews for key witnesses to assess witness demeanor and credibility?
The special agent provided only one day's notice for initial witness interviews and failed to identify the specific witnessesto be
interviewed. One of the licensed psychiatric technicians interviewed was a key witness. Due to the short notice, the department
attorney was unable to attend this interview.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
Between October 24, 2012, and January 7, 2013, the special agent failed to conduct any substantive investigative work.
Did the special agent cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG?
The special agent failed to provide adequate notice regarding the first scheduled interviews which included a key witness.
Did the special agent cooperate and provide real-time consultation with the department attorney throughout the investigative phase?
The special agent provided only one day's notice of interviews, and failed to identify the specific witnesses to be interviewed. One of
the licensed psychiatric technicians interviewed was a key witness. Due to the inadequate notice, the department attorney wasunable
to attend these interviews.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the second officer for making discourteous
remarks about the supervising nurse and issued a letter of instruction. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to
sustain the remaining allegations against all three officers. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 144
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-04-09 12-1605-IR 2. Unreasonable Use of 2. Not Sustained Reduction
Force
Incident Summary
On April 9, 2012, it was alleged that an officer used unreasonable force on an inmate who possessed contraband when the inmate refused
orders to exit his cell and instead reached for his waistband and started walking towards the officer. The officer used pepper spray on the
inmate to gain compliance, but allegedly failed to accurately report his use of force. It was further alleged that a second officer witnessed
the first officer's use of force on the inmate, but failed to accurately report it.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The hiring
authority delayed referring the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and the special agent delayed over four months before starting any
substantive investigative work on the case.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The date of discovery was April 24, 2012. However, the matter was not referred for investigation until June 18, 2012, 55 daysafter the
discovery date.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The special agent was assigned to the case on July 16, 2012, and had an initial case conference with the department attorney and the
OIG on August 2, 2012, to discuss the plans for investigating this case. However, the special agent did not start any substantive
investigative work until December 3, 2012, four months after the initial consultation.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegation of neglect of duty against the second officer and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for six
months. The OIG concurred. The second officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority didnot sustain
any allegations against the first officer. The OIG also concurred with this determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Failure to Report 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-04-11 12-1299-IR Reduction
Incident Summary
On April 11, 2012, two officers observed another officer using force on an inmate and allegedly failed to report the use of force until they
were later confronted by supervisors.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against one of the officers and imposed a 10 percent
salary reduction for 12 months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring authority did not sustain the
allegation against the second officer. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 145
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Letter of No Change
2012-04-16 12-1652-IR 2. Dishonesty 2. Not Sustained Instruction
Incident Summary
From April 16, 2012, to May 7, 2012, an officer was allegedly dishonest when he attended a correctional academy in another state while
still employed by the department and on family medical leave status. It was further alleged that the officer failed to appropriately notify the
department about his plans for out-of-state employment.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain an allegation against the officer for failing to notify the department
about his out-of-state employment and issued the officer a letter of instruction. The hiring authority did not sustain the dishonesty
allegation against the officer. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Failure to Report 1. Sustained Letter of No Change
2012-05-04 12-2045-IR 2. Unncessary Use of Force 2. Sustained Instruction
3. Unnecessary Use of 3. Not Sustained
Force
Incident Summary
On May 4, 2012, a sergeant allegedly used unreasonable force when he sprayed three canisters of pepper spray inside an inmate's cell
instead of initiating a calculated cell extraction of the inmate. The sergeant also allegedly failed to accurately report hisuse of force. It was
further alleged that four officers witnessed the sergeant's use of force and failed to accurately report it.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the sergeant used unreasonable force when he
chose to use pepper spray, utilizing immediate force instead of initiating a calculated cell extraction. However, the allegation that the
sergeant used unreasonable force when he used multiple canisters of pepper spray was not sustained, nor was the allegation that the
sergeant failed to accurately report the use of force. The hiring authority issued a letter of instruction to the sergeant and ordered he
complete on the job training. The hiring authority also determined that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that three of
the four officers failed to accurately report their observations of the sergeant's use of force. The hiring authority issued letters of instruction
to those three officers. No allegation was sustained against the remaining officer. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's
determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 146
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-05-07 12-1776-IR Imposed
Incident Summary
On May 7, 2012, a sergeant who needed to complete his range master re-certification allegedly conspired with a second sergeant to falsify
the first sergeant's qualification records for chemical agents and impact munitions. On May 14, 2012, the first sergeant again allegedly
conspired with the same second sergeant to falsify the first sergeant's overall range master re-certification documents.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against either sergeant. The OIG concurred
with the hiring authority's determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-06-17 13-0255-IR
2. Other Failure of Good 2. Sustained
Behavior 3. Sustained
3. Discourteous Treatment 4. Sustained
4. Battery
Incident Summary
On June 17, 2012, an off-duty officer allegedly engaged in an altercation with his girlfriend by throwing her on the ground four times,
dragging her by the hair, choking her with his hands, punching her in the face, and throwing several items at her head, resulting in bruises
and swelling around her neck and face. The officer was subsequently arrested. The officer was also allegedly dishonest when questioned by
the Office of Internal Affairs.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The OIG began monitoring this case after the investigation was concluded. Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently
complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations. These allegations were combined with two unrelated cases pending against the officer and
the officer already had two prior criminal convictions for driving under the influence. The hiring authority determined dismissal was the
appropriate penalty. The OIG concurred. Additionally, the hiring authority served the officer with a non-punitive dismissal because his
driver's license was suspended, which was a requirement of employment. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action or the
non-punitive dismissal took effect. A letter indicating the officer resigned under unfavorable circumstances was placed in his official
personnel file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 147
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-06-27 12-2485-IR 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Not Sustained Imposed
Incident Summary
On June 27, 2012, a captain allegedly failed to complete the administrative review section on an inmate's administrative segregation
documents. On July 17, 2012, the captain also allegedly failed to complete the same documentation on two other inmates. It was further
alleged, on July 20, 2012, the same captain falsified the required documentation for those three inmates.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain any allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority's
determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-08-16 12-2483-IR 2. Insubordination 2. Not Sustained Imposed
Incident Summary
On August 16, 2012, an officer was allegedly dishonest when he told a captain that he did not post inappropriate comments on a social
networking website about a second officer. On August 18, 2012, the officer was allegedly insubordinate when he continued to post
inappropriate comments after the captain had just instructed him to be courteous and professional to the second officer.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority's
determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-08-21 12-2629-IR 2. Unreasonable Use of 2. Not Sustained Imposed
Force
Incident Summary
On August 21, 2012, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force when he used pepper spray on an inmate inside a cell. It wasalleged that
the officer had been dishonest when he reported that the inmate had exited the cell before he used pepper spray. In addition,the officer
was also allegedly dishonest when he reported that he ordered a cell door be opened for a newly arrived inmate.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 148
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer. However, the officer was
ordered to receive on-the-job training for incident report writing because the officer's report needed clarification. The OIG concurred with
the hiring authority's determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-08-24 13-0389-IR Imposed
Incident Summary
On August 24, 2012, an officer allegedly was dishonest when he claimed a lieutenant falsified personnel records relating to the officer.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority’s
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 149
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2009-03-01 13-0041-IR
Incident Summary
Between March 2009 and March 2012, a sergeant allegedly falsified his timesheets resulting in receipt of over $190,000.00 of overtime pay
for time that he did not work. It was also alleged that he was dishonest in his investigatory interview.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the sergeant with a letter of intent with a proposed penalty of dismissal. However,
the sergeant retired before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the sergeant retired pending disciplinary action was placed
in his official personnel file. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Insubordination 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2010-09-01 12-1091-IR 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Not Sustained Imposed
Incident Summary
Between September 1, 2010, and March 16, 2012, a captain allegedly failed to adequately supervise a mailroom supervisor who allegedly
did not properly and timely process several thousand pieces of inmate mail. It was further alleged that the captain was insubordinate when
he failed to comply with an associate warden's directive to inspect the mailroom.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department attorney failed to comply with the department’s policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The
department attorney failed to make contact with the special agent to discuss the case in a timely manner, attend a critical witness
interview, and provide written confirmation concerning the thoroughness of the investigation.
Assessment Questions
No later than 21 calendar days following assignment of the case, did the department attorney contact the assigned special agent and
the monitor to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation of the alleged misconduct?
The department attorney was assigned May 21, 2012, but did not make contact with the assigned special agent to discuss the
elements of a thorough investigation until June 21, 2012, 30 days after being assigned the case.
Did the department attorney attend investigative interviews for key witnesses to assess witness demeanor and credibility?
The department attorney failed to attend a critical witness interview. This interview involved the captain's direct supervisor.
Within 21 calendar days following receipt of the investigative report, did the department attorney review the report and provide
appropriate substantive feedback addressing the thoroughness and clarity of the report?
The draft report was sent to the department attorney on December 18, 2012; however, the department attorney did not document in
CMS that the report was received and did not provide appropriate substantive feedback addressing the thoroughness and clarityof the
report.
Did the department attorney provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation to the OIG summarizing critical discussions about the investigative
report. Also, the department attorney did not make any entries in the case management system indicating any discussions with the
special agent regarding the investigative report.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 150
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority’s
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Sexual Misconduct 1. Sustained Dismissal Resignation in
2011-08-01 13-0034-IR 2. Contraband 2. Sustained Lieu of
Termination
Incident Summary
Between August 2011 and August 2012, a cook allegedly engaged in overly familiar sexual relationships with two inmates. It was further
alleged that between January 2012 and August 2012, the cook brought mobile phones into the institution in exchange for money.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and dismissed the cook. The OIG concurred with the
hiring authority's determination. Before an appeal was filed, the department entered into a settlement agreement wherein the cook
resigned in lieu of the dismissal. The OIG did not concur with the settlement because the resignation in lieu of dismissal provides the cook
greater flexibility and ease in obtaining employment with another state agency. The department had overwhelming evidence to support the
disciplinary action including the cook's tape-recorded admission that she provided mobiles phones to different inmates, financial records
evidencing that she was paid over $8,000.00 to provide mobile phones, and her admission that she had been in a relationship with more
than one inmate. However, the OIG did not seek a higher level of review as the settlement achieved the immediate goal of terminating the
cook's employment with the department.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Unfounded No Penalty No Change
2011-11-24 12-1999-IR 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Unfounded Imposed
Incident Summary
It was alleged that between November 24, 2011, and December 13, 2012, an officer engaged in a systematic and concerted effortto deny
inmates access to medical appointments and the use of the inmate appeals process.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority failed to refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs in a timely manner. In addition, the investigation was
completed with only seven days remaining before the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on February 6, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Officeof
Internal Affairs until July 20, 2012, more than five months after the date of discovery.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The report was completed and submitted to the hiring authority with only seven days left before the deadline to take disciplinary
action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 151
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority determined that the investigation conclusively proved the misconduct did not occur.The OIG concurred with the hiring
authority’s determination
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Threat Toward an 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2011-12-17 12-0869-IR Inmate Imposed
Incident Summary
On December 17, 2011, two officers allegedly threatened to harm an inmate if he did not stop making inquiries about a female officer.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. The department attorney failed to provide written feedback regarding the investigative report and the special agent
completed the investigation only 13 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Did the department attorney provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The report was completed and submitted to the hiring authority with only 13 days left before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority's
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Sexual Misconduct 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-01-02 12-2018-IR Imposed
Incident Summary
On January 2, 2012, an officer allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority's
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 152
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Contraband 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-01-03 12-0773-IR
2. Over-Familiarity 2. Sustained
3. Neglect of Duty 3. Sustained
Incident Summary
Since January 3, 2012, a laboratory assistant was allegedly overly familiar with an inmate by communicating with the inmate via text
messaging and providing contraband consisting of a mobile phone, tobacco, and personal hygiene products.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. The department attorney did not accurately document his initial review of the case nor did he contact the assigned
agent for the initial case conference. Additionally, the department attorney did not attend any interviews. The special agentdid not provide
the department attorney a draft copy of the investigative report before forwarding it to the hiring authority.
Assessment Questions
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make any entry into CMS accurately confirming relevant dates.
No later than 21 calendar days following assignment of the case, did the department attorney contact the assigned special agent and
the monitor to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation of the alleged misconduct?
The department attorney was assigned on April 9, 2012, but did not contact either the assigned special agent or the OIG untilJune 9,
2012, more than two months after assignment, and only after being contacted first by the OIG and the assigned special agent.
Did the department attorney attend investigative interviews for key witnesses to assess witness demeanor and credibility?
The department attorney did not attend any witness interviews.
Upon completion of the investigation, was a draft copy of the investigative report timely forwarded to the department attorney to
allow for feedback before it was forwarded to the HA or prosecuting agency?
The department attorney was not provided a draft copy of the investigative report before it was forwarded to the hiring authority.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations and determined that dismissal was the appropriate penalty. However, the laboratory assistant
resigned prior to the completion of the investigation. A letter indicating she resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in her official
personnel file. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department adequately complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-01-16 12-0718-IR 2. Failure to Report 2. Not Sustained Reduction
3. Unreasonable Use of 3. Not Sustained
Force
Incident Summary
On January 16, 2012, an officer allegedly used unreasonable force on an inmate after the inmate refused to accept a new cellmate. The
officer also allegedly neglected his duties by failing to allow the inmate time to cool off before entering his cell and by failing to contact a
supervisor before asking the control booth officer to open the cell door. A second officer allegedly failed to allow a cooling-off period and
failed to accurately report the first officer's use of force.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 153
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The Office of Internal Affairs delayed
processing the request for investigation and delayed conducting the investigation. Due to the delay, the hiring authority received the
investigation only 11 days before the deadline for taking disciplinary action. The department attorney failed to timely review the
investigative report.
Assessment Questions
Did OIA Central Intake make a determination regarding the case within 30 calendar days?
OIA Central Intake received the request for investigation on February 17, 2013, but did not take action until March 28, 2013,40 days
after receipt of the request.
Within 21 calendar days following receipt of the investigative report, did the department attorney review the report and provide
appropriate substantive feedback addressing the thoroughness and clarity of the report?
The draft report was sent to the department attorney on December 12, 2012; however, the department attorney did not review the
report until January 7, 2013, 26 days later. Because the deadline for taking disciplinary action was January 14, 2013, the report was
sent to the hiring authority on January 2, 2013, without the department attorney providing appropriate substantive feedback
addressing the thoroughness and clarity of the report.
Did the department attorney provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 14, 2013. The investigation was submitted to the hiring authority on January 2,
2013, only 11 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain an allegation of neglect of duty against the first officer for asking
the control booth officer to open the cell door and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for one month. The hiring authority determined
there was insufficient evidence to sustain the other allegations. He also determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the
allegations against the second officer. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The first officer did not file an appeal
with the State Personnel Board.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Misuse of Authority 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-01-19 12-1796-IR 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Not Sustained Imposed
Incident Summary
On January 19, 2012, a captain allegedly ordered a lieutenant to back date documents related to an inmate's disciplinary action and ordered
the lieutenant to find the inmate guilty. The captain also allegedly used unprofessional language about the lieutenant in front of
subordinate officers and announced that she would not accept a promotion in order to prevent the lieutenant from promoting.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department's investigative process was insufficient. The hiring authority failed to timely refer the matter to the Officeof Internal Affairs
and the Office of Internal Affairs failed to conduct the investigation with due diligence. The department attorney failed to contact the
assigned special agent and confirm the date of discovery within 21 days of being assigned, and failed to provide written confirmation of all
critical discussions about the investigative report.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 154
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The date of discovery was May 15, 2012; however, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs until
July 2, 2012, 49 days after the date of discovery.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make any entry into CMS confirming the relevant dates.
No later than 21 calendar days following assignment of the case, did the department attorney contact the assigned special agent and
the monitor to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation of the alleged misconduct?
The department attorney did not contact the assigned special agent or monitor to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation
within 21 days following assignment to the case.
Did the department attorney provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The Office of Internal Affairs investigation was not conducted with due diligence. The first investigative interview did nottake place
until 120 days after the case was approved for investigation by OIA Central Intake.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The investigative report was delivered to the hiring authority with less than 21 days remaining before the deadline to take disciplinary
action.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority's
determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Sexual Misconduct 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-01-23 12-1174-IR Imposed
Incident Summary
Between January 23, 2012, and February 13, 2012, an officer allegedly sexually battered an inmate by grabbing the inmate's buttocks. On
March 5, 2012, the same officer allegedly sexually battered the same inmate by grabbing the inmate's breast and buttocks, andkissing the
inmate.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with hiring authority's
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 155
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Failure to Report 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-02-01 12-1320-IR 2. Unreasonable Use of 2. Not Sustained Imposed
Force
Incident Summary
On February 1, 2012, an officer allegedly took control of an inmate's wheelchair, rolled it into a housing unit, and releasedit, causing the
inmate to forcefully strike the wall. The officer also allegedly failed to report the use of force.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Over-Familiarity 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-02-24 12-0827-IR Imposed
Incident Summary
On February 24, 2012, it was alleged an officer was overly familiar with an inmate by sending personal photographs to the inmate.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department’s policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The
special agent did not complete a timely investigation in that the investigation was not completed until 19 days before the deadline to take
disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Did the department attorney attend investigative interviews for key witnesses to assess witness demeanor and credibility?
The department attorney did not attend an inmate interview.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The report was completed and submitted to the hiring authority with only 19 days left before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority’s
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 156
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-03-07 12-1313-IR 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Not Sustained Imposed
Incident Summary
On March 7, 2012, a sergeant allegedly identified an inmate as an informant in the presence of other inmates thereby jeopardizing the
inmate's safety within the institution. The sergeant also allegedly refused to take a report from the inmate concerning damaged property in
retaliation for the inmate's refusal to comply with an order to remove paper that was covering the inmate's cell door.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority’s
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-03-14 12-1845-IR
2. Neglect of Duty 2. Sustained
Incident Summary
On March 14, 2012, an officer allegedly failed to ensure that handcuffs were properly secured on a special housing unit inmate before
releasing him from a temporary holding cell. The inmate subsequently attacked another inmate. Thereafter, the officer was allegedly
dishonest when he reported that he had followed proper restraint procedures by performing a visual check to ensure the restraints were
properly in place. The officer was also allegedly dishonest during his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative
process. The hiring authority delayed referring the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The department attorney failed to timely consult
with the Office of Internal Affairs and the OIG, and failed to timely assess and modify the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The date of discovery was March 15, 2012; however, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs until
July 23, 2012, over four months after the date of discovery.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney was assigned August 13, 2012, but did not make an entry into CMS regarding the deadline for taking
disciplinary action until October 1, 2012, 50 calendar days after assignment.
No later than 21 calendar days following assignment of the case, did the department attorney contact the assigned special agent and
the monitor to discuss the elements of a thorough investigation of the alleged misconduct?
The department attorney was assigned August 13, 2012, but did not contact the special agent or the monitor to discuss the elements
of a thorough investigation until October 1, 2012, 50 calendar days after assignment.
Did the department attorney appropriately determine that the deadline for taking disciplinary action as originally calculatedshould be
modified and consult with the OIG and special agent?
The department attorney failed to modify the deadline for taking disciplinary action when documents revealed that the department
learned of the misconduct earlier than originally thought.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 157
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The OIG concurred. However,the officer
resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the officer retired pending disciplinary action was placed in his official
personnel file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The hiring authority failed to timely serve
the disciplinary action. The department attorney failed to provide written confirmation of penalty discussions and provide a draft copy of
the disciplinary action to the OIG.
Assessment Questions
Did the department attorney provide to the HA and OIG written confirmation of penalty discussions?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation of penalty discussions to the hiring authority or the OIG.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer provide the OIG with a copy of the draft disciplinary action and consult with the
OIG?
The department attorney did not provide a copy of the draft disciplinary action to the OIG.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority failed to timely serve the disciplinary action. The deadline for taking disciplinary action was March 14, 2013. The
hiring authority decided to take disciplinary action on January 30, 2013. However, the officer was not served a letter of intent to take
disciplinary action until March 14, 2013, 43 days later, which was the deadline for taking disciplinary action. The disciplinary action
was not served until April 12, 2013, 72 days after the decision to take disciplinary action.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Failure to Report 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2012-03-16 12-1311-IR 2. Dishonesty 2. Not Sustained Reduction
Incident Summary
On March 16, 2012, two officers allegedly failed to timely report their own and each other's use of force. On April 12, 2012,one of the
officers was allegedly dishonest by failing to report his use of force in a written memorandum regarding the incident of March 16, 2012.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against one officer for failing to report his use of
force and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The hiring
authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officer who was allegedly dishonest and failed to
report his use of force. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Sexual Misconduct 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-03-21 12-0868-IR Imposed
Incident Summary
On March 21, 2012, a former sergeant reported to an investigative services unit that between October 1, 2006, and April 19, 2011, a
lieutenant allegedly groped her breasts and groin area while on duty. She further alleged that during the same time period, asergeant
forced her to engage in sexual intercourse while on duty.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 158
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and the OIG concurred.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-03-31 12-2356-IR Imposed
Incident Summary
Between March 31, 2012, and June 3, 2012, a lieutenant allegedly altered a computerized work schedule tracking system indicating that he
was at work on seven days when in fact he was on leave.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority’s
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Letter of No Change
2012-04-14 12-1581-IR 2. Dishonesty 2. Not Sustained Instruction
Incident Summary
On April 14, 2012, an officer allegedly was dishonest with the outside law enforcement regarding his vehicle registration. The officer was
also allegedly dishonest in his use of sick leave and allegedly failed to report secondary employment.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department attorney failed to comply with policies and procedures by failing to accurately document the date of discoveryand the
deadline to take disciplinary action, and by failing to provide substantive feedback addressing the accuracy and clarity of the investigative
report.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 159
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney made an entry into CMS. However, he merely stated the date of the incident. He did not accurately state the
date of discovery nor did he make any entry indicating the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Within 21 calendar days following receipt of the investigative report, did the department attorney review the report and provide
appropriate substantive feedback addressing the thoroughness and clarity of the report?
The draft report was sent to the department attorney on January 10, 2013; however, the department attorney did not document in
CMS that the report was reviewed and did not provide appropriate substantive feedback addressing the thoroughness and clarityof
the report.
Did the department attorney provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of failure to report secondary employment and
issued a letter of instruction. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations ofdishonesty. The
OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Unreasonable Use of 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-04-27 12-2505-IR Force Imposed
Incident Summary
On April 27, 2012, an officer allegedly utilized unreasonable force when he used pepper spray on a ward who refused to submitto
handcuffs after the ward disrupted class, argued with the teacher, refused to follow lawful commands, and caused an alarm andresponse
by several officers. It was further alleged the officer used unreasonable force when he raised his right leg to stop the wardwho was
advancing toward him with fists clenched in an aggressive threatening manner.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority’s
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 160
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-04-30 12-1997-IR 2. Transportation and Sale 2. Not Sustained Imposed
of Marijuana 3. Not Sustained
3. Theft of PG&E 4. Not Sustained
Electrical Power
4. Cultivation of Marijuana
Incident Summary
On April 30, 2012, an officer was allegedly involved in the transportation and sale of marijuana in the state of New York. Itwas further
alleged that since May 31, 2011, the officer had been cultivating marijuana on his residential property. On May 31, 2012, it was alleged that
an officer had altered his residential electrical power connection to divert power prior to the meter to receive power that was not
monitored or paid for and was illegally growing marijuana. It was further alleged that the officer was dishonest when he toldoutside law
enforcement that he had no knowledge of the electrical bypass or the illegal marijuana being cultivated on his property.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority's
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Misuse of Authority 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-05-12 12-1694-IR 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Not Sustained Imposed
3. Weapons 3. Not Sustained
Incident Summary
On May 12, 2012, while off duty, an officer was allegedly discourteous to his father when he entered into an argument that escalated into a
physical altercation. The officer also allegedly misused his badge to gain unauthorized entry into a locked gated private residential
community and was carrying a weapon without authorization.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority’s
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 161
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal Resignation
2012-05-13 12-1526-IR
2. Over-Familiarity 2. Sustained
3. Neglect of Duty 3. Sustained
Incident Summary
On May 13, 2012, an officer was allegedly overly familiar with an inmate when she provided the inmate individual religious instruction on
an exercise yard where other inmates were present thereby jeopardizing the safety and security of inmates and the institution. The officer
also allegedly neglected her duties by knowingly introducing an unauthorized book into the institution and giving it to the inmate. The
officer was allegedly dishonest during her investigative interview when she claimed that a sergeant gave her permission to bring the book
into the institution.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and after consolidating sustained allegations from
another investigation, determined dismissal was the appropriate penalty. The OIG concurred. The officer resigned after the disciplinary
action was served but before the disciplinary action became effective. A letter indicating the officer resigned under adversecircumstances
was placed in her official personnel file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-05-17 12-1747-IR 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Not Sustained Imposed
Incident Summary
On May 17, 2012, a lieutenant allegedly pre-constructed a statement and assigned the statement to an inmate before the inmate had
participated in the hearing. It was further alleged that on June 25, 2012, the lieutenant submitted documentation indicating that he
conducted a hearing with another inmate when no hearing was conducted. It was also alleged that the lieutenant was negligent on March
26, 2012, when he allegedly delayed the final processing of an inmate's documentation of loss of privileges so that the inmate could attend
his scheduled family visit on April 20, 2012.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority’s
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 162
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Sexual Misconduct 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-05-18 12-1703-IR
2. Other Failure of Good 2. Sustained
Behavior
Incident Summary
On May 18, 2012, an off-duty officer allegedly provided alcohol to several minors who were at his residence for an eighth grade graduation
party. It was further alleged that the officer videotaped a minor while she showered at his residence and engaged in sexual acts with her.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and determined dismissal was the appropriate
penalty. However, the officer resigned before disciplinary action could be imposed. A letter indicating the officer resigned under adverse
circumstances was placed in his official personnel file. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-05-25 12-2456-IR 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Not Sustained Imposed
Incident Summary
On May 25, 2012, an officer was allegedly discourteous to an inmate by making a derogatory comment. The officer was also allegedly
dishonest in an official appeal inquiry when he denied making the derogatory comment.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority's
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Misuse of State 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-05-27 13-0655-IR Equipment or Property 2. Not Sustained Imposed
2. Theft
Incident Summary
Between May 27, 2012, and March 1, 2013, two youth counselors allegedly purchased several pornographic videos utilizing the
department's digital television receiver and had the charges billed to the department.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority failed to comply with the department’s policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The hiring
authority waited nine months after discovering the alleged misconduct before referring the matter to OIA Central Intake for investigation.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 163
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on July 1, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal
Affairs until April 5, 2013, 279 days later.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against either youth counselor. The OIG concurred
with the hiring authority’s determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department sufficient complied with policies and procedures.
OIG Recommendation
The OIG and department attorney joined in recommending that the hiring authority restrict or block access to pornographic or X-rated
movies on any of the institution's televisions and cable boxes. The hiring authority has already implemented changes. The cable box has
been removed from the officers' quarters. The two remaining boxes in the youth dorm recreation room and in the youth gym require an
access code and only the supervisors have the access code, which is changed periodically.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Discourteous Treatment 1. Sustained Suspension No Change
2012-06-11 12-1748-IR
2. Dishonesty 2. Not Sustained
3. Other Failure of Good 3. Not Sustained
Behavior
Incident Summary
On June 11, 2012, it was reported that an off-duty officer allegedly vandalized a mailbox and personal vehicle belonging to an outside law
enforcement officer, delivered a package and letter containing offensive statements to the officer's residence, took items belonging to the
officer, and made false or misleading statements during an investigation conducted by outside law enforcement.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegation of discourteous treatment but determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the
allegations of dishonesty, vandalism, and theft. The officer was served with a two working-day suspension. After the Skellyhearing, the
department entered into a settlement agreement whereby the department agreed to remove the disciplinary action from the officer's
official personnel file in one year as opposed to the customary three years and the officer agreed not to file an appeal withthe State
Personnel Board. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's determinations and the settlement. The OIG concurred because the officer
accepted responsibility for his actions, expressed remorse, and the penalty of a two working-day suspension was not reduced.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The department attorney failed to
provide the hiring authority and the OIG written confirmation of the penalty discussions and failed to prepare a sufficient disciplinary action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 164
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the department attorney provide to the HA and OIG written confirmation of penalty discussions?
The department attorney did not provide the hiring authority or the OIG written confirmation of the penalty discussions.
Was the draft disciplinary action provided to the OIG for review appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The draft disciplinary action was not appropriately drafted as described by the department's policies and procedures. The draft did not
allege the facts with sufficient specificity to meet the requirements of controlling case law.
Was the disciplinary action served on the employee(s) appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The disciplinary action served on the employee was not appropriately drafted as described by the department's policies and
procedures as it failed to allege the facts with sufficient specificity to meet the requirements of controlling case law.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Over-Familiarity 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-07-02 13-0569-IR 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Not Sustained Imposed
3. Discourteous Treatment 3. Not Sustained
Incident Summary
On July 2, 2012, a youth counselor allegedly warned wards that a search would be conducted. On July 3, 2012, the youth counselor
allegedly inappropriately confiscated wards' personal property. The youth counselor was also allegedly discourteous to three other
employees by making lewd and disparaging remarks about them to wards.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The hiring authority delayed referring
the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and the OIA Central Intake delayed making a determination regarding the referral.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on July 10, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office ofInternal
Affairs until February 14, 2013, 221 days later.
Did OIA Central Intake make a determination regarding the case within 30 calendar days?
OIA Central Intake received the request for investigation on February 25, 2013, did not take action until April 17, 2013, 51 days later.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority’s
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal Resignation
2012-08-15 12-2535-IR
Incident Summary
On August 15, 2012, an off-duty officer was allegedly dishonest with outside law enforcement officers who were conducting a domestic
violence investigation. The off-duty officer initially claimed that her boyfriend, a fellow off-duty officer, physically battered her and
vandalized her vehicle, leading to his arrest. Several months later, during a video-taped recording, she recanted these allegations.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 165
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the officer was dishonest during the initial
criminal investigation. However, the hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation thatthe officer was
dishonest when she recanted her statement provided during the criminal investigation. After consolidating sustained allegations from
another investigation, the hiring authority determined dismissal was the appropriate penalty. The officer resigned after the disciplinary
action was served, but before the dismissal became effective. A letter indicating the officer resigned under adverse circumstances was
placed in her official personnel file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-10-08 12-2774-IR
Incident Summary
Between October 8, 2012, and February 9, 2013, an officer allegedly falsely claimed that he had a medical appointment on fiveseparate
occasions to avoid mandatory overtime. It was also alleged that the officer forged five other physician's notes. The officer also allegedly
provided false or misleading statements during his interview with the Office of Internal Affairs.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined that there was sufficient evidence to sustain all of the allegations and dismissed the officer. The OIG
concurred with the hiring authority's findings. The officer did not file an appeal.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-11-02 12-2851-IR Behavior Imposed
Incident Summary
On November 2, 2012, a lieutenant allegedly asked an officer to post his union campaign flyers in an entrance building at theinstitution in
violation of departmental policy. When the officer explained that she would have to get permission prior to posting the flyers, the
lieutenant allegedly laid money on the flyers in an attempt to get the officer to post the flyers without first obtaining permission.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 166
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Over-Familiarity 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-11-06 12-2701-IR
2. Insubordination 2. Sustained
3. Neglect of Duty 3. Sustained
Incident Summary
It was alleged on November 6, 2012, a chief medical officer had been overly familiar with an inmate. The inmate had the chiefmedical
officer's personal telephone number and home address. In addition, the chief medical officer allegedly failed to inform the hiring authority,
in writing, that he had contact with the inmate after he had been released on parole. The chief medical officer was allegedlyinsubordinate
because he refused to be interviewed by the Office of Internal Affairs during the investigation.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and determined that dismissal was the appropriate
penalty. However, the chief medical officer retired prior to the completion of the investigation; therefore, the disciplinaryaction was not
taken. A letter indicating he retired under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2013-03-07 13-0486-IR
2. Contraband 2. Sustained
3. Over-Familiarity 3. Sustained
4. Misuse of State 4. Sustained
Equipment or Property 5. Sustained
5. Alteration of Evidence
Incident Summary
On March 7, 2013, an officer allegedly attempted to introduce contraband, including numerous mobile phones and drugs, into the
institution for financial gain. The officer was also allegedly overly familiar with inmates and the families and acquaintances of inmates, and
dishonest during the investigative interview. In addition, the officer allegedly altered his uniform to facilitate the introduction of contraband
and altered evidence after the investigative interview.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of dismissal. The OIG concurred. However,the officer
resigned before the disciplinary action took effect. A letter indicating the officer resigned pending disciplinary action wasplaced in his
official personnel file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 167
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2009-04-01 12-1076-IR
2. Sexual Misconduct 2. Sustained
3. Contraband 3. Sustained
4. Over-Familiarity 4. Sustained
Incident Summary
Between April 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010, a supervising cook allegedly engaged in at least two acts of sexual misconduct with an
inmate resulting in a child being born in September 2011, and exchanged mail and mobile phone communications with the inmate.
Between April 1, 2012, and May 4, 2012, the supervising cook allegedly introduced mobile phones and tobacco into the institution for
inmates. The supervising cook was also allegedly dishonest to the Office of Internal Affairs when she denied bringing contraband into the
institution.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations and determined dismissal was the appropriate penalty; however, the supervisingcook
resigned prior to the completion of the investigation. Disciplinary action was not taken. The OIG concurred. A letter indicating the
supervising cook resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in her official personnel file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained No Penalty No Change
2009-12-01 12-2179-IR 2. Sexual Misconduct 2. Sustained Imposed
3. Over-Familiarity 3. Sustained
4. Neglect of Duty 4. Sustained
Incident Summary
Between December 1, 2009, and June 30, 2012, a parole agent allegedly engaged in sexual activity with three parolees and allowed one of
the parolees to live at his home. The parole agent also allegedly communicated with multiple inmates and parolees, and failedto report his
contacts to his hiring authority. Additionally, the parole agent was allegedly dishonest to the Office of Internal Affairs when he denied
having sexual contact with parolees.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations; however, the parole agent resigned before
disciplinary action could be imposed. A letter indicating the parole agent resigned under adverse circumstances was placed inhis official
personnel file. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 168
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2010-05-01 12-1081-IR
2. Insubordination 2. Sustained
3. Neglect of Duty 3. Sustained
Incident Summary
Between May 1, 2010, and March 11, 2012, a parole agent allegedly made false entries in caseload rosters, failed to maintain proper
records of supervision, failed to conduct required home visits, and failed to collect drug tests related to three parolees under his
supervision. From May 1, 2010, through January 30, 2012, the parole agent also allegedly failed to complete a required transfer of
supervision request for one of the parolees. On January 22, 2013, the parole agent allegedly failed to respond to the Office of Internal
Affairs for an interview after being ordered to do so.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with the policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The hiring authority failed to timely
refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The department attorney failed to timely make an entry into CMS regardingthe deadline
for taking disciplinary action, failed to provide adequate legal consultation regarding possible tolling of the deadline for taking disciplinary
action, and failed to review and provide appropriate substantive feedback regarding the draft investigative report. The special agent failed
to conduct the investigation with due diligence, failed to timely complete the investigation, and failed to draft a thorough investigative
report.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 169
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on March 2, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office ofInternal
Affairs until April 25, 2012, 54 days after the date of discovery.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney was assigned on May 23, 2012, but did not make an entry into CMS regarding the deadline for taking
disciplinary action until July 10, 2012, 48 days after assignment.
Did the department attorney appropriately determine that the deadline for taking disciplinary action as originally calculatedshould be
modified and consult with the OIG and special agent?
Despite requests by the special agent and recommendations by the OIG to review the law related to the Family Medical Leave Act and
it's impact on possible tolling of the deadline for taking disciplinary action, the department attorney failed to conduct anylegal
research or provide any legal analysis of the issue.
Within 21 calendar days following receipt of the investigative report, did the department attorney review the report and provide
appropriate substantive feedback addressing the thoroughness and clarity of the report?
The department attorney did not review the report and provide appropriate substantive feedback addressing the thoroughness and
clarity of the report.
Did the department attorney provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG.
Was the investigative draft report provided to the OIG for review thorough and appropriately drafted?
The investigative report failed to include an allegation addressing the parole agent's failure to comply with an order to attend an
interview at the Office of Internal Affairs.
Was the final investigative report thorough and appropriately drafted?
The final investigative report failed to include an allegation addressing the parole agent's failure to comply with an order to attend an
interview at the Office of Internal Affairs.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The special agent was assigned to the case on May 31, 2012, but no interviews were conducted until October 18, 2012, more than four
months after assignment.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The investigation was completed and submitted to the hiring authority with only 21 days left before the deadline for taking disciplinary
action.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and determined that dismissal was the appropriate
penalty. The OIG concurred. However, the parole agent retired before the disciplinary action could be imposed. A letter indicating the
parole agent retired under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The
department attorney failed to attend the findings and penalty conference, failed to provide any legal consultation to the hiring authority
regarding the findings and penalty, and failed to prepare a thorough draft disciplinary action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 170
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the VA provide appropriate legal consultation to the HA regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and investigative findings?
The department attorney did not participate in and did not consult with the hiring authority regarding the sufficiency of the
investigation and investigative findings. The department attorney, due to scheduling conflicts, indicated that she was not available to
participate. The hiring authority chose to proceed without the department attorney to avoid the risk of missing the deadline for taking
disciplinary action.
Did the department attorney provide appropriate legal consultation to the HA regarding disciplinary determinations?
The department attorney did not participate in and did not consult with the hiring authority regarding the disciplinary determinations.
The department attorney, due to scheduling conflicts, indicated that she was not available to participate. The hiring authority chose to
proceed without the department attorney to avoid the risk of missing the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Was the draft disciplinary action provided to the OIG for review appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The draft disciplinary action failed to include numerous facts that supported the sustained allegations.
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG
throughout the disciplinary phase, until all proceedings were completed, except for those related to a writ?
The department attorney failed to participate in the findings and penalty conference due to scheduling conflicts. The hiring authority
chose to proceed without the department attorney to avoid the risk of missing the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The hiring authority received the investigative report on January 31, 2013, just 21 days before the deadline for taking disciplinary
action. The hiring authority requested an expedited findings and penalty conference to avoid missing the deadline for taking
disciplinary action. The assigned department attorney, due to scheduling conflicts, indicated that she was unavailable until just days
before the deadline for taking disciplinary action. The hiring authority conducted the findings and penalty conference without the
presence of a department attorney. Although provided with notice, no other department attorney participated.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Training No Change
2010-06-16 12-0957-IR
Incident Summary
Between June 16, 2010, and December 24, 2011, five parole agents and two supervising parole agents allegedly failed to properly supervise
a parolee by failing to require the parolee to comply with conditions of parole that he have no contact with the victim of his domestic
violence crime and that he complete a treatment program for domestic violence offenders. The alleged failure to properly supervise the
parolee came to light on December 24, 2011, after the parolee allegedly murdered the domestic violence victim.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the investigative process. The department attorney failed to
confirm relevant dates and failed to timely provide an appropriate legal analysis of the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and the
special agent failed to timely conduct the investigation.
Assessment Questions
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make any entry into CMS confirming relevant dates. Also, the deadline for taking disciplinaryaction
was not initially apparent from the facts of the case. Despite repeated requests to the department attorney by the OIG and the special
agent, the department attorney failed to timely provide a satisfactory legal analysis of the deadline for taking disciplinaryaction.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
The special agent was assigned to the case on May 11, 2012, but did not conduct initial witness interviews until July 31, 2012, 81 days
after assignment. Delays in the investigation were caused, in part, by extensive delays in obtaining a firm opinion from the department
attorney regarding the deadline for taking disciplinary action. The determination of the deadline for taking disciplinary action
determined who would remain a subject and who would need to be interviewed.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 171
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against four parole agents and a supervising parole
agent for neglect of duty and imposed training for three of the parole agents, imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for threemonths as to
the other parole agent, and served a letter of reprimand on the supervising parole agent. The hiring authority determined there was
insufficient evidence to sustain allegations against the fifth parole agent and the other supervising parole agent. The OIG concurred with the
hiring authority's determinations. The supervising parole agent filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. However, it was later
determined that the disciplinary actions for both the parole agent and the supervising parole agent were not properly served before the
deadline to take disciplinary action. Both of the disciplinary actions were withdrawn by the hiring authority before any proceedings before
the State Personnel Board took place. The parole agent and supervising parole agent were then served with letters of expectation. Due to
the untimely service of the disciplinary actions, the OIG concurred.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and the department attorney failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The
hiring authority failed to serve the letters of intent and the disciplinary action before the deadline for taking disciplinary action. Both the
draft and final disciplinary actions prepared by the department attorney for the supervising parole agent failed to accurately reflect the
factual misconduct the hiring authority found.
Assessment Questions
Was the CDCR Form 403 documenting the penalty properly completed?
The CDCR Form 403 was not properly completed. The form did not accurately reflect the aggravating and mitigating factors found by
the hiring authority.
Was the draft disciplinary action provided to the OIG for review appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The draft disciplinary action for the supervising parole agent did not allege the specific misconduct the hiring authority sustained. The
specific misconduct alleged was failure to conduct a case review, but the hiring authority sustained a failure to document removal of
special conditions and failure to properly review casework and supervise a parole agent.
Was the disciplinary action served on the employee(s) appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The disciplinary action served on the supervising parole agent did not allege the specific misconduct the hiring authority sustained. The
specific misconduct alleged was failure to conduct a case review, but the hiring authority sustained a failure to document removal of
special conditions and failure to properly review casework and supervise a parole agent.
Did the deadline for taking disciplinary action expire before the department completed its findings and served appropriate disciplinary
action?
The hiring authority received the investigative report on November 13, 2012, but the decision to take disciplinary action wasnot made
until December 13, 2012, 30 days after receipt of the investigative report because the department attorney was not available and no
other department attorney was assigned to handle the matter. The OIG and the hiring authority requested that the meeting to decide
discipline be held in a timely fashion because the deadline for taking disciplinary action was December 19, 2012. The decision to take
disciplinary action occurred on December 13, 2012. Letters of intent to take disciplinary action against the parole agent andthe parole
agent II were sent on December 20, 2012, one day after the deadline for taking disciplinary action. The decision to take disciplinary
action occurred on December 13, 2012, but the disciplinary action for one parole agent was served on January 17, 2013, 35 days after
the decision to take disciplinary action. The disciplinary action for the supervising parole agent was initially delivered onJanuary 17,
2013, 35 days after the decision to take disciplinary action, to a previous address where the supervising parole agent no longer lived
despite the supervising parole agent having provided a timely change of address. The hiring authority re-served the disciplinary action
on the supervising parole agent on January 31, 2013, 49 days after the decision to take disciplinary action.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department attorney failed to timely provide the draft disciplinary actions to the OIG allowing sufficient time for review. The hiring
authority failed to serve the letters of intent to take disciplinary action before the deadline despite the direction from the department
attorney to send the letters earlier. The hiring authority initially delivered the disciplinary action for the supervising parole agent at a
former address despite being properly and timely notified by the supervising parole agent of a new address.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 172
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2010-08-12 12-0455-IR 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Not Sustained Imposed
Incident Summary
From August 12, 2010, through June 11, 2011, a supervising program technician and a program technician allegedly falsified their time
sheets, and a parole administrator neglected to properly supervise and review the submission of the time sheets.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs and hiring authority failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative
process. The hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs until 117 days after the date of discovery. The
investigation regarding the parole administrator was not timely completed and the report was not provided to the department attorney
and the OIG with sufficient time to assess the investigation prior to it being sent to the hiring authority. The department attorney and the
OIG received the draft report 10 days before the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on September 9, 2011, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of
Internal Affairs until January 4, 2012, 117 days after the date of discovery.
Upon completion of the investigation, was a draft copy of the investigative report timely forwarded to the OIG to allow for feedback
before it was forwarded to the HA or prosecuting agency?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action on the parole administrator was September 9, 2012. The draft report was not forwarded to
the OIG until August 30, 2012, 10 days before the deadline. Due to the complexity of the report and the number of allegations, this was
insufficient time for adequate review.
Upon completion of the investigation, was a draft copy of the investigative report timely forwarded to the department attorney to
allow for feedback before it was forwarded to the HA or prosecuting agency?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action on the parole administrator was September 9, 2012. The draft report was not forwarded to
the department attorney until August 30, 2012, 10 days before the deadline. Due to the complexity of the report and the number of
allegations, this was insufficient time for adequate review.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority's
determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Salary No Change
2011-02-01 12-2118-IR Reduction
Incident Summary
From February 1, 2011, through July 11, 2012, a high-risk sex offender parolee lived next door to a high school in violation of the prohibition
that he not reside within 200 feet of a school. Two different parole agents supervised the parolee during the 17 months and two different
supervising parole agents were responsible for the case work of the parole agents. It was alleged that none of the four parole agents took
steps to ensure the parolee was in compliance with the terms of his parole.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 173
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained an allegation of neglect of duty against one of the parole agents and determined the appropriate penalty to
be a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months. The parole agent resigned before disciplinary action could be imposed. A letter indicating the
officer resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in her official personnel file. The hiring authority did not sustain the allegation
against the other parole agent because at the time he was responsible for the supervision of the parolee, the department had issued a
directive prohibiting enforcement of the residency restriction in the county in which the parolee resided. The hiring authority did not sustain
the allegations against the supervising parole agents because neither of them supervised the parole agent that was neglectful. The OIG
concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2011-12-11 12-2115-IR
2. Failure to Report 2. Sustained
3. Neglect of Duty 3. Sustained
4. Other Failure of Good 4. Sustained
Behavior
Incident Summary
On December 11, 2011, an officer allegedly failed to report that he used force in apprehending a private citizen at a mental health hospital.
A sergeant also allegedly failed to report that use of force, failed to instruct the officer to complete a report regarding the use of force,
failed to complete a report regarding drugs found on the private citizen, and was allegedly dishonest to the Office of Internal Affairs on
September 25, 2012, and December 5, 2012.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the investigative
process. The hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs for more than five months after the date of discovery,
and the Office of Internal Affairs failed to make a timely determination on the request.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on February 21, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of
Internal Affairs until July 24, 2012, more than five months after the date of discovery.
Did OIA Central Intake make a determination regarding the case within 30 calendar days?
OIA Central Intake received the request for investigation on July 24, 2012, but did not take action until September 5, 2012, 43 days
after the receipt of the request.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations and served a letter of reprimand on the officer and
imposed dismissal on the sergeant. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The sergeant filed an appealwith the
State Personnel Board, retired from the department, and later decided to withdraw his appeal. The officer filed an appeal, but agreed to
withdraw it in exchange for a settlement agreement which reduced his penalty from a letter of reprimand to a letter of instruction. The
department agreed to a settlement because it failed to take disciplinary action against the officer prior to the expiration of the deadline for
taking disciplinary action. Based on the circumstances, the OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The hiring authority failed to timely
consult with the OIG and department attorney regarding the investigative findings and disciplinary determinations. The department
attorney failed to appropriately determine the deadline for taking disciplinary action resulting in the hiring authority failing to take
disciplinary action prior to the expiration of the deadline to take disciplinary action. As a result, the department entered into a settlement
agreement reducing the nature of the penalty from disciplinary to corrective action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 174
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Did the department attorney or disciplinary officer appropriately determine that the deadline for taking disciplinary action as
originally calculated should be modified and consult with the OIG about the decision to modify?
The department attorney failed to appropriately determine the deadline for taking disciplinary action. As a result, the datefor taking
disciplinary action expired and the hiring authority entered into a settlement agreement, reducing the nature of the penalty from
disciplinary to corrective action.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The Office of Internal Affairs completed its investigation and referred the matter to the hiring authority on January 10, 3013. The hiring
authority did not consult with the OIG and department attorney regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the investigative
findings until February 22, 2013, 43 days after receipt of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The Office of Internal Affairs completed its investigation and referred the matter to the hiring authority on January 10, 3013. The hiring
authority did not consult with the OIG and department attorney regarding the disciplinary determinations until February 22, 2013, 43
days after receipt of the case.
Did the deadline for taking disciplinary action expire before the department completed its findings and served appropriate disciplinary
action?
The department attorney failed to appropriately determine the deadline for taking disciplinary action as to the officer, and
consequently, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer reducing the penalty from disciplinary to
corrective action.
If there was a settlement agreement, was the settlement consistent with the DOM factors?
Because the hiring authority failed to take disciplinary action against the officer prior to the deadline, the hiring authority entered into
the settlement agreement changing the nature of the penalty from disciplinary to corrective action. Therefore, the settlementwas not
consistent with policies and procedures.
If the case settled, did the department attorney or disciplinary officer properly complete the CDC Form 3021?
The department attorney did not complete a CDC Form 3021.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to conduct the investigative findings and disciplinary determinations in a timely manner. In addition, the
department served the officer with the disciplinary action, but later determined that the deadline for taking disciplinary action had
expired.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-01-01 12-2610-IR 2. Dishonesty 2. Unfounded Imposed
Incident Summary
Between January 1, 2012, and May 31, 2012, a lieutenant and an officer allegedly failed to work their full shifts and falsified their
corresponding timesheets.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority, Office of Internal Affairs, and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies andprocedures
governing the investigative process. The hiring authority did not submit a request for investigation to the Office of Internal Affairs until 259
days after the date of discovery. The Office of Internal Affairs did not complete the investigation until 23 days before the deadline for taking
disciplinary action. The department attorney incorrectly evaluated the deadline for taking disciplinary action, failed to attend any
investigative interviews, and did not provide the special agent with feedback regarding the investigative report.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 175
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on January 31, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Officeof
Internal Affairs until October 16, 2012, 259 days after the date of discovery.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney's analysis for the deadline for taking disciplinary action was incorrect by five months. The department
attorney indicated the deadline for taking disciplinary action was June 21, 2013, when the deadline was actually January 30, 2013.
Based on the OIG's recommendation the department attorney correctly reassessed the deadline ensuring that the investigation would
be completed timely.
Did the department attorney attend investigative interviews for key witnesses to assess witness demeanor and credibility?
The department attorney did not attend any investigative interviews.
Within 21 calendar days following receipt of the investigative report, did the department attorney review the report and provide
appropriate substantive feedback addressing the thoroughness and clarity of the report?
The department attorney did not timely review the report and provide appropriate substantive feedback.
Did the department attorney provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG?
The department attorney did not provide written confirmation summarizing all critical discussions about the investigative report to the
special agent with a copy to the OIG.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action was January 30, 2013. The investigation was completed on January 7, 2013, only 23days
before the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Did the department attorney cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG throughout the investigative
phase?
The department attorney did not substantively participate or provide real-time consultation with the OIG throughout the investigative
phase.
Disposition
For the lieutenant, the hiring authority determined that the investigation conclusively proved the misconduct did not occur. For the officer,
the hiring authority determined the investigation conclusively proved that he did not falsify his time sheet on two occasions. The hiring
authority further determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the officer left camp prior to the end of hisshift without his
supervisor's approval. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Neglect of Duty 1. Unfounded No Penalty No Change
2012-01-20 12-2181-IR 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Unfounded Imposed
Incident Summary
On January 20, 2012, three officers allegedly refused to provide assistance to and obtain medical treatment for a transgenderinmate who
was allegedly battered by his cellmate for approximately six hours. Two of the officers also allegedly referred to the transgender inmate in
derogatory terms.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 176
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and the Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. The hiring authority failed to timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs and OIA Central Intake failed to
make an appropriate initial determination regarding the case. OIA Central Intake initially rejected the request for investigation even though
the aggressor inmate initially admitted to his conduct and corroborated the statement of the transgender inmate. The case was
subsequently approved for an investigation after the recommendation of the OIG.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The date of discovery was February 8, 2012; however, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs until
August 7, 2012, 181 days after the date of discovery.
Did OIA Central Intake make an appropriate initial determination regarding the case?
The OIA Central Intake initially rejected the case for investigation even though the aggressor inmate initially admitted to his conduct
and corroborated the statement of the transgender inmate.
Would the appropriate initial determination or reconsideration determination have been made by OIA Central Intake and/or OIA
Chief without OIG intervention?
The OIA Central Intake initially rejected the case for investigation. The OIG recommended opening the case to determine whether
misconduct occurred.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined that the investigation conclusively proved the alleged misconduct did not occur. The OIG concurred with
the hiring authority's determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Salary Suspension
2012-02-12 12-1416-IR 2. Disclosure of 2. Not Sustained Reduction
Confidential Information
Incident Summary
On February 12, 2012, an officer allegedly revealed confidential information to another officer, his father, regarding allegations that a
female officer was having sex with an inmate. The first officer was allegedly dishonest to a captain on two occasions regarding the incident.
Rather than notify a supervisor, the other officer allegedly disclosed the allegation to the female officer and was allegedlydishonest to a
captain about the incident. A sergeant drafted a confidential memorandum regarding the same allegation, but allegedly revealed the
contents of the memorandum to the female officer. On February 21, 2012, the sergeant was allegedly dishonest to the captain when he
asserted that he had not questioned inmates regarding whether the female officer was introducing drugs into the institution.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the officer made false statements to a captain,
but did not sustain any other allegations against him, the other officer, or the sergeant. The officer received a 10 percent salary reduction
for 13 months. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board.
The department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer and agreed to allow the officer to serve a 14 working-day suspension
in addition to a 10 percent salary reduction for six months, with the total monetary reduction to the officer remaining the same. The OIG
concurred with the settlement because it did not alter the total amount of the monetary penalty imposed.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 177
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The department failed to comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. The hiring authority failed to conduct the
investigative findings and disciplinary determinations in a timely manner. The department attorney failed to provide appropriate legal
consultation to the hiring authority regarding disciplinary determinations. The hiring authority failed to select the appropriate employee
disciplinary matrix charges and causes for discipline. As a result, the penalty imposed on the officer was lower than appropriate.
Assessment Questions
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and department attorney (if applicable), regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings?
The Office of Internal Affairs completed its investigation and referred the matter to the hiring authority on December 27, 2012. The
hiring authority did not consult with the OIG and department attorney regarding the sufficiency of the investigation and the
investigative findings until January 29, 2013, 33 days after receipt of the case.
Did the HA timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney (if applicable) regarding disciplinary determinations prior to
making a final decision?
The Office of Internal Affairs completed its investigation and referred the matter to the hiring authority on December 27, 2012. The
hiring authority did not consult with the OIG and department attorney regarding the disciplinary determinations until January29,
2013, 33 days after receipt of the case.
Did the department attorney provide appropriate legal consultation to the HA regarding disciplinary determinations?
The department attorney failed to identify a critical disciplinary category resulting in a lower penalty imposed on the officer than if the
additional category had been included.
Did the HA, who participated in the disciplinary conference, select the appropriate Employee Disciplinary Matrix charges and causes
for discipline for each sustained allegation?
The hiring authority failed to identify a critical disciplinary category resulting in a lower penalty imposed on the officer than if the
additional category had been included.
Did the HA, who participated in the disciplinary conference, select the appropriate penalty based on the sustained allegations?
The hiring authority did not select the appropriate employee disciplinary matrix charges and causes for discipline for each sustained
allegation and, as a consequence, the penalty level imposed on the officer was lower than it would have been had the additional
category been included.
Was the draft disciplinary action provided to the OIG for review appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The draft disciplinary action failed to include the critical disciplinary category of providing false or misleading statements in an official
report.
Was the disciplinary action served on the employee(s) appropriately drafted as described in the DOM?
The disciplinary action served was not appropriately drafted as it failed to include a critical disciplinary category of providing false or
misleading statements in an official report.
If the case settled, did the department attorney or disciplinary officer properly complete the CDC Form 3021?
Neither the department attorney nor the disciplinary officer completed a CDC Form 3021.
Was the disciplinary phase conducted with due diligence by the department?
The department failed to conduct the investigative findings and disciplinary determinations in a timely manner.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 178
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Suspension Modified
2012-03-06 12-0977-IR 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Sustained Suspension
3. Misuse of Authority 3. Not Sustained
4. Misuse of State 4. Not Sustained
Equipment or Property
Incident Summary
On March 6, 2012, a parole agent, while on duty, allegedly conducted homeowner association business by going to the home of aprivate
citizen to discuss an issue about trees. The parole agent wore his badge and gun, allegedly attempting to intimidate the homeowner. On the
same day, the parole agent was allegedly dishonest when he explained to his supervisors that he was late to work because there was a
major gas leak at the community swimming pool. The parole agent had also allegedly conducted homeowner business during work hours
on January 17, 2012, but falsely stated on his January time sheet and mileage log that he conducted state business all day onJanuary 17,
2012. The parole agent also allegedly conducted homeowner business during work hours on July 26, 2012, and submitted a false time sheet
indicating he worked a full eight-hour shift. The parole agent also allegedly failed to formally notify his hiring authority that he was engaged
in outside activities that conflicted with his regularly scheduled work hours.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained the allegations that the parole agent conducted homeowner association business on January 17, 2012, March
6, 2012, and June 26, 2012, during regularly scheduled work hours, and that he falsified his January 2012 mileage log. The hiring authority
also sustained the allegation that the parole agent wore his departmental badge and gun while conducting homeowner business. The hiring
authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations that the parole agent attempted to intimidatethe
homeowners, was dishonest to his supervisors, maintained secondary employment without advising the hiring authority, or falsified his
time sheets for January and March 2012. The parole agent was suspended for 60 working days. The OIG concurred. The parole agent filed
an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The department entered into a settlement agreement with the parole agent reducing the
suspension to 55 working days and the agent withdrew his appeal. The OIG found the settlement to be reasonable because the final penalty
was within departmental policy for the misconduct.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-04-01 12-2121-IR
2. Over-Familiarity 2. Sustained
3. Neglect of Duty 3. Sustained
4. Misuse of State 4. Sustained
Equipment or Property 5. Not Sustained
5. Discourteous Treatment
Incident Summary
From April 1, 2012, through April 30, 2012, a parole agent allegedly arranged the purchase of household property from a parolee to another
party. On April 21, 2012, the parole agent allegedly used a state mobile phone to facilitate the transfer of the property. OnJuly 3, 2012, the
parole agent allegedly recommended special conditions of parole that were not reasonably related to any commitment offense orconduct
of the parolee. On July 5, 2012, a supervising parole agent allegedly failed to ensure that proper special conditions of parole were placed on
the parolee. On July 23, 2012, the parole agent allegedly used profanity toward and threatened to arrest a citizen if she didnot move from
the home of her parolee boyfriend. On January 18, 2013, the parole agent was allegedly dishonest to the Office of Internal Affairs regarding
the purchase of the parolee's property and as to who initiated phone contact regarding the purchase. From April 27, 2012, to January 22,
2013, a disciplinary officer failed to timely pursue the allegations relating to the parole agent arranging the purchase of parolee property.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 179
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs, department attorney, and hiring authority failed to comply with the department's policies andprocedures
governing the investigative process. The hiring authority failed to timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of
Internal Affairs failed to confer with the OIG prior to finalizing the investigative plan, failed to include allegations in the investigative report
regarding additional misconduct identified through the investigative process, and failed to complete the investigation in a timely manner.
The department attorney failed to timely enter required information into the case management system regarding the deadline for taking
disciplinary action.
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The hiring authority learned of the misconduct on April 27, 2012, but did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs until
August 17, 2012, 112 days after the date of discovery.
Did the special agent adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and prior to finalizing the investigative plan?
The special agent did not confer with the OIG prior to finalizing the investigative plan.
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not make an entry into CMS within 21 days of assignment confirming the date of the incident or the date
of discovery, but did make an entry confirming the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Was the investigative draft report provided to the OIG for review thorough and appropriately drafted?
Despite recommendations by the OIG and department attorney, the Office of Internal Affairs failed to include allegations against two
additional department employees who committed misconduct even though misconduct was identified through the investigative
process.
Was the final investigative report thorough and appropriately drafted?
The Office of Internal Affairs, despite recommendations by the OIG and department attorney to the contrary, chose not to include
allegations against the two department employees whose misconduct was identified through the investigative process.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action was April 27, 2013, but the investigative report was not completed and submitted to the
hiring authority until April 5, 2013, only 22 days before the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain all allegations against the parole agent except the allegations of
discourteous treatment to the parolee's girlfriend, and determined that dismissal was the appropriate penalty. The OIG concurred with the
hiring authority's determinations. The parole agent resigned before disciplinary action could be imposed. A letter indicatingthe parole
agent resigned under adverse conditions was placed in her official personnel file. The hiring authority also determined therewas sufficient
evidence to sustain the allegations against the supervising parole agent and the disciplinary officer, and took corrective action against each.
The OIG concurred.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 180
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Contraband 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-05-01 13-0565-IR
2. Over-Familiarity 2. Sustained
3. Insubordination 3. Sustained
4. Sexual Misconduct 4. Not Sustained
Incident Summary
Between May 1, 2012, and December 20, 2012, an officer allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct with two inmates, requested that an
inmate show him her breasts, visited with and bought presents for the family members of an inmate, obtained phone numbers of inmate
family members, and provided inmates with movies, tobacco, candy, and soft drinks. On December 20, 2012, the officer allegedly discussed
the investigation with a lieutenant after he was directed not to do so.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The Office of Internal Affairs and department attorney failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. The Office of Internal Affairs failed to timely complete the investigation and the department attorneyfailed to enter
required information confirming the deadline for taking disciplinary action into the case management system.
Assessment Questions
Within 21 calendar days, did the department attorney make an entry into CMS accurately confirming the date of the reported
incident, the date of discovery, the deadline for taking disciplinary action, and any exceptions to the deadline known at thetime?
The department attorney did not enter any information into CMS confirming relevant dates.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action was May 16, 2013. The investigation was not completed until May 6, 2013, 10 days before
the expiration of the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Disposition
The hiring authority sustained all but one of the allegations pertaining to over-familiarity. Also sustained were allegations of introduction of
contraband and insubordination. The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations ofsexual
misconduct with inmates. The hiring authority determined dismissal was the appropriate penalty; however, the officer retired prior to the
completion of the investigation and therefore, disciplinary action was not taken. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's decisions. A
letter indicating the officer retired under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-05-10 12-1805-IR 2. Unreasonable Use of 2. Not Sustained Imposed
Force
Incident Summary
On May 10, 2012, an officer allegedly grabbed an inmate and threw him to the ground after the inmate called the officer a derogatory term.
The officer and two other officers were allegedly dishonest in their reports regarding the incident.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Insufficient
The hiring authority and the Office of Internal Affairs failed to comply with the department's policies and procedures governing the
investigative process. The hiring authority failed to timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Office of Internal Affairs
failed to diligently investigate the case and completed the investigation only 16 days before the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 181
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Assessment Questions
Was the matter referred to OIA as soon as reasonably practical, within 45 calendar days of the date of discovery?
The department learned of the misconduct on May 10, 2012, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal
Affairs until July 2, 2012, 53 days after the date of discovery.
Was the OIA investigation, or subject only interview, conducted with due diligence?
Although the initial interviews were conducted in a timely fashion, nearly four months passed without any investigative work,causing
the investigation to be completed only 16 days before the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Was the investigation, or subject interview, completed at least 35 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action?
The investigative report was completed and submitted to the hiring authority only 16 days before the deadline for taking disciplinary
action.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against all three officers. The OIG concurred with
the hiring authority’s determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department’s disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Insubordination 1. Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-05-24 12-1855-IR 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Sustained Imposed
3. Dishonesty 3. Not Sustained
Incident Summary
On May 24, 2012, a parole agent allegedly submitted a falsified time sheet claiming seven hours in overtime when he did not work those
hours and failed to timely request permission to work overtime. Additionally, the parole agent, who was assigned to a GPS unit, refused to
answer his state-issued mobile phone after work hours and encouraged other parole agents in the unit to do the same. Finally, the parole
agent was allegedly insubordinate when he refused an order to submit to an investigative interview.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain all allegations, except the allegation that the parole agent falsified
time sheets. The parole agent retired before the completion of the investigation; therefore, no disciplinary action was imposed. A letter
indicating the parole agent retired pending disciplinary action was placed in his official personnel file. The OIG concurred with the hiring
authority's determinations.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department sufficiently complied with the department's policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty No Change
2012-06-02 12-2319-IR 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Not Sustained Imposed
Incident Summary
On June 2, 2012, a youth counselor was allegedly dishonest when he wrote in a report that a ward punched him in the face and then took
his keys. Another officer reported the ward did not punch the youth counselor in the face before taking the keys. Instead, itwas after the
ward had taken the keys and the youth counselor was trying to retrieve the keys that the ward punched the youth counselor. The youth
counselor also allegedly failed to follow policy when releasing the ward from his room.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 182
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiringauthority's
determination.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal No Change
2012-07-12 12-2114-IR
2. Other Failure of Good 2. Sustained
Behavior 3. Sustained
3. Discourteous Treatment
Incident Summary
On July 12, 2012, an officer was allegedly involved in a fight with his ex-girlfriend's boyfriend at a local bar and made discourteous
statements to both of them. The officer subsequently authored a memorandum which allegedly contained information contrary to
statements made by several witnesses and reported in the police report.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
The hiring authority determined there was sufficient evidence to sustain all allegations except the allegation that the officer was dishonest
regarding the location of the altercation in a memorandum to the hiring authority, and determined that dismissal was the appropriate
penalty. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action could be
imposed. A letter indicating the officer resigned under adverse circumstances was placed in his official personnel file.
Disciplinary Assessment Rating: Sufficient
The department's disciplinary process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Incident OIG Case Allegations Findings Penalty
Date Number INITIAL FINAL
1. Other Failure of Good 1. N/A No Penalty No Change
2013-03-04 13-0603-IR Behavior 2. N/A Imposed
2. Atttendance - Unexcused
Absence
Incident Summary
On March 4, 2013, an officer was arrested and charged with the murder of his two-year-old son who allegedly died due to acute and
chronic abusive head trauma on January 16, 2003. Additionally, from March 5, 2013, through March 15, 2013, the officer was allegedly
absent from work without authorization.
Investigative Assessment Rating: Sufficient
Overall, the department's investigative process sufficiently complied with policies and procedures.
Disposition
Following the officer’s arrest in 2003, the district attorney's office determined there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the officer at
that time and, consequently, the department took no disciplinary action against the officer. After the officer was arrested again in 2013, OIA
Central Intake originally approved an investigation in this matter but, after reconsideration, rejected the case. The OIG concurred with the
rejection. However, the officer was non-punitively terminated from the department for being absent without leave from work.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 183
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTH REGION
Disciplinary Assessment Rating:
Not applicable.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY-JUNE 2013 PAGE 184
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT
January–June 2013
Volume I
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Robert A. Barton
INSPECTOR GENERAL
Roy W. Wesley
CHIEF DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
October 2013
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY – JUNE 2013 PAGE 185
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA